jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (65 posts)

Girl 17, Shot Dead by Police

  1. Don W profile image83
    Don Wposted 22 months ago

    Article: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/0 … ard-video/

    Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGIS1Knpvs0

    Why could three police officers inside a police station, not subdue a 17 year old girl without use of lethal force? Why did none of the officers present attempt to give medical assistance during the six minutes it took for medical help to arrive?

    1. 59
      retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      She must have been guilty of something, she was white. Isn't that the line we have been given by the Justice Department, the President and up standing Americans like Al Sharpton? That the police are racist killers of black men. She was a white woman - sounds like it may have been justifiable.

      1. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        What you just said is so silly in so many ways, I genuinely wouldn't know where to begin.

        1. 59
          retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Pick a place and enjoy.

      2. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Your sarcasm in this falls far from the mark. You miss the accurate assessment that police procedures in regards to dealing with suspects in general need to be placed under greater review and scrutiny. This is applicable to all regardless of race, color, creed or gender. Why not accurately assess the threat before we go"dirty Harry"?

        1. 59
          retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          It is obvious, from the last few protested events, that the best way to assess a threat is for the police officer to get shot or beaten or stabbed to death so we can all enjoy the parade of police cars and "Amazing Grace" played on the bag pipes.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      According to the information provided,
      “The video captures most of the incident at a considerable distance and contains no audio but does raise questions about whether police had an opportunity to defuse the situation prior to the shooting.”

      I think I will wait for some real facts before speculating.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. 59
        retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

        You are a wise man. The favored pass time of many people appears to be jumping to conclusions.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          I don't think asking legitimate questions about the death of a young woman by a police officer is 'jumping to conclusions'. The girl's family (and the public) have the right to ask questions of the police. It's called accountability.

          And there are some facts we do know. Like the fact that no medical assistance was given to the girl until EMTs arrived 6 minutes after she was shot. That needs to be explained.

          1. 59
            retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            There are fundamental assumptions contained within questions. Perhaps the question that should be asked is why was this girl not institutionalized for her severe emotional problems and what was her family doing to help her. More accountability among the adults in her life, prior to a physical confrontation with the police, would likely have been more helpful. Just like Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin, the "victim" and the family escape scrutiny. They had many more significant and frequent opportunities to save her life, why did they fail?

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Those are perfectly legitimate questions too, and I don't consider you to be jumping to conclusions by asking them. But the actions/inactions of others in this girls life don't prevent us from asking about the actions/inactions of the police officers involved in her shooting, which is the immediate cause of her death.
              I don't think it's fair to say victims in these cases escape scrutiny. It's well known that the personal characters of Mike Brown and Trayvon Martin were heavily scrutinized.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                It doesn't prevent asking such questions, but no one ever seems to.  Yet they are the important ones - what is wrong with our society that it "creates" such actions?  How can it be prevented?  What is the root cause?  Why do Americans have such disdain and disregard for the law of the land? 

                Solve those and we won't see such shootings.  As is, we just continue to demand police protection while bashing cops for performing that protection.  We want a crew of baby sitters - baby sitters that still, somehow, expect them to provide us with the protection we want while we hamstring them and act outraged when they do their job.

              2. 59
                retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                By whom? When? Long after the conviction of the men who were defending themselves against vicious attacks were hanged in the press.

    3. S Leretseh profile image80
      S Leretsehposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Why did the FAT guy (i think it's a guy) come into the room and start to bully the girl? Geez.  What harm was she doing? He was the one who eventually gunned her down. He must have outweighed her by at least 100 pounds. Then two more officers arrive ... and the THREE couldn't subdue a 17--year-old girl? The one who did the shooting...to me it looks like cold-blooded murder.

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

    I heard tasers don't work on people who are high on PCP or Meth. The police can't take that chance.

    Cops are trained to survive in a proactive way. A dead Cop can help no one.

    She had a knife on her. The words, "I have a gun." written on her hand.
    Poor thing.


    But, I have also heard there is a reason to militarize the police:
    When things go berserk financially, (which THEY realize is inevitable,) the people will go berserk.
    ...so I heard.

    1. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      It is alleged that she had a knife. Has that now been confirmed?
      Was she on PCP or meth? I haven't heard that.
      If one police officer was able to subdue her, like he did for several minutes, why couldn't three?
      Even if lethal force was warranted, why did no one offer first aid to her for 6 minutes? You know, see if she was still breathing, try to stop the bleeding, CPR etc. Are police officers not obliged to render first aid to someone who is injured, regardless of how they sustained the injury?

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Cops are not EMT's.  As far as I know they aren't even required to know CPR.

