The Shooting of Alton Sterling

[laughing dog]

"the record"? lol. "the record" is this thread (and related threads). you are free to quote an example, but seem to have chosen not to. Curious, that. Where did I say that I disagree that soldiers are more highly trained than cops, and that lack of discipline contributes to failures in engagement? Or, regarding what I replied to you about...

There is nothing curious about this. I will try one last time to explain this so that you might get it. While you agree with the bark on the trees (that police are trained differently and are given lower expectations of conduct) you continually miss the forest of "It is true (these differences) because the public CONTINUES to implicitly allow it either through ignorance or indifference or fear." We, the people as a group, let these officers off the hook when they act to shoot unarmed 12 year olds. There are plenty of police syncophants who immediately jump to defend almost any killing, regardless of the facts.

..Did you intend to mean something other than what you said?

No.

 

[Malintent]

There is nothing curious about this. I will try one last time to explain this so that you might get it. While you agree with the bark on the trees (that police are trained differently and are given lower expectations of conduct) you continually miss the forest of "It is true (these differences) because the public CONTINUES to implicitly allow it either through ignorance or indifference or fear." We, the people as a group, let these officers off the hook when they act to shoot unarmed 12 year olds. There are plenty of police syncophants who immediately jump to defend almost any killing, regardless of the facts.

..Did you intend to mean something other than what you said?

No.

Thank you for clarifying the point you think I "didn't get". I don't see where I commented on that point... but I will now.

I disagree (note - people who disagree with you usually do so because they think you are wrong. That you jump to the conclusion that it must be that they simply fail to understand is a failing of yours, not theirs.

The reason I disagree with your reason for the situation that we agree about is that you are mostly wrong. Indifference plays a part... but not out of fear or ignorance. It is more likely, in my opinion, due to lack of scope. People don't really care that a small number of really bad people are getting hurt or killed while they are being bad people... and neither do I.

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you for clarifying the point you think I "didn't get". I don't see where I commented on that point... but I will now.

Thank you for actually providing evidence that you didn't get it.

I disagree (note - people who disagree with you usually do so because they think you are wrong. That you jump to the conclusion that it must be that they simply fail to understand is a failing of yours, not theirs.

I did not jump to the conclusion that you did not get the point. There was absolutely nothing in your responses that would indicate you got the point. In fact you admit it above. Which makes your observation invalid.

The reason I disagree with your reason for the situation that we agree about is that you are mostly wrong. Indifference plays a part... but not out of fear or ignorance. It is more likely, in my opinion, due to lack of scope. People don't really care that a small number of really bad people are getting hurt or killed while they are being bad people... and neither do I.

The fact you rely on "bad people" shows you miss the point. There are sufficient cases of decent people (Tamir Rice or Philandro Castle) being killed.

I can understand the myopic view in your response. Police do not necessarily know if they are dealing with a "bad" person or not when these situations occur. The general public thinks they will not be viewed as "bad people" so they are indifferent to these outcomes. Statistics are on their side. But everyone once in awhile, someone in the general public loses that bet, and loses it because of this overall indifference.

 

[KeepTalking]

No, I was talking about #BLM having a monopoly on blocking highways, which is present tense.

Well then, you were making a really lame point then. Yeah, #BLM is the protest movement in the spotlight right now, but that does not mean that it exists in a historical vacuum. Protests which resort to civil disobedience have been known to block major roadways as a means of getting their grievances noted by the general public. To ignore this history and use a phrase like "#BLM having monopoly on blocking highways" certainly makes it looks like you know nothing of that history. #BLM is not the first, and will not be the last, protest movement to block major roadways while protesting.

I am aware this tactic was used in the past, but in present day it is pretty much limited to #BLM and related groups.

Well, I'm glad you acknowledge the past, too bad you are unable to connect the dots from the past to the present. Tomorrow there very well could be another protest movement that uses the same tactic.

Would you be as supportive if pro-life or anti-gay groups adopted these tactics? Would you be as understanding if your commute was 90 minutes longer if National Association for Marriage for example decided to block the highway you use to get to work?

I have already answered this question from you, and the answer is still the same. It's all the same to me, whether it's #BLM, or NAMBLA doing the blocking, pretty much just another Tuesday on our wonderful interstate highway system. It wouldn't bother me more than having to sit in traffic because of an accident, or the weather. In most cases, when I sit in traffic, I have no idea why it is happening until after the fact. Case in point, one of the very first #BLM protests here in St. Louis on I-70 caught me in traffic on my way home from work. I only caught the tail end of it, so it probably added a half hour to my commute, but I had no idea why I was in traffic until I saw the news coverage afterward.

It is not unique in this regard, so you were either speaking from a position of ignorance, or one of deliberate disinformation. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by picking the former, but if you want it to be the latter, that is fine by me.

No, you misunderstood what I was saying.

No. I get your message: "#BLM is the single worst protest movement ever, because it uses despicable tactics of civil disobedience, like blocking major roadways, oh the horror!" I simply am not buying into it. It is filled with disdain for #BLM because of an underlying disdain black for people, and love of police authoritarianism.

