Jump to content
Awoo.

Police Brutality Thread


CrownSlayer’s Shadow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Legosi (Tani Coyote)
 
You people were the ones who said police should refrain shooting anyone unarmed, which includes boxers. That suggests police should handle boxers the same way they'd handle anyone else, which is a ridiculous statement, as boxers are more dangerous than the average person.

I think you're arguing over semantics rather than anything of substance.

I don't think anyone meant a physically-strong person should be treated the same as someone who is weak and frail. I think it's quite simply that if the person doesn't have a weapon, a firearm should be at the very bottom of an officer's means to handle the situation by default, barring said person working with lethal intent.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 What does the word "assault" mean? You said it literally half a dozen times, so I hope you know; but it's becoming increasingly clear that you just said a word and pushed it through in the hopes no one would challenge it. Similar to "emulation". And "backtracking". There's probably more.

And? You said that I said police officers should be allowed to shoot people for touching them. That's not what I said at all; I said that police officers should be allowed to shoot people for assaulting them (something I later conceded), thus you were rephrasing my post for your own convenience.

Nope. Your persecution complex is your own problem no matter how hard you try and make it everyone else's, but if you're going to resort to a completely stupid extreme example for why non-lethal force cannot be considered in every situation, I'm going to call it for the attempt to move the goalposts that it is.

It's not moving the goalposts. You people said police shouldn't use lethal force against unarmed individuals, and I brought up an example where I feel lethal force would be justified against an unarmed individual.

First of all, I suggest you drop the bullshit attitude. 

Pot calling the black. You've been showing attitude towards me a number of times in this thread already. 

Yeah, that's enough. You spent your entire fucking time in this topic unequivocally saying that police officers are allowed to shoot people for touching them. You don't get to mince words over who's been spreading misinformation. This absolute idiotic side conversation you're trying to push about how heavyweight boxers are trained fighters so they can somehow block mace as if it had the same physical consistency as a fist or casually shrug off baton strikes isn't diverting anyone's attention from your previous posts.

 

Mike Tyson was a professional heavyweight boxer; one of the best there ever was. Mike Tyson did go to jail for a major criminal act not too far removed from when he was in his prime. Mike Tyson was known for being about a half step away from being uncontrollably insane. Mike Tyson still did not fight off six cops in a rage induced arrest before finally going down for the seventh, so who the fuck gives a shit about what a boxer is capable of in this wonderful example devoid of any repeated basis in history?

Just look at how antagonistic your wording is. You were baiting.

You've been given such a free pass on the piles of indefensible garbage you've spewn all over this forum in every thread you've entered ever since you've joined that insulting the guy who has defended you from being banned on multiple occasions probably isn't the best idea on your part

While I feel that you baited me, two wrongs don't make a right, so I admit that's no excuse for how I responded to you there. My apologies.

But what, pray tell, did I dodge and cherry pick?

The vast majority of my post. I posted videos and links showing how neither maces nor tasers are always effective, so you can't act as if they are. And yet, you dodged all of it and cherry-picked what parts of my post to respond to.

The shit you posted was the same shit that I already responded to once, and in response you simply tried reiterating it again as if that makes it more true.

Except it's not the same shit you already responded to, nor did I simply try reiterating it again. Again, I had posted links and videos that I hadn't posted before to bolster my argument, and you ignored all it.

What about mace, a gaseous/liquid solvent that irritates the skin on contact and plays havoc on someone's eyes and breathing, makes it the same as someone's fist? 

I never said it was the same as someone's fist. 

What about a strict training regiment or high athletic ability makes someone able to completely shrug off a hit from a taser or baton strike?

And I never said anything about a training regiment or high athletic ability enabling someone to "completely shrug off a hit from a taser or a baton strike". This is what I'm talking about when I say you rephrase my posts for your own convenience.

You're acting as if they have no effect on people and others are saying that they are guaranteed to incapacitate someone; which is pretty ridiculous when neither is true.