        Which means if they do anything and it turns out that in their ignorance they did the wrong thing, they face massive lawsuits from the injured person.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Protect and serve with no CPR or first-aid training??? I am really surprised! (This can't be right.)

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            I don't know if they are trained or not.  But how much training can we expect of someone?  How many different fields can we expect them to be expert in?  We already expect cops to be highly trained in protection and the law - should we add mechanical expertise as well (is your car safe to drive?), building codes (are you building your home addition right?), EMT knowledge and child care, and mental illness with all it's facets?

            If "protect and serve" means being the god of safety they aren't going to be doing much protection at all.  I would hope that CPR is on the list, but first aid for multiple gunshot wounds is probably beyond a reasonable expectation.

        2. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          It's hardly being an EMT; Checking if someone is breathing, putting pressure on a wound to stop it bleeding, doing CPR. That's basic first aid. Even security guards are trained to do this. I'd be very surprised if police officers were not.

          Is being afraid of a lawsuit an acceptable reason for several police officers not to give medical assistance to a member of the public? I don't think it is.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            And is "pressure on a wound" the proper procedure for someone shot through the ribs and lung?  Through the carotid?  Basic first aid is not what is often needed - you are expecting these cops to be full blown EMT's or doctors.

            And yes, not being sufficiently trained is a very valid reason not to give medical attention, particularly for a cop the injured hates and will go after whenever possible.  You persist in seeing cops and the end-all and do-all to every disturbed criminal in the country - they aren't.  They are there to protect you, not baby sit those that find attacking a room full of cops a reasonable action.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              You can read this in a few minutes http://www.wikihow.com/Treat-a-Bullet-Wound.

              "Controlling bleeding is [the] most important thing you can do to save a gunshot victim's life. Applying direct pressure is the best way to control most wounds. If you have nothing available, even your hand or fingers can be used to control bleeding."

              Do you need to be an EMT to do that? A lot of people would do it instinctively through common sense.

              I don't see cops as the "end-all and do-all". I see them as public servants who are trained to deal calmly and professionally with emergency situations. In many cases that training includes basic first aid. I absolutely expect police officers to render first aid to an injured person, regardless of how that injury occurred. And if there is a civil claim, then that's what the Department's liability insurance is for.

              In the case of Tamir Rice first aid was given by an FBI agent after 4 minutes, which is bad enough. In this case no first aid was given until an EMT arrived after 6 minutes. I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask why.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Sorry - I was a registered EMT for a while and know better than to think that direct pressure on a trachea is the best manner of controlling a throat wound.  Or that compressing a broken rib into a lung should always be done to control thoracic bleeding.

                Again sorry - while jurisdictions and laws vary, individual people can be and are sued for malpractice for performing untrained first aid regardless of where they work.  Even an EMT can be sued for performing "first aid" outside of their training if it goes bad (or if it doesn't, for that matter).

                If you think every cop in every situation will remain calm and professional you need to rethink.  No one on earth has that ability.

                But I notice you didn't address the real problem in the crime rate of the country.  Any ideas there?  Why were cops even needed in the room, let alone having to take action?  Who/what is responsible for putting those cops in the position they found themselves in?  And even more important, why does no one ever question that - just bash the cops for doing their job?

                1. cathylynn99 profile image78
                  cathylynn99posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  in PA, we have what's called a good samaritan law. you can't be sued for unpaid help administered during an emergency.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    We had the same law where I took the EMT training (volunteer rescue squad).  Where it was made entirely clear that if we did something outside our training (set a broken bone, perhaps, or give insulin to a diabetic) we could not only be sued but would lose the case.

                    Stay within your training and no problem even if it is the wrong thing to do.  Go outside that training and your goose is cooked.

                2. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  If you think it's acceptable for a police officer not to give basic first aid on the grounds that he might get sued, then we have a very different idea of what is acceptable in terms of policing (or even in terms of being a compassionate human being).

                  The fact that not every cop is able to be calm and professional in every situation is exactly why police accountability is important. Police officers must be held to a higher standard than other citizens because of the authority they have over other citizens.

                  The ability to make rational decisions, and apply training in a stressful situation is the minimum we should expect of police officers. I don't know why the officers in this case did not give first aid. Accountability means asking such questions.

                  Asking about the immediate cause of this girls death (being shot dead by a police officer) does not in any way prevent us from also considering root causes (mental health issues, crime rates etc.) because we are capable of thinking about more than one thing at a time. Aren't we?

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Yes, we have very different concepts of the duties of the police.  I expect them to control violent or criminal actions by whatever action is necessary; you expect them ask "pretty please" and toss cotton balls at criminals.

                    Yes, police are held to higher standards.  Not perfection, but much higher than you or I.  And, for the most part, they are equal to those standards.

