Those US Police killers again!

I guess this is a bad forum to celebrate racism, no one will bite on my digs. Even the upcoming 2016 election has every promise of being a real snoozer, Hillary is a shoe-in, and for a while at least, the Republicans will have the governors and police chiefs and dog catchers in their states, and the Democrats will have the governors and police chiefs in theirs. The Democrats will have the Presidency, and hopefully the Supreme Court, and that is about as good as it gets for all the underdogs.
If a black person says "let me axe you a question" nobody is going to take them seriously.
If a black person puts his hand on a police officer's uniform, they are going DOWN!
This isn't England, this is the United States of America.

You could take any Stavros article and copy and paste it to a newspaper op-ed section, Ben puts thought into all the articles he cuts and pastes here.

I don't think I'll really be satisfied until I start insulting all the guys that start gobbling hormone pills so they can get a free dinner and a free fuck.
And start insulting all the guys who find magic in a pretty girl.....with a DICK!!!!!

Maybe then we could get some real passion going on down here again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

If that cop can get a jury to believe that Walter Scott was trying to steal his tazer so he could zap him and possibly shoot him, then Walter Scott goes from a guy guilty of a broken tail light to a guy guilty of attempted murder. You can't let an attempted murderer run off into the general population! If he wasn't guilty, why did he run?? Just like Travon Martin, they're going to start a smear campaign against Walter Scott, you watch. Don't believe your eyes.
.

---

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a smear campaign or even if it works. But often it's difficult to comment on the verdicts of juries because they are finders of fact and they don't reveal what their factual determinations are when they render a verdict. Here, the facts are generally well known, although various facts may be emphasized differently by the jurors the only significant matter left for them is an application of a legal standard to these facts. If a jury acquits the officer, it will be a case of jury nullification. If you were to give a law student a hypothetical in a criminal law class telling him that a police officer was assaulted and then shot an unarmed man as he was running away, he would not be very smart to argue that the officer acted in self-defense or had a legal privilege to apprehend the criminal by shooting him. What would his argument be? That an unarmed man who committed an assault is such a danger to the public that the police should shoot him if he doesn't surrender immediately? That would be to sanction summary executions.

Interestingly, in old-timey gangster movies, they would often show officers shooting people accused of serious crimes because they wouldn't surrender. I'm not sure if that was ever considered acceptable practice or if it was just not prosecuted or even if the movies portrayed something that actually took place.

BTW, from my recollection it's very hard to prove attempted murder. If someone dies because their assailant tried to cause them serious bodily injury, there is a plausible argument for second degree murder. You can argue that they intentionally committed acts intended to cause serious bodily harm, which resulted in death, even if death was not certain to flow from those actions. But to commit attempted murder, you need specific intent. You need to be trying to kill them. If you shoot someone in the leg and they die, it may be second degree murder. But if you shoot them in the leg and they survive it's probably not attempted murder.

Anyhow, my point is that even if Walter Scott had tried to grab the officer's gun that's not attempted murder. Arguing that it's attempted murder when you taser an officer, because then you'd be free to grab their gun doesn't make much sense to me. That would be like arguing that it's attempted murder to run from a cop because then you could ambush them when they chase you. So, if Walter Scott tasered the officer, it's assault…and as he was running away unarmed the threat to officer safety had ended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I guess this is a bad forum to celebrate racism, no one will bite on my digs. Even the upcoming 2016 election has every promise of being a real snoozer, Hillary is a shoe-in, and for a while at least, the Republicans will have the governors and police chiefs and dog catchers in their states, and the Democrats will have the governors and police chiefs in theirs. The Democrats will have the Presidency, and hopefully the Supreme Court, and that is about as good as it gets for all the underdogs.
If a black person says "let me axe you a question" nobody is going to take them seriously.
If a black person puts his hand on a police officer's uniform, they are going DOWN!
This isn't England, this is the United States of America.

