Chicago makes more thug families millionaires

[Derec]

This is from a thread about dindu nuffin on reddit:

Yes. It's racist as all fuck.
The entire point is to imply that black people are dimwitted criminals that lie about their supposed criminality with the same nuance as a child claiming his imaginary friend, rather than his self, just knocked over the cookie jar.
It's one thing to think the phrase is funny, whether because you like racial humor in general or just because the comment is beyond the pale. It's another thing entirely to, y'know, use it to racebait in news article comments.

I disagree with this redditor. For one, he implies that calling somebody a "dindu" means you are calling all blacks that. That is not the case though.
Also, "dindu" is mostly about how the family/community reacts. "He was a good boy", "he didn't have a gun". And there is nothing intrinsically black about that attitude, although it has a higher prevalence in black communities at this point in US history.

One thing about the way US blacks speak is that it has a lot of southern US speech pattern as well. At any rate I like the southern style, but I like many have to refrain from assuming their IQ points are lower.

Or perhaps the other way around. I have read a hypothesis that Southern speech originated from white Southerners adopting speech patterns of Creole-speaking black slaves.
In any case, we should be allowed to mock speech patterns no matter the race of the speakers.

 

[Derec]

Well, when white supremacists make up a word to mock black people, what's wrong with using it is that you're using a word that white supremacists made up to mock black people. When one does that, it's the sort of thing which severely undercuts the denials one makes when other accuse them of being a racist themselves and causes those denials to lack credibility.

You can use any word that you want but you continually choose to use the derisive, racist term made up by white supremacists. If you want to spend less time getting huffy about accusations of racism thrown your way, make different choices which don't help contribute to those accusations.

Do you have any evidence the term was made up by "white supremacists"?

And I believe that the only way to fix race relations in the US is to treat black people like anybody else. That includes not having to walk on egg shells and considering everything "racist" when it is not.

- - - Updated - - -

Would you characterise yourself as a habitual criminal?

No.
Would you characterise[sic] a sexually active gay man in pre-Lawrence Texas as a "habitual criminal"?

 

[LordKiran]

Do you have any evidence the term was made up by "white supremacists"?

And I believe that the only way to fix race relations in the US is to treat black people like anybody else. That includes not having to walk on egg shells and considering everything "racist" when it is not.

- - - Updated - - -

Would you characterise yourself as a habitual criminal?

No.
Would you characterise[sic] a sexually active gay man in pre-Lawrence Texas as a "habitual criminal"?

Can you not attribute quotes to the wrong person?

 

[Derec]

Ok, you don't want multi-million dollar settlements for police shootings. How's the 'they deserved to get shot' approach working out for you?

Well the "let's pay them millions of dollars even though the shootings are justified" is certainly not working out too well for Chicago taxpayers.
This varies greatly by jurisdiction. In Cobb County down here police were serving a warrant on a guy at his place of work (Goodyear Tire). He jumped in the customer's Maserati and tried to escape. Because another cop was in danger of getting run over, a cop shot the driver dead. No charges, no settlement and the other cop wasn't even dragged.
In the Darius Pinex case, he actually hit and dragged a cop before being shot by another cop. How the hell do you go from that to paying his family 3 million other than because the city council identifies more with the city's criminal element than with the police. Note that Chicago is also the city where this happens:
Heckling and gunfire as police investigate shooting: 'We’re just playing'

Instead, maybe we could train cops to, y'know, not shoot people?

I agree that police should be trained to not shoot unless necessary. But in these cases the shootings were certainly justified.

 

[Derec]

Can you not attribute quotes to the wrong person?

Fixed, my liege.

 

[Derec]

You're absolutely right, there's nothing more threatening than a 17 year old running away from a traffic stop, he totally deserved to get shot in the back.

Let's unpack that. The 17 year old in question, Cedrick "not the entertainer" Chatman, aka Frederick Chatman, had just jacked a car with two other men. When police spotted him, he fled holding a black object. That turned out to be a cell phone case, but given the totality of the circumstances it is not unreasonable for police to think that was a gun. After all, contrary to your description, this was not some random 17 year old running from police.

 

[Derec]

They are probably doing it to piss off racists like you.

Except I am not a racist.

The police could stop shooting black people in the back and killing them, and then the city wouldn't have to settle with their families either.

Police should not shoot people without justification no matter their race. Interesting you single out black people only.

And it is telling that you are more upset about settlements to the families of black people murdered by cops than by the murders themselves.

Those were not murders, at least not by police. That's my point. No police officers were charged in the shootings themselves, and the two people charged with the murder of Chatman settled for lesser charges and got 10 years.
Two men get 10 years in prison for fatal police chase and shooting

Take your bigotry and hate somewhere else. Your blatantly racist shit is not welcome here.

BS.

 

[Angry Floof]

YES!! *fist pump* We've almost met our goal for number of thug families becoming millionaires!