That's not how I'm acting; I never once said they don't have any effect on people. I'm saying they don't always have an effect on people.

As for others saying they are guaranteed to incapacitate someone, yes, that is what others are saying, yourself included:

 

But in the event a taser fails, this is also why officers have this:

police-model-pepper-spray-by-mace.jpg?t=

And this:

Hardwood_Police_Baton_Tonfa_1707.jpg

Before resorting to a gun. Both of which (especially the baton) should give even an average sized officer a better edge against a unarmed heavyweight boxer.

 

 

Because unless you can come up with something showing Mike Tyson was made out of rubber or some sort of merman in his prime I'm pretty sure a taser or mace from an officer who knew how to use either would have still dramatically altered the outcome of whatever 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight you're describing without needing to put a dozen bullets into him.

And one other thing, I polled another forum on whether or not a police officer has the right to shoot someone who assaults them (assault as in punching them in the face and trying to steal their gun). The vast majority of people voted they had the right:

9moB7P2.jpg 

You can argue "oh, that's just one forum", but really, based on common sense, the majority of people would agree with me on this.

Edited by Diesel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to mention that shooting someone in the leg is likely to hit the femoral artery and risk death from blood loss. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legosi (Tani Coyote)

And that, folks, is why one of the basic rules of gun safety is that you are always intending to kill if you put your finger on the trigger.

 

Barring being a sniper (while difficult, they can avoid lethal shots, sometimes even shooting guns out of someone's hand), there is no Hollywood accuracy.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And? You said that I said police officers should be allowed to shoot people for touching them. That's not what I said at all; I said that police officers should be allowed to shoot people for assaulting them

That doesn't answer the question. What does assault mean? I know what you're trying to pretend the definition is for the purposes of this discussion, as shown by your poll below; but that's not what I'm asking, that's not what I took issue with, and that's not what you spent half of this thread saying with complete certainty.

 

You people said police shouldn't use lethal force against unarmed individuals

There's that strawman again. What "people" actually said, and have reiterated when you assigned this exact argument last time, was that lethal force should be a last option in police confrontations.

 

Pot calling the black. You've been showing attitude towards me a number of times in this thread already. 

There's that persecution complex again. I started this thread replying to specific statements of fact you said (and said and said and said and said and said) that were obviously incorrect to anyone who simply types a search term into google. I have a conceal carry permit, so I also had independent knowledge that one of your other facts was blatantly untrue. I still gave you the benefit of the doubt to justify it, but since you conceded that you mispoke I let the latter one go.

But if you're going to call out other members for spreading what you perceive to be misinformation, you for damn sure better expect to be called on it when most of your posts to that point had been loaded with misinformation masquerading behind a specific example with specific circumstances.

Just look at how antagonistic your wording is. You were baiting.

No, I was providing an example of a famous heavyweight professional boxer with mental stability problems who went to jail in his prime but still didn't take on a half dozen cops in the process, to rebuke this idea you're seemingly trying to spread that a heavyweight professional is an inherently difficult and dangerous quarry for police to bag.

The vast majority of my post. I posted videos and links showing how neither maces nor tasers are always effective, so you can't act as if they are. And yet, you dodged all of it and cherry-picked what parts of my post to respond to.

Except it's not the same shit you already responded to, nor did I simply try reiterating it again. Again, I had posted links and videos that I hadn't posted before to bolster my argument, and you ignored all it.

Your videos and links showed that maces and tasers didn't always incapacitate. No one said that they would guarantee to incapacitate someone, and the video you posted of the officer the taser clearly hurt his mobility.

I never said it was the same as someone's fist. 

Yes you did:

Boxers can't guard their faces from maces the same way they can block a punch

Yes, they can. Maces burn eyes. A boxer can block their eyes.

Really, is this just a lie, or... what?

And I never said anything about a training regiment or high athletic ability enabling someone to "completely shrug off a hit from a taser or a baton strike". This is what I'm talking about when I say you rephrase my posts for your own convenience.

