Anime cosplayer shot dead while being black.

[YorkNecromancer]

Compare this:
http://gawker.com/autopsy-cops-shot-black-anime-cosplayer-four-times-in-1652268367

To this:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/teen-totes-shotgun-through-town-still-shaken-by-mass-murder-because-2nd-amendment/

The juxtaposition of these two stories makes me feel sad in a way I can't quite put into words.

[eldargal]

There was also that case with the black man shot dead by police for buying an airgun in a supermarket while other white people in the supermarket were walking around with assault rifles and stuff.

[Kirsten]

absolutely tragic, but a surprise to nobody. this happens every single day.

[Denzark]

I see the title of this thread, and I wonder at it - 'shot dead while being black'. He was also some other stuff. He was living, respiring, excreting, moving for food and shelter and all the other characteristics of a living animal. He probably had a sexuality - or was asexual. He was supposedly cosplaying. He was probably able to be characterised by 100 other factors but the title seems to feel it necessary to focus on his ethnicity.

Why is that? That pretty much states the OP thinks all he had to do to be executed was to be black - that that was the pertinent point. To make the assumption that police just wantonly kill somebody just for being black, would be just as prejudiced as a policeman stereotyoing a black person as a dangerous armed criminal who needs to be shot first and asked questions later. it ignores the fact that many millions of black citizens carried out their daily business without being shot that day.

Let me look at this scenario. Firstly, the picture in the original link , shows the character carries the sword back slung. However, the 'witness photo' in the guardian, you cannot see the sword back slung. Where is it? That is a pertinent question. You cannot see his hands. Is it in his hands? Has he downed it in accordance with the instructions of the policeman? The police do not seem to be in a firing stance so what went wrong from there?

According to the article, his aunt said he had 'earbuds' in. Does this mean Walkman headphones? Did the witness picture show the minute in which police were instructing him to do something, did he misunderstand due to listening to loud music? Did he do something the police interpreted as a threat? Remember racism is in the eye of the beholder in English/Welsh law. So it is reasonable to accept that something a million people would not find threatening could appear to someone in society, as an unintentional threat, in the eye of a different beholder.

The lawyer for the family says in the Guardian article 'how can you lunge at someone and be shot in the back at the same time?' The witness picture in the same article answers that. The police, in accordance with either good common sense, or department tactics, techniques and procedures, have split up. This causes the threat to divert their attention. The threat cannot engage both officers at once. So, he COULD have lunged at one and been shot in the back by the other. Simples.

We know that at least one person here cosplaying in the UK, was challenged by the police for their sword in a Commissar kit. Was it Mr Mystery or Sotonshades? But to carry a weapon in the states, especially at t a time of heightened tensions, is not clever. it is not clear that he was even attending a scheduled event. However the policemen were not on a routine patrol- it was a response to a 911 emergency call. Someone in the general public was concerned enough by the individuals behaviour to call for an emergency response.

I am NOT saying this is not an unlawful killing. I am not challenging that someone may be able to post a link to some stats that show young black males in the states are more likely to be shot by police.

it may turn out that the he was in fact unlawfully killed in accordance with the laws of that state and in that case I hope they get the fullest penalty of that law.

What I AM saying is that to automatically assume that the police were in the wrong is as prejudiced as a US copper automatically assuming all young black males are guilty of something and should therefore be shot.

- - - Updated - - -


absolutely tragic, but a surprise to nobody. this happens every single day.

Every single day?

[DWest]

Why is that? That pretty much states the OP thinks all he had to do to be executed was to be black - that that was the pertinent point. To make the assumption that police just wantonly kill somebody just for being black, would be just as prejudiced as a policeman stereotyoing a black person as a dangerous armed criminal who needs to be shot first and asked questions later. it ignores the fact that many millions of black citizens carried out their daily business without being shot that day.
The unfortunate fact is, racism against blacks has run so deep and so long in America that yes, the rules are somewhat different. It doesn't (usually) manifest as "hey, kill the black guy!", but more subtle things. Cosplay is a geeky hobby, and the unstated assumption is still that only middle-class and up whites have the time and money to be geeky. So it's most likely not a case of intentional malice, as the thought never occurred to the officers that the weapon might be a prop, or that the guy might have a reason to be carrying a prop.


Every single day?
This is and isn't accurate; America is a country of 310+ million people, covering a land area roughly double that of the EU, so it's entirely probable that are at least 365 fatal interactions between police and citizens of African descent in a calendar year, when you take the entire country into account, but again, it's not a deliberate function. There's no checklist on the wall of the Podunk police station that says "DAILY TASKS: 1) unlock the doors, 2) turn on the lights, 3) make coffee, 4) shoot a black guy". It's just the culmination of a series of unfortunate factors.

[Erik Setzer]

Similar stuff *does* happen to white people as well... but it's not as widely reported, because it's not good for media hype or for other vultures who jump all over tragedy for their own personal gain. Some cops act like freaking morons just because they know they can. Some don't go off too crazy, which is why the kid with the shotgun didn't get shot. He likely didn't have it in his hands.

Now, I do think the kid with the shotgun was going about things the wrong way. You shouldn't carry a large weapon out in the open "to make people feel safer about guns" or anything like that. You can't make people feel safe about a weapon - even a freaking prop sword - if they don't want to. If you want to exercise your rights, just carry a pistol. The shotgun is going to be useless in a lot of cases because it's harder to get in position and fire, and you can't control it as well. A pistol is much better for personal defense outside the home.

[YorkNecromancer]

Similar stuff *does* happen to white people as well...

That pretty much states the OP thinks all he had to do to be executed was to be black - that that was the pertinent point. To make the assumption that police just wantonly kill somebody just for being black, would be just as prejudiced as a policeman stereotyoing a black person as a dangerous armed criminal who needs to be shot first and asked questions later. it ignores the fact that many millions of black citizens carried out their daily business without being shot that day.

http://gawker.com/black-teens-are-21-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-co-1644967653
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/10/30/3586105/if-youre-a-black-kid-in-minneapolis-youre-16-times-more-likely-to-be-arrested-for-these-offenses/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/racial-disparity-drug-use_n_3941346.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/03/13/11351/the-top-10-most-startling-facts-about-people-of-color-and-criminal-justice-in-the-united-states/
http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet

Stop thinking of racism as a problem exhibited by individuals. It's not. It's a problem inherent to the systems we live in.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjGQaz1u3V4

Still, there's none so deaf as those that don't want to listen. I'll leave a better voice than mine in the hopes you hear.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Wf8y_5Yn4&feature=player_detailpage

[Denzark]

It always amuses me to find myself in a more liberal position than the liberals. You have looked at a situation, looked at the people in that situation, and said 'I think because of their colour and the institution they belong to, their actions were automatically at fault. If I on the flip side looked at a Los Angeles gang member of non-white ethnicity and automatically assumed murderous criminal, you would rightly be excoriating me.

I have not said it will not play out that the cops were at fault - maybe they were. But from all the evidence posted at link, there is not enough to make an automatic assumption of their guilt. Making automatic assumptions because of someone's background is the root cause of racism.

And also I think it a bit sad that someone whose job is to do a service to society no matter what the difficulty - who knows what it is for one's profession to be judged by outsiders who have no practical knowledge or experience of the job - to make automatic assumptions about the correctness of decisions made by another servant of society. Particularly when US police are subject to far more personal risk that UK teachers.

But anyhoo you fling your stones inside your glass house.

[DWest]

The problem with your logic, Denzark, is that because of the intersection between racism and also the general hero-worship given towards police and military in the US, it's far too easy for an officer to just shoot a subject until they stop moving regardless of the situation and get away with it with no repercussions. There were 122 line-of-duty fatalities in the US in 2013, a figure that includes any loss of life while on the job, including just being old and having a heart attack in the patrol car (happens 2-3 per year). Of that number, roughly half were killed by a suspect using a weapon. Contrast that with the approximately 900,000 sworn police officers in the US. There's very little actual danger to be had in police work in this country, and yet they talk and act as though being under siege every day.

[Denzark]

Still more line-of-duty fatalities than secondary school teachers. I think a more telling figure would be the amount of incident responses in which weapons were drawn by the officers, versus amount of suspects with functioning weapons. Then you know potential danger.

And if Police Officers are 'getting away with no repercussions' it doesn't mean that all of them are or do, or that they are all guilty of institutional racism or over-reacting.

[Eldar_Atog]

If I on the flip side looked at a Los Angeles gang member of non-white ethnicity and automatically assumed murderous criminal, you would rightly be excoriating me.


I doubt you'd run into many people that would excoriate you over the statement that a white/non white gang member is a murderous criminal. This is the reputation that they have intentionally built. They want to be feared as a group.

It is our duty to question those in authority because authority is power... and power corrupts. That is the problem with the US now. People got too complacent.. too trusting of authority figures. That's how the image of the policeman changed from the honest beat cop to the heavily armed thug that throws a flash bang into a baby's crib during a no knock search warrant. If police officers didn't want people to view them like that, they should not have condoned the behavior.

[DarkLink]

100% with Denzark on this one. I hope some of you never have jury duty. You'd walk in and see a cop across from a black family and decide to send that officer to jail before you even heard the charges.

[Kirsten]

that is not how it works DarkLink

[daboarder]

that is exactly how racism works

[Kirsten]

not sure who that is addressing.

the point is nobody is saying all police are bad. what is being pointed out is that the american police force has a serious issue dealing with the black community. an unarmed black man is shot every 28 hours in america by police officers. the situation in Fergusson shows what a serious problem there is. this killing of the cosplayer is all too common. that is not acceptable. it is not declaring all police to be guilty, nor is it racism.

[Denzark]

If York was not declaring them guilty he would not have included 'while being black' in the thread title. The victim was being lots of things, York drew attention to his ethnicity - because he is thereby claiming this is one of the cases where it was at the root of the issue. If this was at the end of a trial in accordance with their state law and they were found to be guilty AND his race was found to be a factor, then fair enough.

This is putting the cart before the horse and is a form of prejudice in itself.

I will wait for the verdict.

[DWest]

I will wait for the verdict.
The verdict will come back 'not guilty', because it always does. The verdict is not indicative of the facts of the situation, because of many reasons, including racism but also including the exceptional leeway American citizens give police, the nature of the relationship between police and prosecutors, and the lack of oversight measures (body cameras, for example) to provide concrete evidence of how police/suspect encounters play out.

[YorkNecromancer]

You'd walk in and see a cop across from a black family and decide to send that officer to jail before you even heard the charges.

Actually, what I'd do is sell all this military nonsense the police don't need -tanks, machine guns and whatnot - then spend that money on personal cameras which every police officer would wear at all times and in all places.

These cameras would automatically log their footage to a personal black box recorder built into the officer's body armour, as well as sending it (where possible) via wifi to an external server. That server would be run by each police department's Internal Affairs division; officers could have access to their footage, but the actual saved footage would be the property of women and men they don't know personally, to reduce the risk of it being tampered with. That way, in any shooting, there is a record of exactly what happened from the viewpoint of every officer at the scene, and we have a much clearer (though still imperfect) account of events as they transpired.

I would also consider live-streaming officer's feeds at random onto a dedicated, nationwide website - a bit like Youtube, or the channels people livestream games across - so that any ordinary citizen can observe police officers as they act. Officers wouldn't be observed all the time, but they would never know when they were being observed. Who watches the watchmen? Us. All of us. We have the capacity to do this now. If a citizen observes an officer breaking the law, they call a dedicated telephone line, and inform the desk of the date, time and officer number of the event in question. It would work like Wikipedia. If you wished to log a complaint against a police officer, you would have to give your personal details, to prevent fraud and false accusations. Complaints would be logged with Internal Affairs, or possibly some oversight committee, so that an officer observed commiting a crime in Texas couldn't hunt down the woman in Los Angeles who reported her.

I would make it an act of gross misconduct to be 'on the clock' and not wearing your camera as an officer. Keeping your camera working would be your personal responsibility. Failure to maintain your camera or have work carried out on it, getting lenses replaced after they've been broken, whatever, would mean an immediate suspension and investigation, pending a meeting with a peer review board. If you want all the power there is over ordinary citizens, if you want it, you can have it. But with that great power comes great accountability. If you have the right to police us, we have the right to police you.

The police and government are always telling us, the commoners beneath their boots, that if we're innocent of any crime, we have nothing to hide. We're filmed, photgraphed, monitored, our emails are hacked, and all in the name of keeping people alive. So okay. I would make them stand by those words. Let them be held as accountable at all times and in all places as they would hold us.

[daboarder]

Actually, what I'd do is sell all this military nonsense the police don't need -tanks, machine guns and whatnot - then spend that money on personal cameras which every police officer would wear at all times and in all places.

These cameras would automatically log their footage to a personal black box recorder built into the officer's body armour, as well as sending it (where possible) via wifi to an external server. That server would be run by each police department's Internal Affairs division; officers could have access to their footage, but the actual saved footage would be the property of women and men they don't know personally, to reduce the risk of it being tampered with. That way, in any shooting, there is a record of exactly what happened from the viewpoint of every officer at the scene, and we have a much clearer (though still imperfect) account of events as they transpired.

I would also consider live-streaming officer's feeds at random onto a dedicated, nationwide website - a bit like Youtube, or the channels people livestream games across - so that any ordinary citizen can observe police officers as they act. Officers wouldn't be observed all the time, but they would never know when they were being observed. Who watches the watchmen? Us. All of us. We have the capacity to do this now. If a citizen observes an officer breaking the law, they call a dedicated telephone line, and inform the desk of the date, time and officer number of the event in question. It would work like Wikipedia. If you wished to log a complaint against a police officer, you would have to give your personal details, to prevent fraud and false accusations. Complaints would be logged with Internal Affairs, or possibly some oversight committee, so that an officer observed commiting a crime in Texas couldn't hunt down the woman in Los Angeles who reported her.

I would make it an act of gross misconduct to be 'on the clock' and not wearing your camera as an officer. Keeping your camera working would be your personal responsibility. Failure to maintain your camera or have work carried out on it, getting lenses replaced after they've been broken, whatever, would mean an immediate suspension and investigation, pending a meeting with a peer review board. If you want all the power there is over ordinary citizens, if you want it, you can have it. But with that great power comes great accountability. If you have the right to police us, we have the right to police you.

The police and government are always telling us, the commoners beneath their boots, that if we're innocent of any crime, we have nothing to hide. We're filmed, photgraphed, monitored, our emails are hacked, and all in the name of keeping people alive. So okay. I would make them stand by those words. Let them be held as accountable at all times and in all places as they would hold us.

you know, lets for a moment ignore the whole "maintain their own equipment" thing...because I really expect a cop to know how to repair a digital camera.....

there is just so much wrong with this whole "live streaming idea."

Its impractical, Dangerous to the police, dangerous to the public and ultimately would be like wearing a sign saying "cops are here (or not) come and get me" to anyone that felt the need to break the law

[YorkNecromancer]

In which case, what if footage is uploaded 24 hours after filming, for the public to sift through?

[daboarder]

Which is still stupidly impractical from a perspective of "hey the cops WERE here and Nabbed this guy....better cover the rest of the tracks or go and intimidate/ get revenge on that witness"

[YorkNecromancer]

You assume the people involved will see the footage.

Maybe make it so no-one can observe footage from their state?

[daboarder]

You assume the people involved will see the footage.

Maybe make it so no-one can observe footage from their state?
I can do naught but shake my head at the naivete and impracticality of this idea.

perhaps I should just leave it with this.

Police are not faceless masses, they are people too, with their own rights

[DarkLink]

Actually, some precincts have implemented a camera policy. They issued what are basically go pros to about half the patrol officers. Complaints dropped like 50%overnight. Who knows if it was officer's behaving better or when they were told they were being filmed people realized they couldn't accuse the officer of bull****.

[daboarder]

I dont have a problem with the camera's, if implemented right. (its basically like a dash cam for patrol cars)

But the streaming idea is just dumb

[YorkNecromancer]

Police are not faceless masses, they are people too, with their own rights

You want the high power that comes with being police, it should have an equally high price.

We know that the police have severe issues with a lack of accountability and both corruption and incompetence, not to mention institutional racism. As DarkLink says, cameras work.

Accountability is critical to the correct exercise of power.

[DarkLink]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the cameras worked because people realized they couldn't make up stuff in court. Apparently there were a -lot- of cases where the officers approached someone who was ready to start something, then realized everything was being recorded and backed off.