 

[Derec]

Also also, since when does being uncivil justify being shot and killed? See I am not an anarchist. I understand that laws exist and why and that they should be followed. I also however believe that the punishment should fit the crime, and that running from a police officer does not justify being shot and killed. Though I suppose these concepts are lost on you.

Running from police in itself does not justify being shot and killed. For example, Michael Slager shooting Walter Scott. Unjustifiable.

However, running from police or otherwise being uncooperative makes it a hostile interaction with police and that makes it more likely to result in a violent outcome. Even though the shooting of Walter Scott was unjustified, for example, it would not have happened had he not run, and run again after he was caught once. And if he wasn't shot, getting tased or tackled would have been justified and neither are exactly pleasant.
So yes, one should be civil to police and one should not run from police.
Or take Chatman. He ran holding a black cell phone case. Due to the nature of the crime he was suspected of, he was already presumed armed. So running away put him in danger already, especially when holding a dark object.
There are hundreds of millions of interactions between police and civilians each year. Over ten million of those result in an arrest. A minority involve violence of any kind, and a very small fraction result in a shooting. But you increase your chances of violence or shooting based on your behavior.

 

[RavenSky]

It has a non-racist definition.

No. It doesn't. That's the point.

 

[laughing dog]

You're absolutely right, there's nothing more threatening than a 17 year old running away from a traffic stop, he totally deserved to get shot in the back.

Let's unpack that. The 17 year old in question, Cedrick "not the entertainer" Chatman, aka Frederick Chatman, had just jacked a car with two other men. When police spotted him, he fled holding a black object. That turned out to be a cell phone case, but given the totality of the circumstances it is not unreasonable for police to think that was a gun. After all, contrary to your description, this was not some random 17 year old running from police.

None of the explains how it is reasonable to shoot someone in the back as they are running away and unarmed. Assuming someone is armed is not reasonable. And as your own cited article indicates, the man whose job it was to investigate the shooting also did not think it was reasonable.

 

[Malintent]

Yes, it is my assertion that being clueless to a thing that directly affects others in a simply obvious way that most people would be aware of is equal to being outwardly aggressive with respect to that thing. "Ignorance is no excuse" is a fairly common expression, so I am obviously not alone in this thought.

Secondly, ya'll are having a hard time understanding the danger of what this guy did and how obvious and common it is around these parts to behave more cooperatively in that type of situation... this guy almost caused an accident.

I suppose the accident would have been you ramming the rear bumper of his car. It's hard to imagine any scenario where a driver can pull off the road and be at fault because a following driver hit their car from behind.


This is not a situation where "Ignorance is no excuse," would apply. If the other driver's brake lights were not operating, his ignorance of this would be no excuse. In this case, his ignorance was of the fact that you felt entitled to the 200 square feet of concrete where he chose to stop his car.

The more I think about this, the more I realize you are fortunate to come out of the encounter unscathed.

No, the accident would have been me getting horseshoed by oncoming traffic due to an unexpected (and unnecessary) stop in the middle of an intersection).
I can't believe there is so much space around gas stations and the pumps in other congested cities... I guess it is just NY... you all sound like you would be quite the danger trying to navigate around my town...
Think of it like this... you are at a green light in a busy and fast moving intersection waiting for the car in front of you to make a left turn so you can make your left after him. He makes his left turn and there is enough room for you to make your left turn right behind him. As soon as he gets just past oncoming traffic, the guy stops short for no reason at all. You are now stuck behind him, with no way around him and oncoming traffic is bearing down on you as you hang out in the middle of the intersection. That is what happens when you don't move all the way up in NY gas stations. you get horseshoed by oncoming traffic. I'd say it happens all the time, but it doesn't.. because most people aren't quite that fucking stupid to stop short of where they are expected to go for no reason.

 

[laughing dog]

No, ...

You missed the point. It is possible that this driver might have been psycho enough to attack you. I know people who would have beaten the shit out anyone who yelled at them and shoved them.

 

[Derec]

None of the explains how it is reasonable to shoot someone in the back as they are running away and unarmed. Assuming someone is armed is not reasonable.

Was Chatman shot in the back? Autopsy suggests not.

A bullet had struck Chatman in the right side, pierced his heart and lodged in his spine. He died on the way to a hospital.

And it is reasonable to assume that a suspect in a carjacking would be armed. And when he is running holding an object that might be a gun that assumption would strengthen. And note that the police say he pointed said object at them.

I can understand why he was running - the didn't want to go to prison. I don't understand why that cell phone case was so important that he had to grab it before he took off running. Perhaps he wanted police to think he was armed so they'd back off. If that was the case, it backfired spectacularly.

And as your own cited article indicates, the man whose job it was to investigate the shooting also did not think it was reasonable.

One of them. The rest thought it was justified and no charges were filed against the officers. I do not think a "minority report" should be enough for a multi-million dollar settlement.

Note that Chatman and his buddies beat up their victim pretty severely before stealing his car. I hope he can sue Chatman's estate and recover some of those millions of dollars for himself. He deserves that money much more than the thug's family.

 

[laughing dog]

Was Chatman shot in the back? Autopsy suggests not.

