Could the plebs (both BLM and "anti-BLM") have bought into the media's derailing divisive narrative any harder?
The incorrect percentages of being being killed by police is not a public health issue! The mechanism isn't some vague force of nature that we can only hope to mitigate, but has specific human actors for every single occurrence.
Every person killed by the police is a criminal justice issue. Any person who straps on a gun, goes looking for trouble, and then kills somebody (not in clear self defense) is guilty of at least second degree murder. So why aren't these cops being prosecuted and thrown in prison like every other murderer? Our criminal justice system has become corrupt and doesn't bother to hold itself to the laws it purports to uphold!
When people see that laws are only selectively applied to help the powerful versus the weak, they lose belief in the very concept of law. Minorities have only lost faith in the justice system quicker - they can't be comforted by a just-world social delusion that if things were "truly bad", change would automatically happen through democratic means.
Any plausible solution needs to start with holding cops accountable for their externalities, rather than continuing to pretend that it's right for the unlucky to pay them. This involves both civil and criminal penalties for cops who act outside the law (department policy is only relevant for determining who pays the damages). Scrapping the entire drug criminalization thing would also go a long way towards realigning the police and the public.
Typical left-leaning article. In the totality of law enforcement shootings, the vast majority of people have been white, 26% have been black, the rest a mix.
Black Lives Matter is a false narrative.
Blacks make up 13% of the US population, but have a disproportionate percentage of young men involved in crimes. Young black men have no family life. As of 2016, 79% of all black children are born to unwed mothers. Those children grow up with no father present in the household.
No father equals MASSIVE instability. The ideal is a man and woman raising children together. Blacks lack this.
In almost every one of these shootings, after the dust settles, it's learned that the person shot had a record, had a warrant, was wanted for other crimes, was carrying an illegal or stolen knife or gun. The recent Charlotte incident showed the man was carrying a gun that was both stolen and illegal for him to possess as he was already a felon.
I've no problem with peaceful protests, but when your civil rights are no longer being civil, you lose your civil rights. If you start looting or damaging property, you get shot and deservedly so.
It's come to light in Charlotte that quite a few of the black people being arrested have out-of-state driver's licenses. This shows a growing trend. That the violence and looting are not organic. The local are being agitated by outside influences.
This is all being done by people with money, like a certain rich Hungarian in bed with certain high-level Democrats in this country. None of this is accidental. Professional agitators were found to be active in Ferguson, Charlotte, Baltimore, NYC, you name it.
Were I in charge and you were looting, I'd turn a tractor-trailer load of German Shepherds on you. Time to take off the gloves. Notice that in Russia, this never happens. Like him or hate him, but Vladimir Putin keeps a tight reign on civil discourse and political activities by the populace. People can peacefully protest, but when they start to act violently, they need to be quelled very quickly.
If the problem is instability in black communities I don't understand why your solution is to crack down very hard on unrest. While it might be an okay short term solution I feel like this escalates the situation while not solving the underlying problem.
> Violence needs to--has to--be met with equal or greater force to show the thugs who is boss--in this case the legally-appointed police and justice system.
This is a flawed and historically ignorant premise, presented with no justification.
No, what I mean is that when you say violence "needs to" and "has to" be met with equal or greater violence, you are just incorrect, from a historical standpoint. One of the great innovations of civilization was non-violent responses to violence, which usually prove to be more effective and lasting solutions.
I think what you mean is that, in your opinion, violence should be met with equal or greater violence, for the reasons you've given. I don't agree with you, but you're entitled to that opinion. But it just isn't accurate to say that it needs to be handled in the way you think it should be.
> Violence needs to--has to--be met with equal or greater force to show the thugs who is boss
There may be some truth to that (or at least the weaker position that proportionate violence is necessary for this purpose), but even if this is necessary as a response, it is manifestly not sufficient as a preventive measure. Moreover, it is pretty much absolutely guaranteed to make the problem worse if the violence on the part of the "legitimate" authorities is not exquisitely carefully directed at the appropriate targets, because when violence that may be justified when used against "thugs" is misdirected at people (and those who such people care about) who are not already, but are at risk of being, alienated from the system, it often effects their alienation. [0]
And this is how legitimacy of the authorities -- which is almost precisely the extent to which people are not alienated from the system -- breaks down.
[0] In fact, this is also a problem with disproportionate violence of the type you recommend even when appropriately directed, which is one of the reasons that the argument that disproportionate violence for exemplary purposes is necessary (even if not sufficient) is dubious.
I understand where you are coming from and I think the disagreements come from underlying philosophical differences and differences in experiences that I don't have time to debate before going to work. Thank you for exposing me to a different viewpoint and staying polite in the discussion.
Maybe you are just trolling and trying to start a fight instead of starting a conversation, but on the off chance you aren't....
