FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[cuervo72]

I'm pretty sure there are more than enough people around who would still vilify Dr. King, and I don't think they'd care if that comes off as "gauche."

[cuervo72]

So, to bang my head against a wall some more.

Track Palin Takes Plea in Domestic-Violence Case -- The Cut

This is no doubt influenced by the family he's in. But this is a good example of how the justice system isn't exactly equitable for all.

Sarah Palin's son Track has entered a plea agreement in the domestic violence case against him, stemming from an incident in January 2016 where he punched and kicked his girlfriend and threatened to kill himself with an assault rifle at the Palin home in Wasilla, Alaska. He had a blood alcohol level of 0.189 at the time.

Wasilla police told New York Daily News at the time, "An investigation revealed Track Palin had committed a domestic assault on a female, interfered with her ability to report a crime of domestic violence, and possessed a firearm while intoxicated." In the plea agreement he reportedly will enter in court on Monday, Track will only be charged with misconduct involving weapons in the fourth degree, and the other two charges will be dropped.

According to USA Today, Palin's lawyer Kevin Fitzgerald indicated that the deal requires him to attend an "alcohol-related" treatment program; the final charge will be expunged from his record once he completes the program. Even if Palin doesn't finish the program, he faces what amounts to a slap on the wrist in the form of a suspended jail sentence and a two-year "informal probation."

Part of the argument on why it was no loss that Sterling was shot is because he had a case of domestic abuse in his past, and weapons violations (yes, and other convictions including the statutory rape). Which Palin could well have, if he didn't get a sweetheart deal. It's also been reported (though I don't know if corroborated) that he's been addicted to oxycontin, and rumored that he entered the service (where he may not have even seen combat, despite Palin blaming his later actions on PTSD and Obama) to get out of an accusation that he and some friends cut the brake lines on a school bus. Of course he was 16 then, so records are sealed on that and everyone denies he was involved. (There was also the family brawl, but no charges came of that either.)

So, not a guy who seems to have his act together. But, no criminal record. Gets to keep his guns, too.

[Dutch]

Same could be said for Hillary. I'm not a lawyer but is it systematic racism or is it money and power and some sort of VIP status?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Same could be said for Hillary. I'm not a lawyer but is it systematic racism or is it money and power and some sort of VIP status?

It's not an either/or thing. Money, power, and a famous last name help, but race is always (or at least for the foreseeable future) the elephant in that room.

See, here's the thing. Track Palin's mom went to college, got a degree (eventually) and parlayed a small-town political career into, eventually, a VP nomination, a TV show, and millions of dollars.

That Sarah was in that position is, at least in part, because she came of age at a time when it was possible to get a college degree without taking on thousands of dollars in debt. Her father was a science teacher, which suggests he had a college degree, also. Not necessarily one of any prestige, but he still had the opportunity to pursue higher education...and by the time you reach Chuck Heath's generation (Palin's father), you're talking about a point in time where black men were unable to attend white institutions, which limited their options/ability for post-secondary education. And once segregation enters the picture, racism is on the table, isn't it?

So there you have three generations of society and ability that shaped Track Palin's ability to skate on charges for which a black man would probably have been more heavily penalized.

And that's the thing. Track's family has money, which helps. They have a famous last name, which helps. But even if they had neither, being white still makes him on balance more likely to have had other systemic advantages which a black man of comparable circumstances would not enjoy.

That's the thing about racism. As boogeymen go, people who don't spend much time thinking about racism see it as white guys in Klan robes burning crosses and calling black people "boy" or "nigger." They then think to themselves "*I* don't behave that way, and I don't know anybody who does, so racism surely can't be a thing anymore; anybody who brings it up is just playing the race card for political advantage."

And what that ignores is that it's never nature versus nurture. Who you are isn't just an expression of your genes. It isn't just what you do, who you know. It's what your parents did, who they knew, what their parents did, and who THEY knew. Hard work and talent can overcome obstacles, yes, but you're talking about the exceptional having to be exceptional to be on the same footing as someone more "average," simply because of skin color, historical prejudices, and the generational legacies of those prejudices.

Call it "trickle down racism." What happens in one generation affects the next, and when that effect is financial, it compounds. That works both up and down the social ladder. When a college dropout like Bill Gates builds a fortune in the billions, he can give away 99% of it and his descendants are still going to be set for life.