We know that the police have severe issues with a lack of accountability and both corruption and incompetence, not to mention institutional racism

I'm actually not entirely convinced that you know a whole lot about police officers, to be frank. Really, it sounds to me like you read an article on how police were all racist, saw a few news headlines that seemed to support it, and just went from there.

[YorkNecromancer]

I'm actually not entirely convinced that you know a whole lot about police officers, to be frank. Really, it sounds to me like you read an article on how police were all racist, saw a few news headlines that seemed to support it, and just went from there.

Do you honestly believe that the police do not have a problem with race? I'm not saying individual police officers; I'm saying the police force as a whole.

Everything I have ever read, seen, or heard about the police leads me to believe that they are generally good people given a very difficult job to do, which - for a number of highly complex reasons, some cultural, some institutional, some historical - leads them to be unfairly prejudiced against people of colour, and black males in particular. I have family in the police. I have friends who worked with them. I read a lot.

I believe that the police force, both in the UK and the US have a deep-seated problem with race. I believe that this is not the fault of a few bad apples. Nor do I believe it is deliberate; I do not believe the police go out of their way to recruit racists. Quite the opposite, actually. However, I believe the pressures of police work warp serving officers' perceptions in a number of complex, not fully documented or explored ways which taint their perceptions, and leave them with a number of cognitive biases. I have read sufficient evidence to be satisfied that this is so, including the UK Metropolitan police forces own findings (every report published here has shown that they themselves believe themselves to be 'institutionally racist'.)

Sources:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/metropolitan-police-still-institutionally-racist-20-years-after-stephen-lawrence-murder-black-police-leaders-say-8581873.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26321708
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/07/lawrence-revelations-institutional-racism-met-police
http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/misc/instrac.htm
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/black-officers-police-force-still-racist

So I believe this is a serious issue. I do not believe individual officers' good intentions mitigate this issue, because it is not down to individual officers to correct it. It is not their problem - it is the institution's. Which we, as taxpayers, should govern, because that's what being a responsible citizen means.

I have a problem with the police force as an institution. I do not believe it is incorrupt, but nor do I believe it to be a den of iniquity. I believe it to be a group of undertrained individuals, muddling by as best as they can with the best of intentions, and I believe that they do not interrogate their own assumptions about the kind of people they run into all that much. I think police are just people - flawed, stupid, foolish, and capable of acts of both great good and great evil. I do not believe a badge means they are any better than the criminals they arrest, because it's just a symbol, and many of them do not live up to what it represents, as a great deal of data shows.

Of course, I am a dirty liberal, prone to distrust of those in authority. Just like conservatives, who distrust those in government.

If you have hard data from independent sources, that shows the police do not disproportionately mistreat people of colour, and especially black males, far in excess of other ethnic groups, I would be happy to read it.

I will quote the UK government's own reports on the issue (emphasis my own):


A number of concerns remain outstanding. Black communities in particular are disproportionately represented in stop and search statistics and on the National DNA Database; in fact, the gap has increased since 1999. Black people are over-represented in the criminal justice system for a number of complex factors; but this does not justify this level of disproportionality. In addition, being subject to higher levels of stop and search and inclusion on the DNA Database perpetuates black people's over-representation in the criminal justice system. We repeat our warning that any gains made by the use of stop and search may be offset by its potentially negative impact on community relations.

source:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/427/42703.htm
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf

I believe you will find that in addition to these links, in my earlier post, I quoted the most recent six articles on race/policing that I read this fortnight. If you like, I can go back further and find more data. I would prefer not to, because I don't think you'll believe/listen and thus feel it would be a waste of my time, but I can do that for you if you like.

I'm not quoting tinfoil-hat sources - I'm quoting actual government investigations, and being as close to impartial as a topic this inflammatory can get. I have read the reports over the last few years, and kept up with these matters. I have done my homework on this, DarkLink, no matter what you might want to think.

[Anthrax ion pusscabe]

Really the American police depart has a very loose guidline on what means equal or lesser force and what it takes for their life to be at risk enough to use deadly force, I'll give a example of a couple news story's I saw last year that I can't find links to
Case 1 america) one intellectually imparred man (white) with a plastic butter knife walking around confused and shouting at people, police responce 3-4 shots to the chest causing his death, and they had actually radios HQ to tell them the situation and got told to use deadly force
Case 2 Germany I think) one man (can't remember his race) going through extremely violent psychosis with to large machetes chasing people and destroying shop fronts, police response 1 shot to the knee stoping the rampage without fatality and allowing the man to be apprehended and even treated for his paychosis
Really the problem is american police officers aren't told to try everything to apprehend the suspect before moving to deadly force and get permission for deadly force from pretty much anything involving a potential weapon even if that weapons potential to do harm is minisqual

[Broodingman87]

Really the American police depart has a very loose guidline on what means equal or lesser force and what it takes for their life to be at risk enough to use deadly force, I'll give a example of a couple news story's I saw last year that I can't find links to
Case 1 america) one intellectually imparred man (white) with a plastic butter knife walking around confused and shouting at people, police responce 3-4 shots to the chest causing his death, and they had actually radios HQ to tell them the situation and got told to use deadly force
Case 2 Germany I think) one man (can't remember his race) going through extremely violent psychosis with to large machetes chasing people and destroying shop fronts, police response 1 shot to the knee stoping the rampage without fatality and allowing the man to be apprehended and even treated for his paychosis
Really the problem is american police officers aren't told to try everything to apprehend the suspect before moving to deadly force and get permission for deadly force from pretty much anything involving a potential weapon even if that weapons potential to do harm is minisqual

Ah finally, a social issue I can bite my teeth into!

Here's the thing about police brutally... the "news" lies to you. They'll jump on someone overstepping the power we give them but, never show the cop doing their job right. It's the same as the police state conspiracy, "man, the LAPD are buying tanks and military gear!" forgetting that people have been commiting crimes in military... he** one guy drove a tank through Las Angelos.

Case 1 and Case 2... Yeah we can cherrypick stories all day. I can show you a story of a cop shooting someone in the bed, I can also show you a cop getting killed with bare hands.

[Anthrax ion pusscabe]

My point was the police shouldn't jump straight to shoot to kill when they draw firearms, they should until all options have been expended shoot to dibilitat, I've heard great police stories of them not jumping straight to shoot to kill, he'll I saw a news story where to guys with assault rifles robed a bank and killed a few people (both civilian and police) and the police stuck to shooting with the aim of debilitating them over killing them, the job of the police isn't to kill suspects it is to capture suspects so they can go through the proper legal system, ending another human life should never be done unless absolutely necessary as a last resort after all other options have been extinguished, police in Australia are very heavily ingrained to apprehend as a primary even after having deadly force authorisation, it doesn't always work but what's the point in having courts and jails and prison sentence standards for assault and public rampages if you never intend to actually apprehend the perpetrator, I'm all for the police, they have a extremely hard and dangerous job I could never do, but in some country's and individual cases they need to be taught and reminded that they are meant to apprehend suspects over killing suspects in all but the most extreme cases, here in Australia they get drilled very heavily on using minimal force necessary to stop a situation, there are very minimal cases here where police officers kill someone even in situations where the suspect is armed and dangerous
And my point with the case 1 and case 2 was that case 2 used the correct procedure that I agree with while case 1 used excessive force, I have nothing against the police using firearms on suspects, I have a problem with them jumping straight to shoot to kill when it's also possible to shoot to debilitate

[Bigred]

Not exactly on topic but close, but this is the one that stuck with me over the years. I remember reading both of these the same day during the Hurricane Katrina disaster and feeling equally pissed off by the shoddy reporting:

11666

[eldargal]

Mike Brown in Ferguson was shot repeatedly while surrendering to police according to something like nine witnesses. Another black man was shot 16 times while walking down the street carrying a sandwich. A black man was shot in an open carry state for trying to buy an airgun. This anime cosplayer was shot for carrying a plastic weapon. A black American is three times more likely to be killed by police intervention than a white American. Another guy was shot by police at his own barbecue for no reason, another young man was arrested in his OWN HOME because neighbours assumed he was a ****ing burglar, etc etc.

Meanwhile a good percentage of white mas killers get brought in alive unless they kill themselves, the police do not always kill then.

If you don't think there is a racial element to this you are either:
a) Completely ignorant of the issue
b) a bigoted piece of **** trying to excuse racially motivated murder by people who conveniently happen to protect you


It is literally that simple. The onl way you can think differnetly is by ignoring the statistics and the complaints of literally tens of thousands of people of colour who live with being terrorised and brutalised by their various police forces daily.

The American police forces are corrupt, and brutal. Not only do they murder and terrorise black communities with impunity they have twice the rate of domestic abuse compared to the rest of the community (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Police-domestic-violence-nearly-twice-average-rate-2536928.php) and they get away with that, too because their colleagues are the ones who investigate it.

- - - Updated - - -


Not exactly on topic but close, but this is the one that stuck with me over the years. I remember reading both of these the same day during the Hurricane Katrina disaster and feeling equally pissed off by the shoddy reporting:

11666

Yep, the media loves to demonise black people. Just look at the coverage of white mass killers/rapists 'oh how could they do something like that, he was such a nice young man' vs 'he was no angel, look at this photo of him in a hoodie!'.

[Denzark]

@ Anthrax - seriously - Police and Military shoot for centre of observed mass. ie the biggest area of the target. If his head pops round the corner, you aim for that. If his entire body, the centre of that. Do you know how hard it is to shoot the knee of a moving target? it is only snipers and Hollywood where that happens - especially with a handgun. You are more a danger to the public if you tried that nonsense.

That's not to say you couldn't deploy less-than-lethal methods, bean-bag shotguns, tasers etc. But Police always use minimum force. If they have guns against a knife that is minimum force. fist<baton<knife<gun. And Police don't carry knives.

@ York - I would be in favour of filming all Police interactions, for sure. I would even be in favour of dip testing the footage.

I am not however in favour of it being available to the general public as some sort of police porn. For a start, it is Sub-Judice material. It could be prejudicial to juries. It has witness protection implications - failing to protect witnesses can breach their article 2 Human rights - Right to life - for which in the UK the Chief Constable of a force is liable. It also breaches the privacy of people going about their normal daily lives- article 8 Human rights.

The fact you don't know this is the proof of why the footage should not be made available to amateurs - only held in case there was a requirement to consult it in an investigation.

- - - Updated - - -



The American police forces are corrupt, and brutal. Not only do they murder and terrorise black communities with impunity they have twice the rate of domestic abuse compared to the rest of the community (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Police-domestic-violence-nearly-twice-average-rate-2536928.php) and they get away with that, too because their colleagues are the ones who investigate it.



EG - to write off an entire section of society in the US - police forces - as corrupt and brutal - is as huge a piece of prejudice as if somebody did that to an ethnicity or a sex. Hideous prejudice. And lets assume your figures are correct- you have not attempted any sort of correlation to the increased stress the job puts you under - it doesn't excuse DV but it does explain to a degree. Had you even considered this, the first google entry shows the rate of PTSD is found in some countries to be a.) as high as military veterans returning from Iraq and b.) Higher than the general populace.


Maybe it is the pressure of being assumed automatically corrupt and brutal by someone who has no evidence or basis on which to do so except an extreme bias and a penchant for sensationalist liberal intelligentsia websites.

[Gotthammer]

But Police always use minimum force.

...

Vonderrick Myers, who was unarmed and not wanted for any crimes was shot 16 times by police who have repeatedly changed their telling of the story (http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/10/1335651/-Why-does-the-St-Louis-PD-keep-changing-their-story-about-the-murder-of-VonDerrit-Myers).

Also the Ferguson PD have acted very very shady in regards to the shooting of Mike Brown, including outright lying about events, reports and witnesses.

[eldargal]

The British police use minimum force, American police do not:

In England and Wales, there are fewer than 7,000 trained firearms officers. Between April 1, 2011 and March 31, 2012, there firearms officers were called for 14,261 operations. They discharged their weapons five times. 50-four people have been shot dead by U.K. police since 1990, according to data compiled by the charity Inquest.

For contrast, the Bureau of Labour Statistics says there are around 780,000 police officers in the U.S., almost all of whom are armed. Nationally, the number of killings by police officers ruled justifiable each year runs into the hundreds. In 2012, 12 people were shot dead by police in New York City alone.
Source (www.businessinsider.com/uk-firearms-police-to-trial-cameras-2014-1)(with more sources).

I respect the British police, they de-escalate and in general try and respond to any racial biases and such even if it might take time. The US police are by and large militarised, white supremacist thugs and they have a deeply ingrained culture of cover up and croynism. The lawyer investigating the Ferguson shooting, for example, has in-laws who are police and has other very close ties to the people he is investigating.

[Eldar_Atog]

I respect the British police, they de-escalate and in general try and respond to any racial biases and such even if it might take time. The US police are by and large militarised, white supremacist thugs and they have a deeply ingrained culture of cover up and croynism. The lawyer investigating the Ferguson shooting, for example, has in-laws who are police and has other very close ties to the people he is investigating.

I don't know about the white supremacist part but the rest is true. If you are an US resident, you don't see a police officer as a symbol of safety. They are a symbol of authority and fear.

We have all had different experiences. In the area I grew up, racism in the police and government were just the status quo. The bullies you grew up with became the cops walking around armed to the teeth. Pity the poor woman that divorces a police officer. She is going to have at least 1 traffic stop a day even if she is a perfect driver.

I used to try to give them the benefit of the doubt but I just can't anymore. For me, it was after a rough traffic stop while riding with a friend. He had just been in a wreck and had to buy a new car last minute. Tribal tattoo down both sides, custom rims, tinted windows(street legal). Without even talking to us yet, the first cop called in 2 additional back up cars. When they approached the car, one of them came with gun drawn. You should have seen the look on their face when they saw we were late 20-ish white nerds. They didn't write a ticket or a warning. They just told my friend that his tint was too dark(which it wasn't). I'll let you make your own conclusions about that traffic stop. For me, a lot of misconceptions of cops as protectors fell away that night.

[Denzark]

Well that's a start. We've gone from 'the American Police forces are corrupt and brutal' to 'by and large militarised, white supremacist thugs'.

So 100% down to whatever percent is represented by 'by and large'.

It is still massively unfair to tar all of them with the same brush.

Bear in mind that in the US a myriad of agencies conduct law enforcement duties that we would recognise in the UK as 'policing'. The description of corrupt and brutal or militarised white supremacists does not apply to all of them. It simply doesn't. That is tosh. Or would we ask a rape victim who had seen her attacker found guilty to describe the specialist sexual assault officers who had worked diligently to bring the scumbag to justice, as brutal and corrupt?

If all US police are brutal and corrupt all them time by your UK standards, EG, that would mean you ought to back no conviction being safe in the US in accordance with those standards because in the UK when the defence can prove an investigator to have been corrupt in the course of their duties their evidence is immediately unsafe.

In effect you are saying no one should be convicted in the US ever.

[Erik Setzer]

you know, lets for a moment ignore the whole "maintain their own equipment" thing...because I really expect a cop to know how to repair a digital camera.....

there is just so much wrong with this whole "live streaming idea."

Its impractical, Dangerous to the police, dangerous to the public and ultimately would be like wearing a sign saying "cops are here (or not) come and get me" to anyone that felt the need to break the law

And yet, if the cops weren't in many cases more dangerous than criminals, no one would be recommending that.

The problem, to me, is that some officers *do* know how to work with the devices, and one officer has somehow had his personal camera "fail" repeatedly while he's engaged in harming a civilian. Once is a very, very convenient coincidence. Multiple times mean he's either disabling the device or destroying evidence to obstruct justice, or someone in the department is doing something to cover up abuse, which is also obstructing justice.

[DWest]

In effect you are saying no one should be convicted in the US ever.
No, we're saying that the police have breached the public trust so many times, that we operate on a "guilty until proven innocent" standard when dealing with them. That has nothing to do with letting criminals off the hook. And until you've lived here for some years and dealt with the way US police do things, I'd thank you to stop trying to extrapolate British statistics and methods onto the US.

[Denzark]

Let me get this straight. The police, the people who sign up to 'protect and serve the public', either should or do get treated in law, less well than criminals, in which you consider them guilty until proven innocent.

You actually support this?

Wow, America. Land of the Free.

