Black Guns Matter

[Crazy Eddie]

To be fair, I only lob cheap insults at Derec because I have him on ignore and because making fun of racist trolls amuses me

Why should anyone focus on the people who are armed when the discussion is about people who are unarmed?

Because they make an issue about the number that are shot--never mind that well over 90% of police shootings are quite clear cut.

They're not all that pissed off about the ones that are "quite clear cut," something I've pointed out to you many, MANY times. They're pissed off about the ones that AREN'T so clear cut, but even that isn't the biggest issue that gets them riled up.

No, they don't protest as loud at the clear ones but we still see them trying to frame the clear ones as invalid.

You see a scattering of individuals trying to frame the clear ones as invalid. That's the reason it's not "as loud," because there's no clear consensus on those cases where the victim was behaving badly.

All of which is besides the point, because BLM isn't about the conduct of the victims of the shootings, it's about the conduct of the police departments. "Black Lives Matter" means police should be held accountable for taking those lives just like anybody else.

For example, that guy with a "book". It's pretty obvious he tried to apply hood tactics against some plainclothes cops and it backfired horribly. Justified.

And this is a really good example. The nature of the protests wasn't about what HE did wrong, it's a question about what the POLICE did wrong that turned what should have been a pretty ordinary situation into a shooting. The entirety of the protests stems from the fact that the officers in question chose to treat him as a potential threat before they had any actual reason to do so and escalated from "suspicious unidentified individual" to "shoot or don't shoot" in about ten seconds flat. Nor is the actual shooting "obviously" justified; the man made no threatening gestures and no hostile action towards the police and was instead killed because of their fear.

Civilians do not have a responsibility to make cops feel safe, it's exactly the other way around.

Remember where it really got started? A justified shooting of an unarmed guy.

Justified by the police, yes. And you also remember that the shooting was precipitated by an overzealous cop who drove up on a suspect for jaywalking, turned the confrontation into a fight and then shot the suspect because he was loosing.

This is the entirety of BLM's beef with the police. None of the things that lead to Michael Brown's shooting were neccesary steps for enforcing the law, and neither, ultimately, was his shooting. If the police concluded that Wilson acted according to proper procedure, then there's something drastically wrong with proper procedure.

That's what the rank and file believe

And the rank and file IS the movement, not the agitators.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Remember where it really got started? A justified shooting of an unarmed guy.

It started with the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Then it gained more traction with Michael Brown, and then Tamir Rice.

There have always been protests about black shootings. The first I heard of BLM was Michael Brown--and there's little doubt that was a justified shooting. The witnesses that defended him made claims incompatible with the physical evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Translation: The cops saw that a black man had a handgun*, so killing him was justified.

*North Carolina's status as an open carry state is irrelevant. The absence of a credible threat to anyone's safety is also irrelevant. The right to keep and bear arms is for Whites Only.

Translation: You don't understand the rules about firearms.

Carrying a weapon is fine. Brandishing it not. He threatened the cops. When they called his challenge he upped the threat--and they escalated even more.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It started with the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Then it gained more traction with Michael Brown, and then Tamir Rice.

Again, it didn't help that the Ferguson police decided to attack the entire local neighborhood after Martin was killed.

You mean when the rioters attacked?

(Note: I am not saying the average person there is a rioter. The police didn't attack everyone, either.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To be fair, I only lob cheap insults at Derec because I have him on ignore and because making fun of racist trolls amuses me

Why should anyone focus on the people who are armed when the discussion is about people who are unarmed?

Because they make an issue about the number that are shot--never mind that well over 90% of police shootings are quite clear cut.

They're not all that pissed off about the ones that are "quite clear cut," something I've pointed out to you many, MANY times. They're pissed off about the ones that AREN'T so clear cut, but even that isn't the biggest issue that gets them riled up.

No, they don't protest as loud at the clear ones but we still see them trying to frame the clear ones as invalid.

You see a scattering of individuals trying to frame the clear ones as invalid. That's the reason it's not "as loud," because there's no clear consensus on those cases where the victim was behaving badly.

So, you're showing that not all of BLM defends the clearly guilty.

All of which is besides the point, because BLM isn't about the conduct of the victims of the shootings, it's about the conduct of the police departments. "Black Lives Matter" means police should be held accountable for taking those lives just like anybody else.

The police should be held accountable for justified shootings? What exactly does that entail???

For example, that guy with a "book". It's pretty obvious he tried to apply hood tactics against some plainclothes cops and it backfired horribly. Justified.