When a man gets railroaded through the justice system to put him back into a position of involuntary servitude, or to provide a pretext to remove his right to vote (and thus, whatever political power he aspired to), the people who get elected aren't people who speak for him or his community. And if that treatment happens also to his son, and to his son's son, the people getting elected in the meantime STILL don't look like them, or necessarily have their best interests at heart. So maybe you get five generations down and that sort of thing doesn't happen anymore, but five generations of somebody else behind the wheel still means that if a fifth generation black male goes before the justice system, he's more likely to have a bad time of it because the effects of everything that came before don't just go away overnight.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Great. Have any of the "All Lives Matter" folks been out there protesting police shootings of your Castiles and Rices because "all lives matter"?

Or have they been sitting at home bitching about how "Black Lives Matter" protesters won't take up the mantle of White lives while they're at it?

If the "All Lives Matter" crowd were serious about "coming together," then they would be right there marching in lockstep demanding accountability when excessive force is used. Instead, they're not protesting excessive force.

They're counter-protesting "Black Lives Matter" because their feelings are hurt over the Black community taking greater exception to Black people being killed by police than to White people (because, y'know, White folk had to worry about extrajudicial killings for about a century there after the civil war, so whites are ABSOLUTELY a vulnerable group who need someone to speak up for them.).

But what if you take a look at it from the other side. If the objective is to increase awareness, then increased participation and support helps your objective.

When your name is Black Lives Matter, the random middle age caucasian soccer mom (and Im talking about a promoter here never mind a detractor) reads your cause and says "yes black lives DO matter. But Im not black, this isnt my cross to carry. I hope they get justice. Lets go to Starbucks in our BMW"

If you name it Civilian Lives Matter, or Citizens Against Excessive Police Brutality or...whatever then your cause is more prominent and reaches more people.

To me the name in and of itself is divisive and counter productive to the cause. And again I am a sympathizer, I am one who frequently speaks out against unjust police activity. You want me and my position on your side. Forget Jon you never get him. And I say that with no malice, he is a pure detractor you dont market and convert pure detractors in the funding and establishing stage of growth.

I think many people read the name Black Lives Matter and inherently hear a 'more' at the end. If those people arent familiar with the intent of the the message may be lost before it is even spoken.

[Kodos]

I always hear it as "Black Live Matter Too".

[rjolley]

CU, I can see that, but I agree with a video I saw yesterday:

When people talk about breast cancer awareness, does that mean that breast cancer matters more than other cancers? Or that there needs to be more awareness given to breast cancer? It's a similar line of thought with Black Lives Matter. The name doesn't mean black lives matter more than other lives, it means black lives matter as well and there are issues related to black lives that need to be addressed.

Unfortunately, once you put a race into a title, people draw lines on either side and it becomes an "us vs them" issue for them when that's not always the case. If there was a group started called White Lives Matter, I'm sure the same people would be on the respective sides of that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by nol

I know, you even told me so yourself

I think that was back in the time I tried to have constructive discussions about this before I saw that you weren't interested in that. Though I definitely stand by that - your thoughts still probably aren't that different than mine, it's all in the tone of the rhetoric and what you're really motivated by. Nobody seems to disagree with the content of my posts, people just get pissed if I acknowledge police officers as individual human beings or talk about the challenges from that side, and related sides, in the continual process of improving. But improvements, where they've happened, definitely haven't been and can't be one-sided. Entities from the government, law enforcement, the community, protesters, those who have been touched by these issues in negative or positive ways all have to play a part (and they do all work together pretty well most places). The most negative rhetoric in these debates just wants to assign negative characteristics to whatever side they don't like and get them to change through - anger and disdain I guess? Actually, I don't think change is the motive for those people. It's just a great chance to express racist feelings in an environment where that will be somewhat more tolerated, or express deep-rooted anger towards vague concepts of systems, and to broadly blame anyone who is a part of those systems. The two types of mindsets are very similar, and like I said, it's a very common trait in bad cops and bad prosecutors who just see the "criminals" as sharing negative traits and acting a certain way when certain things happen. It's very easy to create injustice when you fall into that mindset.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I always hear it as "Black Live Matter Too".

FWIW, I hear it as "Black" Lives Matter and therefore I don't feel part of it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW, I hear it as "Black" Lives Matter and therefore I don't feel part of it.

I guess that just speaks to a different value set and a different way to choose causes to care about. I don't limit the issues I care about to ones that directly affect me. For example, I have marched in the LGBT pride parade several times and none of the letters in LGBT apply to me. All Lives Matter would've been similar to me saying, "no I can't march with you because I believe all marriages matter."

