Black Guns Matter

[Crazy Eddie]

On the contrary, I have been DRASTICALLY consistent in this discussion, even resisting your repeated attempts to sidestep the issue with straw-men and red herrings. Stand still for a few hours and try to discuss what we're actually talking about, and you'll see the goalposts are entirely stationary.

Black lives matter more than your crappy aim.

You were switching to evil cops committing crimes as a punishment for speaking up. This has been about police shootings. You moved the goalposts.

Nope. I'm pointing out to you that 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.

Black lives matter more than your lack of reading comprehension.

 

[Mumbles]

It simply makes no sense for Zimmerman to have attacked. Doing so would not help his goals in any way.

Of course it does. He clearly didn't want Martin to "get away", thus it would make sense, in his mind, to grab Martin and prevent him from escaping from him.

Now, it makes less sense for Martin to freely attack Zimmerman - which is why Martin's initial response was to run away from him.

This reminds me of the recent case in Anaheim, where an off-duty cop decided to grab a 13 year old kid without cause, tried to drag the kid off, and ended up firing a gun wildly into a crowd because, surprise, everyone watching thought he was acting like a kidnapper and someone decided to defend the kid by punching him.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Most of them come when the bad guy attacks the cops.

We have specifically discussed four different cases in this thread; NONE of them involved the "bad guy" attacking the cops.

In any case, this claim is bullshit. It is not the speed of the "bad guy's" assault on the cops that pre-empts deescalation; it is, in fact, the cops' fear that they don't have time to ramp down the tension and feel compelled to "Act now! Act decisively! Hit hard and hit fast!" They arrive on the scene in the mindset that they are arriving to the scene of a battle that has to be won or a fight that they MUST win. The civilians they're dealing with, on the other hand, are simply angry and scared and half the time barely understand what the fuck is going on. By the time they're able to calm down and think more rationally about the situation, half a dozen shots have already been fired.

You're calling your own words bullshit.

No I'm calling YOUR words bullshit. "Deescalate" does not amount to "letting the bad guy go." Not generally, not occasionally, not even metaphorically.

Look upthread, your way of deescalating is to do nothing about the crime.

It's not supposed to do anything about CRIME. It's a tactic that can allow police interactions with civilians to remain peaceful and efficient rather than violent and chaotic.

Your claim is bullshit because 99% of the time, enforcement of the law DOES NOT require escalation of force; a motorist can sit there and scream at you, call your mother a whore, remark about how much he's going to enjoy fucking your wife in the eye socket when he gets home and then explain to you in the most detailed terms possible how he's going to tell the whole world what a giant mincing faggot you are and all you have to do to enforce the law is say "Cool story, bro. Here's your speeding ticket."

You could, on the other hand, drag the guy out of his car and roughing him up a bit, executing a search on his vehicle, pulling your gun on him when his erratic behavior starts to become unpredictable and then shoot and kill him when he answers your "Get your ass on the ground!" with "Fuck you, baby raper!" But you know what? The issuing of a speeding ticket does not require any of those additional steps.

Note that this is about use of force, not about shootings.

"Shooting" is the use of force, specifically of the lethal variety.

Black lives matter more than your split hairs.

However, in lethal force situations it's usually by surprise

Bullshit. An unarmed suspect cannot "surprise" a cop with a threat of lethal force, because he does not, in fact, POSE a threat in the first place.

You are, in effect, admitting that the shooting of unarmed suspects primarily happens because a startled officer sees a threat where there isn't one. This, too, is unlikely in a situation where the escalation to lethal force is either avoided or undertaken very very deliberately.

the cops catch someone who doesn't want to go to jail and they go for a weapon.

Bullshit squared. That's not an escalation of force, that's the INITIATION of force. It's also not something that BLM protestors usually give a damn about.

The DoJ has been flirting with the deep end for a while now.

Black lives matter more than your lack of depth.

Once again, showing that what you want is no law enforcement on blacks.

"Blacks must be submissive to police officers" is no longer the law in any state of the union.

Black lives matter more than your nostalgia for Jim Crow

While the police are not the law they are the means by which it is enforced. No police authority = no law enforcement.

Police officers do not require respect for their authority in order to enforce the law. They require COOPERATION. There are many techniques to obtain the cooperation of a suspected law breaker, and the escalation of force is far from the most reliable approach.

He was shot because he tried to fight the cops and take the cop's gun.

Correction: he was shot because the cop who decided to fight him had moments earlier feared that Brown was trying to get his gun and was still -- after the loss of his gun was no longer a possibility -- really really frightened.

Black lives matter more than cops being scared

Once again you're showing that you want blacks to be above the law.

Black lives matter more than your preference that only whites get to be above the law

And if you don't know who the suspect is retreat = let the crime go unpunished...

... for all of the five minutes it takes for him to calm down and then you talk to him again and maybe get him to cooperate since he isn't feeling like his back is against the wall.

Or are you under the impression that every suspected criminal in America is actually some kind of parkour teleporting batman ninja who will simply disappear into thin air if he isn't handcuffed and subdued within twenty seconds of a police officer deciding to arrest him?

Black lives matter more than batman crime ninjas

You bring cases to trial only if you think you can win. To bring a case you know you can't win is an abuse of authority...

The man who prosecuted Emmet Till's killers knew he couldn't win. Should he have gone to jail for pressing charges?

All you care about is blacks (and your policies will up the black death rate anyway), not society.

Black lives matter more than your preference that they not be part of society.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It makes no sense for Martin to have attacked either. And there is lots of evidence that Zimmerman is anything but a nonviolent, peaceful and rational human being. But you continue to literally assert fiction is fact while trying to "understand" the situation.

It does make sense if he was casing houses and didn't want Zimmerman involved.

I just said I wasn't the one who brought up the purple drank. You're using alt-facts to try to rebut my position.

You are the one who argued that Martin was on purple drank and that it helped explain what you believed were his actions. That is not behavior of someone who is trying to understand the situation - that is the behavior of someone making stuff up in order to concoct an explanation that is consist with someone's biases.

But thank you providing yet more evidence to support my initial observation.

Alt-facts again.

- - - Updated - - -

You were switching to evil cops committing crimes as a punishment for speaking up. This has been about police shootings. You moved the goalposts.

Nope. I'm pointing out to you that 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.

Black lives matter more than your lack of reading comprehension.

I suggest rereading.

- - - Updated - - -

It simply makes no sense for Zimmerman to have attacked. Doing so would not help his goals in any way.

Of course it does. He clearly didn't want Martin to "get away", thus it would make sense, in his mind, to grab Martin and prevent him from escaping from him.