Yes, because that is all it would be for me, an inconvenience. Sitting in traffic is an inconvenience that I experience several times a week during my commute to and from work. I generally just try to relax and get an extra chapter or two in on the audio book to which I am listening at the time.

Do you realize the difference between something that happens by itself due to volume or due to accidents and deliberate actions designed to impede both personal, commercial and emergency vehicle traffic?

At the time you are stuck in traffic, unless you are one of the first to get stuck, you generally have no idea why it is happening, so no real difference there.

What if somebody dies during one of these blockades?

That would be a tragedy, and I am sure the protest organizers would be held accountable. That is one thing police are good at, holding others responsible for their actions, something they have a terrible track record of applying to themselves. This is why #BLM exists.

 

[Derec]

Officers Won’t Be Charged in Black Man’s Shooting Death in Louisiana
On federal charges at least.

 

[Derec]

And so it begins ...
Arrests made after protesters partially block road outside BRPD headquarters

 

[Bronzeage]

And so it begins ...
Arrests made after protesters partially block road outside BRPD headquarters

Don't worry about it too much. Since 10am, there have been severe thunderstorms in Baton Rouge, so protests will be moved indoors.

A police spokesman wanted it known that none of the three women arrested were thrown to the ground, none were held down by two policemen, and none were shot in the chest.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The reason I disagree with your reason for the situation that we agree about is that you are mostly wrong. Indifference plays a part... but not out of fear or ignorance. It is more likely, in my opinion, due to lack of scope. People don't really care that a small number of really bad people are getting hurt or killed while they are being bad people... and neither do I.

I think a lot of white people don't care if the Police shoot someone, because if the Police shot someone, they probably deserved it. We've seen several cases reported here, where a large cross section of people were shot. This included:

• Person armed with a gun shooting at police
• Unarmed person who physically grabbed and tried to attack police officer
• Person armed with stones and throwing at officer
• Person unarmed in car, complying with officer's instructions
• Person unarmed getting out of car, not complying with officer's instructions
• Person with a knife, who was shot by an officer
• Unarmed person fleeing police after being stopped by an officer
• Obviously unarmed naked person
• Person at a park
• Unarmed restrained person on the ground

Seems like shooting to kill has lots of applications.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And so it begins ...
Arrests made after protesters partially block road outside BRPD headquarters

Oh my god the horror.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The reason I disagree with your reason for the situation that we agree about is that you are mostly wrong. Indifference plays a part... but not out of fear or ignorance. It is more likely, in my opinion, due to lack of scope. People don't really care that a small number of really bad people are getting hurt or killed while they are being bad people... and neither do I.

I think a lot of white people don't care if the Police shoot someone, because if the Police shot someone, they probably deserved it. We've seen several cases reported here, where a large cross section of people were shot. This included:

• Person armed with a gun shooting at police
• Unarmed person who physically grabbed and tried to attack police officer
• Person armed with stones and throwing at officer
• Person unarmed in car, complying with officer's instructions
• Person unarmed getting out of car, not complying with officer's instructions
• Person with a knife, who was shot by an officer
• Unarmed person fleeing police after being stopped by an officer
• Obviously unarmed naked person
• Person at a park
• Unarmed restrained person on the ground

Seems like shooting to kill has lots of applications.

The problem with your list is that "unarmed" doesn't automatically mean no threat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think a lot of white people don't care if the Police shoot someone, because if the Police shot someone, they probably deserved it. We've seen several cases reported here, where a large cross section of people were shot. This included:

• Person armed with a gun shooting at police
• Unarmed person who physically grabbed and tried to attack police officer
• Person armed with stones and throwing at officer
• Person unarmed in car, complying with officer's instructions
• Person unarmed getting out of car, not complying with officer's instructions
• Person with a knife, who was shot by an officer
• Unarmed person fleeing police after being stopped by an officer
• Obviously unarmed naked person
• Person at a park
• Unarmed restrained person on the ground

Seems like shooting to kill has lots of applications.

The problem with your list is that "unarmed" doesn't automatically mean no threat.

Thanks LP, the 100th time you said it really sunk in.

 

[LordKiran]

I think a lot of white people don't care if the Police shoot someone, because if the Police shot someone, they probably deserved it. We've seen several cases reported here, where a large cross section of people were shot. This included:

• Person armed with a gun shooting at police
• Unarmed person who physically grabbed and tried to attack police officer
• Person armed with stones and throwing at officer
• Person unarmed in car, complying with officer's instructions
• Person unarmed getting out of car, not complying with officer's instructions
• Person with a knife, who was shot by an officer
• Unarmed person fleeing police after being stopped by an officer
• Obviously unarmed naked person
• Person at a park
• Unarmed restrained person on the ground

Seems like shooting to kill has lots of applications.

The problem with your list is that "unarmed" doesn't automatically mean no threat.

This is the "Potential rapist" problem all over again. Technically, everyone is physically capable of rape so the term rules out nobody.