Changing the wording of BLM to include everyone actually dilutes the organization's message. BLM believes there is a racial component to police brutality. They want to get to the bottom of that racial problem and find a way to change that culture. There's nothing wrong with a group that attacks police brutality in general. They should be allies, not enemies of BLM, much like the American Cancer Society isn't an anemiy of the Lung Cancer Alliance just because one focuses on all cancer and the other focuses on a specific cancer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, another repudiation by jury of politically motivated witch hunts

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/18/us/fre...ict/index.html

edit to add: Sorry, the text of the headline doesn't seem to have come along with the link.
BREAKING: Baltimore police Lt. Brian Rice has been found not guilty on all charges tied to the death of Freddie Gray

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Changing the wording of BLM to include everyone actually dilutes the organization's message. BLM believes there is a racial component to police brutality.

I agree with the first sentence, but I think the organization's (if you could call it that) ability to effectively convey that message is at best sub-optimal, and at worst horrible. The problem is there doesn't seem to be one central, coalescing voice in the movement, so every city/state ends up being taken over by some outspoken radical who makes it come across as Black Lives Matter More, rather than every isn't being treated equally.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, another repudiation by jury of politically motivated witch hunts

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/18/us/fre...ict/index.html

edit to add: Sorry, the text of the headline doesn't seem to have come along with the link.
BREAKING: Baltimore police Lt. Brian Rice has been found not guilty on all charges tied to the death of Freddie Gray

Isn't there something on the books for "Prosecutorial Misconduct" that would apply here?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, another repudiation by jury of politically motivated witch hunts

Everybody, let's sing the "Jon is full of shit" song!

You're either being deliberately disingenuous or you have serous reading comprehension deficits.

The first trial ended in mistrial when the jury couldn't reach a unanimous verdict.

Every rial since, including the one you so helpfully linked to, the officers involved elected to have a bench trial. The judge hearts the evidence and renders a verdict.

As soon as the first bench trial ended in acquittal, the other officers lined up to have belch trials instead. They knew the score.

No jury was given the chance to convict after the first officer escaped conviction only because the jury couldn't reach a unanimous verdict.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Isn't there something on the books for "Prosecutorial Misconduct" that would apply here?

There should be. There won't be.

One of the single biggest mismanaged cases of all time. She charges correctly, she likely gets a couple of convictions. She overreached on a massive scale and she isn't going to get a thing.

It's also a good reminder that things are not always as easy as the media makes it appear. These officers didn't get off because they were white (all of them weren't white). They didn't get off because they were rich. They didn't get off because of some massive coverup (if anything the prosecution were the ones covering up things in this series of trials and got their hand slapped for it more than once.)

Fact is, this wasn't a "simple" case of the cops killing a black man because they could.

It was a complicated case with doubt from the start.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Everybody, let's sing the "Jon is full of shit" song!

You're either being deliberately disingenuous or you have serous reading comprehension deficits.

The first trial ended in mistrial when the jury couldn't reach a unanimous verdict.

Every rial since, including the one you so helpfully linked to, the officers involved elected to have a bench trial. The judge hearts the evidence and renders a verdict.

As soon as the first bench trial ended in acquittal, the other officers lined up to have belch trials instead. They knew the score.

No jury was given the chance to convict after the first officer escaped conviction only because the jury couldn't reach a unanimous verdict.

You mean the jury that was ONE SINGLE vote away from clearing the cop? The jury makeup was 8 black/4 white and I'll repeat, was a SINGLE VOTE away from clearing him.

Beyond that, the cop on trial was supposed to be the EASY one. He was supposed to be the domino that set everything else up. Grab the easiest conviction first and then he flips on everyone else to help with his sentencing.

The EASY one was a single vote away from a full blown acquittal.

Please stop with the disingenuous act here, ok? The reality is they didn't have the goods on these guys. They didn't have it from the start. Beyond that, the prosecution acted HORRIBLY in these cases. They withheld information from the cops attorneys.

I'm not some racist who thinks the entire BLM movement is horrible. (I have issues with it for various reasons, but I agree with a lot of what it talks about, especially with police accountability and cameras) My comments above don't mean I think it's cool that a bunch of cops got away with murder. The more I read about the case and the more I read about the charges the more I realized how this wasn't the slam dunk everyone thought it would be.