I'll get to this more in a minute, but when people say nothing more than non-lethal weapons should be considered as opposed to automatically plugging a guy with a full magazine and you outright deny the chance that they would be effective at all and raise a specific type of person who would overcome non-lethal weaponry, yes, you are implying that your hypothetical rampaging professional heavyweight boxer is immune to the effects of non-lethal weaponry.

That's not how I'm acting; I never once said they don't have any effect on people. I'm saying they don't always have an effect on people.

So your video showing them having a diminished but still clear affect on people somehow proves that?

As for others saying they are guaranteed to incapacitate someone, yes, that is what others are saying, yourself included:

Really not sure about this "wholly fabricate posts" tactic. The post you quoted from CSS said it would give someone an edge in a fight that they wouldn't have against an opponent who would normally mop the floor with them. He literally said the words "should give even an average sized officer a better edge against a unarmed heavyweight boxer", and I know you saw what words were actually said because you fucking highlighted them. The post you quoted from me said that a stun gun or mace would alter the outcome of a fight in a 6-1 boxer against policeman brawl. I literally said "a taser or mace from an officer who knew how to use either would have still dramatically altered the outcome of whatever 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight you're describing"; and I know you saw what words were actually said because you fucking highlighted those too. There wasn't even an implication of a boxer falling to the ground like a bag of potatoes, and the word incapacitate was nowhere to be found; so why are you pretending that that is what people were saying? You've got six officers going after a guy with tasers, mace and batons, and you seriously think the outcome will be the same as six officers going at a guy with their bare hands?

 

 

And what, really, is the point of lying about something so easily disproven?

And one other thing, I polled another forum on whether or not a police officer has the right to shoot someone who assaults them (assault as in punching them in the face and trying to steal their gun). The vast majority of people voted they had the right:

9moB7P2.jpg 

You can argue "oh, that's just one forum", but really, based on common sense, the majority of people would agree with me on this.

I don't give a shit what results you got from a poll with a made up definition of a word I've been trying to get you to define for three posts now. It's irrelevant to anything I've said in this thread, and I've even agreed from the start that the Michael Brown case was extraordinary. In fact, I literally said the words "Michael Brown had extenuating circumstances since in that case there was an attempted fight over the officer's gun"; so why am I supposed to care about opinions present in a poll you set up that tells me other people agree with the objectively correct answer I already knew anyway?

 

 

Really, if you were paying more attention, you would see that even in the extremely narrow context of this thread of when you started posting that I rarely actually agree with Nepenthe or Olgilvie on what constitutes a justifiable homicide. So that you're lumping me in with everyone else who is arguing against you is all the more ridiculous.

  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't answer the question. What does assault mean? I know what you're trying to pretend the definition is for the purposes of this discussion, as shown by your poll below; but that's not what I'm asking, that's not what I took issue with, and that's not what you spent half of this thread saying with complete certainty.

But you still rephrased my post into something it wasn't. And brah, I already admitted I was wrong with my definition of "assault". I conceded, sheesh. Why do I have to answer your answer when it's about something I already admitted was wrong?

There's that strawman again. What "people" actually said, and have reiterated when you assigned this exact argument last time, was that lethal force should be a last option in police confrontations.

If true, sorry. I thought you people were saying that police shouldn't use deadly force against unarmed individuals.

 There's that persecution complex again. I started this thread replying to specific statements of fact you said (and said and said and said and said and said) that were obviously incorrect to anyone who simply types a search term into google. I have a conceal carry permit, so I also had independent knowledge that one of your other facts was blatantly untrue. I still gave you the benefit of the doubt to justify it, but since you conceded that you mispoke I let the latter one go. But if you're going to call out other members for spreading what you perceive to be misinformation, you for damn sure better expect to be called on it when most of your posts to that point had been loaded with misinformation masquerading behind a specific example with specific circumstances.

Fair enough.