[YorkNecromancer]

Let me get this straight. The police, the people who sign up to 'protect and serve the public', either should or do get treated in law, less well than criminals, in which you consider them guilty until proven innocent.

I'm sure some sign up to protect and serve, probably most.

Most =/= all.

Some cops abuse their position. This is fact. Fact. Therefore, in any job where we give people large amounts of power there has to be equally high levels of accountability. Just saying 'Oh, I signed up to serve and protect' doesn't mean they did.

You want the power? It comes with strings attached. You can't cope with those strings but still honestly want to make the world a better place? There are other ways. You don't need a badge to protect people. Volunteer, help at a sour kitchen, go back to school and train in nursing.

Not all cops are good. As a result, those who are in the force should be absolutely clean at all times, and the force should have no issues about transparency. If they believe a homicide was justifiable, they should be prepared to defend themselves about it in court; that's how the law works.

If they can't handle the thought that one day, they might be in front of a court on charges of killing a person during the line of their duties, then honestly? They're not cop material. Being a cop is hard. You take abuse from everyone you meet all day long. Don't like it? Quit. No-one said you had to be a cop. being acop means sucking down the world's poison and not complaining, because you know what? You stick your hand in a pirahna tank, you're gonna get bit. You can't be a cop and get mad at the fact the world's a horrible place, because the nature of the work means that's all you're going to see! It's like agreeing to be a chocolate cake taster and complaining when you get fat. People hate you for being a cop? Well, you're the one decided you wanted the power to boss people around - do you honestly think everyone is going to be okay with that? You might mean well, but this is the nature of the job you chose. It's thankless, and cruel, and will expose you to things you don't want to see, make people treat you appallingly.

That's the job. If you're complaining about that, you were very naive when you signed up. Quit and get a job that makes you happy, but you don't get to complain if you stay.

[Denzark]

None of what you have written is unreasonable York. High levels of accountability is reasonable.

What is unreasonable is the attitude of many here making assumptions. Showing prejudice. 'You wanted the power to boss people around'. FFS what a condescending blind piece of prejudice. What a small minded thing to type. You've belittled yourself writing that York.

Most police - even in the US I reckon - sign up to take the world's crap on their shoulders and deal with it. Most of them would find what you wrote acceptable and reasonable - in terms of accountability.

But not assuming it is a power trip. Not assuming they are all brutal, corrupt or white supremacists. What utter codswallop people are typing.

And requiring Police to be judged in all circumstances, 'guilty until proven innocent', something DWest put forward, is also utter utter bollocks.

But as I showed before York - your idea about filming everything and allowing the public to see it has very real legal difficulties which would jeopardise criminal investigations. So how qualified are you to comment on the challenges of modern law enforcement - what so you saw an episode of the Bill and now you are Endeavour Morse?

[DarkLink]

Do you honestly believe that the police do not have a problem with race? I'm not saying individual police officers; I'm saying the police force as a whole.

I think it’s more complicated than that. I don’t doubt that on at least some level, somewhere, race is an issue, but I think there are a lot more factors at play. Reducing it to a simple “police are racist” is oversimplifying things and causes you to ignore other aspects of the problem.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/metropolitan-police-still-institutionally-racist-20-years-after-stephen-lawrence-murder-black-police-leaders-say-8581873.html

I don’t know about the UK, but in the US a lot of police departments have very strong affirmative action policies in an effort to try and recruit more ethnic minorities. The issue they have with recruitment, in my opinion, likely stems to discontent with the police force within said communities. Sixty years ago, that discontent was likely warranted. Now? The –perception- is there, but with the perception clouding public opinion it’s very difficult to tell if it’s genuinely warranted. I can’t tell you how many other issues everyone “knows” are true are complete bull****.
In particular, there are something like 17,000 different police agencies in the USA. The misconduct of one does not necessarily tarnish them all.


Anyways, the issue of race relations regarding the police in the US and UK is much more complicated than a single murder case and the racial issues of a police department. I don’t doubt that the murder case all of your links point to was influenced by race. That’s one murder case in one police department. If you’re saying that on its own is sufficient to claim that all police everywhere have race issues, then no, you haven’t done your homework.

When you posted the links, prior to reading them I was expecting multiple case studies to back up detailed statistical evidence that police disproportionately target blacks. I've seen plenty of evidence along those lines, and I even agree with some of those conclusions. Instead, you posted five or six articles all about the same single case and the involved police department with some offhanded mention of statistics. I’ll buy the argument that the metro police may have a race issue. Now look a little bigger. What are some larger scale trends that cover multiple departments over multiple countries? That’s the next step.


Everything I have ever read, seen, or heard about the police leads me to believe that they are generally good people given a very difficult job to do, which - for a number of highly complex reasons, some cultural, some institutional, some historical - leads them to be unfairly prejudiced against people of colour, and black males in particular. I have family in the police. I have friends who worked with them. I read a lot.

I know a lot of officers. In fact, my crossfit gym is owned by a group of police officers.

What I will say from being able to hear both sides of the story, is that this is not a one-sided problem. Have you ever heard the phrase “perception is reality”? There are very large portions of the population that perceive the police to be corrupt and racist. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. It certainly was at some time, a couple generations ago. It may still be true in a few places. But the perception is still there, so even if it isn’t true, it’s irrelevant. The parties that view the police as corrupt and racist will act very aggressively towards the police.

Recently I saw a letter from a police officer in response to Ferguson in the newspaper. He didn’t say anything about Ferguson itself, but spoke about the police relationship with the community. He gave a few examples. In one, he pulled over a vehicle with heavily tinted windows (it’s illegal to tint the front windows on a car). The driver turned out to be black, and began cussing out the officer for being racist. The officer just pointed out that it was at night and due to the tinted windows it was impossible for him to see the driver at all, let alone identify their ethnicity.

As much as you can guarantee that there is some racism in police departments out there, I can guarantee that cultural mistrust of authority has caused as many problems in recent years as aforementioned racism.

You want to work towards solving the problem? Then accept that in addition to the police accepting more accountability, the public also has to treat police officers with respect and a degree of trust. Not complete trust, hence the accountability, but when you post something about how the police are racist because of some set of events that maybe possibly theoretically have been influenced by race, then you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.



I have done my homework on this, DarkLink, no matter what you might want to think.


Actually, you have no idea how much I appreciate this. Sometimes I feel like the only person on here to ever bother to at least try and back up what I’m saying with something resembling evidence. At least now you know how I feel when people on here talk about those crazy Americans and their guns. Every time Kirsten rebuts hours of research and typing with a “that’s not how it works DarkLink”, it makes me feel like someone is playing the world’s tiniest violin just for me.



Really the American police depart has a very loose guidline on what means equal or lesser force and what it takes for their life to be at risk enough to use deadly force, I'll give a example of a couple news story's I saw last year that I can't find links to


Oh, because unverifiable anecdotal evidence is always the best way to make an argument…



Case 2 Germany I think) one man (can't remember his race) going through extremely violent psychosis with to large machetes chasing people and destroying shop fronts, police response 1 shot to the knee stoping the rampage without fatality and allowing the man to be apprehended and even treated for his paychosis


Have you ever fired a handgun before? Have you ever fired one in combat? You realize that the vast majority of shots fired by police miss, and it’s not because they’re poorly trained. Sure, they’re not Navy SEALs, but hitting a small target under stressful circumstances is incredibly difficult. You do not aim to disable someone with a firearm. I guarantee you those police shot once, noticed that it was a lucky hit that disabled their target, and held further shots. That’s good trigger discipline, but it’s not some sort of magical secret sauce that everyone but American police officers have.



Really the problem is american police officers aren't told to try everything to apprehend the suspect before moving to deadly force and get permission for deadly force from pretty much anything involving a potential weapon even if that weapons potential to do harm is minisqual

You’ve obviously never seen the scene in Chronicles of Riddick where Riddick kills a guy with a teacup.


EG - to write off an entire section of society in the US - police forces - as corrupt and brutal - is as huge a piece of prejudice as if somebody did that to an ethnicity or a sex.

Don’t bother arguing with Eldargal. Americans are all sexist racist hatemongering pig-dogs in her eyes, and nothing will ever change that. Except for the blacks, the women, and/or the black women. They’re probably ok, unless they’re in league with the sexist racist hatemongering pig-dog Americans.

Actually, funny story. A few weeks ago, I was hanging out at my crossfit gym waiting for the next class to start. The current class was working out, one of whom was an attractive girl. Halfway through their workout, a random black guy stops outside the bay door near where she is doing situps. I was on the other side of the gym and couldn’t hear what he was saying, but one of the other guys (an off-duty police officer) waiting for the class to start gets up and walks over to the black guy. Black guy leaves. Turns out the guy was standing there watching the girl work out, saying things like “oh, you go girl”. The officer told him to stop harassing her and to not come by again. He mentioned to me that he recognized the black guy as a drug addict.

So, here’s the question. In Eldargal’s eyes, is the officer a good guy for calling the black guy out on being misogynistic, or is he racist for telling a black guy to leave and don’t come back? Is the black guy misogynistic, or just a victim of racist American cops? It’s like a magic 8-ball, who knows what’s going to pop up?


If you are an US resident, you don't see a police officer as a symbol of safety. They are a symbol of authority and fear.

I’m a US resident, and you’re full of ****. Though you do live in the South, so I guess it could be plausible there.

I will say this, though. People refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. Police will pull over someone going twenty over the speed limit, and they’ll bull**** whatever they think can get them out of the ticket, and ***** about it when the officer tickets them anyways. Just an ******* police officer abusing his power, after all.

Meanwhile, if you’re just polite and honest, police reciprocate. I’ve gotten a speeding ticket where I just admitted I wasn’t paying attention to how fast I was going, and the officer was visibly surprised when I was honest. The police officers I know will all vouch for that. People act ****ty, and then blame the police when they don’t get away with it.

Referring back to the OP, the second story with that stupid white kid? That kid didn’t not get shot (double negative, I know) because he was white. He didn’t get shot because he was polite. He wasn’t waving the shotgun around, and when the police approached them he was casual and friendly. Since it’s not actually illegal to carry a firearm, there wasn’t a big fuss about it. Stupid white kid can keep going around freaking people out, and the officers didn’t use unnecessary force.

Meanwhile, if you go out in public and start swinging a sword around, and freak out when the police arrive, that’s Darwin Award material right there. Now, depending on the exact circumstances it may or may not have been justified for the police to shoot him, but the –reason- was likely that they saw a guy swinging a sword around and got a little too trigger happy, as opposed to whipping out their guns when they saw he was black. I mean, you never know, maybe, but I find the former much more plausible.


You want the power? It comes with strings attached.

Those strings are getting called racist all the time, apparently.


Not all cops are good. As a result, those who are in the force should be absolutely clean at all times, and the force should have no issues about transparency. If they believe a homicide was justifiable, they should be prepared to defend themselves about it in court; that's how the law works.

Absolutely. But “accountability” is not the purpose of this thread. There’s a significant disconnect between the logical argument you’re making and the casual rhetoric you’re using. The logic isn’t bad, that there’s a discrepancy in the number of blacks arrested and the criminal rate of blacks relative to other ethnicities, and as you’ve mentioned there are a very complex set of reasons behind this.

This thread isn’t about those reasons, nor about what could be done to fix them.

You abandon your logical argument and jump straight to “cops are racist”. As much as you say you’re not claiming that cops are racist, that’s basically what you’re doing. I mean, your OP openly claimed that the cops shot the guy swinging around a sword in public because he was black. The trend in your posts is “this evidence here is why I feel that there is a race issue, therefore these cops are racist”.

I’m not really even taking the opposite stance than you, nor is Denzark I don’t believe. Neither of us are saying that there isn’t possibly a race issue or some related problem. We’re saying that you should stop being judgmental and jumping to hasty conclusions on skimpy evidence.

Let me be clear here: what I find so wrong about some of what you said is that in order for a society to have a peaceful, effective police force, there must be mutual trust between the police and the public. When you spread rhetoric such as what you have, you only add fuel to the fire. Do you think Ferguson would have been better with or without having half the town set on fire by rioters? A dirty liberal of all people should be able to pull out a few appropriate Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi quotes for a situation like this.

[eldargal]

Let me be clear here: what I find so wrong about some of what you said is that in order for a society to have a peaceful, effective police force, there must be mutual trust between the police and the public. When you spread rhetoric such as what you have, you only add fuel to the fire. Do you think Ferguson would have been better with or without having half the town set on fire by rioters? A dirty liberal of all people should be able to pull out a few appropriate Martin Luther King Jr. or Ghandi quotes for a situation like this.
There is no trust between the people and the police because the police brutalise the people, primarily the people of colour. This isn't fuel on the fire, this is people trying to effect change to literally save lives while ignorant, privileged little white morons try and pretend there is no problem because that would mean acknowledging their own privilege. Trust is earnt, and the American police department have had decades of brutalising black people in particular to lose that trust.


Don’t bother arguing with Eldargal. Americans are all sexist racist hatemongering pig-dogs in her eyes, and nothing will ever change that. Except for the blacks, the women, and/or the black women. They’re probably ok, unless they’re in league with the sexist racist hatemongering pig-dog Americans.

It's funny for someone who says they appreciate arguing with facts you just 'don't argue with Eldargal' when the only person here who hasn't provided any facts is you. But then what can you expect from a libertarian, the ultimate in white middle class bull****.

'Hear both sides' is white supremacist talk for 'lets ignore the opinions of the oppressed people who are routinely brutalised and murdered and listen to the excues given by the white police to their white gym buddy'.

'Should black people be able to walk down the street without fear of being shot by a white cop for no reason? Let's hear both sides'

[daboarder]

nice racism Eldargal, classy and hypocritical as usual

[eldargal]

Racism is institutional and systemic hate. What black people in America put up with is racism, me dismissing the opinions of a ****witted white libertarian ****head is not.

But you know, by all means make an issue which results in the oppression of millions of people of colour in the US alone about the feelings of some poor white ****boy.

[daboarder]

100% with Denzark on this one. I hope some of you never have jury duty. You'd walk in and see a cop across from a black family and decide to send that officer to jail before you even heard the charges.

was waiting for the inevitable "**** white guys, they deserve everything they get"

Wonder if I'll get abused for "not all white guys" or mentioning that the continual judging of an entire section of the community on the behavior of a minority within that demographic is a no go

- - - Updated - - -


Racism is institutional and systemic hate. What black people in America put up with is racism, me dismissing the opinions of a ****witted white libertarian ****head is not.

But you know, by all means make an issue which results in the oppression of millions of people of colour in the US alone about the feelings of some poor white ****boy.
not what the UN states,,,but whatever

actually their is no UN definition, But i would have thought judging anyone solely based on ethnicity and gender was abuse.

[eldargal]

Wonder if I'll get abused for "not all white guys" or mentioning that the continual judging of an entire section of the community on the behavior of a minority within that demographic is a no go
The irony in this is breathtaking. Yes, it would be horrible for an entire section of the community to be judged on the behaviour of a minority, let's ask the murdered black boy who was killed because the police thought he was a thug thinks of that, shall we?

[daboarder]

The irony in this is breathtaking. Yes, it would be horrible for an entire section of the community to be judged on the behaviour of a minority, let's ask the murdered black boy who was killed because the police thought he was a thug thinks of that, shall we?

And the difference between you and the cop right now?

[eldargal]

Oh and speaking of the UN:

United Nations officially slams American cops as 'racists' (http://www.examiner.com/article/united-nations-slams-american-cops-as-racists)

(not to mention the UNs own problematic issues with race which the article does touch on)

- - - Updated - - -


And the difference between you and the cop right now?

The difference is I'm trying to raise awareness of the institutional problem that is getting people killed, while you and DarkLink are squealing over the reputations of the people whose colleagues are doing the killing.

[Mr Mystery]

That and EG hasn't (to my knowledge) ever shot at someone because they decided they had a threatening skin colour.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y

[eldargal]

That too.

Judge Sentenced To 28 Years For Selling Black Teens To Prisons (http://www.examiner.com/article/pennsylvania-judge-sentenced-to-28-years-prison-for-selling-teens-to-prisons)

When It Comes To Illegal Drug Use, White America Does The Crime, Black America Gets The Time (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/racial-disparity-drug-use_n_3941346.html)

- - - Updated - - -

Black women are killed by police, too (http://www.salon.com/2014/08/24/black_women_are_killed_by_police_too_partner/).
The Victims (http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2014-08-black-unarmed-women-girls-without-weapons-killed-law-enforcement/)

[Mr Mystery]

Anyone know if there are published stats for things like the number of armed stand offs where the Police didn't end up shooting someone (as I imagine most end), and whether there's a racial breakdown of those by percentage and that?

