Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Lushen said:

it has a negative impact on society and we typically don't subsidize things that do so. 

Oh man, if only this were true. Polticians subsidize whatever their voters and donors tell them to subsidize, and sometimes those things have a measurably negative impact on society. As just the first example that comes to mind (and a topical one when discussing the plight of black Americans): the US subsidizes its massively overbloated prisons because some voters demand a tough-on-crime approach, even though over-incarceration causes more crime (and economic woes) down the line.

Edited by Dark Holy Elf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just a reminder that men, not minorities, benefit most from academic selection rules at many private colleges/universities, which are allowed to discriminate based on gender. Women on average are better applicants than men, but splits are still roughly 50/50 when it should be closer to 60/40 in favour of women, which is what is the case at public colleges.

In comparison, rates of black people at elite universities have stayed mostly the same since affirmative action rules were introduced, with a small uptick in hispanic enrollment. But the main reason white enrollment has fallen is because of growth in Asian enrollment. 

I'm comparing two different quantities there, but whenever you rail against affirmative action helping minorities get spots, remember that you probably had an easier time getting in because you were a dude, and there wasn't even a law requiring it.

EDIT: totally forgot about legacy preferences! 20-30% admission rate for legacy students at Ivy League schools vs <10% for everyone else. Gee I wonder what the race breakdown in those legacy admissions is???

Edited by BBM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BBM said:

Just a reminder that men, not minorities, benefit most from academic selection rules at many private colleges/universities, which are allowed to discriminate based on gender. Women on average are better applicants than men, but splits are still roughly 50/50 when it should be closer to 60/40 in favour of women, which is what is the case at public colleges.

In comparison, rates of black people at elite universities have stayed mostly the same since affirmative action rules were introduced, with a small uptick in hispanic enrollment. But the main reason white enrollment has fallen is because of growth in Asian enrollment. 

I'm comparing two different quantities there, but whenever you rail against affirmative action helping minorities get spots, remember that you probably had an easier time getting in because you were a dude, and there wasn't even a law requiring it.

Why are woman on average better applicants than men? 

As for you directly stating that I had an easier time getting in because I'm a dude, this is simply false.  The society of woman engineers is a huge organization that benefits woman exclusively and the only organizations that discriminate against a particular engineer's sex give advantages to woman because there is an odd sense of a statistical need for more woman in engineering.  This doesn't make sense because really woman just typically don't have as much interest in men in becoming engineers.  In high school, my engineering courses that anyone could enroll in were dominated heavily by men and its no surprise that the same happens in college.

Finally, more woman who end up going into engineering end up completing their degree.  https://ir.engr.ncsu.edu/retention-and-graduation-rates/graduation-rates-by-gender/

And since I know this is going to go into the theory that there is a gender wage gap, understand the theory is still being debated and cannot be considered a fact. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-prof-takes-down-gender-wage-gap-myth/article/2580405.  The reason woman who graduate from college are making less than men is because they happen to invest in career paths that earn less than men.  There's no real evidence that someone or something is forcing them to do this unless you want to use a broad term like "Institutionalized blah" that doesn't point at something real.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

As for you directly stating that I had an easier time getting in because I'm a dude, this is simply false.  The society of woman engineers is a huge organization that benefits woman exclusively and the only organizations that discriminate against a particular engineer's sex give advantages to woman because there is an odd sense of a statistical need for more woman in engineering.  This doesn't make sense because really woman just typically don't have as much interest in men in becoming engineers.  In high school, my engineering courses that anyone could enroll in were dominated heavily by men and its no surprise that the same happens in college.

Or it could be that the culture surrounding the profession is notoriously unwelcoming to women.

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

The reason woman who graduate from college are making less than men is because they happen to invest in career paths that earn less than men.  There's no real evidence that someone or something is forcing them to do this unless you want to use a broad term like "Institutionalized blah" that doesn't point at something real.

What is it with you and your refusal to acknowledge the possibility of systemic problems? BLM arose from nothing and protests nothing, the wage gap isn't a fact, women just choose different career paths, ETC. Not everything comes down to an individual not pulling their bootstraps up hard enough you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

What is it with you and your refusal to acknowledge the possibility of systemic problems? BLM arose from nothing and protests nothing, the wage gap isn't a fact, women just choose different career paths, ETC. Not everything comes down to an individual not pulling their bootstraps up hard enough you know.