                    Yes, accountability is important.  Not to a hanging mob of media hounds, but accountable.  Not to any and all citizens that wish to condemn them because of their race or even simply demand answers for every action, but accountable.

                    I don't know either.  Nor do I need to hang them in order to find out - I have to trust their superiors to question, find out and take appropriate action.  Micro managing police is not the answer, and doubly so by a populace that is more concerned with handcuffing the police than in finding truth. 

                    We don't seem to be capable (or willing) to think about the root causes; I have yet to see any rational, constructive discussion on what is wrong with this society that we demand everyone else follow rules while we as individuals do as we please and blame the cops for interfering.

  3. seraphic profile image86
    seraphicposted 22 months ago

    Are there no Stun guns in the USA? This is incredibly tragic.

    1. 59
      retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      What a wonderful out cry would have accompanied the use of a stun gun and a subsequent cardiac arrest. The best way to deal with an armed subject is to let him/her shoot/stab/beat/run over a police officer before taking any action. Lawyers and liberals love dead policemen.

  4. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
    wrenchBiscuitposted 22 months ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12174026.jpg
    America was founded on the murder of innocents,slavery, and thievery. It is no surprise that police kill with impunity. This is their heritage. The only difference between now and 50 years ago is that more incidents of brutality are being reported today. Unfortunately, within a capitalist, materialistic society, this evil will continue to be ever present. A cancer cannot be eradicated or appeased by feeding it. The solution for many Americans will be  to increase their degree of denial: sing their patriotic songs a little louder, drink more beer, and watch more football games.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      What was stolen?  Manhattan?  Louisiana?  Alaska?  What was stolen, from whom and by whom?

      Or do you refer more to a knife, gun or horse?

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Call a priest.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          You think a priest was stolen???  I never heard that!

    2. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 22 months ago in reply to this


      Good evening and thank you for another sanctimonious comment, Mr. Wrenchbiscuit.

      Have you murdered anyone lately? How many innocent people have you transported from their homes to a life in slavery? According to the reasoning displayed in your comments, we should expect you to be as bloodthirsty and cruel as were your own ancestors. After all, that is your heritage.

      Before the influx of “evil” Europeans, raiding parties to steal horses and women from other tribes were as common as full-scale wars. Are you inclined to be a rapist and a horse thief, wB? I do not think so. Strange, is it not, how your thinking differs from mine.

      I can apply the same irrational arguments you use to some of history’s other atrocities. This would make them your atrocities through your lineage. 

      In August 1873, more than a thousand Sioux ambushed 350 Pawnee men, women and children on their summer buffalo hunt in Nebraska. Acting Assistant Surgeon David Franklin Powell with B Company, 3rd Cavalry, wrote about the savagery and brutality he observed after the Battle of Massacre Canyon:

      “It was a horrible sight. Dead braves with bows still tightly grasped in dead and
      stiffened fingers; sucking infants pinned to their mothers' breasts with arrows; bowels protruding from openings made by fiendish knives; heads scalped with red blood glazed upon them - a stinking mass, many already fly-blown and scorched with heat.”
      {1}

      I was amazed to read in your comment: “America was founded on the murder of innocents, slavery, and thievery.” This recurring indictment from you never includes yourself, I see. However, the frequent accusation about slavery is particularly interesting. Not only is the murder of innocents a predominant part of your own heritage, but so is the establishment and the spread of slavery.

      “The Dutch were the first,” Piero Scaruffi writes, “to import black slaves into North America.” {2} Dutch involvement with the Atlantic slave trade spans three centuries. By the end of the 17th Century, the Dutch had controlling interest in all of the slaves imported into the Spanish colonies. The extent of Dutch participation in the Atlantic slave trade is estimated to include some 550,000-600,000 Africans. Furthermore, The Netherlands was one of the last European countries to abolish slavery. That happen in 1863, the same year President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. {3}

      Historians have said many things that might be twisted and made to apply today to Americans of Dutch heritage:

      “Although slavery was illegal inside the Netherlands it flourished in the Dutch Empire, and helped support the economy.” {4}

      “By 1650 the Dutch had the pre-eminent slave trade in Europe.”{5}

      I found the premise that police kill with impunity due to their heritage to be more than absurd. It is delusional. I found your suggestion that the alleged atrocities following the arrival of Columbus are carried forward and manifested in today’s society by “40,000 killed each year in auto accident's” to also be an insult, not to my intelligence, but to yours. {6}

      If Americans are supposed to assume guilt for the travesties committed many generations ago then, by your faulty logic that would include you as well. Welcome to the fantasy world found only in your own mind.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.nebraskahistory.org/publish/ … e_Cnyn.pdf
      {2} http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.html
      {3} http://www.ascleiden.nl/content/webdoss … tion#dutch
      {4} Johannes Postma, The Dutch in the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1600-1815 (2008)
      {5}
      P. C. Emmer, Chris Emery, "The Dutch Slave Trade, 1500-1850" (2006) p. 3
      {6} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2657596

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Umm...one tiny correction Quill (how rarely I can tell you that!)

