jump to last post 1-50 of 68 discussions (460 posts)

The A B C's of Confronting A Suspect: A Practical Guide

  1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12012273.jpg
    12 year old Tamir Rice was murdered by police this weekend in Cleveland Ohio. He was executed for the crime of playing with a toy gun on a playground. Since the police can't figure this out for themselves, here are a few tips:

    Hot Tip Tip #1:
    When you confront a 12 year old boy on a playground and suspect that
    the toy gun he is holding might be real, and if you fear for your safety,please stay in your patrol car.

    A. Get as close to the suspect as possible, then from the safety of your patrol car use your loudspeaker, or a bullhorn.

    B. Identify yourself, and then ask the suspect to drop whatever he may be holding in his hands

    C. Instruct the suspect to raise his hands and then lie face down on the ground

    Once the suspect has complied, approach the suspect and assess the situation.By using this method you will help to ensure the safety of the officer , as well as the suspect.

    Hot Tip #2:
    If you are afraid of 12 year old boys, I suggest a career change. Perhaps a career in accounting,or a managerial position at Dunkin Donuts.

    1. gmwilliams profile image85
      gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What a horrific lost of a young life.  There is a difference between a toy gun and a real one.   I am so sickened by this.   There are police officers who are clearly not suited for the job intellectually, mentally, and psychologically.  There should be intelligence and psychological tests administered.  They should also be trained in sociocultural empathy.  Then, there is common sense which they should have had initially.  Sadly, many are missing in the latter component.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So, apparently, is the value of a cops life.  Gone, with the idea that cops never have the right of self defense, in the hindsight the cops never have.  Gone is any semblance of common sense in that children DO intentionally kill others or that people very often do not look their age (is he 12 or 16?).

        Wonder what the reaction would have been had it been a real gun and the kid popped off a few rounds, killing a few bystanders?  Hang the cop for not shooting immediately?

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          But he had been pointing the gun at passers by and not fired a single shot. Add to that that the guy who reported it said he thought it was replica.

        2. Tammy Tappan profile image61
          Tammy Tappanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I  agree! You are a 100 percent right! Wilderness . All of your points are the most realistic!

    2. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Nobody wants to be shot, the cop used poor judgement, that can"t be denied.
      It is natural for cops to take defensive attitude about what looks like a gun regardless who is holding it. The points that you made would havecontributedto averting the tragedy.

      There was an idea floating around that B&B guns, air rifles "nerf guns" be manufactured in pastel colors that would alert anyone at first glance that a lethal weapon is not involved. Law enforcement can now proceed under a different paradyme

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And the points made would have created a tragedy if the gun was real. Hindsight is wonderful, isn't it?

        If we paint play guns in pastels, how long until criminals and thugs do the same?  It would, after all, make cop killing real easy.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Or paint replicas real gun colours?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Already done, which resulted in the death of a 12 year old kid.

        2. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          This idea was one that was proposed by a legislator from a district with a high crime rate. Yes, hindsight is always 20/20.

          There is never going to be all encompassing single solution to this problem. There always going to be people (criminals) that will thwart the best made plans? But, I can't see a lot of kids on the playground lying in wait for an opportunity to initiate the next criminal caper . Just another possible tool in the toolbox

        3. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
          wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Really? Can you please explain how ? I would love to hear it.

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds to me like you'll go through a lot of cops that way.  And a lot of innocent bystanders as well.

    4. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You are probably proud of your tips - and the exhibited wit...

      But would your point be as easily made if you were a little more accurate in your portrayal?

      For instance;
      This sure looks like a replay of the media's Trayvon Martin images.


      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12015097.jpg

      Then of course there is the "instant" recognition of " the toy" gun issue...



      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12015101.jpg

      The "publicly known" circumstances sure look bad for the cop.

      Which means this statement relating part of the event can't possibly be true...

      "...LISTEN | 911 caller reports Tamir Rice incident

      That's when officers on the scene said they asked Rice to raise his hands and he went for the gun in his waistband."


      OK, so they are 10 feet away, it appears to be an overcast day, they are responding to a person with a gun call, and when they ask the victim to raise his hands, and instead he reaches for a not-so-obviously-a-toy gun in his waist band.

      Hmm.. Cleveland, gangs, police interaction with gangs with guns - is it possible this scenario might be a familiar one to cops?

      Of course for all I know the cop could be guilty as hell for excessive use of force and judgement so poor he shouldn't have a gun - but... it sure doesn't seem as obviously cut-and-dried as you portray it.

      Just sayin'

      GA

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12015327.jpg
        If I were more accurate in my portrayal, I would get banned from Hubpages! Today everyone wants to see the smiling face, hear the friendly word, and keep it upbeat, while children are being murdered by cops. Of course, to many Americans these aren't just children , they are "black" children. Consequently, the adjective makes a difference. Your own words help to prove my point. You have commented that the image looks a lot like Trayvon Martin. To translate for the slower readers, this is a clever way of saying, " They all look alike". You also are careful to make a connection between inner city gang violence and the murder of a child playing on a playground with a toy gun. I suppose you also think that all Italian kids living in New York City are somehow connected to the Mafia.

        This kind of white supremacist logic may fly with the befuddled masses, but I'm not buying it. Every black person living in Cleveland is not a gang member. Furthermore, it appears that you are suggesting that any decent law-abiding black person unfortunate enough to have to live amidst poverty and gang violence is by default fair game. You are suggesting that the life of the police officer is more important than the life of the child, and that it is better to kill an unarmed child by mistake than to risk an officer being shot and killed. Posting an image of the two guns is a nice touch that will have the simple folk dancing in the aisles, but all it amounts to is more apologist rhetoric and propaganda.

        Making excuses for the cops isn't going to help the situation. Their function and purpose is to serve and protect the citizen. But today, instead of being our public servants,they have become our oppressors, even to the point of killing innocent children with impunity, as evidenced in the Grand Jury's refusal to prosecute the miscreant who murdered Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri.

        The following list  will help those members of law enforcement who may find themselves in a situation
        where they fear that a toddler, 1st grader, 12 year old, or teenager is carrying a toy that may threaten their life.  Read and memorize the following:

        • The life of a child is worth more than the life of a cop

        • The life of a child is worth more than the life of a full grown man

        • A man who murders a child out of fear or malice is a coward

        • The man who defends a coward is defenseless


        Just sayin'

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          repeating:
          A playground and a city park are two very different things. A park is very open to the public. A playground is most often attached to a school, surrounded by a fence and just for kids. Your use of the word playground is misleading.  Also, you said he was "playing" with a toy gun. No! He grasped it as though he was going to use it. It had been reported to 911 that there was a boy in the park with a gun. They came to investigate. What was the child thinking??? And why? Could he have had some video game playing in the recesses of his twelve year old mind?
          Probably.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The place is actually called the  "Cudell Recreation Center". Please tell me how the word "playground" is misleading. Several news reports have referred to it as such. Furthermore, the boy was standing on the ground and he was playing, which is what children do with toys. Thus, he was at the playground, which then became a killing field.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              A recreation center and a playground are also not the same.  A playground usually has a fence around it and is designated for children. He was in a park near a recreation center. The police have the public to protect. Why have you no compassion for officers of the law who had the duty to protect citizens at a public facility?
              Why do you not see that a twelve year old has no business with a gun? Actually he is too old to "play" with toys. It was a gun to him. He was practicing. He has been practicing. He used it as he has been practicing. He has parents. Did they supply the gun? if so, why? A toy gun in a park puts the child in a dangerous situation in more ways than one, if you think about it.
              Why do you not hold the parents accountable?
              And I agree with word55. The violence parents expose their children to on TV and in Movies is corrupting to both the psyche and the soul of a child.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12015607.jpg
                It doesn't matter if he was at city hall or running down main street. Sometimes kids do things that put themselves in danger. This is why they are called children. We are supposed to look out for them. Of course the parent is responsible. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us get a free lunch. You are suggesting that if a kid doesn't have responsible parents to make all of the right choices, then any loser with a badge that wants to use them for target practice is justified.

                Furthermore, until a few days ago I am sure that many parents weren't even aware that such a thing might happen. Kids have been playing with toy guns since long before I was born. I played with toy guns, and so did most of my friends. Our parents never worried about some idiot shooting us. In fact, until a few days ago it never crossed my mind. I was already aware that many in law enforcement aren't at the level of Einstein, but I figured they were at least smart enough to know when a kid was playing with a toy!

                The American people have become so conditioned to an oppressive police state that now even the killing of children is taken in stride. The victims are blamed and the murderers are exonerated. What the ignorant masses fail to realize is that the state is continuing to criminalize natural human behavior; to the extent that children can no longer safely play in public places. And there is no need to stop at toy guns. Any number of toys can be turned into a lethal weapon. A doll could be fitted with an explosive device. I have even seen in movies where remote control toy trucks, and cars, were rigged  with  explosive devices. In a few years some kid is going to get killed by police for playing with a remote controlled Tonka Truck. Of course, they will all shake their head and say " What a shame, but the kid was making the truck go underneath parked cars, and someone called 911 and said it might be rigged with a bomb!" 

                Oh, I almost forgot: Kathryn, where were the citizens that the cops were protecting? Were they screaming for help? Were they being held hostage? Where were they?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "any loser with a badge"
                  innocent until proven guilty.
                  what happened to that idea?
                  were the officers proven guilty?
                  If we can't trust our judicial system we are just out of luck as far as justice, aren't we. Why even talk about it?
                  You want us to jump on the side of the kid...  and of course we do care about the boy first and foremost!… but then there is the truth of the matter… this boy, for all intents and purposes, had a gun! I do not buy your Tonka Truck comparison.
                  If a twelve year old pointed a gun at you... would you not react in self defense on some level? and if you were a trained cop? 
                  "Kids, never point a gun at ANYONE!" Remember your parents telling you that?  We were so disappointed at that command, but we never did. What was the point of loading your cap gun if you couldn't point it at someone when you shot it.  But we never did… did you?
                  We need more examples if you want to convince us that we have actually reached a police state in which the police are having a total field day with their power. I don't see it yet. maybe cuz I don't want to.

                  1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12016333.jpg
                    Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

                    Apparently you haven't watched the video. Barney Fife and Bobo pulled up in their cruiser and immediately jumped out of the car with guns drawn. Within seconds, not minutes, the 12 year old was murdered in cold blood. We can see from the video that no time was taken to assess the situation. This has become  typical cop behavior in these situations. They will take the time to drive to the donut shop, stand in line to place an order, and then eat their tasty Dunkin Donut's, but the video reveals that they took no time to spare the life of an innocent child. Why the urgency? Where was the threat?

                    To answer your question, I am not an imbecile, nor do I consider murder an option. Perhaps I feel this way because murder creates a  karmic cycle that is difficult to break. Perhaps another reason is because in the story of Jesus, we understand that Jesus allowed a race of men, not far removed from the baboon, or the monkey, or a goat, to torture and kill him in order to set an example, and to save the soul of man. This is a powerful story`, and whether one chooses to believe it or not, it illustrates how the karmic cycle of violence can be eliminated. We live in a world of violence simply because ignorant men continue to believe that violence and oppression, instead of love and  compassion, can solve all of our problems. But we can clearly see that violence only leads to more violence.

                    We can understand by watching the video that no on, except Tamir Rice, was in harms way. The place looked completely deserted. This reminds me of the cowardly cops who recently killed a homeless man in Albuquerque New Mexico for "trespassing" and camping out on a worthless patch of desert. If I were a cop, and if I were a coward, I  would remain in my patrol car, at a safe distance, and instruct the child through loudspeaker or bullhorn. A child should not have to pay with his life because these cops were too stupid to get this concept. I am not a coward or a murderer, consequently, I would have taken as much time as necessary to assess the situation, even if that meant hours. A human life is priceless, but this evil system has convinced many of you that compliance, rigid protocol,and expeditious procedure, are more important than the life of a child.

                    But please don't feel that I am trying to convince you of anything, as I am speaking directly to God. If there is a reckoning after death, I will not add the silence of a lamb  to my list of sins. Osiyo!

                2. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow. so that is the superior Mensa intelligence perspective of wrenchBisuit.

                  GA

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    smile

                  2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you honestly think that my harsh words can compare to the excruciating grief that the parents of Tamir Rice are experiencing right now? Have you considered that they may have already bought Christmas presents for their dead son?  Will they put them under the tree anyway and pretend? Will they put them away in a closet, or beneath the bed, never to be opened or spoken of again?

                    The truth is, there is nothing I can say that would inflict as much grief and torment upon the law enforcement community than  has been inflicted upon the family and friends of Tamir Rice! Yet, you would rather vilify me than the miscreant cops who have brought a never ending pain and torment to an entire family.

                  3. GA Anderson profile image85
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I thought of three people when I saw this video; Sed-Me, MelissaBarrett ....  and you.

                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12048959.jpg

                    http://faithtap.com/2195/lowell-police- … surprises/

                    I know, I know, you assumed we would be smart enough to read between the lines for your implied qualifiers, like; some police, not all police, etc. etc.

                    GA

        2. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The officers involved in this tragic shooting will probably be exonerated for under the circumstances. I find it strange that a 12 year old kid could not understand directions or respond to an obvious police presence. I think that there was something wrong with him. Mental illness, attention deficit, something.  If I had a child like that,  he or she would require more than the usual supervision. In all fairness, the parents needed to be more attentive to what was  going on. Most of us by 12 years of age know not to resist instructions from law enforcement officers.

          Would this had happened to Dennis the Menace while he was playing cowboys and Indians? Probably not. My complaint is that even though there is a justified fear by law officers of being shot and killed even by a child, the police force much as in the Ferguson case is not managed well. A force made of up more officers of color in Black communities could eliminate the possibility of the inordinate fear of blacks by law officers, who would then perhaps  take a more measured approach to dealing with these situations. It is not just the individual but the police department as a whole.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So, segregation is good... again?

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So, segregation is good... again?   Just because someone has a genetic code of dark skin they can only be policed by someone with a similar genetic code?
            Good grief. Rip off the skin of anyone and we are all the same color. If you are talking culture... we are all Americans. That is the Ideal. Its about time we start working on our ideals.

            If You Ask Me.

            1. Credence2 profile image84
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Racism is still part of the landscape and unfortunately we continue to intimidate each other,  black and white. Too often, the ideal and the reality are far apart.

              Looking at the fear and panic of the predominantly white police force in Ferguson contributed to what I consider poor judgment in how the Brown shooting was handled, much of this could have been defused with a police department more representative of the community it serves. This matter with the 12 year old could have been more deftly handled, I would have rather waited longer for a resolution and put the kid asleep with a tranquilizer gun than to  have to kill him in cold blood. I would treat a trespassing bear with more compassion.  That has nothing to do with segregation. There still exists a great deal of fear and mistrust between the racial and ethnic groups here. My suggestion would not solve all the problems, but would be one less negative variable when these sort of conflicts occur within these sorts of communities. 

              It is not just about the same color, but historical, sociological, psychological, political,  economic etc., ( we certainly mark distinctions) differences that make it far more complex than the mere ripping of the exterior and seeing that we are all the same. You are right, but again, that is the  ideal not the reality.( See Star Trek the Original Series "Let that be Your Last Battlefield')

              When more of the defcon 5 attitudes between each other disappear as we attempt to correct what it is that keeps us from seeing each other as equals under the skin, then we can talk kumbaya.

              Do you think that you would see yourself or society see you in the same way if your skin were brown or black? 

              Something to think about.....

          3. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "Would this had happened to Dennis the Menace while he was playing cowboys and Indians?"

            Except for the cowboys and indians part...  I think that in too many instances that might be a valid question.

            A good accompanying question might be why would that be so?  Racism, or cops dealing with reflections of a reality they deal with way too often.

            GA

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "cops dealing with reflections of a reality they deal with way too often."
              Like.

            2. Credence2 profile image84
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Deep down we are afraid of each other. Fear has a way of shutting down construction dialogue. Instead of looking at a 12 year old boy, it is easier to cling to prejudices and stereotypes and thereby  overreact. . Blacks do it too, to automatically assume a defensive stance whenever something happens in a racial confrontation, not allowing for the possibility that the adverse action may well have  had nothing to do with  racism does not help.  To make the ideal work, people have to work harder to rise about preconceived notions and biases, taking them into their workplaces, especially people with jobs in law enforcement. It is the difference in going to meet others in a 3 piece suit verses sitting around in your BVDs eating potatoe chips. Civility, treating each other with the respect that we ourselves would want to receive from others.

              1. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

              2. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I like how you think. Now let's move on to politics so I can find something to argue about with you. smile

                GA

            3. PrettyPanther profile image85
              PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I have not  read the entire thread before posting this so I might be  repeating something already stated. There seems to be this unquestioned belief that cops are in extreme danger and likely to be killed at any moment.  The profession of police officer doesn't even rank in the top 10 most dangerous professions. Look it up. Moreover, cops are hired to protect and serve the  citizens who pay their salaries. They should be  courageous, intelligent, and compassionate. Their primary  concern should be the safety of the  citizens they serve,  not themselves. That includes a 12 year old boy playing with a gun or a homeless man who might be mentally  ill, either of which might be unable to  respond immediately to a command. Cops are paid to take a little extra time to assess situations before resorting to killing.  They are supposed to be more brave than the  average  person.  They are supposed to use deadly force only as a last resort.  If a cop cannot  do  this -- act with  courage, assess before using deadly force, put himself in danger in order to protect the citizens he or she is hired to serve --then  he should not be a cop.

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I agree. And I am willing to excoriate individual bad cops.  But I will not condemn the lot, or automatically assume the cop is wrong when there is doubt.

                The two current events being discussed make good examples of how I see this; The officer in the Ferguson shooting was not a bad cop, nor does it appear he acted wrongly or with malice - as I perceive the revealed details, but the cops in the Rice/Cleveland shooting were definitely wrong. They may not have acted with malice, (unknown to me), but their actions certainly illustrate a lack of necessary judgement after they arrived on scene.

                But I disagree with your "extreme danger" thought. If they don't make the Top Ten most dangerous occupations list - maybe it is due to good training - as illustrated by the majority of police officers - because in almost every police/civilian interaction they are dealing with lawbreakers, some minor some dangerous.

                Even the most routine traffic stop could, (and has) result/resulted in a policeman being shot at point blank range - with no warning or time to react. And even the most "safe" looking encounter with a loiterer or "minor" law breaker could turn out to be a deadly confrontation - as we have also recently seen illustrated.

                Of course there are bad cops. There are bad people in every segment of, and occupation in, our society. I think the bad cops are a very very small percentage of the total cop population, and for the risks they take and the job they try to do, I think we all owe them the respect of the uniform until the individual wearing it proves they don't deserve it.

                GA

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  + big_smile!

        3. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Holy cow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your superior interpretation of my remarks is so far off the mark that I think it is you that want to bring the stereotypes into the conversation.

          For instance;

          "You have commented that the image looks a lot like Trayvon Martin. To translate for the slower readers, this is a clever way of saying, " They all look alike".

          I am betting that the "slower readers" you refer to, (as in not as sharp and clear sighted as yourself), would have looked at the two pictures and seen the comparison being made was to the innocent cherubic image being used to manipulate public impression vs. the "less innocent" real image seen by the cops.

          Here was my point concerning, "This sure looks like a replay of the media's Trayvon Martin images."

          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12016133.jpg

          As can easily be seen, the media portrayal of Trayvon Martin, using 4+ year-old pictures presented a much different picture to the public than the more accurate "current" images of him that Zimmerman would have seen. Which was the point of my comment. Maybe some of those "slower readers" might chime in to set me straight.

          I sure thought the included images addressed that point - for all readers, but if you really want to insist that I could only have been showing my true racist "They all look alike" colors, then maybe it would stem from your own superior perception of the media's images.

          Then you continued;
          "You also are careful to make a connection between inner city gang violence and the murder of a child playing on a playground with a toy gun"

          Once more you twist a portrayal to suit your bias, rather than address the reality of the moment.

          I provided visual proof that both the image of a child, and the obvious instant identification of a toy gun are inaccurate and misleading portrayals. Yet you insist on painting that as the true picture - regardless of the facts. You even got the location wrong. It was not a playground, it was a public park.

          So, put the real facts next to your portrayal - " a child playing on a playground with a toy gun" and I think even "slower readers" will be able to pierce the fog and see the light.

          Then you go on about the Italians and the Mafia, which confused me, because I would have expected a mind as quick as yours to slyly attribute something about watermelons and fried chicken to my thought process. Hmm...

          My confusion continued when you said i suggested; "... the life of the police officer is more important than the life of the child, and that it is better to kill an unarmed child by mistake than to risk an officer being shot and killed."

          Where did I suggest that? I would be glad to address that point too.

          I have only spoken to the insulting statements and insinuations in your response because the rest is merely a rant on your part. Even so, I am feeling like I should include an apology to the "slower readers" that are familiar with my forum activities. I try hard to leave insults out of my exchanges, but in this case I did not want to be the one that brought a knife to a gunfight.

          Rather then ending with a "Just sayin'" I will be more clear. Your response to my comment was, inaccurate, purposefully misleading, condescending, and insulting. Not a very effective way to communicate. Maybe you need to remember to downshift from the higher planes of other forum discussions you participate in and type slower using smaller words when you are here on HP.

          GA

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I have lived in a racist society my entire life, so I am not moved by your accusations. I have heard excuses for the genocide of my people, slavery, and now the killing of a 12 year old child. There are no surprises here.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I am fighting the precepts of "no boundaries." Cops are beneficial for society. But, they need to follow moral codes.
              Obviously.

              "Apparently you haven't watched the video. Barney Fife and Bobo pulled up in their cruiser and immediately jumped out of the car with guns drawn. Within seconds, not minutes, the 12 year old was murdered in cold blood. We can see from the video that no time was taken to assess the situation."
              NOW, you mention a video. Now, you tell us the time frame. Thanks.


              "This has become typical cop behavior in these situations." You are trying to convince us… you might be able to, if you try. We need for instances.

      2. Tammy Tappan profile image61
        Tammy Tappanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly! I agree Kathryn

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ...no, that was GA Anderson's post.

            @wB:
          <"The teachings of Jesus, as well as the teachings of any number of philosophers, or men of God,  could have solved all of these problems long ago, but the majority refuses to listen…"> End of story.

          It will probably always be so.
          We are here to get out of here, anyway.

          TWISI

          1. Tammy Tappan profile image61
            Tammy Tappanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I agreed on your post of police officers following moral codes:)

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes. One thing we will never know, though, is how it is to be black. We will just never know. But, anyone can become a victim of an immoral cop. Thats why its important for our society to be allowed to have religious freedom and to encourage the belief in the reality of God. God equals goodness, self control and respect for one another as children of God, Creator, Father, Mighty Triple O. smile
              This sorta of goes against what I said up there. oops…
              Unfortunately, the ideal cannot be counted upon. The reality is that humans are not that grounded in the ideal.
              When they are grounded, you know it. You can sense it.

              But, it is a treat. It is not a given.
              Sadly.

              1. Tammy Tappan profile image61
                Tammy Tappanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Beautiul !

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Nice to meet you, Tammy!

    5. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      1. Police officers are vested with an authority and power that enables them (in certain circumstances) to temporarily impinge on the welfare, freedom and privacy of individuals for the purpose of  preventing, detecting and investigating crime. They are trained to wield that authority and power calmly, bravely, responsibly and with as much restraint as a situation allows. For that reason police officers can and must be held to a higher standard. Simply put, in an emergency situation we should expect a greater presence of mind, calmness, professionalism and judgement from a police officer than from an ordinary member of the public. If we cannot expect that, then we may as well be policed by ordinary members of the public.

      2. There is a risk that a police officer will be killed in the line of duty. Acceptance of the job is an implicit acceptance of that risk. Everything should be done to reduce the risk as much as reasonably possible, but if a police officer cannot tolerate that risk, they should not apply for, accept, or continue the role of police officer. 

      3. Police officers are public servants who swear an oath similar to: "On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency I serve". Public trust and upholding the community cannot be achieved by police officers reacting to preconceived notions of individuals (stereotypes) and pre-judgement of situations (prejudice) based on who is involved, where and when. Fear cannot and should not be an acceptable excuse (see 1). Policing is dangerous. One of the things that makes it so dangerous is that each situation must be judged on a case by case basis in order to avoid these types of situation. Allowing pre-conceived notions to determine their actions may allow police officers to reduce personal risk to themselves, but it does nothing to maintain trust and uphold a community as this situation shows.

      4. A child playing with a toy gun, in a park, not breaking any laws, should be able to do so without fear of being shot dead by police. Fear of strangers? Maybe. Fear of being bullied by an older kid? Perhaps. Fear of being shot dead by the police? Absolutely not. And there is no sane counter-argument to that in my opinion. If people think there is, then there is something very wrong with society.

      5. Children typically (by their very nature) lack the knowledge, experience and maturity of adults. That is why they are considered vulnerable members of society and are afforded special protections. A child  pointing a toy gun at passers by in a park, should not have to pay for that immaturity and lack of judgment with his life. A stern word from a police officer, and complete dread of what to expect from mom for being brought home in a police car? Definately. Death at the hands of a police officer? No.

      6. Anyone who has seen the video and  knows anything about law enforcement will tell you that the officers in this situation deployed incorrectly. They are too close. Had it been a real gun and a suspect intent on harm, they could have easily been shot before they had a chance to exit their vehicle. In this situation, reaction time is critical. They gave themselves and the suspect none. The word that best describes how officers are supposed respond in this situation is: de-escalation. Ending the situation with no injury or loss of life is the optimal outcome. The video shows that these officers gave no opportunity for that to happen. This situation should have resulted in a standoff between the officers (guns drawn at a safe distance issuing warnings and instructions) and the suspect. If it had the outcome may have been very different. This is not the power of hindsight, it is basic law enforcement training.

      7. The majority of law enforcement officers do a fantastic job. They put themselves in harms way to protect the public and uphold the law. They perform an extremely dangerous and often thankless job and most of the time the police get it right. On this occasion the police got it wrong, and it helps no one to pretend they didn't. We cannot let our gratitude to the police officers who get it right, prevent us from holding accountable those officers who get it wrong. With great power comes, not only great responsibility, but also greater accountability. That is the price police officers pay for the privilege of wielding the power and authority vested in them, and that is exactly as it should be.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well stated. And valid explanations. Almost all of which I agree with,

        But... why did you feel the need to describe what the police saw as " a child in the park playing with a toy gun?"