My issue with acknowledging the possibility of systematic issues is they have no evidence.  It is an overgeneralized claim based on single statistics that rarely show the whole picture.  For example, people might think there's is racial injustice going on because more blacks are statistically being arrested and shot by police officers.  However, there are a ton of other factors that can contribute to this idea such as the idea that culture in black community tend to cause more crime.

The facts show quite the opposite. 

Among Blacks, 31% say that blacks are generally racist while 24% say that whites are generally racist.
Among whites, 10% say whites are generally racist while 35% think blacks are generally racist.

What we have here is an actual consensus between blacks and whites that blacks are seen as more racist than whites.  Furthermore, we have actual evidence that blacks think that they're own culture is more racist than another which is astonishing.  Yet the left speaks of institutionalized racism which would require the exact opposite to be true.  The reason you can trust these polls is because they were taken in 2013 before the recent presidential election made liberals get their story straight.  That, or America has suddenly become significantly more racist in the past few years which proves that democratic rule in government and activism is making things profoundly worse which I actually think is a real possibility. 

41 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

First link is in Australia and directly contradicts a statistic I brought up in America.  In America, more woman are completing bachelors degrees in Engineering than men.  Second link actually hurts your argument because it has a piece about how a significant group of woman could be leaving because they plan to start families.  My mother quit trying to be a doctor and settled as a therapist because she wanted to be a stay at home Mom, no one forced her.  Third link starts with "One woman"  This woman also openly says that she misses work sometimes to spend time with her kids, but she believes she puts extra time in to make up for it.   Then it goes on to talk about Implicit bias which is not allowed to be used in a court room because it can't be proven.

 

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Lushen said:

Tamir Rice - Crime was not with the police officer.  The caller had originally stated that there was someone with a gun.  Afterwards, he said it was probably a kid with a fake gun but the police officers were not relayed this information until after the indecent.  The police officers said that when they asked for Tamir to put his hands up, he looked like he was going for his gun.  It's clear from the officer's emotional reaction that he did not intend to kill a 12 year old. 

Eric Garner - Handled appropriately by the department of justice.  The DOJ decided they were going to open a private investigation but a settlement (agreement) was reached before.  So even if Eric shouldn't have been killed, the DOJ could appropriately pick up the case and settle it on their own terms and reach a settlemnet.  This is actually proof that police cannot dismiss cases with no evidence, since the DOJ successfully got involved.

Darrien Hunt - On facebook he actually posted that he was going to get shot because he had a sword before the events.  Two witnesses said they saw him swinging the sword.  He was asked to put his sword away and he refused.  Why would you run for your life and still be carrying your sword?  I would have dropped it if I were running for my life.  Imagine your arms swinging around trying to run as fast as popular and you think the sword isn't going to slow you down?  And why would you run from a cop in the first place?  The safest thing to do if a cop is chasing you is to get on the ground with your hands on your head.  Anyways, he was running from his life and from the video it looks like he was running faster than the cop and would eventually be outside his range.  Now you have a guy swinging a sword around refusing to put it away running around in public.  Darrien hunt either wanted this to happen or was an idiot.

 

Without getting into an argument over why your characterization of the above-cited cases are factually and legally wrong, I notice that you did not even attempt to defend the conduct of the officer involved in the shooting death of John Crawford. Lets talk about the shooting death of John Crawford.

FACTS OF THE CASE

John Crawford was an African American male, shopping in a retail store that sells--among other things--toy guns. John picked a toy gun that he wanted to purchase from the retail shelf, and was carrying it to the cash register. A police officer in the store observed him carrying the toy gun. The officer immediately drew his weapon and fired upon John. John was struck by the officer's shots, succumbed to his wounds, and was pronounced dead.

The shooting of John Crawford was captured on store surveillance footage and the footage was released to the general public before police could release any cover-story portraying John as a thug or a threat or an aggressor who charged at the officer. So the events of the shooting should have been uncontested.

Police nevertheless claimed that John was brandishing the toy gun in a threatening manner and refused a verbal command to "Drop the Gun" before being shot.