---

We may not have gun crime at the level of the USA, but we have it. Stop and search tactics which the police use to prevent crime regularly target Black and Asian male youths more than any other identifiable group in society -yes, this is 'England', and our police are not always so wonderful. Thus:

21,937 prisoners, was from a minority ethnic group. This compares to around one in 10 of the general population.

Out of the British national prison population, 11% are black and 6% are Asian. For black Britons this is significantly higher than the 2.8% of the general population they represent.

Overall black prisoners account for the largest number of minority ethnic prisoners (50%).

At the end of June 2012, 29% of minority ethnic prisoners were foreign nationals.

According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, there is now greater disproportionality in the number of black people in prisons in the UK than in the United States.

from
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/...sresearch/race

Why run? If you are innocent and there is no reason for them to charge or arrest you for anything, then why give them a reason? Innocent people don't flee

A little naive thought! What are the reasons a law officer should shoot to kill anyone? My view is only when the suspect is most likely to be a lethal danger to others or the officer. It is difficult to be a "lethal danger" if you are running away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by celticgrafix

Why run? If you are innocent and there is no reason for them to charge or arrest you for anything, then why give them a reason? Innocent people don't flee

---

If you run away at near the speed of light your gain in kinetic energy could warp space-time around you and drag innocent bystanders into your gravitational wake endangering their lives...or not. Here in the U.S. of A., we rather shoot than take the risk. It's better, not to mention more fun, to shoot and kill one innocent man (especially if he's black) than risk letting him get away and never knowing whether he was innocent or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by celticgrafix

Why run? If you are innocent and there is no reason for them to charge or arrest you for anything, then why give them a reason? Innocent people don't flee

---

Innocent of what? I don't think there was any dispute Mr. Scott was pulled over for legitimate reasons and the officer had a right and duty to try to apprehend him when he fled. Juries are often instructed that fleeing can be seen as consciousness of guilt.

The issue is whether an officer has a right to kill a suspect who is trying to evade him. Not unless that person poses an immediate lethal threat to the officer or others. Not a general threat to public safety based on what they've already done, but an imminent threat of that proportion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Innocent of what? I don't think there was any dispute Mr. Scott was pulled over for legitimate reasons and the officer had a right and duty to try to apprehend him when he fled. Juries are often instructed that fleeing can be seen as consciousness of guilt.

The issue is whether an officer has a right to kill a suspect who is trying to evade him. Not unless that person poses an immediate lethal threat to the officer or others. Not a general threat to public safety based on what they've already done, but an imminent threat of that proportion.

---

That's true in Mr. Scott's case, but I assume you know the law changes if Mr. Scott had a gun. There are a few other situations where an officer could use deadly physical force against a person running...but what usually prohibits a majority of this in the United States (and this has been mentioned before) is Tennessee vs. Garner.


I should note however, police officers aren't trained to shoot to 'kill'. All future sarcastic posts aside, this is an important distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

.but what usually prohibits a majority of this in the United States (and this has been mentioned before) is Tennessee vs. Garner.
.

---

I actually haven't read Tennesse v. Garner and should…..

Edit: I just looked at a case synopsis. This is what I remember from criminal procedure. That under the 4th amendment, killing someone is a seizure and requires probable cause that they are a serious threat of death or serious injury. I wonder if just having a gun on one's person is enough…certainly if the person has it out, they pose that kind of threat to others.

Interestingly, the synopsis I read said that at common law officers were allowed to shoot fleeing individuals suspected of felonies. So that explains why in The Public Enemy and Little Caesar and all those movies the officers were just blasting away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I actually haven't read Tennesse v. Garner and should…..

Edit: I just looked at a case synopsis. This is what I remember from criminal procedure. That under the 4th amendment, killing someone is a seizure and requires probable cause that they are a serious threat of death or serious injury. I wonder if just having a gun on one's person is enough…certainly if the person has it out, they are a threat to others.

Interestingly, the synopsis I read said that at common law officers were allowed to shoot fleeing individuals suspected of felonies. So that explains why in The Public Enemy and Little Caesar and all those movies the officers were just blasting away.

---

It's drummed into every armed police or peace officers head...at least I make that assumption considering it's a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that's binding on all U.S law enforcement.
It states that
"

Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."...that's from Wiki.

