Sh*t hiting the proverbial fan (police killings)

[ManaMan]

Seriously fucked up week with two black men killed by nervous trigger-happy cops then (at least) 5 police officers at a BLM rally killed by snipers (several others shot). Anyone want to talk about this?

[Oracle]

Anyone want to talk about this?

Your country is fucked?

Not really sure what else to discuss on this topic. The racial divide and mistrust of police by minorities, especially black people, is only getting worse. Unfortunately, I see a whole lot more bloodshed before anything gets better.

[Julius Seeker]

As cold and inappropriate as this may sound, I am surprised this sort of thing didn't happen earlier. The 5 cops getting killed was directly a reaction to blacks being killed by police. There always seemed to me that there was a high chance of retaliation against the uniform, each time it happened. It's like a Russian Roulette game that went on surprisingly long.


To explain further:

1. The second amendment is obviously a part of the US DNA. It was written so the people could defend themselves against those who wear a uniform representing the forces that oppress and kill them.

2. Cops have power, power corrupts, and that's why they're fine killing humans that they have low regard for.

3. Powerlessness and poverty will corrupt a person too.

So:

Police around the US have clearly been oppressive to people with that certain genetically trivial difference which causes a different tone of melanin in the skin.

With America's cultural DNA, there's going to be a lot of people who will be willing to kill someone in an oppressive uniform who comes after them or their family.

Obviously the connection is going to be made against police, people will commit to kill them to defend themselves.

When a person becomes committed to the fact that they're willing to kill, the decision to kill for the purpose of vengeance becomes so much easier to make. They just need the right weapon, and the US has A LOT of guns to choose from.



The second amendment may have had a purpose at one time, but it is WAY outdated. It's grown cancerous.

[Shrinweck]

BLM is an organization split by two very different principles that split it from being a very worthwhile protest movement and a mob of angry, violet rioters.

Presumably it was founded as a worthwhile protest movement. In this case, there is an implied ", too" at the end of "Black Lives Matter." Rational human beings get this, but obviously this conclusion isn't served by all the rage that gets served up by BLM leadership and the violence that comes at their demonstrations. I mean right now we're in a weekend that BLM leadership has termed the "Weekend of Rage." That doesn't exactly call up ideals of peace to me. Not that anger isn't a justified response - it just... wouldn't be something I'd be stressing right now.

Basically, a lot of the BLM leadership is just about as toxic as (a small amount of) the police and a lot of what they do will just spill over into violence. BLM has also thrown its fair share of peaceful protests... while also plenty of them have just felt inches away from a riot. They really aren't helping their cause with so many dubious people in their leadership, but ehhh you could easily say the same thing for the police.

At this point both sides need reform for the violence to stop. The main difference being... The police will win 100% of the time. And even if there were a situation where a riot occurred that the police could not control - the military (National Guard) would get involved. There's just no way out of this that involves violence. And there's no real solution that would come without dealing with the root problem which is basically poverty. But, lol, let's just keep voting people who worship at the altar of the Trickle Down Theory into office.

Edit: Obama has rejected the idea that things are as polarized as the 60s and I agree. There were at least two large BLM protests yesterday and if we were like the 60s they would have been blood baths (the cops would have been just as out for blood as the protestors). At the very least there would have been the equivalent of turning hoses on protestors. Instead, the Atlanta protest was largely violence-free (some sketchy shit happened and a handful of arrests were made but people aren't dead). I haven't looked up the other protest but can assume it didn't result in deaths. Of course not all the protests in the 60s resulted in riots or deaths, but we're talking about a lone individual taking things too far, not a pattern of violence that results in an outright race riot.

There are obviously much greater differences between now and the 60s too. As common as unjust killings of blacks can seem it's obviously nowhere near the days where the police would give blacks to lynch mobs. Or participate in it themselves.

It's also worth noting that someone who brought an anti-police (promoting violence) sign to the Atlanta protest was basically ejected by the other protestors who were chanting lines about peace to the person.

[Don]

I saw reports that the sniper was killed by a robot with a bomb and this seems to get all the guys who write about how killer robots are taking the world is having a field day. I really can't even comprehend the argument, like if someone strapped on a bomb and blew himself up to kill the sniper that'd be totally preferable to an exploding robot? Or if a guy is wearing a mech suit and just charged in and killed the sniper that's totally different from a robot doing it? It's not like collateral damage is any different whether you got a robot with a bomb or a guy throwing a grenade. I understand you don't want to make it so trivial that people just send in killer robots for anything that looks remotely suspicious, but it's pretty clear this situation they were pretty much going to have to kill the guy. Having a human exposing himself to risk isn't going to reduce collateral damage compared to a drone firing a missile or a robot with a bomb.