Released surveillance footage clearly shows John carrying the Gun at his side--not pointed at anyone--and receiving no verbal commands from police before the officer immediately opens fire, upon John entering his line-of-sight. (i.e. the police lied and tried to cover it up with the standard story that the decedent refused lawful directives + made them "fear for their lives." And it was provable that the lied from verified video evidence)

A complaint was filed against the officer involved for the wrongful death of John Crawford. Reviewing authorities dismissed the complaint; finding that the responding officer's actions were entirely appropriate within the scope of his public duty as a police officer, and violated no law or policy governing officer's professional conduct.

QUESTIONS FOR YOU

1) Do you believe John Crawford deserved to die? Explain.

2) Do you believe the aforementioned conduct of the responding officer is conduct  which should be deemed appropriate within the scope of a police officer's public duty, and which policed communities should be expected to tolerate? Explain.

3)
To the extent the responding officer could not be charged with any offense for his aforementioned conduct resulting in the shooting death of John Crawford, do you believe the applicable law protecting policed communities from police misconduct + providing legal penalties for same are sufficient, or that they need to be strengthened? Explain.

4) Do you believe that the responding officer would have reacted the same way if he observed a white male carrying a toy gun in a store that sells them? Explain.

5) For persons who believe that conduct like the killing of John Crawford should be punishable with homicide charges against the responding officer, and that the law needs to change if no such charges can be brought under the existing law to prevent grave miscarriage of justice, what forms of protest and social activism do you believe are appropriate outlets for advancing this cause? Explain.

Thank you for what I trust will be your thoughtful consideration and timely response to this matter. (Balls in your court kiddo)





 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Lushen said:

My issue with acknowledging the possibility of systematic issues is they have no evidence.  It is an overgeneralized claim based on single statistics that rarely show the whole picture.  For example, people might think there's is racial injustice going on because more blacks are statistically being arrested and shot by police officers.  However, there are a ton of other factors that can contribute to this idea such as the idea that culture in black community tend to cause more crime.

That is literally the only thing you've done in the last 3 pages of discussion. All you've done is post single statistics that don't show the whole picture and then act as if that debunks everything and anything anyone has said to you in this discussion.

51 minutes ago, Lushen said:

This poll also shows a huge difference based on political alignment, wherein 49% of conservatives see most black Americans as racist and only 12% say the same for whites. Furthermore, the survey hides the results for the question on ideology behind a log-in, so I'm feeling rather dubious as to whether or not the poll had a strong leaning towards conservatives, which would have skewed the results.

51 minutes ago, Lushen said:

First link is in Australia and directly contradicts a statistic I brought up in America.  In America, more woman are completing bachelors degrees in Engineering than men.

You cited a single university, who's numbers don't match up with the other findings. Additionally, if you'd bothered to read as low as the second paragraph, you'd find that they do comment on Engineering in the US. Furthermore, simply posting graduation rates is, as you complained about above, 'an overgeneralized claim based on single statistics that rarely show the whole picture' that tells us nothing about what happens in the actual working field of engineering.

51 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Second link actually hurts your argument because it has a piece about how a significant group of woman could be leaving because they plan to start families.  My mother quit trying to be a doctor and settled as a therapist because she wanted to be a stay at home Mom, no one forced her.

Really? Let me quote the link:

"Ms. Cech and her co-authors found differently. Women's family plans had little bearing on their career planning, once they entered engineering training, the paper says, though the plans probably do play a role later, when they embark on their careers. Surprisingly, the researchers found much stronger evidence that men were more likely to leave engineering if they had plans to start a family."

51 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Third link starts with "One woman"  This woman also openly says that she misses work sometimes to spend time with her kids, but she believes she puts extra time in to make up for it.   Then it goes on to talk about Implicit bias which is not allowed to be used in a court room because it can't be proven.

Key word, 'starts'. It also features a third of the people questioned leaving comments about their negative experiences. Furthermore, here's another link that talks about these implicit biases and uses statistics to talk about it.

