#blacklivesmatter explanation

[Loren Pechtel]

Not quite. I can accept the number can be below 1,000. However, you have not proven the number is 300 /yr. The CDC has another database. It tracks Violent Deaths, but only for 17 states. In 2012 it reported 223 deaths via Legal Intervention. This excludes FL, NY, CA, and TX. There is a discrepancy about what these numbers mean, so nothing has been proven.

Remember that legal intervention isn't only police shootings. It also covers civilian shootings (~40% of the total) and executions (for which I have no idea of the %).

Police shootings are going to happen:

1) Suicide by cop.
2) People who would prefer to die than go to jail.
3) Violent crazies.

That is correct. That doesn't address my comment about there not being a baseline number of expected and understandable (for the typical person) shootings.

I didn't claim there was a baseline. I was saying that shootings of whites are almost certainly not racially motivated. If blacks are shot at a lower rate compared to their criminality doesn't that strongly suggest there is no racial element to them, either??

You're still showing you have fallen for the lies.

Umm... no I haven't. If you read my posts in this very thread, you'd know that. So I can only assume you haven't even bothered to read my posts before responding to them.

You're still assuming it's racially driven when the facts say otherwise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what violent crime was John Crawford guilty of? Levar Jones? Freddie Gray?

John Crawford: I would call it brandishing a firearm but I'm not sure if the law there considers it brandishing when it's a realistic replica rather than an actual gun. (I feel the handling rules for realistic fakes should be the same as the handling rules for the real thing other than in contexts where everyone knows the weapon is fake.)

Levar Jones: Note that the officer has been charged.

Freddie Gray: Red herring--there's no shooting here and nobody claiming it's a legal intervention. The question is accident or negligent homicide.

 

[RavenSky]

What paper? I can get it.

Las Vegas Review Journal.

As usual, I'm having zero luck finding the article. Even with current stuff I fail more often than I succeed, I have never successfully found an old article.

Of course.

 

[RavenSky]

So what violent crime was John Crawford guilty of? Levar Jones? Freddie Gray?

John Crawford: I would call it brandishing a firearm but I'm not sure if the law there considers it brandishing when it's a realistic replica rather than an actual gun. (I feel the handling rules for realistic fakes should be the same as the handling rules for the real thing other than in contexts where everyone knows the weapon is fake.)

Levar Jones: Note that the officer has been charged.

Freddie Gray: Red herring--there's no shooting here and nobody claiming it's a legal intervention. The question is accident or negligent homicide.

She asked you what violent crime John Crawford was guilty of. The correct answer is NONE. Even if you want to pretend he was "brandishing" a toy gun, he was not engaged in any sort of violent crime.

 

[Toni]

So what violent crime was John Crawford guilty of? Levar Jones? Freddie Gray?

John Crawford: I would call it brandishing a firearm but I'm not sure if the law there considers it brandishing when it's a realistic replica rather than an actual gun. (I feel the handling rules for realistic fakes should be the same as the handling rules for the real thing other than in contexts where everyone knows the weapon is fake.)

Levar Jones: Note that the officer has been charged.

Freddie Gray: Red herring--there's no shooting here and nobody claiming it's a legal intervention. The question is accident or negligent homicide.

So: nothing. No violence. No threat of violence. Crawford was the victim of a pair of racist cretins who are directly responsible for his death, but will face no charges nor will the cops who killed him. For no reason. Btw, it is nice to see you finally admit it wasn't a gun. In fact, it was something random from a store shelf while talking to the mother of his child.

It is, I am sure, comfort to Jones' family that his murderer is being charged. Cold comfort is better than none.

And real progress that you will admit Gray's death merits criminal charges.

 

[Tigers!]

In Australia we get a heavily filtered (censored?) details of the police shootings in the USA.
One thing that puzzles me is #blacklivesmatter.

Are the blacks (I dislike using such a term but have no better alternative) fearful of the police in general or just white police?
That is are these people being shot/killed just by white officers or is it more equal opportunity situation?

I know that some blacks are killed by white police but I don not know about any others and their colour content.

what makes you think your news on the topic is being censored?

Filtered is a better word than censored.
We only get the headlines here, rarely the fuller detail or the nuances.

 

[Tigers!]

Speaking of the Gray fellow's death we had a case here a number of years ago where an aboriginal man was found dead in his cell. An autopsy revealed he had a split liver. When asked how he got that the police replied that he must have fallen down the stairs. The police station had from memory only 3 or 4 steps.
The coroner did ask "How many times did he fall down the steps?"
Some police were charged, booted out of the force and gaoled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

John Crawford: I would call it brandishing a firearm but I'm not sure if the law there considers it brandishing when it's a realistic replica rather than an actual gun. (I feel the handling rules for realistic fakes should be the same as the handling rules for the real thing other than in contexts where everyone knows the weapon is fake.)