And this is a really good example. The nature of the protests wasn't about what HE did wrong, it's a question about what the POLICE did wrong that turned what should have been a pretty ordinary situation into a shooting. The entirety of the protests stems from the fact that the officers in question chose to treat him as a potential threat before they had any actual reason to do so and escalated from "suspicious unidentified individual" to "shoot or don't shoot" in about ten seconds flat. Nor is the actual shooting "obviously" justified; the man made no threatening gestures and no hostile action towards the police and was instead killed because of their fear.

The whole incident started with him taking a hostile action towards the police! Whether he realized they were the police (I see no reason to think he did--his actions make a lot more sense if he thought he was dealing with hoods) is irrelevant.

Remember where it really got started? A justified shooting of an unarmed guy.

Justified by the police, yes. And you also remember that the shooting was precipitated by an overzealous cop who drove up on a suspect for jaywalking, turned the confrontation into a fight and then shot the suspect because he was loosing.

I see no overzealousness on the part of the cop. Michael Brown was out of line. Had he gotten out of the street like he should have we never would have heard of him. However, he chose to apply hood tactics to the cops. Oops.

This is the entirety of BLM's beef with the police. None of the things that lead to Michael Brown's shooting were neccesary steps for enforcing the law, and neither, ultimately, was his shooting. If the police concluded that Wilson acted according to proper procedure, then there's something drastically wrong with proper procedure.

Then we should deport BLM to Somalia since they want a world with no law enforcement.

You are saying that BLMs grief is that blacks lose when they choose to fight the police. Sorry, but that's how it should be! If the police are out of line, fight them in court, not the streets.

That's what the rank and file believe

And the rank and file IS the movement, not the agitators.

No, because they follow the lead of the agitators. You're still in the wrong if you follow a bad lead.

 

[laughing dog]

It started with the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Then it gained more traction with Michael Brown, and then Tamir Rice.

There have always been protests about black shootings. The first I heard of BLM was Michael Brown ....

Your lack of knowledge is your responsibility. The BLM really got started with the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So, you're showing that not all of BLM defends the clearly guilty.

And this is at least the seventh time you've been shown that too.

All of which is besides the point, because BLM isn't about the conduct of the victims of the shootings, it's about the conduct of the police departments. "Black Lives Matter" means police should be held accountable for taking those lives just like anybody else.

The police should be held accountable for justified shootings?

No. The POLICE do not get to decide whether or not a shooting is justified or not. That's why we have COURTS.

You can shoot someone who has clearly demonstrated his intent to attack you or is acting aggressively. A guy who runs at cops with a knife is an idiot who played chicken with a cop and died for it; maybe 10% of BLM protestors will get their panties in a wad about it. The guy who quickly pulls something out of his pocket and gets blown away might get 20% of them riled up especially if the thing he pulled out turned out to be an airsoft gun. The guy who pulls an actual gun and points it at the police -- or even fires it? You'll get 5% of the protestors at most.

But most of the protests are situations where the victim wasn't actually armed and the cops simply THOUGHT that he was. The facts of the situation turned out to be the victim wasn't armed and posed no threat, in which case the cop gets to sit at the witness stand and explain "Here are all the reasons I thought he was armed, and here is why I believed I was acting in self defense" at his murder trial.

What exactly does that entail???

Cops being held to AT LEAST the same standard of conduct as civilians. Ideally, they'd be held to a much HIGHER standard since they are armed and trained and empowered to take life when neccesary, but right now being held to the SAME standard would actually be a massive improvement. The courts are currently inclined to maintain that civilians are responsible for the conduct of police officers and that police officers are not responsible for their own conduct at all. That is not rational.

The whole incident started with him taking a hostile action towards the police!

No, the incident started with him exercising his 2nd amendment right to openly carry a firearm. Or is this you finally conceding the openly carrying a firearm is equivalent to "hostile action?" It very well might be.

But here, too, is the point of the example: the people who have to decide whether or not the police officers in question violated the law or violated his rights are called "the jury."

I see no overzealousness on the part of the cop.

Driving a car within fifteen inches of a suspect and physically grabbing him isn't "overzealous" in your book, but that's mainly because you're a tool. The day your that your fantasies about what constitutes justifiable behavior from law enforcement actually meet the test of reality is going to be a very bad day for you.

Then we should deport BLM to Somalia since they want a world with no law enforcement.

No, they want a country where the police are held to the same standard of due process as anyone else and are not held to be above or outside the law just because they wear uniforms and carry guns. But of course you already KNOW that, you're just eating shit for them because so far the problem doesn't overly affect white people.

You are saying that BLMs grief is that blacks lose when they choose to fight the police.

No, I fucking wrote what I was saying. Pay attention this time:
I'm saying that none of the things that lead to Michael Brown's shooting were neccesary steps for enforcing the law, and neither, ultimately, was his shooting. NONE of what Wilson did was neccesary to enforce local ordinance against jaywalking.

