• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Another cop "fears for his life" - Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back

The whole point, then, is that now the 11 year-old has to do everything he possibly can to "stay clean", because he has something on his record that you and I don't, increasing the stakes to the point where avoiding police contact becomes a legitimate option in his adolescent brain.

I'm curious what they actually have on this 11 year old and why he was charged (and presumably convicted) for accessory to receiving the stolen property. If he and his brother didn't know the car was stolen, isn't that enough to exonerate them? And if they did knowingly take possession and use of a stolen vehicle, then this fleeing from the police instinct being etched into this young mind is interesting, but who but him and his brother are at fault for it and what can we do about it? He's on probation now, so why shouldn't he have to abide by the terms of that probation, and why shouldn't he be taken in if he breaks them?

Combine that with the constant reports of trigger-happy cops such as Slager, and an environment where the police are there to arrest rather than protect

That's the real crux of the problem here. Either we have too many Slagers are out there or groups like BLM are creating a false expectation of Slagers. Maybe both.

and I can definitely see myself panicking if I were in his shoes. I think that might be because I don't assume everybody has access to the privileges I do by virtue of being born in a middle class suburb with fair skin.

Is it different for those of us born into middle class suburbs with dark skin?
 
Derec, do you imagine that everybody in the world can just put their life on pause to acquire all the trappings of civilized society you take for granted? These things don't materialize out of thin air, and they aren't free. When you're already on a razor-thin margin and choosing between feeding your kids and paying your heating bill this month, all while working 60 hours a week and trying to get those kids an education, one speeding ticket from when you didn't want them to be late for class is enough to put you underwater.

So appear in court and argue that. You may be surprised how much you can get these fines lowered. Sometimes these fines are even waived. I also note that this can happen to people of any race. I've been there myself.

Compound all that with the fact that police presence in these neighborhoods is almost nonexistent unless they are trying to cuff somebody to meet a quota, and you've got your trap.

Are you saying we should have more police in these neighbourhoods, because the article I read here seems to be arguing for the opposite. And people are cuffed to meet a quota? I didn't read that in the article. How does that happen? I've heard of cops giving out speeding tickets and driving violation tickets to meet quotas, but cuffings?

No, your first impulse is to find the context that preserves your omniscience about what other people should and shouldn't be capable of withstanding. It has to be there. It can't be that you just don't know what you're talking about because you sit on your ass all day with plenty to eat and nobody out to get you.

Why are you assuming these things about Derec? For all we know he could be a fugitive on the run himself.
 
Who the heck said that here?

Rhea for example, in post #95 in this thread and others. She thinks it "behooves" criminals to run from police.
If you actually read her post with a modicum of reading comprehension, it is obvious she is referring to specific circumstances within the self-interest of the criminal. It could not be reasonably interpreted nor honestly reported as some sort of general statement.
 
All the article is pointing out is that we have to take into account a different set of pressures when we try to imagine why a poor black kid in an impoverished neighborhood might decide to flee from a law enforcement officer. We can't just put ourselves in their shoes as we are, with all of our advantages, our support networks, and our negotiating skills, and think gee he must be wacky why didn't he simply pay the fine or take a day off to show up in court? The takeaway is that everything is harder when you're poor and racism only makes matters worse. It's not an absolution, it's background that many people never bother to consider before they start making judgments.
 
Derec, do you imagine that everybody in the world can just put their life on pause to acquire all the trappings of civilized society you take for granted?
No, but there are plenty people who are poor or were poor at some point in time that do not resort to living in the shadows.
My point is that the attitude defended by this "sociologist" is perpetuating the problem, not solving it.

These things don't materialize out of thin air, and they aren't free.
Who said they were?

