BLM end goal? In Fear of Public Scrutiny, Chicago Officer Didn’t Use Gun While She Was Beaten

[laughing dog]

Recommended reading: Black Like Me

1961 book of a white journalist who had his skin darkened to see what the Deep South was really like for black people.

1961 != 2016.

I suppose you think all those exacting voter ID laws that are being thrown out in court have nothing at all to do with race.

 

[Malintent]

Years ago I was riding my bike past a house with a fenced yard and a dog on the porch. As I rode past, the dog started barking, wiggled past the gate, ran to catch up, and bit me on the hip. I yelled and the dog backed off. I had a nasty bruise and abrasion. It sucked, and the thought crossed my mind that if only I'd known the dog was a biter I could have taken steps to defend myself.

That doesn't mean it would have been okay if, instead of the incident playing out as it did, I'd pulled out a gun and shot the dog before it ran up and bit me. Why, you might ask? Because if I'd shot the dog before it posed a danger to my life and safety, I would have been in the wrong.

Like this one... false dichotomy between allowing yourself to get bit, versus killing the dog. Other options:

Avoid that street
Notify the homeowner of the danger
peddle faster
carry a dog whistle
carry a scoobie snack

- - - Updated - - -

1961 != 2016.

I suppose you think all those exacting voter ID laws that are being thrown out in court have nothing at all to do with race.

That happened in 1961?

 

[laughing dog]

Like this one... false dichotomy between allowing yourself to get bit, versus killing the dog. Other options:

Avoid that street
Notify the homeowner of the danger
peddle faster
carry a dog whistle
carry a scoobie snack

Good, so you agree that the police often have options other than simply shooting someone who might scare them.

That happened in 1961?

Try thinking a bit before posting. You will avoid the false impression of obtuseness that your response gives.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some things change, some not so much. When a poll of GOP in Mississippi shows 46% think interracial marriage should be illegal, things haven't changed nearly as much as you think they have.

You don't even need to look at that. Stop And Frisk, as the wildly overdone harassment procedure in NYC, began winding down about three years ago. Up until then, you were seeing more *recorded* searches of young black men per year, than there were young black men living in the city. And the idea that each stop was meticulously recorded when the officers could simply...not, is open to question.

(Or, of course, you can read the various DOJ reports on policing in, among other places, Ferguson, Cleveland, or Baltimore. All are recent, all are damning.)

As you say, it's winding down--because of public objection and lawsuits. It's not that there aren't bigots (although the stop-and-frisk wasn't so much about bigotry as checking those that didn't match the neighborhood--look poor in an expensive place and you were likely to be searched), but that they don't operate unchecked.

- - - Updated - - -

1961 != 2016.

I suppose you think all those exacting voter ID laws that are being thrown out in court have nothing at all to do with race.

Actually, they don't. It's about elephant vs donkey, race is simply a proxy.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, they don't. It's about elephant vs donkey, race is simply a proxy.

Since race is always a proxy in your view, I accept your apology.

 

[Arctish]

What is it about the idea that black lives matter that is so confusing for some people?

Are they unable to grasp the concept? Are they simply unwilling to modify the category 'Things That Matter' to include the lives of black people? Do they like it when cops act like the lives of certain people don't matter? Or do they presume their lives matter to the cops, therefore whatever happens to other citizens won't happen to them?

WRT the cop in the OP story: if she wasn't convinced the guy posed an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked, she should not have shot him. If she was convinced he presented an immediate threat to her or others before he attacked and/or once he did attack, she should have used a taser, a nightstick, or her sidearm to stop him.

It sucks that he attacked her. It sucks that she was seriously injured and could have been killed. But it sucks more when cops shoot people needlessly because the cops aren't supposed to pose a lethal threat to civilians; they're here to protect and serve us, not kill us if we step out of line.

Not every case will present itself as a clear cut choice between 100% right and 100% wrong. Sometimes cops will have to guess, and no one wants them to guess wrong. But ffs, no one sensible wants to give the cops free rein to fire at will.

If #BLM has no other effect than to reduce needless killings of civilians by cops, then it's a worthwhile cause.

I guess you also think it "sucks" that the attacker "stepped out of line". That is what you mean by "step out of line, right"? If not, then please clarify what "stepping out of line" means, with respect to the use of deadly force.

Stepping out of line in the context of that paragraph means transgressing against the social order some posters here would like to establish, in which law enforcement officers can kill a citizen at any time for whatever cause or no cause, and justify that killing by simply stating that the dead citizen was caught breaking a rule, or was suspected of having broken one in the past, or was suspected of planning to break one in the future.

The guy in the OP didn't just step out of line, he attacked and hurt another person. Fortunately, the cops didn't kill him pre-emptively before he attacked, because that would have been cold-blooded murder. Unfortunately, one of the cops was injured in the process of subduing him. But everybody lived, the attacker was arrested, and if all goes well justice will be served.

 

[Arctish]

Years ago I was riding my bike past a house with a fenced yard and a dog on the porch. As I rode past, the dog started barking, wiggled past the gate, ran to catch up, and bit me on the hip. I yelled and the dog backed off. I had a nasty bruise and abrasion. It sucked, and the thought crossed my mind that if only I'd known the dog was a biter I could have taken steps to defend myself.

That doesn't mean it would have been okay if, instead of the incident playing out as it did, I'd pulled out a gun and shot the dog before it ran up and bit me. Why, you might ask? Because if I'd shot the dog before it posed a danger to my life and safety, I would have been in the wrong.

Like this one... false dichotomy between allowing yourself to get bit, versus killing the dog. Other options:

Avoid that street
Notify the homeowner of the danger
peddle faster
carry a dog whistle
carry a scoobie snack

I was not presenting 'kill or be bitten' as the only options. I was using that story to illustrate a point about pre-emptive strikes.

My point was that pre-emptively shooting the dog was uncalled-for (apparently you agree with me). Even having the ability to see into the future would not have justified shooting the dog before it came after me and tried to bite. The cop in the OP had no cause to shoot the guy before he attacked**, therefore she shouldn't have, no matter how much she regrets not shooting him now that hindsight has revealed how dangerous he could be.

Anyway, some posters seem to think that cops should be allowed to kill people on the mere suspicion they might be trouble. I disagree. The cops have to wait until someone actually presents a threat to life and safety before using lethal force becomes an option, and that's a good thing.

** Come to think of it, I'm not sure he did attack. Some of the reports indicate the fight broke out when the cops tried to put him in handcuffs. His fighting them off would have been a defensive act, not an attack.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

this video is almost deserving its own thread, but clutter is a bad thing so I will drop it here:


That guy who took off his shirt needs a sense of stoicism, what a complete pussy. So little composure, what kind of self respect is he missing?

Is that the strategy, just rapid fire verbal assault until you get your way? That is what a child does.

Or, he's tired of being harrassed by police over and over (also happened to the guy who was choked out for selling loosies, whose name I can't remember because there are too damn many of them. "Leave me alone, I'm not doing anything."), and was annoyed by a cop harrassing him because he's walking on the side of a road that has no sidewalk.

Again, if you annoy people over and over, eventually they flip out.

He is suing the city: http://www.kare11.com/news/pedestrian-files-lawsuit-against-edina-cop-city/345002704

 

[Mumbles]

Is this the end goal that BLMers and their sympathizers want?

Let's answer this directly.

No.

C'mon, who do you think these folks are?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Black people.