A bullet had struck Chatman in the right side, pierced his heart and lodged in his spine. He died on the way to a hospital.

Riiight - the bullets curved into him while he was running away.

And it is reasonable to assume that a suspect in a carjacking would be armed. And when he is running holding an object that might be a gun that assumption would strengthen.

Assumptions are not a defense.

And note that the police say he pointed said object at them.

Of course they did. Is there any independent evidence to corrobate their statement?

One of them. The rest thought it was justified and no arges chwere filed against the officers.

There is no indication that the higher ups thought is was justified. There are plenty of reasons to quash such a report that have nothing to do with the actual justification of the shooting.

The point of all of this is that the city has good reason to avoid going to civil trial on these two shootings.

 

[Derec]

Riiight - the bullets curved into him while he was running away.

Or much more likely he was turning when he was shot.

Of course they did. Is there any independent evidence to corrobate their statement?

Him being shot in the side is consistent with him turning rather than running away.

There is no indication that the higher ups thought is was justified. There are plenty of reasons to quash such a report that have nothing to do with the actual justification of the shooting.

So you think that a single dissenter shows that the shooting was unjustified while you do not pay any heed to the rest of them saying it was justified?
Quite clear anti-police bias.

The point of all of this is that the city has good reason to avoid going to civil trial on these two shootings.

I don't think so. They should have fought it. Chatman was a dangerous criminal and he appeared to be armed.
We are not talking about some 17 year old engaging in petty crimes. We are talking violent felonies here.

 

[laughing dog]

So you think that a single dissenter shows that the shooting was unjustified while you do not pay any heed to the rest of them saying it was justified?

I think that someone whose job it is to determine these matters and has the experience to make a judgment is evidence that the shot was not necessarily justified. The fact the higher ups with different and self-serving motivations thought differently is not evidence that the shooting was justified.

Quite clear anti-police bias.

No, it is basic reasoning something foreign to a true goose-stepping idolator of police authority.

I don't think so. They should have fought it. Chatman was a dangerous criminal and he appeared to be armed.
We are not talking about some 17 year old engaging in petty crimes. We are talking violent felonies here.

Irrelevant. The city officials have a much better understanding and feeling for the community sentiment in these cases. Given the videotape, and the initial finding of the police investigator in this case, along with string of bad publicity of shootings and police misconduct, it is not unreasonable for these officials to believe settling costs the city and its residents less over the long run than a public trial with a distinct possibility of even larger monetary award, the re-airing of this avoidable tragedy, and possible airing of new unsavory allegations and facts.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't think so. They should have fought it. Chatman was a dangerous criminal and he appeared to be armed.
We are not talking about some 17 year old engaging in petty crimes. We are talking violent felonies here.

He may have been guilty of violent felonies, but in this country, we don't execute criminals in the street.

The city couldn't fight this case and the simple fact is, it can't fight cases such as this. To defend shooting an unarmed civilian, the police department would be on trial. They would have to expose their training programs and philosophies, which led a trained policeman to decide to shoot a person.

This is free market economics at work. A poorly run police department is expensive, and this is where the money is spent.

If you really object to people collecting damages when a family member is killed by a policeman, worry more about police training and tactics, instead of pissing and moaning when the court forces the taxpayers to make good when a policeman fucks up.

 

[Rhea]

No, the accident would have been me getting horseshoed by oncoming traffic due to an unexpected (and unnecessary) stop in the middle of an intersection).
I can't believe there is so much space around gas stations and the pumps in other congested cities... I guess it is just NY... you all sound like you would be quite the danger trying to navigate around my town...

This happens.

It still doesn't warrant swearing at someone and shoving them. That's not normal.
I learned to drive in Boston and spent the first half of my life there. This happens a LOT in Boston because unlike NYC, the streets are not straight, the intersections do not come at regular intervals, when they do arrive, it is not at right angles, and everyone is driving 75mph bumper to bumper. People make planning and navigational errors all the time, resulting in others getting hung out to dry behind them.
Your reaction is not normal.

 

[LordKiran]

I don't think so. They should have fought it. Chatman was a dangerous criminal and he appeared to be armed.
We are not talking about some 17 year old engaging in petty crimes. We are talking violent felonies here.

He may have been guilty of violent felonies, but in this country, we don't execute criminals in the street.

The city couldn't fight this case and the simple fact is, it can't fight cases such as this. To defend shooting an unarmed civilian, the police department would be on trial. They would have to expose their training programs and philosophies, which led a trained policeman to decide to shoot a person.

This is free market economics at work. A poorly run police department is expensive, and this is where the money is spent.

If you really object to people collecting damages when a family member is killed by a policeman, worry more about police training and tactics, instead of pissing and moaning when the court forces the taxpayers to make good when a policeman fucks up.

Alternatively, you could write into law that public officials are responsible for the damages they inflict while serving. Somehow I believe that there would be a greater sense of patience or caution within police officers who are aware that the state wont bail them out if they fuck up.