Zimmerman's goals are met just as well by following. Martin's are not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have specifically discussed four different cases in this thread; NONE of them involved the "bad guy" attacking the cops.

There's no question Michael Brown did--note where his DNA was found.

Yes, the cop grabbed him first but that was a reasonable response to being ignored when he told Brown to get out of the road.

In any case, this claim is bullshit. It is not the speed of the "bad guy's" assault on the cops that pre-empts deescalation; it is, in fact, the cops' fear that they don't have time to ramp down the tension and feel compelled to "Act now! Act decisively! Hit hard and hit fast!" They arrive on the scene in the mindset that they are arriving to the scene of a battle that has to be won or a fight that they MUST win. The civilians they're dealing with, on the other hand, are simply angry and scared and half the time barely understand what the fuck is going on. By the time they're able to calm down and think more rationally about the situation, half a dozen shots have already been fired.

The cop losing means the bad guy gets away. In your fantasy world a black can go aggressive on the cop, the cop backs down and the black gets off scot free because they aren't identified. Might as well not even have cops.

You're calling your own words bullshit.

No I'm calling YOUR words bullshit. "Deescalate" does not amount to "letting the bad guy go." Not generally, not occasionally, not even metaphorically.

When challenged for specifics all of yours have been to let the black guy go.

Look upthread, your way of deescalating is to do nothing about the crime.

It's not supposed to do anything about CRIME. It's a tactic that can allow police interactions with civilians to remain peaceful and efficient rather than violent and chaotic.

Peaceful? No--it makes the perp's best play to attack the cop in a non-lethal fashion.

Efficient? Zero law enforcement.

Your claim is bullshit because 99% of the time, enforcement of the law DOES NOT require escalation of force; a motorist can sit there and scream at you, call your mother a whore, remark about how much he's going to enjoy fucking your wife in the eye socket when he gets home and then explain to you in the most detailed terms possible how he's going to tell the whole world what a giant mincing faggot you are and all you have to do to enforce the law is say "Cool story, bro. Here's your speeding ticket."

And 99.9% of the time that's what actually does happen. You just assume that when it goes badly it's the cop's fault.

Note that this is about use of force, not about shootings.

"Shooting" is the use of force, specifically of the lethal variety.

It's one category of force. Your "evidence" is about lesser degrees of force, it's not relevant.

However, in lethal force situations it's usually by surprise

Bullshit. An unarmed suspect cannot "surprise" a cop with a threat of lethal force, because he does not, in fact, POSE a threat in the first place.

If either person is armed a hand-to-hand fight is considered armed. If the bad guy wins he might decide to eliminate the witness.

You are, in effect, admitting that the shooting of unarmed suspects primarily happens because a startled officer sees a threat where there isn't one. This, too, is unlikely in a situation where the escalation to lethal force is either avoided or undertaken very very deliberately.

No. I'm saying that you are incapable of perceiving a threat from anything other than a gun.

the cops catch someone who doesn't want to go to jail and they go for a weapon.

Bullshit squared. That's not an escalation of force, that's the INITIATION of force. It's also not something that BLM protestors usually give a damn about.

They just say the gun didn't exist.

Once again, showing that what you want is no law enforcement on blacks.

"Blacks must be submissive to police officers" is no longer the law in any state of the union.

People should submit to lawful authority. That's the cops.

The reason we don't see many of these cases with whites is we haven't been fed decades of fight-the-cops bullshit. We get stopped, we behave reasonably, things go fine.

While the police are not the law they are the means by which it is enforced. No police authority = no law enforcement.

Police officers do not require respect for their authority in order to enforce the law. They require COOPERATION. There are many techniques to obtain the cooperation of a suspected law breaker, and the escalation of force is far from the most reliable approach.

:laughing-smiley-014:laughing-smiley-014

He was shot because he tried to fight the cops and take the cop's gun.

Correction: he was shot because the cop who decided to fight him had moments earlier feared that Brown was trying to get his gun and was still -- after the loss of his gun was no longer a possibility -- really really frightened.

Black lives matter more than cops being scared

Brown had tried to take his gun once. He was coming back--the most likely conclusion is he would try to take the gun again. If you are lawfully holding a gun on someone and they advance on you and get too close that's a clear demonstration of hostile and potentially lethal threat. Civilians who pull the trigger in such a situation walk.

Once again you're showing that you want blacks to be above the law.

Black lives matter more than your preference that only whites get to be above the law

I don't want anyone above the law.

And if you don't know who the suspect is retreat = let the crime go unpunished...

... for all of the five minutes it takes for him to calm down and then you talk to him again and maybe get him to cooperate since he isn't feeling like his back is against the wall.

And he goes ballistic again. Sooner or later he slips away.

Or are you under the impression that every suspected criminal in America is actually some kind of parkour teleporting batman ninja who will simply disappear into thin air if he isn't handcuffed and subdued within twenty seconds of a police officer deciding to arrest him?

He doesn't need to be a ninja, just have a non-zero chance of escape. There's always a non-zero chance of escape in the city.

Black lives matter more than batman crime ninjas

You bring cases to trial only if you think you can win. To bring a case you know you can't win is an abuse of authority...

The man who prosecuted Emmet Till's killers knew he couldn't win. Should he have gone to jail for pressing charges?

No, because that was jury nullification.

All you care about is blacks (and your policies will up the black death rate anyway), not society.

Black lives matter more than your preference that they not be part of society.

You're the one trying to keep them out of society, not me.

 

[laughing dog]

It does make sense if he was casing houses and didn't want Zimmerman involved.

No, it doesn't. Continuing walking and ignoring Zimmerman in order to come back later makes more sense. Oh, it makes sense that Zimmerman attacked Martin if Zimmerman is a violent irrational person. In any event, response proves my point - you have to make up stuff in order to defend your position.

Alt-facts again.

I believe you believe that falsehood is true which makes it truly ironic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it doesn't. Continuing walking and ignoring Zimmerman in order to come back later makes more sense. Oh, it makes sense that Zimmerman attacked Martin if Zimmerman is a violent irrational person. In any event, response proves my point - you have to make up stuff in order to defend your position.

Alt-facts again.

I believe you believe that falsehood is true which makes it truly ironic.

If he failed to break contact the cops would find him. He didn't want that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In any case, this claim is bullshit. It is not the speed of the "bad guy's" assault on the cops that pre-empts deescalation; it is, in fact, the cops' fear that they don't have time to ramp down the tension and feel compelled to "Act now! Act decisively! Hit hard and hit fast!" They arrive on the scene in the mindset that they are arriving to the scene of a battle that has to be won or a fight that they MUST win. The civilians they're dealing with, on the other hand, are simply angry and scared and half the time barely understand what the fuck is going on. By the time they're able to calm down and think more rationally about the situation, half a dozen shots have already been fired.

