Alton Sterling shooting.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

With any police shooting I believe there needs to an independent investigation.  The Alton Stirling shooting in particular needs an independent investigation.  It looks bad.  That's why it needs someone outside this department doing the investigation.

[DanteGabriel]

I found this to be a well written opinion piece, by a black cop. It is pretty brutal about the realities of policing and the built-in biases of many police forces.

Quote

On any given day, in any police department in the nation, 15 percent of officers will do the right thing no matter what is happening. Fifteen percent of officers will abuse their authority at every opportunity. The remaining 70 percent could go either way depending on whom they are working with.

That's a theory from my friend K.L. Williams, who has trained thousands of officers around the country in use of force. Based on what I experienced as a black man serving in the St. Louis Police Department for five years, I agree with him. I worked with men and women who became cops for all the right reasons — they really wanted to help make their communities better. And I worked with people like the president of my police academy class, who sent out an email after President Obama won the 2008 election that included the statement, "I can't believe I live in a country full of ni**er lovers!!!!!!!!" He patrolled the streets in St. Louis in a number of black communities with the authority to act under the color of law.

That remaining 70 percent of officers are highly susceptible to the culture in a given department. In the absence of any real effort to challenge department cultures, they become part of the problem. If their command ranks are racist or allow institutional racism to persist, or if a number of officers in their department are racist, they may end up doing terrible things.

It is not only white officers who abuse their authority. The effect of institutional racism is such that no matter what color the officer abusing the citizen is, in the vast majority of those cases of abuse that citizen will be black or brown. That is what is allowed.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer

Of course, I am sure Peterbound is still grittier and tougher and more knowledgeable than the cop who wrote that story.

[BloodRider]

2 hours ago, peterbound said:

Again if you want to call me a racists, or pile on me, that's fine.  

No man, I'm not saying anyone is a racist.  But......

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

With any police shooting I believe there needs to an independent investigation.  The Alton Stirling shooting in particular needs an independent investigation.  It looks bad.  That's why it needs someone outside this department doing the investigation.

I think there should be a federal agency that looks into shootings like this. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, peterbound said:

3. it's awesome you're a bad ass Jord, but the big difference when I say a 'fight' between cops and a person they are trying to arrest is the objective.  I know you may find this hard to believe, but they are trained to start with non deadly force after deescalation has failed.  I know that everyone here things most cops are just out for blood, but they really just want the situation to end in a way that they are not going to be held under this light, and that they can go home at night.  That's why there are no head stomps, eye gouging, face punching, overly aggressive tactics in those videos (the types of things that /might/ overcome a large size difference in one of your awesome/bad ass/ninja fights).  Thats why size, anger, emotion, disregard for harm, and tactics matter. If i'm trying to just hold you down, and subdue you, and you decide in your rage I can't, and that you are going to get to your pocket, more than likely you are going to be able to, unless I'm able to escalate the level of violence. In your awesome/bad ass/ninja fights you can just punch a bigger man in the face, grab a finger, or kick a knee, PD doesn't have that option.  They really just want to subdue you, and not get sued. So size does matter, especially when your options are limited. 

 They can shoot you in the face, but they can't fight dirty? Lulz.

[peterbound]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 They can shoot you in the face, but they can't fight dirty? Lulz.

Pretty much.  They have to at least try to subdue you before they escalate to that level of violence.  It's when they suspect that he is reaching for a gun (had they seen him reaching for it before they put their hands on him they would have not touched him) that they took it to that level. 

Laugh it off, it's fine, but that's how I see it.  If they just wanted to kill him, why didn't they just draw down him and shoot him right away?

You think those cops showed up on that scene and said to themselves, 'i'm going to shoot this guy'?  Or did he disobey a direct command, fight arrest, and reach for a gun.... and then get shot?

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, BloodRider said:

No man, I'm not saying anyone is a racist.  But......

Just to latch on to the points you've been making, I'd like to add that refusing to acknowledge one's own personal biases, whether conscious or unconscious, is a contributing part of the problem.  People will instead outright deny they have biases,  try to justify their language or behavior, become combative and angry.  I've encountered those who say that even suggesting bigotry is the worst you can say to a person and another become enraged and threatened to double down on insensitive language.  

It's one of the more easier things to do, to acknowledge that bias exists.  In relation to this particular issue, it's something that police departments and unions fail to do time and again, instead taking the combative role and blaming everyone else.  There are very good examples of departments that acknowledged their issues and that led to improved training and relations with the public (I'm thinking, iirc, Las Vegas and even Dallas, for example).  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 minutes ago, peterbound said:

Pretty much.  They have to at least try to subdue you before they escalate to that level of violence.  It's when they suspect that he is reaching for a gun (had they seen him reaching for it before they put their hands on him they would have not touched him) that they took it to that level. 