        All you points were rational and well-grounded, except that.

        He may have been only twelve years old, and could be called a child, but I think a more common description from most people would have been "kid" or "young kid," or maybe even from a casual observation, as a teenager.

        I doubt that folks seeing what the police saw, and what the 911 caller saw, (he called him a kid), would call him a child. Your, (and others), use of "child" to describe him appears to me to be an attempt to manipulate. Your response didn't need it. It made sense without any distortion.

        Also, the gun may have turned out to be a toy, but there is no way for anyone to tell it from a real gun without actually handling it, (the makers designed it for realism), much less from a distance and in the midst of a confrontational situation.

        I think the cops were wrong. But for the remaining reasons you listed, not for the ones describing him as a child or the gun as a toy.

        On the other hand, I especially agreed with your points #5 & #6.

        GA

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The age of the boy and nature of the gun are relevant, because both highlight the error in judgment made by not deploying at a safe distance and establishing contact with the suspect. It reinforces the fact that pre-judging a situation is not always helpful.

          And for the record (so to speak) are you saying that a 12 year old who looks older than he is, in a park, playing with a toy gun that looks real, who has committed no crime, should be afraid of being killed by the police?

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Of course I am not saying that.

            What I am saying is that using "child" and "toy gun" - in this case - as descriptors are misleading, and I think intentionally so.

            There is a difference between being technically correct and realistically accurate.

            GA

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
              wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Huh? If it is not a "real gun then it must be a toy gun. Are you suggesting that with an upgrade the gun could have used real bullets. LOL! There is no inbetween here. A great many Americans love violence, and they enjoy killing. Any ol' excuse will do. That's really what time it is.

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Hmm... Is there a need to continue?

                Would it be futile to point out one perception of a "toy gun" might be cap guns, and ones that go click-click when the trigger is pulled - and have bright orange identifying tips, or that there is an "in-between" type, like BB and Pellet guns that actually shoot a projectile?

                Does it matter that the use of "toy gun" was used to imply it should have been obvious to the officer? If so, I will stick with my view that the term was used do denigrate the officer's intelligence, and to infer he had the evil intention of shooting the kid just because he was black. You are obviously welcome to whatever frame of reference fits your agenda.

                GA

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  We can clearly see that the intention of either officer was not to save the life of a child. Otherwise they would have taken more than 2 seconds to assess the situation when no one was in immediate danger.  These cops are obviously cowards and murderers. But since a majority of Americans celebrate Columbus Day, it is not surprising that they would make excuses for the killing of a 12 year old boy. After all,Columbus is personally responsible for the killing of millions of innocent men, women, and children.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image85
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That is your response to my misuse of the term "toy gun" comment? It appears my comprehension abilities are not up to the task of discerning the connection between your response and mine.

                    GA

            2. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I see a toy gun as fantastically shaped and coloured and bearing little or no similarity to a real gun.

              A replica gun however bears no visual difference from a real gun and would take close examination to tell the difference.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What is "safe distance" from a 9mm?  One mile?  Two?  How do you "establish contact" from two miles away?

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
              wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              There is no safe distance from ignorance and stupidity, because these are the demons that follow the afflicted everywhere they go. The historical record has proven that  violence will not end violence. Only a foolish race could believe otherwise.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                And yet...I've never heard of violence from a corpse.  Perhaps the answer is to simply eradicate the human race?

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  We can be assured that a flippant remark is not the answer. It is quite revealing that a 12 year old boy has been murdered by the police and many respondents on this thread are willing to defend the perpetrators of evil at all costs. But they will direct nary a harsh word toward an oppressive state that promotes and perpetuates a police force of simple minded thugs who prefer to shoot first and ask questions later.  The good news is that I have no doubt the apologists will reap what they have sown. Good luck!

            2. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You're right, there is no safe distance from a gun that allows for communication, but even some distance makes you less of an easy target and so reduces the risk. It also has the benefit of creating an opportunity for communication to take place.

              The video shows that these officers deployed in a way that 1) made them very easy targets, increasing the risk to their own safety; 2) prevented any communication taking place, and therefore any opportunity to de-escalate.

              So perhaps the definition of a "safe" distance, or let's call it a safer distance is not just about how far the officers would have to go to not get hit by a bullet. Perhaps it's about reducing the risk to themselves and the suspect and allowing themselves to communicate and make decisions with the optimal outcome in mind - suspect in custody, no harm - as opposed to being so close that they are forced to act purely on impulse.

              The assumptions they made, why they made those assumptions, and how those assumptions influenced their decisions on that day, are also important questions, but for me the lack of communication meant there was no opportunity to de-escalate. That was caused by the officers deploying incorrectly. As hindsight now shows us, that was a tragic mistake.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The no chance for deescalating, was my very first thought when I heard this story.  It sounds like better options could have been pursued.  I think when the child grabbed the gun, instead of raising his hands..... that made the officer seem to lose some sense of thinking clearly.  Perhaps fear entered in, and then impulse.  You seem pretty fair in your characterization, which I appreciate, though I came in late on all of this, and haven't read everything, and probably won't be able to.

      2. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You are right-on, Don W.

    6. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      For those who may still be in doubt as to whether this tragic incident may be symptomatic of a wider problem within the Cleveland Police Department, this is from March 2013:

      "The Justice Department announced today that it has opened a pattern or practice investigation into use of force by the Cleveland Division of Police (CPD). The investigation will focus on allegations that CPD officers use excessive force, including unreasonable deadly force, and on the adequacy of CPD’s training, supervision, and accountability mechanisms that are essential to effective, constitutional policing."

      This was prompted by a fatal shooting incident in 2012 that resulted in the deaths of two unarmed people after 137 shots were fired by police. As a result of the incident 6 officers were indicted, and 5 supervisors were charged with dereliction of duty.

  2. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    More, or just as importantly,  the guy who phoned it in said that he thought it was a replica gun, no doubt backed up by the fact that though the boy had been running around pointing the gun at people, not a single shot had been fired!

  3. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    I am interested to hear the excuses this time. I am sure they will be very creative.

  4. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    Sure, I support trying anything that might make a difference.

  5. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    I would note that 12 year old boys can and have shot people. So there is a decision process police have to go through as to whether the threat is real, which is not always straightforward.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Look at who ISIS and the Iraqi "government" are using as "soldiers".  Look at the incidence of children used as suicide bombers, or the numbers of servicemen killed in Vietnam by kids hugging them with grenades attached.

      Our military has learned the hard way not to indiscriminately let children approach them, and while that's extreme for a cop, they can't afford to let children point guns at them or anyone else.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        According to reports he wasn't pointing the gun at anybody. The gun was in his waistband, the police thought he was reaching for it.

        No suggestion that the police had ordered him to put the gun down was there?

        1. mishpat profile image60
          mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And why would they, if its in a waistband.  It appears they made the right commands initially and were ignored.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It's funny, when I have no intention of being sarcastic I'm accused of sarcasm.
            When I think I'm being blatantly sarcastic I'm taken seriously!

      2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12014219.png
        Your "logic" is fascinating! This was not Vietnam. This wasn't a potential suicide bomber. This wasn't a kid suspected of stealing cigars from a local store. This wasn't a kid walking down the middle of the street and and then allegedly cursing at the police.

        This was a kid playing on a playground , which is a proper place for kids to play! This was a kid that was playing with a toy gun; a toy that an be legally purchased at any number of toy stores throughout the United States. Furthermore, it is not unusual for little boys to play with toy guns. In fact, that's who they are primarily made for.

        There were no hostages facing imminent danger. There had been no shots fired. No one was screaming for help. These are facts. Consequently, the police could have taken their time to assess the situation before using deadly force. They could have taken the time to understand that they were dealing with a child who may not have been aware of the seriousness of the situation.

        Last but not least, as I have already stated,while taking the time to assess the situation, they could have stayed in the relative safety of their patrol car.They could have used a loudspeaker, or a bullhorn to communicate with the child. They could have also used binoculars to closely  examine the scene from a distance. Had they done so they could have easily seen that it was only a  toy gun. If the police don't already have binoculars in their patrol cars I suggest that the life of a child, or any other citizen, is worth more than the cost of a pair of binoculars!

        My assessment has nothing to do with 20/20 hindsight. My assessment is based on my intelligence, my humanity, my morality, and my uncommon sense.. I will not use the term "common sense", because as this term is defined, and considering the current state of the world, I hardly believe that my wisdom is shared by a majority. Thus, the "common sense" is so far beneath me, that to the average American, my thoughts and ideas on this subject will have  the overall impact of a whispering memory ...  long forgotten.

      3. Tammy Tappan profile image61
        Tammy Tappanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        This situation is very tragic. You are a 100 percent right. I am sure those Police Officers didn't wake up saying. " I'm going to kill a 12 year old today! I am sure  that no Police Officer feels good about killing anyone.  Playground and Public Park are very different. Look at all these kids that shoot and kill other kids in school. This situation the Police Officers  should have not been so fast to shoot the boy. There are def protocols they have to follow and if it was real and the kid was going to shoot there is no way of those Officers knowing what is going through the kids head and this was I'm sure a big lesson to all Police Agencies. This had nothing to do with race. That's ridiculous!  Tragic for everyone involved!

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That seems fair, Tammy, and I think you are probably right.

    2. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1

  6. mishpat profile image60
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    I have quit looking but to date, I am unable to find the "race" or "ethnicity" of the officers involved.  Has that been provided anywhere?

    1. Tammy Tappan profile image61
      Tammy Tappanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It was just some of the threads some people had try to bring race into this. Which is not the case and I had mentioned that that had nothing to do with anything!

    2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes! They belong to the race known as "stupid". It's a race that includes people of all colors and nationalities who are easily confused, shoot and kill 12 year old boys, and squeeze rabbits too hard.

  7. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    Deputy Chief Ed Tomba said that the officers told him to show his hands and throw down his gun!

  8. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    I believe that what you call a rookie cop is what we would call a probationer who would not be put straight into situations where they held the power of life and death until they had proved them selves to be stable under pressure and not to over react.

    It must be awfully lonely up in your ivory tower WB!

  9. Superkev profile image87
    Superkevposted 2 years ago

    This is a real gun that has been Cerakoted. Would you like to explain how an officer is to react if he sees this? Discuss.
    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12014327.jpg

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      So what is your point? The technology of today allows us to disguise our appearance and the sound of our voice as well.  We must also realize that there are any number of ways an individual bent on violence and mayhem may fulfill their blood lust. For instance, a sheriff's deputy was recently ambushed and killed in Tallahassee Florida. It appears that a man who had previously threatened the police purposely set his own house on fire. Knowing that a neighbor would call 911, the man hid outside of his house and waited to ambush police. He killed one deputy and wounded another before he was permanently retired from active service.

      So what is your solution? You have pointed out that a criminal can disguise a real weapon as a toy. I have  illustrated that a 911 call can actually be used as a ruse leading to an ambush. With this understanding, I suppose we can conclude that it's OK to shoot and kill 12 year old boys who may be holding a real gun. I suppose we can also conclude that if someone runs out of a burning house, or suddenly appears from behind a tree after an officer responds to a 911 call, that it is OK to shoot them too. Let us not forget that meteorites have on rare occasion fallen out of the sky and killed people. Perhaps the police should just barricade themselves in bomb shelters and conduct all law enforcement  by proxy.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In a civilized society we should not need guns. I guess we are not there yet. Until that time, I guess it truly is a luck of the "draw."
      Parents need to get a grip. If we cared about our society we would not promote gun violence through violent video games. We feed our kids violence by buying these games for them and toy guns as well. They want guns. Teens play with guns: they run around the neighborhoods with big ol' fake guns playing war. I've seen it in my own upstanding middle class neighborhood!  That kid on the playground basically should not have even been playing with a gun in these times. Guns are serious and should no longer be promoted as toys or in games.
      Thanks for this freedom of speech.

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You commented, "That kid on the playground basically should not have even been playing with a gun in these times." That sounds a lot like, " That woman that got raped shouldn't have been walking in the park wearing a short skirt", or " That  guy that got mugged last week should have known better than carry cash in his wallet". It really is easier to blame the victim , isn't it Kathryn?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You expect perfection out of cops who have witnessed the desperate psychotic behavior of criminals, their violence and their negative gang mentality / attitudes. Some men and women recently back from war in the Middle East have become police officers. They know bombings. They know violence. They've seen kids with guns fighting alongside adults.

          Why do we not expect perfection from the adults in our society who know the love their kids bring forth into the world from the day they are born? In my opinion, its a crime to allow children to play violent video games. These games put killing into the sub-conscious psyches of impressionable minds. Through these games young children absorb violence and killing during their formative years.

          Then they cry for a gun when they see one in the toy store. Parents today do not know how to say, "No. Guns are not for playing with. When you are older you may have to learn how to use one to defend yourself, but right now, you are too young…No Guns!"
          " But, Johnny has one…" the child will insist.
          "NO! " the wise parent will say.
          Its that easy! 
            So, why was that woman walking in the park in her short skirt?
          In this day and age who carries cash in their wallet?
          If you don't want to be a victim don't put yourself in that position.

      2. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Its called 'manplay', Kathryn. Conservatives talk of the sanctity of the 2nd amendment, well it goes both ways. Our culture is awash in violence and gunplay, how do we expect children, particularly boys to be  insulated from it? Nature and nurture plays a role, I had a GI Joe set when I was a kid. We do not accept the premise that women have to shroud themselves in a burka because the sight of stocking would be shocking. Yes, there are many times that I carry cash, as it is sometimes the most negotiable in many situations.
        The military attracts many who may be given an outlet for aggression, availability and socially acceptable use of firearms and ordinance. GI Joe and firearm replicas are cultural preparation to the kids and help them to see the military as an adventure. That is large part and not the whole story. Manplay has been around since the Pharaohs and is not likely to go away soon.

      3. Tammy Tappan profile image61
        Tammy Tappanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I agree!

      4. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I agree that the numbness to violence is cultivated on television and in the video games. One of the best sellers in the video game market is "Grand Theft Auto". It is bad enough that patronizing the illegal act of car theft is combined with the violence in this game.

        I am a proponent of legal gun ownership and do not try to distinguish between the Saturday night special to the assault rifles for sale. The simple truth is that why take away from the responsible what the criminal so blatantly is willing to use in a crime. I was a gun owner until my sons began to enter adolescence. I sold them and never allowed my children to have play guns. They never questioned me about it and to this day own no guns. They were taught that the weapon is not a toy and when someone points one at you in life it is a very serious act. I feel this is a parenting problem and as with our seeing apathy in the caretaking of this country I see the same with teaching our children responsibility for their actions.

  10. John Holden profile image61
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    I think the point of Superkev's post was that there is nothing to be gained by changing the colour of replica guns,

    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps that can be found somewhere in the mix, but I feel the big story is that he feels "Officer Friendly" is just trying to do his job best he can, and that a good white cop would never carelessly kill a little black boy, unless absolutely necessary.  I wonder what Superkev thinks about  Andrew Jackson, Columbus, Charlie Manson, or any number of miscreants who have had "good reasons" to kill .

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I think that you are reading far more into Superkev's post than is there.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        War killing and nonsense killing are two different things. Cops are trained to avoid nonsense killing. The law will take care of them when they blow it. We need to know more about this incident before we can discuss it reasonably and realistically:
        Tamir Rice
        "November 22, 2014, in Cleveland, Ohio. Two White police officers, identified as 26-year-old Timothy Loehmann and 46-year-old Frank Garmback, responded to a city park after receiving reports of a boy armed with a gun. The officers reported that during the confrontation, Rice reached in his waistband and grasped a gun, prompting one of the officers to fire two shots, fatally hitting Rice once in the torso with one. They later found that the gun was only a toy. Rice died on the day after the shooting." W
        I wouldn't be a cop in today's world. Thank goodness some people are willing to take on this challenge. In the end they need to remember... they are Peace Officers.
          PS A playground and a city park are two very different things. A park is very open to the public. A playground is most often attached to a school, surrounded by a fence and just for kids. Your use of the word playground is misleading.  Also, you said he was "playing" with a toy gun. No! He grasped it as though he was going to use it. It had been reported to 911 that there was a boy in the park with a gun. They came to investigate. What was the child thinking??? And why? Could he have had some video game playing in the recesses of his twelve year old mind?
        Probably.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    repeating:

    You expect perfection out of cops who have witnessed the desperate psychotic behavior of criminals, their violence and their negative gang mentality / attitudes. Some men and women recently back from war in the Middle East have become police officers. They know bombings. They know violence. They've seen kids with guns fighting alongside adults.

    INSTEAD: Why do we not expect perfection from the adults in our society who know the love their kids bring forth into the world from the day they are born? In my opinion, its a crime to allow children to play violent video games. These games put killing into the sub-conscious psyches of impressionable minds. Through these games young children absorb violence and killing during their formative years.

  12. word55 profile image82
    word55posted 2 years ago

    It should become unlawful to make and sell toy guns that look real. TV violence is also more serious tin stead of being entertaining. There should be more restrictions on violence in movies. Parents need to know more of what their children are doing out in the streets and who they are hanging with. This kid should not have lost his life. Police are trained not to take chances. Plus, now a days, they shoot to kill.

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      ... and also outlaw realistic play swords, play knives, Flinstone clubs, play cowboy ropes, (they can be used to hang people), play ninja toy weapons, play anything that isn't cuddly.

      GA

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        No. All weapons need to be taken seriously. Children should learn how to use them properly rather than play with them. We give children less credit than we should. They are very intelligent beings who need (and want) to know how to survive and defend.

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    A grown man held up a bank with a toy gun. He was the man ahead of me. I watched him demand money from the teller who burst into tears! Having been trained as a lifeguard, I instinctively and stupidly reacted by alerting the bank workers! "Stop him!" I cried out. "He just robbed the teller!" He turned around and pointed his gun, which was concealed in his coat pocket, at me and said, "You want some of this?"
    Then, he turned and fled. They actually caught the guy because someone got his license plate no. as he drove away. It was in the paper the next day. (The article mentioned the toy gun.) Still, I will never confront a robber or criminal again! It could have been a real gun… uh, he could have shot me.

  14. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    I couldn't help laughing at your conclusion. INDEED, INDEED.
    It seems that our police is on a conscious killing rampage against our (as Americans)African community or shall I say against our minorities.
    As I was watching yesterday the news about the protest in Los Angeles, I couldn't help thinking, now the action of protesting will lead any citizen to jail. What is next for the United States of Dictatorship?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "the LAPD and CHP had been "extremely generous in allowing the expression of 1st Amendment activities.”

      http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m … story.html

      Our LA police force is probably the most tolerant of all police forces. People are probably angry about a lot of things these days, but they can't just do as they like.

      "After about nine hours of protesting through the streets of Los Angeles, demonstrators split into separate groups and some began “significant civil disobedience,” Beck said. Demonstrators walked onto the 101 Freeway at Grand Avenue, blocked intersections and refused to disperse." http://www.latimes.com

  15. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12019100.png
    The American people are already "putting up with it" and have been for a while. The police state is a work in progress since before the turn of the 20th century.The beginning of the end for the white Euro-American working class and poor, was the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  The next step in the downward spiral was the Social Security Act of 1935, and the subsequent issuance of Social Security Numbers in 1936. At this point every citizen would thereafter be "branded" by the state. There are other lesser events that have occurred over the years but these two were the most significant until  the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001. I would not say that this particular act is on par with the previous two I have mentioned, but it was a significant move toward greater state control over the populace.

    Some of the lesser events I have alluded to are laws that are designed to essentially "protect us from ourselves" or enhance the greater good, and public safety. But do not be fooled by my choice of words. These lesser events, acts, or laws have significantly helped to erode the personal freedoms of the average citizen. Here is a short list of some examples:

    • seat belt laws
    • laws that require insurance on automobiles, especially off road vehicles
    • laws prohibiting use of drugs such as marijuana
    • laws that prohibit the feeding of the homeless
    • vagrancy and trespass laws that essentially make it a crime to be poor

    Laws such as these collectively help to transform the human population into a herd of sheep. They serve a two-fold purpose. First of all, they help to condition the human mind into accepting the absolute authority of the state. Over a period of years, the populace begins not to notice the many restrictions placed upon their personal freedoms, and so many begin to feel quite comfortable living in a cage. Secondly, these laws help to generate a considerable amount of revenue for the state; to the tune of millions of dollars every year!

    All that has come before, as I have only briefly outlined, has delivered us to where we stand today. Today we are living in a country where the police are above the very law they claim to serve. Today, it is considered acceptable for a police officer to kill an innocent suspect rather than risk being killed himself. Let us be thankful that firefighters don't feel this way! A man who runs into a burning building to save the life of a man, woman, or child can hardly be considered a coward. Each time he responds to a fire he is risking his life. Furthermore, dying in a fire can be a horrible way to die. The Tamir Rice murder is a metaphor for a house on fire. Rather than run into the burning house to save the child, they chose instead to kill the child. Consequently, there was no need to run into the burning house and risk their life. When we understand that in this case the metaphorical house wasn't even on fire; when we understand that they could have taken at least 5 minutes to assess the situation, instead of 2 seconds, we begin to understand what cowards,and what heartless animals these cops really are.

  16. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    In its entirety, people are quite loathe to acknowledge the increasing encroachments on their very freedoms.  In fact, they even rationalize this encroachments as security measures to ensure their protection against terrorism and related threats.  They even believe that the purpose of social security and other monetary impositions is to safeguard them in their old age and/or time of need.  There are those who contend that giving up some freedoms is a price to pay for a more secure American fabric.  Almost everything in American society as of present is going under intense governmental scrutiny.   Big Brother/Sister is IN WORKING ORDER!

  17. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Thank you very much for the shots of reality, guys.

  18. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

    You are absolutely right. The excuse that they must shoot to kill, especially when confronting a 12 year old boy who may or may not have a real weapon is ludicrous. But anyone who has watched the video knows that these two cops "were not" in fear for their safety. How do I know this? Common sense tells us that a man who fears for his life does not pull his patrol car directly up to a suspect believed to have a lethal weapon. A fearful cop would stop his car a safe distance from the suspect and then take some time to assess the situation before moving in. Their behavior is very suspicious indeed. Life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is what these two miscreant cops deserve.

  19. 60
    robin knows bestposted 2 years ago

    Really u gonna kill him cause he had a TOY GUN!!!! HE IS A KID MY BROTHER HAS A TOY  GUN AND HE IS 7 BUT A 12 YEAR OLD KILLED! THIS IS a kid we are talking about

  20. jakesteelee profile image61
    jakesteeleeposted 2 years ago

    he took the orange tip off...

    1. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Which inhibits immediate "toy gun" identification. Right?

      GA

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It is simply absurd to focus on the physical characteristics of a toy gun. The focus should be on the lack of professionalism and the poor judgement used by the officers. If a house was on fire, it would be rather odd for a fireman to arrive at the scene and remark," Gee, I realize there is a 12 year old kid inside the house, but it looks like a "real" fire, and if I go inside I could be seriously injured or even killed". Most would consider this to be cowardly behavior.

        Now let's look at where the slippery slope of cowardice can lead: Let us  imagine an angry husband. We can see his wife, who is of Middle Eastern decent walking out the door with her suitcase packed, never to return. The angry, vindictive husband dials 911 and says his wife is on her way to the airport with a bomb in her suitcase, and that she plans to commit suicide by blowing herself up in the crowded airport. Not long after arriving at the airport the woman is murdered by the police. Surely,because Barney Fife saw the woman , told her to drop the suitcase, and she first turned to ask him why, many apologists would say that he had every right to shoot to kill. After all she didn't immediately respond to his command, she did look like an Arab, and many innocent people could have been killed. This scenario could very well happen anywhere in the United States. What we must remember is that the most important skill  a police officer must possess is the ability to think and reason. It serves no one to have mindless, donut eating thugs, roaming the streets and killing 12 year kids, killing teenagers walking down the middle of the street in Missouri, or homeless men sleeping in the desert near Albuquerque New Mexico.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "It is simply absurd to focus on the physical characteristics of a toy gun. The focus should be on the lack of professionalism and the poor judgement used by the officers."

          We can see where your focus is.  Is it absurd to focus on the facts?  The officer had a limited amount of facts at his disposal, and was in a pretty bad situation.  The risk involved, thinking it was a real possible gun, when we know kids get killed by guns that they get a hold of too often.  The colored "toy" indicator was gone, probably by no fault of the boy, but it WAS gone.  Other innocent lives at stake very possibly.  Let us all be glad we aren't those same cops in those situations!  How absolutely awful to have that death on your hands!  Then to be so accused after the fact, and all that is suggested. 

          After the fact, hindsight.... its so easy to blame as the ones in full view of all the facts. To judge those that had only a minimal amount at the time.  I only speak up in the name of fairness, and pursuing of logic and rationality here. 

          I guess I don't claim to fully know all you think and believe, but you sure seem to be suggesting a lot.  If there was some secret power hungry desire of some even truly bad cops, couldn't they carry those desires out in some other way than this?  Funny, it was a lose lose for him when he made that choice.   Perhaps sometimes, police don't get the credit they deserve, and aren't really killer thugs. I have to think the true killer thugs do their dirty work in less conspicuous ways.  No, I don't have any family in the police force, nor any friends that are. 

          I imagine part of the point of a colored indicator, is to prevent this sort of tragedy. Perhaps we can focus on who took that off, and why they let a 12 year old wave that around in the area he did.  He isn't old enough to fully weigh out those consequences and real danger.  A cop shot him, after weighing all the facts, it could have been a parent or a passer by with their own weapon.  Its a tragedy on multiple levels.

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Regardless of the outcome I have to ask what the emergency was and why the police rolled up to the suspect with such urgency. I could understand if they saw upon their approach he was pointing the gun at a innocent bystander but I don't see any indication that took place. Was the report of an older suspect reason enough to drive off the road and rush up to the suspect holding the gun? Too many unanswered questions an I will anticipate the explanations forthcoming from the investigation.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I am going off of stories like this one,

              http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/ … by-officer

              and it says he was scaring everyone, putting the gun back in his waistband, etc.  He was there with friends, so there were others.  He pulled the weapon out.

              Its horrible and sad. 

              I too am waiting for even more details.