The cop losing means the bad guy gets away...

... unless the cop avoids getting into a fight in the first place, in which case he has a good chance of convincing the "bad guy" to come peacefully.

And that assumes said "bad guy" is even being arrested for anything. Not all interactions with police even end with an arrest; not even most of them NEED to. Police won't arrest you unless they have a warrant or evidence that a crime has actually been committed; if the person they're talking to isn't a suspect of a crime, or didn't do anything arrestable (e.g. jaywalking, speeding, celling loose cigarettes, panhandling, smoking in a non-smoking zone, dancing while black, etc) there's nothing to "get away" with in the first place.

You're calling your own words bullshit.

No I'm calling YOUR words bullshit. "Deescalate" does not amount to "letting the bad guy go." Not generally, not occasionally, not even metaphorically.

When challenged for specifics all of yours have been to let the black guy go.

Aside from the fact that being black isn't actually a crime (black lives matter more than prosecuting blackness), I have REPEATEDLY said that the goal of deescalation is to give the civilians in question time to cool down so that the police can continue to deal with them on more peaceful, less confrontational terms. Nowhere did I even indirectly acknowledge your idiotic strawman equating deescalation with a complete abandonment of the scene and removal of the police presence from the area.

In fact in this and other threads I have gone so far as to offer specifics, such as "give him five minutes to calm down" or "give him some room, at least 30 feet" or even "Give calm and clear instructions and actually wait for the subject to clearly obey or disobey them before reacting."

Why is it you assume that black people are so incredibly powerful and athletic that any one of these things is tantamount to "letting him escape?"

Peaceful? No--it makes the perp's best play to attack the cop in a non-lethal fashion.

Implying that every black person who has ever encountered a law enforcement officer intends to attack him at some point.

Black lives matter more than your racist paranoia.

And 99.9% of the time that's what actually does happen. You just assume that when it goes badly it's the cop's fault.

No, I assume that when a cop decides to transcend "cool story bro, here's your ticket" with "Respect my authoritah!" it is the cop's fault when it goes badly.

It's one category of force...

Black lives matter more than your split hairs

However, in lethal force situations it's usually by surprise

Bullshit. An unarmed suspect cannot "surprise" a cop with a threat of lethal force, because he does not, in fact, POSE a threat in the first place.

If either person is armed a hand-to-hand fight is considered armed...

I thought lethal force situations were usually a "surprise?" That implies that black people are a race of ultra-fast gunslingers that are invariably armed and dangerous and really good at shooting from the hip. Now you're saying they're a race of master pickpockets who can snatch the gun right out of the holster and shoot you with it before you know what's going on.

Which is it? Are black people really quick shots or just really sneaky thieves? Or both?

No. I'm saying that you are incapable of perceiving a threat from anything other than a gun.

I am incapable of perceiving a threat from the mere presence of a black person in a situation. Is there a reason you think cops should assume every black person they encounter is inherently a threat and should be treated like one, just in case?

People should submit to lawful authority.

Perhaps they "should," but the law does not require them to do so. This is the whole reason why search and arrests warrants are a thing: when a warrant has been issued, your "submission" is irrelevant, the search or detainment is going to happen whether you submit to it or not.

Black lives matter more than your rejection of the concept of civil rights.

The reason we don't see many of these cases with whites is we haven't been fed decades of fight-the-cops bullshit. We get stopped, we behave reasonably, things go fine.

Tell that to Christopher Roupe.

Brown had tried to take his gun once. He was coming back...

According to the frightened cop, with a history of excessive force and poor performance, who first violated safe police procedure by engaging him through the window of a moving car and then shot him as he tried to surrender. Far from a reliable witness.

I don't want anyone above the law.

Then police officers should stand trial when they shoot unarmed people.

And he goes ballistic again...

Black lives matter more than your assumption that black people are a race of talking apes who lack basic impulse control or reasoning skills

He doesn't need to be a ninja, just have a non-zero chance of escape.

Black lives matter more than your belief that every black person who has ever been stopped by the police is guilty of something and therefore already knows he needs to escape from them.

No, because that was jury nullification.

Black lives matter more than your double standards.

You're the one trying to keep them out of society, not me.

They're already PART of our society, whether you like it or not.

 

[Mumbles]

No, it doesn't. Continuing walking and ignoring Zimmerman in order to come back later makes more sense. Oh, it makes sense that Zimmerman attacked Martin if Zimmerman is a violent irrational person. In any event, response proves my point - you have to make up stuff in order to defend your position.
I believe you believe that falsehood is true which makes it truly ironic.

If he failed to break contact the cops would find him. He didn't want that.

Of course, Martin had no reason to think that any cops would arrive in the first place, so much like your claim that Martin was "casing houses", you are making things up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The cop losing means the bad guy gets away...

... unless the cop avoids getting into a fight in the first place, in which case he has a good chance of convincing the "bad guy" to come peacefully.

And you think the bad guy is just going to stand there?

And that assumes said "bad guy" is even being arrested for anything. Not all interactions with police even end with an arrest; not even most of them NEED to. Police won't arrest you unless they have a warrant or evidence that a crime has actually been committed; if the person they're talking to isn't a suspect of a crime, or didn't do anything arrestable (e.g. jaywalking, speeding, celling loose cigarettes, panhandling, smoking in a non-smoking zone, dancing while black, etc) there's nothing to "get away" with in the first place.

You're still listening to the garbage in thinking that such cases end up in violence.

You're calling your own words bullshit.

No I'm calling YOUR words bullshit. "Deescalate" does not amount to "letting the bad guy go." Not generally, not occasionally, not even metaphorically.

When challenged for specifics all of yours have been to let the black guy go.

Aside from the fact that being black isn't actually a crime (black lives matter more than prosecuting blackness), I have REPEATEDLY said that the goal of deescalation is to give the civilians in question time to cool down so that the police can continue to deal with them on more peaceful, less confrontational terms. Nowhere did I even indirectly acknowledge your idiotic strawman equating deescalation with a complete abandonment of the scene and removal of the police presence from the area.

The goal is to give them time to cool down but you aren't providing any indication that in a serious case that's what happens.

In fact in this and other threads I have gone so far as to offer specifics, such as "give him five minutes to calm down" or "give him some room, at least 30 feet" or even "Give calm and clear instructions and actually wait for the subject to clearly obey or disobey them before reacting."

Why is it you assume that black people are so incredibly powerful and athletic that any one of these things is tantamount to "letting him escape?"

Criminals tend to be younger than the police and they aren't carrying all the gear the police are. Quite a few will therefore be able to outrun the police.

Peaceful? No--it makes the perp's best play to attack the cop in a non-lethal fashion.