 I'm not addressing any point other than your assertion that cops can't or won't fight dirty, or can't or won't escalate before trying to subdue. That's the doctrine, but it is broken far too often, IMHO.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

 But I suppose I see your point. Being sued or disciplined for excessive force after subduing a possibly dangerous malcontent is much worse than what you'd face in light of just executing them when things get dicey, if only because it's much harder to prove as justifiable.  

 That's a really good point. Dead men tell no tales, and all that.

[Kalbear]

Just now, peterbound said:

I guess I just pinged a little on the whole being racist thing being thrown my way.  Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I hate black people.  You guys understand that, right?

No one claimed you did hate black people. 

But you stated that seeing a large black man means that more force is potentially justified, and the situation is more escalated because of it. Why is the color of his skin justified in your mind as to escalation of force? 

This isn't an obvious correlation. There is no specific reason why being black should mean that you're more dangerous, and it is a problem if police believe that. If you think that, and you're an EMT who hangs out with police a whole lot, that also likely means that this is a bigger problem. Whether or not you hate black people is immaterial, actually; what is more important is that if police and EMT see black people as a bigger threat intrinsically, they are more likely to escalate violence against said black people regardless of other factors. If you personally hold that opinion it'd be good for you to understand why. If you know others who do, it'd be good to try and educate them as to why they probably shouldn't and why it's dangerous for others to do so. 

[Minsc]

On 7/8/2016 at 5:33 PM, Bold Barry Whitebeard said:

Speaking of Castile, it is now coming out that he did not have a concealed carry permit, he was a gangbanger (crips) and was pulled over because he matched the description of an armed robbery subject.

Here is Snopes disproving the current right wing slander against Castile.

[peterbound]

10 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

No one claimed you did hate black people. 

But you stated that seeing a large black man means that more force is potentially justified, and the situation is more escalated because of it. Why is the color of his skin justified in your mind as to escalation of force? 

This isn't an obvious correlation. There is no specific reason why being black should mean that you're more dangerous, and it is a problem if police believe that. If you think that, and you're an EMT who hangs out with police a whole lot, that also likely means that this is a bigger problem. Whether or not you hate black people is immaterial, actually; what is more important is that if police and EMT see black people as a bigger threat intrinsically, they are more likely to escalate violence against said black people regardless of other factors. If you personally hold that opinion it'd be good for you to understand why. If you know others who do, it'd be good to try and educate them as to why they probably shouldn't and why it's dangerous for others to do so. 

I think you're reading a bit too much into it.  I was just commenting on the content of the video.  I'm comfortable with how I regard race and my job, and how the fellow professionals regard race.  Was he not black?  I stated that I saw a large black man in a video.  If he was a large white man I would have said that.  But he wasn't.  You are looking for monsters under the bed on this one.  None are there.  It's a very small thing to get spun up about.  And if that's what you're going to base your institutional racism argument, it's pretty weak.  You could use stats and the fact that african americans account for over half of all homicides in the US (8 times higher than whites), or that violence against police officers by african american suspects is disproportionately high, and that those types of numbers will help 'spin up' a police response with regards to race, but not me saying there's a black dude in a video. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, peterbound said:

I think you're reading a bit too much into it.  I was just commenting on the content of the video.  I'm comfortable with how I regard race and my job, and how the fellow professionals regard race.  Was he not black?  I stated that I saw a large black man in a video.  If he was a large white man I would have said that.  But he wasn't.  You are looking for monsters under the bed on this one.  None are there.  It's a very small thing to get spun up about.  And if that's what you're going to base your institutional racism argument, it's pretty weak.  You could use stats and the fact that african americans account for over half of all homicides in the US (8 times higher than whites) and that those types of numbers will help 'spin up' a police response with regards to race, but not me saying there's a black dude in a video. 

I don't think I was reading too much into it; others commented on it too. You specifically singled out his appearance as a reason for the police to be scared and to justify their reaction of violence. Again, why comment on his skin? What does his skin color have to do with it?

As to the African Americans accounting for half of all homicides - that's absolutely true. If you do it by wealth class it's much less striking - but the most important thing to consider is that most of that (93%) is against other black people. Why would the police feel threatened? 

[peterbound]

Just now, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

I don't think I was reading too much into it; others commented on it too. You specifically singled out his appearance as a reason for the police to be scared and to justify their reaction of violence. Again, why comment on his skin? What does his skin color have to do with it?