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I am responding to the video that shows the boy by himself as the police car comes in to the picture. The quick action on the part of the police may have spooked the boy and he responded as anyone would. There is a better way to handle a situation like this with a controlled response that would not precipitate quick reactions. The ten year veteran should have known better.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps so.  By the way, when you say the boy responded as anyone would, how do you account for all the people that do put up their hands as police try to assess the scene, where a lethal weapon may be present?  I don't really expect you to answer, but wanted to point out that all I am saying is we see the assuming of the worst of one side, and the total innocence of the other.   It turns out he was pretty innocent, among other things,  and didn't realize how very serious his actions were as seen by the public. 

                  I don't deny for a moment, this is a needless tragedy, horrifying for all involved especially the family.  The cop has to live now with this on his hands, and on top of that the harsh judgement of so many that are not being totally rational, suggesting so much more was likely going on in his mind that would better explain his actions than that of what the details point to.  It was probably over reacting, at the very least.  Officers however, have to deal with people with real weapons from the hands of children.

                  Am I the only one here that ever hears about little siblings and small children or adults getting shot because a child got a hold of a real gun.  I am sure even if I am on HP that the officer knows guns can be reached by children.  Sad but true.

            2. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              As will most of us. But I admit the circumstances in this incident look much different from the Ferguson event.

              GA

          2. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            So you are moving on to other complaints different from the "toy gun" aspect of your previous condemnations?

            GA

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly.  I am in late on this whole convo, but from what I heard, the color was removed that would ID it as a toy gun. 

          Edit: It is so easy to damn and judge the officers after the fact.  Assuming they mean real harm to twelve year old boys, when in all likelihood, they are out to save the lives of all children, twelve year old children included. (Like other children on a playground.) As if said officer wouldn't be raked over the coals for his choice.  I don't think it makes a lot of rational sense that an officer wants a death of a child on his shoulders, and all that would follow after that, JUST to get away with some possible secret hatred for children or even racism.  Like he saw an opportunity to "get away with it" because it looked like a real gun. 

          Even "donut eating thugs" would rethink such an idea, I would think.  Its funny, some are so quick to judge, while not thinking through fully what they are suggesting.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12025780.jpg
            I have judged no one after the fact. I, and many others, have foretold the evil of Ferguson and Cleveland long ago. But many have chosen to  bury their head in the sand and ignore reality. It makes perfect sense that a coward would shoot first and ask questions later. It makes perfect sense that a simpleton would mishandle a situation and allow what should have been routine to escalate into murder. It also makes perfect sense that psychopaths, killers, and sadists would find police work attractive. Other than the military, it is the only job that allows you to mistreat, brutalize, rape, and even kill people with relative impunity. Finally I am not quick to judge. My understanding is based on a lifetime of living within this evil American system. My understanding is also based on my years of study that have helped me to understand what came before. Welcome to the real world. http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column … an_cops-0/

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I too, am against those that choose to bury their heads and ignore reality.  You bring up Ferguson, this is a great example of where we actually saw some facts come out, and saw the hell break loose.  Its about people's personally held beliefs so often I think, and NOT about logic, reason, and rationality.  Viewing everything not on their individual merits, but on what they are insisting on seeing despite facts to the contrary. 

              I would imagine that simpletons and cowards that might actually be psychopaths, killers, rapists and sadists need not stage such elaborate schemes to get their dirty work done.  Its just not rational to assume the worst so much of the time, imo.  To judge so incredibly harshly, before all is known.   This is the real world.  I don't have time for the others.....

        3. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Toy guns in this day and age should have to be neon pink and neon green to eliminate any issue. Of course, you'd probably have some criminal element manage to color real guns in such a manner and a lot of dead police officers.

          I could not find a good video of this shooting - they are all very grainy and unfocused. I cannot, for instance, determine if the child had a sad face (something I've seen said) and was shooting targets when the officer's arrived on the scene.

          I am concerned with the quickness with which this officer shot this child, mainly, but I cannot see if the child is reaching for the gun.

          I am angered that the initial information given to the officers neglected to mention that the complaints said they believed it to be a toy gun. That information might have made the officer pause and take cover rather than shoot first. I don't know.

          I am wondering who took the identifier off the toy gun in the first place and why. Was the child bullied at school and flashing it as a means of protection? Was he the bully and using it to bully others? Did the parents know the identifier was off the gun? In this day and age would you allow your child to walk around town with a toy gun that looks like a real one? I surely would not.

          Lastly, why did this 12 yr old child think confronting police officers was the good choice? If my 12 yr old heard a police officer order him to do something, he'd do it and be shaking in fear wondering what he'd done wrong. Then he'd shake in fear of facing his momma.

          There is so much wrong - so much needs addressing and fixing.

          It makes me weary and not very hopeful.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            +1

          2. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Nice assessment, I agree completely.

          3. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A mature adult when ordered by the police to drop his weapon would do so slowly and deliberately to avoid any action from the armed police standing ten feet from him.

            This was not a mature adult.

            Do you know he wasn't shaking in fear and so desperate to remove the threat from the two police confronting him that he made a grab for his gun to throw it down as ordered as quickly as possible?

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Like I said, I would like a better video of the incident because it is difficult to see what is really going on.
              Every report so far though says he was told to put his hands up, not drop the weapon.
              Mostly, I want to know why the fact, a very important one, that the callers said they believed it to be a toy gun was not relayed to the officers. I think that one thing would have made the difference in this case.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Are we sure it wasn't?  After all, whether a bystander thinks it was a toy or not has little to do with how the cops react; they simply cannot afford to assume a gun is but a toy.  Even if they were told that it WAS a toy (not just maybe), they cannot take the chance it is not.

                1. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It is irresponsible for a policeman to assume that a pistol that looks real is a toy, instead. He has the responsibility to survive his shift and to protect any innocents that might be killed if the gun proves to be as it appears. He can hardly do either if a gun that looks real proves to be as it appears and he is the first killed.

                2. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The police department involved came out and said that the information about it being a toy was not relayed to the officers. It is not that I think they would have just laughed it off if that information had been imparted, because I've see the pics of the gun and it does look real. I just think he may have taken cover behind the car and given the order at least one more time perhaps, before firing.
                  Even with the bad video you can see he shoots very very quickly upon exiting his vehicle.

                  As you said, contrary to what some seem to believe, a police officer shouldn't die in the line of duty if it can be avoided either. They have to assume it is real, I understand that, and I'm not really blaming him though I can see how it appears that I am. Just that it may have given that split second - then again, I see your side where if real, that split second might cost him or another their lives.

                  That's why I say neon pink and neon green for toy guns. Whatever easily seen identification as a toy can be done. Whatever it takes that is not also easily copied to cover up a real gun. Certainly we can come up with something in this day and age.

    2. mishpat profile image60
      mishpatposted 2 years ago

      Reason does not seem to be the trump card for some here.  Nor are certain terms acceptable except in a confined group of like minded folks.  But we must notice a recent remark regarding a "foolish race."

      Is there such a thing?  Or is it simply mirror-image remark? 

      What race sold their heritage for a bottle of whiskey time and again?  What race split their allegiances to their own to help the invading hordes of greed?  What race hated each other by tribe or clan or sept to such a degree that there was enjoyment in seeing their enemy burned in a variety of ways?  What race never learned from the past?  My Cherokee ancestors were part of such a race.

      But the above is a short history of every race.  "Lord, what fools these mortals be."

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You have a lot of questions. The most important question that you must answer is, "Which is my left and which is my right?" When you have answered this question, I am sure that all else shall be revealed to you. Such a verbose response was not necessary to illustrate your allegiance to the status quo. Furthermore, you would have done well not to use this as an opportunity to slander the Indigenous.

        Your "history lesson" is a racist cliche that will play well with those whose attention span is limited to fictional accounts of 500 words or less. But it is well known that Tecumseh, Tatanka IyoTanka, Goyathlay, and many more were honorable men who stood against the European Invasion, and fought bravely for their people. If your ancestors were traitors that is your problem.

        1. mishpat profile image60
          mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I guess I should be insulted!  Let me think.  Hhmm.  No, I'm not.  Armchair politicians are, at best, humorous in their attempt to deal in areas where they have no expertise, knowledge or experience.  But thanks for the kind words and enlightenment.  I am sure you will make a difference in a lot of peoples lives.

    3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      Here's what I am wondering:
       
      The officers in both of these current incidents, (involving Michael Brown and Tamir Rice) shot their suspects and killed them. Why? They know the justice system. They know many get away with their "gang activities" produced by their "gang mentality" because the justice system is overburdened.

      In the case of Michael Brown, he stole items from a store and he had been smoking pot. He slugged the officer, etc. But, I do not believe he should have been executed on the spot. In fact, one of the videos on You Tube shows people in the process of observing and mimicking Michael Brown who did finally hold up his hands in surrender. He was killed with the final shots afterwards.
      Perhaps. I am only surmising. The verdict has been reached, after all.

      In the case of Tamir Rice: When I watched the video again, I saw that a figure walking past the boy had been removed from the film. (You can see it clearly in one particular version.) As the figure passes, Tamir holds up his realistic looking pellet gun with both arms held out straight and aims it directly at the passerby's back. If the cops took the video, one could imagine they were QUITE alarmed! They did not care that this individual was young. He looked old enough to be a threat to the lives of others. But, they took it too far. It really seems like they went in with the intent to eliminate the threat altogether.
      The jury will decide based on the facts. Hopefully they will look deeply enough.

      I am wondering if the mistake these officers made is this:

      First of all, they are judging a book by its cover, (prejudice based on past experiences alone.) Secondly, they are taking the law into their own hands as they justify providing what they consider to be an appropriate punishment: death.
      If so, this is deplorably mistaken thinking of the highest degree, to say the least. What we might be witnessing is an abuse of the power their job provides them, pure and simple.
      What is the solution?
      Not letting them get away with it and calling it as it is.
      They are not allowed to be judge and jury and they are not allowed to by-pass the judicial system, just because they think it's in the best interest of society.
      Its not.

    4. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

      Funny thing.... I am actually one that does not automatically trust cops or the government, certain leaders, etc.  So I just find this all kind of ironic. 

      I think we need to be careful that we aren't inadvertently encouraging more harm to be done to people and officers overall.  I am just saying this is so easy to "arm chair quarterback or back seat drive" in our judgements.  Why judge harshly now that we KNOW what the officer DIDN'T know at the time.  He knew there was a gun that might have been a fake or a toy, but that lacked the usual ID of the toy guns.  Scaring people in parks isn't ok either.  He shouldn't be dead.  That is horrifying.  Another day though, some will likely have to die, and people will be raking the officers over the coals then for NOT shooting when the person with a gun didn't comply.

      IF its true as we know the details as of now, that the boy grabbed the gun again after being told to raise his hands, and the gun didn't indicate it was a non lethal gun, then we ought to perhaps give the care we are demanding the officer had at the time..... Care and consideration, before assuming people are donut eating murderous thugs, in essence.  Good grief.

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You are missing the point entirely. The actions of a 12 year old boy are not the issue here. The issue is the unprofessional and reckless manner in which the cops handled the situation. The cops are trained and paid to be professional, and to handle situations like this. Their job is not to simply run in like Rambo and neutralize a potential threat without properly assessing the situation. Scaring people in parks is not a capital offense, and no lame brained cop has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. Perhaps the difference between us is I do not defer myself to the state or it's minions. The police are public servants, and should be brought to heel and made to behave as such. Instead, they have claimed absolute authority over every citizen. A citizen is expected to obey their every command, under threat of violence or death. It is the majority's deference to unbridled authority that will lead to more killing ,unrest, and ultimately a bloody revolt.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You say, "You are missing the point entirely."

          Am I though?  Or am I being fair to look at what even brought the police out in the first place.  I observe that you are keying in much harder on the actions of the cop, but also observe you kind of separating out the actions that preceded the officer's.  You cannot fairly do this and claim to be about fairness and freedom for all. 

          I am not decided fully on the officer's actions, and only weighing what we do seem to know for sure.  That is, a call was made, an officer responded to a person that had been waving a gun around, scaring people.  When approached, and asked to raise his hands, he did not.  He not only did not, but grabbed the weapon again.  Tragic, considering he was only 12!!  I don't claim to know what is taught at any academy anywhere, of what an officer is to do when a person grabs for a gun instead of raising their hands.  I understand you are suggesting he have let it play out, let the boy play with or pull a weapon that appeared to be lethal, with innocent civilians around, including himself.  This all IS very much the point.  Without such actions we wouldn't be here discussing this.

          How many seconds exactly DO you wait, when children and other civilians are around, and a person that has a gun pulls it, rather than raises hands?  How many seconds does it take to kill someone with a real gun (from the officers point of view, as I see the story), over waiting to negotiate with a person that would rather grab a gun than raise hands as asked?

          You, WB, do not have the same access to the mind of the officer you are judging as he did/does.  All I am saying, is he COULD have been absolutely properly assessing things.  We don't know fully, but with what we do know, it very well could be.  You seem to assume the worst.  Do you know this cop?  Is it a warranted thought that he didn't properly assess, or maybe even running in like Rambo, wanting to shoot a kid in a park that was just scaring others?  Are you really suggesting this cop thought it was best to be judge, jury and executioner, at the cost of a twelve year old's life? How does this benefit him exactly?  He MAY have been reckless, and probably with your and my hindsight MAY have wished he would have done something different.  I am seeking fairness. 

          You say, "Perhaps the difference between us is I do not defer myself to the state or it's minions."  Why would you say this to me?  What do you mean exactly?

          You then say, "The police are public servants, and should be brought to heel and made to behave as such. Instead, they have claimed absolute authority over every citizen. A citizen is expected to obey their every command, under threat of violence or death. It is the majority's deference to unbridled authority that will lead to more killing ,unrest, and ultimately a bloody revolt."

          I don't know what warrants all of that....  I know nothing I have said does.  I can't stand the idea of unbridled authority, especially if it is lacking morality and or lacking a freedom and justice for all.  Perhaps you are assuming a bit too much about me, and everyone that doesn't automatically agree with you?  If you explain why you are making such a charge that I defer myself to the state or its minions, then I won' t have to ask.  We could save some time there.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12026444.jpg
            I don't recall I said anything about fairness and freedom for all. Such sentiment is used in these types of cases to elicit sympathy for criminals.

            You speak of what we know for sure, but the part about the boy grabbing the toy gun again, is a story told by the officers. I watched the video and the boy was obscured from view after the cops arrived. To my knowledge there is no other camera that verifies the officers account. Apparently, whatever they say, you are willing to believe without corroborating evidence. Ironically, you have accused me of making judgements before all of the facts are known. Yet, you speak as if their version of events is the gospel truth. Let me also note that I have not suggested that the cops should have let the boy pull the supposed weapon, point the supposed weapon, or let any sort of dangerous scenario play out. This is a fiction you have created to bolster your argument.

            I have maintained throughout this thread that the police were reckless, and put themselves , and Tamir Rice, in harms way as a result of their stupidity. I have also maintained that the life of a child, or citizen is more important than the life of a cop, or public servant. If after all necessary precautions have been taken, and the cop is still injured or killed, this must be accepted as the cost of doing business. A fireman accepts the dangerous nature of his job, and for him there are no guarantees of safety. Why is a cop any better than a fireman?

            You have asked, "How many seconds exactly do you wait? The answer to the question is:" You don't". You don't put yourself in harms way from the start. There are procedures and precautions that help to minimize danger. That's why police officers are supposed to be trained. Furthermore, when we look at the video , there are no innocent children standing around waiting to become victims of a 12 year old playing in the park.  No I don't have "access to the mind of the officer " as you have stated. On the contrary I am an intelligent person and would never create a situation that could escalate into the murder of an innocent child. In fact, my IQ prohibits me from  becoming a cop in certain jurisdictions  because I am too smart.

            If the cops  had been properly assessing the situation , Tamir Rice would be alive today. What don't you understand here? I do assume the worst because a child is dead and an entire family has been crippled for life. I have no sympathy for the killers who will  spend this coming Christmas with their families. I do not know Adolf Hitler or Columbus, but I have the mind to assess the legacy of a tyrant. The legacy here is that someone is dead who was a threat to no one. The legacy here is that in their supposed attempt to protect the public they created a victim. The very facts warrant my outrage. The facts show that these losers were either very stupid,  or that they had a blatant disregard for human life. Either one of these is unacceptable. I suspect that anyone who behaves in such a fashion must have sadistic tendencies.

            Your very words indicate that you have deferred yourself to the authority of the state. You concern yourself with fairness for the minions of an oppressive system when they have proven that they are cold blooded murderers. There is no question about what they have done. There is no question that they took no time to assess the situation. There is no question that they were reckless. The "why" of a psychopath or sadist  will not mitigate the cold blooded murder of a child.

            Your mindset is revealed in the words you speak, as well as those unspoken. If you have spoken the truth then you have revealed that you are existing in a state of mental, and physical slavery. You say,
            " I can't stand the idea of unbridled authority, especially if it is lacking morality and or lacking a freedom and justice for all." Yet, this type of authority has existed, more or less, for over 500 years on this continent."  Where have you been?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "If after all necessary precautions have been taken, and the cop is still injured or killed, this must be accepted as the cost of doing business"

              I submit to you that "necessary precautions" include removal of the threat of being shot and that includes shooting anyone trying to point a gun at anyone else (including the cop).  It even includes grabbing a gun after being given orders not to.

              You do seem to ignore the family of the cop, but cops (and their family) are at least as important as the ones they protect.  They are, after all, people and deserve every opportunity to make their jobs safer.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                By all means, let's make our jobs safer by killing little black kids who play with toy guns ...  just in case. After all, it is this kind of logic that has made America the greatest show on Earth.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  And we all know that exaggerated drama doesn't make for great shows, lol.   This kind of makes my point again. 

                  People can make points, that may not necessarily agree with all you say, AND not be for cop killers, that go after little black kids that just want to play with toy guns on playgrounds.  Good grief.  Doesn't this kind of strong rhetoric just cloud the real facts of the discussion?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course it clouds it.  But isn't that the point?  To cloud the facts and turn it into another rant against the evil descendants of Columbus?

                    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      What would you expect to come from the egg of a chicken? A turtle?

                    2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Even with the IQ I have (lol), I gathered something along the lines of this.  It doesn't make sense to me to drag another debate or discussion though, into this one. 

                      Even if it did make sense to someone, where would it ever end?  How could any past wrongs be corrected or "righted" by using what seems to me to be rather poor analogies. 

                      What we do know, is that we won't ever just be talking about what it seems we are, and this can have many problems associated without the ability of being a mind reader at least.  It does cloud, doesn't help, and can't correct past wrongs done to any people groups.  Its very possible the judgements seem to come from the same spring, and nothing will quench that need for justice, when it is attempted to be done through such a means.  How could it?  Thus possible frustration for a real matter that happened so long ago, and going after the wrong people to rectify, if so.  I could be wrong.

                  2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12026636.jpg
                    There is nothing exaggerated about the evil perpetrated on this continent by the European Invaders. Neither have I exaggerated the evil perpetrated by the United States government against all races of people. You comment that my rhetoric is strong. However, after 500 years, the killing of innocents upon this continent continues. What do you suggest? A kinder gentler approach? Should we patiently wait another 500 years for the killing to stop? There is no "in-between". We either are against evil, or we are for evil. Those who refuse to speak out against this evil are as guilty as those who wallow in it's corruption.

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      You insinuate that the murder rate is higher now than it was 700 years ago; something I highly doubt.  I would, in fact, question if the yearly total murders has grown even though the population has increased a thousand fold.

                    2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      You seem to forget, that this came after you said, "By all means, let's make our jobs safer by killing little black kids who play with toy guns ...  just in case." Remember?  THAT is dramatic.  To answer with this kind of twisting, to borrow from past evils perpetrated onto people, to defend your indefensible statements, is illogical, unreasonable, and even sophomoric, to be honest. 

                      We aren't talking about evils perpetrated by governments onto its people, or particular people, we are talking your drama playing out in words as in this case with the little boy.  Do you need to actually be reminded that people trying to keep the lines of communication here open and clear regarding facts, ACTUALLY don't think its ok to shoot little black children playing with toy guns?! 

                      What I suggest, is to repeat myself, because fairness is what matters, not lumping all of the police force together with horrifying terminology as you have done several times, because you don't know.  I take issue with you, that you claim to be so all knowing about the heart and mind of this officer, and others, and lumped them.  Not only in the initial way you did, but even more so to this degree with the past and the "evil" descendants of Columbus?  I would have almost thought it funny when Wilderness said that, but he seems to be right!  Unjust, unfair. 

                      Its good to speak out against badness, wherever it is.  You seemed to care about people being unjustly imprisoned or accused in another thread, where did that go?  Were they all NOT descendants of Columbus, how do you know for sure?  What is your measurement of how to tell if something is right or wrong?  I am scared to ask, more scared for the answer!

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You appeared to me in the recent past, to be about fairness for Americans, for people.  That was me being generous, assuming you were about freedom and fairness for all. You seemed to care about such things, perhaps that was a mistake on my part.

              I am sorry if you missed the several times I have referred to waiting to see what evidence comes out, as we know more.  I shared a link to the story as I knew it, and am going off of that.  If that turns out to be wrong, then I could be wrong in my assessments, sure.  If you are not suggesting something different have played out than what did play out, then you are just being conveniently confusing, imo.  I have no need to engage in fiction.  I do know how to deduce.

              I hope you have not missed my other words, that happen to show my stance, I need not reiterate them all here. 

              You assume too much about me, and that is fine.  I wouldn't be alone.  You are simply wrong.  I do care about fairness, and you seem a harsh judge, yet don't want harsh judgment in particular cases for particular sides.  I see that and get that.  You lump in the words cold blooded murderers there with the rest of your description.  Are you saying that officer is a cold blooded murderer?  Or are they just all donut eating thugs, and sometimes cold blooded murderers?  Its in the same paragraph as other things that describe them. 

              Edit:I see you also throw in psychopath and sadist.... and then I am left to the casual observer to almost be defending a a child killer, lol, when I am not at all.  Its your drama with words, for effect, that I have been challenging.  You saw me do this before.

              If my countering your harsh words and judgements of officers and these in particular,  based on the little we do know,(like that it looked like he picked up a "non -toy" gun, when told to raise hands), means what you say of me, so be it.  I can't and wouldn't ever lose any sleep over that.  I simply disagree with your assessment.  Based on your other points in another thread, I thought you were about one thing, I was simply wrong. 

              I observe you have a unique lens on things, and have possibly have some passion driven by all sorts of possible injustices in our nation's history.  Many people think the USA is/was a great country to live in, if you are for freedom for all.  Not many countries have really mastered that.  Who doesn't want an ideal world?  We all do.

              For being a person that must exist in a state of mental and physical slavery, I will continue to not bow to pressure when I am simply seeking fairness.  I will take all your insults.  I don't think all cops are like you paint them, and I don't see how any reasonable person would, or could. That is a personal choice of yours.  That you lump me like you do for not thinking the same, is revealing.  It must feel great to so easily figure people out to the degree you claim to do here with me.   You seem to even judge my unspoken words.  So glad you are not my actual judge then, nor on any jury where I have been put on trial, even with "your incredible IQ."

    5. SOBF profile image79
      SOBFposted 2 years ago

      The conclusion from this ongoing conversation. Police have the right to shoot any child, black, yellow, or white, if they are found to have in their possession any item that can be construed as a weapon of any type. Since this 12 year old child (this is what a twelve year old person is) never really pointed the gun at the officers (as many of you have attempted to twist the story) and their was very little time for him at 12 years old to comprehend and respond to the officers shouts (which even an adult has problems doing) we now have open season on children by police. Or maybe just maybe there is something else driving this conversation in the direction it seems to be headed.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        SOBF, I would totally disagree with your first statement there, but perhaps I have not read something on this thread that suggests what you are saying is true!  I can't imagine anyone would ever have suggested that.  I think its a horrifying suggestion that you say its open season on children by police.  This is a true twist I think. 

        I disagreed with the adjectives like cowardly, rambo, donut eating thugs, and all the rest assumed about such an officer that was in the knowledge he HAD at that time.  We are harsh critics, perhaps more so in a tragedy, and can lose all sense of fairness at times.

        I will assume you aren't talking about me in your comments. 

        What is really sad, is that in an effort to keep to the facts, I think some can't see that this doesn't mean I automatically side with the cop.  I don't.  I shouldn't have to say that, for all the times I have said I am waiting to find out more details.  We don't have to wait for those, to see some of the mentality here that can be alarming in and of itself, at least to just be talked about.  Its a tough time to be a cop when the mentality that they are all bad and out for "this and that", especially if you are doing it for the right reasons.

    6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      @ wB:

      One picture You have not posted is your large A symbol. Maybe if you explain why you often use that A, it will answer some questions as to why you are way harsh in regards to American history and in regards to our form of government and in regards to law in general. Your harshness is hard for the average, person who is just trying to do their best in surviving and staying positive in this life. I think you owe it to this forum discussion to reveal your actual agenda.

    7. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

      Wrenchbiscuit, may I ask what is your cultural heritage, your nationality?  I don't want to assume anything.  I will respect your right to not answer if you choose.  I wonder if you are 100%, whatever your ancestry might be?  To not be, might have some European descent in it, no?  Or perhaps not necessarily.  I just don't know, but it needs to be asked, because of your strong views, or so it seems, against people of European descent. 

      If I am wrong on that, I will apologize.  If I am not wrong on that, how is that not a form of absolute racism of another kind?   I claim ignorance here.  I just don't know, but am willing to go there since you brought it up, and how the evils are being perpetuated, etc. 

      I am against evil, btw.  Very much so.

    8. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

      Once again you have created a fiction. Not anywhere, on any forum have I commented that I hated Europeans. Your comment is slanderous. Racism, as we know it today, was essentially invented by the Catholic Church, and the European nobility. I assure you that I am far above such nonsense.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        LOL!  It wasn't the Catholic church suggesting that children of different races be put into separate schools and taught a different curriculum...

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
          wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Your reading  comprehension is quite remarkable. The Catholic Church, and the Protestant Church both have participated in the genocide of the Indigenous. It appears that you know nothing of American History. I suggested a program that could help to reverse the effects of 500 years of racism and genocide. I suggested  one aspect of a remedy that can help to free the Indigenous from mental slavery, and from the lies that have been forced upon them by the European. Seeking to empower a people who have been oppressed for over 500 years doesn't have anything to do with racism.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Would you be so kind to share again, what you mean by this comment? 

            You said, "I suggested a program that could help to reverse the effects of 500 years of racism and genocide. I suggested  one aspect of a remedy that can help to free the Indigenous from mental slavery, and from the lies that have been forced upon them by the European."