I'm sure it's taught at most police academies...especially during re-qualification.

Makes sense that it should be. I knew the black letter rule but not where it came from. I also haven't read subsequent cases to know what set of facts it would apply to. Driving a car into a crowd? Waving a gun around while running from a cop? Seems likely. But I imagine they have to be a threat at the moment they are killed, not a pending one because of what they've done or are suspected of doing.

I've got to admit Fred. I did not know that the standard was different for armed and unarmed persons. I would have just thought a person who is armed would be more likely to "pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" but not automatically so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Makes sense that it should be. I knew the black letter rule but not where it came from. I also haven't read subsequent cases to know what set of facts it would apply to. Driving a car into a crowd? Waving a gun around while running from a cop? Seems likely. But I imagine they have to be a threat at the moment they are killed, not a pending one because of what they've done or are suspected of doing.

---

driving a car into a crowd is a tough one...because even if the driver is shot..the car would still continue on...but 'waving' a gun around while running from a cop...I would say yes, as long as the shot wouldn't put anyone else at risk...but I think some 'pending' threats are okay too.
..they don't necessarily have to be a threat at only the moment they are killed. That's why, for example, you can use deadly physical force in cases such as Escape in the first degree and Arson.

Look, people have to realize , just based upon some of the laws quoted, it's a really difficult decision to make under extreme circumstances....and there are some differences in the law in the various state and law enforcement jobs.
Add to that, the ridiculous assumptions people make, that I assume , based upon their statements, have NEVER fired a handgun before.
Statements such as- why don't officers fire at hands or feet first? Really? Go to the range and fire a handgun for a few rounds...then look at statistics under stress and see how often people miss even when they shoot at center mass - often at a moving target. This ain't a day at the movies with Wyatt Earp...(who probably couldn't do it either).

...but then there are some cases where you just read it and say Whaaaattttt?!!!
so far Mr. Scott's case reads like that. Even if the officer thought Mr. Scott had gotten hold of the taser...or maybe he even shot the officer with it, but he was running and...you can only shoot it once...and.....so many things seem wrong here.

Sorry, I hadn't considered this possibility. Best not to take the risk. Being a black guy then you would absorb more electromagnetic radiation - so that's why they shot more blacks. Beginning to make sense now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

If you run away at near the speed of light your gain in kinetic energy could warp space-time around you and drag innocent bystanders into your gravitational wake endangering their lives...or not. Here in the U.S. of A., we rather shoot than take the risk. It's better, not to mention more fun, to shoot and kill one innocent man (especially if he's black) than risk letting him get away and never knowing whether he was innocent or not.

---

http://gawker.com/dad-calls-cops-on-...oot-1460159897

They just keep killing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martin48

http://gawker.com/dad-calls-cops-on-...oot-1460159897

They just keep killing

---

According to the article you quoted that happened 11/7/13, and though the shooting looks somewhat questionable from what you can tell on the video, the officer was cleared because this is what happened:
http://www.kcci.com/news/central-iow...again/22815706

it looks as if the city of Ames is negotiating a settlement according to this:http://www.kcci.com/news/family-of-m...claim/32040132

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/new...-self-defense/

I couldn't be bothered to look for the George Zimmerman thread. I know he's not a cop no matter how much he thinks he is. But he was in another violent confrontation. It looks like he previously threatened this man and he responded by trying to kill Zimmerman. I'm guessing the guy did not shoot at Zimmerman in self-defense as the law defines it (unless Zimmerman actually did wave his gun and it wasn't based on the previous threat), but here George is in another situation involving guns and threats. Just in case someone missed it…since the Martin trial, he's been accused of threatening two women and previously threatening the guy in the above article.

I thought this was another death by taser case, I was looking for but this another that happened February.

http://news.yahoo.com/death-florida-...200324421.html

A police officer - I can't recall if he was from Baltimore or Arizona- with 30 odd years of experience was interviewed on Channel 4 News in the UK and made the point that there is a recruitment issue now with the US police and that in his view too many people who are not qualified are applying to join and being accepted by police services around the country. The problem is with the 'mental attitude' of the new recruits where the concept of 'public service' seems to clash with their own 'problem solving' initiatives...