Police officers are (and forever should be) empowered to enforce the law, not to enforce their personal authority. In which case even a person choosing to fight the police would end up being justified if the police were the ones breaking the law.

If the police are out of line, fight them in court, not the streets.

Exactly. Fight them in court. Which requires police officers to ACTUALLY GO TO COURT when they kill someone under questionable circumstances. If the police are protected from facing justice by their departments and by the criminal justice system, then the issue will be decided in the streets instead.

IF Daren Wilson had been relieved of duty and indicted immediately, there wouldn't have been protests in Ferguson. People would have been pissed off if he got acquitted, but the MOVEMENT would have no teeth; he got his day in court and a jury (predictably) failed to convict him.

But Wilson didn't get a trial. He got a fraudulent process that turned the grand jury investigation into a de facto trial that in a process so unusual that its outcome was almost guaranteed. The criminal justice system did everything it could, not to determine Wilson's guilt or innocence, but to PROECT him from having to face that determination in the first place. The implication is that the district attorney already knew he would be found guilty and was shielding him and his fellow officers from the consequences of their actions.

There's dignity in consequences. People who shoot at police officers are welcome to theirs. Police officers who shoot at unarmed people should face the exact same fate.

And the rank and file IS the movement, not the agitators.

No, because they follow the lead of the agitators.

No, because they follow the lead of their own consciences and the agitators accrete together in a small violent group that gets all the media attention. People who get involved with the movement know exactly why they're doing it and what they hope to accomplish; the "agitators" don't change that simply by existing.

 

[Mumbles]

Again, it didn't help that the Ferguson police decided to attack the entire local neighborhood after Martin was killed.

You mean when the rioters attacked?

(Note: I am not saying the average person there is a rioter. The police didn't attack everyone, either.)

No, I mean the police - who were showing up to menace the community with police dogs and rifles before any marches had started, and who were pulling out military surplus before then as well. As with most other cases of looting, there was a police overreaction that pushed people over the line. This is part of why federal courts repeatedly found that the police involved had violated the rights of protestors and residents.

 

[laughing dog]

You mean when the rioters attacked?

(Note: I am not saying the average person there is a rioter. The police didn't attack everyone, either.)

No, I mean the police - who were showing up to menace the community with police dogs and rifles before any marches had started, and who were pulling out military surplus before then as well. As with most other cases of looting, there was a police overreaction that pushed people over the line. This is part of why federal courts repeatedly found that the police involved had violated the rights of protestors and residents.

You forget that in some people's minds, thugs have no rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And this is at least the seventh time you've been shown that too.

All of which is besides the point, because BLM isn't about the conduct of the victims of the shootings, it's about the conduct of the police departments. "Black Lives Matter" means police should be held accountable for taking those lives just like anybody else.

The police should be held accountable for justified shootings?

No. The POLICE do not get to decide whether or not a shooting is justified or not. That's why we have COURTS.

The point is that we have a shooting that is clearly justified and yet you say the police should be held accountable. It sounds like you want no police shootings, period.

You can shoot someone who has clearly demonstrated his intent to attack you or is acting aggressively. A guy who runs at cops with a knife is an idiot who played chicken with a cop and died for it; maybe 10% of BLM protestors will get their panties in a wad about it. The guy who quickly pulls something out of his pocket and gets blown away might get 20% of them riled up especially if the thing he pulled out turned out to be an airsoft gun. The guy who pulls an actual gun and points it at the police -- or even fires it? You'll get 5% of the protestors at most.

But most of the protests are situations where the victim wasn't actually armed and the cops simply THOUGHT that he was. The facts of the situation turned out to be the victim wasn't armed and posed no threat, in which case the cop gets to sit at the witness stand and explain "Here are all the reasons I thought he was armed, and here is why I believed I was acting in self defense" at his murder trial.

The problem is the agitators whitewash the situation and the protesters show up over cases where the cops did nothing wrong. For example, Michael Brown. We see a common pattern to many of these cases--hoods applying hood tactics to cops and it goes very wrong.

What exactly does that entail???

Cops being held to AT LEAST the same standard of conduct as civilians. Ideally, they'd be held to a much HIGHER standard since they are armed and trained and empowered to take life when neccesary, but right now being held to the SAME standard would actually be a massive improvement. The courts are currently inclined to maintain that civilians are responsible for the conduct of police officers and that police officers are not responsible for their own conduct at all. That is not rational.

Except we keep seeing political prosecutions.

The whole incident started with him taking a hostile action towards the police!

No, the incident started with him exercising his 2nd amendment right to openly carry a firearm. Or is this you finally conceding the openly carrying a firearm is equivalent to "hostile action?" It very well might be.

A perfect example of what I mean about the protests being based on a false picture of the situation.