When you're already on a razor-thin margin and choosing between feeding your kids and paying your heating bill this month, all while working 60 hours a week and trying to get those kids an education,
Let's do a reality check on that. If you are working 60 h/week, even at minimum wage and no time and a half for overtime, you will make $22,620 per month. You said "kids" so let's assume 2 children. Standard deduction is $9,300 for head of household, plus 3*$4,050 in exemptions makes $21450. So that person has only $1,170 in taxable income, resulting in federal tax burden of $117. But that's not all. EITC and child tax credit are worth several thousand, and these are tax credits and not deductions and thus will be more than enough to offset the minuscule federal tax burden and the $1730 in payroll (FICA) taxes. Thus, this hypothetical person will have negative effective tax rate and should be able to afford food, heat and the occasional speeding ticket.

one speeding ticket from when you didn't want them to be late for class is enough to put you underwater.
Not really, and as Jolly said, if you go to court you can get the fine amount reduced.
In any case, ignoring it, getting your license suspended for failure to appear and risking arrest on a bench warrant are much more costly propositions. So especially if the money is tight you should be keeping your legal shit in order. It is not an excuse to ignore it.

Compound all that with the fact that police presence in these neighborhoods is almost nonexistent unless they are trying to cuff somebody to meet a quota, and you've got your trap.
Is it? I thought there is more police presence in the poor neighborhoods.

It saddens me to think you've probably never encountered an example of someone else's misfortune and thought, you know, maybe I don't get the whole dynamic of what this person goes through, and I should give him the benefit of the doubt when he says he's screaming and nobody seems to hear him.
It's not about not have empathy about somebody else's misfortune. The lifestyle that Alice describes favorably is what is keeping them in misfortune indefinitely.

No, your first impulse is to find the context that preserves your omniscience about what other people should and shouldn't be capable of withstanding. It has to be there. It can't be that you just don't know what you're talking about because you sit on your ass all day with plenty to eat and nobody out to get you.
Well first of all, just because I do not run from police or because I do not have a girlfriend to practice-chase me does not mean I am sitting on my ass all day.
Second, am I and Jolly the only ones that realize that the behavior Alice describes there is really self-destructive, especially in the long run? The motto seems to be, why take care of one's legal problems when you can just run whenever you see police, even if they are not looking for you ...
 
Sometimes sociologists are just trying to shed light on an issue rather than solving it by writing an article. If you honestly think Alice is trying to recommend that people run from the cops, rather than explaining the sad reality that people run from cops because they're desperate rather than stupid, I don't know how to change your mind on this one. You think she's describing their situation favorably? I'm sure she would agree that in the end, their behavior is self-destructive; indeed, the whole problem is that they find themselves in a situation where there are only self-destructive options of varying intensity. It's a lot more complicated than your ignorant little accounting exercise assumes. I'll let you have your cherished last word: _________________________________
 
PH,

After reading the article linked to that was commenting on the original piece itself, and then the original piece itself, the original piece comes across far more as you see it, and the linked to article comes across far more like Derec does. I think this may be a case of bad reporting. I find the original piece interesting, how they describe people practicing fleeing. But I agree with Derec's judgment on this, rather than that of the writer of the article commenting on the piece, that this "fugitive culture" is created by the fugitives themselves moreso than by anybody else.
 
The article does not say it's okay for them to run from the police, it provides a context in which their behavior makes more sense than just irrationally fleeing for no reason.
The title of the article says that fleeing "makes sense". But it doesn't. These people are not solving any of their problems by it. They are just perpetuating their problems.
article said:
There’s this story in your book where this young man wants to get a state I.D. during the time he’s clean (i.e. free of warrants). But he just sits there—this big tough guy—and he can’t bring himself to go in.
If you’re part of this class, it means you don’t go to the hospital when you’re sick. You’re wary of visiting friends in the hospital or attending their funerals. Driving your kid to school can be daunting. You don’t have a driver’s license or ID. Most of the time, you can’t seek legal employment. You can’t get help from the government.
Now, does this make sense to you?

The guy whose girlfriend's car turned out to be stolen is a perfect example of the kind of situation that pushes some people into desperation mode. The fact that you automatically assumed either he or his girlfriend must have stolen the car illustrates one aspect of the problem.
Well the article called it "girlfriend's car" and then said it was stolen. It was not really clear on the particulars.

People who live in ghettos don't always have the luxury or the funds to just stroll into a used car dealership and buy a legitimate vehicle.
If you don't have the funds to go to Stan's Previously Owned Vesselshicles, maybe try a private sale, but make sure they have the title. You know that if you buy a car that's too cheap to be legit and has no title that it is most likely stolen. If you buy such a vehicle, you are guilty of receiving stolen property, plain and simple.