I'm proud to be an American. And in this country, our country, I have certain basic expectations for due process if I'm suspected or accused of a crime.
I am sure we have different perceptions of the men and women who have died. But perhaps you will agree with me, having a record, a warrant, or carrying an illegal weapon, even if that was the case in every one of these situations, which it is not, is not an executable offense in the United States.
Most of the protested deaths have been from traffic stops, not looting, but damaging property and stealing property doesn't seem like a good reason to shoot living breathing American people.
Law Enforcement captured the shooter in aurora, the shooter in that black church, terrorists both foreign and domestic, murders and serial killers, and they took them alive. Why should people die at traffic stops?
By your own numbers, African Americans are twice as likely to be shot and killed then their percentage in the population suggests. It doesn't matter why that is, even if we disagree on the cause, I think we can both say that the country can do better by it's citizens. It's fine to talk about the cause, but if you leave it at that, it's just an excuse.
It sounds like you are getting a lot of your sense of what's going on from the news. That's a filter between you and the truth, pushing one agenda or another. People say that the Tea Party was funded by the Koch Brothers and outside interests too, and maybe some groups were, but funding doesn't create protests. I visited DC a few years ago when that movement was big in the news and talked with protesters there from the tea party, and got a sense of who they were. Americans who felt that things weren't fair for them. And I'd argue that, essentially, that's what BLM protesters are, just upset about different things.
Go out and listen to some BLM protestors, talk with them and more importantly listen to them, as fellow Americans, with an open mind and heart. Maybe you won't agree on everything, or anything, but talking to people with different views, open mindedness, honest debate about issues is why this is America, not Russia.
If people are looting they should be arrested and tried in our courts, not attacked with dogs. I'm taking that as hyperbole on your part.
You've been posting primarily ideological comments and that's not what this site is for. Beyond that, some of them (such as this one) are highly uncivil and we ban accounts that post like this. Please stop.
I think that your view ignores the underlying societal problems that are causing the situation and just exacerbate the persecution that has created the current mess. These people aren't fundamentally worse, I think you have some insight when you are talking about the societal problems but police crackdowns aren't the way to fix those problems long term. It might be necessary short term but without some plans to actually ameliorate the societal problems it will just shoot yourself in the foot.
If we hypothetically took you and kept you identical,same worldview,same education, same income, everything the same.....except we made your skin black. Congratulations! You are now 4 times more likely to leave a police encounter dead! and if that somehow happend..... then, in this one hypothetical case, I would indeed agree with you that they were "culling the stupid"
Because you're breaking the narrative. They don't like that round here. Using statistics to support the opposite argument challenges beliefs too. And we can't have that.
See how the SF community has turned on Theil
> The eccentric investor is not like anyone else in tech. By Kara Swisher @karaswisher
> ... And many of those who like him personally and call him a "dear friend" are even perplexed, going as far as not talking to him of late because of his Trump support. "I’ve tried," sighed one such friend, who described a number of colleagues trying to pull him off the Trump train, including PayPal Mafia family member Reid Hoffman.
I think (and I'm not an expert on conservative thoughts on BLM, and to be clear, I don't believe this at all myself) it's that there is no racial disparity in police shootings, whites get killed just as often as blacks, Blacks are just more criminal (not of course, because they are black or systemic racism leading to less legitimate opportunities, but because of internal issues within black culture and community like unwed mothers), and that white liberals and outside agitators stoke the fires of racial hatred against whites rather then addressing the issues with black people in order to advance their own political agenda.
That doesn't sound the like opposite position of BLM to me. That sounds more like a simplistic caricature of BLM's central premise. Did you misunderstand my question?
(or I might be simply confused on some other level... wouldn't be the first time, lol)
The incorrect percentages of being being killed by police is not a public health issue! The mechanism isn't some vague force of nature that we can only hope to mitigate, but has specific human actors for every single occurrence.
Every person killed by the police is a criminal justice issue. Any person who straps on a gun, goes looking for trouble, and then kills somebody (not in clear self defense) is guilty of at least second degree murder. So why aren't these cops being prosecuted and thrown in prison like every other murderer? Our criminal justice system has become corrupt and doesn't bother to hold itself to the laws it purports to uphold!
When people see that laws are only selectively applied to help the powerful versus the weak, they lose belief in the very concept of law. Minorities have only lost faith in the justice system quicker - they can't be comforted by a just-world social delusion that if things were "truly bad", change would automatically happen through democratic means.
Any plausible solution needs to start with holding cops accountable for their externalities, rather than continuing to pretend that it's right for the unlucky to pay them. This involves both civil and criminal penalties for cops who act outside the law (department policy is only relevant for determining who pays the damages). Scrapping the entire drug criminalization thing would also go a long way towards realigning the police and the public.