        Horses were not indigenous to the western hemisphere; they were first brought here in that influx of Europeans you mention.  Prior to that there could be no horse stealing as there were no horses.  Women, yes, but not horses.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Hi, Wilderness. Always a pleasure to chat with you.

          You are correct. Horses, at least the species brought here by Columbus’ second voyage in 1493 and those introduced later in Mexico by the Conquistadors around 1519, were not indigenous to the Western Hemisphere. 

          Stealing horses did not become a prominent part of Mr. Wrenchbiscuit’s heritage until much later. {1}
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://www.indians.org/articles/horse-breeding.html

      2. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12175367.jpg
        As usual, you have missed the point entirely. Let me slow it down a bit: Of course, every illegal European immigrant who has come to this continent since 1492 has not been a thief,rapist,or a murderer. I challenge you to show me where I have made such assertions. I have no control over how you might interpret my comments, as that depends solely on your own education and understanding, or lack thereof.

        My statement simply suggests that the apple has not fallen far from the tree, and after all, they do fall from trees, and not out of the clear blue sky. Just as it has always been since the founding of America, the common man is not quick to act against tyranny,injustice, and inhumanity. The historical record shows that it took nearly 500 years to end the institution of slavery on this continent. And what were all of the good God-fearing European immigrants doing in the meantime? The answer is painfully obvious:
        They were looking out for "number one" and conveniently looking the other way; pretending not to see the hopeless stare of the African slave stripped naked upon the auction block, or the exodus of the Five Civilized Tribes as they were forcibly removed from 20 million acres of prime real estate below the Mason-Dixon line. Ironically in the latter case, once the land had been "legally" stolen through the "Indian Removal Act of 1830", churches sprang up all across the South. We can easily understand that
        the good Americans were not praying to Jesus that the land and riches they now enjoyed would soon be returned to the previous caretakers. But these are only a few examples.

        We see the same apathy today when we consider police brutality, the excessive use of lethal force, and an ever expanding police state. In certain cases like Ferguson Missouri there has been a public outcry against police brutality, but overall the average citizen does nothing. As long as the brutality does not appear to directly impact their own well being they are content to look the other way. But under U.S. law, an individual does not have to actively participate in a crime in order to be held responsible as an accomplice, or the architect of a particular crime or diabolical act. In many cases, those who help to facilitate and perpetuate criminal acts are considered just as culpable, and sometimes moreso than the actual perpetrators. It has been said that "Silence is Golden", but in the year 2015 I have the distinction of stating: "Silence is Deadly".

        Now, to address the matter of my heritage and my own culpability. An individuals heritage, or ethnicity, may be useful when seeking to expedite an argument, or to make a point, but otherwise, if taken too seriously it only amounts to a trivial pursuit. The Pawnee, or the Sioux, or the Haudenosaunee have nothing to do with the present state of affairs in the United States. Atrocities and injustices committed by a particular tribe or nation against another prior to the European Invasion  has no bearing on this argument; no more than the issue of Sharia Law! If the Pawnee had been running the U.S. government for the last 200+ years my vitriol would be aimed in their direction, but as even you are aware, this is not the case. Once again, you have gone into left field, created a fiction, and now attempt to name me as the author! The "peanut gallery" may be distracted by such pedestrian machinations, but I assure you that I have come to expect nothing less. How can one defend the indefensible? What can an apologist for evil do but ... well, apologize?

        Mr. Qulligrapher, had America accepted the truth 25,50,100,or even 500 years ago, innocent people would not presently be dying at the hands of rogue police throughout the United States. My words and ideas have been clearly stated in various essays and Forum posts on this site, as well as others. I do not accept evil, regardless of how popular or profitable that evil may be. It is you who live in a fantasy world. I have long ago stepped away from the lie, and have lost cadence with the goat herd, and so I do not carry the evil and the apathy of the past into the future. I no longer wear the shoe because the shoe no longer fits. Concerning this particular matter, I am above reproach, and I do not share responsibility for these crimes against humanity that I have so loudly, and so steadfastly protested against.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          I particularly like that you hold up the riots and destruction in Ferguson as a plus action against reasonable and necessary police action.  Much like claiming you do not share responsibility as the apple never falls far from the tree even those with other heritage have culpability through their ancestors.  Neither one makes any sense at all.