 No, I was providing an example of a famous heavyweight professional boxer with mental stability problems who went to jail in his prime but still didn't take on a half dozen cops in the process, to rebuke this idea you're seemingly trying to spread that a heavyweight professional is an inherently difficult and dangerous quarry for police to bag.

You were still showing attitude though; your wording was very antagonistic. Don't try to deny it.

 Your videos and links showed that maces and tasers didn't always incapacitate. No one said that they would guarantee to incapacitate someone, and the video you posted of the officer the taser clearly hurt his mobility.

It didn't change the outcome of the fight though.

 Yes you did:

No, I didn't. I said they could dodge maces the same way they can dodge a punch, not that maces were the same thing as a punch.

I'll get to this more in a minute, but when people say nothing more than non-lethal weapons should be considered as opposed to automatically plugging a guy with a full magazine and you outright deny the chance that they would be effective at all, yes, you are implying that your hypothetical rampaging professional heavyweight boxer is immune to the effects of non-lethal weaponry. 

I don't get your logic, but I'll agree to disagree.

 So your video showing them having a diminished but still clear affect on people somehow proves that?

 In the video I posted of a cop fighting the ex boxer, it didn't seem to have an effect. The vid says this.

 I don't give a shit what results you got from a poll with a made up definition of a word I've been trying to get you to define for three posts now. 

Well, I wasn't necessarily speaking to you when I posted that poll. I was responding to those who were saying police shouldn't shoot people who assault them like how Michael Brown did. If you weren't among those people, then I obviously wasn't speaking to you.

Edited by Diesel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And one other thing, I polled another forum on whether or not a police officer has the right to shoot someone who assaults them (assault as in punching them in the face and trying to steal their gun). The vast majority of people voted they had the right:

9moB7P2.jpg 

You can argue "oh, that's just one forum", but really, based on common sense, the majority of people would agree with me on this.

Not gonna bother with that "common sense" quip, but I will ask this: exactly, what is that other forum did you poll that question on? 'Cause if that site is, say, a gun enthusiast forum...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not gonna bother with that "common sense" quip, but I will ask this: exactly, what is that other forum did you poll that question on?

GameFAQs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon

 

Evidently you don't read before you post.

So,  care to actually explain why you think lethal force is the automatic answer  to assault instead of making baseless accusations? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So,  care to actually explain why you think lethal force is the automatic answer  to assault instead of making baseless accusations? 

Because if you read the other posts before you responded, you would have seen I had conceded on that argument.

I'm not really sure why people are still arguing with Diesel at this point. He's using GameFaqs as a source...

You just argue for the sake of arguing. GameFAQs is just as good a forum to poll as any other.

If you don't think someone punching an police officer and attempting to steal their weapon warrants deadly force, then lol. I could poll even more places if that's what you want.

And another thing, to Tornado:

Really not sure about this "wholly fabricate posts" tactic. The post you quoted from CSS said it would give someone an edge in a fight that they wouldn't have against an opponent who would normally mop the floor with them. He literally said the words "should give even an average sized officer a better edge against a unarmed heavyweight boxer", and I know you saw what words were actually said because you fucking highlighted them. The post you quoted from me said that a stun gun or mace would alter the outcome of a fight in a 6-1 boxer against policeman brawl. I literally said "a taser or mace from an officer who knew how to use either would have still dramatically altered the outcome of whatever 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight you're describing"; and I know you saw what words were actually said because you fucking highlighted those too. There wasn't even an implication of a boxer falling to the ground like a bag of potatoes, and the word incapacitate was nowhere to be found; so why are you pretending that that is what people were saying? You've got six officers going after a guy with tasers, mace and batons, and you seriously think the outcome will be the same as six officers going at a guy with their bare hands?

Seeing as you're someone who's gone out of his way to deliberately to rephrase my posts into something they weren't, it's ironic to see you accusing me of "wholly fabricating posts".

If one thinks a baton and a mace would "give an average sized officer a better edge against an unarmed heavyweight boxer" (in ChaosSupremeSonic's words) and/or "dramatically alter the outcome a 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight" (in your words), they WOULD think a baton, mace and/or would incapacitate someone.