Levar Jones: Note that the officer has been charged.

Freddie Gray: Red herring--there's no shooting here and nobody claiming it's a legal intervention. The question is accident or negligent homicide.

She asked you what violent crime John Crawford was guilty of. The correct answer is NONE. Even if you want to pretend he was "brandishing" a toy gun, he was not engaged in any sort of violent crime.

Laws against brandishing exist because people feel threatened. It's quite possible to have a violent crime in which nobody is hurt.

 

[RavenSky]

She asked you what violent crime John Crawford was guilty of. The correct answer is NONE. Even if you want to pretend he was "brandishing" a toy gun, he was not engaged in any sort of violent crime.

Laws against brandishing exist because people feel threatened. It's quite possible to have a violent crime in which nobody is hurt.

Post the exact laws you are relying on with links back to their original source.

Remember, we have video tape of exactly what John Crawford was doing. You are going to have to produce the applicable law and show how it relates to John Crawford's actions; or you are going to have to concede that John Crawford was not engaged in a violent crime.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Are the blacks (I dislike using such a term but have no better alternative) fearful of the police in general or just white police?

Police in general. Justice has been unequal for nearly all our history and they have good reason to be fearful as one wrong action or word can send them to jail on trumped up charges. I've talked to black men and their attorneys who are hauled into court to face charges of made up crimes like "lurking with intent" (standing on a corner), "hailing drug customers"(motioning to a friend's car), and "terrorist glances/casing an object for future crimes" (staring off into space). -- I'm sure we have people here that will defend such actions.

Yes, Black people have reason to fear police. They are suspect simply because they are Black.

The judges were livid when these cases come before them, but with the dockets full on a Monday morning the DA's office hadn't had time to look over the case load in front of them and release those that are charged with crimes that don't exist. Every few years there is a crack down, but the problem isn't going away. These men get arrest records and have difficulty finding jobs because of it.

Correction:
Lurking is actually illegal in Minneapolis, as is spitting on the sidewalk. Both are misdemeanors and are not arrestable offenses. They are both used to as "tools" that allow officers to question and detain individuals. The majority of those individuals being of African American decent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She asked you what violent crime John Crawford was guilty of. The correct answer is NONE. Even if you want to pretend he was "brandishing" a toy gun, he was not engaged in any sort of violent crime.

Laws against brandishing exist because people feel threatened. It's quite possible to have a violent crime in which nobody is hurt.

A violent crime requires a clearly implied threat of violence.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What paper? I can get it.

Las Vegas Review Journal.

As usual, I'm having zero luck finding the article. Even with current stuff I fail more often than I succeed, I have never successfully found an old article.

Don't you find that odd?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Laws against brandishing exist because people feel threatened. It's quite possible to have a violent crime in which nobody is hurt.

Post the exact laws you are relying on with links back to their original source.

Remember, we have video tape of exactly what John Crawford was doing. You are going to have to produce the applicable law and show how it relates to John Crawford's actions; or you are going to have to concede that John Crawford was not engaged in a violent crime.

As I said, I'm not sure if brandishing applies to replica weapons or not. If not he committed no crime. Whether or not it does apply I'm saying it should, in my mind his acts constitute brandishing a firearm. He fooled multiple people--including the officers--into thinking he had a real weapon, they reacted as they would have to a real weapon.

- - - Updated - - -

Las Vegas Review Journal.

As usual, I'm having zero luck finding the article. Even with current stuff I fail more often than I succeed, I have never successfully found an old article.

Don't you find that odd?

The website is a mess.

I've had the paper in front of me and tried to find an article in order to post a link to it and failed to do so. Only about half the paper seems to be there.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Post the exact laws you are relying on with links back to their original source.

Remember, we have video tape of exactly what John Crawford was doing. You are going to have to produce the applicable law and show how it relates to John Crawford's actions; or you are going to have to concede that John Crawford was not engaged in a violent crime.

As I said, I'm not sure if brandishing applies to replica weapons or not. If not he committed no crime. Whether or not it does apply I'm saying it should, in my mind his acts constitute brandishing a firearm. He fooled multiple people...

He fooled implies intent because he would have to try to fool people into thinking it is real. There is no evidence of intent. People were mistaken, including the officers, into thinking he had a real weapon.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Post the exact laws you are relying on with links back to their original source.

Remember, we have video tape of exactly what John Crawford was doing. You are going to have to produce the applicable law and show how it relates to John Crawford's actions; or you are going to have to concede that John Crawford was not engaged in a violent crime.

As I said, I'm not sure if brandishing applies to replica weapons or not. If not he committed no crime. Whether or not it does apply I'm saying it should, in my mind his acts constitute brandishing a firearm. He fooled multiple people--including the officers--into thinking he had a real weapon, they reacted as they would have to a real weapon.