Implying that every black person who has ever encountered a law enforcement officer intends to attack him at some point.

Black lives matter more than your racist paranoia.

No. I'm saying your approach makes attacking the cop the perp's best ploy.

And 99.9% of the time that's what actually does happen. You just assume that when it goes badly it's the cop's fault.

No, I assume that when a cop decides to transcend "cool story bro, here's your ticket" with "Respect my authoritah!" it is the cop's fault when it goes badly.

You're forgetting something--tickets have to be signed. When they won't sign the ticket it's either let them go or arrest them.

However, in lethal force situations it's usually by surprise

Bullshit. An unarmed suspect cannot "surprise" a cop with a threat of lethal force, because he does not, in fact, POSE a threat in the first place.

If either person is armed a hand-to-hand fight is considered armed...

I thought lethal force situations were usually a "surprise?" That implies that black people are a race of ultra-fast gunslingers that are invariably armed and dangerous and really good at shooting from the hip. Now you're saying they're a race of master pickpockets who can snatch the gun right out of the holster and shoot you with it before you know what's going on.

Which is it? Are black people really quick shots or just really sneaky thieves? Or both?

Criminals (all races) who don't want to go to jail can be pretty desperate and their best ploy is to do so by surprise. Maybe the attack is with a hidden weapon. Maybe it's an attempt to grab the cop's gun. Both can result in bullets flying.

No. I'm saying that you are incapable of perceiving a threat from anything other than a gun.

I am incapable of perceiving a threat from the mere presence of a black person in a situation. Is there a reason you think cops should assume every black person they encounter is inherently a threat and should be treated like one, just in case?

Criminals (any race, you're the one making this a racial matter) often are a threat, period.

People should submit to lawful authority.

Perhaps they "should," but the law does not require them to do so. This is the whole reason why search and arrests warrants are a thing: when a warrant has been issued, your "submission" is irrelevant, the search or detainment is going to happen whether you submit to it or not.

Black lives matter more than your rejection of the concept of civil rights.

The law doesn't see it your way. Refusal to submit to lawful authority gets you a trip to jail. If you think it's unlawful you cooperate anyway unless doing so would cause something serious and irreversible--you challenge improper orders in the courtroom, not on the street.

Brown had tried to take his gun once. He was coming back...

According to the frightened cop, with a history of excessive force and poor performance, who first violated safe police procedure by engaging him through the window of a moving car and then shot him as he tried to surrender. Far from a reliable witness.

Tried to surrender??? He wasn't surrendering. Arms up and advancing isn't surrender, it's a ruse to get close enough to disarm. Remember, most of the pro-Brown "witnesses" in that case were proven to be lying--their testimony was nowhere near what the physical evidence said.

I don't want anyone above the law.

Then police officers should stand trial when they shoot unarmed people.

The same standards should be applied to the police and civilians on handling pulling the trigger. Most civilian self-defense shootings don't go to trial, either.

And he goes ballistic again...

Black lives matter more than your assumption that black people are a race of talking apes who lack basic impulse control or reasoning skills

No--I'm saying your approach makes it a rational strategy.

You're the one trying to keep them out of society, not me.

They're already PART of our society, whether you like it or not.

You are trying to set up a situation where sane people want nothing to do with them.

- - - Updated - - -

If he failed to break contact the cops would find him. He didn't want that.

Of course, Martin had no reason to think that any cops would arrive in the first place, so much like your claim that Martin was "casing houses", you are making things up.

Quiet area--he very well might have heard Zimmerman calling the cops.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it doesn't. Continuing walking and ignoring Zimmerman in order to come back later makes more sense. Oh, it makes sense that Zimmerman attacked Martin if Zimmerman is a violent irrational person. In any event, response proves my point - you have to make up stuff in order to defend your position.
I believe you believe that falsehood is true which makes it truly ironic.

If he failed to break contact the cops would find him. He didn't want that.

You are making stuff up again - you cannot know what Martin wanted. Martin was doing nothing illegal - walking in public is not against the law. Or are you saying that Martin believed the police would arrest him just because he was a black teenaged male?

 

[Mumbles]

Quiet area--he very well might have heard Zimmerman calling the cops.

Through a car window - and his own earbuds, which he was using to talk to a friend?

Very unlikely. Much more likely is that he was frightened by the weirdo who was staring at him and following him around for no apparent reason.

But this does provide a good illustration of the problem with the OP. A lot of people will go to great lengths to excuse violence done against young black people, even by a wannabe vigilante, never mind actual police.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

... unless the cop avoids getting into a fight in the first place, in which case he has a good chance of convincing the "bad guy" to come peacefully.

And you think the bad guy is just going to stand there?

That's what Eric Garner did.
That's what Sandra Bland did
That's what Alton Sterling did
That's what Philandro Castile did
That's what Tamir Rice did
That's what Christopher Roupe did
That's what Lawrence Crosby did
It's not what Jeremy McDole did, but that's mainly because he was in a fucking wheelchair and couldn't have "stood there" if he wanted it.

So yeah, I think ninety percent of the time the "bad guy" is probably just going to stand there. This is mainly because even hardened criminals don't casually carry out acts of extreme violence against other people, or even against police officers. In fact, ESPECIALLY against police officers, because murdering a cop is extremely difficult to get away with (that really pisses them off and they will hunt you like a pack of wolves with no intention of taking you alive).

So the cops can afford to be patient and let the person they're interacting with cool down, because 99% of their interactions with the public will not require violence or the use of force at all.

Black lives matter more than your fear of "bad guys."

You're still listening to the garbage in thinking that such cases end up in violence.

Black lives matter more than your well known belief that facts are "garbage."

The goal is to give them time to cool down but you aren't providing any indication that in a serious case that's what happens.

It DOESN'T happen in a serious case. That's what makes them serious cases.

The point is that many of these cases become serious because the police THEMSELVES do not attempt to deescalate the situation when such action is still entirely possible. The case in L.A. this weekend with that old guy with the pipe is a really good example. Crazy guy with a big stick wasn't even wanted for a crime, the police were only there because he was acting crazy and the 911 caller thought he had probably gone off his meds or something. Talking down a crazy guy isn't always possible, but since being crazy isn't actually a crime and since a quarter staff isn't actually that big of a threat to a police officer, they could have EASILY handled that situation without a gunshot.

Criminals tend to be younger than the police...

How young do you have to be to outrun a police car?

No. I'm saying your approach makes attacking the cop the perp's best ploy.

Why the fuck would somebody who isn't even guilty of a crime attack a police officer in order to not be charged with one?

Black lives matter more than your fail logic

Criminals (all races) who don't want to go to jail can be pretty desperate...