[Shrinweck]

I agree. Other than judges who know more about these things than I ever will closing any legal loopholes I cannot care less how they kill obvious threats (not including obvious cruel/unusual methods)... On the other hand the police don't always show the best judgement when it comes to lethal force. So as long as legally it's like... the last thing on the list they can resort to and the guy isn't going to let himself be captured alive - go for it.

[Replay]

The second amendment may have had a purpose at one time, but it is WAY outdated. It's grown cancerous.

Au contraire Seek, it's what keeps us from being servants to the Queen - excuse me, "citizens of the Commonwealth" - like you.

EDIT: (various information redacted)

To me, the most telling thing about the entire thing is how the Baton Rouge cops fucking jacked the security system of the guy running the Triple-S, and then detained him without a warrant when he complained - held him in a car for hours, made him piss in public rather than letting him use a bathroom (which is itself illegal, when the cops don't make you do it) - then went and retroactively got one, hours *after* they treated him like a slave, to cover their asses.

Pretty standard for America's militarized, mercenary-trained police departments these days. No wonder people are angry.

[Replay]

I'll also say it as I have been: you want to take away guns, take them away from *everyone*.

Bar none.

No one on Earth gets a gun. That applies to military personnel. Cops. UN peacekeeping personnel. Because who watches these watchmen? And because the corrupting qualities of power are well documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_cust ... ustodes%3F

Ensure also please that you can confiscate guns from *every* criminal and criminal organization on Earth. Because - playing devil's advocate here - the arguments of the right that criminals do not care about gun laws are some of the only true ones they are putting forth. I have lived in the hood, and I guarantee that no gangbanger in the world gives a damn if an assault rifle is illegal or not; their entire lifestyle is illegal, all the time, and some of those people are already facing twenty to life every time they step out in public, or death.

Indeed it seems that minorities in America still face death if they do step out in public, whether or not they did anything wrong. Giving the same policing brotherhood and sisterhood in America that just allowed one of their own to go shoot Philando Castile in the back a free rein to keep their weapons while confiscating everyone else's - indeed there are cops with assault rifles chasing black protesters all over Baton Rouge right now - doesn't strike me as a happy, fun way to fix the problem.

It can be argued that the Kent State photo of our times was just taken in Baton Rouge:



Also, another reason for *complete* disarmament and a devil's advocate question - how many people will die if mass gun control is instituted as Americans between authorities who do *not* surrender their weapons and citizens who won't either? The South would probably secede again. Is everyone willing to risk Civil War II over all of this?

There seems to be this increasing notion that anyone who won't surrender a weapon to law enforcement personnel peacefully is a criminal - and, among more extreme gun control advocates, fuck anyone who won't surrender a gun to the police or army, and who cares what happens to them, even if the police or military shoot them in the process. That scares me in some ways more than the gun violence - supposed pacifists gone insane, and turned to fascists in the name of stopping other violence - it's happened before. And it is the height of hypocrisy. It's corrupt/hysterical/racist cops and police departments that provoked this entire mess in this case. It's rogue elements and the disaffected in the military perpetuating this international blow-them-all-to-shit hoo-rah that sets the standard for all of American society.

Peace starts with us, every day.

[Julius Seeker]

Six shot, three more cops killed in Baton Rouge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLBOZ2yrolE

[Don]

The people who would rather die than giving up their guns is probably comparable to the number of guys who say they'll move to Canada if soandso is elected president every election cycle. Even if there's some kind of martial law decree that everyone has to give up guns, it's not something people will go to a war for. In any realistic scenario, assuming the requisite political capital is available, all you'd do is just restrict newer weapons and then the existing stuff will eventually break down and so on. You can't get a machine gun without going through considerable hoops and nobody seems to feel their right to bear arms is compromised just because you can't get a machine gun. If you can put control on fertilizers because ammonium nitrate can be used in bombs, you can put control on bullets and stuff too. It will take time but eventually you'll run out of the existing stockpile. Of course I don't see the political climate in the US lasting long enough for this to happen, as in even if they managed to get this long term plan going 10 or 20 years later someone else will be in power to undo it.

[Replay]

Even if there's some kind of martial law decree that everyone has to give up guns, it's not something people will go to a war for.

I am assuming you haven't lived in the South much?

The U.S. is not Australia, the example routinely cited of a country that peacefully gave up its weapons. Mass disarmament attempts have every chance of sparking a powderkeg here - a new Civil War or even a wider fragmentation of the Union. Arms ownership *is* a Constitutional right and the political anger right now in conservative areas is far more intense than you give it credit for.