Had the guy simply been carrying a gun he never would have come to the notice of the police. The incident started when he tried to run them off (not realizing that they weren't even interested in him in the first place) by showing his gun. It was a hostile move (effectively, "I can defend myself, don't mess with me!") to which the police responded.

But here, too, is the point of the example: the people who have to decide whether or not the police officers in question violated the law or violated his rights are called "the jury."

First it goes to the prosecutors. They have no business taking it before a jury unless they feel they can get a conviction.

I see no overzealousness on the part of the cop.

Driving a car within fifteen inches of a suspect and physically grabbing him isn't "overzealous" in your book, but that's mainly because you're a tool. The day your that your fantasies about what constitutes justifiable behavior from law enforcement actually meet the test of reality is going to be a very bad day for you.

Again, a false picture. What you are ignoring is that he was breaking the law at the time in question. I have no problems with the cops driving up to and grabbing someone who is breaking the law.

Then we should deport BLM to Somalia since they want a world with no law enforcement.

No, they want a country where the police are held to the same standard of due process as anyone else and are not held to be above or outside the law just because they wear uniforms and carry guns. But of course you already KNOW that, you're just eating shit for them because so far the problem doesn't overly affect white people.

Clearly false. Even you're asking for cops to be treated worse than civilians.

You are saying that BLMs grief is that blacks lose when they choose to fight the police.

No, I fucking wrote what I was saying. Pay attention this time:
I'm saying that none of the things that lead to Michael Brown's shooting were neccesary steps for enforcing the law, and neither, ultimately, was his shooting. NONE of what Wilson did was neccesary to enforce local ordinance against jaywalking.

What should he do, nothing?

If the police are out of line, fight them in court, not the streets.

Exactly. Fight them in court. Which requires police officers to ACTUALLY GO TO COURT when they kill someone under questionable circumstances. If the police are protected from facing justice by their departments and by the criminal justice system, then the issue will be decided in the streets instead.

Except in most cases we don't have questionable circumstances.

IF Daren Wilson had been relieved of duty and indicted immediately, there wouldn't have been protests in Ferguson. People would have been pissed off if he got acquitted, but the MOVEMENT would have no teeth; he got his day in court and a jury (predictably) failed to convict him.

And why should he be suspended? They looked at the situation, saw he was acting reasonably and that's that.

But Wilson didn't get a trial. He got a fraudulent process that turned the grand jury investigation into a de facto trial that in a process so unusual that its outcome was almost guaranteed. The criminal justice system did everything it could, not to determine Wilson's guilt or innocence, but to PROECT him from having to face that determination in the first place. The implication is that the district attorney already knew he would be found guilty and was shielding him and his fellow officers from the consequences of their actions.

You're just upset that he wasn't put on trial. Putting people on trial when it's clear you won't get a conviction is a miscarriage of justice.

No, because they follow the lead of the agitators.

No, because they follow the lead of their own consciences and the agitators accrete together in a small violent group that gets all the media attention. People who get involved with the movement know exactly why they're doing it and what they hope to accomplish; the "agitators" don't change that simply by existing.

But the agitators mislead the people and get them to do things they wouldn't do without the facts.

Besides, you're clearly showing you're after persecution, not justice.

 

[laughing dog]

But the agitators mislead the people and get them to do things they wouldn't do without the facts.

Besides, you're clearly showing you're after persecution, not justice.

Coming from a source that claimed
1) Trayvon Martin was the aggressor because he was using "purple drank:, and
2) Tamir Rice learned his thuggish ways from his mother,
that is the most ironic post of the new millenium to date.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And this is at least the seventh time you've been shown that too.

All of which is besides the point, because BLM isn't about the conduct of the victims of the shootings, it's about the conduct of the police departments. "Black Lives Matter" means police should be held accountable for taking those lives just like anybody else.

The police should be held accountable for justified shootings?

No. The POLICE do not get to decide whether or not a shooting is justified or not. That's why we have COURTS.

The point is that we have a shooting that is clearly justified...

And the people who should determine whether or not a shooting is justified are judges and juries. Which means police officers should not be shielded from prosecution if there is any question at all about the shooting's justification.

IF there is any question at all about the justification, let those officers provide reasonable doubt if the case is that clear cut. It shouldn't be a problem at all.

It sounds like you want no police shootings, period.

Why is that an unreasonable thing to want? There are lots of ways to achieve that goal, and getting the police to exercise restraint and deescalation strategies is a big part of it. Getting handguns and concealed weapons out of the hands of would-be criminals is another. Reducing shootings by 90% is more than doable from those two factors combined.

The problem is the agitators whitewash the situation and the protesters show up over cases where the cops did nothing wrong.