I think there is a very high chance that all of these officers would have been cleared no matter what type of jury was used.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't often wade in here, and maybe I'm making a mistake to do it now. But I'm going to do it anyway, because that's more and more how I roll lately(i.e, let the chips fall where they choose to, so be it, etc).

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

do people go against Martin Luther King, Jr. because he focused on his own community? I mean they did at the time, even accusing him of encouraging division (the Letter from the Birmingham Jail is about that). Nowadays it is usually gauche to criticize King's tactics because we see that he was morally correct in his position. But he did focus on his own community. When your community is marginalized, why is it wrong to try to raise them to the same level as the rest of society before you are required to take up the banner for everyone?

This is one of the more reasonable points I've read you make in a while. I think there's room though, to generally agree with Dr. King while at the same time not endorsing every way he went about things. We shouldn't make untouchable heroes out of virtually anyone. My issue here is that I'm basically against anything that increases polarization and antimosity towards the Other, whoever that happens to be at the moment. 'Your community' is something we need to excise. The community is globalized now. Your community should be humanity. If it's smaller that, you are marginalizing everyone you didn't include, which is the exactly the thing that we're fighting against here. This is why, for example, I no longer describe myself as a patriot. I don't want to be that close-minded and biased against people outside of their United States. My life, the lives of my family etc. are no more important than theirs and I think it's highly arrogant for me to act otherwhise.

Originally Posted by rjolley

When people talk about breast cancer awareness, does that mean that breast cancer matters more than other cancers? Or that there needs to be more awareness given to breast cancer? It's a similar line of thought with Black Lives Matter. The name doesn't mean black lives matter more than other lives, it means black lives matter as well and there are issues related to black lives that need to be addressed.

If they called it Citizen Rights Awareness, or Police Excesses Awareness, or something like that, I would agree with you. They don't. As has been pointed out, BLM has not been completely silent on other forms of violence - but they spend a lot more time and energy traveling around to whatever the current 'hotspot crisis' resulting in a tiny fraction of the deaths that the other things do on which they spend far less time. Their priorities are clear. And when they get there, they say divisive and completely unhelpful(racist is not too strong a word) things like 'Watch. Whiteness. Work" in response to standard police procedures. They can say all they want that black lives don't matter more to them and that they care about all people. Their words and actions and where they choose to focus their activism say otherwhise. At best, they have very poor judgment. I hope that's the case, because the alternative is rather worse.

As for me, I'm far more concerned with what is frankly the real issue; social breakdown. I.e., three times as many blacks are born into families without a father as whites(by contrast, the number of people shot by police? More whites than blacks on the whole, though blacks at a somewhat higher rate but not one disproportionate to the higher crime rates in those communities). Family breakdown has all sorts of negative things associated with it(drug use, poverty, crime, incarceration, education, you name it). It's conspiracy-theory level territory when you consider the amount of time and energy being devoted to issues of such relatively minor impact like police shootings, compared to those devastating whole swaths of the nation. There are many possibilities as to why this focus occurs, but none of them are good or heartwarming.

To me, it's self-evident that for our nation to heal, we must tackle the biggest problems.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Please stop with the disingenuous act here, ok?

Did, or did not, Jon make the claim that the latest acquittal was at the hands of a jury repudiating a political witch hunt?

Go ahead. I'll wait.

When you get back we can discuss whether or not a false claim to push a narrative ("political witch hunt") is a deliberately disingenuous statement or an inability/unwillingness to read what he's posting.

[TroyF]

Maybe I shouldn't have responded at all. I'm a little raw right now and comments from both sides are pissing me off.

The police officers were in about as much danger of being convicted as I do of being eaten by a shark in Oklahoma. The "gimmee" resulted in 11-1 against.

The one that did go to the jury was supposed to be the slam dunk. If it sounds like I'm pissed, it's because I am pissed. VERY F'ING PISSED. The media convicted these officers before a trial ever happened. Then the prosecutor overcharges because she has political aspirations.

People died over this case. Not just Freddie Gray. Young black men died when the police changed tactics and started backing off the streets due to threats and political BS. Murders spiked to a ridiculous level. And now that the house of cards has just about collapsed, I see people everywhere trying to spin this thing even further around.

It's sickening from both sides. As someone who does give a crap about lives, the entire Baltimore fiasco shows the damage that's being done.

