The War on Police
For months now we have seen growing efforts against our Police, and the Law and Order in our society.
This weekend, two police officers in LA were ambushed and shot, and another officer was violently attacked with a knife in PA.
During these times, we have seen politicians in LA, Seattle, NYC, and Portland tell their police to stand down, abandon police precincts. Police have been defunded, thousands of officers have been let go, all in the name of ideological politics and extremism.
The true facts of Mr. Floyd's death did not come out until weeks after, the true nature of rioting in Portland has never been covered. The murders in Seattle's "CHAZ" were quietly ignored... the bulk of the media has done everything in its power to demonize the police, while justifying the rioters and criminals that are attacking our society.
It is time we recognize that these groups, BLM and Antifa are not looking for an improvement to policing, or an improvement to society... they want to tear down our society, they want to burn it to the ground and remake it in their extremist vision.
Those who lead these organizations, and those who support them are enemies of the Police, they believe rioting, looting and assaulting of others is justified and "restitution", they need to be labeled as enemies of America, not as "protesters".
Their actions need to be called out and condemned, not supported and defended.I would give that the early BLM was about reforming police, and that a small minority of it does now. They didn't understand the problem, they didn't understand what might change it for the better, but they were trying the best they knew how, albeit without ever admitting that the people had to change, not so much the cops.
But it quickly morphed into demands for anarchism, just as ANTIFA has done from the beginning, and that is just plain stupid. Not ignorant (I dare say that a vast majority of people are ignorant of just what police do or their training) - it's just stupid. Enough that I would really like to understand just who is promoting the BLM today and where they are getting their funding.Do you think can the funding can be stopped, once we discover where it's coming from?
Like, what if it's from Soros? Or China?I doubt it - wherever it's coming from it is probably quite legal.
Funds come mainly from donations --- BlackLivesMatter.com uses the platform ActBlue to process donations. ActBlue is popular among Democratic politicians and progressive nonprofits.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/14/us/p … tions.htmlReading your link, it sounds like judges need to begin setting bail in the millions for minor offenses. Or deny it altogether.
Unbelievable.Unbelievable, but very much true.
So is this:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/13/la-hospit … rotesters/How sad... However, look at the mentality of these protesters. Didn't the "left coast" at one point want to secede from the United States?
Maybe it would be a good time for them to do so... It's clear so many citizens are leaving California and New York to escape all the crazy ideology.
Yes, It is unbelievable that some American cities are emboldening, and actually embracing this kind of lawlessness that has spread into the courts. Many of the cities that are having mass riots pose no bonds. I agree it would be beneficial to slam large bails on this sub-human protestors. However, in my view, it has become clear the judges in these very cities also embrace the same lawless ideology of setting no bail. This policy quickly returns the thugs back to fight for the cause. Whatever the hell it is...
Something has happened to the liberal base in this country. I've never approved much of their general concept of where we need to go, but now? Now it seems their only goal is destruction of the country and it's people. When we have liberal cities openly assisting people to violate the law, when we have city/state leaders promoting violence and destruction, when we have liberal leaders openly calling for anarchy...there is a major problem with the dogma behind the liberal party today.
I agree wilderness, this IS the goal!
Over the past couple of days, (since the ambush), I've been in some back and forth (definitely not a discussion) regarding this senseless and horrific attack on these two young deputies.
The majority in this "back and forth" never condemned it. The majority refused to call BLM, what they are, a Marxist organization, whose founders are Communist revolutionaries (not my words, BLM's words) and the majority could only come up with one explanation....I MUST be racist.
When you think about it, this is the perfect storm; use the word black in the organization's name, wreak havoc on the Country, topple down its history, destroy all things capitalist (such as small and minority-owned businesses) taunt and mock people out to dinner, in their own homes, (get in their faces...as Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D) urged them to do), maim and kill in its name and when someone calls you on it...simply call them racist.It baffles me how any organization would feel these kinds of actions would benefit them in any respect? It is only pointing out to many that they have no real place in our society at all. If BLM matter seeks changes they certainly should have respected the majority's respect for law and order, not to mention many's innate values. It appears BLM is poorly organized, and are totally making attempts to rip at America's fabric when it comes to justice under the law, morals, and values.