Edited by Magus of Flowers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lushen, I also studied engineering, and if you've spent 4+ years studying engineering and any time in the workplace and still believe that women have it easier than men in engineering, there is nothing I or anybody can say to change your mind. The only way you could have come to such an opinion if you've heard about or seen anything of the culture both in universities and in the workplace, particularly Silicon Valley, is if you live in a bubble of such extreme privilege that no online argument could possibly convince you. The response to the Damore memo has been so fierce that for you to be repeating similar arguments must mean you haven't read a single article debunking it, which is a failing on your part as a engineer to understand the context you're operating in.

also fwiw I said "probably" for a reason, to indicate that I was talking about averages and likelihoods and not something that applied for every single male in the world. Women are better applicants than men because they get better marks in high school. They comprise something like 70% of valedictorians I believe. 

EDIT: Also, Lushen, can you try to understand the concept that people who don't act 100% logically and rationally when confronted by police do not deserve to get shot at? That's the overarching point- many cops take anything out of the ordinary done by black people as a sign of guilt, whereas they are much more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to others.

Edited by BBM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

1) Do you believe John Crawford deserved to die? Explain.


2) Do you believe the aforementioned conduct of the responding officer is conduct  which should be deemed appropriate within the scope of a police officer's public duty, and which policed communities should be expected to tolerate? Explain.

3)
To the extent the responding officer could not be charged with any offense for his aforementioned conduct resulting in the shooting death of John Crawford, do you believe the applicable law protecting policed communities from police misconduct + providing legal penalties for same are sufficient, or that they need to be strengthened? Explain.

4) Do you believe that the responding officer would have reacted the same way if he observed a white male carrying a toy gun in a store that sells them? Explain.

5) For persons who believe that conduct like the killing of John Crawford should be punishable with homicide charges against the responding officer, and that the law needs to change if no such charges can be brought under the existing law to prevent grave miscarriage of justice, what forms of protest and social activism do you believe are appropriate outlets for advancing this cause? Explain.
 

I didn't talk about John Crawford because I honestly didn't see his name when I responded.

Additional Facts
Police were responding to a 911 call where someone said Crawford was waving a gun around and point it at people including kids.  Later the 911 caller admitted this was untrue, but his original story to dispatch was that he was point guns at people.  Finally, the police officer did not shoot John dead, but later John died from his wounds,  which implies that he did not want to kill him but rather he thought he had to.  If he wanted to kill him he would have shot more than one bullet.

I watched the video.  He was swinging the gun back and forth and on a cell phone.  When he realized a cop was there, he had a very startling reaction and you can see the gun move upwards as he turned to the cop.  Obviously he wasn't planning to shoot the cop with a fake gun, but the gun looked very real and the police officer shot him in self defense.

1) No.  This is a silly question.
2) No.  Obviously society should not accept accidental shootings.
3) Yes.  I believe law should protect police officers more than it protects people who are suspected to commit crimes.  The fact is there are really stupid things you can do like waving a gun back and forth in a store that looks real while talking on a cell phone.  Or running away from police with a sword flailing around in public.  Or playing with real looking guns in the yard.  There's a reason nerf guns are blue and orange.  It's just a stupid thing to do.  I think sometimes life sucks.  I said it before, but there are three occupations I can think of where you risk your own life to protest other - Police, Firemen, and the Military.  I think the demonetization of two of these categories by the left is disgusting. 
4) I have no idea because I don't have much information on the officer.  I've seen no evidence in the past to suggest this officer is a racist so I tend to think he is probably not a racist.  So he would probably respond the same way.
5) I am not against intelligent protests.  My advice would be to focus on the quality of protests rather than the quantity.  47% say St Louis protests are "filled" with criminals. &nbsp;Only 32% say that the protests are legitimate outrage.  Having a bunch of idiots without facts should be avoided and BLM should acknowledge it as a frequent problem with their protests.   

My question to you,

Do you think more regulation restricting what a police officer can do when they legitimately believe they are about to be shot is going to be worth more dead cops?

In a situation where you are a police officer and a man starts to turn towards you, would you kill the man?  If no, and the man fired the weapon at your partner who is also on scene, would you regret it?

In a situation where you are a police officer and a man runs away from you with a sword in hand flailing it around and he starts to get out of your range in public, would you kill him?  If no, and the man stabbed someone, would you regret it?

 

The fact is, cops in this country are protected by the exact same rights as you or I.  If it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that a cop killed someone just because he wanted to, how do you propose we prosecute them without disregarding their basic rights?