We have a lot of work to do to fix the racism problems in this country. But it isn't going to be fixed by railroading and overcharging police officers. It isn't going to be fixed by portraying all police officers as murderers. It isn't going to be fixed by some jack ass saying all black men steal cars. What a pathetic waste of time and resources. What an absolute waste.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

If they called it Citizen Rights Awareness, or Police Excesses Awareness, or something like that, I would agree with you.

I've seen a lot of reposts recently from a FB group called "I Support The Police, Not Criminals." I think the first part of that would be perfectly fine, and would sum up their feelings. But they added that second part. Who are they viewing as criminals? Are they referring to actual criminals, or are they taking Jon's definition of criminals (i.e. anyone who supports BLM)? I'd infer the latter*. They have about 225k followers. They also sign about half of their posts *Red Dawn*. Post a lot of Trump stuff. Not looking to tone down any rhetoric.



* Actually, I scrolled down further and there's an image where they label both the mayor and the DA of Baltimore as criminals, and the six officers on trial as heroes. So that answers that question. Oh, and "A black guy, a Muslim, and a racist walk into a bar. The bartender says, 'The usual, Mr. President?'"

[Dutch]

Sheriff David Clarke Wrecks Don Lemon on CNN About Black Lives Matter Rhetoric Endangering Police - YouTube

After watching David Clarke, Don Lemon had some less than nice words to say about his performance. Well, that was why. The commentary isn't that helpful to opponents, but pre-videos of Black Lives Matter in protest remind us of the rhetoric that they have spewed.

#BLM - "What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!" etc...

We forget that because CNN doesn't report that, which is where a large portion of society and particularly left leaning people get their news. They talk about journalistic integrity, but then have one-sided arguments. This is the state of journalism today. Might as well just have gotten a degree in political activism. And when David Clarke tries to provide the other side of the argument, he's told by the journalist (who isn't taking sides) that he's not supposed to bring that up.

[cuervo72]

Let's not pretend Fox News doesn't do that too (or Brietbart, or WND). Do they show peaceful protests? No, they show the bad actors and the militants.

[Dutch]

Of course. However, to the point, I'm watching CNN and wondered were Lemon's animosity while reporting came from.

[cuervo72]

IIRC, he's taken some heat from the left for being a dumbass on some things. So he's probably stung from that and maybe trying to gain back some cred? I don't know. Not convinced he's one of their more solid presenters.

[cuervo72]

After watching this a couple of times, part of what I wonder is who from the production crew thought it would be a good idea to bring on a guest who was itching to rip Lemon a new one.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

#BLM - "What do we want? Dead Cops! When do we want it? Now!" etc...

We forget that because CNN doesn't report that, which is where a large portion of society and particularly left leaning people get their news. They talk about journalistic integrity, but then have one-sided arguments. This is the state of journalism today. Might as well just have gotten a degree in political activism. And when David Clarke tries to provide the other side of the argument, he's told by the journalist (who isn't taking sides) that he's not supposed to bring that up.

You talking about this?

Black Lives Matter Protesters Chant for 'Dead Cops Now' in Baton Rouge : snopes.com

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't often wade in here, and maybe I'm making a mistake to do it now. But I'm going to do it anyway, because that's more and more how I roll lately(i.e, let the chips fall where they choose to, so be it, etc).



This is one of the more reasonable points I've read you make in a while. I think there's room though, to generally agree with Dr. King while at the same time not endorsing every way he went about things. We shouldn't make untouchable heroes out of virtually anyone. My issue here is that I'm basically against anything that increases polarization and antimosity towards the Other, whoever that happens to be at the moment. 'Your community' is something we need to excise. The community is globalized now. Your community should be humanity. If it's smaller that, you are marginalizing everyone you didn't include, which is the exactly the thing that we're fighting against here. This is why, for example, I no longer describe myself as a patriot. I don't want to be that close-minded and biased against people outside of their United States. My life, the lives of my family etc. are no more important than theirs and I think it's highly arrogant for me to act otherwhise.



If they called it Citizen Rights Awareness, or Police Excesses Awareness, or something like that, I would agree with you. They don't. As has been pointed out, BLM has not been completely silent on other forms of violence - but they spend a lot more time and energy traveling around to whatever the current 'hotspot crisis' resulting in a tiny fraction of the deaths that the other things do on which they spend far less time. Their priorities are clear. And when they get there, they say divisive and completely unhelpful(racist is not too strong a word) things like 'Watch. Whiteness. Work" in response to standard police procedures. They can say all they want that black lives don't matter more to them and that they care about all people. Their words and actions and where they choose to focus their activism say otherwhise. At best, they have very poor judgment. I hope that's the case, because the alternative is rather worse.