Bullshit. When the cops shoot someone who was unarmed; that is wrong. You can explain HOW it happened and how his own behavior contributed to the cops' wrong action. But it is the police who have the responsibility to make the correct and proper choice; the citizens have no such responsibility to do it FOR them.

When someone who was armed or acting aggressively is shot, this is ALSO wrong, but at least understandable in the context of a confrontation. In this case the response is a question of how and why the cop was unable to deescalate the situation without having to resort to lethal force, and that's a situation that calls for dialog, not protests. When and where police departments refuse to begin that dialog, or refuse to take the situation seriously, or try to avoid having that discussion alltogether by lying to the press and/or the public about what actually happened in that case, THEN you get protests.

For example, Michael Brown...

Is an example of the cops doing ALOT of shit wrong, which resulted in a homicide. The protests are a great example of what happens when a person in a position of extreme authority massively fails in the performance of his duty and then completely refuses to own that failure.

"Black lives matter" is shorthand. What it really means is "Black lives matter more than a policeman's ego"

Except we keep seeing political prosecutions.

Which is why nothing changes. The political prosecutions are gestures designed to shut up the protestors without actually changing the conditions that cause the problem in the first place. It's not going to work.

Had the guy simply been carrying a gun he never would have come to the notice of the police. The incident started when he tried to run them off

Which he, in an open carry state, has every right to do.

Even assuming that that is what actually happened and not (as you clearly assume we have all forgotten) some speculative theory you pulled out of your ass in order to justify the shooting.

It was a hostile move (effectively, "I can defend myself, don't mess with me!")

... Which is legal -- and is, in fact, the WHOLE POINT OF BEING ARMED -- in an open carry state.

It's clear you and a lot of people disagree. But you know who really should have had to decide who was right in that case? A judge, and a jury, in a court of law, ruling on whether or not a man openly carrying a handgun has the right to display that handgun in order to show would-be criminals he can defend himself.

The problem isn't the shooting. The problem is the police decided among themselves that there would be no consequences for the shooting. That is not a decision the police can be trusted to make on their own, but it still happens in almost every case.

OTOH, in cities and districts where they don't tolerate that shit, where corrupt cops get served up on a platter as soon as they're discovered, where cops who abuse their power or shoot people unnecessarily are thrown off the force immediately and/or prosecuted, you don't see a lot of protests. In fact, in those communities you see more people rallying behind their police departments, because they trust the officers who protect them to act honorably, because they know that if their police officers really screw up and hurt someone, they'll admit it, they'll own it, and they'll do what they can to fix it.

There are police departments that switch into "cover your ass!" mode when one of their officers does something stupid or tragic or unexpected. And then there's this guy:

Which is why the BLM movement has been so quiet in Richmond these past several years; it's not a coincidence that Richmond police officers also shoot fewer black people than almost any other department in the country.

It's almost as if authority figures who EARN the respect of the community are actually more likely to BE respected...

Clearly false. Even you're asking for cops to be treated worse than civilians.

Of course I am. Cops should be held to a HIGHER standard of conduct than civilians, which means they should be investigated more thoroughly and punished more severely when they screw up. That comes with being an authority figure: greater power means greater responsibility.

What should he do, nothing?

If he cannot gain Brown's cooperation in his grand anti-jaywalking crusade without physically engaging him in combat, then yes, HE SHOULD DO NOTHING.

If he cannot get Michael Brown to respect his authority as a police officer without engaging him in a physical struggle, then yes, HE SHOULD DO NOTHING.

If he can think of any way to get Michael Brown from walking in the street without driving his car up onto him and trying to fight him through an open window -- a monumentally stupid move according to every law enforcement specialist in the country -- he should do that instead, and if he CAN'T, he should lose his job and go into another line of work.

Black lives matter more than police officers feeling their authority is unchallenged.
Black lives matter ALOT more than stopping people from jaywalking
Black lives matter more than a police officer's career

You're just upset that he wasn't put on trial. Putting people on trial when it's clear you won't get a conviction is a miscarriage of justice.

Bullshit.

George Zimmerman was brought to trial under nearly identical circumstances. The only difference between Wilson and Zimmerman is that Wilson was a cop.

"Being a cop" is not a valid defense; it doesn't excuse reckless behavior or unnecessary violence. It should be the opposite of that: Wilson should have stood trial BECAUSE he was a cop, and because "being better at conflict resolution than George Fucking Zimmerman" is part of the job he has been entrusted to do. That police departments around the country prefer to hold civilians responsible for the conduct of their officers is the whole reason why Black Lives Matter is a thing.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But the agitators mislead the people and get them to do things they wouldn't do without the facts.

Besides, you're clearly showing you're after persecution, not justice.