- - - Updated - - -

Las Vegas Review Journal.

As usual, I'm having zero luck finding the article. Even with current stuff I fail more often than I succeed, I have never successfully found an old article.

Don't you find that odd?

The website is a mess.

I've had the paper in front of me and tried to find an article in order to post a link to it and failed to do so. Only about half the paper seems to be there.

What kind of a paper can't properly maintain a website in 2015? What else can't they do? Journalism?

 

[RavenSky]

Post the exact laws you are relying on with links back to their original source.

Remember, we have video tape of exactly what John Crawford was doing. You are going to have to produce the applicable law and show how it relates to John Crawford's actions; or you are going to have to concede that John Crawford was not engaged in a violent crime.

As I said, I'm not sure if brandishing applies to replica weapons or not. If not he committed no crime. Whether or not it does apply I'm saying it should, in my mind his acts constitute brandishing a firearm. He fooled multiple people--including the officers--into thinking he had a real weapon, they reacted as they would have to a real weapon.

I have to had it to you Loren. That was an absolutely amazing revision of the facts.

No, John Crawford did not "fool multiple people -- including the officers -- into thinking he had had a real weapon". HE didn't do anything at all expect talk on his cell phone while looking at a product sold in the store he was in.

As for the police, they were not fooled because they didn't even take the time to assess the situation to BE fooled. They just killed him.

So that leaves one asshole and his wife (& even his wife wasn't all that alarmed or "fooled").

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I said, I'm not sure if brandishing applies to replica weapons or not. If not he committed no crime. Whether or not it does apply I'm saying it should, in my mind his acts constitute brandishing a firearm. He fooled multiple people--including the officers--into thinking he had a real weapon, they reacted as they would have to a real weapon.

I have to had it to you Loren. That was an absolutely amazing revision of the facts.

No, John Crawford did not "fool multiple people -- including the officers -- into thinking he had had a real weapon". HE didn't do anything at all expect talk on his cell phone while looking at a product sold in the store he was in.

As for the police, they were not fooled because they didn't even take the time to assess the situation to BE fooled. They just killed him.

So that leaves one asshole and his wife (& even his wife wasn't all that alarmed or "fooled").

There was no intent to fool. That doesn't change the fact that he did fool them.

 

[RavenSky]

I have to had it to you Loren. That was an absolutely amazing revision of the facts.

No, John Crawford did not "fool multiple people -- including the officers -- into thinking he had had a real weapon". HE didn't do anything at all expect talk on his cell phone while looking at a product sold in the store he was in.

As for the police, they were not fooled because they didn't even take the time to assess the situation to BE fooled. They just killed him.

So that leaves one asshole and his wife (& even his wife wasn't all that alarmed or "fooled").

There was no intent to fool. That doesn't change the fact that he did fool them.

Thank you for admitting that he did not intend to fool them. It was not his fault "they" (the racist man and his wife) are fools. But for any sort of law to be broken, he would have had to INTEND to fool them.

Someone walks into a bank with a carrot in his pocket and yells "This is a stick-up" INTENDS to fool people into believing he has a gun.

John Crawford did not INTEND anything other than talking on his cell phone and examining a product that was being sold in the store he was in.

 

[laughing dog]

There was no intent to fool. That doesn't change the fact that he did fool them.

Thank you for admitting that he did not intend to fool them. It was not his fault "they" (the racist man and his wife) are fools. But for any sort of law to be broken, he would have had to INTEND to fool them.

Someone walks into a bank with a carrot in his pocket and yells "This is a stick-up" INTENDS to fool people into believing he has a gun.

John Crawford did not INTEND anything other than talking on his cell phone and examining a product that was being sold in the store he was in.

Yes. The fact that others were "fooled" is entirely due to their actions and mindset. Which makes the implication that he is somehow responsible utterly ridiculous.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was no intent to fool. That doesn't change the fact that he did fool them.

Thank you for admitting that he did not intend to fool them. It was not his fault "they" (the racist man and his wife) are fools. But for any sort of law to be broken, he would have had to INTEND to fool them.

Someone walks into a bank with a carrot in his pocket and yells "This is a stick-up" INTENDS to fool people into believing he has a gun.

John Crawford did not INTEND anything other than talking on his cell phone and examining a product that was being sold in the store he was in.

1) You can have crime without intent. Look up strict liability laws.

2) Ignorance is generally not a defense against criminal charges, anyway. To use ignorance as a defense you have to show that you had reason to not know that you were doing the illegal act (for example, an alcohol-naive person who unknowingly drinks spiked punch and then gets a DUI. Not intending to commit a crime (say, playing with a gun not aware that you are brandishing) can reduce the severity but isn't a defense. You intended to play with the gun, you're guilty.