As for me, I'm far more concerned with what is frankly the real issue; social breakdown. I.e., three times as many blacks are born into families without a father as whites(by contrast, the number of people shot by police? More whites than blacks on the whole, though blacks at a somewhat higher rate but not one disproportionate to the higher crime rates in those communities). Family breakdown has all sorts of negative things associated with it(drug use, poverty, crime, incarceration, education, you name it). It's conspiracy-theory level territory when you consider the amount of time and energy being devoted to issues of such relatively minor impact like police shootings, compared to those devastating whole swaths of the nation. There are many possibilities as to why this focus occurs, but none of them are good or heartwarming.

To me, it's self-evident that for our nation to heal, we must tackle the biggest problems.

I can agree that there have been actions that have been counterproductive to getting everyone on the same page. I feel the main organization is moving towards the overall goal of equality for AAs in all areas, but some of those that are part of the organization are more militant than others. Also, any violent action made by any AA is automatically attributed to BLM whether that's correct or not. And it's often not corrected with the same enthusiasm as the initial report.

And I agree, the social breakdown plays a very large role in this. While things are better in that regard, historically, AA households are often headed by women with the father not in the picture at all. BLM also is working for improvements in AA families and communities as part of their goals. There are other groups focused on that as well.

For me, all of the issues are tied together. I don't know what the best solution is. I wish I did and could get it implemented. My wife and I work hard at proving a good environment for my kids so that they can go on to be a productive part of society and raise their families to do the same. At the same time, we let them know that there are people out there that are not out for their best interest simply due to their skin color and to be careful. It's an unfortunate part of life.

I hope that our generation is able to get us to a point where that's not as big of a problem. We still have a ways to go. Maybe we're on the way, but the past month or so shows we have a long way to go.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You talking about this?

Black Lives Matter Protesters Chant for 'Dead Cops Now' in Baton Rouge : snopes.com

That's not really a great debunking. According to snopes the chant was made by people attending the 'Millions March' which basically for all intents and purposes is BLM. People were carrying BLM signs .

[cuervo72]

Dutch was faulting CNN for not reporting it though. Why would they be reporting an instance from 2014 now, as if it was directly responsible for inciting the recent shootings?

[JPhillips]

There's not a liberal alive that sees Don Lemon as an ally.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

You talking about this?

Black Lives Matter Protesters Chant for 'Dead Cops Now' in Baton Rouge : snopes.com

Bit of semantics. That's still a BLM protest. Just from 2014, not 2016. Also that's not a small group.

However. CNN did report on this particular protest.

Protesters Chant 'What Do We Want, Dead Cops' - YouTube

[RainMaker]

Yeah, liberals don't like Lemon at all. Goes back to when he gave that rant saying the black community should finish school, not have kids they can't raise, and show respect for their community.

Don Lemon's five things to think about within the black community - YouTube

[cuervo72]

I think he was also taken to task for comments regarding Cosby and other rape cases.

[JPhillips]

Uhhh...

No.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I think he was also taken to task for comments regarding Cosby and other rape cases.

Yeah that was another. I just remember his thing with Russell Simmons seemed to be what put him on the map.

There was also how he acted at the Ferguson protest where he was complaining about marijuana and wasn't he the guy who said a bunch of dumb shit about the Malaysia Air flight?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think there's room though, to generally agree with Dr. King while at the same time not endorsing every way he went about things. We shouldn't make untouchable heroes out of virtually anyone. My issue here is that I'm basically against anything that increases polarization and antimosity towards the Other, whoever that happens to be at the moment. 'Your community' is something we need to excise. The community is globalized now. Your community should be humanity. If it's smaller that, you are marginalizing everyone you didn't include, which is the exactly the thing that we're fighting against here. This is why, for example, I no longer describe myself as a patriot. I don't want to be that close-minded and biased against people outside of their United States. My life, the lives of my family etc. are no more important than theirs and I think it's highly arrogant for me to act otherwhise.

Ridiculousness. And easy to say when one is a member of the dominant group. If you want to excise "My community", then do what SackAttack said - march in protest of police brutality as opposed to casting aspersions on those who are protesting. When no one else is taking up causes that affect your community, then asserting that they shouldn't focus on their community just guarantees the status quo disparity. It's basically just telling those people to suck it up and deal with the fact that your community won't be respected in the guise of "your community should be humanity". It basically just bullshit.

