Jump to content

Alton Sterling shooting.


James Arryn

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

 

are you able to quote someone in this thread who has justified the death of a law enforcement officer? 

Of course he can't. He probably copies and pastes that little missive, which he no doubt deems very clever, all over the internet. From youtube, to Foxnewts, and now here. because, well, we needed a few more racists to even out the pinko commies frequenting this lil part o' the net. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Isn't one of the indictments of police forces that the "bad apples" are allowed to thrive by other police who either do nothing or actively facilitate or cover-up the actions of the bad apples? 

Doesn't the same argument apply to protest movements? In the last link, for example, you have a self-styled "organizer" of the Minnesota BLM movement defending the chant to "fry police like bacon." He didn't disclaim it. He didn't disavow it. He doesn't even saw that it was inappropriate. He said that it wasn't a call for violence, but rather, "similar treatment" between black people and police officers. Of course, since the BLM's position is that police officers are executing unarmed black men in an unjustified manner, it certainly seems to me that what's being advocated by "fry police like bacon" is that black people kill police officers in an unjustified manner. And a self-styled organizer of the movement is not saying that's a mistake or wrong, but rather that it shouldn't be focused on. Interesting standard. 

Yes, it does, but as a whole I feel like the BLM has done a good job of staying away from calling for the deaths of the group of people who have been killing them unjustly.  The other issue is one of compartmentalization, similar to Occupy.  There isn't really an organized power structure in a lot of BLM groups so its hard to have someone who wants to call themselves a leader or organizer made to stop, so its easier for various spokespersons to pop up in BLM groups compared to the police, who besides having a formal leader and structure often have official spokespersons or PR reps as well.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Isn't one of the indictments of police forces that the "bad apples" are allowed to thrive by other police who either do nothing or actively facilitate or cover-up the actions of the bad apples? 

Doesn't the same argument apply to protest movements?

Not really a great argument. Protest movements don't have the structure or infrastructure to effectively regulate their members in the manner expected of a police force or other government authority. Nor do they have the same level of civic obligation to do so, as they aren't agents of the state. This is an apples and oranges comparison.

It's also notable that there's no suggestion here of a 'cover-up' by BLM, nor does the behaviour complained of really bear comparison to the things we're talking about when the police generally face criticism: chanting's one thing, but brutality, corruption, false arrest, abuse of power, these are very different.

Of course, that doesn't mean that they aren't obliged to condemn such incidents if they occur. That's a legitimate criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Isn't one of the indictments of police forces that the "bad apples" are allowed to thrive by other police who either do nothing or actively facilitate or cover-up the actions of the bad apples? 

Doesn't the same argument apply to protest movements? In the last link, for example, you have a self-styled "organizer" of the Minnesota BLM movement defending the chant to "fry police like bacon." He didn't disclaim it. He didn't disavow it. He doesn't even saw that it was inappropriate. He said that it wasn't a call for violence, but rather, "similar treatment" between black people and police officers. Of course, since the BLM's position is that police officers are executing unarmed black men in an unjustified manner, it certainly seems to me that what's being advocated by "fry police like bacon" is that black people kill police officers in an unjustified manner. And a self-styled organizer of the movement is not saying that's a mistake or wrong, but rather that it shouldn't be focused on. Interesting standard. 

Is anyone arguing that BLM ought to have lethal force as an option, or are these apples not oranges? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different training for police and for CCW Licence holders.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/killed-philando-castile-bulletproof-warrior-class-article-1.2711457 

And there sit the Republicans fighting the Zika virus funding with racist poison pills.  You would think they would support CCW Licence holders, wouldn't you.  But no - it's more important that we fly the Confederate flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Isn't one of the indictments of police forces that the "bad apples" are allowed to thrive by other police who either do nothing or actively facilitate or cover-up the actions of the bad apples? 

Doesn't the same argument apply to protest movements? In the last link, for example, you have a self-styled "organizer" of the Minnesota BLM movement defending the chant to "fry police like bacon." He didn't disclaim it. He didn't disavow it. He doesn't even saw that it was inappropriate. He said that it wasn't a call for violence, but rather, "similar treatment" between black people and police officers. Of course, since the BLM's position is that police officers are executing unarmed black men in an unjustified manner, it certainly seems to me that what's being advocated by "fry police like bacon" is that black people kill police officers in an unjustified manner. And a self-styled organizer of the movement is not saying that's a mistake or wrong, but rather that it shouldn't be focused on. Interesting standard. 

But the police force is a structured, organised entity, where the BLM isn't. The police have hierarchies and written rules and codes of conduct and a history, and positions of authority. Movements like the BLM by their very nature are the opposite, so who can one single out as the 'leader' or ultimate authority with the power to make rules or enforce codes of behaviour? Who is in charge of singling out 'bad apples' among thousands of BLM supporters scattered across states? 