I can tell you what happened to the liberal base. Hard line conservatives who will stop at nothing, lyeing cheating, suppressing votes and gerrymandering thier way into office in the sorry attempt to own the Libs. Did any of you ever stop to think that we wore are hair long to hide our red necks.
Sincerely,
The Masked Marauder.?
Why do they want the police defunded?
To make it easier to riot and "burn it all down"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-left- … ection-dayKen, didn't realize that there's a Masked Marauder that writes for HP and I just titled my last article The Masked Marauders. Purely coincidental.
Two more police officers killed today trying to get a criminal off the road.
Graphic bodycam and police vehicle cam shows they tried to use non lethal force... they are the ones that died instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewOO7Uk1BysHeartbreaking!
The handful of stories of men dying or being injured, at the hands of cops, always involve them resisting arrest! Although, they have criminal records, and in many cases, have hurt people or worse...they are portrayed in the media, as innocent, salt of the earth victims! Before all of the details are given time to surface, it is too late. Without facts or the rest-of-the-story, it is intentionally HYPED, by the media, to get people worked up into a frenzy!
That is why so many think it's okay to resist arrest, it's okay to honor criminals over police officers and it's okay to shoot point blank into police cars!!
The media has blood on their hands.You wont't die, if you comply. Something wrong with complying?
Exactly.
I complied when I was a victim of mistaken identity. My hands went up in the air and I froze. I was surrounded by Police Officers and knew it must be something bad, so I didn't even flinch. I remember once they realized that the bad guy had gone the opposite direction and left to go after him, I was still frozen in that position and it took me a while to compose myself, get it together and move on down the road.
The obvious answer is defund police, removing equipment from them or, as a final solution, remove police from society and let the criminals have free rein.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 851329002/
Well the good news is, these cities controlled by radicalized Democrats are being pointed out by the DOJ for the lack of service and protection given to their populace.
Step one of many needed to identify the threats to the Republic, call them out, and eliminate their support and funding.Radicalized Democrats. That's funny.
Guy ignores a pandemic, lies to the public about it, refuses to initiate a national testing program because it would help him politically to have Americans in Democrat cities die, leading to thousands and thousands of deaths, and you think Democrats are the radicalized ones.
Some reality you live in.
Ken, the founders, organizers, funders and supporters of Antifa and BLM, are enemies of the Police, enemies of the State, enemies of the people and enemies of this Country, therefore, they must be treated as such. Clearly, they have gotten to the point where they are feeling invincible and they must be stopped.
But, on a happier note, I've just received word that the two deputies who were ambushed in L.A. are out of surgery and will survive.I am thankful that the police that were attacked that I mentioned all survived.
That they are being ambushed and attacked at all is the long term concern.
That we have a MSM that is pushing this anti-police pro-extremists messaging is also a major concern.
Using lies and taking things out of context when attacking the President is one thing, but to now push this bias to demonizing the police while making criminals out to be heroes is a clear sign of something much deeper and much more threatening to our country going on.
The far-left have worked hard to demonize any form of law enforcement, with the help of bias media. Over this summer these thugs have become emboldened. The Dems at this point have another ploy that has spun out of control. The Dem cities that are allowing the lawlessness have at this point lost all control. They asked for the Mayor of Portland to resign, even after he has shown them great support, to the point of looking like a complete fool.
"Those who lead these organizations, and those who support them are enemies of the Police."
So true, but at this point, it's hard to determine who is behind these thugs. AG Barr is.investigating just that --- who is financing the Summer of Love.
"On Thursday, September 10th, Republican Ken Buck 50 lawmakers in sending a letter to Attorney General William Barr requesting that an investigation be opened into who is behind these riots." https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/doj … the-riots/
Not sure how much longer law enforcement unions will put up being respected to enforce the law with their hands tied. I would hope they will take action, blue flu...And these efforts are in our schools as well... this from a Westchester NY school (and for those who do not know NY that well, Westchester is a very affluent area):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … wners.html
It is the simplification of complex issues that allows people with the worst intentions to be able to hijack a positive movement for their own agendas.
This is what has happened to BLM.
Instead of focusing on higher standards, better training, and improving the funding for the Police Force, they take funds away and decrease the number of police available to deal with escalating crimes in regions where unemployment is increasing.
This type of problem solving is similar to curing the cold by killing the patient.