The West Coast and New England, led by California and New York, would likely mostly be the only areas to surrender a majority of weapons in the hopes of restoring order through a police state, though with some pockets of resistance even there in inner cities and rural areas. Pockets of the urbanized traditional Midwest and Rust Belt would possibly follow, but would be opposed by rural areas all around them. The geographic mid-west (Arizona, Nevada, Colorado etc.), the Southwest, and interim "cowboy" states like Montana/the Dakotas would splinter with pockets of resistance and self-sovereignty declared all over the place by ranchers' groups. And many Southern states - even Florida - would either splinter or secede outright, accompanied by violent unrest.

I think you don't understand how hardcore conservatives view this issue, or their fervor that accompanies it. Even the most moderate option - required registration for the more dangerous end of the civilian weapon pool, which is an issue that may be legally and Constitutionally defensible under the well-regulated-militia clause of the 2nd - will cause more Bundy Ranch-style unrest.

I guarantee it. Look at what just the rumor of it is doing now.

Mass disarmament?

No way.

To me it's not even a "am I for or against the concept" issue. It's a "this is probably physically impossible" issue. You just couldn't get most American gun owners to do it, even with martial law or physical coercion. There are not enough military and police personnel to do it. Even our military is some 1-2 million strong even with reservists and contractors; our police number 1.2 million. Our armed citizenry is estimated around some 120 million.

I see the notion about the same way as a suggestion to build a colony on the surface of the Sun, and probably about as safe.

[Don]

I have no reason to believe that the Americans are fundamentally different than other comparable countries that you'll have a civil war breaking out for just disarmament.

Now, I've seen arguments that maybe some parts of America, like the aforementioned American South, is indeed fundamentally different from the rest of the world even with similar social/economic background. In that case, I am not qualified to surmise why or why not some Americans may be totally unlike any other people of similar background. That's probably why gun regulation never get anywhere because there is obviously some fear that maybe some Americans are indeed just very different from everyone else. If this was the case, I'm not sure how you'd verify it one way or another and what to do when you've demographics that's nothing like rest of the world is an open question.

[Shrinweck]

When people talk about gun control in the USA they're typically talking about closing gun show loopholes, outlawing assault weapons/semi-automatical rifles, and just stronger checks-and-balances to try to weed out potential criminals and whatnot.

Disarmament isn't even on the table. If they can't even close gun show loopholes there's no real point in bringing up disarmament.

[Don]

Making it hard to get guns will eventually be the same as disarmament anyway. You can't get a machine gun even though it's likely not against the law. It just costs a lot and you have to go through all kinds of loops that people don't get them. It's not like they're going to pass a law that just takes everyone's guns away, even though I really don't think it'd lead to a civil war (and if it will, that means there's something really wrong with the American people and they'd probably want to at least start studying on why people here are so different than anywhere else). One of the reason why gun violence is going up is that ammunition/gun are becoming more lethal compared to even a few decades ago, so being able to choke off the supply of advanced ammunition will eventually have an effect. Sure some guy can probably always make a pistol in his garage but that's not really the kind of weapon criminals prefer to use in mass shooting scenarios.

[Shrinweck]

The latest shooting in Miami is one of the more absurd things I've ever heard. Black therapist pursues an autistic man who had left a treatment facility. The autistic man is screaming and someone calls the police saying that he's yelling about shooting himself. The cop comes in and tell them to lie on the ground with their hands up. The black therapist complies and starts shouting (non-aggressively) about how the autistic man only has a toy truck and is no threat. The cop (who for whatever reason has an assault rifle) supposedly hears on the radio that the autistic man with a toy truck is loading his gun and fires three times... hitting the black man with his arms up in the leg and missing with the other bullets.

So, yeah, obviously mistakes were made. This is more ironic than anything. Honestly this story is more about cops needing to know how to deal with mentally ill.

And more stuff about how cops shouldn't have assault weapons.

1) In the cell phone footage I saw he was pointing the weapon at them the entire time.. which is something you just don't do with an assault rifle until you're without a doubt killing someone IIRC

2) They're absurdly powerful weapons to use against civilians.

3) The guy missed, in a way with all three bullets. I can't imagine his training with this weapon was satisfactory in any way.

You know you're in a shitty situation when you shoot a black guy and your defense is "I meant to shoot the autistic guy, I swear"

[kali o.]

The latest shooting in Miami is one of the more absurd things I've ever heard. Black therapist pursues an autistic man who had left a treatment facility. The autistic man is screaming and someone calls the police saying that he's yelling about shooting himself. The cop comes in and tell them to lie on the ground with their hands up. The black therapist complies and starts shouting (non-aggressively) about how the autistic man only has a toy truck and is no threat. The cop (who for whatever reason has an assault rifle) supposedly hears on the radio that the autistic man with a toy truck is loading his gun and fires three times... hitting the black man with his arms up in the leg and missing with the other bullets.