          It would be comical if not so sad.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12178909.jpg
            My previous statement is as follows: "In certain cases like Ferguson Missouri there has been a public outcry against police brutality ...". Now you have attempted to "spin" my comment into this: " I particularly like that you hold up the riots and destruction in Ferguson as a plus action against reasonable and necessary police action." Clearly, anyone can see that my comment doesn't glorify or justify any violent act, or riotous behavior.

            Contrary to what you would have us believe, everyone who spoke out and protested against police brutality in Ferguson was not committing,  promoting, or sanctioning violent acts against an obviously hostile, and violent police force.

            As usual, you have no reasonable argument so you create a fiction and then attack me based on what amounts to a gross distortion of the truth: what some would interpret as a lie.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              But that was the majority of the actions in Ferguson - riots and destruction.  After all, the outcries were just that - unsubstantiated claims and outright lies without any basis in fact.  Or is that the part you like - that the public lies to hang a cop?

              As far as your personal responsibility - you share it with everyone else in this country.  We all have that evil European blood in us, after all.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Here you go again. Your interpretation of life may play well around the water cooler, or during happy hour at the local watering hole, but you are way out of your depth here.  Apparently you only see what you want to see. Anyone who followed the protests in Ferguson understands that the number of peaceful protesters far outnumbered those who chose a more direct and violent approach. Your sweeping statement:  "But that was the majority of the actions in Ferguson - riots and destruction. " not only failed to include the appropriate question mark, but most importantly,  has no basis in fact.

                White racists during the civil rights movement were also quick to point out how unruly and violent the " uppity negroes" were. Never mind  500 years of slavery, and then nearly 100 years of Jim Crow after that. Never mind that especially after Reconstruction, racist whites, with impunity, lynched blacks and whites who championed  civil rights. Blacks were expected to be obedient and peaceful, regardless of the fact that they were surrounded by a sea of white hate mongers who would not hesitate to beat or kill them at a moments notice.

                The white racist is no different today. For the racist, the fact the blacks are even allowed to protest is considered an act of violence, and a threat to white supremacy. When it comes to civil rights, there is no such thing in the racist mind as a "peaceful protest".

                Concerning your remark about responsibility: First of all, we must understand that there is a significant difference between responsibility and culpability. Yes , we all have responsibility to the past, the present, and the future. But a man cannot be held accountable for sins that he has not committed. A man who marks  a dangerous path; a man who understands that trouble lies ahead, and a man who warns every stranger not to follow such a path, is a man who cannot be held accountable if fools insist on self-destruction.  Such a man has severed the evil link that connected him to an old misery, and at birth set his foot upon a path of destruction. Such a man has truly become a new creature. And such a creature shares no culpability.

                You have chosen to remain connected to the past, and in doing so, you are  knowingly, or unwittingly carrying an old misery into the future. I have severed that connection and continue to fulfill my responsibility, and in doing so, I have insured that I share no culpability in these past,present, or future crimes against humanity.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  "But a man cannot be held accountable for sins that he has not committed."

                  Please, try to remember that statement when you blame anyone of European ancestry again for the evils of past generations.  Or even of the current generation or living in a country that you feel is doing wrong.  And try to remember as well that that includes you; you are just as responsible AND culpable for those evils even though you claim you are blameless.

                  1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    I have been very clear. It is you have have difficulty in comprehending my meaning. I have made a distinction between those who perpetuate evil, and those who purposely move in the opposite direction. Apathy, or indifference, has killed more human beings than avarice. The man who looks the other way while evil goes about it's business is as guilty as the actual perpetrator. This is why America has yet to wash the blood from her hands. Remember? Of course I will "remember". I am the one who told you!

                  2. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Any person who takes pride any their heritage or celebrates it in any way should be equally invested in the historical wrongs perpetrated in the same context.

        2. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Words and ideas may be clearly stated and still be illogical, Mr. Wrenchbiscuit. Your words and ideas are very provocative and I suspect that you designed them to be so. They are sterling examples of how to manipulate indisputable historical facts to justify an irrational leap to an illogical conclusion.

          The extraordinary claims found among your lengthy remarks include:

          “It is no surprise that police kill with impunity. This is their heritage.”{1}

          “the evil [that followed Columbus’ arrival] was carried forward and manifested in ways that also affected…40,000 killed each year in auto accident's,”{2}

          “You are knowingly, or unwittingly carrying an old misery into the future.” {3}

          “Colonial barbarism also plays a significant role in current events.” {4}

          “But the list of evil I have provided here is irrefutable empirical evidence that one thing does lead to another;” {5}

          As everyone but you can see, these claims contain no science, no logical framework, and certainly no authority. Each is the result of one person’s flawed reasoning. Not one includes a tangible, causal link that logically proves how one of these events was the direct result of another. 