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

question to you lushen- rather than simply telling black people not to be stupid.... maybe we should train police officers so that they don't "legitimately believe they are about to be shot" when a black person makes sudden movements? is that a reasonable request for black people to have?

the legal system operates on a belief that everybody has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. by saying that cops who wrongfully believe they are about to be shot should still have the right to shoot someone who has done nothing wrong simply based on the fact that it is more statistically likely they are guilty*, you are overriding the foundation of how justice is administered. Nobody denies that cops lay down their life. That doesn't mean their life becomes more important than the lives of other people.

*All we have are statistics for who gets arrested more often, which isn't the same as who actually commits more crimes. It's been shown that this is self-perpetuating- black people get pulled over/questioned/etc more, making it more likely that they get arrested in situations where other races wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Lushen said:

Tamir Rice - Crime was not with the police officer.  The caller had originally stated that there was someone with a gun.  Afterwards, he said it was probably a kid with a fake gun but the police officers were not relayed this information until after the indecent.  The police officers said that when they asked for Tamir to put his hands up, he looked like he was going for his gun.  It's clear from the officer's emotional reaction that he did not intend to kill a 12 year old. 

Admittedly I do not know the exact details of this case, but this shouldn't happen. This seems like gross negligence and a lack of de-escalation tactics training which American police seem to fall behind drastically compared to other countries. Yes, perhaps the officer is not directly responsible for the death, but there should at least be some punishment for this kind of negligence.

The same sort of thing happened when a police officer shot a seventeen year old dead when he came to the door with a wii remote in his hand. They were never charged with anything. The police even alleged he had a pistol, when all the evidence seems to point to them fabricating that because it looks bad. How is this acceptable?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/georgia-cop-wont-be-charged-shooting-death-teen-n158306

Why are American police so trigger happy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BBM said:

question to you lushen- rather than simply telling black people not to be stupid.... maybe we should train police officers so that they don't "legitimately believe they are about to be shot" when a black person makes sudden movements? is that a reasonable request for black people to have?

In all the situations articulated to me, it is SIGNIFICANTLY easier for the victim to avoid getting shot.  Additionally, I'd like to point out that not all the situations presented to me had black victims so the notion that I just think black people are stupid is not based in any truth.

The kid with a fake gun in the yard should not have had a fake gun in the front yard.  I know I would not give my kids any guns that are not blue and orange NERF guns and I wouldn't let them play at night or in the front yard alone.

All the man with the sword had to do is not refuse a police order to put down the sword.  Also, running away from a cop is literally the dumbest thing you can do.  I understand the heat of the moment, but the heat of the moment would probably cause an unstable human being to get on their hands and knees and cry, not run away with a sword in their hand.

The newest case presented to me had a man who appeared to turn towards the police officer.  The man had a fake gun in his hand after swinging it back and for AT LEAST the duration it took for a cop to arrive on scene.  I understand that he didn't think this could really happen, but I wouldn't be swinging a gun back and forth talking on the phone for 10+ minutes straight. This case sucks the most out of all the cases presented, but I don't think you could build a case against the cop in court.

 

It's not so much the idea that people are stupid and should avoid these situations as it is that life sucks.  We have a judicial system based on the principal that you are innocent until proven guilty and I don't think cops are not entitled to basic liberties.  I believe that Casey Anthony really killed her baby and she got away with it.  Sucks.  I also believe that if we undermine basic liberties we would live in a crappy society.  I also think that most cops are morally good, and likely the most moral profession in America. I think to say that cops are immoral generally speaking makes absolutely no sense given what it means to be a cop. 

 

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

In all the situations articulated to me, it is SIGNIFICANTLY easier for the victim to avoid getting shot.  Additionally, I'd like to point out that not all the situations presented to me had black victims so the notion that I just think black people are stupid is not based in any truth.