            This is probably one of my biggest questions from you, and I hope it doesn't go unanswered like so many others.  What do you suggest, that would reverse the effects as you understand them to be? 

            I simply seemed to have missed your suggested program, and one aspect of a remedy.  Thank you.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              WB is on record as suggesting different schools for different races.  Probably how he figures on "freeing the Indigenous" from "mental slavery" and the "lies of the Europeans".  Nothing like a little racism to counter racism, eh?

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Deleted

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12029369.png
                  Osiyo! First of all it is a myth that a minority in a racist system can be racist. This is simply not possible. A simpleton might believe such a thing, but we are powerless to convince the mindless as we walk through the wilderness of "Huh?"  Racism is not only an individual's dislike for another race, but this dislike must necessarily  be institutionalized in the same socio-political system in which  said individual is a member of the majority. A minority, on the other hand, may dislike, or even  hate a member of the majority. But since the majority does not have the weight of institutionalized racism bearing down upon them as well, it is not possible for them to realize the burden of racism. Thus,we cannot truly define a minorities hatred of the majority as racism, as it could never deliver the proper effect.

                  Concerning my concept of a separate but equal public school system:  As an example, on May 11, 2010 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2281 that prohibits Mexican American studies in public schools. Here is an excerpt from MLA:  http://www.mla.org/ec_tucson

                  " In December 2011, Judge Lewis Kowal affirmed Huppenthal’s decision, saying that the Mexican American studies program had “one or more classes designed primarily for one ethnic group, promoting racial resentment, and advocating ethnic solidarity” and was thus in violation of state law.

                  Here we have the decision of a racist judge, upholding a racist bill that was passed in Arizona, and signed by a racist governor. I especially like the "promoting racial resentment" part of the decision. Let me translate: In other words, if we tell the truth about American History; about how the colonialists tortured, raped, murdered and then stole the land and resources from the Indigenous, while teaching them the Ten Commandments, some students might get upset. Instead, we will give them a watered down version of American History that makes the Euro-American look like great pioneers, and benevolent god-fearing people."

                  Essentially the racist Arizona government declared it illegal to tell children the truth about American History in public schools. But this is only one recent example. Generation after generation of Indigenous, and African children have been denied the chance to learn the truth about America, and their ancestors in the public school system. Since white Euro-Americans continue to refuse to offer Indigenous and African children anything other than a Euro-centric version of the world, I suggested the logical alternative, which is a separate but equal school system. Students could participate on a volunteer basis, and Indigenous and African taxpayers could choose which system to support with their tax dollars.

                  It should be common knowledge that a majority of people do not study history outside of the public school system. Consequently, citizens of all races grow up with a distorted, and incomplete view of American History. Understanding history is important, as it affects many aspects of the present. For instance, concerning the murder of Tamir Rice, understanding the nature of law enforcement over the last 200+ years enables one to better understand what is happening today. Today we see the beginnings of a police state that could not so easily be seen 30 or 40 years ago, at least not by the white majority. Today, whites are just as likely to be the victims of police brutality as minorities. For example: 2010, Belmont Shores California, police shoot and kill 35 year old Doug Zerby  for holding a garden hose that police mistook for a gun.

                  The public school system has been used as a tool of genocide. The revisionist history, the Euro-centric values, "the melting pot" etc., help to destroy the cultural identity of the Indigenous, and the African. Many applaud those who have attempted to save a species like the whale from extinction, but not many care that an entire race of people will soon become extinct. The flesh and the blood of a people are only superficial aspects, compared to the mind, the spirit, and the cultural identity.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I am of Scottish descent. You, wB are of another genetic line. Why, oh why, can't we focus on what is possible for ALL of us?  As people?
                    as People?
                    P E O P L E?
                    The Original Asian Immigrant People are in a position of command over themselves as are all cultures who live in this nation. The Constitution provides for the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for any one of any genetic line. (I am speaking of citizens.)
                    WHY not accept it? It is offered to all who live here.

                    Rising above the low consciousness of people with racist attitudes is the challenge.
                    If they won't let you ignore them, resist them... but not with hatred! 
                    Rosa Parks was a great example.
                    Mahatma Gandhi was a great example.

                    We can be here now and have command over ourselves.

                    We all have to deal with prejudice. Its how we deal with it that counts.

                    TWISI

                  2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I will reply to this in parts I think.  First, you mention,

                    '" In December 2011, Judge Lewis Kowal affirmed Huppenthal’s decision, saying that the Mexican American studies program had “one or more classes designed primarily for one ethnic group, promoting racial resentment, and advocating ethnic solidarity” and was thus in violation of state law.'

                    If there is a class that focuses on just one ethnic group, at this stage of a child's education especially, what would you say about the Canadian history, or South American history being left out?  Are you sure this is a case of racism?  We are speaking about children that do live in the USA, right?  You don't really question the focus of one, over all?  I am not even bringing in the idea here, say of Russian students, Australian ones, etc, that have immigrated?  I think most of them know that if they were in their homeland, they would be getting Russian or Australian history.  This is working outward to more detailed histories as a child grows up.  Are you sure you being totally fair in what this must mean?  That they are trying to inhibit truth about American, historical atrocities or some such thing? 

                    Can you not see how many other, (fill in country -blank here)-American studies programs are also being excluded from the idea?  There are tons of __________ - American studies that could be pursued at this point, including history of their own mal-treatment upon coming to the country.....  They are being equally left out, right?  I am not downplaying any wrongs done, btw, to the indigenous tribes from here. 

                    My family and I went to Cahokia Mounds in Illinois last year.  You want some rich American history, and the like, with a mystery tied to their extinction? That is interesting stuff, and I think it was long before Europeans were trying to settle there.  Something else killed them off.  A whole civilization, that got pretty far compared to others. 

                    I am seeking ideas that resonate more with fairness, then seeing things with lenses that cause one to be narrow sited, only seeing what you want to see perhaps. Racism can mean different things, btw, if you look up the definition.  I think hatred is a real problem, personally.  Why not pursue love and forgiveness and peace as a better way?  Even IF so many down history got that part very wrong?

                  3. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "...but not many care that an entire race of people will soon become extinct."

                    Good!  The world would be a much better place without races OR the racism that they seem to inevitably bring.  Far, far better that the Great Melting Pot of America be used to destroy all races that it touches, leaving behind only the species of man.

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      But, it is also valuable to keep in touch with our roots. Our cultural histories reveal our strengths and uniquenesses. All genetic lines are very amazing and special.
                      (Mistakes of the past are not to be focused on, after all "Mankind is ever fallible unless anchored in…")

                      TWISI

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Try to remember what you wrote just a few days ago about special schools for those of differing races.  Then think about what you just said: "Racism, as we know it today, was essentially invented by the Catholic Church, and the European nobility. [b]I assure you that I am far above such nonsense[/b ]."

            Above racism, even as you denigrate every race but American Indians and promote special schooling for them?  I think not...

      2. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Racism was created by the first caveman with a tan looking at a caveman without and clubbing him to death. Racism is as old as any other form of tribalism, as old as humanity.

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
          wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It is a popular misconception that racism has existed since the beginning of time. However, the historical record tells a different story. Many confuse racism with tribalism, and xenophobia. Racism, as we know it here in America, is a relatively new concept that was invented by the European nobility, and the Catholic Church to help ease the conscience of European Christians who may have been uncomfortable with the West African Slave Trade, which later turned into the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. The foundation for racism was laid on June 18, 1452 when the papal bull "Dum Diversas" was issued by Pope Nicholas V.  Your happy hour history lesson is amusing. Thanks for the memories.

    9. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

      Hatred can look like one thing, and many people unfortunately hate on some level or another.

      Serious racism expressed where you are talked about in a certain way because you are simply a descendant of some evil acting ancestor is a whole other level, something much deeper, imo. 

      Many people can hate, and I don't think they would do that.  We all probably know of people who have ancestors that were maltreated as slaves here in America, and don't hold the descendants of such, as awful people, autormatically. 

      On that note, which of any of us here, would be free then from such accusation, using that same standard?  Does any race have absolute moral perfection within it, anyway?  Isn't that highly hypocritical then?

    10. Tammy Tappan profile image61
      Tammy Tappanposted 2 years ago

      It is a tragedy for the family.But working for the Sheriffs
      office  for 30 years.The officer had every right to protect himself.My family are officers and protect and serve everday.There are certain procedures to follow when dealing in a deadly situation.My heart goes out to the family.

    11. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

      Wrenchbiscuit - I have a question.  Are you maybe assuming that people like myself (or any ole' American), endorse all of the things that happened to the indigenous people's of the territory now known as the USA?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hint;
        http://www.amazon.com/Against-State-Int … 0791474488
        ?
        for instance:
        "anarchist libertarians argue that, to check government against abuse, the state itself must be replaced by a social order of self-government based on contracts. Indeed, contemporary history has shown that limited government is untenable, as it is inherently unstable and prone to corruption, being dependent on the interest-group politics of the state's current leadership. Anarchy and the Law presents the most important essays explaining, debating, and examining historical examples of stateless orders."

      2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12029644.jpg
        I do not have such a gift that allows me to discern your motivations, or feelings on any matter through cyberspace. But I will attempt to answer you with several other important questions:

        Why do birds sing so gay?
        And lovers await the break of day?
        Why do they fall in love?
        Why does the rain fall from up above?
        Why do fools fall in love?
        Why do they fall in love?

        You have asked, " Are you maybe assuming that people like myself (or any ole' American), endorse all of the things that happened to the indigenous people's... ?" To paraphrase Bill Clinton: I guess it depends on how one might define the word "endorse":

        If someone stole your car, and while they were stealing your car they murdered someone you love, and then they sold that car to me. How would you feel about me?

        Especially after I looked in the trunk of the car and found, to my surprise, your inheritance; a nest egg which consisted of gold and silver, and the deeds to numerous oil wells and mineral deposits.

        Especially if I decided to claim it as my own. Especially after I had been informed that the car had been stolen and the original owner had been murdered.

        Especially after I shrugged my shoulders and said, " Hey man, I didn't do it". Especially after I said, "Why don't you just get over it?"

        Especially after your family had been impoverished, and mistreated as a result of the stolen inheritance, forced to speak a foreign tongue, and pay tribute to the thief that created their poverty.

        Especially when you were forced to gain your financial freedom by the rules set by the same murderous thief. How would you feel about me? Would you believe that I endorsed the evil? Would you believe that I was a participant? Would you believe that I endorsed your misfortune?

        The United States has claimed that there is no statute of limitations on murder. When an individual is found guilty of certain crimes such as murder, they are forced to forfeit any money, possessions, or real estate that was acquired through the commission of said crime. I agree that this is fair.

        If you truly believe in love and forgiveness, I suggest that every rapist, thief and murderer should immediately be granted amnesty and released from prisons throughout the United States. After all, the European is free to live and prosper on a stolen continent while walking on the bones of murdered innocents. Since God has forgiven those who have prospered indirectly from the evil deeds of others, it only seems fair to return the favor. Peace and Love!

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Repeating: "Mistakes of the past are not to be focused on. After all, "Mankind is ever fallible unless anchored in…"

          ( Edit: BTW You say: "If you truly believe in love and forgiveness, I suggest that every rapist, thief and murderer should immediately be granted amnesty and released from prisons throughout the United States.
          The Consequence for an action (prison) is required by the law for the safety of the innocent and as punishment. Spiritual forgiveness can be and is granted, all the same. )


          ...we have to start from N O W.

          Here it is, the season of the One who forgave us all!


          ...and wilderness is right... what do our ancestors really have to do with US TODAY...?
          I ask.

          We are truly free to move ahead, if you ask me…which no one did.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12029694.jpg
            If we are "moving ahead" then why are we debating whether or not a cop has the right to murder a 12 year old kid? That's the whole point Kathryn. That's what I'm all about. I was tough love before tough love was cool. Now you can see the vision because we have come full circle. Drink it in, and inebriate yourself with understanding!  Evil men are killing innocents just as they did in 1492. Now is our chance to do something about it. We can stop the killing in "our time".

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Repeating:
              "First of all, they (the police) are judging a book by its cover, (prejudice based on past experiences alone.) Secondly, they are taking the law into their own hands as they justify providing what they consider to be an appropriate punishment: death.
              If so, this is deplorably mistaken thinking of the highest degree, to say the least. What we might be witnessing is an abuse of the power their job provides them, pure and simple.
              What is the solution?
              Not letting them get away with it and calling it as it is.
              They are not allowed to be judge and jury and they are not allowed to by-pass the judicial system, just because they think it's in the best interest of society…"


                We must isolate the difficulties of the issue accurately.
              1. To say it was racist of the cops is not accurate.
              2. To say it is an abuse of power is more accurate.
              3. To say the government is contributing to militarism of the police is … well what do you think of this?
              ...and how can we stop it, if it is accurate ???

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Who said a cop has the right to murder a 12 year old kid?  Who is not trying to do something about evil men killing innocents now, just as they did in 1492?  Do you really see this happening?  If so, where?  I am not sure this really is about evil men killing innocents now, just as they did in 1492. 

              If you are being truly sincere, then please make your case.  As of yet, this is not seeming very rational, reasonable, or logical.  THIS is the point.  You, sharing your personally held, and strong beliefs and seeming to argue with people that supposedly don't share similar ones.....  Do you really think all of us here think its ok for evil people to kill innocents, or police to murder 12 year olds.  You don't get to frame an argument as such, when it lacks simple rationale, Wrenchbiscuit. You need to make your case, and stop the damning judgements of people that actually hold these same ideas as good, and the bad ones as bad.  Connect the dots, make the points, make your case. 

              I think you really think that cops are not about stopping the killing in our time.  Insisting on seeing things in such a fashion alarms me, and makes me wonder too if you have ever considered that having you think in such ways, puts you in the palm of someone's hand somewhere, that wants you to think JUST as you are.  All the while, hoping you don't notice the sense of justice and righting the wrongs is so possibly misplaced. 

              If you are truly about saving innocents, then you want to get on the side of truth and reason and morality more, I think it is a better path, personally.  IF you are, or when you do, your arguments will better reflect those ideals and values, than I see them doing now.  You talk big.  Fair enough...I can understand IF you are really about what you say you are. Choosing so hard to not see the disconnect or where your ideas break down, isn't something anyone can do for you but you.  I will try to, as I see it.  The rest is just a whole bunch of division, needless at that, between people that really want the same things as you!  This is the point.  Unless you aren't being completely forthcoming in all the points you are making.

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Ok, to clarify, as you said it depends on what you mean by endorse.

          To support, approve of, think its ok, etc.  Are you assuming, that people like myself would have done the same thing as Columbus did to those he hurt so long ago?  There, I narrowed it down some as well. 

          Endorse:

              tr.v.

                  To express approval of or give support to, especially by public statement; sanction.

                  endorse a change in policy; endorse a political candidate.

                  To recommend (a product), often in exchange for payment, as in an advertisement.

                  To write one's signature on the back of (a check) to obtain the amount payable or to make the amount payable available to a third party or to the bearer.

                  To write one's signature on the back of (an instrument) to transfer the rights available under that instrument to another party.

                  To place (one's signature), as on a contract, to indicate approval of its contents or terms.

                  To acknowledge (receipt of payment) by signing a bill, draft, or other instrument.

    12. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      We must isolate the difficulties of the issue accurately.
      1. To say it was racist of the cops is not accurate.
      2. To say it is an abuse of power is more accurate.
      3. To say the government is contributing to militarism of the police is … well what do you think of this?
      ...and how can we stop it, if it is accurate ???

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Very fair points.  Even number two, possible abuse of power, to the detriment to the degree we see, is awful and horrifying. Number three is very possible, and it leads me to believe that IF there was ever a desire to militarize police, and create friction to TRULY control a populace by the state, that THIS kind of division among the people using very poor ideas and rationale, is exactly ONE way to get it done.  To take advantage even, of people that  maybe haven't been taught to think better.  Or think, minus the intense emotion tied to very big atrocities in the past.

        A very clever (or not so clever) way to keep a people under the thumb, by those that might truly desire it.  To not LET true racism die, by fanning the flames of it, thinking all of this is actually about something that it is not.  Example:  Al Sharpton, and how close he is with the White House..... supposedly for one thing, but actually using and abusing those he is supposedly helping.  Playing on past hurts and emotions.  That is pretty evil stuff.  Some can't let racism die.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "Some can't let racism die."

          Sadly, all too true.  Some make their living from promoting racism; to let it die means they will need honest productive work.  Others truly do find their value in the color of their skin and to let that die means they become without value.  Those needing a "gang", or group, generally look first to race and without that will find no one to join.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I agree, wilderness, the melting pot needs to be kept hot.
            We need individuals who are willing to work together harmoniously. Not schools of fish warring against each other… But come to think of it, not even schools of fish do that! yikes

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It's odd really - we all have our strengths and weaknesses.  But not a single one of those automatically comes from the color of our skin (whether plus OR minus).  Nor do they come from sexual preference, gender or much of anything that people generally identify with.  Maybe, in a thousand years or so, the human race will grow up a little - enough not to assign value on such superficial attributes anyway.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "But not a single one of those (strengths and weaknesses) automatically comes from the color of our skin."
                I agree, our strengths and weaknesses come from our upbringing and ourselves as individuals through our own efforts in conjunction with the society we live in.

                You said:

                                                 "Those needing a "gang", or group,
                                                         generally look first to race
                                                                 and without that,
                                                                   will find no one
                                                                         to join."

                Q1 Why do they need to join one? (Factions are one thing, gangs are another…)

                Q2 And what about gangs who have the same color of skin warring against each other?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Q1: Beats the tar out of me.  I've never been a "joiner" and would run from anything approaching a gang or cult not open to everyone.  A square dance club is about my limit.

                  Q2: to exhibit superiority.  Once joined, after all, the members are not only blue skinned (or whatever they are) but also a member of the gang.  A gang that is superior to every other gang and must prove it by exhibiting great stupidity.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Hint:
                    What Upbringing?: No man in the house due to the government's generosity to welfare programs for single mothers.

                    What Independence?: Mexicans now being given priority to jobs over blacks through non-deportation of illegal Mexicans from Mexico.

                    They freaking need to eat and many are no better off than newly released slaves thanks to government policies.

                    Thanks for nuthin, elected officials.

                    And Obama is blaming………who?????

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Upbringing?  By the gang, of course.  Dad's gone (to the gang?) and Mom's too busy making babies.

                      Not blacks and not just low end jobs.  With a guarantee of a life here, education (at public expense) is a definite possibility.  We'll soon see illegals (of every nationality) taking work as skilled, educated tradesmen.

                      But you must expect such travesties; how else can your elected official get your state more free (federal) money if they don't buy a few votes now and then?

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The President has proclaimed that racism and is is alive and well. I wonder what he thinks the solution is.  Oh wait… he just bypassed it.

        3. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Racism is still part and parcel of AMERICAN culture, it is a bit subdued today when compared to the past. I have faced accusations of being the beneficiary of some affirmative action program instead of being recognized and appreciated  at face value for my achievements academic or otherwise. But that is ok, because those that thought that way were vunerable With an Achilles heel or soft underbelly so that they could either be outwitted or circumvented in someway. Such people always had a button you could push to neutralize and render them harmless. The underdog always has his or her own set of advantages, I wished that we as a group would avail ourselves of them rather than engage in destructive behavior. Nobody could ever really stop me once I decide to go after what I wanted. There is no excuse for the rioting response in our communities, we need to be concerned as to where we are going to shop and do business. Blacks are a passionate group while I found the Asians, particularely the Japanese to be quite sterile, living in Hawaii for a few years. We could use a little more of their discipline and self control, and still not become robots. Gangs are an expression of power among groups that have been powerless within the larger culture. This ain't West Side Story, why fight over something you don't really own? The alpha male today is not based on physical prowess, but on economic wherewithal. That might be part of the explanation.... The Anglo has always had their own mainstream method of prominence within a culture dominated by them, they have Harvard and Yale and do not need a "rumble" to decide who is top dog

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It is all rather interesting.  Thanks for sharing that.  It seems like some are being manipulated almost into hurting themselves and their communities.  Knowing exactly some of the things you mention.  It is like it can't just be a warm ember about to extinguish, before we have some in power and influence come and stoke it, and fan the flames, lest it die. 

            These same people don't have to live in those neighborhoods, and pretend to be speaking FOR these same people, that live among the ruinous culture/community that just got totally crapped out all the more.  This is horrifying to me.  I think we need to talk about it to help all see it, to stand up, because most people don't want to be racist, and it doesn't even make sense to.  The tricky part is dividing the few truly bad people from the rest, and trying to keep lines defined to a helpful degree. By truly bad, I mean the ones that are willing to take an officer's pay in order to really hurt those they want for bad reasons.  (at least in part.)

            Sorry you have been assumed about.  You seem to be fair and see what is going on.  I think we need to keep a close eye on things.  Keep on thinking about what would explain the things from the powerful positions that don't want to let it die, and get mad at the right things.  I think its so easy for powerful, truly evil types to sit back and almost just smile as all hell breaks loose, and not in their own neighborhoods exactly.  What is the point, besides at least for sure getting a good smoke screen going?  That some want to group up, get loud, have the mentality we see, shouldn't be something that is used against them for someone else's gain.  In individual cases we can see this happening, when it becomes FORCED to be about, things its not actually about.

            1. Credence2 profile image84
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I see that you are both a prolific writer and superb communicator.
              Would it die, if we would heed the wisdom of not opening old wounds?
              So many of US make more problems among ourselves than what is imposed from the outside. I have seen some of the rioting after the King assassination. Anger and rage needs to be properly directed so that a bad situation is not aggravated further. I have discussed these points in a few of my hubs looking for answers. Ultimately, it is about power and wealth,  belonging to one ethnic group or another is becoming less relevant.

              The press has manipulated the tragedies of these shootings, there has been another one in the Phoenix area as of late. The point has been well made that there are similar shootings of whites by black law enforcement officers, but there are no riots.  While I am part of this tribe, I do not always understand why we do what we are doing. I have said many times in other threads that the Police Department policy in Ferguson leaves much to be desired, and leaving a body on the street, without medical attention or proper disposal for hours is a sign of disrespect, fear or whatever toward the Black community there.
              We have a sieged upon mentality, or what Eldridge Cleaver once called a healthy paranoia. These issues were at the forefront in the 1960's, surely we have progressed since then? I like to think and reiterate among my immediate family that if a person of color can become president, with the proper determination and a dab of patience you could do or be anything you like.

              Where the racism exists today can now be overcome with sufficient effort and desire to succeed in spite of it . When interacting with society and trying to get ahead I always kept the comedy 'Hogan's Heroes' in mind as to how I had to engage 'the system'.

              I don't know if even thoughtful, reflective people like you could help much, we have so many skeletons in the attic to attend to first. I get embarrassed when members of my tribe act up like this with this needless rioting and incitement  and am irritated further being at a loss to explain it. I have seen the seed of a self destructive nature over my lifetime.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                Thanks Credence, I hadn't had  chance to respond.  I am not sure racism would die if we stopped opening the old wounds, but I believe in letting the healing continue, which can of course have its hiccups.  It can't hurt, and there is more involved as well.   Like not fanning the flame, which could be seen almost like inviting infections into the old wounds, to let them begin to fester in their healing. 

                I hear what you are saying, and appreciate your comments and point of view. Power and wealth are driving forces, sure.  There are so many different dynamics also, its hard to know where to begin.  I wonder if some people just aren't sure exactly what it is, and since some suggest or insist "racism!", then they jump on that bandwagon.  Not because they maybe want to believe it so bad, but in case of, "what if it is?" Like better to be on some safe side perhaps?  Just thinking it through to see what could explain, and trying to not assume so much on my part. 

                Its sad to me, that some night not be being racist at all, and some might just really die because of the dynamics, and would have also if it were a white person in all of these cases.  Its like the CHANCE that it MIGHT be racism, can't be let go of, even when the facts that come out don't seem to point in one direction or another.   There is a LOT of assessing of color ALL around it seems.  The color of this and that person... good grief, I wish it would stop, and be about the facts.  Thanks again for your point of view.  You seem very fair, and to me, that goes very very far in this world.  Fair in their thinking, reasoning, what morals they uphold, etc.  You can get a feel usually for this I think.

    13. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

      Wrenchbiscuit ... here are some truths/thoughts to consider:

      None of us chooses when we were born.
      None of us chooses what family we are born into.
      None of us chooses where we are born.
      None of us chooses a society or religion to be born into.

      These are things that we all have in common as human beings, at least.

      On the basis of these things, seem to come some of your broad judgements of others here, as I have seen from your posts.  By the same token, you would be "guilty" of the very same things that you seem to lay at the feet of others here.  I am sure of course, that you don't see it that way, but it makes sense all the same.  WHY you won't think of yourself as guilty, is the crux of this whole thing, and what I and perhaps others are trying to get you to see.  You don't even know for sure, what the nationalities are of people here, it seems to be assumed.  You seem to only care of your own.  It seems to remove all guilt, and even a parallel example for yourself.

      Why does one race, get excused from the same judgements placed on the others? (In your eyes?)  If this is really about inheriting the sins of the fathers in your eyes, were all of yours, going back to the beginning of the existence of mankind, perfect, not lacking in morality? Even perhaps someone monstrous in your own line?  Logic would dictate that all races have these types in every line! I have so much more I could say, but will hold off for now. 

      Point being, your own measurements, point right back to you, only no one is doing or suggesting to you, what you are to them, that I have seen.  Food for thought, or I can hope I am inspiring some thought in this regard.  This isn't just about being intellectual, or anything like that.  It is partly about being intellectually honest with others and self.

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12032880_f1024.jpg
        First of all, you asked a question and I answered your question. Otherwise, I wouldn't have gotten into a discussion about race, at least not to this degree. Concerning my "broad judgements" : My judgements are based on what a particular commentator has posted. I am very well aware of the deception that abounds on the internet, but my thoughts are my own. My arguments, and my analysis, are valid regardless of the authenticity or sincerity of a particular commentator.

        Why do you suppose I should think of myself as guilty? What am I guilty of? Being honest? I am a student of  History, I have been living in the world; I have been participating in the world; I have lived and died,and then I have lived again. When I hear a dog barking I say, " I hear a dog barking".  When I speak of America I only speak the truth. In light of the truth, there is no need for an opinion.