Definition of "incapacitate"

prevent from functioning in a normal way.

For batons, tasers and maces to be effective, they WOULD have to incapacitate someone.

ChaosSupremeSonic said that a baton and mace would give an officer an advantage against an unarmed heavyweight boxer, so obviously, he WAS saying that a baton and a mace would incapacitate an unarmed heavyweight boxer, as that's the ONLY way for mace and batons to give someone an advantage against an opponent. You said that a taser or a mace would dramatically alter the outcome of a 6 against 1 fight, so you were saying that mace or a taser would incapacitate someone, as that's the ONLY way for tasers and mace to alter the outcome a fight.

I don't think you understand the word "incapacitate".

Edited by Diesel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Seeing as you're someone who's gone out of his way to deliberately to rephrase my posts into something they weren't, it's ironic to see you accusing me of "wholly fabricating posts".

If one thinks a baton and a mace would "give an average sized officer a better edge against an unarmed heavyweight boxer" (in ChaosSupremeSonic's words) and/or "dramatically alter the outcome a 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight" (in your words), they WOULD think a baton, mace and/or would incapacitate someone.

Definition of "incapacitate"

For batons, tasers and maces to be effective, they WOULD have to incapacitate someone.

ChaosSupremeSonic said that a baton and mace would give an officer an advantage against an unarmed heavyweight boxer, so obviously, he WAS saying that a baton and a mace would incapacitate an unarmed heavyweight boxer, as that's the ONLY way for mace and batons to give someone an advantage against an opponent. You said that a taser or a mace would dramatically alter the outcome of a 6 against 1 fight, so you were saying that mace or a taser would incapacitate someone, as that's the ONLY way for tasers and mace to alter the outcome a fight.

I don't think you understand the word "incapacitate".

If you're going to be such a try-hard when it comes to getting the last word in in your future Sega Forum endeavors, I would suggest you come up with something a bit more tangible than that to base it on. Even by your skewed standards, claiming that 6 guys wailing on someone with batons is no different than 6 guys taking the same guy on with nothing unless they instantly knock him out with them is pretty thin.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon
 

Because if you read the other posts before you responded, you would have seen I had conceded on that argument.

Then just tell me that instead of being  needlessly rude.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DarkDefeater

While this hard issue rages on, the cops are taking needless casualties as well. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEPUTY_SHOT_HOUSTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-31-11-39-24

A cop was shot 15 times when he was simply pumping gas into his vehicle.

This is a civil war of sorts, and it is escalating. I wish I had answers to relieve tensions, but I do not. My only hope is that leaders of both sides communicate to their followers and subordinates to think twice before committing a violent action and to seek alternatives that are less harmful and deadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legosi (Tani Coyote)

There were many protesters working against looters in Ferguson. We've seen several arguments in this and other topics that minorities can't really be blamed for wanting to engage in violence, given what they have to deal with and frustration with peaceful methods. But most of those same people saying that will still say violence is exceedingly stupid and harmful to the overall movement, because all it does is vindicate racist preconceptions.

 

Seriously, the white bias goes "oh those people just want an excuse to tear shit up, idiots!" We even had a topic here with that sort of thinking in the title. It doesn't help the media continues to show more interest in stirring bullshit than telling the full story. Saying rioting white people are "angry fans" while rioting non-whites are "rioters" or "a mob." Saying black dudes are looting stores during Katrina, while whites are "finding" supplies. Hardly ever giving non-violent protesters on these issues coverage compared to their violent counterparts.

 

Even in cases where they'd be right to use different epithets, the media needs to be conscious of the impact what they're showing will have on people. I remember the time they were following a live car chase; the suspect eventually got out on foot, ran to the middle of the highway... then put his gun to his head. They cut the feed immediately, because they knew what was going to happen. News outlets aren't stupid, so they can't play dumb on issues like the power of your simple choice of words.