[Denzark]

MM - a sensible question. To make a truly educated statement on this, you need breakdown of police shootings - as a proportion of emergency response, and broken down by legal vs illegal and broken down by policing agency - state, sheriff, ATF, FBI, anyone with a badge and a gun really.

Then you can find if any given agency are above or below the median.

In the question of prejudice, no prejudice is ever right. Writing off an entire section of society without clear evidence is just shallow and beneath the intellects of those doing so and just because you empathise with a cosplayer don't make it an illegal shoot.

[Mr Mystery]

I've seen 'stats' before which show in cases of ostensibly comparable crime (such as being nicked for carrying the old Bolivian Marching Powder) that black people are given far harsher sentences, and indeed are statisically more likely to be fully prosecuted.

And I used ostensibly because carrying a small baggie of Showbiz Sherbert is quite different to being caught carrying half a tonne of the stuff - stuff I've seen isn't terribly clear on whether that has been taken into account in the reporting.

However, verifying stats is never my strong suit!

[daboarder]

The difference is I'm trying to raise awareness of the institutional problem that is getting people killed, while you and DarkLink are squealing over the reputations of the people whose colleagues are doing the killing.
Yeah no, If the cop has behaved the way he did based solely on the other guys race, then he's a racist ****.
I however am willing to wait until I hear more about the situation.

because unlike people here, I don't judge people because of their race, sex culture or creed. I judge them on how they act, including their actions and judgments of others.

Its called equality and you should really try it sometime as opposed to your "Boots on the other foot" attitude

[Gotthammer]

you need breakdown of police shootings.

That is actually impossible as there are no reliable records of it as nobody is required to report them (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/08/how-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-one-knows/).


The most detailed analysis of police shootings [in the US] to date was conducted by Jim Fisher, a former FBI agent and criminal justice professor who now authors true crime books.

“I was rather surprised to find there are no statistics,” Fisher said. “The answer to me is pretty obvious: the government just doesn't want us to know how many people are shot by the police every year.”

In 2011, he scoured the Internet several times a day every day, compiling a database of every officer-involved shooting he could find. Ultimately, he tracked 1,146 shootings by police officers, 607 of them fatal shootings.

“I was surprised at how many shootings, a reasonable person would conclude, were unnecessary,” Fisher said.

[Mr Mystery]

Here in the UK, there is an inquest into every incident involving Police opening fire - every single one.

Granted, the general lack of dakka in our country helps make this feasible. But it is something the US should be doing.

As for unnecessary - that's in the eye of the beholder. In the UK, we've had people brandishing table lighters shaped like guns shot and killed (guy was waving it around, threatening to shoot), and a bloke with a table leg in a plastic bag that some bloke in a pub was convinced was a shotgun shot dead (bloke in pub, that ever reliable source of info also couldn't tell the difference between a Scottish and Irish accent). Former? Yep. Clear threat, take the shot. Second one? No evidence I'm aware of the person was acting in a threatening manner.

[Gotthammer]

Probably shootings like Victor White who "shot himself" in the chest with a gun two searches didn't find while handcuffed with his hands behind him (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/09/02/victor-whites-unbelievable-houdini-handcuff-suicide/).

[eldargal]

Yeah no, If the cop has behaved the way he did based solely on the other guys race, then he's a racist ****.
I however am willing to wait until I hear more about the situation.

because unlike people here, I don't judge people because of their race, sex culture or creed. I judge them on how they act, including their actions and judgments of others.

Its called equality and you should really try it sometime as opposed to your "Boots on the other foot" attitude
I'm judging people on how they act too, that's why I'm condemning the US police forces for killing an unarmed black man every day with no consequences for the officers responsible, amongst other, daily acts of brutality and oppression perpetrated against PoCs with little to no criticism from within the police (all those supposed good people who care). While you're having a hissy fit because someone pointed out white cops are killing black people and white people don't give a ****. That has nothing to do with equality.

Django Unchained’ Actress Says She Was Accosted By Police After Mistaken for Prostitute (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/django-unchained-actress-handcuffed-mistaken-for-prostitute-1201305240/)

Three Black Women Mistaken For Prostitutes At The Standard Hotel (http://madamenoire.com/470607/three-black-women-mistaken-for-prostitutes-at-the-standard-hotel/)

Nope, nothing racist about white cops assuming black women are prostitutes just for, you know, existing in a public space...

I read a thing on tumblr the other day by a white woman who says when she is in the car with her black husband they get pulled over by the cops regularly 'to see if she is alright', because the only reason a white woman would be in a car with a black man is he has forced her to be there.

White Cop Forces His Way Into Terrified Black Man's Home and Arrests Him (http://gawker.com/white-cop-forces-his-way-into-terrified-black-mans-hom-1557647210)

Black Teen With White Parents Mistaken For Burglar, Assaulted By Cops In His Own Home (http://thefreethoughtproject.com/black-teen-fostered-white-parents-mistaken-burglar-attacked-cops/)

But you know instead of acnowledging trends in white behaviour towards black people in America I guess we should just ignore what the black people are saying and act like things are all fine, because that's equality now apparently.

[DWest]

Let me get this straight. The police, the people who sign up to 'protect and serve the public', either should or do get treated in law, less well than criminals, in which you consider them guilty until proven innocent.

You actually support this?

Wow, America. Land of the Free.
Part of being free is being able to exist without fear. When there's no way to tell beforehand who's a good cop and who's a bad cop, and an encounter with a bad cop can be fatal, then yes, all cops will be treated as though they're bad cops until proven otherwise.

[Houghten]

Yeah no, If the cop has behaved the way he did based solely on the other guys race, then he's a racist ****.

Why specify "solely"?

[daboarder]

Why specify "solely"?

its an expression, clearly given context its not hard to understand, "if the determining factor in the guys assessment of the situation is"

[Houghten]

Of course it's not hard for you to understand, you wrote it.

I can honestly say this is the first time I have seen it used to mean "mainly."

But still, my question doesn't change if that's what you really mean. Why specify it has to be the main factor and not just a factor?

[daboarder]

Of course it's not hard for you to understand, you wrote it.

I can honestly say this is the first time I have seen it used to mean "mainly."

But still, my question doesn't change if that's what you really mean. Why specify it has to be the main factor and not just a factor?

Heres an idea, **** off and stop trying to twist this so you can accuse me of racism

[bfmusashi]

There really isn't any twisting here man. Will there be a moment of self-realization? Maybe, given your signature, a time for self-loathing? :p

[daboarder]

There really isn't any twisting here man. Will there be a moment of self-realization? Maybe, given your signature, a time for self-loathing? :p


because unlike people here, I don't judge people because of their race, sex culture or creed. I judge them on how they act, including their actions and judgments of others.

Its called equality and you should really try it sometime as opposed to your "Boots on the other foot" attitude

I couldn't care less what race a person is, stop trying to insinuate that I do based on a few lines of text.

I will however not condemn a person without trial because of their colour and the behaviour of others. People here apparently will

[eldargal]

I will however not condemn a person without trial because of their colour and the behaviour of others. People here apparently will

Like American police officers who execute young men in the street with no trial or due process simply because they are black?

Or are we still talking about petulant white boys having their feelings hurt on the internet?

[Denzark]

Part of being free is being able to exist without fear. When there's no way to tell beforehand who's a good cop and who's a bad cop, and an encounter with a bad cop can be fatal, then yes, all cops will be treated as though they're bad cops until proven otherwise.

Let's assume that as everyone is equal, police have an equal right to exist without fear. They choose to put themselves in danger anyway - but that doesn't mean they don't have the same rights as everyone else. Now lets substitute your words a little - my additions in red, your originals in blue:

When there's no way to tell beforehand who's a innocent civilian carrying a sword for legitimate reasons and who's a murderous criminal, and an encounter with a murderous criminal can be fatal, then yes, all people carrying swords will be treated as though they're murderous criminals until proven otherwise.

Puts a different perspective on being prejudiced against any one group without any sort of discernment, doesn't it?

[DWest]

So what you're saying then, Denzark, is that people with weapons are to be considered dangerous? That's exactly my point. Despite the raw statistics on gun ownership in America which says that there's roughly 4 guns for every 5 people, those guns are concentrated in the hands of a much smaller number of people, and so the most common encounter a civilian will have with someone carrying a weapon is a police officer. These police are held to a standard that says "if you claim you were in fear for your life, you can shoot to kill", and they're backed up by a judicial and political system that is heavily weighted in their favor. The only defense citizens have is benevolence of the police force. A benevolence that has been so far lacking.

[Denzark]

I'm saying that jumping to extreme conclusions is idiocy. To instantly assume these Police 'executed' a cosplayer purely for being black is very wrong. To assume that they were without justification is wrong. And to call all of any one branch of society 'corrupt and brutal' or 'white surpemacists' is also wrong - and also highly ironic juxtaposed with a complaint about the PREJUDICE and NARROW MINDEDNESS of a/the police force.

[CoffeeGrunt]

It begs the question why it took so many shots to incapacitate someone carrying a melee weapon. They have the range and killing power advantage, and theoretically, they have training to put a round in the gut or limbs to make it a less-lethal wound in a single shot.

This guy was shot 6 times, 4 of them from a direction he wasn't even facing, (did he try to run away from the fire?)

No matter how you dress this up, the police officers gunned him down. They opened up with a disproportionate amount of firepower and force that far exceeded what was needed to incapacitate or subdue them, and even exceeded what was necessary to kill the victim.

How can that be justified when dealing with a victim who outside of a range of, what, 10 metres, is effectively unarmed when fighting an officer armed with a firearm?

[Denzark]

CG I've not seen reporting on the amount of shots etc. But some of what you mention has already been dealt with in this thread.

1. As to training or less than lethal shots, most forces train for centre of observed mass. You don't try to incapacitate, you don't try and kill. You put as many shots centrally on target as it takes to stop them. The trained fire arms officers who responded to the Lee Rigby killings in the UK fired 8 times and only wounded both the murderers, from a range of less than 30 metres. It is not as simple as you seem to think.

2. Did he try and run away? He was shot in the back. As I already mentioned, the officers split up to make the suspect have to split his attentions. You can even see this is the witness photo. If the suspect went for one officer his partner could fire in defence of his counterpart and this would be to the rear of the suspect.

3. Guns are not disproportionate force to a sword. Both are considered as capable of lethal force. The fact that one weapon outranges another is irrelevant in transferring to someone who perceived themselves at threat from such force, a right to self defence. Unless you have seen reports about exact fall of shot and when he stopped moving, you don't know that 6 shots would be considered excessive force.

4. As to your justification, I am not saying it is justified. I'm not saying its not. I'm saying that it would be FAIRER and less PREJUDICED to give them the benefit of the doubt until the law decides otherwise. Sometimes that is called 'innocent until proven guilty' and police are just as entitled to that consideration as any other part of society.

[Tyrendian]

4. As to your justification, I am not saying it is justified. I'm not saying its not. I'm saying that it would be FAIRER and less PREJUDICED to give them the benefit of the doubt until the law decides otherwise. Sometimes that is called 'innocent until proven guilty' and police are just as entitled to that consideration as any other part of society.

that sums it up pretty well. We can't really be sure yet what the situation was like in that specific case - that will have to be established by an independent investigation.
The main problem is that previous cases - both of shootings and of subsequent investigations (*cough* Ferguson *cough*) have caused a lot of (probably not 100% justified in its severity, but still quite well based in past fact) bad press and doubt among the public.
I can agree with both sides of the argument that's "raging" in here - no, we really shouldn't condemn every single police shooting that happens to a PoC as wrong from the get go, but the past has also shown us that there is at least a substantial likelyhood that racism did in fact play a role in this specific incident. And that's something that needs adressing, badly, at a very basic level - which means, at the level of the individual officers and their behaviour. We sure as hell should respect their commitment to our safety, as long as that very commitment includes all of the citizens equally - and that respect also shouldn't make us blind to the simple fact that the officers are, as you rightly said, very human and thus prone to their own flaws and mistakes, which they especially (should) have a duty to correct because of their responsibility. And exactly that is something that can easily be perceived as sadly lacking in parts of the US police forces...

[CoffeeGrunt]

It seems that they chose to shoot to kill, then? Is there a need for that sort of thing in America? I'm asking because it isn't common here, but the precedent that any suspect could be carrying a firearm might make it a different procedure for America.


3. Guns are not disproportionate force to a sword. Both are considered as capable of lethal force. The fact that one weapon outranges another is irrelevant in transferring to someone who perceived themselves at threat from such force, a right to self defence. Unless you have seen reports about exact fall of shot and when he stopped moving, you don't know that 6 shots would be considered excessive force.

This is true, I suppose, I guess that's why there's so many sword-wielding murder-sprees in the news alongside all the gun ones involving dozens dead.

[daboarder]

This is true, I suppose, I guess that's why there's so many sword-wielding murder-sprees in the news alongside all the gun ones involving dozens dead.

um CG, Google police officer attacked by axe, only a week ago police were attacked by a nutter in New York and yesterday in DC.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/new-york-hatchet-attack-leaves-police-officer-critically-wounded-20141024-11b2sh.html
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/10/d-c-police-officer-attacked-with-an-axe-in-northeast-108610.html


that sums it up pretty well. We can't really be sure yet what the situation was like in that specific case - that will have to be established by an independent investigation.
The main problem is that previous cases - both of shootings and of subsequent investigations (*cough* Ferguson *cough*) have caused a lot of (probably not 100% justified in its severity, but still quite well based in past fact) bad press and doubt among the public.
I can agree with both sides of the argument that's "raging" in here - no, we really shouldn't condemn every single police shooting that happens to a PoC as wrong from the get go, but the past has also shown us that there is at least a substantial likelyhood that racism did in fact play a role in this specific incident. And that's something that needs adressing, badly, at a very basic level - which means, at the level of the individual officers and their behaviour. We sure as hell should respect their commitment to our safety, as long as that very commitment includes all of the citizens equally - and that respect also shouldn't make us blind to the simple fact that the officers are, as you rightly said, very human and thus prone to their own flaws and mistakes, which they especially (should) have a duty to correct because of their responsibility. And exactly that is something that can easily be perceived as sadly lacking in parts of the US police forces...

well said

[DWest]

um CG, Google police officer attacked by axe, only a week ago police were attacked by a nutter in New York and yesterday in DC.
Slight point of order here- those are both tool types of axes, not a purpose-made weapon like a sword. A tire iron or a chef's knife is at least as dangerous as the hatchet the first guy had.

[CoffeeGrunt]

um CG, Google police officer attacked by axe, only a week ago police were attacked by a nutter in New York and yesterday in DC.

If we're opening the floor to items that aren't specifically weaponry but can be used as lethal weapons, why don't we hear about more people being gunned down after walking out of Wal-mart with a set of kitchen knives?

In fact, I'd argue you could do a hell of a lot more damage with a smaller, easier to conceal knife than a katana. Try following someone down a dark alley with a katana without tipping them off to the fact you're going to disembowel them and steal all their money. It's kinda hard. In fact, katanas and other actual swords are typically used to kill in home defense, domestic murders, and basically anything that involves not travelling to your target with a massive sword. Apparently it's also a nerd weapon, according to some (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/01/nerd_violence.html), because again, it's a weapon so unwieldy compared to a knife or a gun, (in a country where guns are fairly easy to get.)

[eldargal]

The whole point, though, is that there is no innocent until proven guilty for the police. There is just police investigating themselves then finding they are innocent with no appropriate oversight. Not to mention that in cases like Ferguson and that chap who was murdered for holding a sandwich the police were caught out repeatedly and shamelessly lying about every aspect of the case. No one is saying every police officer is corrupt, but the system is and that allows racists and murderers to act with impunity and the police that aren't corrupt still benefit from that system. It protects them just like it protects the corrupt ones. Focusing on the individuals is not the solution because the problem is systemic, not individual. It is not a few bad eggs, it is a few bad eggs empowered and protected by a system of limited oversight and self investigation. Even such oversight there is is often riddled with the same problems, see again Ferguson where the independent investigation is headed by a man with strong links to the very police he is investigating.