None of the people I listed above where criminals. Alton Sterling comes the closest, considering he ALREADY had a pending court date for a marijuana charge. How desperate could he be if he'd ALREADY gotten caught three dozen times?

Criminals (any race, you're the one making this a racial matter)

Am I? You have stopped just short of suggesting that EVERY SINGLE BLACK PERSON who has EVER been killed or beaten by a police officer was, in fact, a criminal. Do you no longer believe this?

Because if some of those people WEREN'T criminals, then the escalation of force against them was not neccesary, and deescalation would have worked just fine. Because deescalation works perfectly fine when the person you're dealing with ISN'T a hardened criminal with prior intention of murdering a police officer to avoid jail time.

So what, OTHER than the fact that these people were black, leads you to believe that they were "criminals" or even inherently dangerous people?

The law doesn't see it your way. Refusal to submit to lawful authority gets you a trip to jail.

"I refuse to submit to a search of my property at this time. I refuse to answer any of your questions without my lawyer present. Am I under arrest? No? Okay, I'm leaving."

Black lives matter more than your desire for a police state.

Tried to surrender??? He wasn't surrendering. Arms up and advancing isn't surrender

Yes it is.

The same standards should be applied to the police and civilians on handling pulling the trigger. Most civilian self-defense shootings don't go to trial, either.

That's because most self defense shootings involve a civilian on his own property encountering a crime in progress. Ironically, even the BRANDISHING of a weapon as a show of self defense is almost never prosecuted, especially when the subject in question is in his own property or his own vehicle.

No--I'm saying your approach makes it a rational strategy...

... for hardened criminals who know they are guilty of a serious felony. Are all black people hardened criminals, guilty of a serious felony, with real reason to fear lengthy prison sentences?

And don't play the "jail doesn't mean prison" card. You, who have never even fucking BEEN arrested, are in no position to claim that someone who has been under lockdown in the past would have hated it enough to that murdering a police officer would seem like a rational thing to do. It's really NOT that bad.

You are trying to set up a situation where sane people want nothing to do with them.

How is it, exactly, that "sane people" manage to interact with black people on a regular basis without getting shot?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And you think the bad guy is just going to stand there?

That's what Eric Garner did.

Try again. He fought when they tried to arrest him.

That's what Sandra Bland did

Try again. She wouldn't sign the ticket so she went to jail. The jail fucked up and didn't give her her meds.

That's what Alton Sterling did

Try again. He fought.

That's what Philandro Castile did

I don't think we will ever know the details. It certainly seems like he messed up with handling the presenting ID while armed situation.

That's what Tamir Rice did

Try again. He drew a "gun" when faced with cops.

That's what Christopher Roupe did

The first article I find about this case has:

“This is tragic,” Yates told the station. “She came out of this house. She put her head in her hands and she was sobbing. Supposedly, he opened the door with a BB gun and in my opinion I think he was playing a game with his neighborhood buddies.”

That's what Lawrence Crosby did

Try again. Google turns up this list of what he did wrong: https://bluelivesmatter.blue/lawrence-crosby-evanston-police-video-steal-car/

It's not what Jeremy McDole did, but that's mainly because he was in a fucking wheelchair and couldn't have "stood there" if he wanted it.

Note that he was armed and this is almost certainly a case of suicide by cop.

So yeah, I think ninety percent of the time the "bad guy" is probably just going to stand there. This is mainly because even hardened criminals don't casually carry out acts of extreme violence against other people, or even against police officers. In fact, ESPECIALLY against police officers, because murdering a cop is extremely difficult to get away with (that really pisses them off and they will hunt you like a pack of wolves with no intention of taking you alive).

If that's the quality of your evidence you need to rethink your position.

So the cops can afford to be patient and let the person they're interacting with cool down, because 99% of their interactions with the public will not require violence or the use of force at all.

Black lives matter more than your fear of "bad guys."

And 99% of the interactions with the public involve no use of force.

You're still listening to the garbage in thinking that such cases end up in violence.

Black lives matter more than your well known belief that facts are "garbage."

You "facts" don't match up with reality.

The goal is to give them time to cool down but you aren't providing any indication that in a serious case that's what happens.

It DOESN'T happen in a serious case. That's what makes them serious cases.

None of your cases involve a situation where talking down would work.

Criminals tend to be younger than the police...

How young do you have to be to outrun a police car?

About the only places you can't outrun a police car are large parking lots and outside high-fenced subdivisions. Otherwise it's usually trivial--legs can go where cars can't.

No. I'm saying your approach makes attacking the cop the perp's best ploy.

Why the fuck would somebody who isn't even guilty of a crime attack a police officer in order to not be charged with one?

The ones that aren't guilty of a crime normally don't get shot in the first place and when they do it's because they were mistaken for armed.

Criminals (all races) who don't want to go to jail can be pretty desperate...

None of the people I listed above where criminals. Alton Sterling comes the closest, considering he ALREADY had a pending court date for a marijuana charge. How desperate could he be if he'd ALREADY gotten caught three dozen times?

Not pot, he was guilty of felon in possession and brandishing a firearm.

Criminals (any race, you're the one making this a racial matter)

Am I? You have stopped just short of suggesting that EVERY SINGLE BLACK PERSON who has EVER been killed or beaten by a police officer was, in fact, a criminal. Do you no longer believe this?

The vast majority of people who suffer violence at the hands of police are criminals.

The law doesn't see it your way. Refusal to submit to lawful authority gets you a trip to jail.

"I refuse to submit to a search of my property at this time. I refuse to answer any of your questions without my lawyer present. Am I under arrest? No? Okay, I'm leaving."

You are free to refuse requests from authority figures. To search your property the law requires the police to have a warrant to make it lawful authority. Thus by telling the warrantless cop "no" you aren't refusing to submit to lawful authority.

Black lives matter more than your desire for a police state.

I don't desire a police state. Unlike you, I have actually been in police states.

Tried to surrender??? He wasn't surrendering. Arms up and advancing isn't surrender

Yes it is.

Wrong link? I don't see the relevance of anything that might have happened in Turkey.

The same standards should be applied to the police and civilians on handling pulling the trigger. Most civilian self-defense shootings don't go to trial, either.

That's because most self defense shootings involve a civilian on his own property encountering a crime in progress. Ironically, even the BRANDISHING of a weapon as a show of self defense is almost never prosecuted, especially when the subject in question is in his own property or his own vehicle.

Yet you want the police to face trial in situations civilians wouldn't.

No--I'm saying your approach makes it a rational strategy...

... for hardened criminals who know they are guilty of a serious felony. Are all black people hardened criminals, guilty of a serious felony, with real reason to fear lengthy prison sentences?