As to the African Americans accounting for half of all homicides - that's absolutely true. If you do it by wealth class it's much less striking - but the most important thing to consider is that most of that (93%) is against other black people. Why would the police feel threatened? 

Got in before the edit.  They also account for a disproportionate amount of violence against police officers.  

 

And Kal, I know other posters stated that.  This is an echo chamber, and the minute someone disagrees with you guys you'll do everyone in your power to discredit them.  That's whats occurring.  It's a thread about violence against a black man, I said there is a black man in the video, it seemed relevant.  His size matters more to me than his skin color.  Really man, it's kind of silly you are focusing on that. 

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, peterbound said:

And Kal, I know other posters stated that.  This is an echo chamber, and the minute someone disagrees with you guys you'll do everyone in your power to discredit them.  That's whats occurring.  It's a thread about violence against a black man, I said there is a black man in the video, it seemed relevant.  His size matters more to me than his skin color.  Really man, it's kind of silly you are focusing on that. 

Other posters as far as I can tell did not state that him being black was a reasonable reason for the police to be afraid. You did.

This isn't about discrediting you. You're now acting paranoid. I'll ask a third time: do you believe it is reasonable to escalate force based on him being a black person? If so, why? If not, why did you state it like that?

[Kalbear]

Here's the paragraph that  people objected to you stating:

Quote

I think the 'facts' are being swayed heavily by some strong ass outcome bias.  What /I/ see is a large black manstruggling with two police and attempting to break their holds.  I also see a gun discarded.  That leads me to a different outcome than you. 

You were justifying the behavior of the police (them shooting Alton Sterling) because what you saw is a large black man struggling with two police and attempting to break their holds. 

Why is Alton's skin color important in the narrative that justifies them shooting him, to you? Why do you need to bring that up as a detail? Why not bring up that he was on the ground, or that it was night time, or that he was next to a car? All of those things are also details in the video, after all. Why not bring up that he was wearing a red shirt? Why not bring up that he had pants with pockets? Why not bring up that there were witnesses? 

I'm genuinely curious here. I don't see why it matters that when you're describing the details that lead you to a different outcome, you need to specify  Alton Sterling's skin color. 

[peterbound]

24 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Other posters as far as I can tell did not state that him being black was a reasonable reason for the police to be afraid. You did.

This isn't about discrediting you. You're now acting paranoid. I'll ask a third time: do you believe it is reasonable to escalate force based on him being a black person? If so, why? If not, why did you state it like that?

Nope.  Again, the large part is what i'm focusing on. You seem to be zeroing on the fact that I commenting on him being black, in a thread about police violence against a black man.  And I'll say it again, I really didn't mean anything by it, yet that seems to be the thing you're focusing on.  The /large/ part would escalate the response to me.  Oh, and the fact that he is resisting arrest, and the fact that he has a gun.  Those are the take aways from that.  

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, peterbound said:

Nope.  Again, the large part is what i'm focusing on. You seem to be zeroing on the fact that I commenting on him being black, in a thread about police violence against a black man.  And I'll say it again, I really didn't mean anything by it, yet that seems to be the thing you're focusing on.  The /large/ part would escalate the response to me.  Oh, and the fact that he is resisting arrest, and the fact that he has a gun.  Those are the take aways from that.  

It is not clear that he actually has a gun. Just so you know. The video isn't conclusive, and the FBI and police made no comment when directly asked. This isn't a fact. 

Now, while you might be focusing on the large part, that certainly isn't how it came across. Again, you indicating that he has black skin is a likely indicator of unconscious bias. If the only things that are worth escalating on are that he's large, that he is resisting arrest, and that you believe he has a gun - why state that he's black when stating that? 

In other news, the Rochester police are being awesome. Can someone tell me why this woman in the middle of an interview was arrested?

 

[Kalbear]

Sorry: here's a video to a Baton Rouge protester being arrested for...um...no reason that I can tell. The Rochester police and city hall already apologized for arresting the reporters last night. No apologies for the 70+ other protesters arrested, however.

 

[Seli]

1 hour ago, peterbound said:

Got in before the edit.  They also account for a disproportionate amount of violence against police officers.  

On the one hand I don't doubt the data supports this. On the other hand it is one of those pieces of data that raise more questions than they answer.

Where does the data come from, police incident reports (likely biased to protect the institution)? Is the high reported violennce a result of behaviour that is seen as more aggressive coming from some parts of the population than from others (ie normal unconscious racism)? Is violence against police a perfectly acceptable reason to explain use of violence by the police (ie ingrained institutional racism)?

If it is real, what causes it? The history of police protecting the status quo against minorities threatening it? Some cultural elements?