Coming from a source that claimed
1) Trayvon Martin was the aggressor because he was using "purple drank:, and
2) Tamir Rice learned his thuggish ways from his mother,
that is the most ironic post of the new millenium to date.

And the officers who shot Tamir Rice were never prosecuted.

If you don't give people justice, they will protest. If you don't allow people to protest, they will actively if not violently rebel. If you don't allow people people to rebel, they will overthrow you and replace you with something way worse. And ALL of that stems from cops not wanting to look like pussies by backing down when people disrespect them.

This, my friends, is why America can't have nice things anymore.

 

[Mumbles]

Coming from a source that claimed
1) Trayvon Martin was the aggressor because he was using "purple drank:, and
2) Tamir Rice learned his thuggish ways from his mother,
that is the most ironic post of the new millenium to date.

And the officers who shot Tamir Rice were never prosecuted.

If you don't give people justice, they will protest. If you don't allow people to protest, they will actively if not violently rebel. If you don't allow people people to rebel, they will overthrow you and replace you with something way worse. And ALL of that stems from cops not wanting to look like pussies by backing down when people disrespect them.

This, my friends, is why America can't have nice things anymore.

You might remember the case of John Crawford III as well - not only were police not prosecuted for immediately killing him for holding a toy gun, but the guy who lied when calling 911 wasn't prosecuted, either.

And you have it absolutely correct. It's no coincidence that we saw rioting in cities that are known for widespread police corruption. Ferguson's PD acted as a white supremacist force, actively draining wealth from black residents and giving it to some white residents, so of course the black residents didn't trust them for a moment. Baltimore was mostly peaceful despite BPD's bad habits, until the PD decided to isolate and harass high school students. Dallas PD was attacked by a lone fanatic, but they got along with the vast majority of the protesters. Baton Rouge PD was attacked by a sovereign citizen after another mass attack on black protestors. Milwaukee, of course, has the derelict Sheriff Clarke, who managed to have a newborn baby die in his prison due to pure neglect.

The simple fact is that in many parts of the US, the police have never established any level of trust with local minority communities. If anything, they've worked hard to cultivate an active distrust towards them - so they shouldn't act shocked when it turns out that they reap what they've sown.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the agitators mislead the people and get them to do things they wouldn't do without the facts.

Besides, you're clearly showing you're after persecution, not justice.

Coming from a source that claimed
1) Trayvon Martin was the aggressor because he was using "purple drank:, and
2) Tamir Rice learned his thuggish ways from his mother,
that is the most ironic post of the new millenium to date.

Trayvon Martin certainly was the aggressor. Purple drank has nothing to do with it. He applied schoolyard thug rules to adult life, oops.

I don't see anything thuggish with Tamir Rice. What he learned from his mother was to avoid the cops. He's not the first person that got shot ditching contraband (he had been warned the lack of an orange tip made the "gun" illegal), he won't be the last.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And this is at least the seventh time you've been shown that too.

All of which is besides the point, because BLM isn't about the conduct of the victims of the shootings, it's about the conduct of the police departments. "Black Lives Matter" means police should be held accountable for taking those lives just like anybody else.

The police should be held accountable for justified shootings?

No. The POLICE do not get to decide whether or not a shooting is justified or not. That's why we have COURTS.

The point is that we have a shooting that is clearly justified...

And the people who should determine whether or not a shooting is justified are judges and juries. Which means police officers should not be shielded from prosecution if there is any question at all about the shooting's justification.

Reality: First it goes to the district attorney. Only if they think they can win does it go to trial. It is not the police making the decision.

IF there is any question at all about the justification, let those officers provide reasonable doubt if the case is that clear cut. It shouldn't be a problem at all.

Reality: The Constitution. You're asking for grossly unconstitutional treatment of the police.

It sounds like you want no police shootings, period.

Why is that an unreasonable thing to want? There are lots of ways to achieve that goal, and getting the police to exercise restraint and deescalation strategies is a big part of it. Getting handguns and concealed weapons out of the hands of would-be criminals is another. Reducing shootings by 90% is more than doable from those two factors combined.

1) At least a quarter are suicide by cop. You can't reasonably expect the cops to figure out the threat isn't real. (And sometimes it is real--some suicide by cop cases will start shooting if they don't get their wish by simply showing the gun.)

2) A decent number of the rest are people who don't want to go to jail and see the risk of shooting it out with the cops a better choice.

Disarming criminals is not a viable option. There are simply too many guns around and they're becoming easier and easier to make.

The problem is the agitators whitewash the situation and the protesters show up over cases where the cops did nothing wrong.

Bullshit. When the cops shoot someone who was unarmed; that is wrong. You can explain HOW it happened and how his own behavior contributed to the cops' wrong action. But it is the police who have the responsibility to make the correct and proper choice; the citizens have no such responsibility to do it FOR them.

