Police Brutality Thread

[Nepenthe]

Clarifying that you're upset that people of all groups don't give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt isn't an actual refutation of the point.

[TailsTellsTales]

I have something that I would like to add on here. Watch [url=http://www.cc.com/video-clips/j9jaqy/the-nightly-show-with-larry-wilmore-a-new-and-different-police-video]this Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore 2 minute clip which shows a white suspect threatening police and ask yourself would that have happened if the suspect was black? I asked myself and came up with no as my answer here.

PS: Editing on phone is nightmare and cannot get it the way I want it to be.

Edited August 26, 2015 by TailsTellsTales

[Tani Coyote]

Thinking about it more, sure, race probably was a factor in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. The fact that they were black probably affected the way the police handled the situations.

Thank you, I think that's really what most here wanted more than anything.

As a white person I grew up on the idea that racism wasn't that widespread beyond a few stereotypes and a handful of Klan types here or there. That most police excesses could be chalked up to statistical probability and that constant cries of race were race baiting.

I have since changed that view as more and more information has been passed along to me. I still believe that the race card is a very real thing (such as with that twit who defended OJ) and not just a "tool to dismiss racism" as its critics allege, and that race is a subject to be handled delicately, but I can absolutely see lots of evidence that racism is alive and well. Native American studies in particular are very illuminating on the subject. It's easier to go into them with an open mind because while white, Latino and black tensions are being shoved in our faces every day, barely anyone talks about the Indians by comparison outside of history books.

Given Indians have traditionally been granted a "half-white" status depending on political convenience and still were shafted most of the time, it is not a stretch to see much of the same for black communities. Even if race was removed as a variable in all social interaction, racial minorities would still face disproportionate hardship due to externalities of (generally Republican) policy.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie

[The Chairman Of The Board]

Do all of you people seriously think that the police target black people (meaning they are harder on blacks than on whites)???? Do you people have no faith in your fellow man or for that matter the police, the ones who are here to protect you???? And don't say it's because they are white cops because there are black cops as well and if some white people were killed by black cops no one would give a shit. Just like no one cares if a black person says the N word but if a white person says it lock him up and send him to the electric chair. For example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY16_nKORb8. I'm not saying go and say the N word in every sentence but if a black person can say it why can't a white person say it???? It's a double standard. What I'm trying to say is if you want to criticize the white cops for deliberately "going after" those black people why not criticize black people for the double standard previously mentioned???? Because like I said earlier no one gives a shit. I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm not saying "BLACK PEOPLE ARE EVIL" but think about it and you'll realize what I'm saying is true.

[Tornado]

I'm not saying "BLACK PEOPLE ARE EVIL"

You mean they aren't? Damn. Why didn't I get the memo?

[The Chairman Of The Board]

You mean they aren't? Damn. Why didn't I get the memo?

If your trying to make me laugh it's working.

[Nepenthe]

Do all of you people seriously think that the police target black people (meaning they are harder on blacks than on whites)????

Statistics says yes.

Do you people have no faith in your fellow man or for that matter the police, the ones who are here to protect you????

No.

And don't say it's because they are white cops because there are black cops as well and if some white people were killed by black cops no one would give a shit.

Probably because a white person has to do some really egregious shit for officers to want to use deadly force, like shoot up a church or something- owait.

Just like no one cares if a black person says the N word but if a white person says it lock him up and send him to the electric chair.

Do you get bothered at the idea that you can't call a woman in a monogamous relationship the same pet names that her partner can even if you really want to?

I'm not saying go and say the N word in every sentence but if a black person can say it why can't a white person say it???? It's a double standard.

Why can you call her "honey" and not get slapped? DOUBLE STANDARD!

What I'm trying to say is if you want to criticize the white cops for deliberately "going after" those black people why not criticize black people for the double standard previously mentioned????

Apparently black lives matter just as much as white people's social leeway to say the N-word.

Because like I said earlier no one gives a shit. I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm not saying "BLACK PEOPLE ARE EVIL" but think about it and you'll realize what I'm saying is true.

You're racist.

[The Chairman Of The Board]

Do you get all hot and bothered at the idea that you can't call a woman in a monogamous relationship the same pet names that her partner can even if you really want to?

Why can you call her "honey" and not get slapped? DOUBLE STANDARD!

You're racist.

What does this have to do with a woman???? I'm not racist otherwise I would have written out the N word instead of writing "the N word". BAM even more proof of the double standard that I have to abbreviate because if I write something out I will be ridiculed and be called some kind of monster when black people say it as often as they say "Hi". When you think about it it's hypocritical.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

What does this have to do with a woman???? I'm not racist otherwise I would have written out the N word instead of writing "the N word". BAM even more proof of the double standard that I have to abbreviate because if I write something out I will be ridiculed and be called some kind of monster when black people say it as often as they say "Hi". When you think about it it's hypocritical.