I was having my car towed last night. After we went by a police vehicle with someone pulled over, we went on to talk about the police. He talked about an incident when he ran from the police when he was 17. But he must be 60, now, so were talking 40 years ago. He said an policeman stood on his knees, in an attempt to break them, saying that he would never run away from the police again. However another policeman inverned. Anyway the tow truck driver was white. So my point is that a certain brutal mentality has been going on maybe always. I have heard of the concept of police giving someone a 'rough ride', in the back of a police van, for extra punishment, as what may have been done with Freddie Gray. I could swear I saw this concept in some old movie, which would at least prove the idea was out there.

Bleak, Yodajazz, and sounds all too true. Perhaps a man (indeed, a woman too) changes when he or she puts on a uniform?

In the U.S. the animosity of police toward black men and women is not a new thing; and it continues on as is evidenced by the news making events of the present day. Several things, I think, have changed over the past few decades:
1. Carry laws make the job of the policeman on the beat more dangerous. Just a decade or so ago police organizations opposed carry.
2. Law and order politics has the effect of escalating the number of police and the armament of police forces. Larger forces require new hires.
3. New recruits often come from the ranks bullies who carried guns in their civilian lives and see their new job as a confirmation of their politics, their identity and their right to bully. I think this may in part account for the change in attitude of the police toward carry laws.
4. The persistent drive to reduce the role of government, eliminate social programs and the taxes required to support them, along with the Bush economic collapse of 2007 opened the way to civil forfeiture laws which the police (and the courts) use to to supplement their support in lieu of declining tax revenues. Ironically the drive to reduce government has the effect of empowering and encouraging the police to become more intrusive.
5. We now incarcerate, at great cost, a greater percentage of our population than any nation in the world. This is an indication of how much we value property more than freedom.

Just read this http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...olice-analysis

Apologies for length.