No. It's a fully justified shooting when the cops shoot someone who is trying to take their gun. It's also unreasonable to expect the cops to figure out all cases of simulated weapons.

When someone who was armed or acting aggressively is shot, this is ALSO wrong, but at least understandable in the context of a confrontation.

We seem to disagree on what "wrong" means. You are defining all bad outcomes as wrong when in reality the least bad of the options isn't wrong.

In this case the response is a question of how and why the cop was unable to deescalate the situation without having to resort to lethal force, and that's a situation that calls for dialog, not protests. When and where police departments refuse to begin that dialog, or refuse to take the situation seriously, or try to avoid having that discussion alltogether by lying to the press and/or the public about what actually happened in that case, THEN you get protests.

That's liberal crap. Rarely is deescalation an option--most of these things go down too fast for that.

For example, Michael Brown...

Is an example of the cops doing ALOT of shit wrong, which resulted in a homicide. The protests are a great example of what happens when a person in a position of extreme authority massively fails in the performance of his duty and then completely refuses to own that failure.

"Black lives matter" is shorthand. What it really means is "Black lives matter more than a policeman's ego"

This isn't a matter of ego. This is a matter of maintaining law and order. You are taking the side of lawbreaker over the guy stopping him from breaking the law. If you want a functioning society the cops have to escalate when they meet resistance! To do otherwise is to hand society over to the thugs.

Except we keep seeing political prosecutions.

Which is why nothing changes. The political prosecutions are gestures designed to shut up the protestors without actually changing the conditions that cause the problem in the first place. It's not going to work.

The problem is you want an impossible situation.

The blacks don't need to change the police, the blacks need to change themselves. Note how even when the shooting is questionable it usually happens to people with substantial rap sheets. Doesn't that suggest that people are bringing it upon themselves? (And the ones that don't involve rap sheets almost always involve mental issues.)

If you're rational and behave reasonably the threat of being shot by the police is approximately zero.

Had the guy simply been carrying a gun he never would have come to the notice of the police. The incident started when he tried to run them off

Which he, in an open carry state, has every right to do.

And here you're utterly wrong. Threatening someone with a firearm without justification is a serious offense even in open carry states. I certainly hope you don't have any guns because you sure don't understand the laws about them!

Even assuming that that is what actually happened and not (as you clearly assume we have all forgotten) some speculative theory you pulled out of your ass in order to justify the shooting.

The cops don't just go rousting random people and shooting them.

It was a hostile move (effectively, "I can defend myself, don't mess with me!")

... Which is legal -- and is, in fact, the WHOLE POINT OF BEING ARMED -- in an open carry state.

It's clear you and a lot of people disagree. But you know who really should have had to decide who was right in that case? A judge, and a jury, in a court of law, ruling on whether or not a man openly carrying a handgun has the right to display that handgun in order to show would-be criminals he can defend himself.

The only reason for it to go before a judge would be to convict him. He was under no threat. Even if someone had been watching him that's not enough to justify showing a weapon. Watching is not an imminent threat and civilian use of force is only against imminent threats or in a few situations against bad guys escaping from having committed crimes against you. (The police operate under a slightly different standard on this--they must have no options to avert the threat but it need not be imminent. In the advent of a serious but non-imminent threat the civilian is expected to go to the cops--but the cops don't have anybody they can go to. Thus, for example, a local shooting of a guy who the police were taking to the station--while in the police car he said he was going to kill a certain person. The cops didn't know where to find that person so they couldn't warn him or protect him. When the guy was getting away the shot him. No imminent threat {he was cuffed and running away} but there was no other way to save the person he said he was going to kill.)

The problem isn't the shooting. The problem is the police decided among themselves that there would be no consequences for the shooting. That is not a decision the police can be trusted to make on their own, but it still happens in almost every case.

Internal affairs always investigates. It's just usually things are quite clear cut.

OTOH, in cities and districts where they don't tolerate that shit, where corrupt cops get served up on a platter as soon as they're discovered, where cops who abuse their power or shoot people unnecessarily are thrown off the force immediately and/or prosecuted, you don't see a lot of protests. In fact, in those communities you see more people rallying behind their police departments, because they trust the officers who protect them to act honorably, because they know that if their police officers really screw up and hurt someone, they'll admit it, they'll own it, and they'll do what they can to fix it.

The problem is you are saying there are bad cops because you don't understand they were acting properly.

Now, Ferguson has a police problem--but it stems from the city government using the police as a source of revenue. Blame the city council, not the cops.

Clearly false. Even you're asking for cops to be treated worse than civilians.

Of course I am. Cops should be held to a HIGHER standard of conduct than civilians, which means they should be investigated more thoroughly and punished more severely when they screw up. That comes with being an authority figure: greater power means greater responsibility.