You don't have to say certain words in order to be a racist.

[Nepenthe]

What does this have to do with a woman???? I'm not racist otherwise I would have written out the N word instead of writing "the N word". BAM even more proof of the double standard that I have to abbreviate because if I write something out I will be ridiculed and be called some kind of monster when black people say it as often as they say "Hi". When you think about it it's hypocritical.

The example with a woman is relevant because it illustrates that the language we use is dependent upon our power balance and relationship with the audience. If it's normal for you to change the way you talk and what you talk about between your friends, your parents, and your teachers, then congratulations, you now understand why "nigger" is not some particularly notable double-standard of language due to the power imbalance between whites and blacks and subsequently what the word still means when it's coming from a white person who isn't entirely accepted by the black community he speaks it to.

Also, I'm not saying you're racist because you didn't write out the n-word. I'm saying you're racist because you think you not being able to say "nigger" is a bigger problem then black people being targeted by police. Mainly because you don't think the latter is a problem at all, like we don't know our own individual and communal lived experiences as black people and are thus making shit up just to inconvenience your fucking life or whatever. On top of that was your hilariously-unnecessary qualification that you don't think black people are evil. "I'm not saying all black people are x, but--!!!" Sure you aren't.

[Pelly <3's U]

Do all of you people seriously think that the police target black people (meaning they are harder on blacks than on whites)???? Do you people have no faith in your fellow man or for that matter the police, the ones who are here to protect you???? And don't say it's because they are white cops because there are black cops as well and if some white people were killed by black cops no one would give a shit. Just like no one cares if a black person says the N word but if a white person says it lock him up and send him to the electric chair. For example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY16_nKORb8. I'm not saying go and say the N word in every sentence but if a black person can say it why can't a white person say it???? It's a double standard. What I'm trying to say is if you want to criticize the white cops for deliberately "going after" those black people why not criticize black people for the double standard previously mentioned???? Because like I said earlier no one gives a shit. I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm not saying "BLACK PEOPLE ARE EVIL" but think about it and you'll realize what I'm saying is true.

You seem to lack a very basic grasp on sociological theories such as power and privilege, social stratification, and contemporary social justice theory. I would think it should be fairly easy to educate yourself on the reasons why there is a taboo against an oppressive group using extremely derogatory racial slurs against an oppressed group. I would maybe start there and then start looking into aspects of these theories before being able to proclaim "think about it and you'll realize what I'm saying is true" whilst having an extremely simplistic view on the issues. 

That being said this isn't the 'why can't I say this word topic' and if you want to find arguments for exactly why people do believe that race plays into how cops interact with people of color (besides you know, evidence pointing out that unconscious racial biases affect nearly every part of our interactions) than I would suggest reading the full topic.  

[The Chairman Of The Board]

On top of that was your hilariously-unnecessary qualification that you don't think black people are evil. "I'm not saying all black people are x, but--!!!" Sure you aren't.

I said that because I didn't want to get banned or get a warning on my account because I was "attacking" black people. I'm not saying anything is more important than the other. The whole point of what I'm trying to say is don't go around calling white people racist but than try to say black people can't be racist too.

[Nepenthe]

Now you're making up arguments no one has said. And on top of that you still failed to demonstrate that you are actually more concerned about black people being unfairly targeted by law enforcement (again, a problem you think doesn't exist because black people are, I don't know, making shit up for shits and giggles or something) than your inability to say the N-word without social consequence (which raises the question of why the fuck you even want to say it). If you can't see why your priorities being upside-down in this instance is indicative of racial prejudice on your part then I don't know what to tell you.

Ultimately, if you don't want to get in trouble or earn the ire from staff and your fellow black members on here, then either find some books about the reality of black lives in America and come back armed with actual information (here, I'll help you get started on a good one), or just don't publicly post your shitty views about black people anymore.

[Tani Coyote]

Even if the usage of racial slurs was a double standard (which it really isn't because words carry different baggage from different people, as pointed out), I really don't think higher odds of killing is comparable to ostracism for use of a word. This is #FirstWorldProblems on crack. This is like a man complaining about negative remarks for serving in jobs traditionally reserved for women when women have to endure astronomically high rates of sexual assault and harassment by comparison.

 

I think the problem is much of America has construed "racist" to mean someone who has Nazi armbands, a KKK cloak, aggressively preaches racial purity and superiority, the works. If this is your definition, then for the most part racism has died out. And indeed, this is what the people who whine about the term "racism" being used tend to believe.