So, yeah, obviously mistakes were made. This is more ironic than anything. Honestly this story is more about cops needing to know how to deal with mentally ill.

And more stuff about how cops shouldn't have assault weapons.

1) In the cell phone footage I saw he was pointing the weapon at them the entire time.. which is something you just don't do with an assault rifle until you're without a doubt killing someone IIRC

2) They're absurdly powerful weapons to use against civilians.

3) The guy missed, in a way with all three bullets. I can't imagine his training with this weapon was satisfactory in any way.

You know you're in a shitty situation when you shoot a black guy and your defense is "I meant to shoot the autistic guy, I swear"

As long as we are on the same page -- this shooting had nothing to do with racism, but simply a poorly trained cop (or cops). I hope it does open up a conversation about training, mental health (which I have brought up multiple times) and perhaps police accountability/personal recording devices (I heard the officer tried to falsify the report).

It would be a shame if the poisonous BLM movement hijacked the narrative and those issues above get lost in the drama.

[Shrinweck]

Also the show winning quote from the shot therapist:

"As long as I've got my hands up, they're not going to shoot me. This is what I'm thinking. They're not going to shoot me," he said. "Wow, was I wrong."

[ManaMan]

As long as we are on the same page -- this shooting had nothing to do with racism, but simply a poorly trained cop (or cops). I hope it does open up a conversation about training, mental health (which I have brought up multiple times) and perhaps police accountability/personal recording devices (I heard the officer tried to falsify the report).

It would be a shame if the poisonous BLM movement hijacked the narrative and those issues above get lost in the drama.

I agree with you on those factors. I'd add police militarization as well... as well as general jumpiness in the wake of police shootings.

However, racism *does* exist and you can't rule it out as a factor. It's sort of omni-present. Do you honestly think anyone would've been shot had the therapist been a middle-aged white woman instead of a large, intimidating-looking bearded black man? The police would have listened to that hypothetical person.

[Don]

Training might be an issue but if weapons are less lethal overall then you would also make less mistakes. I saw statistics that a cop without a guy in Britain is still more likely to survive than a cop with a gun in USA (and cops with a gun in Britain is even more likely to survive). It'd be relatively hard to screw things up if all you have is a baton no matter how bad your training is compared to an assault weapon, but that'd require knowing that most likely the opposition isn't going to be armed with a firearm either because a baton against a gun will likely result in a dead cop.

[kali o.]

However, racism *does* exist and you can't rule it out as a factor. It's sort of omni-present. Do you honestly think anyone would've been shot had the therapist been a middle-aged white woman instead of a large, intimidating-looking bearded black man? The police would have listened to that hypothetical person.

Racism exists in the world or racism is a factor in this case? Your second statement implies that you believe the latter, and in that case, I disagree (by the way, it would be great to know if you are one of those folks that thinks only white people can be racist so I can understand how you define racism).

If you claim something, you do have the burden of proof -- and just an assertion does nothing to validate the claim. By the same token, I do not "rule out [racism] as a factor" (because that would be a claim) but it's more to the point to state I have no justification or evidence to even consider whether racism is at play. We cannot call it racism every time someone's skin colour is anything other than white, simply by that fact alone and in total disregard for every other factor -- that simply poisons the well and does away with any honest assessment.

PS - I do think your hypothetical was interesting though. Why not just change the gender (as opposed to also skin colour)? I mean, statistically, you are 20x more likely to be shot by police as a male (I am assuming a 50/50 gender split for the population) -- that dwarves any skin colour divide. Does that mean society is sexist? Just the police force is sexist? And if yes to either, is it then fair to somehow claim the officer in this shooting is sexist? (No).

[ManaMan]

Racism exists in the world or racism is a factor in this case? Your second statement implies that you believe the latter, and in that case, I disagree (by the way, it would be great to know if you are one of those folks that thinks only white people can be racist so I can understand how you define racism).

If you claim something, you do have the burden of proof -- and just an assertion does nothing to validate the claim. By the same token, I do not "rule out [racism] as a factor" (because that would be a claim) but it's more to the point to state I have no justification or evidence to even consider whether racism is at play. We cannot call it racism every time someone's skin colour is anything other than white, simply by that fact alone and in total disregard for every other factor -- that simply poisons the well and does away with any honest assessment.

PS - I do think your hypothetical was interesting though. Why not just change the gender (as opposed to also skin colour)? I mean, statistically, you are 20x more likely to be shot by police as a male (I am assuming a 50/50 gender split for the population) -- that dwarves any skin colour divide. Does that mean society is sexist? Just the police force is sexist? And if yes to either, is it then fair to somehow claim the officer in this shooting is sexist? (No).