          Your opinion is NOT proof that current events and the myriad of attitudes found in modern society are the direct and logical result of colonial barbarism (about which we all agree). You are free to cling to this belief even thought you can not prove it. Moreover, your posts do not survive scrutiny in the real world. Not one of your claims cites an established psychologist, historian, academic or other professional authority that agrees with you. I think it is fair to expect these citations would have been included in your posts if you had any. It is your responsibility to corroborate your claims, otherwise, a reasonable observer has no other choice but to conclude they are only your perceptions and yours alone. You can not shift responsibility for providing a recognized authority off to others. It is your responsibility and I will be pleased to discover you are up to the task.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2702950
          {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2657596
          {3} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2703965
          {4} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2703763
          {5} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2657596

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
            wrenchBiscuitposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12184178.jpg
            Proof? Citations? Scientific Evidence? Causal Links?  The absurdity of your comments is staggering! It begs the question: Are you really living on the "Big Rock Candy Mountain", with  the buzzin' of the bees in the cigarette trees and the soda water fountain where the lemonade springs and the bluebird sings? Where do I begin? The proof is all around us here in the modern world. Furthermore, the historical record has well documented the last 500 years on this continent. The journal of Columbus is a good place to start. The Christian Bible is another good source of information:

            Matthew 7:17 :So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 


            Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. 

            Luke 17:2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.

            These three biblical verses alone provide that every social ill of today can be directly linked to America's  past, beginning in 1492.

            We can also look to the American family to further substantiate my claims. The American family is a microcosm of the greater society, and it teaches a valuable lesson:

            The good parent will discipline their children; they will teach and guide them; they will attempt to "bend the sapling while it is young"; they will warn against drug abuse, and caution against hanging out with unsavory characters. Why? Because the adult knows that even the most intelligent and loving child can be led astray and easily brought to ruin if sent out into the world unprepared. But what can we say of the irresponsible parent who has allowed their children to grow up like wild weeds with no good purpose or direction? What can we know about the parent who encourages their children to commit vile, selfish, criminal  acts that enrich the parent through material gain , but to the detriment of the child?

            Of course, we can know that the parent possesses an evil nature, but we can also understand that the actions of the child are directly linked to years of behavioral conditioning by the parent. This is not to say that a child is a mere robot whose behavior is completely controlled by the parent, but with few exceptions, we can understand that as a rule children who lack proper parenting are more likely to fall by the wayside, or at the very least they lack the necessary means to reach their full potential.

            In a greater sense, the ruler, or the government of a nation serves as a "parent" to the masses.  So we must ask ourselves: What has America taught her children? Has she taught them to be thoughtful and kind? Has she taught them to be disappointed at the end of the day if they have helped themselves but no one less fortunate? Has America taught her children that love is greater than a dollar bill? Does the American beat his chest and say," Our forefathers have defiled the  image of God! We have participated in Genocide and Slavery, and now we must make a payment, because payment is long overdue. We must return , as best we can, what has been stolen, and we must make generous amends to the descendents of those who felt the sting of the lash; those who for a lifetime were forced to live with the shame and humility of giving pleasure to the rapist and the pedophile! Has America taught her children to say: "I have no time to go to a football game, the shopping mall, or the disco, because there is much work yet  to be done."? Of course, these are rhetorical questions, and the answer to all of the above is a resounding "No!"

            America has led her children down the path of materialism. Here in America, selfishness and greed are considered to be virtues, and it is no surprise that many Christian churches have become even more perverted, preaching a gospel of prosperity, when Jesus himself cautioned against the laying up of riches on these shifting sands, where all is corrupted in the end. It is no wonder that citizens are being murdered with impunity by rogue cops, and it is not surprising that government intrusion into the lives of American citizens is steadily on the increase. Anyone who cannot see the direct link between this current state of affairs and an old misery simply does not have eyes to see. Evil can only beget evil, which of course, is elementary. America was founded upon evil and so continues on that path.

            You have predictably questioned my authority and asked for proof of my assertions from "recognized" authorities. Of course, such proofs abound throughout the world wide web, in the public  libraries, and and at universities across the United States. It is quite arrogant of you to expect that I would be your "Step and Fetch It" and put everything in a nice neat little bundle for your perusal. Your vociferous and derogatory comments, designed to undermine my character have simply confirmed your subordinate status. I have nothing to "prove" to you whatsoever. I am an authority. My words when applied to the real world, that which is seen and unseen, speak of my credentials. The fact that you expect that I must be "recognized" by a simian institution in order to be "legitimate" is laughable. A monkey reads a book, memorizes key elements, and then repeats what he has learned, in word or deed. What kind of a creature seeks the approval of a monkey?
            Osiyo!