Black Americans are more than twice as likely to be unarmed when killed during encounters with police as white people, according to a Guardian investigation which found 102 of 464 people killed so far this year in incidents with law enforcement officers were not carrying weapons.
An analysis of public records, local news reports and Guardian reporting found that 32% of black people killed by police in 2015 were unarmed, as were 25% of Hispanic and Latino people, compared with 15% of white people killed.
The findings emerged from a database filled by a five-month study of police fatalities in the US, which calculated that local and state police and federal law enforcement agencies are killing people at twice the rate calculated by the US government’s official public record of police homicides. The database names five people whose names have not been publicly released.
The Guardian’s statistics include deaths after the police use of a Taser, deaths caused by police vehicles and deaths following altercations in police custody, as well as those killed when officers open fire. They reveal that 29% of those killed by police, or 135 people, were black. Sixty-seven, or 14%, were Hispanic/Latino, and 234, or 50%, were white. In total, 102 people who died during encounters with law enforcement in 2015 were unarmed.
The figures illustrate how disproportionately black Americans, who make up just 13% of the country’s total population according to census data, are killed by police. Of the 464 people counted by the Guardian, an overwhelming majority – 95% – were male, with just 5% female.
Steven Hawkins, the executive director Amnesty International USA, described the racial imbalance as “startling”. Hawkins said: “The disparity speaks to something that needs to be examined, to get to the bottom of why you’re twice as likely to be shot if you’re an unarmed black male.”
Relatives of unarmed people killed by police in high-profile incidents during the past year – including Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tony Robinson and Walter Scott – described the Guardian project as a breakthrough in the national debate over the use of deadly force by law enforcement.
“Giving this kind of data to the public is a big thing,” said Erica Garner, whose father’s killing by police in New York City last year led to international protests. “Other incidents like murders and robberies are counted, so why not police-involved killings? With better records, we can look at what is happening and what might need to change.”
The initiative was also praised by a range of policing experts and by campaigners who are urging government authorities to make the official recording of fatalities mandatory for all 18,000 police departments and law enforcement agencies operating in the US.
“It’s troubling that we have no official data from the federal government,” said Laurie Robinson, the co-chair of Barack Obama’s task force on 21st-century policing. “I think it’s very helpful, in light of that fact, to have this kind of research undertaken.”
Beginning on Monday, the Guardian is publishing The Counted, a comprehensive interactive database monitoring all police killings in the US through 16 data points including age, location, gender, ethnicity, whether the person killed was armed and which policing agency was responsible.
The Counted logs the precise location of each fatal incident, providing what is the most detailed map of police killings ever published. California, America’s most populous state, has the highest total with 74 fatalities so far this year.
However, an analysis of location data shows that Oklahoma, where 22 people have died through encounters with law enforcement, is the state with the highest rate of fatal incidents per person in 2015, at one fatality per 175,000 people over five months.
Over the weekend, Nehemiah Fischer, a 35-year-old pastor, was shot dead by an Oklahoma state trooper after getting into a fight when told to evacuate his truck in rising flood waters south of Tulsa. Police have said Fischer had a firearm but have not explained whether he was armed during the confrontation.
The database, which will combine Guardian reporting with verified crowdsourced information, has logged 464 police killings for the first five months of 2015. The US government’s record, which is run by the FBI, counted 461 “justifiable homicides” by law enforcement in all of 2013, the latest year for which official data is available.
The vast majority of deaths recorded – 408 – were caused by gunshot. Of the 27 deaths that occurred after a Taser was deployed by law enforcement, all but one involved an unarmed person.
On Sunday, Richard Davis, an unarmed black 50-year-old, died after being shocked with a Taser by police in Rochester, New York. Davis was said by authorities to have run from his truck towards officers with clenched fists after being told to put his hands up following a crash. Relatives said he was a veteran of the US marines.
The Guardian has also identified 14 officer-involved deaths following altercations in custody. The total includes Freddie Gray, the 25-year-old resident of Baltimore whose death from a broken neck sustained in a police van led to protests, rioting and the indictment of six city police officers.
Another 12 people died following collisions with law enforcement vehicles. The family of Bernard Moore, who was 62, are calling for the criminal prosecution of an officer who fatally struck Moore with his squad car in Atlanta, allegedly while speeding without emergency lights or sirens on.
By logging each law enforcement agency involved in the 464 deaths, the Guardian can also now report that the Los Angeles police department, the country’s third largest local police department, has been involved in the highest number of deaths of any local department. This year, 10 people have died in encounters with LAPD officers, of whom five were unarmed.
The Oklahoma City police department and the Los Angeles sheriff’s office were both involved in five deaths, two individuals in both of these jurisdictions being unarmed.
High-profile cases in Los Angeles, like the death of unarmed Charly “Africa” Keunang, shot dead by LAPD officers on 1 March in the city’s homeless district of Skid Row, garnered national attention.
But cases like those of Sergio Navas, an unarmed Hispanic man shot dead by LAPD officers in the same month as Keunang, after police said he stole a vehicle and was chased down, have had less media scrutiny. Navas’s family have launched an excessive force lawsuit against the LAPD and accused them of a covering up the circumstances of the 35-year-old’s death.
The Guardian has also monitored whether mental health issues were identified, either by family members, friends or police following each fatal encounter. In total 26% of people killed by police exhibited some sort of mental illness, with at least 29 cases identified where the person killed was suicidal.
For example, Monique Deckard, a black woman with a long history of mental illness, was shot and killed by police officers in Anaheim, California, after she was accused of stabbing a woman at a laundromat and allegedly charging at officers. Her family had called police just hours before the attack, warning that they could not get in contact with her and that she might be trying to find a gun.
The average age of a person killed by police in 2015 was 37, but The Counted identifies a huge diversity in the ages of those killed.
The oldest, 87-year-old Louis Becker, was killed during a collision with a New York state trooper patrol car in upstate New York. Eighty-two-year-old Richard “Buddy” Weaver was killed by Oklahoma City police after he allegedly raised a machete at an officer who opened fire; neighbors later described Weaver as having schizophrenia.
The three youngest people identified were all 16 years old. A’donte Washington, a black American, was shot dead by Millbrook police officers in Alabama on 23 February during an alleged burglary after the teenager was described as pointing a weapon at arriving officers. His family have questioned the police narrative, while the city mayor described the shooting as “110% justified”.
A week earlier, on 14 February, Jason Hendrix, a white 16-year-old was shot dead in a gunfight by Baltimore County police after the teenager murdered his mother, father and sister in Corbin, Kentucky, and drove to Maryland, where he is reported to have opened fire on an officer after a car chase. Six returned fire and killed him.
A month later, on 19 March, black 16-year-old Kendre Alston was shot dead by a deputy of the Jacksonville sheriff’s office in Florida. Police claimed Alston fled from a stolen car and brandished a weapon at the pursuing official who then opened fire. Deneane Campbell, Alston’s mother, claimed in an interview two weeks later she had not been given any further details by police.
Some relatives of people killed by police said they had been unaware of the dearth of publicly available information on police-involved fatalities until their family became affected. Anthony Scott, whose brother Walter was shot dead in April by police officer Michael Slager in North Charleston, South Carolina, said the lack of public information “came as a surprise”.
“I was not informed, I was not aware, I just had an idea these situations were happening in the United States,” Scott told the Guardian. “The public need to know what is happening and be made more informed. With them being more informed they would be able to react differently, in a positive way, to make changes, to make sure some of these things don’t happen again.”