        This is the history of America: A group of rapists, murderers, and treasure hunters came to this continent in 1492. After them came a more docile variety of European who was content to ignore the evil of genocide and slavery. This "kinder gentler" European began to build towns and cities. They became the new caretakers of the land that the earlier, more ruthless pioneers had "cleared" or ethnically cleansed to facilitate white settlement. This process of ethnic cleansing was followed by wave upon wave of Europeans. These facts are well documented, and my repeating these facts does not , by default, mean that I am racist, that I hate anyone, or that I place any race above another. In fact , I have no allegiance to any particular race of people, and I would be more accurately described as a misanthrope than a racist. Foremost, I believe in God, I believe in the truth, and yes, I hate evil, and the ignorance that allows it to flourish.

        You have commented: "Why does one race, get excused from the same judgements placed on the others?" And you have ended the argument with "Logic would dictate that all races have these types in every line!"

        You begin this argument with a fiction based on your assumptions. I have never stated that anyone gets a free lunch when it comes to immorality and injustice. If I were presently living in a nation that had been brutally carved from the blood and bones of another race by Fiji Islanders; a nation presently dominated and ruled by Fiji Islanders, I would be discussing the evil of the "Fiji Islander Invasion", but this is not the case. Furthermore, this is not only  about inheriting the sins of the fathers, but more about a nation that has "accepted and justified" the sins of the fathers through the fiction of Manifest Destiny. Neither have I stated that I only care about my own. Here, you deliver yet another fiction based on an erroneous assumption.

        The German and the Dutch are as much "my own" as the Tsalagi, and the Shawnee. Like so many others, you have decided that to speak against the evil of the European Invasion is an indictment of the entire European race. From this point, you and others on this thread are seeking to invoke the myth of "reverse racism". Contrary to your opinion, my measurements, and assessment of the European Invasion do not point to me, or the Indigenous of this continent. I have not sat idly by, refusing to speak out against the evil of America, and so my conscience is clear. I have taken the time to challenge the status quo, not only in cyberspace, but also in the real world. Of all of my sins this is one I will not have to answer for. Furthermore, there was no invasion of the European continent by the Indigenous. The French , the British, and the Dutch are not speaking Tsalagi or Nahutl, while referring to Tecumseh as a "founding father". Your entire argument is nothing more than common apologist rhetoric.

        I like to use the history of the Jews in Nazi Germany in such arguments, as it clearly illustrates the hypocrisy, ignorance, and inhumanity of many Americans. You have used the common tactic of  equating the oppressed with the oppressor. The fact that there most likely have been Jews that committed atrocities prior to WWII; the fact that there were Jews throughout history who may have been morally reprehensible, or even monstrous, hardly justifies the mass murder of European Jews by the Nazis during the war. Such an argument is absurd, yet, you have raised the argument here. Your logic could lead us to the conclusion  that the character of a woman who has been raped should be considered when assessing the seriousness of the crime, as well as the appropriate punishment for the rapist. Using the logic you have presented,a woman who has lied, cheated, stolen money, or slept around most of her adult life, is hardly worthy of the same consideration as a bible thumping virgin. Consequently,according to you, the man who rapes the sinful woman is less culpable than the man who rapes a god-fearing virgin. As you should now understand, I have no need to spin your words, or to create a fiction in order to destroy your argument.

        My analysis reveals that your weak argument only further illustrates the degree of denial that exists in America today. I have clearly illustrated that the Indigenous are no more responsible for the holocaust of over 100 million at the hands of the European Invaders, as the Orthodox Jews are responsible for the holocaust of over 6 million at the hands of the Nazis. In either case, the victim does not share the guilt of the perpetrator.

        Concerning your opening words of wisdom: You claim to know that a man has no choice in 4 things. Your comment is very poetic, and perhaps this is true of your life, but contrary to your belief, I have had all of these choices, and more than once. Your proclivity to make assumptions will only lead you to more confusion. The world will speak to you and tell you all that you are capable of knowing, but you must first believe that the world has the ability to speak. Otherwise, you will only hear the rustling of the wind. Osiyo!

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for your response.  I will try to respond to all, and warn of more questions which in part shed light on where I am coming from, and not always what they seem.  I hate to say this, but it seems you have to some degree seem to have  mischaracterized what you think my argument was.  It was much simpler, not so extreme.  It was and "if/then" and does break down purposefully because I am not sure your premises are correct, your own train or flow of thought.  The logic, and what necessarily seems to "follow", I don't see a cause and effect.  So I will try my best to answer or correct. 

          I think its good we got into this deeper discussion, because to be honest, in the short time I have known you here it is really not very far beneath the surface of your other discussions.  It is almost begging to be talked about, and I don't probably disagree, especially now.  I don't know which question or commentator's post you are speaking of exactly, an maybe that doesn't matter. 

          I don't think you need to see yourself as guilty necessarily, unless you have been unfair.  You seem to miss my point of ancestors guilt, almost altogether, which may be my fault in the presentation of what I was trying to say.  I don't find that descendants of people like Columbus or European settlers, COULD ever be held guilty for the sins of their fathers, if they have not done the wrongs themselves, for simply being born into a time and place and to people not of their choosing.  I am trying to tackle that actual assumption on your part, head on.  No, not verbatim, but you seem to even accuse officers as in this thread, seeming to be so sure of their evil intent, and that it then of course is par for the course in your eyes.  It doesn't seem to occur to you that an officer COULD just make a mistake, even a lethal one, have a bad day, use bad judgement, etc.  You seemed to care about fairness and justice and judgements of people before, especially unjust ones.  Yet I see you do this a great deal in your rhetoric, based on very old historical narratives as the driving force  very often.  A mindset, if you will.

          So my argument is very valid I think.  In light of what you can't possibly know in the hearts and minds of all people, including in this forum, because they may not agree with you.   Is this not a judgement of a whole race of others you share at times, while excusing possible real sins of your own fathers, even if not exact as those of the known European sins against Indigenous?

          People here and in this country,, or Europeans, seem judged by you.  They live here, sure.  Is this warranted judgement?  Lets run with that for a moment.  Lets say that being born, living, working, dying here MAKES them guilty of what you say it does.  Then here you are with your own family, also being born very likely here, living, working, dying here also.  I am actually making a very simple argument.  It seems however, and I though of this when I wrote it, that we do have a differing of beliefs about the afterlife, and perhaps before.  I don't find evidences for prior life, or reasons to think so. I do think there is afterlife.  I think we come into being in our mother's womb, our souls even.  I do believe in Spirit, and other dimensions, and that much much more is going on.  I just don't think I have justifiable reasons for thinking I existed eternally past, only into the future. 

          I would never say someone is guilty for being honest.  I also am a student of history, as I can continue to learn, especially.  I have a love/hate thing with it, but love it more than anything.  Its heartbreaking, humanity is.  We have great and grave issues for sure.  If you are guilty of being overly judgmental of others hearts and minds however, and not in a positive sense of some, but are with others, then I don't know what to say to that.  My points are really simple.  I am encouraging love, fairness, peace, knowledge, facts, and wisdom. 

          We simply disagree on some things.  I hear what you are saying, but don't see the equivalent in simple wording.  If you say you see a dog barking when you see it, then I am trying to get to the bottom (all the more) of why when a minority dies at the hand of an officer, you don't just say what you saw, you inject all the rest.  The parts that you can't possibly know for sure, and man they are harsh!  I can't make you see it if you don't want to.  You could be right!  That are maybe not, is something to be more careful with, because of the weight of what you are saying!  I have been over and over the intensely strong terminology I disagree with, at least until we know more.

          Ask me questions, ask others.  Ask before judging them.  Are we of the same mindsets that we are being lumped with? Do you ever give benefit of the doubt, as a form of grace or mercy that you didn't see others being given?  Would that be a good thing, and doesn't good rise far above evil?  Easy?  No.  Good, strong, incredibly light and bright, speaking volumes in the face of true horrors, yes.  I think evil isn't so easily conquered.  I see an America that is actually trying to become less and less racist in the minds and hearts of some, but in others, their hearts and minds are easily stoked by those that take advantage of the past history.   We have more racial tension now than in a long time, but I think its because people are being taken advantage of, and holding tightly to what they don't want to let go of.

          You may find logic in thinking certain ways and then communicating those thoughts, where I can't see it for the life of me.  It makes one look deeper, to the unaddressed issues here.  Do we all need to leave, in order to not be guilty?  What would, or could actually right things?  Leave America, try to get back to your native tongues?  Property, what about that?  Please don't assume so much about us is all, about all officer's hearts, how can you?  A lot of our stories are tragic also, full of sacrifice, heartache, etc.  There is so much more going on that just what happened to one race or a group.  Ask.  Don't assume.  What do you want to know?

          I don't like what happened.  I don't like what happened a lot in history on many counts, to many people.  We are making history too, in small ways, sometimes larger than we know now.  If certain bad choices were made, and that is the focus, why isn't the new focus to do better?  Do we leave?  I don't think it would help actually.  I almost think what is being suggested, is the impossible.  That it never have happened.  I wonder if you know much about Scottish and Irish history, and many other countries.  This is a human problem, and it is awful.  Everyone is trying to survive.  Why can't we try harder to be fair in our judgements?  Short on time.  Perhaps can answer more later. I didn't do those things.  That officer didn't do those things very likely.  Address the particular ignorance you want to.  Its the lumping and assuming I have a problem with.  As for your ancestors, my point simply was, if there were any bad among them, morally, why don't we lump you with them?  I won't do it, because its not fair to.  I believe in responsibility, and have to answer for my own problems most of all.  I don't agree with the bad things.  I think it is awful, sad, and hard to remedy.  This is why goodness must prevail over evil.  Nothing else can quite kill it.   You believe in God...?  I think he is best judge, not too lenient, nor too harsh, all knowing.  It will be righted, and we need patience I think.  In the mean time, goodness, peace, love, wisdom, knowledge, facts, forgiveness.  Forgiveness, that isn't saying it was ok, but for peace, and trying to show a better way for the future.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12033972.jpg
            If generations continue upon the same course that was set by criminals, and if these generations, knowing the evil truth of the path that they follow, do nothing to seek a remedy, there can only be one conclusion. When we also consider that these generations have knowingly prospered as a result of their evil predecessors, the situation becomes even more egregious. Just as the great Osceola, I am as much a European as I am Indigenous, but my European ancestry has not blinded me to the truth, nor to my personal responsibility to seek a remedy. I do not love one race and hate the other. I am too intelligent to fall into such a simple trap. Racism is a divisive tool of oppression; an instrument set in motion by Pope Nicholas V in the year 1452. I would never allow myself to willingly become the pawn of an evil system. What I am doing here, any man can do. But many will not speak in favor of humanity because they are selfish cowards who have become fat and addicted to comfort.

            What is evil? Evil is not only the deed itself, but it is also the apathy, the acquiescence, and the ignorance that nurtures and perpetuates a world of misery. Just as a man is connected to the past through previous generations, the evil that took root here in 1492 is also connected to the present. You choose to believe that there is no connection , but the laws of nature , as well as the laws of science, have shown that no person, place, or thing  creates itself. All that is has only continued and transformed from what has come before.

            The killing of Tamir Rice is just one in a series of killings that have happened recently. Here is a very short list:

            • March 16th 2014: Albuquerque New Mexico: A homeless man,James Boyd, was murdered by police for illegally camping.
            http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/james-boyd/

            • June 18th 2014: An Oklahoma City police officer was charged Friday with raping or sexually abusing six women he allegedly threatened to arrest if they did not submit. Officer Daniel Holtzclaw, 27, was charged with two counts of first-degree rape, four counts of sexual battery, four counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of indecent exposure, one count of first-degree burglary and one count of stalking.
            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … /14830063/

            • Diana Showman, a mentally ill woman brandishing a power drill was shot dead by an officer after she called 911 and told San Jose dispatchers she had an Uzi. Diana Showman, 19, had come out of her house, ignored demands to put down the weapon, and was shot once. Showman’s parents criticized the officer’s response, saying that the police needed to be better equip to handle mental health issues.
            http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Pa … 07961.html

            • In 2010, Belmont Shores, California police shot and killed Doug Zerby for holding a garden hose that police mistook for a gun. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 … ozzle.html


            Interestingly, there is no official government database that reflects how many citizens are killed or raped by the police every year. However, the F.B.I. does keep track of how many police officers are killed each year. Independent organizations have estimated that between 400 and 1000 civilians are killed by the police every year in the United States. We can see here that the "public servant" is obviously considered by the government to be more important than those being served! Can we really imagine that the butler or the maid is ever treated with more respect and consideration than the master? Can we really believe that their needs, their concerns, and their personal safety supercedes that of their master. Historically, this has not been the case. So we must ask ourselves how the police have gone from being the servant, to being the master. We must wonder how a public servant can now commit murder with impunity.

            The evil deeds, the apathy, and the acquiescence we see today are directly associated with that which began in 1492, and which has continued unto the present. The very system itself is founded on evil, and so any solutions that do not involve the creation of a new system are nothing more than band aid solutions. This can easily be proven by using an open sewer as an example: Find yourself a volunteer and have him stand waist deep in the filthy sewer water. Stand at the edge of the sewer and throw bars of soap at the man. How many bars of soap will it take to wash him clean?  Of course, we can all guess that until the man chooses to step out of the sewer, he will never be able to wash himself clean. Metaphorically speaking, this is what has been happening here in America for over 500 years.

            When we step out of the sewer, we step out of the dream and into the real world. It is only from the standpoint of the real world that we can make substantial and lasting changes that will remove the violence that has followed us like a plague, and that permeates our society today. To eradicate this evil, we must begin at 1492, and then move toward the present. My words and concepts may seem strong, and perhaps unreasonable to many, but this is only because I have long ago stepped out of the sewer of materialism and greed. HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW? Perhaps some of you would rather hear a rousing rendition of the old Hank Williams favorite, "Kaw-Liga". I am sure there is a traitor living nearby who would be glad to sing it for you, or any number of Lee Greenwood songs. My state of being is not perfection, but perfection is not necessarily a prerequisite for peace, love and understanding. And after all, "What's so funny 'bout that?"

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Ignorance nurtures and perpetuates a world of misery.
              You are fighting ignorance through educating us. You inform us that we are witnessing evil which began when Columbus and his men in their ships burst upon the Eden of the Indigenous. 

              Actually it began in another Eden much much farther back than that.
              Just to remind you.
              But, thanks for your efforts to educate/inform us regarding events of recent history.
              I hope it helps.

            2. 0
              SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Just for the sake of clarity and the false narrative being proposed:

              Kenewick man, the oldest known body recovered in the US shows no genetic similarities to Native Americans and was found with a stone projectile lodged in his chest.

              Soooo - let's see - Native Americans arrived and populated the continent, displacing and eradicating people already here.

              Plus, in South America, the same can be said as the descendants of the indigenous people there share genetic traits with Native Americans but ancient bodies found there share no such traits. This led to the theory that Native Americans continued their migration south, displacing and eradicating the original indigenous peoples.

              Bottom line: no land has been continually held and/or populated with the modern day people within those lands. They have all been invaded and/or conquered. All of them.

              Also, your 1492 narrative is also a false one. Columbus never set foot in North America ever, nor even explored the coast line. There is some evidence that Cortez made explorations North and engaged the tribes there at the time, specifically in Florida.

              Slavery is also an ancient concept and not one invented by the Europeans. In fact, historically every race on the planet has been held as slaves or oppressed at one time or another. Even in North America, the tribal nations practiced slavery and the exchange of persons for goods. In Africa, it was the tribal nations who captured and supplied the slave trade already having the practice of capture and slavery within their own cultures.

              It is a circle and not linear. If you believe that everyone should be punished, then you must then punish all people, everywhere. Why does the line of guilt end with the people who inhabited North America when the Virginia Company and the Pilgrims arrived? It would then continue back to the people that those tribes had displaced and eradicated.

              The most modern day people can do is learn from the past and work to make a better future. Living within the past does not accomplish anything.

              There are no Pilgrims alive today, no slave owners, no persecutors of indigenous people. There are no slaves alive today, none of those alive who suffered the grievous injuries.

              Your false narrative does not move forward the discussion into the tragic death of a 12 yr old boy - nor offer any solutions how it can be avoided in the future.  It only distracts from it.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12034798.png
                First of all your comment about Columbus makes no sense at all. Like others on this forum, you have invented a fiction and then attributed it to me. I have made no such statements as you have ascribed to me concerning Columbus. Furthermore, my goal at this time is not to offer any "solutions" as you have mentioned. I have only pointed in the right direction. It would be foolish of me at this time to proceed any further. If the government wants details, then let them set a price and I will consider it.

                Your apologist rhetoric completely misses the point of my commentary and analysis. I am completely aware that a world of ignorance and evil existed long before 1492. It is humorous, and also frustrating that you felt the need to highlight the obvious. But your commentary is important as it helps to illustrate the difficulties one must face when attempting to inject a new paradigm into a primitive society. For you to point out that violence and evil have existed throughout history, and throughout all races and cultures is remarkable.

                I have suggested that there is a way to mitigate, and possibly eradicate violence and murder ‌throughout the United States in our time. It is the arrival of the European to this continent in 1492 that we must be concerned with, because it is the European legacy that continues to prevail socially and politically. It is the European legacy that we can clearly see is not working for the majority, which includes the majority of working class Euro-Americans. To suggest that the Indigenous who existed at the time of Columbus may have displaced other races or civilizations in the distant past only serves to support my argument: "If we continue down the same path there will be no hope for humanity". Today, unlike in 1492, it is possible for us to eliminate a present and future misery by addressing a past misery, and moving forward from 1492. You have attempted to reduce a serious argument to the superficial level of "My Home Team vs Your Team", which is not uncommon, nor unexpected. Osiyo!

                1. 0
                  SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You are the one with the 1492 fetish and dismissing anything that comes before that date.
                  As for moving on from 1492, the majority of the world, not just Americans, have moved forward. Right now, I've only seen you stuck there in regards to this thread.
                  I'm still waiting for how all your posturing in any way contributes to this discussion. You failed to address that part of my post. I understand why - since the answer is it doesn't - just thought I'd point that out.
                  You travel around in circles, attempting to sound collegiate, in the hopes of confusing others, when all you're really doing is repeating yourself over and over, standing high on your soap box, clearly rooted in 1492.
                  Join us in the 21st century. We haven't found all the solutions, we still have problems, but we attempt to approach them having learned from the past instead of wallowing in it.
                  It's not all sunshine and lollipops but we try.

                  1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12035063.jpg
                    Your assumptions and conclusions are quite remarkable. Now you accuse me of  " attempting to sound collegiate". Please let me inform you that I am not impressed with the educational system here in the United States.  In spite of such prestigious institutions like Harvard, established in 1636, innocent children are still homeless and dying in the streets, the environment continues to be polluted, women continue to be raped and molested, over 40,000 die  annually in traffic fatalities, war has become big business, drug abuse, poverty, and the band played on!  What have all of these college graduates been doing since 1636? The current state of the world should have given you a clue that college has little to do with true intelligence, and more to do with making lots of money, which by the way, any drug dealer or pimp is also capable of doing. No, I am not interested in being mistaken for another soldier in an army of educated fools.

                    What I find most interesting is that you insist on presenting a fiction and then arguing against it. It is apparent that you are providing generic answers without reading my posts. Evil can be likened to a virus or a disease. I have simply provided a location on the timeline; a place in the past where the present evil begins. I fail to see how you have construed this as "wallowing in the past".  If a doctor is going after a brain tumor it would make little sense to start with an incision in the buttocks! 

                    Furthermore, when an adoptee discovers their birth mother, and inquires as to what family illnesses might exist, it is not wallowing in the past when she informs her child that there is a history of diabetes in the family. I do not need to explain the benefits of such information.

                    Today, many are seeking a solution to the problem of police brutality, and violence in general. I have shown you the beginning of an end to this misery. The reason that it is taking the world so long to find a solution is because many people are very arrogant, but  not very smart, and this has proven to be a lethal combination. If you can't see how my input has contributed to the discussion that I myself started, then I am at a loss, since I have been quite meticulous, albeit necessarily brief in my commentary.  As far as the invite to join you in the 21st century, I think I'll pass, and go back to the future instead. Hafa Adai

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." Federalist No. 15 Hamilton.

                      - enforcing constraint is the only solution. If the police think they can get away with brutality they will.

                      - who was constraining Columbus? Far far far from any sort consequences for his actions. 
                      - who was constraining Jefferson or Washington? Slavery was accepted during their day.
                      - Who / what constrains the officers who abuse the trust and the authority they are given?
                      That is the question.

                      "Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation." Federalist No. 15 Hamilton.
                      Dear wB:
                      I just found this article you listed earlier on.
                      It explains a lot.
                      http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column … an_cops-0/

    14. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      @ wB: How does one combat evil? Is Manifest Destiny the most evil? If I were to say the most evil is the earth, what am I to do about it?
      How would I combat the earth?
      How do we combat what has already happened in History?

      How do we move on from Today?
      Ignorance allowed evil to flourish then as it does now.
      How is evil and the ignorance that propels it to be combated, in your view?

      By your example, one way (to combat evil) is to be disrespectful to the police and all they stand for. I have always cringed to hear them called pigs, which everyone did when I was a teen.
      Another way is by accusing the founding fathers of being terrible sinners.
      Another way is by accusing the explorers who came upon this land of being horrendous sinners.

      Well, we are ALL terrible sinners and we sin ALL the time.
      And yet, is mankind intentionally evil? NO.
      Does mankind act in ignorance? YES.
      How do we combat ignorance? Basically, WE CAN'T.

      In human affairs families educate their children, OR NOT! School systems have had their day and are now failing miserably. Churches too.


      In the long run, it is all about me and my efforts to educate.

      Q. But, how can I educate if all I do is focus on the gutters of life rather than look up at the mountains of greatness and goodness that truly exist here, today... as they always have.

      PS What gives me the courage and inspiration to look up is working with/caring for children.
      They are our true hope in life.

      PSS If we do not attempt to make life good for them, who will we make it good for? 

      TWISI

    15. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      Fine! I will gladly take over!
      The proper boundaries maintain freedom.
      Proper boundaries must be enforced.
      This case concerning the actions of these officers is a simple case of over-reacting and over-reaching their authority... and … why?  because Police Officers are fallible humans. The judicial system and the law checks the fallibility of humans in maintaining justice for all.
      We need to maintain faith in our system. Its fine and all is well. But, we need to understand it and apply its principles rightly.
      And this is where (true) education comes in handy.

    16. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

      Perhaps it is far too easy to criticize a government, that you at the very same time are benefiting from.  And likely have been, for a very long time. That of one's family as well, friends, etc. 

      Of course this is no utopia, and of course examples of accidents and outright current atrocities can be pointed out on occasion.  This has been a problem for humanity from its inception, pretty much.  That the USA is still one of the best, and in existence now, seems to be another reason to criticize it, as it hasn't been taken over in the same way, by some other greater power.  That seems to be its only way out!!  If you notice.......

      I have been paying attention to all of this, and to me, it seems to be indicative of something much simpler.  To act as if all others can't see the points being made, when it could be the points being made aren't working out as logical, reasonable, and moral for all.

      Perhaps the European hadn't come, and some others did.  Surely the indigenous would be so much better off now?  I don't know how that case would be made, and how it would come across.  Perhaps NO one ever came (unlikely, as this is mankind's "way", including the Native American's in question, on most all continents) If no one ever came, would those here never war with each other, and all live and let live?  This all seems to be hinging on, or needing other unreasonable things to be true, to even begin to make sense.

      Disgruntled, and poor reasoning, poor reflecting on the nature of man overall, a not looking at other countries, pretending this isn't what was always done/is done.  The strong need to brainwash those that will listen, that there are some, "extra" evil, while having to ignore the others to make the points.  We love our families, and admire certain people we think would never make a mistake.  Yet I think one was made here, and its easier to believe the make believe, than what is more reasonable and rational. 

      Its sad, because bad things did happen, but that those that did it THIS one particular time, are still under the same government and we all live and work here, well.... they are the super guilty ones.?? (How does that follow, if not by sheer belief, while ignoring so much?)   All because of a boy in a park with what looked like a real gun that was genuinely scaring people, and a cop that didn't do 100% best in that.  Then picking, looking for something else to critique, to hopefully not notice that new rabbit trail being focused on. 

      Truth is, we all know that if someone today, came to any of us and said they wanted our land, or our possessions, and tried to take them by force, that we have actual recourse with our government in question here.  The very powers that be right now, would protect the very one using their voice to criticize. It seems exaggerated and a distortion.  Indignant, not thinking broadly overall.  I don't get it, and can't get on board no matter how much I am in the persons shoes.  Its not all fair, but it doesn't mean we aren't probably living in one of the most "fair" places on earth.  I encourage better thinking on it, more fairness.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Take it up with Emma Goldman et al.
        If you will read her writings you will "get it."

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I think I do "get" it.  Perhaps it was how I worded things. 

          Can anyone point out how societies are thriving, where anarchist ideas have been allowed to played out?

          What are some of the best ideas that come from the anarchist political philosophy, and why should America quit what its doing, and adopt those ideas instead?  Lets see it! Someone, please, make a case.  While benefiting from the very things in place now, that protect them, while they benefit say off of capitalism also, etc.

          In particular, I am interested in how this anarchist philosophy will crush, or deal with human's desire to sometimes commit atrocities or have legitimate accidents, better than our current system does?  If the USA is so FAILING, because of problems seen across the board in humanity, across all times and all people groups, can someone offer up a better solution that is coherent and workable?

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12041469.jpg
            The murder of Tamir Rice and thousands of others by police every year in the United States cannot be resolved by voting,town hall meetings, or violent protests. Unfortunately, the solution is far more complex, because it requires a revolution of the mind, and a freeing of the majority from mental slavery. This is the hardest part because the majority are living in an artificial reality, and until that reality is discarded there will be no significant changes.

            The United States is based on a corrupt and unjust system that claims to promote freedom and equality, but ironically, it is the antithesis of both. Police brutality, poverty, violence, drug addiction,slavery, and racism are perpetuated by this system. To argue that these same conditions exist throughout the world is meaningless, since nearly the entire world operates through the same capitalist system.