The people that push these ideologies want to tear down what exists, but they have no clue how to fix it, these are people looking for power and control for their own purposes, supported by idiots that do not understand the complexities involved with keeping a civilization running and civil.
Like Socialists (Marxists, Communists) that think they have e better system. Capitalism has proven itself over and over to be the best way of creating incentives and innovation and of allocating resources to create productivity.
All successful countries have used it. For example, Communist China has chosen capitalism, which has been essential to its growth, to go from being 1.5 billion people toiling in the mud, to 1.5 billion people living in the most advanced cities in the world.
But capitalism also produces large wealth gaps, which produce growing opportunity gaps, which threaten the system in the ways we are seeing with the top 10% having 60% of the wealth and the bottom 50% having less than 10% of the wealth... while those in the Middle slowly get squeezed, until they are not the majority... as we have now.
Wealth gaps give unfair advantages to the children of rich people because they get a better education, which undermines the equal opportunity notion. They have economic advantages passed down from the previous generation that the poor cannot gain access to.
The measurement that a society/civilization is moving in the right direction, would be that more of the populace is moving into the "Middle Class" as we saw in the 50s & 60s and again in the 80s briefly.
As the number of people who get equal opportunity diminishes, this reduces the possibility of finding talented people in that population, which isn’t fair and undermines productivity. Then the have-nots want to tear down the capitalist system at a time of bad economic conditions. That dynamic has always existed in history and it’s happening now.
Addressing this becomes far more complicated, when the populace is distracted from the economics of the system, to what it is being focused on today... RACISM... this is the perfect way to divide the people, and get the populace fighting amongst themselves while the elite fleeces them of wealth.Ken,
The other side, Trump included, is not interested in reform as he blames the victims for aggressive police tactics. Nothing from these kind will ever change.
With conservatives, you and Wilderness, it is always "all or nothing". There is no middle ground between controlling police excessive behavior and eliminating police in its entirety. That is not the position of most reasonable people on the left.
With the Rightwingers, someone always has to wear the black hat, no pun intended. The reality is always full of subtlety, defying the attitude of absolutes and little boxes to identify good guys and bad.
The problem is much deeper, racism is a fundamental component of the American experience that perviates all institutions to a certain extent. From the "Karen's" to the Bank of America, it is ubiquitous.It is just that law enforcement has weapons.
I have not resigned myself to that fact, because there have been fair and decent people in my experience. I would have to say that I am somewhere inbetween the concept of racism enveloping all like the atmosphere, and the ideas from the Right that explains the incidents as isolated and the product of a few "bad apples".
----
"Wealth gaps give unfair advantages to the children of rich people because they get a better education, which undermines the equal opportunity notion. They have economic advantages passed down from the previous generation that the poor cannot gain access to."
________
Well, Ken it appears that you know this already, how was all this massive wealth obtained by one group with the other having so much less within the same environment? Rather that desiring to "tear down the system", lets do something less draconian that is a serious attempt to level the playing field and that I consider as one of the only palatable alternatives to "reparations" that no one wants to talk about. Free or very inexpensive community colleges and trade schools will give those structurally left behind over generations a fighting chance to reach for parity.
Ask the Right, do they really have any solution outside the status quo, or moving backwards?
The "have nots" want a fair and equitable Capitalist system to the extent that is possible. Its inherent exploitive nature and sharp edges can be grinded down.
Yes, we were at the point where Capitalism was in the greatest danger of being toppled during the early 1930's. But answers came from bold initiatives and the resourcefulness of a true leader, FDR, who recognized that the status quo was not good enough, who saved this system and its functioning for later generations.
We may well be at such a crossroad again, which is only truly understood by Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders on the national stage. Remove the negative aspects and perhaps the oligarchs would less to fear.
Our economics and racism are still quite intertwined. The idea of "white privilege and hegemony starts at Wall Street, excessive control and influence of the corporate class on government institutions and the infusion of their "dirty money" to subvert the will of the larger, general populace is still the reality.
The "divide and conquer" you so often speak of starts here. It is the preeminent hierarchal structure over all of the others. The other subsequent inequities being a subset of the whole.
If we are all fighting the same enemy, I should see more indications of that from broader segments of society than what I currently see. I think that many of you are reluctant to give up an advantage, "Karen" surely was.As has often been the case in these past weeks, Credence, you have made it a habit to fall back on "you all" and "you conservatives" and the like.