Thanks you Guardian, for doing the research that the Congress and the NRA has effectively blocked in the U.S.; and thank you Martin for making us aware of the report.

Quote:

---

“Giving this kind of data to the public is a big thing,” said Erica Garner, whose father’s killing by police in New York City last year led to international protests. “Other incidents like murders and robberies are counted, so why not police-involved killings? With better records, we can look at what is happening and what might need to change.”
The initiative was also praised by a range of policing experts and by campaigners who are urging government authorities to make the official recording of fatalities mandatory for all 18,000 police departments and law enforcement agencies operating in the US.
“It’s troubling that we have no official data from the federal government,” said Laurie Robinson, the co-chair of Barack Obama’s task force on 21st-century policing. “I think it’s very helpful, in light of that fact, to have this kind of research undertaken.”

---

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban...ry?id=18909347

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_...n_gun_science/

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun _control_studies_at_cdc.html

You're my kind of girl, Trish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Thanks you Guardian, for doing the research that the Congress and the NRA has effectively blocked in the U.S.; and thank you Martin for making us aware of the report.

---

I value the input of the brothas and sistas here, and don't aim to hurt their feelings, but I think putting your own words in print is kind of like when the camera light goes on and you start to perform for the camera.
I am happy to trash my Caucasian grit redneck KKK cousins, why can't black folks trash their "snitches get stitches" home boys?
I am happy to voice my displeasure of that segment of the US population known as WHITE TRASH, how come when I trash that segment of the population known as N*GGERS, I'm a racist?

The Police should be allowed to do their job without being shot at or smashed up in a high speed chase. No law says you have to respect the Police. But there is a law that says you have to do what they tell you to do. Fight it in court if your civil rights are stomped on.

If you really want to enact change, you can't just ask for it, you have to make it happen. Freedom isn't free.
The USA doesn't put our undesirables in gas chambers, we put them on Indian Reservations, or give them minimum wage jobs so they can chase the carrot on the stick but never really get anywhere. The instances of gunning down young black males actually falls into the small percentage of "shit happens" type stuff. If you live in a neighborhood where co-operating with the po-lice is taboo, do you really expect any resect from the police, white or black? To me, it almost seems like when a black person becomes realistic, they lose their black street cred, or something, they turn into TOMs.

To make a long story short, black people must melt into a racist society to destroy racism. Good luck with that. You can be replaced by a Mexican!!!!

Well, I suppose he didn't actually shoot the 14 year old girl.