 

Just as there are bad officers, there are going to be bad people on the other side of the fence. Here's the key difference, though: officers as a whole have more clout, more power, and responsibility. We can't stop random people from going up and murdering cops, but we absolutely could impose stricter training regimens to prevent unjust officer-caused deaths and injuries.

 

Speaking of riots, bit of an aside that I thought was relevant to this topic:

 

 

In yesterday's Fear the Walking Dead, there was social commentary on police brutality and racial tensions. Officers shot several zombies in a low-income area, but since knowledge of the epidemic is being suppressed, it caused many people to riot over the basis it looked like they were shooting unarmed people, never mind looking to suppress anybody trying to record the footage.

 

I just thought it was an interesting plot point to recognize how big of an issue police brutality is in America and the potential effects thereof in a situation like that.

Edited by Ty the Tasmanian Ogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Legosi (Tani Coyote)

http://www.copblock.org/139991/cop-staples-stamp-threats/

 

In which the GIFT meets the police force.

 

Now, copblock has a VERY huge bias (like holy shit), but the story is still kind of terrifying. Even if only a handful of cops have attitudes as extreme as this officer, that still makes me concerned. We can't really do anything about psychos in wider society without invading privacy, but we can absolutely have very high standards for who gets to be an officer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
CrownSlayer’s Shadow

Okay, so apparently Prairie View/Hempstead, TX has another wtf after Sandra Bland. Thankfully there's no killing this time, but this deserves mention given that it was a councilman.

Maybe I'm a bit ignorant on this, but isn't this a big no-no unless under certain circumstances like blatant illegal activities (bribery for example)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legosi (Tani Coyote)

So unless the police department is privatized, I'd be willing to wager this guy is technically their boss in an indirect fashion.

 

Are these guys stupid?

 

I can understand targeting rank and file people who don't really have much legal or social recourse, but attacking a guy who actually has political power? This is the kind of guy who will have much more benefit of the doubt than ordinary black people (since he is one of the "successfully uplifted" ones).

 

He's pretty obviously on his knees cooperating, and they elect to taze him anyway. And the video is now everywhere.

 

But it's Texas, so I'm not expecting much to come from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CrownSlayer’s Shadow

It's odd, because PV is almost entirely black, including the police force bar a single hispanic officer I remember when I was down there (unless shit's changed since then). Seems like the police got too power crazy, but just...I don't know.

All I can say is that right now, I'm glad I'm not there considering the stuff going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to NPR some time ago, as you do, and I happened upon an old interview with a mid-/upper-level police officer, resurrected because it had become relevant with all the recent violence and protests. Anyway, one of the things which the man said in defense of the police is that officers who are on duty at night very often live in a completely different world to those on day shifts. At night, many neighborhoods are threatening places, where dangerous people are much more common and officers have to bring down the hammer or they risk getting eaten alive, or something like that. However, cops on day shifts see a completely different side to these places; people are smiling and friendly. Courtesy and helpfulness are the order of the day, and the ne'erdowells are often out of the picture.

Cops oftentimes will work the same hours for long periods of time - a handful of years, maybe - which means that a cop transitioning from night to day is going to be at severe risk of, well, doing what bad things you'd expect a cop to do; brutality, shooting, that kind of thing. Instinctive expectations and reactions honed during the night shift years are going to kick in and perhaps do a lot of harm.

I'm not defending police brutality, nor am I suggesting that all these bad cops are transitioning, but it would probably be worthwhile making cops undergo training courses to acclimate them to the protocols, public behaviors etc more relevant to the specific day/night shift they're going to be working.
 

Something else that was said in this old interview, IIRC with a Chicago police officer, was that police officers suffer the same mental pressures and effects that soldiers endure in wartime and suffer from afterwards. It was suggested that there could be many thousands of officers out there right now with undiagnosed PTSD and other mental issues, caused by their years of active service, and that this may be a significant contributing factor in many instances of way out of hand brutality and some shootings.