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Nice!  You are accused of offering no proof for your wild accusations and you reply with a rant that the proof is everywhere but still fail to provide any.  Even better is the ridiculous claim that your words speak for your credentials, as if your unsupported words mean anything at all.

              Well done!  You have once more given solid indication that your long rants are nothing more than ego, opinion without truth or support.

              (On a side note, the paragraph on paying for the sins of our grandfathers has already been covered elsewhere in your posts.  As much as you might like money from someone else, you are also on record as saying it isn't necessary to pay for the evils of ancestors.  Try to remain consistent, please.)

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
                wrenchBiscuitposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12184614.jpg
                I understand that it is fashionable to use the term "rant" to describe any post that is more than 20 words. I guess for those who might struggle with anything over 500 words, my well written and thought provoking comments may be intimidating. However, I feel that with a little practice many of you could greatly improve your writing skills. I am sure that there are many  Hubpages "intellectuals" who would consider the Gettysburg Address,Martin Luther King's " I Have A Dream" speech and  "The Sermon On The Mount" to also be rants. It is no wonder that all three of these men were killed by illiterates. But trust and believe my friend, I shall live on!

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Thought provoking?  Well written?

                  Biblical quotations from an imaginary ET in the sky are neither.
                  "Does the American beat his chest and say," Our forefathers have defiled the  image of God!"  is merely silly, not thought provoking.  Same for "We have participated in Genocide and Slavery, and now we must make a payment, because payment is long overdue." as those deserving of payment have been dead for centuries as are those deserving of paying.

                  "Here in America, selfishness and greed are considered to be virtues" is simply a lie, while "It is no wonder that citizens are being murdered with impunity by rogue cops" is another via the tool of gross exaggeration.  "America was founded upon evil and so continues on that path." is just as untrue, but at least is only opinion, although presented as factual.

                  If you are an "authority" on anything but BS it hasn't come out in these forums, and certainly your words speak nothing for any credentials outside of that.  The statement "The fact that you expect that I must be "recognized" by a simian institution in order to be "legitimate" is laughable." seems to say it all; ego, but with nothing to back it, and with the words presented as rudely as possible.

                  So thought provoking?  Not a chance.  Well written?  Even less chance.

                2. 59
                  retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Pontius Pilate was not illiterate and neither was John Wilkes Booth, but considering you contention that they were and your inflated appraisal of your own writing efforts one should not be surprised at this assertion.

            2. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              I thank you, Mr. Wrenchbiscuit, for your comments. I am disappointed to read that you are unwilling (I suspect unable) to provide a single recognized authority that corroborates your repeated assertions. Consequently, you have failed to establish a real and tangible connection between members and attitudes in today’s society and those of immigrants arriving in 1492. One day, perhaps, you may come to understand that the lack of rational proofs is what makes your conclusions logically invalid. Logically invalid does not mean they are unbelievable because, obviously, you believe them. They are logically invalid because you have not proven they are true. Posts filled with heaps of meaningless rhetoric will never bury this one simple fact.

              Let us review again the claims you made as a self-proclaimed authority that you never justified with any rational data or logical proofs:

              "It is no surprise that police kill with impunity. This is their heritage."{1}

              "the evil [that followed Columbus' arrival] was carried forward and manifested in ways that also affected…40,000 killed each year in auto accident's,"{2} roll

              "You are knowingly, or unwittingly carrying an old misery into the future." {3}

              "Colonial barbarism also plays a significant role in current events." {4}

              "But the list of evil I have provided here is irrefutable empirical evidence that one thing does lead to another;" {5}

              We have all read that you believe these claims are factual. Now we are waiting for you to produce some proof they are true.

              As we have all seen, when asked to justify these statements with some verifiable collaboration, you ramped up your rhetoric and denied your responsibility to supply any logical explanations.

              "I have nothing to "prove" to you whatsoever. I am an authority. My words when applied to the real world, that which is seen and unseen, speak of my credentials.” Okay. Now can we see some proof?

              As the poster making the claims, it is your responsibility. However, shirking responsibility has become a trademark especially when others point out how your extreme perspectives are logically flawed.

              For example, “You have predictably questioned my authority and asked for proof of my assertions from "recognized" authorities. Of course, such proofs abound throughout the world wide web, in the public libraries, and at universities across the United States.” Okay. Maybe now you will provide some proof?

              Again, whose responsibility is it to support and prove your conclusions? This is your responsibility as the claimant. Refusing to meet this responsibility is a good reason not to take your posts seriously. Without referencing one authority, a single academic, scientist or qualified professional, who endorses your conclusions, your bluster becomes intellectually bankrupt.