Or how about the police not react to every situation involving black suspects trigger-finger first? Explain to me how these shootings are justified, but a white woman who murdered an Uber driver with a machete and refused to stand down only warrants a taser?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what the fuck how is what I said equal to me denying cops basic liberties? how did I say that cops are immoral?

having the right to shoot another person is not a basic liberty! it's a right we give to police officers under the assumption that they will use it judiciously and only when necessary. people are protesting the fact that as tryhard just noted, they are overly trigger-happy and are very quick to shoot and ask questions later, as opposed to trying other things first. where are the stories of police getting shot in the middle of trying to de-escalate a situation? where's the evidence that if their first instinct was not to shoot, more of them would die?

nobody thinks that cops are generally speaking immoral- they don't trust cops because as these situations show- cops don't trust other people, particularly black people. they also think that cops believe that it's okay to err on the side of being trigger-happy, again particularly with black people. people want to hold cops accountable for shooting people who weren't guilty because it would lead them to be less trigger-happy.

you said that you don't believe society should accept accidental shootings. what exactly are you doing by saying that life sucks and there's nothing to be done to prevent the wrongful shootings of those people?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Magus of Flowers said:

Because the police officer determined that he was able to stop the woman with a taser because she was in range of the taser.  Because in many of the other shootings, the victim had what police perceived to be a gun and the cop in question decided tasers don't win against guns. 

 

 

The reason I find the left's treatment of cops so despicable is simply because their need to side with minorities causes them to lionize our nation's worst and demonetize our nation's finest.  Less than 13% of the country commit 57% of all murder.  According to FBI statistics, blacks are 18.5x more likely to kill cops than the other way around.  We're talking about accidental killings vs irrational killings as well.  If there is a war between cops and blacks, the cops are losing.  And to be clear, I don't think this is about race.  I highly doubt these statistics would hold if they were taken with married black families outside of inner cities.  It's entirely grounded in the deadly culture in the inner cities.  And hell, people have gotten in trouble in school for wearing blue lives matter shirts because how dare conservatives express their love for the police officers that defend them.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. has a poorly trained police force that isn't skilled in the art of de-escalation (and has apparently actively discouraged it), and which protects bad officers and sees a complete lack of consequences for them. And it is literally the only country in the first world to have these issues. 

If people have a right to bear arms then the police should not be shooting anyone just because they make a movement with a gun, surely?

Philando Castile did everything by the book. Where is the NRA in defense of him?

Of course any police officer who shoots an innocent person is going to claim they were afraid for their life. I mean, what the hell else are they going to say? 

I'm going to link to the two previous examples I gave in this thread of people being shot dead where I'd really LOVE to know how the police officer possibly was afraid for their life.

Ismael Lopez, shot through door (bullet holes in door corroborate this story) after the police had the wrong house.

Daniel Shaver, shot in the back while crawling on the floor.

What's so moral about beating up a mom or beating up Mike Faulk, etc. etc.? I wouldn't even dare to call the police unless it was a last resort. In small towns especially the police officers consist of the bullies from high school. Even in the U.K., which doesn't have a tenth of the problems of the U.S. police force, my brother (who is a DC) would laugh at the notion that his fellow officers are especially moral. They're ordinary people and he's been appalled in the past by some of the things that come out of his colleagues' mouths.

Edited by Res
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lushen said:

Because the police officer determined that he was able to stop the woman with a taser because she was in range of the taser.  Because in many of the other shootings, the victim had what police perceived to be a gun and the cop in question had tasers don't win against guns.

What a load of crap. If the range of the taser is the problem, explain the link tryhard posted? The kid opened the door and was immediately shot. Furthermore, why do the police not try to de-escalate? The woman who steals weapons from Wal-Mart and murders someone warrants de-escalation, but someone who they think is carrying a gun gets immediately shot without even a 'drop the weapon'? If 'tasers don't win against guns' is a factor, why did they shot the guy who tried to run while carrying a sword? How do you justify the cases Res posted, where the person they shot wasn't even doing anything?

Edited by Magus of Flowers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I remind everyone of a certain case earlier this year involving a woman from Minnesota who was shot as she went to meet the officers she called?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That too- there are a lot of reasons other than a noble desire to protect the citizenry for which people join the police force. At the end of the day, they get paid an average income and get good benefits and a pension and all that stuff. That attracts a lot of people whose academic options aren't great.

Also, maybe... you shouldn't use statistics given by cops given they aren't neutral? (FBI are cops too) I would also like a source for that statement because I'm guessing there's some wonky stuff going on there that doesn't account for the fact that there are 1 million cops and 40 million black people.