You seem to not be able to tell the difference between cases that result in force and those that don't.

And don't play the "jail doesn't mean prison" card. You, who have never even fucking BEEN arrested, are in no position to claim that someone who has been under lockdown in the past would have hated it enough to that murdering a police officer would seem like a rational thing to do. It's really NOT that bad.

You are trying to set up a situation where sane people want nothing to do with them.

How is it, exactly, that "sane people" manage to interact with black people on a regular basis without getting shot?

You want a situation where they are above the law.

Staying away from those who are above the law is sane behavior.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Try again....

No need. Every single one of these cases were people who literally standing or sitting perfectly still, making no attempt to flee or escape, right up until the moment a police officer decided to forcibly subdue them. So up to the second confrontation became physical, deescalation was still an option, and that physical contact was initiated by the officers.

Black lives matter more than your special pleading.

Google turns up this list of what he did wrong

Lawrence Crosby didn't do anything wrong except drive his own car. Here, too, a deescalation tactic would have been entirely appropriate.

Black lives matter more than your antipathy for college students

If that's the quality of your evidence you need to rethink your position.

Almost all of these cases the suspects LITERALLY DID just stand there until they were tackled/accosted/shot/beaten by the police. And they are ALL cases where it wouldn't have cost the police anything at all to let them stand there for five minutes longer and try to talk them down.

Black lives matter more than your preference for violent solutions to nonviolent problems.

And 99% of the interactions with the public involve no use of force.

Really? So you're conceding that escalating force against the public is NOT neccesary after all, despite the existence of of parkour batman crime ninjas.

Black lives matter more than your skill in refuting your own argument

None of your cases involve a situation where talking down would work.

Bullshit. In three of those cases the victim was actually sitting motionless inside of a parked vehicle and giving no indication of an attempt to flee or resist at the moment the officer escalated to force (in Castille's case, deadly force). They weren't even at the "talk him down" stage yet; in Sandra Bland's case, the entire altercation would have been COMPLETELY avoided by simply ignoring her rudeness and writing the ticket anyway. That is a perfect example of a "deescalation" situation that would 1) not result in a "bad guy" getting away since she would receive the ticket one way or the other, and 2) not place the officer in any heightened risk in the first place. On the other hand, if Sandra Bland had become angry enough about being dragged out of her car for no reason, then the physical altercation the cop initiated could have potentially resulted in her picking up his gun and shooting him with it; it is his LACK of deescalation that put both of their lives in danger, not to mention his failure to properly ensure the safety of his suspect, which is why the officer who arrested her was later fired.

The ones that aren't guilty of a crime normally don't get shot in the first place and when they do it's because they were mistaken for armed.

That doesn't answer the question, does it? Why is a tactic intended to be used against armed hardened criminals terrified of prison time being employed against people who change lanes without signaling?

Black lives matter more than your failure to articulate your own argument.

Criminals (any race, you're the one making this a racial matter)

Am I? You have stopped just short of suggesting that EVERY SINGLE BLACK PERSON who has EVER been killed or beaten by a police officer was, in fact, a criminal. Do you no longer believe this?

The vast majority of people who suffer violence at the hands of police are criminals.

So what about the ones who weren't?

You are free to refuse requests from authority figures. To search your property the law requires the police to have a warrant to make it lawful authority. Thus by telling the warrantless cop "no" you aren't refusing to submit to lawful authority.

Bullshit. A search warrant gives police officers cause to force action AGAINST your will, which is why cooperation is preferred (forcing action tends to make things harder). They can force entry into your home, but you are not required to GRANT them entry. They can take bodily custody of you and your property, but you are not required to answer any of their questions or give them any information. In other words, the law does not require that you CONSENT to any police action at all, nor can it actually compel that behavior by any standard.

And we are talking about submission in terms not merely of voluntarily granting a police officer with no warrant or probable cause access to private property, we're talking about submission in the form of verbal assent and active cooperation up to the point of deferential behavior. The cases I mentioned were examples of the latter. But failing to submit to a police officer is not a crime.

Black lives matter more than your desire for a police state.

I don't desire a police state. Unlike you, I have actually been in police states.

Black lives matter more than you thinking you know more about police states than I do just because your wife is Chinese.

I don't see the relevance of anything that might have happened in Turkey.

You don't see a whole column of soldiers advancing with their arms up in what literally everyone else in the world immediately interprets as an act of surrender?

Or is it only a "ploy" when black people do it?

Yet you want the police to face trial in situations civilians wouldn't.

Yes. Higher authority and higher power means higher standard of acceptable conduct.

Black lives matter more than your worship of police officers.

You seem to not be able to tell the difference between cases that result in force and those that don't.

The cases I mentioned all resulted in force. Was Tamir Rice a hardened criminals with good reason to fear a lengthy prison sentence?

You want a situation where they are above the law.

Only the law that says anyone suspected of a crime must be violently subdued in a violent act of dominance, also known as Loren's Law.

Black lives matter more than Loren's Law.

Staying away from those who are above the law is sane behavior.

Unless you're black and the person who is above the law is a cop.

 

[RavenSky]

Quiet area--he very well might have heard Zimmerman calling the cops.

It is appalling and fucking disgusting that you are STILL making up absolute BULL-FUCKING-SHIT about a DEAD teenager to justify his murder.

DISGUSTING!

 

[RavenSky]

That's what Eric Garner did.

Try again..

Every single word you have written in this post (and pretty much every other one when you are showing your bias against black people) is utter bullshit.

 

[Arctish]

That's what Eric Garner did.

Try again. He fought when they tried to arrest him.

That's what Sandra Bland did

Try again. She wouldn't sign the ticket so she went to jail. The jail fucked up and didn't give her her meds.

That's what Alton Sterling did

Try again. He fought.

That's what Philandro Castile did

I don't think we will ever know the details. It certainly seems like he messed up with handling the presenting ID while armed situation.

That's what Tamir Rice did

Try again. He drew a "gun" when faced with cops.

That's what Christopher Roupe did

The first article I find about this case has:

“This is tragic,” Yates told the station. “She came out of this house. She put her head in her hands and she was sobbing. Supposedly, he opened the door with a BB gun and in my opinion I think he was playing a game with his neighborhood buddies.”

That's what Lawrence Crosby did

Try again. Google turns up this list of what he did wrong: https://bluelivesmatter.blue/lawrence-crosby-evanston-police-video-steal-car/

It's not what Jeremy McDole did, but that's mainly because he was in a fucking wheelchair and couldn't have "stood there" if he wanted it.

Note that he was armed and this is almost certainly a case of suicide by cop.