They buy it from a friend or a family member, who got it from someone else, who got it as a favor, and in this case the chain of transactions began with someone stealing the car.
If there is no other way to acquire a vehicle, maybe the guy and the girlfriend should have just walked or taken the bus.
It's therefore not as simple as "just don't drive stolen cars".
You are right. It is also "do not buy stolen cars".

The whole point, then, is that now the 11 year-old has to do everything he possibly can to "stay clean", because he has something on his record that you and I don't, increasing the stakes to the point where avoiding police contact becomes a legitimate option in his adolescent brain.
Is it really that hard to stay clean when you are 11?

Combine that with the constant reports of trigger-happy cops such as Slager,
But he only shot because the guy ran and scuffled with him! Had Scott stayed in the car, none of this would have happened.

and an environment where the police are there to arrest rather than protect, and I can definitely see myself panicking if I were in his shoes.
Well protecting is achieved by arresting criminals.
 
Yet another person who lacks reading comprehension. It was not offered as a defense of the cop shooting the suspect. That is a separate thing altogether.

My point was about advisability of running in the first place. There is a misconception that running from police is somehow not a stupid thing to do. And not only on here. Check out this load of nonsense that passes for academia these days:
Why Black People Running From the Police Makes Perfect Sense

That's a great article. Which part of it do you actually disagree with?

The author seems to feel that it's unreasonable that the police arrest for misdemeanors as well as felonies.
 
Sure, shooting them in the back is illegal in those circumstances, but e cop getting convicted is not doing any good to the dead guy.

So are you suggesting that we should stop arresting, trying and convicting ALL people accused of killing someone else?

The post of Derec you are quoting is in response to the claim that if it weren't a near certainty that you will be killed if you disoby (it isn't, very many people, black, white and brown, run from the police and don't get shot) then it wouldn't be stupid to run from the police. Running form the police can be stupid for may reasons other than that, and that is what Derec is responding to.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, shooting them in the back is illegal in those circumstances, but e cop getting convicted is not doing any good to the dead guy

I think I get it. Convicting any murderer for his crimes doesn't do any good to the people he murdered, because they are already dead. Therefore, we should immediately stop prosecuting all murderers. Besides, putting this murderous cop in prison would also potentially stop him from killing more black people, sorry, thugs, which obviously would not be desirable.

:rolleyes:

How can you seriously get that from what Derec is stating here, even without the context of responding to Rhea's post?
 
Yet another person who lacks reading comprehension. It was not offered as a defense of the cop shooting the suspect. That is a separate thing altogether.

My point was about advisability of running in the first place. There is a misconception that running from police is somehow not a stupid thing to do. And not only on here. Check out this load of nonsense that passes for academia these days:
Why Black People Running From the Police Makes Perfect Sense

That's a great article. Which part of it do you actually disagree with?

And as long as we have a policing model that’s based on arrest counts and convictions, as long as there’s a legal right to bring in people for things like court fees or traffic fines or technical violations of parole, your're creating a class of people who are arrestable on sight—a fugitive class. And then the people who don’t have these legal entanglements but are still worried that something might come up, are this secondary “maybe” fugitive class.

...

I know this guy driving his 11-year-old brother to school in his girlfriend’s car when he got stopped. Turns out that the car was stolen, so the cops charged the guy with receiving stolen property. And then they charged the 11 year old with accessory to receiving stolen property, and gave him 3 years of probation. So from now on this 11 year old is in legal jeopardy. Any less-than-positive encounter with the police could mean a violation of his probation, and send him straight to juvenile hall for the entire three years. He could be out past curfew, or sitting on the stoop with his brother’s friends, or asked to inform—anything could lead to a violation.

Because running from the police in these cases only makes things worse, even if you accept the premises of the article for the sake of discussion.

Let's take for granted, as some have claimed here, that resisting arrest is almost certain to get you shot by a cop. That would make running from the police *even more dangerous*.

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense. Here is the original post:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...an-In-The-Back&p=413424&viewfull=1#post413424

- - - Updated - - -

Derec said:
There is a misconception that running from police is somehow not a stupid thing to do. And not only on here.
Who the heck said that here?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...an-In-The-Back&p=413424&viewfull=1#post413424
 
That's a great article. Which part of it do you actually disagree with?