            My position seems unreasonable to many in this forum  because  they have literally been brainwashed and manipulated by the status quo since the time of their birth, just as many generations before them. This is not unusual, as it is well known that during the antebellum, some slaves had grown so accustomed to their servitude that they did not wish to be freed, and would betray anyone who sought to rebel against their "master", or escape. To distinguish the two era's of slavery, I have coined the phrases: "Slave State of the First Order", and "Slave State of the Second Order". Of course we are living in the latter. It would not be practical to attempt to explain the benefits of Anarchism over the current system since such an explanation would fill volumes. Anarchism, and all of it's permutations can no more be reduced to a convenient soundbyte than the Christian Bible, or any other philosophical or religious belief. Suffice it to say that there is a wealth of information available for anyone interested in understanding the truth about "Anarchy vs the so-called "American Dream".

            To better understand Anarchist thought, I would suggest reading the entire book "WHAT IS PROPERTY?" (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/360 ) as well as " Civil Disobedience" by Thoreau (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search … sobedience ) and  "Anarchism and Other Essays"  by Emma Goldman ( http://ucblibrary3.berkeley.edu/Goldman … Anarchism/ )


            Here are some excerpts from:

            WHAT IS PROPERTY?
            AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLE
            OF RIGHT AND OF GOVERNMENT
            by P.S. Proudhon

            Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809 - 1865) is reputed to be the first person to declare himself an anarchist.
            Excerpts from : WHAT IS PROPERTY?

            ... Thus the law, in establishing property, has not been the expression of a psychological fact, the development of a natural law, the application of a moral principle. It has literally CREATED a right outside of its own province. It has realized an abstraction, a metaphor, a fiction; and that without deigning to look at the consequences, without considering the disadvantages, without inquiring whether it was right or wrong.

            It has sanctioned selfishness; it has indorsed monstrous pretensions; it has received with favor impious vows, as if it were able to fill up a bottomless pit, and to satiate hell! Blind law; the law of the ignorant man; a law which is not a law; the voice of discord, deceit, and blood! This it is which, continually revived, reinstated, rejuvenated, restored, re-enforced—as the palladium of society—has troubled the consciences of the people, has obscured the minds of the masters, and has induced all the catastrophes which have befallen nations.

            This it is which Christianity has condemned, but which its ignorant ministers deify; who have as little desire to study Nature and man, as ability to read their Scriptures...


            ... Not only does occupation lead to equality, it PREVENTS property. For, since every man, from the fact of his existence, has the right of occupation, and, in order to live, must have material for cultivation on which he may labor; and since, on the other hand, the number of occupants varies continually with the births and deaths,—it follows that the quantity of material which each laborer may claim varies with the number of occupants; consequently, that occupation is always subordinate to population. Finally, that, inasmuch as possession, in right, can never remain fixed, it is impossible, in fact, that it can ever become property.

            Every occupant is, then, necessarily a possessor or usufructuary,—a function which excludes proprietorship. Now, this is the right of the usufructuary: he is responsible for the thing entrusted to him; he must use it in conformity with general utility, with a view to its preservation and development; he has no power to transform it, to diminish it, or to change its nature; he cannot so divide the usufruct that another shall perform the labor while he receives the product. In a word, the usufructuary is under the supervision of society, submitted to the condition of labor and the law of equality.

            Thus is annihilated the Roman definition of property—THE RIGHT OF USE AND ABUSE—an immorality born of violence, the most monstrous pretension that the civil laws ever sanctioned. Man receives his usufruct from the hands of society, which alone is the permanent possessor. The individual passes away, society is deathless...

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              This excerpt brings many questions to mind: (Thank you for providing it, by the way.)

              The problem is, how can we get everyone to stop claiming land?
              On THIS planet?
              ...and how can we get them to value society over themselves and their offspring?
              Love is at the root of this… love of self and immediate loved ones versus the society at large. (How large?)
              There will always be those who will attempt to overpower the weak. After all, what is the use of being powerful if it can't be used for some advantage?
              - usually the advantage is used for something one is passionate about.
                       - usually one is passionate about one's own life and family.

              What has happened on this earth is due to human nature. 

              You say the Oai people did not own land?
              Well, the farming ones did. Sure enough, they were the ones who were the most vicious as they had to protect the source of their survival. But those who did not own land lived in triblets or tribes.  They did not have land, but they did have each other as far as survival and protection. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but this creeps me out. I would hate living in a tribe of people. Was Proudoun an advocate of tribal living?

              Or what did he imagine as far as his envisioned "society?" Would factions or autonomous communities exist?
              - or what?

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12042211.jpg
                Proudhon could not have expressed himself more clearly when he stated concerning property and the law:  "... It has literally CREATED a right outside of its own province. It has realized an abstraction, a metaphor, a fiction; and that without deigning to look at the consequences, without considering the disadvantages, without inquiring whether it was right or wrong."

                Here we see a common ground between Proudhon's conclusions, the teachings of Jesus, and many Indigenous nations that existed here prior to 1492. The childish treatment of my comments by many on this forum is indicative  of why nearly 150 years after Proudhon's death, a majority of Americans continue to cling to a lie, believing that somehow, someday, things will get better in a system that cannot possibly afford to the many when it's very design can only accommodate a privileged few. This is not a matter of race or a clash of cultures. Proudhon was a French politician, I am an artist of mixed race (Euro-Indigenous), Jesus was a Jew, and the Indigenous nations that have existed on this continent for over 10,000 years are as varied and unique as the various European tribes. But in spite of, racial, and cultural differences, and in spite of the passage of time, there is a commonality of thought and understanding.

                All of the French, especially the aristocracy did not share Proudhon's views, of course not! Neither  have all Indigenous nations shared the same views on ownership and property. But the fact that the world at large has never truly followed the teachings of Jesus, Proudhon, or any number of philosophers, or social architects, does not necessarily render their teachings irrelevant. On the contrary, the fact that we have the luxury of hindsight, and can clearly see that the present system has, and will always accommodate only a privileged few, must lead us to explore a different approach to the maintenance of society; one that is more productive and less adversarial.

                Whether or not a majority could ever accept a world that allotted a fair share of land, resources, and wealth to everyman, while denying the greedy motivations of evil men is not the proper, or relevant question. The question that we must resolve is, " How many generations are we willing to forfeit, and sacrifice, for the false security of servitude?"

                1. Credence2 profile image84
                  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Wb, in reference to your last paragraph, we are always going to forfeit, sacrifice for the false security of servitude as long as the majority accepts a world that does not allot land and resources to everyman equally, denying the motivations of evil men.

                  We go from slavery, serfdom, to wage slaves under capitalism, those that have  will never  give up their advantage.
                  What kind of economic system do you envision that will reward people in proportion to their work and ingenuity? People can't be counted upon to be altruistic about their time and energy indefinitely. Every system accommodates a privilege few, as in "Animal Farm" 'some are more equal than others'. Such has been the case with the ancient Egyptians down to the present day capitalist moguls. Looking around the world where are there are societies that have more equal distribution of wealth, Scandinavia, a relatively homogeneous society?

                  The scriptures say that Man dominates Man to his injury. It applies to ALL MEn not exclusive to European, Asians, Africans, I have witnessed brutality from all, and all have fallen short of the ideal.  To talk about a fundamental change, would be the same as talking about warp drives, molecular replicators and such. We as a SPECIES are a long way from  such sophisticated viewpoints and thinking. What do we do in the face of the reality today?

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You say,

                    "People can't be counted upon to be altruistic about their time and energy indefinitely. Every system accommodates a privilege few, as in "Animal Farm" 'some are more equal than others'. Such has been the case with the ancient Egyptians down to the present day capitalist moguls. Looking around the world where are there are societies that have more equal distribution of wealth, Scandinavia, a relatively homogeneous society?"

                    Exactly.  Its like addressing the frailties of mankind, with a wrong band aid kind of.  While missing the greater threat to the body as a whole.  It has to actually be able to work, to work.  Whatever is being suggested.  Its like a partial misdiagnosis, and blaming the wrong "culprit" for the disease we observe in humanity.  Not thinking FULLY through, only partially, while being so sure the proposed bandaid or medicine will actually work.  Science and medicine looks for things that have been proven to be true for those fields. If there IS no perfect solution to be forced onto a people through government, it doesn't mean we abandon what IS still the best, all things considered.  Yes, its all risky, it always was!  This is why the best thinking matters on all things.  I hope people challenge my ideas in such ways, if they think I am wrong. 

                    Animal Farm..... Speaking of that, I think its a must read, and very short.  Some say it might not apply, but the ideas expressed and how they are expressed, are very eye opening.  Very wow factor, jaw dropping.  Again, the disease is not what it seems to be, and there are MANY forms of abuse, in our society.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              First, I think you need to be a bit more honest about your accusations of police murdering people.  Murder, vs. killing or killed, means something very particular.  Its not fair to those that ARE truly murdered in cold blood.  Kids HAVE been murdered by adults, and I think you minimize the seriousness of all these cases, because of a possible, personal agenda and points you are literally forcing with rhetoric.  This is careless at the very least.

              In the very first words of your first sentence, you come out with part of your problem, and what I think is (possibly) a true form of brainwashing and belief.  How horrifying that you think police are just murdering people.  Your premises need to be right, and they are wrong right off the bat.  This isn't responsible or intellectually honest thinking, and incites more violence among people that don't think things through, and that respond to simple emotional appeals.  I am kind of sick of it, to be honest, everyone ought to be. 

              The solution IS more complex, and I think you alluded to it before, that ideas like Jesus espoused, are more of an answer.  (Or those are my words, more of an answer.)  Jesus describes a human problem, doesn't blame any particular people, but all of us that have ever done wrong.  Your misapplication of what is happening is an attempt to get people to side with you, at least, but you will only remain frustrated ongoing because you aren't even framing the problem correctly, or fairly.  You have not made a case. 

              It isn't meaningless to discuss other times and other countries, but would surely benefit you in trying to force the argument to be what you seem to want and NEED it to be, to even get off the ground.  If we point you to the logic of the greater problem of mankind, then you are forced to face your own possible brainwashing, that perhaps wasn't intended, but seems to be rooted very strongly and deeply in your thinking.  Its like a lens put on your view of everything, and you use other people's possible lack of intelligence compared to yours, or lack of reasoning against them, so they "must just not see your points for issues like that."  I don't think that is the case at all. 

              Your simple (yet crazy bold) assertions DON'T make an argument, unless they are all true.  Your beliefs over the actual facts of matters, don't make your argument for you.  You are counting on being 100% right 100% of the time about the motives, intentions, and deeper dark desires of police and the ruling authorities in our country, and its time you stopped it.  If this is what you are going to be writing about in your book, I would greatly encourage you to slow down, and be a bit more fair, and work with the actual facts, which will admittedly be LESS satisfying to your desired beliefs about people, but more fair.  Not only that, you will be taken as a credible writer then also!  Don't you want that?  You have deep passion for these things, but if misplaced and misguided as I have seen, you lose your whole point!  You could exact some true change, by being more reasonable and fair.

              The problem in particular cases, CAN be met and addressed hopefully in a system that we hope does do what it says it will do.  The checks and balances HAVE done some good, while not negating all the bad, and how could it?  SOME true corruption here and there doesn't mean the WHOLE is the same.  It doesn't logically follow that it would. 

              Your position seems unreasonable to some in this forum (most all that I have seen) perhaps because of the parts that ARE unreasonable, and you can't show they are not, other than to say others are brainwashed and manipulated.  No one wants to be, including you, right? Well we have to see. 

              I trust you actually saw my questions and read them, when you responded.  I will go address those now in a new post.  I admit I have not evaluated and addressed the other points.  You have not made your first points however.  Lets take things slower and see where it goes, shall we?  I will leave my response as this for now, so we don't get novels for answers, then I will also look at how you propose a new way of governing (perhaps) will solve the things in a way that our current system does not address.

              .

            3. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yea that's it....

    17. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

      In this thread, I  have accidentally and on many occasions said "indigenous" of the Americans in this locale in the 15th century.  I don't mean indigenous, like how it sounds.  In this conversation the distinction needs to be made.

    18. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

      WB....

      You seem to have adopted ideas you either came up with, or heard expressed from others, that (with all possible due respect) do not do you justice.  Perhaps you totally trusted the person or people telling you the things you have heard and have now made your own ideas.  I find it very odd, the talk of manipulation, brainwashing, reality, and the rest.  As if that could never have been done to you.  Even by very well meaning people.....  If you choose not to challenge your own ideas, how can you be so sure they are the correct ones?  Even if you think you HAVE fully thought things through, can't it be possible you are wrong somewhere along the line, if you are?  You are not omniscient, or all knowing.  This is why your ideas and mine need (and ought to be, all) critiqued, and hard.  I say this all the time, that part of the reason I hold the views I do on all kinds of things, is because I test my views the hardest of all!  I don't want to believe in things for what turn out to be crappy reasons!  Especially not as a passionate person that cares about people and about moral things, and all the really important stuff of life!  So that is all I am doing here.  Testing your views hard.  This isn't about slandering or attacking views you haven't espoused.  This is about discussing what you are actually talking about.  I think you might actually really believe that police are murderers.  How can anyone actually talk rationally with you, if you adopt such an illogical and immoral idea such as that?  It would mean you wouldn't be swayed by reasoned and moral arguments, yet I can tell that is what you seem to want to come across as having.   Go after that disconnect perhaps, but it means you have to tackle your held views. 

      I have to think that if you want to be taken seriously, you want people to critique your views hard, especially if writing a book.

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12042537.jpg
        First of all, it is not my burden for you or anyone else to "take me seriously". Like so many others, you assume that because I am using a common English language, and I am posting in a common internet forum, about common social issues,  we both have similar ambitions ,desires, and values; that we are cut from the same cloth. That we are "equals". I assure you we are not. But you have expressed yourself in a manner that betrays a hidden motive. For instance, you have ascribed to me that which I do not own! You say,

        " You are not omniscient, or all knowing.  This is why your ideas and mine need (and ought to be, all) critiqued, and hard."

        Your preceding comment is totally absurd, and serves no purpose other than slander. The difference between my comments and yours is that I assess the character and the understanding of an individual, or group based on what has been stated, believed, and practiced by said individual or group. It is not merely my opinion, educated or otherwise, that the United States is essentially a slave state. No more than it is my opinion that the police murder and rape thousands of citizens each year. These are facts! Simply because you have not studied certain issues and are not aware of the facts does not reduce these facts to the level of a personal opinion. It is not my burden to convince you that you are a slave when the chains that bind the poor and working class are clearly visible to anyone who cares to look.

        I have not stated or even implied that I am "all knowing", and such slander can only be explained as follows:

        1.You are purposely being slanderous to entertain yourself.
        2.You fear that you have been made a fool of by the government, and so it is easier to attack and slander the messenger.
        3.There is an issue of comprehension
        4.There is an issue of social or racial bias.
        5.It is difficult for you to accept a higher authority.

        Whatever your reasons for slander, although your assumptions may provide you with some personal satisfaction, they will not break the chains that have bound the common man. Even someone who has never studied logic, or philosophy, or religion , or science,or art for an entire lifetime, understands what it means when someone is lying dead in the street! The ideas and the society that you apparently defend have provided, over the last 200 years, empirical evidence that clearly substantiates my claims. On the other hand,you challenge my position but you have no such empirical evidence to attack the validity of my arguments. Based on your commentary, it appears that you have accepted that it is natural and proper to be born a slave, and to live and die in servitude to a ruling elite; a ruling elite that stands behind the curtain and actually controls and manipulates the wealthy 1% that sit above the rest of humanity.

        Finally, your opening statement challenges the source of my knowledge and understanding. Such statements are, to say the least, arrogant. But most importantly, your opening statement further substantiates my claim that a majority of Americans have been brainwashed. Your statement reveals that you cannot conceive of an authority; a philosopher, seer, holy man, extraterrestrial, or emissary of God who would ever speak directly to you in an online forum. It appears that you will only accept what has been sanctioned and disseminated publicly by the government through various media, or television programs such as "Oprah", "Nancy Grace", or "CNN".

        But it should be clearly understood that  if the simian can learn to speak this language, and to effectively communicate; write essays, treatises,books, poetry, and song, it is not so far fetched that a superior entity, or the humble emissary, would utilize the English language as well. There are humans of great conscience who go among other species in an attempt to keep them from harm, or save them from extinction. There are also entities and humans who serve the human race in the same fashion. I am not here to win a popularity contest, or to gain "followers". There is too much at stake to concern myself with such pedestrian concerns. In the months and years to come, there will be more rapes and murders committed by the police, while millions continue to suffer under the yoke of "freedom". Tamir Rice is the image of God that has been defiled and cast aside. He deserves more than 15 minutes of sympathy and soundbytes.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          WB, You avoid so much.  I didn't ever say you claimed to BE all knowing or anything of the like. So stop that.  Its a simple reminder, and an observation on my part of your behavior, that you DO judge others as if you seem to know when you most certainly do not.  You do NOT know the motives of the heart and mind and their inner beliefs, for what their occupation is.  That is a GOD attribute that no man has.  Its illlogical, untruth, a lie, at the very least.  You believe it very firmly.   IF you WERE all knowing, (which was inherent in my post that you are NOT), then you WOULD be able to talk so big about officers of the law in the US.  You missed the point, and turned it into you being a victim.   I have observed this in many of your arguments with others in discussions.

          It is simply IMMORAL to accuse so many of murder.   It is disgusting, actually! No more tip toeing around.

          Tired of your frequently played, "slander" card.  All to seemingly to avoid the points.  Well done.  Not.

          I actually almost lol when I saw your MLK quote.  Its one of my all time, literally, all time favorites.  Why do you think I am speaking out?

          I have observed you take a tiny little point, and extrapolate on that (the omniscient comment by me as example) to avoid the main points.  While missing the one, turning it into what you do.... I see this.

          You seem to place yourself as so morally superior and knowledgeable over others, and miss simple concepts and won't see a mirror when held up. No one is doing to you, what you are doing to so many.  (Example, officers of the law.)  Accusing of murder like you have!  This is fact.  You don't have to accept or see it, but you are welcome, for me pointing it out.  I don't see you as a victim of slander or anything else, sorry.  I see you as promoting bad ideas, and a possible type of racism that seems to run very very deep. Almost impossible to be reasoned with.  It creates more problems.  Choosing to be a victim of what results of putting certain blinders on, while accusing it in others, is something you have to wrestle with.

          And YES, you do have the burden of expressing yourself in a way that can be taken as serious, when you are accusing so many left right and center, while wanting to be taken at face value.  Assertions and beliefs are just that.  This is what you have expressed, and propose things that won't fix.  Then are frustrated at what is wrong with these people that are just enslaved and brainwashed?  Super wow.

          Edit: All I can do is recommend to you, to be a part of a healing, truly workable solution, and consider your own possible brainwashing of things that turn out to be beliefs.   You can be the most passionate person wanting change, but really be the equivalent of a guy trying to get somewhere important, while really "being stuck in a muddy rut with mud getting flung everywhere around."  All the while wagging the finger and stating why others that want change and are passing you by are just not educated enough, high IQ enough, or observant enough.  Sorry..... I think it needs to be said.  Lets look for the real bandaid, the real medicine that isn't more problematic and doesn't address real issues.  No one will want to get on board with any of your possible good ideas, and "go where you are going", when you get so much wrong.  I am doing this because I care actually.

          I can't fix them all, but I CAN address absolutely wrong ideas.  That cops are what you say they are, when its NOT the case like you claim to make it look like.  This is just one of the problems I have seen.  If this was a surgery with surgeons in the room, ready to right the wrongs, excise the bad and help mend the wounds, would they ask you to leave?  Man, anyone can talk big!  I am sure you have a lot to offer, and you are willing to voice things.  Do it better, or please don't be surprised when you are shown how they break down and even cause more harm than good.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12042657.png
            I have many talents, it is true. I am also physically attractive, and so I  have known and enjoyed many beautiful women, as well as those who might be considered quite ugly, since I respect all of God's creation. But for some things, you don't need a special talent in order to understand. Sometimes you just need to read, look around, and experience for yourself.

            John Brown was ahead of his time, yet he was ridiculed and hanged by the neck until he was dead. Jesus was said to be the son of God, yet he was tortured, spat upon, and crucified. I do not expect to be treated any better than those far above my station, nor do I expect nothing less than the ridicule that you and others here  have delivered.

            Here in the United States, the families and the victims of those who are raped, murdered, and abused by the police every year, know that I speak the truth,  because they have already received their proof: empirical evidence that came in a box , a funeral urn, or an indelible memory of injustice and humility.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Q. What type of society did Proudon want to be realized / brought into existence?
              I mean, it is one thing to say no one should own land. It is quite another to implement such an ideal.
              The Oai people were basically nomadic…would we have to have temporary structures... or maybe bands of roving RV's in this day and age?

              As soon as farming became important to survival, ownership of land was everything.

                    The original people of this continent came here following the game they hunted. It was so far back in time they were following Mastodons, oversized Bisons, Saber Tooth tigers and such. When they got to this beautiful continent it was teeming with life. It was a paradise of plants, birds, lakes and rivers teeming with fish, mountains, snow, water, fertile grasslands.  All they had to do was tromp around and hunt animals, gather edible vegetation and catch fish. Eventually, they killed all the prehistoric game and it went extinct.  Still, they continued their roaming about, hunting, gathering and fishing.
                   Tribes were not always harmonious. Many chiefs were not benevolent and wise. They were ruthless and exacting. scalping was not taught by the French to the Indigenous. They were already scalping. They loved power and they would battle other tribes for many reasons. Why would they not? They had much to gain…  way of life and survival being valid. You think stealing and theft was unheard of amongst the original people? You think murderous actions and emotional outbursts were not part of indigenous life? In my view, human nature is human nature, no matter what time, place or culture.

              TWISI

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                As (you?) said earlier, there can be no farming without ownership.  No permanent homes, no hospitals.  No schools, no roads and no power plants (no computers).  No factories, no iron or copper.

                It would seem that we would have to go back to the hunter/gatherer stage, where only a small fraction of the people could be fed.  One could say that only governments could own land, but then we're immediately at the same place we are now, with "governments" fighting each other for resources just as they did 1,000 years ago.

              2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                We are made free by God. We do not owe another man for the right to exist. Neither do we owe any man for the right to work, to prosper, and to have what is necessary for a man to live in a state of freedom. What is necessary is food, water, and a place that we may dwell and build a home. It is a perversion of nature, and justice, that laws  have  been enacted that have placed a middleman between God's promise and mankind. The land belongs to us all. Each and every one of us. For a man to lay claim and hoard the land that God provided for us all is one of the greatest evils, as it leads to all others.

                All  people. All citizens, especially those who have been warehoused in the ghettos of every major city across the U.S. should be very angry, because their birthright has been stolen by evil capitalists. A price of admission has been placed upon their inheritance;  a price that many will never be able to pay. The ignorant do not know this truth. They refuse to believe in an evil so great; an evil  that would force them to work and slave for a lifetime, only for the right to possess a small home and parcel of land that God had already provided for free; for the enrichment and glory of all mankind. It is a perversion to expect a man to pay for land that no one but God has produced.

                It is a great fiction that the state has the "right" to mock God. Neither the state, the European, or the Indigenous created the land. Consequently, no one but a criminal can demand tribute for what they have not produced, nor could ever truly "own". Men suffer because others have taken more than they need, and the law has protected and rewarded  the greedy by allowing this evil to flourish.Proudhon was a genius, and truly far ahead of his time. This brief interpretation is in line with his teaching.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "The land belongs to us all."
                  "What is necessary is food, water, and a place that we may dwell and build a home. "

                  Where might that place be, to build a home, when you don't own the land to put it on?  Where can you grow your food without a place to do it?  Where do you get your water without a place to put a well?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    RVs and water bottles it is, wilderness! We can live near all the Kroger Markets and Food Kings and hunt and gather there…. but if farmers give up their land… who would supply Kroger with vegetables and pre-ripe fruit… they would no longer even need their distribution buildings and delivery trucks … Okay get out your bow and arrow and hand out baskets to your children and grandchildren..(because  your grown children want to be near you in their RV, all of the sudden… ) and start the quest for deer and berries… That might be good...
                    Right?

                    1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Do we leave it up to each family then, when is the best time to go out and  hunt with arrows or traps?  What kind of society are we suggesting?  Because I imagine the same won't like anyone telling others when to hunt and the like?  Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply, if I get an arrow in my thigh when picking berries, that the person that shot that arrow wouldn't be attempting murder or murdering, if it went in my heart?  Aye yai yai!

                  2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Your question illustrates the degree of deception that has seeped into the collective American  consciousness. The land is all around you! And you are  wrong. You already own it, as well as I, or any other man. You grow your food and conduct your business on the land that you possess.The evil of "real estate" "highways" and "supermarkets" has confused you. God "owns" the land. Our birthright is not to hoard the land, or deny access to the land through imaginary proprietorship's, but only to "possess" what is needed that we may survive. Turn left at the next intersection and travel for about 9 miles. You'll see it there on your right.

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      "For a man to lay claim and hoard the land that God provided for us all is one of the greatest evils"
                      "You already own it, as well as I, or any other man. You grow your food and conduct your business on the land that you possess."
                      "God "owns" the land."

                      I'm sorry, but your comments are totally contradictory.  Either we own land or we don't.  Either we control access to our home (on the land) or we don't.  Either a mythical god owns it or we do; not both. 

                      So turn left at the next light a go 9 miles to the farmer.  Ask him why he has more than he needs to survive and explain that you want some for your new home.  THEN, explain how that farmer will still feed himself and you.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              But what ridicule have I and others delivered, WrenchBisquit?  Challenging your very obviously wrong and harsh judgements of police officers in the USA?   A view that you can't possibly be right about, that defies logic? 

              I have seen this other tactic by you as well, though not as often as the slander card, or its perhaps a version of it.  That is, that you claim others in these forums that disagree with you, must be "for" some of the things you are against, but list things like, rape, murder, and abuse by police.  Here is the very hard truth that you must wrestle with and answer for if you are any kind of honest soul.(Which I am sure you are, just not expressing it as much here in this forum)  That is, that I and others here likely, are actually ALSO against rape, murder, and abuse by police when it happens!!!  Seriously, how DARE you?!    You present here a faux case once again.  That you are simply on the side of being against such things, so those opposing you must be for them????!!!!  Unbelievable. 

              So what would explain that to me, is that you are simply not willing to consider my points could possibly be valid. Which points to yet another thing that would explain THAT thing.  Possibly the very thing you are accusing of others.  Possible brainwashing, possible wrong beliefs?  Keep in mind, its good for all of us to consider when accusing something like that has happened, that it MIGHT have happened with us (you, in this case.)  Yes, that is bold to say, but you won't begin to consider what anyone else is saying.  ANY other kind of put down of them, seems preferable to you.  Do you see what i am saying?