So what level of "Threat" is an acceptable level then? How do we quantify "Threat" so that it can be objectively measured? See, a normal person would think that "If he doesn't have a weapon he poses no appreciable threat." But then you wouldn't be you, if you didn't have to over-complicate everything just so you can continue arguing past the point of reason.

 

[ksen]

I think a lot of white people don't care if the Police shoot someone, because if the Police shot someone, they probably deserved it. We've seen several cases reported here, where a large cross section of people were shot. This included:

• Person armed with a gun shooting at police
• Unarmed person who physically grabbed and tried to attack police officer
• Person armed with stones and throwing at officer
• Person unarmed in car, complying with officer's instructions
• Person unarmed getting out of car, not complying with officer's instructions
• Person with a knife, who was shot by an officer
• Unarmed person fleeing police after being stopped by an officer
• Obviously unarmed naked person
• Person at a park
• Unarmed restrained person on the ground

Seems like shooting to kill has lots of applications.

The problem with your list is that "unarmed" doesn't automatically mean no threat.

The problem with your post is that you hit the post button.

 

[laughing dog]

I think a lot of white people don't care if the Police shoot someone, because if the Police shot someone, they probably deserved it. We've seen several cases reported here, where a large cross section of people were shot. This included:

• Person armed with a gun shooting at police
• Unarmed person who physically grabbed and tried to attack police officer
• Person armed with stones and throwing at officer
• Person unarmed in car, complying with officer's instructions
• Person unarmed getting out of car, not complying with officer's instructions
• Person with a knife, who was shot by an officer
• Unarmed person fleeing police after being stopped by an officer
• Obviously unarmed naked person
• Person at a park
• Unarmed restrained person on the ground

Seems like shooting to kill has lots of applications.

The problem with your list is that "unarmed" doesn't automatically mean no threat.

The problem with your response is that it employs the fallacy of the excluded middle. You are unable to acknowledge that there is a continuum of threat level, starting at No threat and ending at absolutely deadly threat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem with your list is that "unarmed" doesn't automatically mean no threat.

The problem with your post is that you hit the post button.

You win The Internetz for the day.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with your list is that "unarmed" doesn't automatically mean no threat.

Thanks LP, the 100th time you said it really sunk in.

You continue to make the error.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thanks LP, the 100th time you said it really sunk in.

You continue to make the error.

Not really. I can appreciate an actual threat. What you are doing is to continue to supporting almost any police shooting and will flip your brain inside out to come up with a justification even if even the Police admit wrong doing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You continue to make the error.

Not really. I can appreciate an actual threat. What you are doing is to continue to supporting almost any police shooting and will flip your brain inside out to come up with a justification even if even the Police admit wrong doing.

The thing is your side assumes police shootings are always wrong, when in practice they are usually justified even when the person doesn't have a gun.

Of the ones that aren't most seem to be a case of having their finger on the trigger when they shouldn't have--blame the police academies for this.

Sterling did have a gun and appeared to be going for it. Being black doesn't magically make it an unjustified shooting.

 

[bilby]

Not really. I can appreciate an actual threat. What you are doing is to continue to supporting almost any police shooting and will flip your brain inside out to come up with a justification even if even the Police admit wrong doing.

The thing is your side assumes police shootings are always wrong, when in practice they are usually justified even when the person doesn't have a gun.

Of the ones that aren't most seem to be a case of having their finger on the trigger when they shouldn't have--blame the police academies for this.

Sterling did have a gun and appeared to be going for it. Being black doesn't magically make it an unjustified shooting.

The thing is, your side is just you.

There are no 'sides' here; There are a wide range of different sets of opinions.

Your oversimplification of things into a set of false dichotomies helps no one. Just because you assume that police shootings are always right, that is not a reason for you to imagine that there are two 'sides', and that everyone is either on your side, or on the other side which holds exactly the opposite position. Some people - I would go so far as to say almost ALL people - think that some police shootings are justified, and some are not; and amongst those people there is a huge diversity of opinions regarding the various criteria that render a given case justified or unjustified.

Reality isn't simple, and you do nobody any favours when you pretend that it is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not really. I can appreciate an actual threat. What you are doing is to continue to supporting almost any police shooting and will flip your brain inside out to come up with a justification even if even the Police admit wrong doing.

The thing is your side...

Cute. I'm speaking directly to you and things you have said and then you create a false dichotomy and assign me to "a side".

...assumes police shootings are always wrong...

Well, my side (me), haven't taken that position. Claiming some shootings are unlawful isn't saying all shootings are unlawful.

...when in practice they are usually justified even when the person doesn't have a gun.

Or a knife... or a Frisbee... or any sort of weapon at all.

Of the ones that aren't most seem to be a case of having their finger on the trigger when they shouldn't have--blame the police academies for this.

Whoops.

Sterling did have a gun and appeared to be going for it. Being black doesn't magically make it an unjustified shooting.

Oh shit man! Seriously?! I had no idea.

HEY EVERYONE!!! Apparently being black doesn't mean automatically that being shot by the police is a case of manslaughter. There is no magic in being black.

Thanks Loren, I just spread the word. Thanks for clearing that obvious misconception I clearly had up.