There is systemic violence and oppression of PoC by police departments across America which literally results in people dying every day, there is a culture of 'us vs them' in the police which leads even decent people to side with murderers and through all of it there runs a deep vein of white supremacy. The deaths are just the tip of the iceberg.

Now as a white person I have two choices:
a) I can listen to the innumerable accounts of PoC who talk about the daily oppression and police brutality they experience and accept there is a problem with the system
b) I can arbitrarily decide all those PoC are lying and that I as a white person am better qualified to talk about these issues than they are.

I'm going with 'a'.

[Morgrim]

Apparently US police don't have tasers either. Because someone wielding a sword happens to be exactly the sort of target that tasers were designed for: a non-lethal takedown at mid range, of a suspect that would be dangerous if they got close. Someone waving a sword around cannot shoot you (if their broadsword can be waved one handed it isn't made of metal and is a harmless prop) which means that as long as they don't get within a few metres you are safe. No need to gun them down.

[Denzark]

Morgrim

The maximum range of current tasers is 35ft/10.6m. Even if a perpetrator is only half as fast at the 100m sprint as Usain Bolt's world record, they would cover 10 metres in just under 2 seconds.

Even though a quick wikipedia check of broadsword shows that term correctly refers to one-handed basket swords and thus are designed one-handed - lets assume you mean double-handed broadsword a la claymore - even that could be swung one-handed.

You would not have time to make an asusmption 2 seconds that the nob head charging at you with what looks like a sword, is actually just a prop - based on the idea of how he is waving it around or not.

It all depends on compliance levels of the suspect. If doing what they are told - ie 'put the sword down, lie on the ground, hands behind back' or whatever, no need to shoot them. If they advancing on you at speed with what appears to be a weapon - it's their bad.

[Mr Mystery]

Morgrim

The maximum range of current tasers is 35ft/10.6m. Even if a perpetrator is only half as fast at the 100m sprint as Usain Bolt's world record, they would cover 10 metres in just under 2 seconds.

Even though a quick wikipedia check of broadsword shows that term correctly refers to one-handed basket swords and thus are designed one-handed - lets assume you mean double-handed broadsword a la claymore - even that could be swung one-handed.

You would not have time to make an asusmption 2 seconds that the nob head charging at you with what looks like a sword, is actually just a prop - based on the idea of how he is waving it around or not.

It all depends on compliance levels of the suspect. If doing what they are told - ie 'put the sword down, lie on the ground, hands behind back' or whatever, no need to shoot them. If they advancing on you at speed with what appears to be a weapon - it's their bad.

How about the guy with the sword not actually charging at you? Would you taser him for sake of safety, or shoot him four times in the back?

[Denzark]

Personally? Depends on compliance. If I could achieve it verbally that would be fine. If not but he was not coming forward, a taser would be appropriate to disarm him.

As to shoot four times in the back, I don't think we have enough information of evidential value to state yet whether or not that happening to the cosplayer was reasonable. Don't forget the police responded to an emergency 911 call - we have no idea what the innocent citizen described to the dispatch controller. Cosplayer's aunty said he had earbeads in - he may not have complied with the Police's instructions.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say any time someone receives more gun shot wounds to the back than the front, there's something kind of iffy about the claim he charged the rozzers.

[Denzark]

As before MM - even the witness photos show the 2 police on either side of the car split apart. If - IF - he charged 1, the other would be within his rights to fire at his back - in defence of his partner.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I doubt we'll hear about the investigation's results, the media will forget about it and move onto the next scandal, (probably whatever dress Kim Kardashian wears next.) They have to focus on the real issues, after all.)

I had friends get confronted by armed police while they were playing with BB guns. It's stupid in hindsight, but they were 15 at the time. They were shooting each other in a park, and a resident nearby phoned the police saying some young kids were having a gunfight outside. (Must've been an old dear with no hearing, or someone with absolutely no clue how loud a gunshot would be, and that they're not normally bright orange.)

Now, the police arrive having to treat the situation as if the kids are packing real heat. He's wearing a vest, walks up to my friends and lifts his pistol out of his holster slightly as a warning, telling them to put the guns down. He sees that they're bright orange, curses, and tells them to put them away as a resident called them being very scared.

You see, I just don't get the mentality of the cops in this instance. Why is it they come with full lethal force, and their first action is to point a lethal weapon at the potential criminal and be prepared to shoot-to-kill? Why is that the standard procedure? Do they even get tasers to use as an alternative?

[bfmusashi]

As before MM - even the witness photos show the 2 police on either side of the car split apart. If - IF - he charged 1, the other would be within his rights to fire at his back - in defence of his partner.

I will defend my partner by shooting towards my partner.

[CoffeeGrunt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOD-s412MOw

So what is the right thing to do in this situation?

[eldargal]

Not murder someone in the street for not obeying your orders is always the right thing to do.

[CoffeeGrunt]

There's even a part where the guy shouts, "I haven't done anything!" Then the officer replies, "I know."

So what is the point on getting two guys out of a car for a traffic violation, holding them at gunpoint, calling backup to point another gun at them, demanding to get them on the floor, then admitting that they know that the two guys being told to get down haven't done anything. I'm not saying it's indicative of the entire system, but it's indicative of enough of it that these two officers know they can behave like this without any real reprisals.

Christ, is this standard procedure? Imagine getting a weapon pointed at you, hell even a Taser, whenever you get pulled over for speeding or running a red.

[Denzark]

Not murder someone in the street for not obeying your orders is always the right thing to do.

Entirely true. And what is and isn't murder is decided upon by a jury of one's peers in both this country and the states - not hysterical liberal press.

So if such a jury does define it as murder they deserve to be punished. And vice versa.

[eldargal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJSTfKXDVrg

[Mr Mystery]

Entirely true. And what is and isn't murder is decided upon by a jury of one's peers in both this country and the states - not hysterical liberal press.

So if such a jury does define it as murder they deserve to be punished. And vice versa.

Ah yes. Blame the liberal press. Why not.

Everyone knows the left of wing are behind all of societies ills and that.

[Gotthammer]

Death of a man with Down's Syndrome at the hands of police ruled "asphyxiation by homicide" - no charges pressed against the police (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/syndrome-man-movies-ends-morgue/story?id=20046376).

Man does literally nothing wrong, police kill him:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbI5HHz7fJU


Man asked to prove he paid his bus fare. He does and is then assaulted by five police officers, one of whom is caught literally kicking him in the face while he's on the ground:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3x2YCC6sB8

[CoffeeGrunt]

Guys, guys, guys.

All these videos are quite clearly an agenda by the conspiracy of the plot to make the gays and the blacks socially-acceptable. This liberal media is trying to pretend that there's a disproportionate amount of brutality levelled at minorities, whereas it's quite clear that the police are only arresting these people because they're just not good people.

Yes, absolutely every one of these incidents was justified, even the ones that had no crime or reason at all for any of it.

[Mr Mystery]

Off that, I am going to come out in support of the Police on some counts.

Friend of my parents, met through Scouting used to be a Police Officer. Used, because he got kicked off the force for beating someone senseless.

Why?

He was escorting the Prisoner to court. Prisoner has hepatitis (dunno which one), and made a concerted effort to bite the Officer. Officer lost it, and smashed the prisoner.

Level of violence was indeed excessive for a Police Officer - but not without some pretty severe provocation

Whilst he fell well below the expected composure etc of a Police Officer, his was a very human response.

But you and your mates bundling some being entirely cooperative to the ground then giving them a pasting? No. That's an abuse of power - 5 on 1. If it hadn't been filmed, I wonder what the official story would have been?

[Gotthammer]

Driver blows a 0.00 on his breath test, still given a ticket for drink driving:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ6Z1tGxDmw


Man arrested more than 60 times for tresspassing... at his own job:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jz7JRLuYJM


Man arrested for drinking iced tea by a plain clothes officer who never shows ID (http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/man-arrested-drinking-iced-tea/).


Police punch woman in the face because they thought she threw water at them:


http://youtu.be/HPjLwQm0bPo

[Denzark]

Oh very droll Coffee, out of cohesive argument, resort to sarcasm.

Can anyone answer me this - what proportion of a group of society doing something wrong does it make it acceptable to judge the whole of that group by? Are all Muslims radicals seeking to behead the non-believers?

No of course not.

And similarly, neither are all rank and file Police corrupt, brutal or white supremacists. Even not in the states.

there certainly wi;; be a proportion getting away with all the things that a large proportion of people in this thread seem to attribute to the whole. But the fact they DO get away with it cannot be attributed to the 'Police Force' as a whole (even if such a thing was to exist inthe US).

This is because decisions to prosecute is not just down to the Police. To see a copper found guilty of these things takes lawyers - to start the case, judges to rule on it and juries to consider the evidence.

Even if you argue the first 2 are part of the system thus part of the problem, you still have the jury of non-involved citizens to rule on the facts.

In the case of the Down Syndrome man above, it is undeniably tragic, but a grand jury was convened - wiki states that is 16-23 citizens in the states, even more than normal. And they considered the witness evidence and found no case to answer.

Where Gotthammer is in error is saying the man did 'literally nothing wrong' - except act in such a way which would probably have constituted a theft. Thus resulting in the security trying to eject him, he kicked off and was restrained.

Now I don't say someone deserves to die for trying to see a $12 film for free - of course not. But he did merit ejection, this can legally be done with reasonable force, and when he kicked off, he was restrained. The autopsy ruled that he was more liable to sudden death from restraint in that way - so it is just tragic it happened. 16-23 citizens considered the evidence and found that there was no criminality involved in the actions of those involved. How can anyone complain about that?

[Gotthammer]

Firefighter waves at passing police car. Placed in handcuffs and threatened with a taser:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdsQlSF4Ox8


Police beat a homeless man to death:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVR4wTPsHYk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdDuQtKhJv4

- - - Updated - - -


Where Gotthammer is in error is saying the man did 'literally nothing wrong' - except act in such a way which would probably have constituted a theft. Thus resulting in the security trying to eject him, he kicked off and was restrained.

Actually Denzark, I was reffering to the video posted after that which shows a man who was walking with his family being grabbed and restrained. He was walking behind his wife and daughter who had just had an argument, police ask him what's up, he says it's nothing and a family matter. He ends up dead. I await you justification of their actions.

[Denzark]

Can't see vids at work unfortunately Gotty.

However if no successful prosecution was brought against them then that does not automatically mean all police in whatever country it happened in are brutal and corrupt.

It might mean the whole legal system is not what you may wish for in your ideal society because of inate flaws - but it doesn't make it fair to character assassinate the whole.

And in fact if you provided stats of successful interventions in that country with police using weapons legally or the suspect not being killed, to be compared against when it did go wrong, that would bear out what I have been saying all the way along.

[40kGamer]

And similarly, neither are all rank and file Police corrupt, brutal or white supremacists. Even not in the states.

there certainly will be a proportion getting away with all the things that a large proportion of people in this thread seem to attribute to the whole. But the fact they DO get away with it cannot be attributed to the 'Police Force' as a whole (even if such a thing was to exist inthe US).

This is because decisions to prosecute is not just down to the Police. To see a copper found guilty of these things takes lawyers - to start the case, judges to rule on it and juries to consider the evidence.

Even if you argue the first 2 are part of the system thus part of the problem, you still have the jury of non-involved citizens to rule on the facts.

I know a lot of police officers. Some are friends and really good people doing what I consider to be a horrible job for low pay... others are complete pricks riding a power trip and all too happy to abuse the authority they have been given to compensate for whatever it is that makes them feel small.

The problem is there is no meaningful mechanism to screen out the psychopaths before giving them a badge and a gun, and there is absolutely no meaningful way to deal with them after they kill someone. Investigations are internal to the police and prosecution is severely limited. Excessive use of deadly force is virtually impossible to prosecute.

Selection of US Supreme court rulings:

1985 Tennessee v. Garner
1989 Graham v. Connor
2014 Plumhoff v. Rickard

Article:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-police-shooting-20140527-story.html

And we can't forget qualified immunity applies to police as well as other government officials.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

So do not count on the legal system to do anything with wrongful death at the hands of police. They are not held to the same standard as civilians where one must have "reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death" to justify deadly force.

Wrapping up this officer involved homicide occurred near where I live. This poor guy never turned to face police and never pointed the BB gun he picked up off the shelf to buy from the store in their direction. He was just shopping. This case actually highlights another troubling problem in the US as nothing really happens to the people who make these crank calls to the 911 police emergency line.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9FtNOV6Qhk

- - - Updated - - -

I am also not a fan of the police getting military grade equipment or having them respond with SWAT teams so often.

Over 5000 civilians killed by police since 9/11 (and this is an old article)

http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-murdered-5000-innocent-civilians-since-911/172029/

increased use of SWAT raids for basically anything... 80% are to execute search warrants for investigations where someone is only suspected of committing a crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/24/new-aclu-report-takes-a-snapshot-of-police-militarization-in-the-united-states/

Leave the military work to the army, it's not the job of the police force.

[Eldar_Atog]

In the case of the Down Syndrome man above, it is undeniably tragic, but a grand jury was convened - wiki states that is 16-23 citizens in the states, even more than normal. And they considered the witness evidence and found no case to answer.

Where Gotthammer is in error is saying the man did 'literally nothing wrong' - except act in such a way which would probably have constituted a theft. Thus resulting in the security trying to eject him, he kicked off and was restrained.

Now I don't say someone deserves to die for trying to see a $12 film for free - of course not. But he did merit ejection, this can legally be done with reasonable force, and when he kicked off, he was restrained. The autopsy ruled that he was more liable to sudden death from restraint in that way - so it is just tragic it happened. 16-23 citizens considered the evidence and found that there was no criminality involved in the actions of those involved. How can anyone complain about that?

Grand juries are closer to military tribunals than jury trials. The prosecution has near absolute control in those situations. The prosecution gets whatever decision it wants as they are the only ones allowed to question witnesses or present evidence. For me, this is just proof of corruption because the prosecution could have gotten charges if they had wanted them.

Do I believe the police intentionally killed him? No I do not. They applied overwhelming force because their authority was questioned and kept applying it till he ceased to move.

Do I believe that the cops criminally killed him? Yes, I do. If any other group had taken the same action against that down syndrome man, they would have been charged. So why should I give a group of policemen special treatment? They are supposed to be trained to know how to apply force wisely. Instead they took a scared person that did not understand the situation and applied overwhelming force until he couldn't breathe. The police knew the proper way to control the situation and chose not to use it.

[YorkNecromancer]

However if no successful prosecution was brought against them then that does not automatically mean all police in whatever country it happened in are brutal and corrupt.

We're not talking about individuals. We're talking about systems.

Individual police are not corrupt. The systems which employ them are.

A corrupt system tends to employ corrupted people. When it doesn't, it tends to favour corrupted people, because that is its nature. The drive for quick and easy arrests, for quick confessions, for easy answers... These are all manifestations of that corruption.

Who is worse? The mugger, or the white collar criminal? One is easy to see, easy to prosecute. The other is not. The system is set up to chase easy catches, and thus one group is disproportionately allowed to go free and unpunished.

In Iceland, their prisons have 85 people, of whom 36 are bankers. That's because their system looked at who caused the 2008 credit crunch, stripped them of their assets, put them on trial for fraud, and sent them to prison.

America did not. England did not. Our systems are not set up to prosecute bankers with the same expedience, because our politicians are in hock to money in a way the Icelandic government is not. Their system is not perfect, but it is less corrupt.

This thread is about systems, but you want to make it about individuals.

I am a teacher. I know many good teachers. But that does not mean the educational system is not broken. We unfairly favour the children of the rich, whilst simultaneously disempowering the children of the poor. Is that my personal fault? No. Does that mean it doesn't happen?

When I encounter a system that doesn't work, I try to change it. To put this in nerd terms: imagine that there is only one kind of computer in all the world. We all have to use it in our everyday lives. But it's been rushed out cheaply, nd every now and then, the bad microchips inside catch fire and people die when it burns their house down. Now, you seem to be arguing because a some microchips (the police) haven't burned out ('good' police), the computer (the police force) is still fine, because you were lucky enough to inherit a really good replacement motherboard (the whiteness of your skin) which means it will almost never catch fire and kill you. Which is great for you.

But what about the people who didn't inherit that motherboard (people of colour)? The prescense of one or two good microchips isn't going to keep them safe indefinitely. Eventually, on a long enough timeline, that computer is going to catch, and maybe they'll put it out in time and maybe they won't. But that day is always coming. Because even if they survive one fire, there's always another bad microchip.