And as long as we have a policing model that’s based on arrest counts and convictions, as long as there’s a legal right to bring in people for things like court fees or traffic fines or technical violations of parole, your're creating a class of people who are arrestable on sight—a fugitive class. And then the people who don’t have these legal entanglements but are still worried that something might come up, are this secondary “maybe” fugitive class.

...

I know this guy driving his 11-year-old brother to school in his girlfriend’s car when he got stopped. Turns out that the car was stolen, so the cops charged the guy with receiving stolen property. And then they charged the 11 year old with accessory to receiving stolen property, and gave him 3 years of probation. So from now on this 11 year old is in legal jeopardy. Any less-than-positive encounter with the police could mean a violation of his probation, and send him straight to juvenile hall for the entire three years. He could be out past curfew, or sitting on the stoop with his brother’s friends, or asked to inform—anything could lead to a violation.

Because running from the police in these cases only makes things worse, even if you accept the premises of the article for the sake of discussion.

Let's take for granted, as some have claimed here, that resisting arrest is almost certain to get you shot by a cop. That would make running from the police *even more dangerous*.

- - - Updated - - -

Nonsense. Here is the original post:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...an-In-The-Back&p=413424&viewfull=1#post413424

- - - Updated - - -

Derec said:
There is a misconception that running from police is somehow not a stupid thing to do. And not only on here.
Who the heck said that here?

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...an-In-The-Back&p=413424&viewfull=1#post413424

The post you linked too does not state "Running from the cops isn't stupid."
 
Because running from the police in these cases only makes things worse, even if you accept the premises of the article for the sake of discussion.
Not if they don't know who you are.
Let's take for granted, as some have claimed here, that resisting arrest is almost certain to get you shot by a cop. That would make running from the police *even more dangerous*.
Assuming the conclusion is not a very convincing argument.
 
Not if they don't know who you are.
Let's take for granted, as some have claimed here, that resisting arrest is almost certain to get you shot by a cop. That would make running from the police *even more dangerous*.
Assuming the conclusion is not a very convincing argument.
The fact that the conclusion is implied by the premise of the argument is not *my problem* since it is not my premise.

And I don't know what you mean by "Not if they don't know who you are".
 
Not if they don't know who you are.
Assuming the conclusion is not a very convincing argument.
The fact that the conclusion is implied by the premise of the argument is not *my problem* since it is not my premise.
You posted what you posted. Either you meant it or you didn't.
And I don't know what you mean by "Not if they don't know who you are".
If the police are after person X but don't know person X's identity, running from them may be a rational choice from the view of the person X.
 
The fact that the conclusion is implied by the premise of the argument is not *my problem* since it is not my premise.
You posted what you posted. Either you meant it or you didn't.
What?? I posted that in response to someone making an argument with that premise.

And I don't know what you mean by "Not if they don't know who you are".
If the police are after person X but don't know person X's identity, running from them may be a rational choice from the view of the person X.
I don't follow you. Unless you know beforehand that you have a high probability of succeeding in feeling, I don't see how that is a rational choice. Although, I don't think something has to be rational to explain someones behavior, since people aren't utility-maximizing automatons, but animals whose behavior is mostly motivated by emotions which have their basis in heuristics that may or may not adequately approximate "rational" behavior.
 
I wondered that, myself. Everything about this shoot was bad. And the most fucked up part is that there was already another cop, a black cop, on scene when the taser got planted who probably saw it done, didn't speak up, and will get away with it Scot free.

Remember a Good Cop is a cop who blows the whistle on a Bad Cop. Have we ever seen a Good Cop?

I expect he made a statement of some kind before the video surfaced. It'll be interesting to see what he said.

Running away arouses suspicion. Why run away if nothing to hide? A gun was also spotted on the "victim."
 
Remember a Good Cop is a cop who blows the whistle on a Bad Cop. Have we ever seen a Good Cop?

I expect he made a statement of some kind before the video surfaced. It'll be interesting to see what he said.

Running away arouses suspicion. Why run away if nothing to hide? A gun was also spotted on the "victim."

"'The innocent have nothing to fear from the police' is currently under review by the Axioms Appeal Board".
-Terry Pratchett (again).
 
Back
Top Bottom