Eric Garner video

Sandra Bland video

Alton Sterling video

Philando Castile video

Tamir Rice video

report on Christopher Roupe shooting

Lawrence Crosby video

Jeremy McDole video

Three of your descriptions of events are lies, three of them dodge the issue Crazy Eddie raised, one is partially true (although the victim was not actually seen to be fighting the cops in the moments leading up to his death), and one of your responses is just your opinion regarding the victim's state of mind and does not change the fact he wasn't fighting or threatening anyone when he was killed.

It's telling that the only victim you don't blame for his misfortune is the white kid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No need. Every single one of these cases were people who literally standing or sitting perfectly still, making no attempt to flee or escape, right up until the moment a police officer decided to forcibly subdue them. So up to the second confrontation became physical, deescalation was still an option, and that physical contact was initiated by the officers.

Google says otherwise.

Google turns up this list of what he did wrong

Lawrence Crosby didn't do anything wrong except drive his own car. Here, too, a deescalation tactic would have been entirely appropriate.

I already showed you that it didn't go down the way you think. I find your position extremely racist--all you care about is blacks, not the evidence.

If that's the quality of your evidence you need to rethink your position.

Almost all of these cases the suspects LITERALLY DID just stand there until they were tackled/accosted/shot/beaten by the police. And they are ALL cases where it wouldn't have cost the police anything at all to let them stand there for five minutes longer and try to talk them down.

Except for one dead cop.

Black lives matter more than your preference for violent solutions to nonviolent problems.

Except that's not the way the world works.

And 99% of the interactions with the public involve no use of force.

Really? So you're conceding that escalating force against the public is NOT neccesary after all, despite the existence of of parkour batman crime ninjas.

Black lives matter more than your skill in refuting your own argument

Whether a situation turns violent or not almost always depends on the actions of the suspect.

None of your cases involve a situation where talking down would work.

Bullshit. In three of those cases the victim was actually sitting motionless inside of a parked vehicle and giving no indication of an attempt to flee or resist at the moment the officer escalated to force (in Castille's case, deadly force).

1) There's no question Castille was not motionless.

2) Sitting motionless and refusing to accept your ticket gets you a trip to jail.

They weren't even at the "talk him down" stage yet; in Sandra Bland's case, the entire altercation would have been COMPLETELY avoided by simply ignoring her rudeness and writing the ticket anyway. That is a perfect example of a "deescalation" situation that would 1) not result in a "bad guy" getting away since she would receive the ticket one way or the other, and 2) not place the officer in any heightened risk in the first place.

Except that's not how it went down.

On the other hand, if Sandra Bland had become angry enough about being dragged out of her car for no reason, then the physical altercation the cop initiated could have potentially resulted in her picking up his gun and shooting him with it; it is his LACK of deescalation that put both of their lives in danger, not to mention his failure to properly ensure the safety of his suspect, which is why the officer who arrested her was later fired.

Lawsuit defense. They threw the cop to the wolves.

The ones that aren't guilty of a crime normally don't get shot in the first place and when they do it's because they were mistaken for armed.

That doesn't answer the question, does it? Why is a tactic intended to be used against armed hardened criminals terrified of prison time being employed against people who change lanes without signaling?

And you have some magic spectacles to give the cops that let them tell which is which?

Criminals (any race, you're the one making this a racial matter)

Am I? You have stopped just short of suggesting that EVERY SINGLE BLACK PERSON who has EVER been killed or beaten by a police officer was, in fact, a criminal. Do you no longer believe this?

The vast majority of people who suffer violence at the hands of police are criminals.

So what about the ones who weren't?

No system is perfect.

You are free to refuse requests from authority figures. To search your property the law requires the police to have a warrant to make it lawful authority. Thus by telling the warrantless cop "no" you aren't refusing to submit to lawful authority.

Bullshit. A search warrant gives police officers cause to force action AGAINST your will, which is why cooperation is preferred (forcing action tends to make things harder). They can force entry into your home, but you are not required to GRANT them entry. They can take bodily custody of you and your property, but you are not required to answer any of their questions or give them any information. In other words, the law does not require that you CONSENT to any police action at all, nor can it actually compel that behavior by any standard.

If you try to keep them out when they have a warrant you're going to jail. And if you simply refuse to let them in the damage they do breaking in is your problem.

And we are talking about submission in terms not merely of voluntarily granting a police officer with no warrant or probable cause access to private property, we're talking about submission in the form of verbal assent and active cooperation up to the point of deferential behavior. The cases I mentioned were examples of the latter. But failing to submit to a police officer is not a crime.

You have already shown you don't know what went down in those cases.

Black lives matter more than your desire for a police state.

I don't desire a police state. Unlike you, I have actually been in police states.

Black lives matter more than you thinking you know more about police states than I do just because your wife is Chinese.

China used to be a police state long ago but not in any time I've been there.

A simple example makes this very clear--we were in a market and a DVD purveyor misunderstood what we were looking for. When my wife realized what he really had for sale was porn (illegal but I've seen it being sold rather openly) we walked off--and he kept trying to get us to come see his wares until a cop warned him off. Last we saw he was arguing with the cop. You would never see something like that in a police state.

Contrast this with our run-in with the authorities in Hungary. It wasn't a big deal, we could easily show that it was a mistake on the part of their official and lacking the ability to read Hungarian we had no hope of catching it. (Admittedly this took a while due to the conversation being in German, being spoken pretty badly on both sides.) After that came the hard part--they wanted us to fill out a form about what happened. In Hungarian. Oops--this was a police matter, nobody was willing to translate. (Never mind that their name wouldn't even appear on it.) Finally a businessman from Vienna overheard the situation and offered his help as he knew we weren't going to get anywhere with the locals. That's a police state.

I don't see the relevance of anything that might have happened in Turkey.

You don't see a whole column of soldiers advancing with their arms up in what literally everyone else in the world immediately interprets as an act of surrender?

Arms up usually means surrender. However, when you get too close to the gun wielder and won't stop it switches to being a ruse.

Yet you want the police to face trial in situations civilians wouldn't.

Yes. Higher authority and higher power means higher standard of acceptable conduct.

Black lives matter more than your worship of police officers.

I don't worship them. I just don't demonize them like you do.

You want a situation where they are above the law.

Only the law that says anyone suspected of a crime must be violently subdued in a violent act of dominance, also known as Loren's Law.

Since most suspects are not violently subdued in the first place you're clearly off base.

Black lives matter more than Loren's Law.

You're part of the reason a lot of people don't like the BLM movement.

Staying away from those who are above the law is sane behavior.

Unless you're black and the person who is above the law is a cop.

The cops aren't above the law.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Google says otherwise.

The videos Arctish linked to do not.

Black lives matter more than google

I already showed you that it didn't go down the way you think.