1) jesus christ stop looking at this as a war. the police are there to protect people, not go to war with them. if you think there's a war, then something is fucking wrong.

2) 135 officers died on the job in 2016, whereas there were 963 fatal shootings by the police. That includes all races and innocent and guilty people- but yes, I definitely see how cops are losing the "war".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lushen said:

Because the police officer determined that he was able to stop the woman with a taser because she was in range of the taser.  Because in many of the other shootings, the victim had what police perceived to be a gun and the cop in question decided tasers don't win against guns. 

 

The reason I find the left's treatment of cops so despicable is simply because their need to side with minorities causes them to lionize our nation's worst and demonetize our nation's finest.  Less than 13% of the country commit 57% of all murder.  According to FBI statistics, blacks are 18.5x more likely to kill cops than the other way around.  We're talking about accidental killings vs irrational killings as well.  If there is a war between cops and blacks, the cops are losing.  And to be clear, I don't think this is about race.  I highly doubt these statistics would hold if they were taken with married black families outside of inner cities.  It's entirely grounded in the deadly culture in the inner cities.  And hell, people have gotten in trouble in school for wearing blue lives matter shirts because how dare conservatives express their love for the police officers that defend them.

Why do cops so frequently perceive everything black people may possibly hold as a gun or some kind of other threatening weapon though? And why is this a reason to shoot away without using nonlethal methods like deescalation first? Like, there are a lot of times when white people with actually dangerous weapons could be safely disarmed, so it definitely should be possible, right? And that's not even going into some of the cases where blacks were shot like. Just Because. It happened somehow.

It's also interesting to compare situations like these to the killing of a white person like Justine Damond. How could the political right be so very outraged by her death but immediately jump to the defense of the police officers in any similar cases where the victim was black? Hm, weird. But this sure can't be about race. Must be some strange kind of deadly black city culture instead.

Also, I definitely wouldn't call the cops the "nation's finest", haha. Sure, no doubt there are many people around who may have indeed joined due to noble ideals and their will to protect and serve the country, but on the other side it's one of the perfect jobs for people who just want to live their delusional power fantasies.
I even understand being against Blue Lives Matter when it was not only created to pretty much just oppose Black Lives Matter, but then goes on and proceeds to completely miss the latter's point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lushen said:

I also believe that if we undermine basic liberties we would live in a crappy society.

So you're justifying the police's trigger-happiness by victim-blaming, and the solution is to allow the police to be trigger happy and not suffer consequences for killing innocent people.

Have you ever been friends with a poor person in your life? This is an honest question. Poor people and minorities live in a completely different America to you, and saying "I understand" won't convince me you really do understand what's going on.

5 hours ago, Lushen said:

It's not so much the idea that people are stupid and should avoid these situations as it is that life sucks. 

Are you insinuating we shouldn't make life better because it sucks anyway? Trigger happy police are an actual issue. Emphasis on de-escalation in training has led to a steep decline in police violence through various cities in the country, and yet the country doesn't do it because they're reactionary. They don't believe in life or liberty when it comes to other people, but because they know they're the good ones they won't be the ones getting fucked over by the police.

If you're going to posit that police violence is okay in lieu of de-escalation because life sucks, then you're not arguing in good faith. You're arguing in a way that is attempting to drag us all to a radical centrist style that prevents any sort of improvement that can happen to a system. Even tried and true tactics, like the emphasis on de-escalation in various cities (Nevada is a good place to look up -- I can't recall if it was Vegas or Reno) are being ignored because...  blue lives matter? If "all lives matter" then why do we not address the fact that our police shoot often as a first resort rather than clearly assessing the situation?

And if you believe the system as it stands is okay and is not in need of improvement, then you're in a spot where you literally don't want to believe the system sucks but you also don't care because this doesn't apply to you. Either that, or you think that everything the right-wing of our country says or agrees on is the way to go, if only because it's right wing, and anything with shades of left-wing in it is horrible. Again, not an argument in good faith, and you'd be wrong to assume everyone who disagrees with you is left wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah the "life sucks" argument doesn't hold much water in this specific case where we can very easily make life not suck in this regard by holding police accountable for their actions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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