              The people that think you speak the truth, I would also disagree with, and I wouldn't assume they think so harshly about all police as you, even WITH the abuse or death of loved ones.  This could just another version of responding to violence, with violence, but in this case its violence in a thought process.  Beliefs about others, that isn't true.  This hurts, doesn't help.  Yes God loves you, I am sure of it.  I believe he wants better for you, he is a clear thinking God, and all about the justice, and says let vengeance be His. 

              The proof of an urn or funeral box is that evil exists, and that some choose it, and abuse power, as some always have, in all eras, in all places of this world.  THAT is a truth.  I am sorry if this takes away any possible reasoning or backing behind what you want to be true.  The point is, we don't have the same slavery as in John Browns Day, and you aren't the savior of the world, taking the sins of all on your shoulders, being perfect all the while, like Jesus Christ.  Slave to certain kinds of thinking however, can be had by any of us.  I am challenging that possibility in your own mind and thoughts, that causes unneeded division and more hurt.  This is a goal of evil in general (not saying you there).  Make it tougher for evil to use you for its purposes in hurting you and judging others, possibly.  Kick evil in the ***, legitimately.  If that is what you claim to want to do.  The two you mentioned, did want to do that, at least Jesus did, and he got it done and had the credentials to do it.  I think you could be making a difference, but are a bit misguided.  We all want any possible corrupt police off the streets, and judges off their seats, etc.  I recommend Jesus.....  It will be much more satisfying and legit, I am pretty confident of it.  If you want to go for some "mark" of evil, stop aiming all willy nilly at incorrect targets.  I am not denying the evil exists, and that we might want to truly fight it. 

              Don't ever remotely say I am ridiculing you for anything like what those guys got ridiculed for.  I understand what you mean by that by the way, as I am a true hater of evil and its destructive tendencies onto the human race in its many forms.  I have had heat directed at me too.  I am not blind to the battle. To confuse true ridicule with what I am doing, is to only miss the point purposely, and not have to show how anything I am saying is wrong if it is.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                OS, Basically, we are defending all we have. He is tearing down what we have built and what is the result of centuries of evolutional experimentation… (with no better explanatory term.) 

                wB, you have an off with your head type of attitude. It is just not sitting right.
                It puts us on the defense.
                ...and you have not yet supplied a workable alternative.
                Could you please?

                Very Curious

                repeating:
                "... it is one thing to say no one should own land. It is quite another to implement such an ideal."

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Its like some revolution is being desired, without some goal to be achieved, that God hasn't already secured through his son Jesus.  (my beliefs come in here, admittedly)

                  So its a patience game, from my point of view, until all the "wrongs are righted."  In the meantime, why give up what seems to be the best of all the fallible views in a very fallen world?  The answer to this has not been forthcoming as I see it.  In the meantime, people are getting severely judged, and that isn't good just for them, I don't think its good for the judger in those cases. 

                  Its not logical to create and be up in arms against a foe that isn't exactly there, not in the way described.  What is seen is a fallen world, and this human "disease" if you will, HAS been addressed, and DOES have a solution.  Its about turning from those ways.  We can't put that into a theocracy, even Jesus knew it wasn't time for anything like that, despite what people accuse of.  Anyway, its all  too "cuckoo for co co puffs" for me!

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "Its like some revolution is being desired, without some goal to be achieved,"
                    The arrow has just hits its bulls eye. Thank You.
                    ( uh, excuse the saying, here.  No offense to bulls
                    …unless one is hungry.)

        2. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-we-re-not-anti-police-we-re-anti-police-brutality-al-sharpton-168672.jpg

          http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-the-big-problem-is-that-people-don-t-believe-a-revolution-is-possible-and-it-is-not-possible-theodore-kaczynski-242275.jpg

    19. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      "Schopenhauer used the word "will" as a human's most familiar designation for the concept that can also be signified by other words such as "desire," "striving," "wanting," "effort," and "urging." Schopenhauer's philosophy holds that all nature, including man, is the expression of an insatiable will to life. It is through the will that mankind finds all their suffering. Desire for more is what causes this suffering." (Arthur Schopenhauer.)
      From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_ … esentation

      (1788–1860), German philosopher. According to his philosophy, as expressed in The World as Will and Idea (1818), the will is identified with ultimate reality and happiness is only achieved by abnegating the will (as desire).

      You just can't change human nature.

      This is our best hope:

      "The ideas of benevolence, utility, and justice arouse our deepest and most pervasive feelings, he (David Hume) maintained, and these feelings in turn motivate us toward actions of moral worth. I offer assistance to those in need because it makes me feel good to do so, and I am fair in my dealings with others because it would make me feel bad if I were not. All of morality rests firmly upon the natural human inclination to seek pleasure and avoid pain." 
      From:  http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4v.htm#virtue

    20. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      How would You feel after you KILLED another human being?

      Once, as a lifeguard at the Y, where I worked in my early twenties, a child slipped under water on my watch. I did not see the child struggle on the surface. A boy pulled her up and alerted me, "What's this?" He had found her floating underwater. She was unconscious. 
      After rescue attempts by myself and the paramedics, she never regained consciousness.
      I cried for three straight days.
      I will never get over it, (as she never came out of the coma.) My youthful arrogance ceased abruptly. I could not bring myself to lifeguard for some time after that, but when I did resume lifeguarding, I was EXTREMELY proactive. To say the least.
      Talk about pain.

      And one more for the road:
        "According to Schopenhauer, the deep truth of the matter is that in cases of the over-affirmation of the will – that is, cases where one individual exerts his will not only for its own fulfillment but for the improper domination of others – he is unaware that he is really identical with the person he is harming, so that the Will in fact constantly harms itself, and justice is done in the moment in which the crime is committed, since the same metaphysical individual is both the perpetrator and the victim."
      Wikipedia

      It would be enlightening to hear from cops here, wouldn't it?

      PS There is nothing wrong with wB's Hot Tip #1.

    21. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      ...other meandering thoughts... Maybe officers of the peace should be encouraged to be just that... and not quota busters. In other words, human beings should not be seen as revenue contributors (in giving out traffic tickets) and statistics suppliers (in catching as many "criminals" as possible.) Let's hold the Police Chiefs accountable… Maybe?
      Or the non percolating economy, the President? (Officers and police chiefs are desperate to keep their jobs now more than ever.)
      Or our political/economic policies overseas?  We train our young men / women in the military how to be violent, (through "serving" the country in war.)  After returning to civilian life, becoming a police office is what they have the best training for, after all.

      Lets just defend our borders.
      Land is good. Protect it I say. And loose the greed.
      We have enough right here.

      Thanks for this freedom of speech.

    22. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      How do we avoid chaos?  Governments, laws = Order= Peace
      Education= equals survival abilities within a very workable system.

      You need to get that reality show going, wB... on Mars.
      Just remember the cameras. I've got to see it!
      Call it  "Mars: FOR FREE!"

    23. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

      Admitted rant warning. 

      How cliche this is going to sound!!  I think Jesus is the answer, lol.  Sorry, I really really do.

      I think what is being described is a desire for good to prevail and badness to diminish, and be hurt, removed, etc.  So here is my little rant on things, that actually, truly makes sense of some of the sides being presented here, but in a more realistic and workable form.  I mean, reflective of what is really going on. 

      I believe we are made in the image of our creator.  I believe he is good, and made humanity good in the beginning.  Along with that daring and risky venture, free will must have been introduced and maintained, because its opposite is just another form of evil.  (Or it could be said, to force only good on everyone, with choice in the matter.)  Thus, why I choose the views I do, because it makes the most sense of everything I have ever seen or experienced or read about in humanity, more than all other things.  TWISI, to borrow from Katherine, lol....

      So we DESIRE good, freedom for all, love above all, peace, etc etc etc.  We hate evil, badness, and the things that steal our freedoms.  I think sin did this first and foremost, and we are all sinners, and thus in the world that comes with that, UNTIL its righted again.  Which it will be.  THIS to me, explains the desires we really have for a good and perfect society as we can imagine it, but cannot ever really attain to our satisfaction.  Thus the goodness we have in the best of the systems designed by HUMANS, to this day, in which I think USA has got it right, considering all the ways of man that need to be kept in line. 

      It will of course feel wrong at times, seems wrong.  Even Jesus when here said we need to render unto Caesar what is his........  Its not time for "Revolution for Perfection", because we are on this side of things still.  Its not that it can't or won't exist, but not now.   It would be like wanting to have it all, but when things are very very broken.  They just are.  Cause and effect.  Its still very good to do the very best we can for now. So, what is better, for our imperfect time?  We don't get to be imperfect, and demand perfection now.  Death is still here, decay is still here, and the best remedy for bad guys choices in all levels of society, is to repent of those things!  THIS brings true change.  Short of that and a society that esteems good and tries their best, and we vote in the best we can and fight the corruption, what else can we do?  I am on board with fighting corruption, and am disgusted just about every day with something in the news or even in myself when any ugliness rears its head.

      I think the frustration we very much feel with the imperfect in all of its varied and ugly forms, is partly meant to point us to what is truly perfect.  We are a stubborn bunch, and need to hurt ourselves before we take anyone at their word for anything sometimes. 

      Not a lot can defeat evil.  God can and did, but for now it says this is satan's playground, for all practical purposes.  This shouldn't be surprised.  If we try to institute a land of perfection how long until someone wants and acts on things they shouldn't act on?  Sure, we can all not ought to want land, or more land for ourselves, but how do you govern people before they plant trees instead of a putting up a fence to show what is "theirs", then you need guess what, police, to police the situations.  Back to square one.

        Ok, done with my rant.

    24. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

      According to the New York Daily news the average American watches 5 hours of TV daily.

      Here are the top 3 shows in 2014 and the stats:

      1."The Big Bang Theory"  ( comedy) 23.1 million
      2. NCIS  ( cop drama)  22.4 million
      3. Sunday Night Football ( sports) 21.7 million

      Here some more tips: Instead of spending so much time watching "whodunnit", grown men rolling around on the ground with each other, or a not so funny comedy with canned laughter, try reading a book; study alternative forms of government; give the homeless tambourines, disco whistles, various musical instruments, and party hats, and teach them the art of  busking. Disarm the police and give them free coffee and donuts instead. Make all drugs legal with a high sin tax to pay for education, rehabilitation, and burial expenses. I will provide more details as time permits.

    25. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

      I'm sure your question is rhetorical, but I will answer anyway. Capitalism has a strangled hold on the world , and has for a very long time. I don't know of any countries that are using a similar system to what I have proposed. I am sure the United States would certainly create obstacles for any nation that got serious about it.  It is no secret of how they tried to stop the spread of communism. As far as bias against the  European is concerned, I must remind you again that you should read my posts before responding. All of the Anarchist literature I suggested earlier was either written by a European or Euro-American.I would think that the fact that I admire certain European thinkers and philosophers would tell you that I am not biased against Europeans, especially since I also have European blood. Furthermore, the entire European population did not cross the ocean to rape, pillage, and steal. They stayed in their own countries, and minded their own business.

      You must also understand that your arrogance has shone through again, as nothing was "brought about here in the USA " by Europeans. This is more than a matter of semantics,since the USA did not exist prior to the European Invasion. It would have been far more accurate, and less offensive to say" brought about here on this continent. Many Americans are so arrogant and caught up in a white-supremacist mentality that they have,in their imagination, laid claim this continent before the European even arrived!

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Good grief.  Yes it is a semantics issue that you care to call me arrogant over, and yet could have asked first.  To be clear, I wasn't aware their ideas of government existed here prior to them.  That is how you would show me I am wrong on that.  Perhaps I am, but not in the way you say.  I don't mind you calling me names.  You do it to all police officers everywhere that don't deserve it and don't apologize for it.  There are surely at least a few decent ones in that group. 

        So to be clear on my supposed arrogance, yes I did think that a group that wasn't here prior, DID bring their own ideas with them, lol.  They came about, to fruition, here.  What is your point again, or was it to just get in a dig?

        And yes, I am glad to you distance from so many of your even quoted prior statements about those that supposedly came here in 1492.  That is a move in the right direction I truly believe.  At least the ones that didn't come over, don't get blamed.  I never took that to be the case anyway. Its the descendants of some, though we know very well that the king and queen of Spain at that time, likely had descendants that perhaps never came over.  What of them? 

        Capitalism isn't supposed to be a cure all for all the moral woes and greed on the planet, btw.  Its what works however, even with its frailties.  I maintain, you are desiring a utopia, a paradise, that isn't in place for reasons that are far better explained than are being alluded to here, at least not very often. 

        I think my views of the the most innocent version of your own, actually explain your being so possibly disgruntled/agitated by the current state of affairs and since 1492 (and of all time for most of us), while also explaining the reason for your desiring so much better.  The assumptions that go along with how it would change the deeper issues of man that aren't explained, are also explained by my views.  This is why I think views matter so much.  They can reflect the reality we see, or not so much.  My tone has been harsh at times, because I actually care very much about goodness, and badness, and murder, rape, etc.  I actually don't assume the worst about some, and find some issues with your beliefs, but I am about ready to be done, as I don't know it will have any effect.  I hope simply to have challenged you to think a little more about it all.  I also think that with the right ideas, you could enact a great deal of good, help promote it.  I don't see how it can be done when so much hostility in belief about groups of people of certain employment, can render great outcomes.  Like where there is smoke, there's often fire, kind of thing.  Its a bad base, platform to work out of, or with.

        I can't help but think that we would see some countries employ what you are suggesting and showing how it could work, if it could be done.  That it can't be done,or hasn't, MIGHT not be because of the strangle hold capitalism has, nor any other preferred reason to explain it.  It could be that it is wrought with all its own issues, and is simply unworkable, unenforceable, with so many untested possibilities that can go wrong.  Its not just the mentalities that dominates the minds like the cops of America, I am sure.

        1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
          wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12043547.png
          First of all it is your reading comprehension that  must be called into question. I haven't distanced myself from any quotes I made about 1492, or the miscreant treasure hunters, rapists, and murderers  who came with, and after Columbus. It is you that continue to insist in all or nothing. I have never claimed  any one group or race as being perfect , or above reproach. I do not harbor such childish notions as many have represented here.

          You comment that capitalism works because you have chosen to ignore the evil of the inner cities that capitalism has created. You have chosen to ignore that Americans who have lived in the suburbs, paid taxes, and worked hard all of their lives are foreclosed and thrown out into the streets. You have chosen to ignore the evil of a "for profit" prison system; the evil of the Imperialist policies of the United States that destroyed the  Chagossians of Diego Gracia; the killing of Palestinian children with American tax dollars through an evil alliance with a Zionist State that even Orthodox Jews have condemned. You have chosen to ignore the reality of over 50,000 homeless veterans sleeping on the streets. You say capitalism works because you have chosen to ignore the genocide of 100 million innocents, and an institution of slavery that provided it's foundation. However, you are correct in saying that capitalism is not supposed to be a cure, for  capitalism is most certainly the "disease"!

          You commented: " I can't help but think that we would see some countries employ what you are suggesting and showing how it could work, if it could be done."   Huh? Are you serious? There are other examples of why anarchy is not prevalent throughout the world, but  I will give you one:

          The teachings of Jesus are in many ways similar to Anarchist ideology. In spite of whether Jesus  was real or imaginary, the teachings of Jesus  are sound. Yet, there are few countries throughout the world where a majority have ever  truly practiced Christianity. Even in the United States, which claims to be a nation founded on Christian principles, the historical record reveals that the teachings of Jesus were never taken very seriously here in the United States. These teachings have not become universally accepted because a majority made up of selfish, greedy, materialistic people, could not realize their true nature  in a Christian society. Jesus spoke of the "narrow road", and that it would be"easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into heaven!" Here we can substitute "American" for "rich man".

          Finally, you commented,"  I also think that with the right ideas, you could enact a great deal of good, help promote it. "  It is my hope that your comment  was  meant to be condescending. Otherwise, I am forced to believe that you are serious.  You know nothing of my life; what I am doing, or what I have already accomplished. There are a lot of supposed "do-gooders"  who speak politely and utilize the proper social etiquette for any, and all occasions. But still, the world continues to collapse around us as they chase their prostitutes, do their backroom deals, cultivate war, and continue to steal the inheritance of the American people. Of all the sophisticated electronic technology available today that can be used by the state as tools of oppression, some of the most effective weapons used by the state against the common man are still the friendly smile, the handshake, and a kind word.  I dare not be mistaken for that which I abhor.

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You have made some excellent points on this thread.   In fact, your synopsis have inspired me to create a thread re: the racial condition in America-  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/127249

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                We DO have plenty to be thankful for in this great country.  I happen to LOVE America madly!  I just said that Mr. Wrenchbiscuit made a solid synopsis. He is an impassionated thinker.  Me- I applaud wealth and capitalism-if we did not have capitalism, we would be enmeshed in poverty.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It did seem you were maybe distancing yourself, my mistake. I applauded that as a positive step, but notice you dig your heels in more. Thanks for clarifying your position, I can only try.  People have quoted you, and any one of us can go back and get quotes for the all or nothing comments about the police, etc.  The reason people had to bring up other cultures and races and times as doing the same thing, was to point out how you are very much picking and choosing, when it isn't warranted. Not that I have been able to see.  It shows other intent, than what you simply say it is. 

            As for childish notions as you call them, don't you see the point in bringing up what logically follows, or what would logically explain what is happening in a thought process, when the "given" reason doesn't allow for the logic to flow through in a reasonable manner?  This was to help make the points, not to put down.  Surely not for me if I am one of the people you are referring to.  I think its logic and deduction, and people have given their reasoning.

            Speaking of all or nothing, you use some of that tactic here when you describe the downsides to capitalism, are you not?  Do they really get foreclosed on that truly work hard their whole lives and truly pay their taxes.  It is how it is presented, that you suggest I am ignoring.   Is there more to the story possibly?  Is the system truly rigged against the poor and minorities?  More emotional pleading it seems to me.  You seem to easily find fault with a system, and use your reasoning to defend it by pointing out certain failures and even tragedies that may or may not be tied.  You haven't given success stories for your own views, and there can be reasons that would explain that.  Its assuming the negative so much with one, and seeing only the positive in another, that I can see so far. Anyone can do that, when really just picking a side.  I am interested in facts and reasoning.

            I was the one that admitted all systems have their downsides and are not perfect, and I gave the reasoning behind I think its something far simpler, yet greater and more powerful that is your and my and every person's true enemy.  I really don't care to argue with you, I cared to show a better reasoning to explain the same problem you see, and blame it on something far more logical, that actually makes sense to me.  For whatever reason, you are set on this path, and esteem yourself as higher on at least a few levels I have seen.  I don't think you want to see your own possible thoughts and where they might break down.  I have tried though. Things are not perfect, and Sue made some good points also as many others.  Its not all rainbows and lollipops, but we try, I think she said. Its true.   

            We disagree on the what the disease is.  I actually get the passion,  because I see evil too.  I don't get the emphasis on what I think is a misdiagnosis by you, but in case you are right, we asked and asked. 

            As for Jesus, he spoke on paying taxes, rendering unto Caesar, and the bible speaks of God placing rulers in their place.  This isn't the time that you are wishing for, but I get what you want, I think.  Its part of the draw to God.  Jesus even didn't make things perfect when he could.  He was encouraged and expected to do so, for a while before people turned on him!  The Jews thought, "finally! He is here, lets get it done....." only to find he wasn't going to do what they hoped and expected!  Then to turn on him.  A crucified, convicted Messiah was not their cup of tea, and oh how quickly fickle we become when our hopes are dashed, no?  Yet it was for a greater freedom for all he maintained and went to his death for!  Taking the heat, and knowing in time, having patience will give way to the fulfillment of all of our hearts desires.  Jesus gets it! Why not read it all, read the rest too? Its going to happen WrenchBisquit, it will!  This great country is still the greatest at last for a while longer hopefully, DUE to the ideas of many publicly proclaimed Christians.

            Kathryn and I and I think others have touched on this idea.   Its not time now for the perfection, if only!  How many would be hurt or die in the trying?  I haven't studied this philosophy clearly, as much as you, and yet I feel like I am more realistic of just how unpractical and nearly impossible it would be to even begin to try, WITHOUT any guarantee of success anyway.  Its that, vs suspicion really, a forcing of viewing of the glass half empty on certain things and people, and the same with glass half full with others like minorities.  Not all 100% warranted, that I have seen, not at all. 

            Rich men aren't automatically bad, and not saying that is a quote from you.  There were rich people in Jesus' day.  He did esteem the poor, and esteemed hard work, etc.  Getting into heaven by the narrow path, or learning to rely on God more because we have less than a rich man aren't necessarily ideas that support your views here I don't think.  You would need a true force of police, to enact and force these new laws.  All societies need police, and that is because if we don't, then tyranny and terror wins by default.  The good guys lose to them for sure.  Criminals aren't always stupid and will use what they can, when they can. 

            This is not perfect, but we could make things worse for sure.  You would have a lot of people up in arms in Satan's world, if you tried to force Jesus ideas onto them.  Jesus didn't even do that.  He kicked the dust off his feet.   He let people choose.  He lets them still, an what comes with those decisions. 

            I admit I am not well versed in your philosophy.  I can't get past the few ideas I have seen you express, so how could I ever trust your words, when you seem to incredibly unfair to me about very common, and obvious things.  I hope this simple point if nothing else will sink in and make sense to you.  You go after the materialism in others, but I bet you appreciate the material things you have and worked hard to get and secure for you and your family.  Perhaps you trust too much in your fellow man, that they would truly work as hard as you would for the good of all.  These ideas have been played out, and some ideas have been tested and totally failed. 

            I am not sure you need to have a full blown revolution to fight for good.  I believe very firmly, that we all need to fight for good as we can, and fight for the truth.  I think truth is dying, and even in small ways and in discussions like on these forums, we need to try to illuminate, not add to problems.  If you truly never saw my points even until now, I do give up and will consider it a good try on my part.  I don't know what else to do.  I feel bad for the good policemen.  I don't think they get paid enough for the **** they get in real life, then adding to that the blame of others that don't or couldn't begin to know.  Even if 90% are corrupt, what you have said isn't fair to the 10, but that isn't probably the case at all. Just an example.  Imagine if you had killed someone, and not murdered them, were labeled a murderer before your trial could even take place.  Can't you see the error, simply by trying to walk in someone else's shoes?   I would bet I could even get on board with some of your basic ideas, but I can't and won't because of the alarms that go off with what I do see.

            I am sure you have been a promoter of good, I will trust you have been, and thought you said you served before.  I thank you for your sacrifice and service, and wonder if you regret what you stood for though almost, because of your views here.  I hope you don't feel ashamed for defending or training to defend or fight for our country.  Its a good country with some really dark parts, that I at least don't deny.  I am sad about the giving up on all the good that is here, lumping people like I see is actually heartbreaking.  I am lumped, totally.  You also don't know me, not one bit, Wrenchbiscuit.  I actually care very much, and talked to my boys a lot about this since this came up, because I wanted to verify what I thought they had learned in school.  My high schooler said, "yeah Mom, more were killed on the continent, than died in the holocaust."  I didn't prompt it or anything, just asked him if he had heard about the bad done to the Indians....  Oldest one agreed, it wasn't just about some hero Europeans. We aren't bad people, and I am not saying you said any of that verbatim, but you sure said a lot that my family is lumped in with, or could be. 

            I was serious.  I was speaking about your passion for good.  I can boil it down to that.  I have to, to believe the best.  I think there is some exaggerations, some possible other things.  I can only guess to the deeper reasons.  If you don't want to back up on some of the comments, then the stage is set on a falsehood, or many of them.   I have no real stake in disagreeing with you for some sake of it or something.  I believe in good, but also see the bad and how people are literally living now, off the backs of others very hard work.  Many of us can observe what they and their kids have vs our own families. My older son works two jobs (one is full time) and sees a lot for himself.   He can't believe how hard he works to cover the slack of those that don't want to, because he wants to do a good job. I work hard, my husband does too as do I.   

            I'm pretty simple really.  Here is my simplified view on things.  I think the best ideas win, where the greatest freedoms for all able to be had.  Our system of checks and balances is a good idea, our constitution and laws are meant to look out for all. Knowing people fail and miserably so, they have other things in place.  True racism is still dying, sure, but we need to fight it when and where we see it.  I grew up "color blind" myself, and was shocked to find there are still some.  There are ways of fighting it. If ideas are winning ideas, they win on their own without effort, because truth is awesome and it works like that!  Views that need a lot of doctoring and spinning, and putting others down, are usually ones that have a red flag waving, a warning.

            Those of us that seek good, are still not perfect.  For the lack of perfection, there seems to be judgement connected to that.  When in all reality, we would see similar frailties come out in any government we put onto the people.  (Or even if the people peacefully adopt it.  We have seen how these don't work, because of human nature like laziness and greed, stubborness, etc.  We need to look to the true perfection for guidance on these things, to help us in detecting the true disease.  (God, the creator of it all.) I can only encourage you to start with verifying all the beliefs I have seen espoused, against facts.  It is in this you find any disconnect with me.  I hold no ill will, and I truly wish you the best.  I am being sincere, if you doubt it.  Sorry for my tone, that MLK quote and picture, set me off because I know it full well, and know myself and where I stand on so much.  It hit me wrong, because of the implications, and what you said.  If I have been in true error about you, I apologize.  I don't want conflict.  Perhaps if nothing else, the best thing we can encourage is the golden rule.  If we can agree on anything, I hope it would be that.  I am sorry you could never see or accept my simple points as valid.  They still are or aren't, on their own merits.  Each has to decide.  I never got to respond to all the points in all your posts, because I wanted to flesh out the one idea of your accusations about certain people, and we never got past that.  You also didn't respond to a lot of mine, so perhaps that pans out.

    26. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      "When once free from the restrictions of extraneous authority, men will enter into free relations; spontaneous organizations will spring up in all parts of the world, and every one will contribute to his and the common welfare as much labor as he or she is capable of, and consume according to their needs. All modern technical inventions and discoveries will be employed to make work easy and pleasant, and science, culture, and art will be freely used to perfect and elevate the human race, while woman will be coequal with man.
      From Metropolitan Magazine, vol. IV, No. 3; October 1896. Anarchy Defended by Anarchists by John Most and Emma Goldman,

      Playing it by ear may work out in a society of perfected beings on a path toward perfection.
      it would be nice….