No, you showed a THEORY by someone who wasn't actually there about how the case went down. That theory is inconsistent with the video and the witness accounts of what happened.

Black lives matter more than your apologetic theories.

Except for one dead cop.

Severe damaging of pride is the fullest extent of the threat to the officers in the cases above; this type of injury is not generally fatal to police officers. Even Jeremy McDole wasn't actually threatening the officers, he was primarily trying to kill HIMSELF.

Black lives matter more than a police officer's pride.

Black lives matter more than your preference for violent solutions to nonviolent problems.

Except that's not the way the world works.

And we have people like you to thank for that.

Black lives STILL matter more than your preference for violent solutions to nonviolent problems.

Whether a situation turns violent or not almost always depends on the actions of the suspect.

In all the cases above, the violence was initiated by police officers and the "suspect" (which is not even the right word for the victims in many of those cases) was either fully cooperative or was not actually given the opportunity to BECOME violent before he was assaulted. Christopher Roupe's case is pretty explicit: he was shot while holding a Wii remote in the doorway of his own home two to three seconds after opening it. The most confrontational thing he could have done was launched a blue turtle shell at the officer's car.

Black lives matter more than your victim blaming pathology

1) There's no question Castille was not motionless.

He was sitting in a stationary car obeying an officer's order to show him his license; the officer mistook his movement for a hostile action and immediately shot him. Basically the same thing that happened to Levar Jones, except the cop who shot jones forgot to turn off his camera for that stop and wound up going to jail for lying about the shooting.

2) Sitting motionless and refusing to accept your ticket gets you a trip to jail.

Sitting motionless and smoking a cigarette does not.

Black lives matter more than cops wanting to punish smokers.

Except that's not how it went down...

... because the officer chose to escalate the situation and turn what should have been a traffic stop into a potentially violent confrontation. And again, he was eventually fired for that case.

Black lives matter more than cops losing their jobs

And you have some magic spectacles to give the cops that let them tell which is which?

Deescalation techniques avoid problems and give you room to react when problems occur. They should therefore be the DEFAULT action, and abandoned only when the subject being encountered repeatedly choses dangerous escalation.

Black lives matter more than your lack of civic values

No system is perfect.

Black lives matter more than protecting systematic imperfection.

If you try to keep them out when they have a warrant you're going to jail.

Indeed. And you don't have to AGREE to go to jail or consent to anything at all. The law cannot compel you to submit, it can only apply consequences for failing to obey it. If the law requires you to allow access to your home under such and such a circumstance, you violate the law by refusing. But a police officer cannot, on his OWN authority, order you to give him access to your home; he can only do THAT if he is empowered to do so by the law, and his proof of that empowerment is called a "warrant."

So it is the law, and NOT the police, who have authority to supersede your rights.

Black lives matte more than your worship of authority figures

You have already shown you don't know what went down in those cases.

Black lives matter more than your mindless obfuscation of the facts that everyone else in this thread can plainly see

Contrast this with our run-in with the authorities in Hungary. It wasn't a big deal, we could easily show that it was a mistake on the part of their official and lacking the ability to read Hungarian we had no hope of catching it. (Admittedly this took a while due to the conversation being in German, being spoken pretty badly on both sides.) After that came the hard part--they wanted us to fill out a form about what happened. In Hungarian. Oops--this was a police matter, nobody was willing to translate. (Never mind that their name wouldn't even appear on it.) Finally a businessman from Vienna overheard the situation and offered his help as he knew we weren't going to get anywhere with the locals. That's a police state.

So one police officer in a foreign country was being a dick to you and you call that a "police state"

Here are some examples of what a Police State looks like.

Bloody Sunday
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/tVymzWrBTww[/YOUTUBE]



The Children's March in Birmingham
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/joc3CRL6x4E[/YOUTUBE]



The 1968 Democratic Convention
[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/EYp1JgwotXU[/YOUTUBE]



No video currently exists of the Oak Park/Austin riots the day after Martin Luther King was shot, mainly because the only reporters filming that day were arrested and their cameras confiscated. Groups of high school students marched down Madison Street through the mostly black neighborhood of Austin; they were met the corner of Austin and Madison by a Cadre of about 130 police officers who promised to arrest ANYONE who crossed the street with "conspiracy to sedition." The march called their bluff, and the police charged the crowds with clubs; 3 kids died, 15 were hospitalized. The resulting riots lasted for 3 days.


It was only ten years later when Jon Burge and his gang of browncoats started kidnapping and torturing people to force confessions out of them. Burge swore that all of the people he tortured were "bd guys", just like you do, and that anything he might have done to them was justified.

And you think you have seen a "police state" because a Hungarian cop was rude to you one time?

Black lives matter more than your white privilege.

Arms up usually means surrender.

... unless it's a nigger dindu, right?

I don't worship them. I just don't demonize them like you do.

I do not and have never demonized police officers. I am harsh and unforgiving of officers who abuse their authority, of officers who hide behind the threat of force to cover their own insecurities, of police departments and police commanders who protect bad cops from prosecution, and of supposedly "good" cops who make excuses for abusers.

There are police departments in this country -- and even in my own area -- that I have ENORMOUS respect for, given the steps they've taken to promote trust and cooperation with their community members. I've dealt with those departments many, MANY times, and they have always been courteous and respectful to me. Twelve years ago, I saw a man going through the worst day of his life and I watched a police officer calmly talk to him and convince him that the actions he was taking were only going to make things worse and he should calm down and see how things looked in the morning. That officer saved that man's life. Three years later, in another part of town, I saw a police officer draw his service weapon and shoot a kid for flipping him the finger. The officer claimed the kid had pulled a knife on him and threatened to kill him; I reported the officer, but since I didn't have camera footage the department ignored me, and that officer later called my phone and told me that if he ever saw me on his beat again there would "might be another unsolved shooting in the ghetto."

These are the two extremes that set the parameters of this debate, while most police conduct falls somewhere in the middle. These are both things that happen in this country, in every city, every day. We have a choice of which one of these things we want more of and which one of these things we want less. Police officers prefer that their authority remain unchallenged, that their dominance at the top of the fucked up social food chain that is the ghetto remain absolute.

But black lives matter more than a police officer's preference.

Since most suspects are not violently subdued in the first place...

... then deescalation is always an option. You have no reason to argue against it anymore; you've just confessed that it actually works MOST of the time anyway, and by extension you've confessed that the majority of the people the police interact with are not violent criminals or even prone to violence.

So promoting deescalation tactics doesn't actually cost the cops anything except, occasionally, their pride.

The cops aren't above the law.

Then they should be prosecuted when they shoot unarmed people in public, just like anyone else.