 

It's worth a thought, anyway.

Edited by Patticus
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legosi (Tani Coyote)

That's actually a very interesting angle to look at.

 

10 PM-4 AM are very dangerous times in many places that would be alright during the day. It stands to reason someone used to working those hours might not adjust well in safer times.

 

It's more or less like how people who move from a dangerous neighborhood to a safe one still have habits of locking every door, when everyone else is content to leave theirs unlocked. It becomes second nature. There's strong evidence that bad neighborhoods deteriorate due to internalization; people living there who were nice gradually become more cold and violent over time as a survival response. Why not officers who are temporary residents every day?

 

I have no doubt there's a good chunk of officers who are abusive in thought and action. But I think a lot of them are like the average American on the subject of race - they have a conscious support for equality, but subconscious prejudices guide their behavior. An officer may mean well, but if he's got PTSD, or a subconscious prejudice, or has worked extensively in dangerous areas, it's going to guide his behavior.

 

That just speaks to a need to combat poverty further, though. It degrades the people who live in it as well as the officers who patrol the area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legosi (Tani Coyote)

For how this all came about: the Brown case came up in Multicultural Ed, so I was just looking around for sources on the case. My partner described it as a murder, so I was inclined to point out that that ship has sailed.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/

 

To me, the Brown case is a mixed bag. On one hand, it did raise awareness of racial disparity in police brutality; it also showed the sort of corruption in the system with how Wilson was able to testify before a grand jury. On the other, Brown was a poor catalyst of choice to energize people, since he's been found pretty much guilty. It's basically like how the GOP kept harping on about Benghazi to damage Hillary, only for it to come out that the "scandal" was pretty much fabricated. Who's going to take them seriously now?

 

Guilt by association is a fallacy, but it is very potent. The establishment apologists were cackling with glee when the federal autopsy came up and strengthened Wilson's case rather than weakening it, because now the credibility of the brutality camp just got a major dent. It looks more like an agenda than an actual concern for brutality statistics. I know my mother, for example, was all too quickly shaking her head when I relayed the newer findings of the case that would seem to indicate Wilson's killing was justified.

 

I think the black gentleman who wrote the article sums my thoughts up best. We can't deny that brutality exists and is far from an isolated trend; as we've seen in this thread, it even crosses racial boundaries with enough frequency that whites should be easily able to get behind the cause of limiting it. It happens every day and even cops who are normally good people can be easily capable of it. However, the Brown case shows the dangers of automatically assuming the facts of the case.

 

I think the cause for fixing the serious issues with brutality in the police system would benefit a lot more if minds were not made up the moment "white" and "black" entered the equation. Brutality is contrary to the American idea of justice. Deciding guilt or innocence without waiting for evidence is likewise contrary to the idea. When one assumes a white officer is guilty of brutality by default, one is basically being the same as the white mobs who decided that any accused black rapist was guilty.

 

Consider the lessons of the Supreme Court. Long before Loving v. Virginia, the justices desired to rule miscegenation law unconstitutional, as confirmed by their comments made in private. But they decided that no case was the "right one," e.g. it didn't have enough going for it to be the best way to strike down the laws of several states. In the same way, the Brown case was a poor choice to really stir the issue.

 

I am thankful that much better cases have emerged since then, some complete with footage.

Edited by Wendigogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For how this all came about: the Brown case came up in Multicultural Ed, so I was just looking around for sources on the case. My partner described it as a murder, so I was inclined to point out that that ship has sailed.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/

 

To me, the Brown case is a mixed bag. On one hand, it did raise awareness of racial disparity in police brutality; it also showed the sort of corruption in the system with how Wilson was able to testify before a grand jury. On the other, Brown was a poor catalyst of choice to energize people, since he's been found pretty much guilty. It's basically like how the GOP kept harping on about Benghazi to damage Hillary, only for it to come out that the "scandal" was pretty much fabricated. Who's going to take them seriously now?