              Instead, you declare yourself an authority, you ignore all conventions calling for proofs or collaboration and, in the end, you pretend to validate your conclusions with nothing but your personal proclamation. When the flaws in your conclusions are aired, you respond with personal attacks instead of with citations and references.

              “Your vociferous and derogatory comments, designed to undermine my character have simply confirmed your subordinate status.”

              My subordinate status exists only in your mind. I do not have a comparative status to you nor do I have a need or a desire to undermine anyone’s character. I am just a reader in a public forum trying to learn why you have been abusively attacking 300 million of your fellow-Americans over the last four months with lies like this:

              “The historical record shows that it took nearly 500 years to end the institution of slavery on this continent. And what were all of the good God-fearing European immigrants doing in the meantime? The answer is painfully obvious: They were looking out for "number one" and conveniently looking the other way; pretending not to see the hopeless stare of the African slave stripped naked upon the auction block, or the exodus of the Five Civilized Tribes as they were forcibly removed from 20 million acres of prime real estate below the Mason-Dixon line.” {6}  [Bold emphasis added.]

              How convenient of you not to acknowledge the Underground Railroad, the Abolitionist Movement, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Quaker Anti-slavery Movement in Pennsylvania and the Delaware Valley, Chapters of the Committee of Vigilance from coast to coast, or the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worchester v. Georgia, 1832. {7}

              In fact, it must be convenient amnesia since this Supreme Court decision was brought to your attention in this very forum last September. {8}

              Again, Mr. wrenchBiscuit, I thank you for your contributions in this thread. Unfortunately, the only thing you proved is that you are not an authority on this topic.
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
              {1} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2702950
              {2} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2657596
              {3} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2703965
              {4} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2703763
              {5} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2657596
              {6} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2703125
              {7} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jac … an_removal
              {8} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2630361

      3. 59
        retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Quill,

        You are quite the researcher. You know that you and I rarely agree, yet here we are in agreement. Humanity's cruelty knows no geographical, racial or cultural boundaries.

        Retief

        1. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Thank you for your comment.

          It is not so important that we agree. What really matters is that we are allowed to disagree.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. 59
            retief2000posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Again, agreed. That is the danger of political correctness, shaming people into silence.

    3. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      The link you make between European colonial barbarism and the actions of police officers in North America today is tenuous to say the least.

      I suspect that you are right that more acts of police brutality are reported today, but the incident mentioned in the OP has not been cited as an example of police brutality.

      The video raises legitimate questions about the actions of the officers involved, but it would be wrong to describe it as an example of police brutality before the relevant facts are known. And even then, there is a big difference between a police officer who makes a poor decision in the heat of the moment, and a police officer who willful sets out to abuse his authority and cause harm. I hope you can see the difference.

      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image87
        wrenchBiscuitposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Brutality is evident in a system that consistently promotes and rewards poor decisions. An act of brutality is no less brutal simply because the participants are "following orders", or accepted police procedure. "I was just following orders" was a common mantra at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. Police brutality has become so systemic that many do not even recognize it as such.

        The link that I made between the early  Europeans and the current brutal actions of police officers is a solid link. Although I was referring more to a general apathy toward human rights, I will agree that colonial barbarism also plays a significant role in current events. A study of human behavior reveals that action, or inaction, are usually preceded by a "decision". A decision is  influenced by certain variables, one of which is conditioning. Selfishness, greed, and apathy toward human rights are behavioral traits that are passed from one generation to the next. Therefore, the link I have made may exhibit a measure of "uncommon" sense, but it is not tenuous in the least.

        Generations of Americans have been essentially brainwashed, or conditioned  into accepting a materialistic world view.  This world view elevates the personal accumulation of wealth and the "security" that it is purported to provide above all else. Consequently, the citizen fears that a concern for human rights, or an overt defiance of the status quo, can jeopardize his or her "financial security". But just as the apathy of the antebellum delivered this nation to the bloody abattoir's of Gettysburg and Antietam, so too, the apathetic posture and apologist tone of the mainstream can only lead us to a similar conclusion.

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    It seems some could blame their own parents for having the audacity to even conceive them!
    "How Dare they bring me into the world in such a horrible country!
    For shame!" They might cry.

    Sorry about that.

    However, the fact of the matter is that a soul FIGHTS* to enter the union of the zygote and sperm. (At that point, a flash of light sparked on the astral plane where souls are waiting to incarnate.)
    *Other souls wish to enter as well, but the one with the strongest intention and determination wins.

    So, those who complain in this manner are actually responsible for who they were born to and where they were born. Considering the fact that one is actually responsible for one's own choices, one really has no cause to complain.


    TWISI

 
working