Are they going to experience the same service from that computer as you? Are they going to trust it like you do?

Could it be that your life experiences are colouring your perceptions?

Sure, maybe if they learn some IT skills they can keep it going. Maybe if they work hard enough, they can eventually buy their way to a good motherboard of their own (higher social status)... but when that thing eventually bursts into flames, all the IT skills in the world won't stop them dying in a fire.

The arguments against police racism remind me of an old episode of 'Fresh Prince', where Carlton Banks finally discovers one of the ugly truths of the world:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQtDXxXyPYQ

Also, John Oliver did a great segment on Ferguson:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A

[Denzark]

Your argument in nerd terms Yorkie, though eloquent, is subject to flaws in its use of example.

Firstly is the legal concept of 'Mens Rea' - the intent of a perpetrator. This is entriely missing. You don't differentiate between bad microchips that burn because the system was dropped or knocked, or was programmed wrong, either by mistake or on purpose, or because the user overclocked the system. Was there a power surge?

The reason for an incident in real life - why the microchips caught fire - is key. Because your initial assumption seemed to be that the real life incident was due to the colour of the victim's skin. I am saying that even if is found to be the case it is deeply unfair to assume that from the outset.

Secondly, your metaphor (or is it simile?) gives no role to the rest of the system that would prevent such abuses - where are the courts, lawyers and juries in your tale? You've atributed the colour of one's skin to a key component but not bothered to account for the checks and balances that prevent corrupt police officers acting with impunity.

The comment about favouring the children of the rich in the education system - that is an argument for elsewhere - I'm not sure how that applies to the state sector or how the children of the poor are disempowered there. But in terms of is it your personal fault, that directly links to this debate. If the school system is broken but it is not your fault, then it is deeply unfair to blame you, an individual teacher, for the ills of the whole or an incidet symptomatic - without direct uncontrovertible proof that you are trying to maintain that broken system for your own benefit.

Transferred across to this scenario, it is equally unfair to blame an individual police officer for the ills of the whole justice system - unless you have direct proof that that individual is trying to maintain it for their own benefit. I can see nothing which leads me to that conclusion in this instance from all the information at links people have provided.

[40kGamer]

We're not talking about individuals. We're talking about systems.

Individual police are not corrupt. The systems which employ them are.

A corrupt system tends to employ corrupted people. When it doesn't, it tends to favour corrupted people, because that is its nature. The drive for quick and easy arrests, for quick confessions, for easy answers... These are all manifestations of that corruption.

Who is worse? The mugger, or the white collar criminal? One is easy to see, easy to prosecute. The other is not. The system is set up to chase easy catches, and thus one group is disproportionately allowed to go free and unpunished.

In Iceland, their prisons have 85 people, of whom 36 are bankers. That's because their system looked at who caused the 2008 credit crunch, stripped them of their assets, put them on trial for fraud, and sent them to prison.

America did not. England did not. Our systems are not set up to prosecute bankers with the same expedience, because our politicians are in hock to money in a way the Icelandic government is not. Their system is not perfect, but it is less corrupt.

This thread is about systems, but you want to make it about individuals.

Excellent point mate. The systems truly are the problem. IMO wealth inequality is "the issue" and if one wants a picture of the endgame for this type of society you can cast your eyes to other parts of the world.

I believe it is the responsibility of those who have wealth to create 'opportunity' for those who do not. This means that there needs to be a way for those who wish to work hard to achieve some measure of success within society. It also means that people truly understand that these opportunities exist and are well supported in accessing them. Will it stop everyone from being lazy bums? No. There are those who will not work to better themselves under any circumstances. Unfortunately wealth = political power so those who have it are in no way motivated to share it.


I am a teacher. I know many good teachers. But that does not mean the educational system is not broken. We unfairly favour the children of the rich, whilst simultaneously disempowering the children of the poor. Is that my personal fault? No. Does that mean it doesn't happen?

Please don't get me started on the education or healthcare systems... I may have a full on heart attack.

[bfmusashi]

The state I was raised in, Virginia, the seal is Virtue standing over a (dead?) tyrant. 'Sic semper tyrannis' is the motto and I think is the only state motto yelled during an assassination. I was never raised to view the police as anything better than neutral and certainly not friends. My father was a police officer and there were no illusions as to what the police were, coercive agents for the protection of the state, not the public. Point is, I have trouble understanding views that value the officer over the accosted, because cops are a thing to be occasionally tolerated.

[40kGamer]

The state I was raised in, Virginia, the seal is Virtue standing over a (dead?) tyrant. 'Sic semper tyrannis' is the motto and I think is the only state motto yelled during an assassination. I was never raised to view the police as anything better than neutral and certainly not friends. My father was a police officer and there were no illusions as to what the police were, coercive agents for the protection of the state, not the public. Point is, I have trouble understanding views that value the officer over the accosted, because cops are a thing to be occasionally tolerated.

Every state in the union has a unique "feel" to it. Right or wrong VA "feels" like a police state... which is the main reason it always gets marked off my potential places to live map.

[eldargal]

We're not talking about individuals. We're talking about systems.

Individual police are not corrupt. The systems which employ them are.

THIS.

This is why #notallmen and the equivalent #notallcops are such a problem, it answers an accusation no one is making and shifts the focus away from the genuine problem to the ****ing hurt feelings of a bunch of privileged ****s.. Most American police are probably not corrupt, but a lot are and the system protects them the consequences of their actions. The majority of good cops also benefit from that system even if they don't abuse it in the same way.

[Denzark]

The American police forces are corrupt, and brutal.


The US police are by and large militarised, white supremacist thugs and they have a deeply ingrained culture of cover up and croynism.

EG - your statement just there and the quote from York are a far cry from your posts above.

I personally took 'police force' to refer to all the individuals and also your use of 'US police' to refer to the same. If you had stated at the start 'SOME of the American Police Forces are corrupt...' or even 'MOST of...' if you believe that - then that would have been fairer IMO. Just some caveat/quantifier to show you are not making a blanket sweeping statement.

[CoffeeGrunt]

"Watch out for that snake buddy, they're poisonous."

"Oh my God you insensitive sod, don't you know this snake had his fangs removed! Gosh, #NotAllSnakesArePoisonous!"

[40kGamer]

The system defines acceptable behavior for those performing the task. Leadership chooses how to operate within the framework of this system creating a culture which then attracts people with personality traits that match well with the defined environment. These traits aggregate and are statistically significant allowing you to reasonably predict the type of people performing any given task.

At some point it becomes totally irrelevant if you are discussing the system or the individuals as statistically speaking they are essentially one and the same. However it is arguably easier to change the system from the top down then it is to successfully change things from the ground up.

[DWest]

I personally took 'police force' to refer to all the individuals and also your use of 'US police' to refer to the same. If you had stated at the start 'SOME of the American Police Forces are corrupt...' or even 'MOST of...' if you believe that - then that would have been fairer IMO. Just some caveat/quantifier to show you are not making a blanket sweeping statement.
Here is the part I believe you're not understanding; there's a difference between the police as a collective entity and individual police officers. It doesn't matter if 51% of the force is corrupt, 66%, or 100%. Those numbers are all equal, because a citizen won't learn if the individual officer is corrupt until after an incident has occurred.

Furthermore, the systemic corruption means that even a good cop can effectively be a bad one; if an individual patrol officer is clean, but a number of other officers in the station are not, then even when the other officers do something wrong (such as an unjustified shooting), the clean officer has no way to make a positive effect, because the other officers will present the situation as being right and just, when it isn't. This is also why the idea of a jury trial bringing justice in the case of a bad shooting is laughable in the US; even if the prosecuting attorney is inclined to go after the police, a fact made unlikely by the nature of the relationship between those entities, the prosecutor can only use the evidence that is available. If the cops all say "yeah, it was a justified kill", there's literally nothing for the prosecutor to go on. As show in this article (http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/videotaping-cops-arrest/story?id=11179076), US police are openly hostile to being recorded by citizens, which makes it difficult to bring forth evidence contradicting the story the police give in regards to an incident.

In summation, the majority makes the rules, and if the majority is corrupt, the minority doesn't have a method to counteract the corruption.

[40kGamer]

US police are openly hostile to being recorded by citizens, which makes it difficult to bring forth evidence contradicting the story the police give in regards to an incident.

Obviously the US police know how to apply the principle of "history is written by the victors" to their operations. There is no reason for them to disallow public recordings of their behavior unless they have something to hide... Isn't that the line of crap the NSA is feeding everyone regarding them recording every possible aspect of our digital lives?

[40kGamer]

Here in the UK, there is an inquest into every incident involving Police opening fire - every single one.

Granted, the general lack of dakka in our country helps make this feasible. But it is something the US should be doing.

An interesting piece of the US puzzle is that Congress instructed the Attorney General in 1994 to compile and publish annual statistics on police use of excessive force but this was never carried out (the FBI doesn't collect this data either). So no one at the Federal level is even attempting to track the data... makes a person wonder why not. Could be cost, although spending money on anything and everything is a way of life for politicians so I doubt that is the reason.

[bfmusashi]

There's always stories like this: http://www.cracked.com/article_21830_cops-wont-help-you-7-things-i-saw-as-real-slasher-victim.html
And there's some good stuff from people doing the job: http://www.cracked.com/article_20841_5-things-i-learned-as-cop-that-movies-wont-show-you.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_21181_5-things-i-learned-as-cop-movies-wont-show-you-part-2.html
Because Cracked is a better source of anthropological data than most journals :p

[Denzark]

Here is the part I believe you're not understanding; there's a difference between the police as a collective entity and individual police officers. It doesn't matter if 51% of the force is corrupt, 66%, or 100%. Those numbers are all equal, because a citizen won't learn if the individual officer is corrupt until after an incident has occurred.


In summation, the majority makes the rules, and if the majority is corrupt, the minority doesn't have a method to counteract the corruption.

Hmm. I entirely understand the distinction and therein lies my point, which possibly you and others don't grasp.

I contend 2 key points. Firstly, that I consider it deeply unfair to automatically assume all the police is corrupt or criminal or whatever negative you want to add, because of the actions of a few - I consider this unfair to any group or section of society no matter which demographic you apply, not just to police.

Secondly, that in doing so is a form of prejudice. As to the latter, instantly assuming the police officers in this case are corrupt or killed the man because of his colour, based on the accounts of the incident in the links to it in this thread (I have not consulted wider.) I submit, is unreasonable because the available facts don't fit that. If the bias to assume this is based on a corporate and not an individual basis, then I contend the act of doing so matches the dictionary definition of prejudice as found in any credible dictionary. There is an irony or even hypocrisy there because the officers are being accused without definitive proof, of acting on the basis of their prejudices.

As to your comment that the majority makes the rules, that is how I understand it. The law is the basis in which society wants its members to behave. In the US, some states allow ganja. Some states kill criminals. Those laws are defined by presumably judges, who I doubt spring fully formed from the foreheads of their predecessors. I expect someone within the elected government at some level, has a part in their appointment. And that means if an elected official is at anyway involved in their appointment, the populace who elected the official, has some influence on the appointment of judges. therefore some influence on the law. Yes, the majority effects the law hence toke up in Colorado, kill Murderers in Texas.

This is important because the law is what judges a Policeman guilty of corruption, excessive force, whatever.

I think that before coming to a judgement on the corruption levels of any policing agency, you need to look at how many times they have acted corruptly against how many times they have performed their duties within the law. This equally applies to excessive force.

I think that a citizen who does not know what percentage of officer involved shooting deaths are illegal, who goes on to judge an individual officer before the outcome of a court case, based on a force-wide statistic they don't have to hand, is jumping the gun and acting unfairly.

In counter to that people will still say the system is weighted in favour of the police. They investigate their own or whatever. The law doesn't find them guilty. Even though the law has juries of citizens in it- what are they all corrupt too? If you don't like the system change it. Don't elect officials who choose judges who create systems of oversight that are prejudiced to get police off, if you genuinely believe the police are corrupt.

Unacceptable legal or government systems that cause death and hardship to the citizens can be changed - I recall the US did it in the 1770s and Russia managed in 1917. People who merely watch and haven't even tried to change the system lack credibility arguing against it. I would be genuinely impressed if someone here had written a letter to their senator complaining about law enforcement corruption.

If the NRA can mobilise such support for gun ownership, where is the comparable sized group protesting about police corruption?


Irrespective of all that my initial point is key - I think it unfair to instantly assume the guilt of individuals based on the perceived lackings of their demographic. And that is what I think the OP did and that is certainly how Eldargal's posts appeared although she may not have intended that.

Beyond that my opinions are based on he legitimacy of statistics and without any stats being provided showing the amount of armed interventions that were reasonable and legal against those that weren't, I can neither reach the same conclusions as others on here have reached, nor logically empathise with how they were reached by others.

To that end I will opt out here and agree to disagree.

[40kGamer]

I consider it deeply unfair to automatically assume all the police is corrupt or criminal or whatever negative you want to add, because of the actions of a few - I consider this unfair to any group or section of society no matter which demographic you apply, not just to police.

Completely agree with this point.


This is important because the law is what judges a Policeman guilty of corruption, excessive force, whatever.

I think that before coming to a judgement on the corruption levels of any policing agency, you need to look at how many times they have acted corruptly against how many times they have performed their duties within the law. This equally applies to excessive force.

I think that a citizen who does not know what percentage of officer involved shooting deaths are illegal, who goes on to judge an individual officer before the outcome of a court case, based on a force-wide statistic they don't have to hand, is jumping the gun and acting unfairly.

This one becomes problematic in the US as these statistics are not aggregated although since 1994 they should have been. A lack of transparency is the reigning Achilles Heel of every political system. No one in authority wants transparency because no one wants to have their actions questioned.


In counter to that people will still say the system is weighted in favour of the police. They investigate their own or whatever. The law doesn't find them guilty. Even though the law has juries of citizens in it- what are they all corrupt too? If you don't like the system change it. Don't elect officials who choose judges who create systems of oversight that are prejudiced to get police off, if you genuinely believe the police are corrupt.

A fair point, although a flawed system can't be relied on to address public concerns. However at some level the system has to favour the police given the dumb ***** they deal with on a daily basis. Not having a reliable self checking mechanism is the real problem.

Cameras could and should record a policeman's interactions with the public. No way these tapes should be made publicly available but they should be available for use in a court of law to provide better unbiased evidence then the typical he said she said arguments. If police are doing their job these tapes would protect them from frivolous claims and alleviate public concerns about misconduct.


If the NRA can mobilise such support for gun ownership, where is the comparable sized group protesting about police corruption?

Police corruption doesn't touch that many people where any challenge to gun ownership in the US manages to piss off a very large group! :)

[YorkNecromancer]

If the NRA can mobilise such support for gun ownership, where is the comparable sized group protesting about police corruption?

The NRA is backed by the gun industry, which has money. Lots and lots of it. The lobbying industry buys the government.

There are many, many groups of people protesting police corruption... They just don't have a multi-billion dollar industry supporting their groups, because there's no money to be made in civil liberties, but there's a lot of money to be made from prisons (and what is effectively the slave labour force they contain).

This is the real world. Popularity means nothing without money. Money is the only kind of power there truly is. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.


I entirely understand the distinction and therein lies my point, which possibly you and others don't grasp.

Oh no, I do grasp your point. I just think you're as completely wrong as you think I am.

I've read your arguments, processed your ideas, and found them wanting for a complex variety of reasons, including those I have already given, and those given by others. You and I are coming at this from two completely different angles, and that's all there is to this.

What it boils down to, for me, is this:

I believe the data shows that people of colour suffer disproportionately at the hands of the law compared to white people. I believe all the data shows this, both historically, currently, and anecdotally. Nothing you have said could ever convince me otherwise.

Oh, and to everyone who also believes that there is a serious race problem with the police in the US and UK, I strongly recommend you watch this film:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0atL1HSwi8

Absolutely fascinating, and chilling. The interviews with high court judges, police and prison guards are amazingly eye-opening - especially the right wing ones. Their opinions on incarceration and criminalisation were not remotely what I was expecting.

[DWest]

Hmm. I entirely understand the distinction and therein lies my point, which possibly you and others don't grasp.