 

Guilt by association is a fallacy, but it is very potent. The establishment apologists were cackling with glee when the federal autopsy came up and strengthened Wilson's case rather than weakening it, because now the credibility of the brutality camp just got a major dent. It looks more like an agenda than an actual concern for brutality statistics. I know my mother, for example, was all too quickly shaking her head when I relayed the newer findings of the case that would seem to indicate Wilson's killing was justified.

 

I think the black gentleman who wrote the article sums my thoughts up best. We can't deny that brutality exists and is far from an isolated trend; as we've seen in this thread, it even crosses racial boundaries with enough frequency that whites should be easily able to get behind the cause of limiting it. It happens every day and even cops who are normally good people can be easily capable of it. However, the Brown case shows the dangers of automatically assuming the facts of the case.

 

I think the cause for fixing the serious issues with brutality in the police system would benefit a lot more if minds were not made up the moment "white" and "black" entered the equation. Brutality is contrary to the American idea of justice. Deciding guilt or innocence without waiting for evidence is likewise contrary to the idea. When one assumes a white officer is guilty of brutality by default, one is basically being the same as the white mobs who decided that any accused black rapist was guilty.

 

Consider the lessons of the Supreme Court. Long before Loving v. Virginia, the justices desired to rule miscegenation law unconstitutional, as confirmed by their comments made in private. But they decided that no case was the "right one," e.g. it didn't have enough going for it to be the best way to strike down the laws of several states. In the same way, the Brown case was a poor choice to really stir the issue.

 

I am thankful that much better cases have emerged since then, some complete with footage.

This may not be very appropriate here, but this whole comment reminded me of something I once heard someone say. 

"In this day and age, we are guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. " 

I'm not even sure that has something to do with this, but it just reminded me of it for some reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legosi (Tani Coyote)

This may not be very appropriate here, but this whole comment reminded me of something I once heard someone say. 

"In this day and age, we are guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. " 

I'm not even sure that has something to do with this, but it just reminded me of it for some reason. 

No, it is appropriate.

The overall trend is that officers are becoming trigger happy, judges excessively punish, etc. It works in reverse too; there's a subset of the population who automatically assume the officer's guilt and the minority victim's innocence. I honestly wish skin color was no longer reported in the media. We can let the statistics speak to the disproportionate shooting rates. We don't need it coloring every news article.

I once had a friend use being held without a trial as "evidence" of this, but I think that's going a bit far. If there's probable cause you're a murderer, it doesn't seem logical to say "ayyy, we've got a hunch you killed that guy but we need evidence first." What murderer wouldn't skip town or destroy the evidence? It makes perfect sense to be able to detain people without trial for a short period of time.

It's odd. I don't like the idea that the officer is presumed automatically guilty. But at the same time, I can see why the burden of proof needs to be on the officer; he is an agent of the government. Our system runs on the idea that the government needs to prove its case before it can punish you.

Edited by Wendigogilvie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may not be very appropriate here, but this whole comment reminded me of something I once heard someone say. 

"In this day and age, we are guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. " 

I'm not even sure that has something to do with this, but it just reminded me of it for some reason. 

The real issue is that the assumption falls on both sides of any given incident; so when situations pop up where both extreme viewpoints have apparent truth to them (like the ongoing Zimmerman circus) it makes the issue harder to discuss when martyrs are made out of those who don't deserve it but the person who pulled the trigger acted poorly too. Consider Eric Garner. Nothing about that case really read as anything other than a homicide, and that's the highest profile case in recent memory that was so universally against what the police did in public opinion; but even then you'll be hard pressed to find anywhere near the sentiment that he was killed because he was black, and it does a disservice to simply assume that it is because of some underlying racism in a given populace.

 

This forum just happens to skew hard "left" on issues related to police actions, to the extent that the counterpoint that is also common (assumption of guilt on the part of the person killed for their death) is so far out of the realm of believable that it isn't even considered.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Zaysho changed the title to Police Brutality Thread

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.