Yes I do believe that race (both of the therapist & patient) was a factor in the shooting. As were a lot of things:

• The therapist's/patient's gender (see below)
• Their sizes (large, intimidating dudes)
• The therapist's outfit: shorts & neon green t-shirt (I suspect he would've been taken seriously in uniform or classic "clean white coat" of a mental institution worker)

I don't have a specific "burden of proof" here on a message board. This isn't a courtroom. I can just use my experiences & anecdotal evidence to shoot my mouth off about whatever I so please.

I don't think only white people can be "racist". I've had a black supervisor when at University tell me not to hire Muslims, Arabs, or Indians. My wife lived in student housing with black students who refused to live near Mexicans.

Men are absolutely disproportionately the victims of police shootings/violence. Men are just more violent. That's a fact & always has been. That's not to say women aren't violent, they definitely can be (especially toward children & the elderly whose care they are tasked with). It's just that male violence is more prevalent as well as more extreme & public.

[Replay]

I have no reason to believe that the Americans are fundamentally different than other comparable countries that you'll have a civil war breaking out for just disarmament.

That's a good one, Don. I usually have to go to comedy clubs to find material that innately hilarious. But you do you, bro. Back that mass disarmament if the democratic mood strikes you to do so.

The U.S. *is* fundamentally different than other countries in that way, and you'll find out if you continue to back gun confiscations.

[Replay]

As long as we are on the same page -- this shooting had nothing to do with racism, but simply a poorly trained cop (or cops). I hope it does open up a conversation about training, mental health (which I have brought up multiple times) and perhaps police accountability/personal recording devices (I heard the officer tried to falsify the report).

Fully agreed...though you'll have less problems with "mental health" as an issue among your critics if you stop lying and manipulating the world, Kali.

I've spoken out many times that America needs to stop our 8-12 week wonder cop training programs and require at least a full 12 months' training for a beat cop, 24 or more for any serious police career - including psychological training on defusing angry situations.

It would be a shame if the poisonous BLM movement hijacked the narrative and those issues above get lost in the drama.

Aw. You had to go ruin your credibility with that knee-jerk conservative-rich-white-Trumpist hate of BLM.

Still waiting on the conversation I've hoped to open up for years here about how our biggest fight here was fundamentally triggered by you manipulating and poisonously hijacking a narrative, specifically on how you twisted my calls against homophobic language and the resulting fallout to accuse me of "gay-bashing". It still astonishes me how you ever learned to lie that utterly in order to get what you want; though I will suspect it's the usual problem - you grew up in a home or environment where the parts of your brain that foster compassion were stunted, leading you to use the same part of your brain that manipulates objects to deal with people.

It's a root cause of sociopathy, which I can thank you for helping me study - speaking of mental illness.

Back on topic, I've watched more than one young black man in America start out hopeful and wide-eyed, then start to understand how America's lack of educational parity is screwing his people, and start learning about the history of slavery and lynchings, and then become embittered.

Dishonesty inspires dishonesty, violence inspires violence.

That's something I really don't think you understand yet; the Golden Rule is what it is because it works. When societies work, it is in effect. In ours it has broken down, and it was never really in place for minorities; which is indeed a root cause of the problems here.

[kali o.]

Yes I do believe that race (both of the therapist & patient) was a factor in the shooting. As were a lot of things:

• The therapist's/patient's gender (see below)
• Their sizes (large, intimidating dudes)
• The therapist's outfit: shorts & neon green t-shirt (I suspect he would've been taken seriously in uniform or classic "clean white coat" of a mental institution worker)

I don't have a specific "burden of proof" here on a message board. This isn't a courtroom. I can just use my experiences & anecdotal evidence to shoot my mouth off about whatever I so please.

I don't think only white people can be "racist". I've had a black supervisor when at University tell me not to hire Muslims, Arabs, or Indians. My wife lived in student housing with black students who refused to live near Mexicans.

Men are absolutely disproportionately the victims of police shootings/violence. Men are just more violent. That's a fact & always has been. That's not to say women aren't violent, they definitely can be (especially toward children & the elderly whose care they are tasked with). It's just that male violence is more prevalent as well as more extreme & public.

You are listing a few facts about the case but do nothing to link them as evidence to your claim of racism. The burden of proof is not a court standard - its a standard for every claim. Claims need to be rational and justfiable (note: but not always true or false) and without a burden of proof, anyone can make any claim. You are in a social setting right now, publically sharing your opinions...do you not owe it to me to support your own beliefs? More importantly, do you not owe it to yourself, to ensure your own beliefs make sense? Or can you never be wrong?