But they have the same rights as any other citizen.

What should he do, nothing?

If he cannot gain Brown's cooperation in his grand anti-jaywalking crusade without physically engaging him in combat, then yes, HE SHOULD DO NOTHING.

If he cannot get Michael Brown to respect his authority as a police officer without engaging him in a physical struggle, then yes, HE SHOULD DO NOTHING.

In other words, all you have to do to be immune from the law is be tough.

I don't want to live in your version of society!

You're just upset that he wasn't put on trial. Putting people on trial when it's clear you won't get a conviction is a miscarriage of justice.

Bullshit.

George Zimmerman was brought to trial under nearly identical circumstances. The only difference between Wilson and Zimmerman is that Wilson was a cop.

The DA didn't charge Zimmerman because he knew it wasn't a good case. Charges were later brought because the media (remember that edited audio tape??) and the agitators made such an issue out of it. Personally I think that DA should have gone to jail for that.

"Being a cop" is not a valid defense; it doesn't excuse reckless behavior or unnecessary violence. It should be the opposite of that: Wilson should have stood trial BECAUSE he was a cop, and because "being better at conflict resolution than George Fucking Zimmerman" is part of the job he has been entrusted to do. That police departments around the country prefer to hold civilians responsible for the conduct of their officers is the whole reason why Black Lives Matter is a thing.

If a civilian wouldn't be on trial for X then neither should a cop.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Coming from a source that claimed
1) Trayvon Martin was the aggressor because he was using "purple drank:, and
2) Tamir Rice learned his thuggish ways from his mother,
that is the most ironic post of the new millenium to date.

Trayvon Martin certainly was the aggressor.

The aggressor in WHAT? He was being followed by a suspicious individual and decided to stand his ground; that suspicious individual then shot and killed him.

Does a police officer have the right to preemptively remove an individual who behaves in a threatening manner? If so, why didn't Trayvon Martin?

I don't see anything thuggish with Tamir Rice. What he learned from his mother was to avoid the cops. He's not the first person that got shot ditching contraband

Black lives matter more than the recovery of contraband.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And the officers who shot Tamir Rice were never prosecuted.

If you don't give people justice, they will protest. If you don't allow people to protest, they will actively if not violently rebel. If you don't allow people people to rebel, they will overthrow you and replace you with something way worse. And ALL of that stems from cops not wanting to look like pussies by backing down when people disrespect them.

This, my friends, is why America can't have nice things anymore.

You might remember the case of John Crawford III as well - not only were police not prosecuted for immediately killing him for holding a toy gun, but the guy who lied when calling 911 wasn't prosecuted, either.

I don't see why they didn't prosecute the liar.

Given what they knew I don't think the cops should have been prosecuted. (When you reasonably act on bad information you are generally held to have acted lawfully. The case that comes to mind that illustrates this best: A guy finds a guy on top of his wife having sex with her. She screams rape. He shoots the "rapist". Turns out it was consensual. He walks, she goes to jail for manslaughter.)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The case that comes to mind that illustrates this best: A guy finds a guy on top of his wife having sex with her. She screams rape. He shoots the "rapist". Turns out it was consensual. He walks, she goes to jail for manslaughter.)

You know what DOESN'T happen in that kind of case? If the police, on investigating and learning the sex was consensual, decide to get together one night and rape the guy's wife as punishment for lying.

Why am I using that as an example? Because the police are not in the business of finding guilt or innocence OR deciding someone's punishment. Prosecutors and courts are supposed to do that. Thus, in this case, if the police decide that the woman MAY have been lying about the sex and thus putting her paramour in danger, they put her on trial and see if they can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Black lives matter more than police officers wanting to be above the law.

 

[laughing dog]

Coming from a source that claimed
1) Trayvon Martin was the aggressor because he was using "purple drank:, and
2) Tamir Rice learned his thuggish ways from his mother,
that is the most ironic post of the new millenium to date.

Trayvon Martin certainly was the aggressor.

You confuse your opinion with fact.

Purple drank has nothing to do with it.

f purple drank had nothing to do with it, then why did you introduce it into the discussions?

He applied schoolyard thug rules to adult life, oops.

Actually, Zimmerman did. But, of course, you did not miss an opportunity to characterize a black shooting victim as a thug.

I don't see anything thuggish with Tamir Rice. What he learned from his mother was to avoid the cops. He's not the first person that got shot ditching contraband (he had been warned the lack of an orange tip made the "gun" illegal), he won't be the last.

Nope. You wrote he learned thuggish behavior from his mom.

But your responses simply proved my observation - you are more interested in persecution (justifying the deaths of unarmed black victims) than justice.