I can't speak for Wilderness, but I have spoken with ideas and in terms that are anything but "all or nothing". There are ideologues responding in this thread, but it isn't myself.
I have been using real and clear examples of just how far "people on the Left" are going:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/us/m … olish.html
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updat … hing-to-do
https://www.foxnews.com/us/seattle-city … the-police
These are the actions of Democrat politicians across the nation, defunding, firing, lowering the wages of Police... this is their "solution".
Their actions speak far louder than your words.
Keep spouting the extreme racist tripe of "How to be an Antiracist" and other "progressive" publications that are currently in favor with the "left" it is this mentality that stokes the fires of racism and hatred, it does nothing to do away with them or make a better world.
People are openly attacking and killing police, the messaging being put out by BLM, the MSM, and even Sports is that the criminals are the good guys and are being held up as martyrs and heroes, even though they are rapists, murderers, violent criminals.
It is, to most rational individuals, a sign of severe sickness in our society... that the extremely wealthy and powerful are holding up rapists and murderers as the victims... while those protecting the innocent from those who would do them harm have been labeled the villains/enemy.
And it is Democrat politicians, instead of demanding higher qualifications, and better training, and more support for the Police to help correct the problems so that those who are meant to protect and serve us can do their jobs to a higher standard... instead worsen the problem by defunding, lowering their wages and shrinking the size and ability of the Police, or try to do away with them all together.
A lot more needs to be done than that:
https://kingworldnews.com/multi-billion … ar-moment/
The United States is a 75-year-old empire and it is exhibiting signs of decline. It has a rival nation that has a single minded purpose to set itself up as global leader, ruler of the world.
While America is graduating tens of thousands of Social Justice and Critical Theory and Social Change graduates... China is graduating tens of thousands in STEM fields, 8 times more than America graduates.
China is coming on very strong and at existing rates will surpass the United States. Militarily, the U.S. is stronger but China also has come on very strong and is probably stronger in the waters close to China that include Taiwan and other disputed areas.
The U.S. is in the late stages of a debt cycle and money cycle in which we’re producing a lot of debt and printing a lot of money. The U.S. Empire is on the decline, and what you are seeing now is not the "Tide of Change" that is going to bring more prosperity and opportunity to "your people".
It is the signs of social unraveling and systemic failure that is certain to lead to less opportunity and more poverty as the wealth of the nation shifts to the rich (which can protect their wealth overseas), and to other foreign nations.
We now have too much emphasis on distributing wealth and getting it from producing debt and printing money, rather than from increasing Productivity, Industry, Business.
Wealth cannot be created by creating debt and money. We have to be productive together, tearing people apart by RACE will only result in the system being torn down, and the poor becoming poorer.
Productivity and equal opportunity are most needed. If we could at least agree that we must have these things, that would be great. What we have now is a situation in which we’re fighting each other, we are not providing equal opportunity, and we are losing our productivity gains.
Right now, the actions of BLM, Antifa, and the Democrats are tearing apart our ability to be productive... this is leading us in the direction of becoming the next Venezuela, it is not leading to reparations or improved equality.
One of the greatest problems is that everybody’s fighting for their cause. When the causes people are fighting for are more important to them than the system that binds them together, the system will fail, and all (except the rich elites) will suffer.
You fail to recognize that the entire system is at risk, our economy especially... our out of control corrupt government has created such massive amounts of debt, and allowed our Industrial base to be siphoned off by foreign nations (China mostly) and because our education system focuses on graduating "revolutionaries" rather than scientists, we are almost certain to see much worse economic opportunity for the coming generations, than we ourselves had.
Everybody has their cause and they lost sight of the overall picture. Democracy depends on compromise. It’s the notion of compromise and working together and being able to have a negotiation to get what the most people want rather than have one side beat the other.
Organizations like Antifa and BLM are not preaching compromise, they are preaching "burning it all down". And many of the Democrat politicians are doing the same, including with their efforts to defund the police while allowing BLM to run free in the cities to do what they will.It's funny that the word "ideologues" was brought up.
I looked up the word recently for an article I was working on, so as to make sure, the correct definition was presented for the sources section.
I think we all know the definition, but what upsets me time and time again, is the extension of any and all definitions these days, such as the one used when I looked it up... Ex: Conservative Ideologue.