As to the rest - I found it very, very interesting. You acknowledge there is a gender difference. You accept that there is a statistical justification for different treatment of genders by police. Whether that actual difference is due to genetics, culture or both, lets put that aside. Now you could be saying one of two things...I dont know which:

1) Police are justified in their different dealings with males and females because "reasons".

2) Police should treat males and females the same at all times, despite "reasons" and the current reality.

I assume the former (because the latter is crazy). With that in mind, swap out gender for race, and let me know why one makes sense but the other doesnt, despite statistics on both.

[ManaMan]

With that in mind, swap out gender for race, and let me know why one makes sense but the other doesnt, despite statistics on both.

I figured you were going there. I'm no statistician but anyone who reads the news regularly would have have seen studies about how blacks are stopped more often than whites even though whites are more likely to have illegal drugs & guns. Also, a recent study found that blacks are not shot & killed more than whites for any given encounter with the police... but the police pull them over/stop them more so this leads to more of them being shot.

I'm from St. Louis originally, a racially divided city with a relatively well-off white population and a mostly very poor black population. Similar to many former industrial cities in the US. It's also one of the murder capitals of the country. The violence is largely limited to a few majority black neighborhoods in the north part of the city. I completely get why people associate black people with crime. That's what they see on the news. Same reason people associate Muslims with terrorism. The thing is, a vast majority of blacks aren't criminals. They're fed up with the constant stops by police. I'd be too. Many people think this is justified (including you) but many don't. I think that the statistics largely show that's it's not justified (& is potentially dangerous).

Also, given that you come from lily-white Canada I take anything you say about race relations in the US with a huge grain of salt.

[Shrinweck]

Also worth noting that black people live in densely populated areas areas. The police patrol these areas more often simply because, in a way, it's easier to. The majority of crack use in the US is reportedly white people but the overwhelming majority of those incarcerated for possession are black. According to the FBI something like 83% of drug arrests are for possession. The police target the same neighborhoods again and again with these arrests. So, yeah, it's not entirely a racial thing, but it sure as fuck turns out that way. Patrolling densely populated areas is always going to give a higher return of criminal activity. Really we probably need to stop giving the police incentives to go after people for drug use/possession in order to go after supply/distribution. Having possession laws to hang over peoples heads to flip them to giving up dealers and whatnot is all well and good in theory but it's filling up our prisons with people who need treatment and a way out to a new life. And with our recidivism rates throwing them in prison for possession sure as shit isn't very helpful.

[kali o.]

I figured you were going there. I'm no statistician but anyone who reads the news regularly would have have seen studies in the news about how blacks are stopped more often than whites even though whites are more likely to have illegal drugs & guns. Also, a recent study found that blacks are not shot & killed more than whites for any given encounter with the police... but the police pull them over/stop them more so this leads to more shootings of black Americans.

I'm from St. Louis originally, a racially divided city with a relatively well-off white population and a mostly very poor black population. Similar to many former industrial cities in the US. It's also one of the murder capitals of the country. The violence is largely limited to a few majority black neighborhoods in the north part of the city. I completely get why people associate black people with crime. That's what they see on the news. Same reason people associate Muslims with terrorism. The thing is, a vast majority of blacks aren't criminals. They're fed up with the constant stops by police. I'd be too. Many people think this is justified (including you) but many don't. I think that the statistics largely show that's it's not justified (& is potentially dangerous).

Also, given that you come from lily-white Canada I take anything you say about race relations in the US with a huge grain of salt.

Ok, I actually read the articles (and data) and can't help but notice that in Chicago, while blacks are 30% less likely to have contraband, they are searched 500% more often -- the racial profiling works in that case. You can't get away from what you yourself acknowledged -- Black neighbourhoods have a disproportionate share of criminal activity. And it is within that "fact" that interesting discussion and meaningful change exists -- not burying your head in the sand because reality is unpalatable.

I also notice you conveniently ignored the fact that you can sub in gender for every spot you stick in race and still have the same untenable argument (because for some reason, you are happy to acknowledge gender differences in statistics but not racial ones). Here is a fun side fact for you to consider -- what demographic is most likely to shoot an officer?

Spoiler: show

Hint: Black, over 40%, which makes it a statistical marker in line with all black crime statistics -- highly disproportional for the given population

As for your final lily-white jab...like most of your facts, it's distorted and/or downright wrong While I've lived in many places around the world, I've acknowledged I am from Vancouver. So here is a final correction for you - Vancouver is over 50% minority (are you still a minority with over 50%...???). Perhaps you should visit...

[Shrinweck]

are you still a minority with over 50%...???

If all the minorities were one group of people then no, they would no longer be the minority... But that isn't how being a minority works.

What the fuck? This is how you end your post? Even as a joke this is just foolishness.