Do you think that if the black community hadn't taken up Civil Rights in the 1950s and 1960s that Jim Crow would be dismantled even today? Because I don't.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Do you think that if the black community hadn't taken up Civil Rights in the 1950s and 1960s that Jim Crow would be dismantled even today? Because I don't.

That's impossible to know. Hypothetical conjectures are not useful in my opinion. But I do not and did not object to the cause being taken up. I'm in favor of a lot more changes to the justice system than BLM is pushing for - I want the whole prison system demolished completely, for example. I'd rather have an 'eye for an eye' type system and let people move on with their lives. Perhaps that's simply more of my 'just bullshit' though. I don't think the leap from 'generally agree' to 'suck it up and deal with the fact that your community won't be respected' is warranted in the least.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'd rather have an 'eye for an eye' type system and let people move on with their lives. Perhaps that's simply more of my 'just bullshit' though. I don't think the leap from 'generally agree' to 'suck it up and deal with the fact that your community won't be respected' is warranted in the least.

If you aren't out there with others demanding answers to troublesome questions involved in policing, then telling those that are that they shouldn't be focusing on issues involving their own community IS telling them to suck it up. Saying you generally agree but they shouldn't make a fuss about their own community is slacktivism in the worst degree. And it basically illustrates Edmund Burke's famous quote of evil triumphing due to good people doing nothing.

And there is a reason that eye for an eye has long been abandoned. While progressive for the time (which, I'll remind you, was over 3000 years ago), it results in a fucking awful system of justice. I'm of the opinion that anyone that advocates for such a system has no idea what they are talking about. Though, for the record, does the eye for an eye mean if a cop kills an African-American person, that that person's family can kill the cop?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If you aren't out there with others demanding answers to troublesome questions involved in policing, then telling those that are that they shouldn't be focusing on issues involving their own community IS telling them to suck it up.

The second is irrelevant to the first. If I was telling them to suck it up, then that'd be true regardless of what action I was or was not personally taking. This is a transparent diversion. If your opinion is that you can independently determine what I mean regardless of what I actually say, productive discourse is clearly rendered impossible.

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Though, for the record, does the eye for an eye mean if a cop kills an African-American person, that that person's family can kill the cop?

No it doesn't. It means that anyone convicted for a serious crime doesn't get thrown into a jail where they will be treated like an animal or worse, robbed of all humanity dignity(and in many cases, hope) while the rest of 'polite society' can treat them as basically out of sight, out of mind. It means the punishment fits the crime, justice is served, and then life continues on with the exception of the very rare capital case.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The second is irrelevant to the first. If I was telling them to suck it up, then that'd be true regardless of what action I was or was not personally taking.

No, it isn't. Learn that even the lack of action talks louder than words. Especially when combined with unhelpful suggestions to people who are trying to fight for justice and equality for people in their own communities.

In addition, it's called reading between the lines and plenty of folks can determine that.

I swear, you may have a good heart (I wouldn't want to 'independently determine' that of course ), but you can come across as such a dullard at times.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

It means the punishment fits the crime, justice is served, and then life continues on with the exception of the very rare capital case.

What the fuck does this even mean aside from a bunch of platitudes? How will the punishment 'fit' the crime? How will 'justice' be served? And how does life continue on? I admire your deploring of the state of our detention facilities, but what's your actual solution?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Learn that even the lack of action talks louder than words.

I agree with this. And again, it's beside the point. The only possible reference is to whether I am a hypocrite or not. And for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that I am the biggest hypocrite you can imagine. That's still doesn't have the first thing to do with whether I am suggesting, stating, arguing, implying, or in any other way indicating that people should suck it up and not do anything about injustice. That conclusion was, is, and will continue to be you putting words in my mouth, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

it's called reading between the lines and plenty of folks can determine that.

I'm four-square against presumption of motives in all it's forms. For example, I may not particularly appreciate being referred to as a dullard or the wide variety of implications being made here, but that doesn't give me license to presume why you choose to frame your arguments in this way. I attempt to restrict myself to the facts, logic, and arguments in hand, not personalities. It would seem to me that that is exactly why these kinds of forums exist, in terms of their potentially productive purpose.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What the fuck does this even mean

I really don't think it's that complicated. Someone convicted of robbery or theft will have their wages confiscated up to the point of paying back what they stole/embezzled/what have you. Someone convicted of vandalism must restore or replace the damaged property. An assault conviction would result in similar injuries to the assailant. Other crimes which more fit the definition of 'crimes against society' would result in a certain amount of unpaid public service being required by the offender. For most infractions presently on the books I don't think it's an overly involved exercise to come up with a reasonable 'sentence'.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's impossible to know.