As if...only Conservatives are unwavering, incapable of moving, etc. It is possible to hold on to core values without compromising, while remaining open to considering what others are saying, while keeping an open mind. Liberals, leftist, progressives are never used as the example, why is that?
Rant over. (feel free to delete) I know it doesn't go hand in hand with the subject matter.So, Ken, let's take a look at the Right, shall we?
https://www.propublica.org/article/trum … government
Basically what is here is that Trump has weakened the the DOJ and its objectives regarding overview of practices of municipal police departments introduced as early as 1994 and pursued with vigor during the Obama Administration in the light of unjustified police practices across the country with focus on specific municipal departments with systemic patterns.
Yes, Ken, "all or nothing" and with Trump and the Republicans, it is nothing. Why should I be surprised?
Conservatives have been telling me how Trump has been so helpful, while he undermines every enforcement arm of federal civil rights agencies, and waters down EPA . This includes putting the breaks on the Department of Justice's program created after the LA riots to overview police departments for evidence of systemic racism, not just a bad apple or two on the force. Trump removes a leg from this program while he jests before an audience of law enforcement professionals "don't be too nice". The man has no interest in the issues and I resent conservatives trying to paint him as really seeking a just solution.
Conservatives ask me why support the Democrats, what have they done for you? The better question should focus on what it is that the Democrats are not doing against me, undermining the tools that were made available to fight inequity in so many areas of American life. I am more concerned about that for obvious reasons over any problems on the international scene.
The system that supposedly binds us together is the cause of the fight, perhaps we are not all as bound in as many would like to think. If it remains consistently unfair, I going to have less of a stake in its continuity as it currently stands.
The way Trump and the Republicans respond to these problems certainly is not helping return the country to a focus on productivity.
-----
Productivity and equal opportunity are most needed. If we could at least agree that we must have these things, that would be great
---------
Yes, we can agree on that, get the Republicans to work harder toward those concept goals rather than render mere lip service and undermining them in deed, maybe we might get somewhere.You're pointing out RACE issues. You are talking about tools Obama provided to the DOJ to enforce Un-Constitutional changes and create bias, not diminish it.
If you are intent on putting "Civil Rights" issues that were decided 50 years ago as hot topic issues that you feel still haven't been resolved, then the bigger picture doesn't matter.
Those that control the politicians and MSM want exactly this. Focus on race, keep Americans divided, and they will all sink into poverty together.
Your arguments have made a tough choice clearer, much as I would have liked an alternative to Trump, with the choices I have been left with, the idea of Democrats regaining control of this country and being allowed to tear it apart from within with their agendas and radical Social Justice anti-racist (as the book said, if you aren't antiracist, you are a racist, there are no neutral parties) ideology will not be supported by me.
As I consider you a rational proponent for your positions and in support of these agendas, I can only imagine how extreme some of those that have been indoctrinated into this "Progressive Ideology" are.
And as I believe I have made clear, those that want to villainize, defund, and destroy our police forces I consider the true enemies of America, of all color and creeds, and a far bigger threat right now to our society than Trump.
"The measurement that a society/civilization is moving in the right direction, would be that more of the populace is moving into the "Middle Class" as we saw in the 50s & 60s and again in the 80s briefly."
Ken, this statement caught my eye as quite thought provoking, but I have a couple of questions about the meaning.
1. Do you intend that the top of the wealth ladder must move down to middle class, whether by wealth confiscation, simple lack of effort or the inability to purchase additional "opportunity" by their parents for them? That the bottom needs to move up (although by definition they cannot, as there must be a bottom 20% no matter how wealthy), but that the top must also move down?
2. How much of that lack of "improvement" is, in your opinion, the result of "free everything" today? If we simply give the poor what they want, do you find that they will improve their position on their own or simply sit back, comfortable with their current "wealth" (whether money, large screen TV's or cell phones) rather than attempt to improve their lot in life? Is the Marxism we current espouse through the welfare system useful in moving people to the middle class or does it throw up a barrier?See my response to Credence to give the bulk of my response.
I agree that restrictions and taxations on "the wealthy" can help.
But what is really needed is for the Education system to not focus on "safe spaces" and "social justice" but on Science and Medicine.