Sorry but you need to get a grip of this, America



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-33048176

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

I value the input of the brothas and sistas here, and don't aim to hurt their feelings, but I think putting your own words in print is kind of like when the camera light goes on and you start to perform for the camera.
I am happy to trash my Caucasian grit redneck KKK cousins, why can't black folks trash their "snitches get stitches" home boys?
I am happy to voice my displeasure of that segment of the US population known as WHITE TRASH, how come when I trash that segment of the population known as N*GGERS, I'm a racist?

The Police should be allowed to do their job without being shot at or smashed up in a high speed chase. No law says you have to respect the Police. But there is a law that says you have to do what they tell you to do. Fight it in court if your civil rights are stomped on.

If you really want to enact change, you can't just ask for it, you have to make it happen. Freedom isn't free.
The USA doesn't put our undesirables in gas chambers, we put them on Indian Reservations, or give them minimum wage jobs so they can chase the carrot on the stick but never really get anywhere. The instances of gunning down young black males actually falls into the small percentage of "shit happens" type stuff. If you live in a neighborhood where co-operating with the po-lice is taboo, do you really expect any resect from the police, white or black? To me, it almost seems like when a black person becomes realistic, they lose their black street cred, or something, they turn into TOMs.

To make a long story short, black people must melt into a racist society to destroy racism. Good luck with that. You can be replaced by a Mexican!!!!

---

You don't seem like a bad person, and I agree with you, to an extent. However, there are some larger social realities at work here. Police have become an occupying force, in poor communities, and the enforcement arm of racist tendencies. There are so many examples, but let's look at the incident in the previous post. Apparently a bunch of Black kids went to a pool party, in a predominantly White community. The police were called. One woman went out and insulted the teens told them to go back to their 'Section 8 housing'. Apparently a teen spoke back to her. The woman's actions could have led to an escalated anger incidents. Of course nothing at all was said to her, apparently. But, what was the duty of the police? Seems to me, that it should have been to clear the area. I don't understand why they were detaining and handcuffing Black teens for running away from the area? I didn't hear of any crimes being committed. And throwing the the 14 girl, by her hair, who had committed no crime, itself could have provoked a violent response, itself. Nowadays, they have the universal excuse, of suspecting drug activity. Guess what, a calm, well dressed person, obeying the law, fits certain drug courier profiles. It is not a crime to drive slowly, except when you drive through a poor neighborhood, that police define as a 'high crime area' the police consider that probable cause to stop you, and ask for ID. They might even ask to search your vehicle. In a community in Louisiana, a large Black man arrested for sagging his pants, was tasered to death in custody, a couple of years ago. Recently, there was an incident of the police throwing a 9 month pregnant woman down on her stomach, for refusing to give her name, which was her legal right, after arguing with a White woman over a parking space. Black are even being beat down in the womb! Seems to me, they could have gotten her vehicle plates, since she was driving. If she had broken any law, it would have been covered by a fine, anyway. I remember this one comedy show episode years ago, where the theme was, how hormonal this late pregnancy woman was. She did end up in a jail cell, with two other women who were in their late pregnancy stages. It was funny then.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06...y-bill-images/

This goes beyond race. It's war on the poor. According to the article, the home owner was arrested, but he was only charged with property code violations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

You don't seem like a bad person, and I agree with you, to an extent....

---

I've been arrested a few times, so I guess I am a bad person, to an extent, since ONYOURKNEES and his friends have scampered off, it's up to me to pick up the slack and keep it fair and balanced. I think my point is in order to solve the problem, you must lay some blame for the American slums and ghettoes on the .....black people... but as soon as you do that you are racist, so what the fuck, man?
You have to lay some of the blame on the black guy who scuffles with a cop, or resists arrest, or the large group of blacks that ignore police commands, or else you end up characterizing blacks as adult children who aren't responsible for their actions because whitey broke them.
TO AN EXTENT, anyway.
The majority of blacks have bought into the white man notion that you work a 40 hour week no matter how crappy it is and you pay your taxes. There is no law that says you have to work, but there might as well be. Doot, doo doo do doot dooooo...Livin' in the USA ♫