 

But that's not what racism is. You don't need to be supporting slavery, segregation, Holocausts or anything to be racist or have racist viewpoints. Subjective racism lives on through simple off hand remarks that more than a few people say about other groups. Notice I said people and not white people; nobody's denying that racism exists among minority groups. But racism has more of an impact from whites because they have the bulk of socioeconomic power, so of course white racism will be more focused on. It's rather like how both Israel and Palestine are full of violent racists, but Israel gets the most flak because it pulls the strings in the conflict.

 

Objective racism, well that's pretty hard to deny. The bulk of public policy - cuts to education, the War on Drugs, lack of social services, etc. - consequences fall harder on minority communities. Consider this: many states have it so convicts can be stripped of suffrage. Now due to a mixture of sociological circumstances as well as prejudices, there is a skewing towards blacks being convicted. Net result: blacks systematically find their suffrage suppressed. On top of that, throwing black parents in jail means their children grow up without one parent... and it's no secret that this leads to higher rates of crime. The process repeats. Stripping convicts of suffrage is the best "racist but not racist" policy since the poll tax.

[Kuzu]

What does this have to do with a woman???? I'm not racist otherwise I would have written out the N word instead of writing "the N word". BAM even more proof of the double standard that I have to abbreviate because if I write something out I will be ridiculed and be called some kind of monster when black people say it as often as they say "Hi". When you think about it it's hypocritical.

You really need to look up what being a racist is if you really think just saying the N word or not has anything to do with it.

[Diesel]

But you know, it doesn't matter if Michael Brown being black affected the way Darren Wilson treated him. At the end of the day, according to evidence, Brown assaulted a police officer, so he deserved to be shot.

Would Brown had been shot if he was white? Possibly not, but why does that matter? The police have every right to shoot when they're assaulted. It doesn't matter at all what the attacker's race is.

The police killing Freddie Gray was wrong, though.

[Patticus]

Nobody deserves to forfeit their life for assaulting anyone. If an officer is attacked, that officer should have training enough to subdue anyone without resorting to a lethal shot.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Patticus

[Diesel]

Nobody deserves to forfeit their life for assaulting anyone.

A police officer has every right to shoot someone who assaults them, particularly someone who punches them and attempts to take their gun. You know, someone like Michael Brown.

If an officer is attacked, that officer should have training enough to subdue anyone without resorting to a lethal shot.

So if an officer is attacked, that officer should have enough training to subdue ANYONE without resorting to a lethal resort? So, if an average sized officer was being assaulted by the world heavyweight boxing champion, the officer wouldn't have the right to shoot?

Nonsense. An officer undeniably has the right to shoot someone who assaults them. Simple as. 

[Nepenthe]

You continuously saying officers have the right to kill anyone who ticks off their fragile fear response will forever be nonsense until the public gets that exact same impunity.

Officers should actually have submission and negotiation training, as well be encouraged to use non-lethal options (they also need severe anti racism training, demilitarization, and neutral oversight at the least). This shouldn't even be argued against.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

K, ya know what? I'm gonna go ahead and take the bait this time. Cuz this is something that'll at least help everyone else understand. 

Would Brown had been shot if he was white? Possibly not, but why does that matter?

Because black lives happen to matter so as to not get shot like the white guy. Something which you clearly seem very blind to for asking such a question like that.

So if an officer is attacked, that officer should have enough training to subdue ANYONE without resorting to a lethal resort?

Yes.

So, if an average sized officer was being assaulted by the world heavyweight boxing champion, the officer wouldn't have the right to shoot?

Unless that boxer had a gun himself and was about to shoot the officers or innocent bystanders, no he wouldn't. There's a reason we invented tasers and mace for that kind of thing, ya know - barely anyone can resist searing pain in the eyes or thousands of volts of electricity surging from their body. 

And there's always their baton. Killing should always be a last resort, or not even an option if the attacker is unarmed.

Edited August 28, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Diesel]

You continuously saying officers have the right to kill anyone who ticks off their fragile fear response will forever be nonsense until the public gets that exact same impunity.

You're just attempting to rephrase my post for your own convenience, as you've done several times in this topic.

What I said was that a police officer has the right to shoot someone who assaults them. Many people would agree with this.

Officers should actually have submission and negotiation training, as well be encouraged to use non-lethal options (they also need severe anti racism training, demilitarization, and neutral oversight at the least). This shouldn't even be argued against.

And nobody is even arguing against that. But cops still have the right to shoot someone who assaults them. This shouldn't even be argued against.

Because black lives happen to matter so as to not get shot like the white guy. Something which you clearly seem very blind to for asking such a question like that.

Race doesn't matter. A police officer has the right to shoot someone who assaults them, regardless of what that person's race is.

Yes.

No.