[kali o.]

How is it foolish when I am addressing being fallaciously accused of having no knowledge of "minority" relations or the racial make up of the city where I live? You are being pedantic...allow me to return the favor: Do math much? I think you meant to say as long as the group is the highest percentage in a given area...

Now here is a "joke", since I am part of minority in Vancouver, you priviledged fucks have a lot of nerve arguing with me and not valuing my experiences as an oppressed minority! I am triggered!!!

[Replay]

As for your final lily-white jab...like most of your facts, it's distorted and/or downright wrong While I've lived in many places around the world, I've acknowledged I am from Vancouver. So here is a final correction for you - Vancouver is over 50% minority (are you still a minority with over 50%...???). Perhaps you should visit...

You should go, Mana. Take an impromptu poll of how many of the homeless were evicted by Kal or his friends while you are there, and how many of those are minorities...

[Replay]

How is it foolish when I am addressing being fallaciously accused of having no knowledge of "minority" relations or the racial make up of the city where I live?

Yeah man, Kali knows minorities and the poor! Someone has to deliver those "renoviction" notices after all.

I understand that evicted people develop profound, deep cultural understandings with realtors who want them out of their apartments so they can slap some faux marble on the kitchen counters and drive the rent up 250%.

[kali o.]

Hmmm...what are you rambling about Replay? A little off topic, but sure, Vancouver has a homeless (and drug) problem. Its partially related to the overheated housing market but the bulk of the problem predates that. Geography and failed progressive policies (like Insite and BCHousing) are to blame.

As to minorities...its mostly poor whites (as mentioned, whites are a minority I guess) and the mentally ill. Aboriginals are disproportionately represented, thats for sure. I think there is something to be said about how Canada deals with the native population and how America deals with blacks...but I dont think it is exactly comparable.

Anyway...what was your point again? Did you have one?

[Eric]

are you still a minority with over 50%...???

If all the minorities were one group of people then no, they would no longer be the minority... But that isn't how being a minority works.

What the fuck? This is how you end your post? Even as a joke this is just foolishness.

Cartman: I've been counting. Do you know there are two hundred and five Mexicans here? and there are a hundred and ninety black people!
Kyle: So what?
Cartman: So?! Guess how many white people are at the water park today? One hundred and forty three! There are actually more minorities here than us!
Kyle: Well then they're not minorities, are they?
Cartman: ...What do you mean?
Kyle: Dumbass, if there's sixty percent of them to forty percent of us, then who's the minority?!
Cartman: The black and brown people.
Kyle: No, you're the minority!
Cartman: Do I look like a minority to you, stupid?! Now look guys, I did some calculations: just last year, there were almost ninety percent normal people to minorities. That's fifty percent rise in one, year!
Stan: This is more math than I've ever seen you do.
Cartman: Because it's important! A fifty percent rise each year means that in three years the world will be only... minorities. That's 2012! The Mayans predicted this!

[kali o.]

[Replay]

Anyway...what was your point again? Did you have one?

I just wanted to remind everyone that your position on this issue is undoubtedly influenced by your own tendency to side with corrupt authority in any circumstance, "Kali".

That in turn may have something to do with the way you choose to make your way in the world...through deception, sociopathy, manipulation, and evil.

Who are you, really?

Why are you so insistent that I'd shit myself if I knew who you really were?

[kali o.]

Who are you, really?

[Replay]

Nice try.

Batman never put a homeless person out on the street.

You're no hero, Kali.

[kali o.]

Nice try.

Batman never put a homeless person out on the street.

You're no hero, Kali.

Bruce Wayne did.

[Replay]

Rly? Show me the panels in question.

I continue to be amazed that those who are a *direct* source in exacerbation of the problems of poverty through profiteering are the most vicious in calling for the punishment of the crimes associated with it.

[Replay]

Still waiting for some evidence that Batman evicted poor people. I'll probably be waiting awhile.

It's really interesting to see how much of a "hero" you regard yourself as, though - even though you're pretty much the definition of a villain.

--------------------

Back in reality - while I don't condone violence against anyone in the least, much less peace officers - this problem is going to continue as long as we have an economy that gives nothing relevant to 90% or more of young people and drives inner-city youth into a choice between either poverty or drug sales/gang affiliations, a society that still hides quiet racism behind any number of veneers, and undertrained, trigger-happy, frequently racist police.