What is needed from our government is not focus on supporting the service industries or bailing out banking, but supporting businesses creating new technology and new advances in medicine.
Government support for the rebuilding of our industrial base and the ability to be "made in America" again, rather than increased welfare and healthcare for illegal immigrants.
Our politicians the past three decades have allowed for everything that "Made America Great" be stolen or shipped to our foreign competitors, the corrupt politicians have served the interests of international corporations and international banking... not the American people.
In order to improve the Middle Class, the government needs to be forced to serve the interests of the people... they are not doing that... they are helping to keep us divided. This is why they support the likes of BLM, the most divisive organization in America today, and why they are demonizing the Police.From your first statement, I take it that you support taking what "the wealthy" earn, thus decreasing their standing to middle class. I have a real problem with this, for without a reasonable incentive we will not see gains nationwide. It is a problem with our welfare system now in that it is designed to hold a person in the "poor" class where they are, forcing a huge increase in earning to gain anything at all. All it does is make everyone the same, regardless of effort, and that means no incentive to improve.
The deliberate misuse of an ATTITUDE of Authority is what I see.
What you say here: W h o can disagree ! ! ? ? !
But those who just want to CONFRONT common sense and common decency with that attitude (of authority) do it for the purpose of
e r a d i c a t i n g
common sense and common decency.
It's very subtle, and therefore apparently effective when used by people in the media and in the government, (those on the far left who seem intent on destroying common sense and common decency).
- why the urge to eradicate common sense and common decency? That's the question, if you ask me.Where is the push-back by people who want common sense and common decency?
We have to demand it!
"The king has no clothes!" Come On!
Ladies and gentlemen, crime happens, we are talking about the second largest metropolis, (Los Angeles, CA) in the country, not Mayberry.
The assualt on law officers was a criminal act and had nothing to do with the protests. The fact that there were voices that were not supportive of the police in general is not a crime in of itself.
I have disassociated myself with the BLM based on the movement tactics as stated by its leading proponents, while still holding on to the strategic goal of reforming major police departments. While the Right wants the status quo and are more than happy to accommodate the police beating heads, as long as they are just wooly ones.
Many of you rightwing types have a correct assssment that the movement has been hijacked. I say that comes from rightwing agitators, anarchists and common criminals. So, this gives the conservative mind an excuse to do nothing as a response.
All this stuff about ripping America's moral fabric is just nonsense, this is just an attempt to get at discrepancies as to how the police behave and how criminal justice is dispensed.
Any time the underdog attempts to push back against the establishment, it is called communist and Marxist, that excuse is as old as the pyramids, and has no affect upon my thinking.
Your status quo will not do, but I want the adjustments that need come sooner or later to evolve, but evolve faster.
Republicans, on the basis of it supporters, have identified itself as the "White Party", and we know that concept and attitude can not be sustainable indefinitely. So, it might appear that the GOP has an image problem.
I just as soon have Texas secede. I need California and New York's electoral votes to defeat Trump, this fall.
Yes, as on the left, I want change and I don't want to burn it all down, but sitting your A$$es content to do nothing won't cut it either.
Trump is fundamentally the white man's candidate with him and his supporters inherently against the concepts that I speak about. At least Biden, I am not dealing with a mortal enemy."Ladies and gentlemen, crime happens, we are talking about the second largest metropolis, (Los Angeles, CA) in the country, not Mayberry.
The assualt on law officers was a criminal act and had nothing to do with the protests. The fact that there were voices that were not supportive of the police in general is not a crime in of itself."
There were protesters outside of the hospital black people screaming "I hope the MF die"... So, in light of these protesters showing up with signs to block an ER entrance and scream vile terms is not to be realized as a protest?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QJOOUo0LZg
I can't speak for an entire group of right-leaning folks. However, I can tell you in my opinion we on the right were just as outraged watching Geoge Floyd die at the hands of a policeman. Most were hopeful his death would get all on board to police reform. I would not like to see police defunded or see budget cuts, but it is clear we have a need for better police training. BLM had a pathway to come forward and negotiate for change. they chose a path of violence, destruction.
"Any time the underdog attempts to push back against the establishment, it is called communist and Marxist, that excuse is as old as the pyramids, and has no affect upon my thinking."
Pushing back with violence, destruction is the ideology of Marxist.