Unless that boxer had a gun himself and was about to shoot the officers or innocent bystanders, no he wouldn't.

Yes, he would. The use of deadly force is authorized when a person poses a significant threat to a law enforcement officer, usually when the officer is at risk of serious bodily injury or death. An average sized officer would certainly be at risk of serious bodily injury or death if they were assaulted by a world heavyweight boxing champion, so the officer would have the right to use deadly force.

There's a reason we invented tasers and mace for that kind of thing, ya know - barely anyone can resist searing pain in the eyes or thousands of volts of electricity surging from their body.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-stun-guns-police-killings-20140825-story.html

Law enforcement officials say the idea that tasers should be used in place of firearms is far from accurate:

Stun guns can prove a valuable alternative to gunfire or other methods of force, but experts say stun guns can be difficult to deploy in rapidly escalating and close-range situations. 

If the Ferguson Police Department's account of Brown's death is accurate, a stun gun would be an unlikely option to handle a charging suspect, experts say.

"There has to be time to deploy the stun gun and it’s not always readily available," said Wayne Fisher, a professor with the Rutgers University Police Institute in New Jersey.

[Tani Coyote]

I'm noting the two sides talking past each other here.

 

"Cops shouldn't be able to kill anyone who assaults them" vs "Cops do have the right to kill anyone who assaults them." These positions are actually not irreconcilable, since one is talking about how things SHOULD be, and the other how things ARE.

 

As for stun guns and the like - of course it's not a cure-all. But there's clearly an inclination to use the gun when there's no need to. Look at Oscar Grant. If we assume the officer's use of his gun was indeed an accident, it speaks volumes about muscle memory; the officer is so used to pulling the gun out that he grabbed it when he meant to grab his taser instead. There's a clear trend of preferring the most lethal option.

 

You're also missing the point, Diesel: there have been many cases where officers had GUNS pointed at them. Guns, not a fist in the face like what you describe... and still avoided shooting the person. That's what we're talking about. Or at least, what I am.

 

An officer may have the right to use lethal force in many contexts, but that doesn't mean it's the proper action. I commend those officers who treat lethal force as what it should be: a last resort.

 

And we know officers are capable of getting people to calm down if they try. Look at all the times where officers persuade a person NOT to jump to their death, for instance.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie

[Nepenthe]

 

You're just attempting to rephrase my post for your own convenience, as you've done several times in this topic.

What I said was that a police officer has the right to shoot someone who assaults them. Many people would agree with this.

And nobody is even arguing against that. But cops still have the right to shoot someone who assaults them. This shouldn't even be argued against.

 

No, your phrasing is simply shit. You keep trying to frame "assault" as always a life-or-death situation in order to argue for officers' impunity to kill everything that doesn't want to cooperate (not even touching upon the actions of shitty officers who provoke fight-or-flight responses with their shit training and attitudes), when all assault is legally is getting hit hard enough to get hurt- there's no clarification of the extent of assault there- which is not something the normal citizenry is able to kill for except in very specific circumstances with a shitload of more telegraphing of intent and willingness to kill than what officers are allowed to get away with. 

 

In short, under the current parameters of your argument, if a mother calls law enforcement on her mentally-ill son who lacks reasonable self-restraint and they hit an officer, the officer should absolutely kill them, nevermind the legal rights to kill that mom or the mental health workers probably had who already were hit before calling law enforcement. If someone assaults an officer in order to run away and avoid arrest, the officer should absolutely kill them while they run away. If a child is in a high-stress domestic situation and hits an officer, then that child should get shot to death.

 

Race doesn't matter. A police officer has the right to shoot someone who assaults them, regardless of what that person's race is.

Race does matter in the fucking real world where white people are able to aim guns at officers with intent to kill and statistically walk away alive more often than minorities do.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Nepenthe

[Tani Coyote]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious I'm not much of a race activist myself but you have to be trying really hard to not see a clear trend.

 

Sure you can chalk up a lot of disproportionate circumstances - poverty, crime, etc. - between races to things besides race (though these are often rooted in past racist decisions), but even when accounting for that, as mentioned, there's still a clear discrepancy. Then you have the myriad of statistical and anecdotal evidence that I - as a white person - am putting forward to show how racism can very easily influence even the most well-meaning people and their actions.

 

The officer doesn't have to be a savage murderer to still be more likely to shoot a non-white person.

 

There's a reason the Museum of Tolerance has two doors you can use to enter their exhibit of intolerance through the 20th century, "Prejudiced" and "Unprejudiced." Unprejudiced is locked.

[PSI Wind]

Even if an officer uses a lethal device like a gun to protect themselves or others around them, couldn't they theoretically shoot the person or people in the arms or legs, depending on the situation?