There are other differences (significant in my view): cops get paid to do the job they do, and that means they have a defined responsibility towards their organisation and the public. BLM activists arent doing this as a career; they're doing it because they can't tolerate such bigotry and violence with silence any longer. This comparison doesn't work for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

Yes, it does, but as a whole I feel like the BLM has done a good job of staying away from calling for the deaths of the group of people who have been killing them unjustly.  The other issue is one of compartmentalization, similar to Occupy.  There isn't really an organized power structure in a lot of BLM groups so its hard to have someone who wants to call themselves a leader or organizer made to stop, so its easier for various spokespersons to pop up in BLM groups compared to the police, who besides having a formal leader and structure often have official spokespersons or PR reps as well.  

 

To be clear, I'm certainly not trying to tarnish the entire Black Live Matter movement by the action of some of their supporters at a rally in Minnesota. I do, however, think it's pretty interesting that people often treat the police as a single, homogeneous entity, when in fact there are 2,501 local police departments in the US in addition to 3,063 local sheriff's offices. The highly publicized actions of a single police department are, almost instantly, universalized into the actions of every police department in the United States, regardless of that individual department's history, policies, etc. 

A lot of the institutional observations are kind of besides the point. What we have is a specific BLM group that, during a rally, chanted inflammatory comments against the police that were thinly-disguised but clearly intentioned calls to violence against the police. If a bunch of white people were marching and chanting "fry the blacks" - I think most reasonable people would clearly consider this to be an incitement to violence. I hold the people at this protest to the same standard - they were chanting an incitement to violence against the police. When called to task for it, an organizer not only did not deny that the chant happened - in fact just the opposite - he recognized that it had occurred while minimizing the amount of time it was supposedly chanted. He then lied about the nature of the chant, claiming that it was not what it transparently was. 

That is certainly enough for me, and I think should be enough for any reasonable person, to conclude that the people that showed up at this Black Lives Rally in Minnesota were inciting violence against the police. Is that enough to "discredit" the Black Lives Matters movement generally? I don't think so. Should it be enough to "discredit" the Black Lives Matters movement in Minnesota? Well, possibly. A lot of this has to do with what people think about the general concept of "discrediting." I acknowledge the utility of the Black Lives Matters movement even while I think that they are sometimes wrong on tactics, and sometimes just wrong on their causes (see, for example, Michael Brown, as a case where I think the evidence clearly supports that the use of lethal force was justified). So in that sense, I don't know that it's really possible to "discredit" the movement, even as I recognize that there are apparently a lot of BLM supporters in Minnesota who have engaged in an incitement of violence against the police. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Good lord.  Watching the video attached to the Washington Post video I have to ask what reason was there for a weapon to be discharged... at all.  Mr. Kinsey is clearly unarmed and is out their trying to calm another unarmed man.  This business of training firearms on everyone every time has got to stop.  If Mr. Kinsey was shot "accidentally" that is, in my mind, gross negligence at best. 

How is arming officers helping?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Good lord.  Watching the video attached to the Washington Post video I have to ask what reason was there for a weapon to be discharged... at all.  Mr. Kinsey is clearly unarmed and is out their trying to calm another unarmed man.  This business of training firearms on everyone every time has got to stop.  If Mr. Kinsey was shot "accidentally" that is, in my mind, gross negligence at best. 

How is arming officers helping?

According to the CBS one, Kinsey asked the officers why they shot him; the reply he got was "I don't know"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would also be great if fear and paranoia were dialed down some. Perhaps then people calling in for emergency services/police would be less clouded in vision over what is and isn't a gun. 

And some sort of crisis? (I can't think of a proper term) training for police forces to help recognize a situation involving a special needs adult or special needs populations as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KiDisaster said:

Can't wait to hear how our resident racist murder apologists attempt to justify this one. 

I'm sure at least two of them are furiously searching right now to see if the victim has an unpaid parking ticket.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Look, the guy had autism and as we all know, autism causes vaccines and vaccines are evil.

This guy was clearly a piece of trash.

Yes, all of this is true...but the cops shot the black guy that didn't have autism.  He was, however, a caregiver laying on the street with his hands up in the air, begging the cops not to shoot him and trying to explain that the autistic guy was playing with a toy truck.

 

So of course he got shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lightning Lord said:

Yes, all of this is true...but the cops shot the black guy that didn't have autism.  He was, however, a caregiver laying on the street with his hands up in the air, begging the cops not to shoot him and trying to explain that the autistic guy was playing with a toy truck.

 

yeah.  one would think 'Don't shoot the unarmed guy laying in the street with his hands up' would be not so much a 'police training' issue as a 'you go directly to jail' issue.

 

but.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...