It's the classic argument of individual responsibility, vs the society's responsibility, to treat individuals fairly, with equal rights for all. You cannot have a society with a caste system, and claim that, all the individuals of the caste are only responsible for their lives. And along with this, ignore the structure of the greater society. It is always true that people are responsible for their own behavior. And it is alway true that society should treat individuals fairly, especially when you have granted them full constitutional rights, already. Black America has been treated as the enemy, in something called "The war on drugs", has resulted in them being the most incarcerated population, in the developed world, or maybe the planet. At the very least, there is a process called 'selective enforcement', that alters outcomes of classes of people. Right now, I'm reading a book called, "The New Jim Crow", by Michelle Alexander. There are lots of statistics, that show significant differences in treatment of people (races).

......

If being arrested meant being slammed around in the back of a police van until your bones were broken, or you're rendered unconscious or dead, would you just maybe have an inclination to "resist" arrest? Wouldn't you at least insist on knowing the reason for your arrest before you duck your head and enter the van? You have the right to know.
And no...there is no law that a citizen has to do everything a policeman commands him to do. (That doesn't even apply to soldiers anymore...ever since Nuremberg.) You should never transgress upon human decency nor your own dignity no matter what the mas'er says. That being said, always keep in mind the talk your Mom and Dad had with you about being polite, reasonable, not making any sudden moves and keeping your hands visible at all times.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/4d...unity-policing

Painting all blacks as thugs, career criminals, stupid, liars, ......that's called racism. But these ARE the people that the police have to deal with time after time. Cheering when OJ gets away with murder, awarding criminals with million dollar lawsuits because they run away from the police, this is not the way to eliminate racism.
If I were black, I would be pissed off about racial profiling, for sure. But I would not protest by stealing a car, or not paying my child support, or breaking into someone else's pool to have a party with my friends.

EVERY society is a caste system, to some extent. Whites are 70% of America, western European. There are now more Hispanics than Blacks, but we're not changing immigration laws to make illegal immigrants happy.

Behind the scenes there is a struggle between Obama and Employers over what minimum wage means. The employers want minimum wage to mean the cheapest possible pay they can get away with. Obama wants minimum wage to mean health insurance, dignity, pride.
The country would have actually rebounded faster if Obama had caved and let employers hire employees on their terms. But then we would go right back to the Bush years, and all the stuff that was happening behind the scenes then.

How much money will that bodacious big tittied little girl get from being thrown to the ground by a crazy white cop who blew a gasket? Enough to end racism? Should we triple the pay of the police so we can get some Harvard Educated lawyers in uniform to drive around and chase uppity jigs at pool partys?

As long as blacks do not cooperate with the police, and will not police themselves, ...uh, there's going to be a problem.

Yes mas'ser. Whatever you say. We'll stay out of "your" pool even though we bought a season membership pass. But there's going to be a problem as long as bully cops strong-arm, shoot and kill some citizens and not others, basing their "whim" on their perception of race and privilege. Why can you not recognize that no amount of talking back or lingering is an excuse for abusive behavior on the part of the police.

BTW: There is no causative link between the ACA and the rate of employment. Wall Street had a record recovery for years now. The Bush economic collapse gave corporations the excuse to get rid of employers and either ship those jobs overseas or automate them. They aren't coming back anytime soon.

I don't think a white person can understand racism, and I don't think white people can heal the anger black people hold for them. So I guess the beat goes on. Wishing the cops would be nice is like wishing criminals would be nice.

In Court, you are presumed innocent. But on the street ...if you don't think you're presumed guilty until proven otherwise, you're a starry eyed idiot. The cops own the streets.

Maybe I missed something on the video, but it seemed like the police had it under control peacefully until Officer Casebolt showed up doing his acrobatics and manhandling the girl. The guy's a loose cannon, and that community is safer without him.

Quote:

---

Wishing the cops would be nice is like wishing criminals would be nice.

---

Nice? I just want the police to act lawfully: and perhaps with reason and respect.