    27. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      Dear wB,
      Not all Americans are "rich men"… most I know live on miracles. Every month is another miracle of survival, of paying bills we never thought we could pay, of keeping our houses out of foreclosure, of going to church on Sunday and working on Monday. Its like that for most of us, I would imagine.
      What were we thankful for on Thanksgiving? A day to rest. What did we do …? We worked, we cooked, we gathered and we smiled. We might not have felt like it in today's world but we did.
      Why? because we keep on trucking. That is your so called Rich American…we'll be fine.

      And on Christmas day, we'll wonder why Jesus was born and we'll wonder at the true significance of his birth…even though we pretty much know exactly what it is when we see our own children, hear them laugh and help them learn. And we put up the tree and put the star on top… because on some level we understand a thing or two. Really, you need to give us a break.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +1

    28. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California As of 2010, "California's Native American population of 362,801 was the most of any state. It also has the most Native American tribes, indigenous to the state or not, but the majority of known Californian Indian tribes became extinct in the late 19th century. The U.S. Census includes Latin American Indian, especially immigrants who belonged to indigenous peoples or who have Amerindian heritage from North and South America.

      The Cherokee Nation is the largest tribe in the state with a population of 110,000, although the number of Cherokee descendants may surpass 600,000 according to demographers. They are often descendants of Dust Bowl refugees in the 1930s and 1940s who migrated to the state's farming counties and urban areas for jobs. The largest urban American Indian communities are Los Angeles/Long Beach, San Francisco/Oakland, Sacramento, and San Diego areas.

      California also has significant populations of the Apache, Choctaw, Creek, Hopi, Zuni, Navajo, Blackfeet, Shoshone, Paiute, Pueblos, Cahuilla and Chumash tribes. The Cahuilla in the Coachella Valley have profited from real estate land leases, and much of Indio and Palm Springs are tribal-owned lands under legal tribal jurisdiction."

    29. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

      Things have come full circle for me, after engaging at length in discussion here with the author of the OP and others.  After all the explaining, etc, we can look back to just the first two sentences, and see them with even more clarity, in my opinion.  They are,  "12 year old Tamir Rice was murdered by police this weekend in Cleveland Ohio. He was executed for the crime of playing with a toy gun on a playground."

      I am convinced now, that these kinds of comments aren't borne of a honest observer of an officer in a real life situation before all facts are known.  We have seen explained in some detail, the idea and philosophy of WrenchBisquit, that he holds with great gusto. I think what has happened, is the opening and subsequent comments reveal more about his held philosophy and view of how certain people MUST be, and therefore how events like this MUST be viewed.  WB's ideas he is wanting to push, DEPEND on them being true as he asserts them to be.  In other words, it seems that his harsh judgements on police and many since 1492 in particular, MUST be what events like this actually be. In this case, judging that it was MURDER, and EXECUTION of a child for playing with a toy on the playground.  For most, this gives great pause to see, like "wait a minute!" And rightly so.

      The "thing" driving this "bus" is the philosophy, not the fair facts, sad and awful as they are of what we do know for sure.  Something else is also evidence of this, that being, that no amount of encouragement to be more fair and less harsh on police everywhere, has helped to sway him.  Not even though normally he might actually care about overly exaggerated judgements onto people that don't necessarily deserve it. What explains this?!  It could be that the views aren't as strong in the truth and morals on their own, or else they would carry their own load, their own weight.     

      This is one way I think an idea or philosophy fails itself and the person holding it.  People can live a whole life, and never see this.  If truth is not on your side, yet you want your views to be true nonetheless, then you will be frustrated and not at peace.  No amount of passion in trying to explain the incongruence as one thing, will ever MAKE it that other thing, unless it truly is. This is why I think we see the rhetoric.  These beliefs in turn likely creates more "feeling" of injustice that must be answered for.   I share it, not to judge, but to help see the possible futility. 

      Generations can live and die, and until someone along the line is strong enough to stand up against an idea that is failing them, it will likely be perpetuated.  The possible generating more abhorrence, does no one any good, and not because I or anyone says so. It seems to have to be anything else.  For example, when a philosophy is esteemed over people (or other things), it must be the other person's lack of reading comprehension skills, arrogance, ignorance, lack of education or whatever else one is more comfortable to accept, than that a view could be failing the person holding it.

      I wish I was better at explaining myself in a way that doesn't come across the way I worry it might sometimes.  This is something I need to work on.  I am trying to help, all of us, not cause harm.

      1. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Here is a fact: the Department of Justice have just stated in a 59 page report that Cleveland Police Department uses excessive force.

        It concludes that CPD "too often use unnecessary and unreasonable force in violation of the Constitution" and that  "[s]upervisors tolerate this behavior and, in some cases, endorse it."

        It points to a "pattern or practice of using unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment" including "unnecessary and excessive use of deadly force" (my emphasis) and "[e]xcessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis."

        Can we stop pretending there isn't a problem now.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The militarizing of the police is evident. But who is behind it?

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I suspect it's the result of lots of different factors, but it's it's interesting that you say "who?" Do you have a someone in mind?

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It seems things are changing.  Its really something to keep an eye on. I can't help but wonder if some in leadership aren't trying to help add to this division also, like so many other forms of it we see, that haven't been the case for a very long time.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yep!

            2. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "some in leadership". Like who?

              "like so many other forms of it we see". What other forms?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                We have a president who is breaking laws and elected representatives who are going along with it.

                A. Police Brutality is one form.

                B. Racism is another. (There are plenty of media sound bites to prove Obama is instigating both of these forms.)

                C. Oh, PLEASE! Fine me for not having Health Insurance… Yeah, I voted for that.

                D. Talk about bugs invading our homes! Oh, just come on in/stay in…
                Here, want some cheese (jobs)?
                I don't think so...when I hardly have enough for my self and my family, (our own citizens.)

                E. Invasion of Islam radicals is being allowed (promoted?) with our very porous borders.

                1. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not sure I follow.

                  Are you saying that police brutality and racial bias against black people is being caused deliberately by the President, who is himself a black person? Are you, in effect, blaming racism from white people against black people, on a black person? Or have I completely misunderstood what you are saying? If so, then I apologise in advance for accusing you of saying something so ridiculous.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    He is trying to cause a race divide and has brought it back by pinpointing and commenting on the incidents the way he does. It is causing racism to be WIDESPREAD, like never before. He is purposefully promoting the ruin of America. He hates America, just like Mr. wrenchB does.

                    Obviously.

                    Do you also hate America?
                    What force is behind anarchism and radical Islam?
                    The New World Order. Lets face it.
                    If they have Obama on puppet strings. The least he could do is cut them.
                    But, he knows he's getting out of office soon, Its not worth dying over.

                    1. Don W profile image83
                      Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      Sorry, my brain is being particularly slow today. Is this some form of satire/ sarcasm; A caricature of some sort? Are you trying to highlight how ridiculous some views are by spouting similarly ridiculous views? If so, I admit you almost had me. But what gave it away was the "New World Order" part. That was over egging it; too over the top. Good effort though. Just the type of dry humor I like. What was the point you were hoping to make with it?

                    2. Credence2 profile image84
                      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      KH,  I don't know how you can say that Obama is promoting racism, sorry, the people that say that had a problem with a President of color in the first place. You don't want to be included among those, certainly not. A black president was the catalyst, believe me racism has always been here. But the president's admonitions to the troubled communities have been to maintain calm. I wished that he would be a bit more careful about getting too involved in law enforcement matters that are better dealt with by local officials. Creating a 'racial divide'? That is strong. He cannot create something that has always been with us to a certain extent. I like America, despite of her faults. I have no indication that the current occupant of the oval office is purposely promoting the ruin of America, if you want to speak on this go back to Ronald Reagan.

                      What force is behind anarchism and radical Islam? Does Obama have anything to do with the rise of these forces? The seeds for these ideas predate the Obama administration, and anarchism predates Obama, himself.

                      The New World Order. Lets face it.

                      If they have Obama on puppet strings. then all modern era American Chief Executives have been on similar strings.  The least he could do is cut them and if it were that easy, it would have been done long ago. The power of the military industrial complex is immense and is an eternal part of American governance. In the face of this, Presidents come and go.

                      Let me ask you, who would replace Obama with that could do the job more to your liking?

                    3. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12051287.jpg
                      I have often said I hate evil, and all that it entails. It is you who have falsely accused that , " I Hate America". Such a fiction is commonly used to create resentment, and to switch the focus of a conversation. This is a common diversionary tactic. Of course, I am not accusing you of being a racist Kathryn, since I would never be so presumptuous. However, it is known that racists have commonly resorted to such tactics as shifting the blame to the social activist, or the citizen who stands against a particular evil, and then painting them down as the  devil.

                      Al Sharpton , a man of African descent, has always been a popular target of racists, especially after the famous Tawana Brawley incident in which a  New York State grand jury claimed that Brawley made up the entire story of being gang raped . However, Brawley and her family still maintain that the incident actually happened. The problem with this case was that the United States courts have historically been so biased against people of African descent, as well as female rape victims in general, that even if the grand jury was right, this was still a classic case of "crying wolf". For so many years the African community has been so conditioned to injustice, it was difficult for many to imagine that this wasn't simply more of the same. Many have used this incident as a means of destroying Sharpton's credibility;  even accusing Sharpton of being a racist himself, a "race baiter"  or an opportunist.

                      On the other hand, Harry Truman, a man of European descent, ordered the atomic  bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki . On  August 6, 1945, 70,000 Japanese died immediately from the explosion, and another 70,000 died from radiation within five years. Three days later 90,000 died in Nagasaki. Some experts have agreed that these are conservative numbers. The casualties were primarily civilian, the vast majority women and children. Except from a racist ,and a barbaric point of view, Truman and his unholy cabal are nothing less than war criminals. To decide the outcome of a war that many historians agree would have soon ended anyway, Truman  ordered the murder of over 230,000 human beings. It is well understood that this crime against humanity was committed as much to chasten Russia, and the perceived communist threat, as to end the war with Japan.

                      This comparison is relevant because it illustrates the mindset of the American mainstream. A mindset that has it's roots in the 15th century; a mindset which holds that the ends justifies the means, whatever the cost in human life. In other words: "Manifest Destiny". It is ironic that Al Sharpton, a black civil rights activist, who may or may not have had a lapse in judgement, which may have temporarily tarnished the "reputations" of several upstanding citizens, is considered to be more hated by the conservative mainstream than a mass murderer  who caused the needless deaths of nearly a quarter of a million human beings!  I am not surprised that there are those on this thread that persist in focusing on my irreverence toward the"American Dream", instead of the killing of innocent children by the police. All throughout the historical record, as I have briefly  illustrated in this thread, a majority of American's have shown a blatant disregard for human life.

                      It follows that if a single individual can be diagnosed as a psychopath, that an entire nation could also be defined in the same fashion. Here, I am breaking new ground, as there is no such term to designate such a condition. Although the familiar term "group psychosis" may be used, I suggest a more specific term that can designate this condition at a national level. I have coined the term "MASSPATRIOPSYCHOSIS". I believe that this term is useful because patriotic fervor has been known to lead to the commission of many atrocities throughout the historical record. If we look at the definition of psychosis, we can see that the current definition can easily be applied at a national level; especially when we consider that each part of the following definition not only applies to the American mainstream in 1945, but to the general mindset of Americans for the last 500 years.

                      • a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior ( Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Diego Garcia etc.)
                      • lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships ( Genocide of 100 million Indigenous)
                      • extreme egocentricity (white supremacy)
                      • failure to learn from experience ( War after War after War etc.)

                      Contrary to the simplistic interpretation that has been offered by some concerning my previous posts. My analysis is not meant to be derogatory in the least; no more than the intention of a dentist is to cause excruciating physical pain. Sometimes, in this topsy turvey world we live in, it is the the best remedy that may sometines hurt the most.

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I recall you (or someone) sharing this before.

          I don't pretend any such thing.

          Please see my posts I don't claim 100% innocence by police or that there is no problem. I could know that with the same amount of accuracy as WB knows what he claims.  That is something I'm against.   

          Sorry you take issue with what i say, but even with your report facts, the truth is it doesn't mean the two first sentences of the op are true.  Back to square one.

          Btw, I don't defend that cops behavior, as stated before.  Defending until we know more , against statements like WB made about murder and executing children for playing with toys is always a good thing.

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The wider context is something that you don't seem to be factoring into your opinion, but I haven't read all your comments on this thread, so maybe I've missed something. You're right, this report still doesn't tell us for certain what was in the police officer's mind. We can't ever be certain of that. However, knowing that there is a culture of excessive force and unlawful violence in Cleveland PD against members of the public (including those who are "mentally ill or in crisis") makes it more of a possibility that this child's death was caused by gross negligence and incompetence at best, or a murderous gung-ho attitude at worse. So I it's important to know the background.

            I think the type of language used in the OP is inevitable, especially when the loss of a child is involved. It's an extremely emotive subject. I would not expect or want the people charged with investigating this incident to use such emotive language, but I doubt very much whether anyone commenting in this thread will be involved in that investigation, so I don't think it particularly matters. This incident combined with the other recent cases of what appears to be excessive use of force by this and various police departments around the country, is causing people to say "enough is enough". The OP is an example of that sentiment, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Deleted

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                ((( Whispering to oceansunsets...its like trying to solve a mystery isn't it! Kind of fascinating… even to the point of telling us how tall and handsome he is! Add to that: he doesn't mind ugly women! So sweet, isn't it? and he recommended this, don't forget:
                <"give the homeless tambourines, disco whistles, various musical instruments, and party hats, and teach them the art of busking. Disarm the police and give them free coffee and donuts instead. Make all drugs legal with a high sin tax to pay for education, rehabilitation, and burial expenses">
                ( busking: play music or otherwise perform for voluntary donations in the street or in subways.)
                ...curiouser and curiouser. I would definitely buy his book!)))

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh my goodness.... lol

                  I didn't know what to say then, and still don't know what to say to all of that. (me, at a loss for words!)   I missed the tall part, but remember the rest.  I imagine that I am probably on some naughty list for speaking out like I have, and probably won't even be handed a disco whistle when it comes time to disarm the police and hand out all the other goodies in the new society.  All the newly legalized drugs and the burials... I am clearly out of the loop on all that is involved! Very confusing for people like myself.  I am sure I have that all wrong though.....

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

                2. Sed-me profile image81
                  Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So you're saying I stand a chance! Sweet!

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    (((big_smile Here is the whole quote, sed-me, in case you missed it:
                    "I have many talents, it is true. I am also physically attractive, and so I have known and enjoyed many beautiful women, as well as those who might be considered quite ugly, since I respect all of God's creation." I was wrong about the tall part. I guess my imagination went a little wild.

                    1. 0
                      SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                      You kind Katherine, and your friends Oceans and Sed, have much more patience than I to deal with the drivel of WB and the fact that he has chosen the tragic death of a 12 yr old boy to raise up his soapbox on unrelated matters.
                      I dwell in the 21st century and do not pander to those who choose to scratch at centuries old wounds and then say we made them bleed. Nor those who try to link them to current events that are grounded in 21st century problems.
                      These things do nothing to offer any solution nor move forward any meaningful discussion.
                      Unfollowing the thread now but wanted to say, patience of saints the lot of you!

      2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12045960.jpg
        Osiyo!
        Apparently, there are individuals on this thread who seem to require that every statement I make concerning right and wrong, or good vs evil, must have a yin attached to the yang. Aren't most of us adults here? Hubpages, I assumed, was a site primarily designed to attract writers. I also assumed that writers would have a certain amount of training, or that they at least completed Jr. High. Many of the comments I have received lead me to believe that I have assumed wrong. If I comment that "Evil Europeans Invaded This Continent", but don't follow with "But All Europeans Weren't Bad People", then someone will invariably accuse me of saying "All Europeans Are Bad People". In the same manner, if I say " Killer Cops Murdered A 12 Year Old Kid", but don't follow with, " But All Cops Aren't Bad People" someone will invariably accuse me of saying that all cops are bad people. SERIOUSLY FOLKS!  Do I really need to hold your hand and say,  "Everything's gonna be alright Lenny, just look straight ahead while I stand behind and tell you about the rabbits?" To clarify my position for those of you who need extra attention:

        1. I do not hate white people,my mother was white, my best friend is white, most of my girlfriends have been white. (By default, this also means I don't hate Europeans)

        2. I don't hate everybody. I only hate evil liars,murders, rapists, and thieves, and all of the stupid people that believe in them, which most likely constitutes over 85% of the total world population. Did I leave anybody out?

        3. I don't hate all cops. I only hate the ones who kill innocent people. Cops are very important: We need them to protect us from the other 85%.


        Here are some excerpts from a book originally published in 1857, entitled: "SLAVERY ORDAINED  OF GOD" by the Rev.Fred A. Ross who was pastor of the Presbyterian Church, Huntsville Alabama.

        These particular excerpts were taken from a speech that Ross gave in Buffalo New York,May,1853.This book is an excellent example of American apologist rhetoric of the 19th century. Here Ross justifies southern slavery and the subjugation of the wife by the husband through the "word of God". During his speech he reminds the audience on more than one occasion, the moral, and intellectual superiority of the European over the African.

        Although I have not read the entire book, I am sure that if he mentions the "Indian Removal Act of 1830", which legalized the theft of 20 million acres for white settlement, that he has a good reason why God approved of this criminal act as well. This apologist rhetoric reminds me of some of the comments made on this thread by those who are more concerned with my choice of words, and the "feelings" and reputation  of the murderous Cleveland police officers, than the 12 year old victim  Tamir Rice and his family. When I compare these excerpts with many of the derogatory comments and justifications I have received on this thread, I am reminded of the old Carpenters song "Yesterday Once More . The entire book can be read and downloaded here: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=m … =1up;seq=1

        "...Let us then, North and South, bring our minds to comprehend two ideas, and submit to their irresistible power. Let the Northern philanthropist learn from the Bible that the relation of master and slave is not sin per se. Let him learn that God says nowhere it is sin. Let him learn that sin is the transgression of the law; and where there is no law there is no sin, and that the Golden Rule may exist in the relations of slavery. Let him learn that slavery is simply an evil in certain circumstances. Let him learn that equality is only the highest form of social life; that subjection to authority, even slavery, may, in given conditions, be for a time better than freedom to,the slave of any complexion. Let him learn that slavery, like all evils, has its corresponding and greater good ; that the Southern slave, though degraded compared with his master, is elevated and ennobled compared with his brethren in Africa..."


        "...Man fell and was cursed. The law of the control of the superior over the inferior is now to begin, and is to go on in the depraved conditions of the fallen and cursed race. And, FIRST, God said to the woman, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall ‘rule over thee.” There,in that law, is the beginning of government ordained of God. There is the beginning of the rule of the superior over the inferior, bound to obey. There, in the family of Adam, is the germ of the rule in the tribe,--the state. Adam, in his right, from God, to rule over his wife and his children, had all the authority afterwards expanded in the patriarch and the king..."


        "...Why, sir, the wife everywhere, except where Christianity has given her elevation, is the slave. And, sir, I say, without fear of saying too strongly, that for every sigh, every groan, every tear, every agony of stripe or death, which has gone up to God from the relation of master and slave, there have been more sighs, more groans, more tears, and more agony in the rule of the husband over the wife. Sir, I have admitted, and do again admit, without qualification, that every fact in Uncle Tom’s Cabin has occurred in the South. But, in reply, I say deliberately, what one of your first men told me, that he who will make the horrid examination will discover in New York City, in any number of years past, more cruelty from husband to wife, parent to child, than in all the South from master to slave in the same time. I dare the investigation..."


        "...Do you say, The slave is held to involuntary service? So is the wife. Her relation to her husband, in the immense majority of cases, is made for her, and not by her. And when she makes it for herself, how often, and how soon, does it become involuntary ! How often, and how soon, would she throw off the yoke if she could!..."

        "... Nevertheless, he has authority, from God, to rule over you (the wife). You are under service
        to him. You are bound to obey him in all things. Your service is very, very, very often involuntary from the first, and, if voluntary at first, becomes hopeless necessity afterwards..."


        "...Why, sir, if a man can hold three slaves, with a right heart and the approbation of God, he may hold thirty,three hundred, three thousand, or thirty thousand. It is a mere question of heart, and capacity to govern.The Emperor of Russia holds sixty millions of slaves: and is there a man in this house so much of a fool as to say that God regards the Emperor of Russia a sinner because he is the master of sixty millions of slaves? Sir, that Emperor has certainly a high and awful responsibility upon him. But, if he is good as he is great, he is a god of benevolence on earth.And so is every Southern master. His obligation is high, and great, and glorious. It is the same obligation, in kind, he is under to his wife and children, and in some respects immensely higher...

        1. Sed-me profile image81
          Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          He didn't mean to kill the bunny. sad

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for your response to my post there, even if you don't want to defend the two sentences of the OP I quoted.  I recall you taking issue with 1492 comments also, then someone took the time to go dig those up.  I don't expect you to believe me at this point, but I did take care in what I said.  I say a lot sometimes, but I try to not be careless.  Since its a complete mystery who the above comments were for referring to HP attracting supposed writers, with a certain amount of training, that at least completed Jr. High, or need hand holding,  I won't assume they were for me.  In case they were though, I hope at least you did read the post that was in response to, and I mean really read it. Feelings don't matter so much, truth does though.  My intent is actually good.

          As for ideas, I believe that ideas matter.  Ideas absolutely have consequences.  They always have, and that is why philosophy matters so much more than some realize.  I believe good ideas help humanity, and bad ideas hurt.  When I see an incongruity in play, imo anyway, I can't not speak up.  I am sure you don't mind that, being so bold with the ideas? In a forum format such as this, I think people are inviting comments.   

          I appreciate the points of clarification, and as for only hating ones that kill innocent people, well we all probably feel that same way.  So don't you wonder where I came up with the things I said, whatever prompted that, and the other things?  As for racism, there have been racist people that slept with or had relationships with people of the race they are against, going way back.  That may or may not mean anything.  In your #2, you do kind of admit, by your own measuring there, that you hate over 85% of the worlds population, if we count your "most likelies"..  So you see my conundrum of sorts?  You say a lot, and say it bold and proud, but then get mad when I ask about things of concern, etc.  Its not all as simple as you say it is at any one point.  I AM going by what you have been saying.  Again though, ty for the clarification.

          I am against slavery.  I think we are all enslaved, but to what Jesus said enslaves us as a human race. The remedy is simple, yet difficult because of our natures.  In the mean time, non theocratic societies full of sinful and selfish people must get along  and go for the best and or better ideas to live and let live, in the most freedom loving societies possible.

          Can you share what posting some excerpts from the 1800's has to do with all of this?  We know some have always tried to defend slavery in those days, and before, justifying it with the bible, and we know of people like William Wilberforce later on that used the same Christian bible and beliefs to help shut slavery down.  It can be distorted and used for evil as we have always seen, or for the good it intends.  Every man is worth something, endowed by their creator, our worth comes from our creator, I believe.

          I do not, nor ever have denied, we see certain people in history and probably now, trying to justify what they want to be true, over what is likely moral and true.  I hope if nothing else, you can tell this is what I am all about trying to help shed light on.  I could be wrong, and like to be shown how.  I know those comments might not have been for me, but in case they were, they aren't so helpful in showing how, what I said was wrong, if it was.   I will operate within this new 15% and 85% distinction you seemed to make.

    30. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
      wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago

      George was a hero. At the tender age of seven, I understood the meaning and I wept. I knew it wasn't really George who pulled the trigger. It was the angry American mob.

    31. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

      INSULT
      "An insult is an expression, statement (or sometimes behavior) which is disrespectful or scornful. Insults (sometimes called "cracks" "remarks" or one-liners) may be intentional or accidental. An insult may be factual, but at the same time pejorative, such as the word "inbred".

      "speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse."

      "abuse, be rude to, slight, disparage, discredit, libel, slander, malign, defame, denigrate, cast aspersions on, call someone names, put someone down; offend, affront, hurt, humiliate, wound; badmouth, dis; derogate, calumniate; asperse. ANTONYMS compliment."

      Online definitions are good enough for that word.

      <"Jesus spoke of the "narrow road", and that it would be"easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into heaven!" Here we can substitute "American" for "rich man".">

      <"The problem here is that no one wants to admit that the United States is, and always has been on par with Nazi Germany.">


      Thanks. sad  How can we not take these statements personally? I ask incredulously!

      ...and now you say,

      <"I also assumed that writers would have a certain amount of training, or that they at least completed Jr. High.">
      Here is a boundary for those who don't want to offend others,
      No insults.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Its one way to respond, when the other options are less attractive.  This is what I have seen at times when people debate points they care about.   The things said are true or not.  So its of no consequence.  I guess I am not scoring any points with some. 

        Edit: Using such words in response to someone in particular, knowing someone will say something, then turning things around, and say no one was singled out.  Doing something absolutely, while claiming innocence.

        Things said that have merit inherent within them, won't need to be responded to in such a manner.

      2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12046292.jpg
        Nothing, I said should be taken as an insult, as I did not single anyone out. I live in America, and so technically I would be considered by a foreigner to be an American also. If a foreigner said that Americans were subsidizing the killing of Palestinian children I would have to agree, as I am aware  that since 1962, American military aid to Israel has amounted to nearly $100 billion.

        One can hardly believe that all that money has been used to buy coffee and donuts for the troops. The money doesn't just fall out of the sky. The money that is used to buy bombs, bullets, rockets, and land mines comes from U.S. taxpayers. And by the way, for those who have suggested that I am stuck in 1492: Ask a Palestinian if it feels like 1492 when the bombs begin to fall , and afterwards they bury their children. No I would not be offended by such a statement, and neither would many Orthodox Jews who are adamantly opposed to Zionism. Read here: http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm

        What are you suggesting Kathryn? Censorship?

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I can't speak for Kathryn, but i am suggesting just keeping to the points instead. No need for censorship.  Suggesting a better way, that is all I am about. 

          No, you are more than free to insult at will, and like all of us, get what comes with that.  When people are allowed to "let it all hang out", we see things more clearly.  The confusing or foggy stuff, becomes suddenly much more clear.  I suspect even Jr. Highers can see it, or any non adult.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            No, carry on. You have explained that we should not take what you say subjectively. You mean the government and what it does with American tax dollars.

            PS I thought coffee and donuts were to be reserved for the police forces in America. I would HOPE they are not being sent overseas!

       
      working