I contend 2 key points. Firstly, that I consider it deeply unfair to automatically assume all the police is corrupt or criminal or whatever negative you want to add, because of the actions of a few - I consider this unfair to any group or section of society no matter which demographic you apply, not just to police.
This proves that you do not, in fact, understand my point at all. The point has nothing to do with prejudice or racism against a self-selected group or however you want to spin it. The point is, when you encounter an individual from a group known to have corrupt members, the only safe assumption you can make is that the individual before you is one of the corrupt ones. If the individual is not corrupt, but you have still defended yourself appropriately, nothing is lost; however, if the individual *is* corrupt, and you have *not* defended yourself, everything is lost.


In counter to that people will still say the system is weighted in favour of the police. They investigate their own or whatever. The law doesn't find them guilty. Even though the law has juries of citizens in it- what are they all corrupt too? If you don't like the system change it. Don't elect officials who choose judges who create systems of oversight that are prejudiced to get police off, if you genuinely believe the police are corrupt.
Much easier said than done, especially when it's not simply a matter of voting people in or out, but rather re-writing large chunks of the legal code to re-weight things in favor of the citizenry over the police.


Unacceptable legal or government systems that cause death and hardship to the citizens can be changed - I recall the US did it in the 1770s and Russia managed in 1917. People who merely watch and haven't even tried to change the system lack credibility arguing against it. I would be genuinely impressed if someone here had written a letter to their senator complaining about law enforcement corruption.
Here, again, is where the racism problem comes in: The majority of people don't see the actions of the police as a problem, because they're acting against blacks. This majority isn't being directly, blatantly "keep the PoC down" racist; rather, they're making assumptions that "well, black people have caused more crime in the past, ergo the police probably felt in danger, ergo it was their right to shoot the guy to death even though the situation didn't strictly warrant it". It isn't an intentionally evil system so much as it is stuck in an unfair mode of action through cultural inertia.


Beyond that my opinions are based on he legitimacy of statistics and without any stats being provided showing the amount of armed interventions that were reasonable and legal against those that weren't, I can neither reach the same conclusions as others on here have reached, nor logically empathise with how they were reached by others.
And you will not find these statistics, because they are not kept. Even if you don't buy the notion that US police forces are corrupt, the only way to gather these statistics would be from the police themselves, and we could no more trust those statistics tell an accurate, unbiased account of the situation than the police could trust criminals to simply turn themselves in when asked.

[YorkNecromancer]

you will not find these statistics, because they are not kept.

And a pertinent question here is: who benefits from this?

Lack of information about the behaviour of those in power never leads to a fairer or more just society and anyone who argues it does might as well put their slave collar on now. It is the duty of every citizen to become informed about their government - ignorance breeds tyrannies.

[Gotthammer]

https://33.media.tumblr.com/f98f4f77df4f06b25e965c531320642a/tumblr_neehaayXli1r3e226o5_1280.jpg
https://38.media.tumblr.com/7bd748164cfa140613cc4d93107fd426/tumblr_neehaayXli1r3e226o1_1280.jpg
https://33.media.tumblr.com/4d4983babe49d842fc1a62cd2eeba910/tumblr_neehaayXli1r3e226o4_1280.jpg
https://38.media.tumblr.com/167bea35958f3a070220f088293d9872/tumblr_neehaayXli1r3e226o3_1280.jpg
https://38.media.tumblr.com/fdbb3c96fd5fb4a53ff4cd1395a57568/tumblr_neehaayXli1r3e226o2_1280.jpg

[daboarder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE

[Gotthammer]

So because police have and do help we should turn a blind eye to their crimes?

[eldargal]

Nothing says 'I'm a privileged white boy' like saying we should overlook the oppression of people of colour because the police protect white people.

[daboarder]

Nothing says 'I'm a privileged white boy' like saying we should overlook the oppression of people of colour because the police protect white people.

Because racism, can't happen to you if your white, am I right?


I will wait for the verdict.

Seems apparently that fair trials are for other people

[eldargal]

Yes, exactly. Because racism is systemic devaluation and discrimination of people and white people do not get that, at all, ever. Not even in African countries. The most we deal with is rudeness. We don't even have racial slurs because there are no words that tap into centuries of discrimination and harm against white people because there has been no such discrimination and harm.

[daboarder]

Yes, exactly. Because racism is systemic devaluation and discrimination of people and white people do not get that, at all, ever. Not even in African countries. The most we deal with is rudeness. We don't even have racial slurs because there are no words that tap into centuries of discrimination and harm against white people because there has been no such discrimination and harm.

HAHA damn, I was mad at this quote, but the stupid hurts, pick up a frigging history book and educate yourself for once, here's a good place to start, my entire country is founded on the principle of racism (And yes, slavery) of one "white" society against another "white" society. Grow up and stop being the biggest racist and sexual bigot on the forum.

Here's a good place to start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Scottish_sentiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment

But I'm sure thats not "systematic" or "entrenched" enough for you....

[eldargal]

Neither the Scottish nor Irish were discriminated against because they were white, they were discriminated against for other reasons entirely and in America at least that ende (http://www.salon.com/2014/03/15/how_did_irish_americans_get_so_disgusting/)d when they embraced white supremacy (http://www.examiner.com/article/examining-irish-americans-and-the-white-supremacy-movement-on-martin-luther-king-day).

In my colleague Joan Walsh’s “What’s the Matter with White People?”, she discusses Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676, a little-noticed event in which black and Irish indentured servants rose up against British colonial rule. (This led to the creation of the slave codes, which made African-Americans slaves for life, and the conferring of limited white privilege on the Irish.) As late as the 19th century, Anglo elites in New York perceived the drunken and disorderly Irish newcomers as an unhealthful influence on the city’s industrious and long-settled black population.

But Irish-Americans rapidly absorbed the lesson that the way to succeed in their new country was to reject the politics of class and shared economic interests and embrace the politics of race. One disgraceful result was the New York draft riots of 1863, the low point of Irish-black relations in American history, when Irish immigrants by the thousands turned on their black neighbors in a thinly disguised race riot. Irish-Americans were under no delusions that the ruling class of Anglo Protestants liked or trusted them, and anti-Irish and/or anti-Catholic bigotry endured in diluted form well into the 20th century. But by allying themselves with a system of white supremacy, the Irish in America were granted a share of power and privilege — most notably in urban machine politics, and the police and fire departments of every major city.
It was bigotry, it was not racism. Both the Irish and Scots (and Welsh) all actively benefited from the racism which saw the Trans-Atlantic slave trade enrich the British Empire. The discrimination against them was, once more, not racism because they were all considered part of the white race.

Right, yes I'm sexist and racist for pointing out the problems men and white supremacy have in society and hurting your feelings, meanwhile women and people of colour literally die because of those problems.

[daboarder]

No. See you are ascribing to the idea that the "larger" demographic can never be the target of racism and then ascribe that to "whites"

And its bull****, its bull**** not the least because "whites" aren't always the larger nor more powerful demographic of a society, you have to cherry pick what you define "society" as in order to claim that kind of discrimination cannot exist. You have to ignore, china, india, africa, Japan, the middle east and indeed thats what most people do.
Furthermore and more damning is that you have to ignore localised effects, you have to say that it doesn't matter if this sub-comunity is predominantly asian, african, middle eastern or whatever, because if you looked at it on that scale racial discrimination against "whites" would exist, so you ignore it and claim that it doesn't matter because they aren't "large" enough to be relevant, and thats bull****.

The whole idea is just stupid and quite frankly dangerously unscientific in its definition. Its starting out with the hypothesis that inherently ignores information which could prove it false and its horrifying that people think like that.

Systematic discrimination of people based on race exists, and is horrible, but to claim that the more "powerful" segment of society cannot be racially discriminated against,and that said "powerful" segment is and can only ever be "white", is fundamentally flawed. Especially when you then ignore large sections of this global demographic in order to define the "powerful"

and as to you idea that anti-scottish and irish sentiment wasn't racially motivated because their "white" are you serious? of course it isn't motivated because their "white" its motivated because their "scottish" or "Irish" but you lump it all into the "white" label so you can sweep it under the rug, deny that they aren't the "majority" demographic and go on your merry way. its silly



I'll use an example:

I'm a "White" person in Australia, in Sydney, so by your definition of racism I cannot be subject to it because I am the "powerful" group (in the context of the country)

I go down to "china town" a district of the city dominated by a south east asian community.

I apply for a job, I am refused based solely on being "White"

You would claim that I would not have been the subject of racism because "White" cannot be, but that's ridiculous. because even by your definition I am no longer the "powerful" demographic, within that community the demographic that makes the rules and governs the community is "Asian".
And thats why the idea that the majority demographic cannot be subject to racism is patently a ridiculous definition because its entirely dependent on choosing a context which fits the predetermined belief in whether or not the incident is "racism"

edit: and all this doesn't even touch on how that definition covers two "minority" groups behaving towards each other, do we have scale them or something?

[eldargal]

Race as a concept was developed to justify white supremacy, specifically the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Whatever a white person experiences in terms if discrimination is not racism because it lacks the historical context of persecution based on race. Being refused a job in Chinatown because you are white is not racism because that decision lacks systemic power, it is an individual from a non-white background discriminating against you. By my definition you are STILL the powerful demographic because that Chinatown you visit exists in a situation where you are still more likely to get a job and be paid more than someone of Asian descent. If you were beaten up by some ethnic Chinese in Chinatown for example it would be investigated by a white dominated police force, reported on by a white dominated media and you would have the backing of the predominately white nation within which that Chinatown exists. What you would face here is discrimination but without the backing of systems which dis-empower you. You can simply walk out of Chinatown and go back to being a privileged white chap, whereas the Chinese people in Chinatown will struggle with integration, representation and racist slurs without escape.

Scottish discrimination was based on political reasoning. Scotland was a rival of England, we had wars, there was bad blood. English are discriminated against in Scotland, Scottish can be discriminated against in England. Discrimination against the Irish was largely religious, they were Catholic and rebellious and generally troublesome (this is how they were perceived anyway). At no point does 'the Irish were an inferior race' really take hold because they were not considered a different race the way people of colour were.

I should say all of this is based on the assumption it takes place in a majority white country. Although White Supremacy will still often benefit you in those countries too. Attacking a white person =all kinds of trouble because people actually give a **** because it is bad for a lot of reasons.

[daboarder]

Race as a concept was developed to justify white supremacy, specifically the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Whatever a white person experiences in terms if discrimination is not racism because it lacks the historical context of persecution based on race. Being refused a job in Chinatown because you are white is not racism because that decision lacks systemic power, it is an individual from a non-white background discriminating against you. By my definition you are STILL the powerful demographic because that Chinatown you visit exists in a situation where you are still more likely to get a job and be paid more than someone of Asian descent. If you were beaten up by some ethnic Chinese in Chinatown for example it would be investigated by a white dominated police force, reported on by a white dominated media and you would have the backing of the predominately white nation within which that Chinatown exists. What you would face here is discrimination but without the backing of systems which dis-empower you. You can simply walk out of Chinatown and go back to being a privileged white chap, whereas the Chinese people in Chinatown will struggle with integration, representation and racist slurs without escape.

Scottish discrimination was based on political reasoning. Scotland was a rival of England, we had wars, there was bad blood. English are discriminated against in Scotland, Scottish can be discriminated against in England. Discrimination against the Irish was largely religious, they were Catholic and rebellious and generally troublesome (this is how they were perceived anyway). At no point does 'the Irish were an inferior race' really take hold because they were not considered a different race the way people of colour were.

I should say all of this is based on the assumption it takes place in a majority white country. Although White Supremacy will still often benefit you in those countries too. Attacking a white person =all kinds of trouble because people actually give a **** because it is bad for a lot of reasons.

So I'm not going to comment on the historical reference to the word "racism" because given how much the definition of that word has changed and the context that surrounds it its irrelevant, particularly the discussion at hand.


Being refused a job in Chinatown because you are white is not racism because that decision lacks systemic power, it is an individual from a non-white background discriminating against you. By my definition you are STILL the powerful demographic because that Chinatown you visit exists in a situation where you are still more likely to get a job and be paid more than someone of Asian descent.

Um no, not within the context of china town, there certainly is systematic power, partially because the employer is under no pressure to hire "non- asian" people and partly because the system is inherently built with checks and balances to prevent racial discrimination (pretty strongly by the way).


f you were beaten up by some ethnic Chinese in Chinatown for example it would be investigated by a white dominated police force, reported on by a white dominated media and you would have the backing of the predominately white nation within which that Chinatown exists. What you would face here is discrimination but without the backing of systems which dis-empower you

And this wonderful charming thing is where your argument breaks. The assumption that a "white police force" cares more about a "white" person than others, really?
In a society as self hating as ours, where the mere accusation of any sort of racial discrimination gets you fired and your career destroyed? And even that ignores the factors like these guys are familiar with the community they work in, they have a relationship with the community I dont, but that doesnt matter right,

No, if I was beaten up in china town it would be swept under the rug and the media would barely report on it, because reporting on crimes against "white" people by "non-white" people is not the done thing. Doesn't happen, so wheres the systematic racism now? You need only look at reports in the media.

Going back to the "job" situation, in Australia it is significantly illegal to refuse to hire people based on ethnicity, do you know what happens when you report someone in china town for refusing to hire "white" or "indian" or "black" people.....NOTHING! absolutely sweet FA. But try that as a "white" employer in turramura, eastern suburbs or northern beaches and the media frenzy lasts a week, the business is dead and the person doing it literally up on charges.

So yes, context and "demographic drastically changer who is the "powerful" segment of society and no its not always "white". Particularly when the bureaucracy is not interested in discrimination against "whites" but only against minorities


. You can simply walk out of Chinatown and go back to being a privileged white chap, whereas the Chinese people in Chinatown will struggle with integration, representation and racist slurs without escape.
And walk right into another community but I can't say anything about it because I am the "majority" but not in this area, or that area, or that one over there. Again, cherry picking your "demographic" and not seeing the trees for the forest.

Ultimately we have different definitions of Racism, Yours excludes people from being subject to it based on race, whereas mine maintains that there is never a situation in which discriminating against people based on race is acceptable. Yours assumes that people are inherently racist, mine believes that they aren't and racism is not a key part of humanity, And ultimately I know which one would lead to just a boot on the other foot and which one would result in equality.

EDIT: I mean it just seems bizarre to me that you can accept people get discriminated against by being white, but you dont think they deserve any protection from it or that it is a problem that it happens. That's like saying that when people are from the majority demographic they have less individual rights....its just...so ...

[Psychosplodge]

https://33.media.tumblr.com/f98f4f77df4f06b25e965c531320642a/tumblr_neehaayXli1r3e226o5_1280.jpg

IDK about the rest of it Gott, but literally rules needing breaking to get the job done has applied to literally every job I've ever had, IDK why we expect the police to be different? The important thing is surely knowing which rules can be broken and which should never be broken?

[eldargal]

IDK about the rest of it Gott, but literally rules needing breaking to get the job done has applied to literally every job I've ever had, IDK why we expect the police to be different? The important thing is surely knowing which rules can be broken and which should never be broken?

The difference is the rules for police involve not beating the **** out of people, not framing people you think are guilty, not shooting innocent people etc. There is a difference between bending the rules a bit when you're a white collar office worker and when you literally have the power to kill someone and get away with it.




EDIT: I mean it just seems bizarre to me that you can accept people get discriminated against by being white, but you dont think they deserve any protection from it or that it is a problem that it happens. That's like saying that when people are from the majority demographic they have less individual rights....its just...so ...
That isn't what I'm saying though. Obviously there needs to be protections against discrimination, the point I'm making is an Asian in Chinatown not employing a white guy when that Chinatown exists in a context where that context exists in a larger sytem where that white person has far greater privilege than the Asian person. Their situations are not equal. You can turn around and live the few city blocks that comprise Chinatown and enter into a world where you are the dominant one, whereas Chinatown is a refuge from that under-privileged existence. White people need protection from discrimination, they do not need protection against racism because systemic racism has never and will never be used against us in our own countries.

Also you can talk about anti-discrimination in Australia, but that isn't the full picture. Systemic racism and sexism go beyond legislation or a lack thereof. You might not get a job in Chinatown, but you as a white male still represent th ideal Australian worker (http://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-bosses-are-racist-when-its-time-to-hire-20090617-chvu.html). You walk out of Chinatown and you have an entire trillion pound economy that view you as the ideal worker.