I was in a hip-hop collective for awhile - and I saw bright-eyed young African-American teenagers, full of positivity and optimism, become young adults and hit the challenges of tackling the modern American economy without a college education or any reasonable opportunity to get one...and get cynical and angry at American society in response, like clockwork. Learning the history of the way America has treated minorities didn't help in the least - one former friend of mine saw Django Unchained, and immediately this Christian, gospel-inspired rapper started saying some pretty radical things. The destruction of the inner city that started in the Reagan years continues to this day - until economic opportunities for young inner-city kids get better, I don't see the rest of it getting better either. Kids who have a choice between nothing better than $7.25 an hour for menial horrors or possibly making thousands a week selling drugs are going to keep slanging. Because slanging is dangerous, they're going to keep packing. Because they're packing, the cops are going to be paranoid and trigger-happy. And because the cops are paranoid and trigger-happy, they're going to keep killing people out of pure fear; and then young minorities are going to keep radicalizing in response.

I continue to insist that economic development is the way to break the cycle. Happy people making real money in a peaceful career don't sell drugs or carry weapons as a general rule - there are always exceptions, of course, but not many of them.

Sadly, no one with enough money to make a difference is listening.

[ManaMan]

I was trying to think of how to put my opinion on the subject of overpolicing of black communities. About how I believe it can actually drive crime instead of reducing it. Then I came across this book review of "The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America" by Barry Latzer & the reviewer puts it together very well:

Where Latzer gets into trouble is that he’s broadly calling something "culture" that really may be thousands of causes of crime, some of which we may not know about or can’t measure in hard numbers.

Consider one of these possible factors: Black communities may be more violent and crime-ridden in response to a criminal justice system that has both under- and overpoliced them. In the fantastic Ghettoside, journalist Jill Leovy draws on the stories of police officers and black residents in violence-torn parts of Los Angeles to weave a nuanced story of how the justice system deals with crime depending on the community involved.

Leovy writes that police often harass black people for petty crimes — such as drugs, jaywalking, traffic rules, and loitering. But when black people most need police to prevent and solve violent crimes, they are not present. Investigations have found, for instance, that homicides involving black victims are much less likely to be solved than those with white victims. It’s a two-sided coin of systemic racism.

"Like the schoolyard bully, our criminal justice system harasses people on small pretexts but is exposed as a coward before murder," Leovy writes. "It hauls masses of black men through its machinery but fails to protect them from bodily injury and death. It is at once oppressive and inadequate."

The result: Only 30 percent of black people reported "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the police during a 2014-'15 period, versus 57 percent of white people, according to Gallup.

The criminal justice system has abandoned the most significant needs of black people, while fostering resentment and distrust with excessive policing of small crimes. In the face of this, black communities have turned to their own means — including violence — to solve conflicts that would normally be solved in courts.

(As Latzer notes, "Murder and its junior partner, assault, are in the main precipitated by anger, sexual jealousy, perceived insults and threats, long-standing personal quarrels, and similar issues, frequently facilitated by alcohol or some other disinhibiting substance.")

After all, preventing interpersonal conflicts is the main reason for the criminal justice system’s existence. Leovy writes:

In the dim early stirring of civilization, many scholars believe, law itself was developed as a response to legal "self-help": people's desire to settle their own scores. Rough justice slowly gave way to organized state monopolies on violence. The low homicide rate of some modern democracies are, perhaps, an aberration in human history.

Indeed, Latzer acknowledges this. In The Code of the Streets, Elijah Anderson analyzed the reality that many black people in violent neighborhoods live under and the grim rules ("the code") they’ve adopted that essentially allow violence to solve disputes the law can’t be trusted to take care of. Citing Anderson’s work, Latzer writes:

The code also was a product of the perception that law enforcement can’t or won’t control violent crime. "Feeling they cannot depend on the police and other civil authorities to protect them from danger," residents adhere to "a set of informal rules governing interpersonal public behavior, particularly violence. The rules prescribe both proper comportment and the proper way to respond if challenged."

But how do you prove anything like this empirically? How do you measure the actual, full impact of systemic racism or distrust in law enforcement? Mathematical models are very advanced nowadays, but they can’t explain everything. We still don’t even fully know why crime rose and fell during the period Latzer looks at — something Latzer acknowledges. So how can we be expected to measure something as abstract as the effects of distrust or a systemic force that has existed since America was founded?

...and then later another good one:

In fact, there’s no reason to think the violent cultural traits that Latzer describes are even "black," as the term "black culture" suggests. As Leovy wrote in Ghettoside: "Take a bunch of teenage boys from the whitest, safest suburb in America and plunk them down in a place where their friends are murdered and they are constantly attacked and threatened. Signal that no one cares, and fail to solve murders. Limit their options for escape. Then see what happens."

Also see: Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" which explores this subject. He shows how giving the state the "monopoly on violence" has reduced violence to the lowest levels in history but that it requires the consent of the governed to work. Without it, hierarchies of violence develop. Very good book.

[Julius Seeker]

FUCK THE POLICE.