No offense, but that's kinda bullshit.

Jim Crow "died" in 1965, and yet there have been remnants all over the South for 50 years. Oh, kind of passive-aggressive remnants, to be sure, but the attitudes behind the fight to keep Jim Crow going are very much alive and well.

It took nine years after Brown v. Board for the federal government to say "enough" and enforce the Court's decision. Kennedy was assassinated five months after that, and it fell to Lyndon Johnson to get Kennedy's civil rights bills through Congress.

And the second the contemporary Supreme Court invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act, many of those Southern states immediately implemented more restrictive voting laws which, coincidentally, contained provisions that will affect the poor and minorities disproportionately.

Our schools are less integrated now than they were a generation ago.

The progress of the 60s and 70s is being slowly lost. If that progress had never been made, I don't think it's a stretch at all to suggest that Jim Crow laws would still be in place.

I don't think the leap from 'generally agree' to 'suck it up and deal with the fact that your community won't be respected' is warranted in the least.

Maybe not, but here's the reality: if you think the civil-disobedience-and-speeches approach Dr. King took is the wrong template for BLM, there's really two options left on the table:

1) Do it Malcolm X's way and start shooting back
2) Sit down, shut up, and hope white people eventually get their shit together.

Neither of those lead to a place where the black community is respected and treated equally with their white counterparts.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

if you think the civil-disobedience-and-speeches approach Dr. King took is the wrong template for BLM

For the record, I don't think that. I have no objection to either civil disobedience or making strong, pointed speeches about social injustices. I think both are laudable activities.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

For the record, I don't think that. I have no objection to either civil disobedience or making strong, pointed speeches about social injustices. I think both are laudable activities.

You just got through saying "I think it's possible to support the civil rights movement and at the same time disagree with Dr. King's methods."

I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist.

So tell me where that's possible, unless what you (or whoever our putative disagreeable individual is) want is one of the two alternatives I laid out.

[Brian Swartz]

SackAttack, I don't think I can do any better in clarifying what I was referring to than quoting what I originally said, starting two sentences after the statement you are referring to.

Originally Posted by me

My issue here is that I'm basically against anything that increases polarization and antimosity towards the Other, whoever that happens to be at the moment. 'Your community' is something we need to excise. The community is globalized now. Your community should be humanity. If it's smaller that, you are marginalizing everyone you didn't include, which is the exactly the thing that we're fighting against here. This is why, for example, I no longer describe myself as a patriot. I don't want to be that close-minded and biased against people outside of their United States. My life, the lives of my family etc. are no more important than theirs and I think it's highly arrogant for me to act otherwhise.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

SackAttack, I don't think I can do any better in clarifying what I was referring to than quoting what I originally said, starting two sentences after the statement you are referring to.

Right.
But I guess the question is if the two sides are already polar opposites then how do you draw attention without dividing. I think that is where we are.

BLM is protesting racist motives, which are the minority amongst law enforcement.

The other side is for racial profiling because of their prejudices that all X,Y,Z races are criminals.

In reality the 40% on each side of the line closest to the middle are being controlled by the 10% at each fringe.

[Dutch]

Another cop gunned down and killed in KC. Death Toll is now 9 from this unrest.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Another cop gunned down and killed in KC. Death Toll is now 9 from this unrest.

Tragic, but not a result of this unrest.

“We do not believe that Captain Melton’s death was a planned ambush against police,” Holland said. “We believe this case is another example of another criminal trying to escape arrest. Yet we all need to worry that the national climate may foster greater fear and potentially inflame otherwise normal interactions and turn them into tragedies. This fear sometimes feels bigger than all of us, and yet I believe Kansas City Kansas will faithfully rise above this fear.”

Police Chief Terry Zeigler echoed that thought at a press conference Wednesday morning to address the tragedy.

“This crime does not fit the national narrative of planned attacks on law enforcement,” Zeigler said. “But it does fit the narrative that words matter. The hate speech has to stop.

Read more here: KCK Police Capt. Melton’s death not a ‘planned ambush,’ KCK mayor says | The Kansas City Star

[Dutch]

I'll just assume it is. Hands up, don't shoot.