Applicants with Chinese names fared the worst, having only a one-in-five chance of getting asked in for interviews, compared to applicants with Anglo-Saxon names whose chances exceeded one-in-three.
Typically a Chinese-named applicant would need to put in 68 per cent more applications than an Anglo-named applicant to get the same number of calls back. A Middle Eastern-named applicant needed 64 per cent more, an indigenous-named applicant 35 per cent more and an Italian-named applicant 12 per cent more.
But the results varied by city. Sydney employers were generally more discriminatory than those in Melbourne or Brisbane, except when it came to indigenous names, where they were more accepting.
But only in Melbourne was there a type of non-Anglo name that was actually loved. Melbourne employers were 7 per cent more likely to respond well to someone with an Italian name than they were to an Anglo name.

This is the sort of systemic racism that needs to be stamped out, not an Asian person barring entry into one of the few areas where they are no longer Other to someone who is considered the default person outside that enclave.

[Psychosplodge]

The difference is the rules for police involve not beating the **** out of people, not framing people you think are guilty, not shooting innocent people etc. There is a difference between bending the rules a bit when you're a white collar office worker and when you literally have the power to kill someone and get away with it.


But that's the point isn't it? The question is so open. Some people might have taken the question to mean should we cut corners with some bureaucracy, should we spend fifteen minutes checking the tyre pressures or should we assume they're still ok as they were yesterday and looked right?
It doesn't automaticly mean they're all thinking should we make sure the suspect falls down stairs and bangs their head getting in/out the vehicle...

[eldargal]

Maybe, but a lot of the rules that tend to get broken are those relating to how people are treated, hence the whole problem with police brutality 'merica is having.

[Psychosplodge]

I haven't been through this thread properly.
But US reality TV programs do appear far more "gung ho" than ours.

[CoffeeGrunt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvTyI41PvTk

A pretty good Aussie video on racism you might not even think about consciously.

That aside, as a Scottish person currently living in England, the situation you brought up is nothing the same as the situation between white and black cultures. Nothing the same. There is no systematic tossing away of CVs because I have a name people find strange. There's no awkward interactions with cashiers as they overplay my accent and act confused at my pronunciation. There's no jeers and slurs tossed at me front across the street that couldn't instead be aimed at anyone else walking alongside me.

Sure, when Scotland was threatening to leave the Union, things really heated up to a minor ribbing on getting deported now and then, or jokes about needing to buy a new passport. There were no lynch mobs of Scottish people beating English people to death, or vice versa. In fact, most of the fights that erupted were political, between Scottish Unionists and Scottish Separatists. The divisions are often ideological, not racial or cultural.

Even expanding outside the UK, sure, the UK historically dislikes the French, but a French person can still work here and live well enough, as can a German despite historical...incidents. They might get a ribbing for their accent, or rarely attacked, but generally if they speak English well, are qualified enough to work, they're typically accepted, and ultimately, most French, German, Irish, Welsh, English and Scottish people can walk down a street without speaking, and feel comfortable in being 'the normal.' People see a white person. Unless they're wearing a shamrock hat, a beret or carrying a sheep under their arm, people just see a normal white person, and even when they speak, they'd still see that, only with an unusual accent.

A black person cannot just 'blend in' to a white crowd in the same way. It's that simple fact that you stand out, that your heritage is on display, and that such a heritage is a target for people. They know that if they shout racial slurs at you, they only hit you. They know that the crowd around you will cast a worried glance then hurry away from the incident, they know they have power you don't.

I genuinely wish it didn't work this way, but I've seen it happen. I went to school where the population was almost entirely white, with one black kid a couple of years younger than me. He was always in fights, people would spread rumours, he was the focus of bullying solely for being different in a way that couldn't ever be hidden.

Trying to claim that myself walking into say, a Chinese restaurant, and getting denied service for being white is similar, is silly. I can walk to any other part of town, I can spread the word and get a massive wedge of the population to boycott them. I can sue them, bring the justice system down on them. I have that power they do not.

You seem to think that a black, or Asian, or Middle-Eastern person will walk into a shop, and be instantly told, "no foreigners allowed," then ushered out the door. I've worked in retail, selling electrical goods like TVs and the like. If you want to see racism, watch what happens when a foreign person walks into such a place. They're shadowed distrustingly, and rather than being direct, the salesperson will often guide the conversation with them to getting rid of them, because, and this is genuinely what the people I worked with thought:

- They don't have as much money,
- They only like cheap stuff anyway, you can't sell the high-profit stuff to them,
- They might steal stuff,
- They'll be denied credit, no point bothering,
- Their accents make it difficult to understand them, even when their English is good,

It's easy enough to say, "ah, sorry, you have to be on the Electoral Roll to get our Rental Credit Agreement, and that only happens after three years in the country, I'm afraid," as opposed to, "I don't wanna waste my time for half an hour writing this agreement only to see it bounce back because you probably don't have any money." It's easy to say, "I'm afraid we don't stock that, maybe try elsewhere," rather than, "sorry, your accent is impenetrable, and your English worse, please don't come back until you've had lessons."

It really opened my eyes to see how the salespeople would sit down with a cup of tea, and moan about having to serve "another bloody foreigner."

That's racism, that's the core problem. It's not a raw, burning hatred of skin colour, it's the systematic web of rumours, lies and propaganda that leaves even good people thinking, "I dunno about that guy, he looks shifty." It's the system that makes you feel somewhat worried when you see a middle-eastern man leave a backpack unattended, when you see a black guy and his friends walking into a jewelry store wearing baggy jeans and bling. It's the stereotype upon stereotype that makes you assume the worst of the situation, rather than see them as people like you just accidentally forgetting a bag, or buying a girlfriend an engagement ring. You see them as something less than yourself, less than human, even if only a little.

You feel a little worried about yourself when it turns out to be a false alarm, then look at a news feed, and see a gang murder and a suicide bombing, and think that actually you were in the right to be distrusting, and you were in the right to be wary, because even if the majority are good, there's a minority who are not, and you can't tell the difference enough to separate them, so the minority becomes the majority in your eyes.

[40kGamer]

I haven't been through this thread properly.
But US reality TV programs do appear far more "gung ho" than ours.

Very much a local phenomenon as police departments have wildly individual traits. Not to mention the layers upon layers of law enforcement. NSA, FBI, State Police, County Sheriffs, City Police, Campus Police... hell, even the IRS has a branch of tax auditors that carry guns! All of these have different jurisdictions, styles of operation and dare I say competence. Many are 'gung ho'... a lot are actually ex-military.

Those that I know tend to be gun enthusiasts and after a significant amount of time doing the job they all become cynical and jaded. They deal with the worst of the worst in society and no amount of happy juice will keep them from developing a negative attitude over time.

So on the one hand the system needs to hold the police accountable and on the other (which I consider to be more important) something needs to be done to improve the lives, attitudes and behaviors of the people in the easy to identify bad neighborhoods. Every city has them. I don't know how bad they are around the world but I can promise you that here in the US they are damn bad. Prostitution, drugs, fights, stabbings, shootings, murders, rapes... all common and normal in these neighborhoods. The fact that most of these are minority neighborhoods is not the fault of the police but the fault of society as a whole. Now ask yourself if you would bring law to these places. Where you are not respected or trusted even if you have the best of intentions, but are automatically hated and openly mocked for what you represent. Not something I could ever do with my temperament.


So yes, context and "demographic drastically changer who is the "powerful" segment of society and no its not always "white". Particularly when the bureaucracy is not interested in discrimination against "whites" but only against minorities.

Probably because the government laws for discrimination are simply a way of courting votes. No need to court white people in a white country with this type of thing because even though it happens it isn’t all that common or sexy.


Ultimately we have different definitions of Racism, Yours excludes people from being subject to it based on race, whereas mine maintains that there is never a situation in which discriminating against people based on race is acceptable. Yours assumes that people are inherently racist, mine believes that they aren't and racism is not a key part of humanity, And ultimately I know which one would lead to just a boot on the other foot and which one would result in equality.

EDIT: I mean it just seems bizarre to me that you can accept people get discriminated against by being white, but you dont think they deserve any protection from it or that it is a problem that it happens. That's like saying that when people are from the majority demographic they have less individual rights....its just...so ...

I'm on the side that racism should not be acceptable in any situation. Who is being discriminated against is irrelevant to the act. My best friend is black and interestingly enough he considers Asians the most racist people in the world. Funny thing that since they are an even smaller minority here in the states. Can you imagine thinking that a group smaller then yours is "the" racist group.

And a big problem I have with all the so called “equality” movements is that the focus is often not on true equality but more on swinging the pendulum the other way. Human nature I guess, everyone secretly wants unequal in their favor vs even up across the board. Just a hint, this way of thinking is not a winning way to get support from those who already have things uneven in their favor.

[eldargal]

And a big problem I have with all the so called “equality” movements is that the focus is often not on true equality but more on swinging the pendulum the other way. Human nature I guess, everyone secretly wants unequal in their favor vs even up across the board. Just a hint, this way of thinking is not a winning way to get support from those who already have things uneven in their favor.

They rarely do, and even if some say it they don't have the capacity to do so. Wishing harm on an oppressive majority who actively deny your experiences of oppression isn't exactly reprehensible either. The trouble is most privileged people don't realise how very far the pendulum is swung in their favour and perceive efforts to reach equality as efforts which punish them:

Say I’m 32 years old and you’re 22 years old.
In how many years will we be the same age?
…
Silly question, right? If you define aging as a process that stops at death, the only way we’ll ever be the same age is if I die first. If you don’t, then we’ll never be the same age. Every time you age a year, I also age a year. Since our ages increase at the same rate, you will never catch up to my head start. We have achieved a total equality of aging, but that does not change the permanent inequality of our age.
Okay, say I have a million dollars and you’re completely broke. If we both get a dollar a day, how long will it take you to catch up with me?
Now, this one’s even sillier, because if you have no other resources, your dollar a day is going to be eaten up by basic living expenses that it doesn’t quite meet, and I have an excess of money that can be spent on money-making opportunities that pay off far better than an additional $365 a year. I could literally burn the dollar I’m getting as part of our Totally Equal Income and still make more money in a year than you do just by sticking my money in the bank.
But still: both of us getting a dollar a day is totally equal, right? It means we’re being treated exactly the same.
And now, final problem:
If we have a world that contains structural inequalities, systemic imbalances, disproportionate danger faced by some, and unequal access to resources and opportunities, is “treating everyone the same” really going to result in equality?
Show your work.

[40kGamer]

I genuinely wish it didn't work this way, but I've seen it happen. I went to school where the population was almost entirely white, with one black kid a couple of years younger than me. He was always in fights, people would spread rumours, he was the focus of bullying solely for being different in a way that couldn't ever be hidden.

And for middle school I had to ride a bus with the high school kids. They got on first and the older white kids took all the back seats and would not let me set with them forcing me to set up front with the black kids. Every day the black kids would smack my ears until they were blood red while the white female bus driver two seats up ignored the whole thing. So I lived with it until I bulked up, kicked the holy crap out of a couple kids and got the whole respect through fear reputation that kept everyone off my back. Was it racism for black kids to smack around a smaller white kid simply because I was white? Or do we need a new word for it?


It's not a raw, burning hatred of skin colour, it's the systematic web of rumours, lies and propaganda that leaves even good people thinking, "I dunno about that guy, he looks shifty…. You see them as something less than yourself, less than human, even if only a little.

If you’ve ever met white supremist, there’s an easy to see burning hatred of skin colour.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Warning: The video below might not be pleasant for some - it includes what can only be described as an execution by firing squad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mQScPI64oM

Here's your problem, not one of those officers stops to say, "hey, all of us unloading into this guy might be excessive."

Eight. F**king. Officers. Each firing six bullets. That's f**king...how can that even be justified? If this happened in Afghanistan, it would be a war crime. Soldiers would be trialled and court-martialled for cold bloody murder. How is there absolutely zero discipline or control on the part of the police officers.

The victim doesn't even charge them, he starts walking away from the camera and they decide to unload! Not a single warning shot, a volley of shots to kill. He didn't threaten them, didn't even move towards them!

At least they handcuff him afterwards. I mean, really, shoot someone down, they're on the floor breathing their last, so you put a boot on their back and cuff them up?

You wouldn't use this much force to execute a rabid dog attacking people, it's just...

Well, it's justice. They were found to be fully within their right to exercise that force, because it was eight officers versus one dead man in the courts. No-one was convicted for this, the court considered this fair.

[40kGamer]

They rarely do, and even if some say it they don't have the capacity to do so. Wishing harm on an oppressive majority who actively deny your experiences of oppression isn't exactly reprehensible either. The trouble is most privileged people don't realise how very far the pendulum is swung in their favour and perceive efforts to reach equality as efforts which punish them:

It takes the wind out of the sails but you are spot on that people on the winning side just don't want to share their good fortune. It's still sad to consciously admit that how our life goes is riding heavily on an event we can not control.... our own birth. With that thought I'm off to look at kittens and puppies to rebalance my mental attitude.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/25/critics-see-racial-double-standard-in-coverage-of-/?page=all

http://downtrend.com/71superb/unarmed-white-man-shot-by-police-no-riots-al-sharpton-silent-obama-keeps-golfing/

It's not as common but police do shoot unarmed white people for no reason. This case is a close match to the Ferguson case but is basically a media black hole. Just no interest in an unarmed white youth being killed by a black cop.

[Morgrim]

Can we be careful with the definition of 'racism'? I think eldargal in particular is falling into a trap I see quite often online where the word is taken to refer only to 'systemic racism'. It doesn't. The word refers to any incident where discrimination occurs based on race. That's it. And that is how the vast majority of people define it. I was groped by a group of older boys as a teen and they got off scot free because I was white and they weren't. That's racism. But it isn't systemic racism.

It's entirely possible for caucasians to suffer racism. But in western countries they cannot suffer the same deeply embedded cultural discrimination that people of other ethnic groups can. I think we all understand this, or at least I hope we do. So can we discuss this and how to possibly fix things rather than chasing each other in circles due to there being some groups that are trying to redefine the word 'racism' to have a narrower meaning, and then the resultant semantics tripping everyone else up?

(Also it's a pity we don't have a better word for that social power imbalance, because while 'privilege' is used it doesn't really fit either, and english tends to be really bad at shoehorning an old word into a new shape.)

[Psychosplodge]

(Also it's a pity we don't have a better word for that social power imbalance, because while 'privilege' is used it doesn't really fit either, and english tends to be really bad at shoehorning an old word into a new shape.)

We just tend to find a new one...

[eldargal]

THE SOBERING REALITY OF ACTUAL BLACK NERD PROBLEMS (http://blacknerdproblems.com/site/the-sobering-of-reality-of-actual-black-nerd-problems/)

There was Jon Snow’s “Longclaw”, Cloud Strife’s sword “Buster”, Nariko’s “Heavenly Sword” and many, many more. I picked up “Buster” and marveled at its weight. This thing was awesome. I had no idea where I would put it, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t contemplate dropping some credits on it. I mean, come on: FINAL FANTASY VII MEMORABILIA!
And then, I got really, really sober and put it down. I smiled at the vendor, told him how great all the stuff looked, then walked away. Maybe it was because I had just seen this tumblr post of tweets collected from Carrie McClain. Maybe it was because the autopsy of 22-year-old Darrien Hunt, the cosplayer in Utah was just released and confirmed that he was shot at least six times by police, at least four of them in his back. Suddenly, the idea of carrying around a giant sword wasn’t as appealing.

I want to be clear and realistic about something: I am aware of two things simultaneously. I am uber-aware of the violence against black men and boys based solely upon the fact that someone was scared of them by default. I talk about that a lot, constantly really, because Trayvon and Jordan and Michael and Darrien and…and…and… happen a lot. Constantly, really. But I am also aware of my personal disposition. As a physical stature, I am included in that bull**** Ben Stein would call “armed with my big scary self.” But I also don’t look like I’m in my early 20s either. Maybe my life has been saved multiple times without my knowing because some cop or 2nd amendment lifer thought that older translated to “not as much of a threat.” Who knows what magical combination of black and wide shoulders and greying beard unlocks the secret of being black and safe to exist.


But a real Black Nerd Problem is not knowing if your cosplay will get you killed. Or if phaser equals wallet equals 41 empty shell casings later. Or feeling compelled to write this column in the first place.

[Mr Mystery]

There's also the added issue that Nerdom is generally considered the domain of pasty, pasty white boys from middling class backgrounds.