"All this stuff about ripping America's moral fabric is just nonsense, this is just an attempt to get at discrepancies as to how the police behave and how criminal justice is dispensed."
When there are people almost nightly being killed in these riots. 33 police dead, hundreds injured, two blinded... I can't speak for anyone but myself --- These protests that have promoted the destruction and death are abhorrent to me, and yes I see this kind of lawlessness left unchecked by Democratic representation in the cities that have allowed this carnage is ripping at America's very fabric. As I am sure the majority of citizens feel the same.
"Republicans, on the basis of its supporters, have identified itself as the "White Party", and we know that concept and attitude can not be sustainable indefinitely. So, it might appear that the GOP has an image problem."
In my view, you are wrong, and you have not recognized many black voices that will tell you you are wrong. You seem to choose to ignore them and continue to listen to the same party that has failed you for decades. That's your prerogative, but you only need to be open to listening to many black citizens that see it differently than yourself.
"Yes, as on the left, I want change and I don't want to burn it all down, but sitting your A$$es content to do nothing won't cut it either."
We have witnessed many positive changes for all citizens black and white over these past four years. You just have open to recognizing them.
The Dems have never helped your cause, they have actually slowed it. They don't and won't keep their promises.
"Biden: -- 'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black'"There were protesters outside of the hospital black people screaming "I hope the MF die"... So, in light of these protesters showing up with signs to block an ER entrance and scream vile terms is not to be realized as a protest?"
does this incident constitute the objectives of BLM? The heck with the marches and protest let's get litigious and soak municipal governments in lawsuits when the police continue to be abusive. The case of the killing of Ms. Taylor in Louisville that was the result of a no-knock policy will be paid for dearly by the citizens of Louisville right through the pocketbook. Maybe now, this example will encourage that the proper caution and attention will be paid to the issue by municipal governments.
We agree that police departments need better, but does the Right really want to make that desire go beyond lip service?
I have to question the accuracy of claims by Right of fatalities, injuries and property damage. Also, people need to realize that BLM and Antifa are two different entities.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 … ple-injur/
The problem is that growing Black support of Trump and his administration is wishful thinking from the Right, that has yet to bear itself out at the ballot box. But, I will see if your wishing upon a star produces tenable results next November.
Like I said before, Obama received 93 percent of the Black vote in 2012. Republican presidential candidates rarely receive much more for10 percent of the Black vote. WE are in th best position to know the reason for that. Who is going to know more about whom has been helpful beyond those that are to be the recipient of such help?
The numbers and support reflect who has been helpful to our cause in stark contrast to those who haven't been.
For every trinket Trump claims to have provided he takes away 3 substantive items of value, weakening the enforcement arms of federal agencies in place over the last 60 years.
This is false, and provably so.
Those wanting to seek out why there is such disruption, why BLM is appearing painted on streets and basketball courts, only has to do some research into the dozens of colleges that now graduate "revolutionaires" with BAs and even MS degrees in Critical Theory, Social Justice, how to essentially overthrow governments at local, then state, then federal levels.
We have Bachelors Degree Center Political Correctness on Campus Political correctness is dominating college campuses, Critical Theory graduate programs, Environmental Justice & Social Change degree granting programs, etc. etc.
A wonderful thing, our colleges and universities have trained tens of thousands to revolt against the system, young adults that have been inculcated into ideology meant to bring the downfall of America.
This is what we are seeing, these educated young people controlling Antifa, BLM, and positions in local and state councils, as Mayors, within government and media, pushing what is essentially intolerance and hatred so that they can achieve power and control.
But if they get control, what are they going to do with it... rioting and looting is restitution? White people have no rights to private property? Or is it only the white people who have bowed their knee to the ideology?
What is the ultimate goal of organizations and movements that are going to make into martyrs rapists, drug users, murderers and thieves?
What is the ultimate goal of people who are wantonly supporting the murder of police officers?All this stuff seems a bit "over the top", Ken
From where do you derive these ideas and theories, are they documented by a neutral source?Actually I have collected it from visiting many University sites, to determine to some degree the validity of what I had been reading about.
I always suggest that people do their own research, and I always suggest that people look to all sources (Left and Right) to get a balanced idea and to have a rounded view of the issue(s).
That said, going to University sites is easy enough, type in Social Justice degree, or Critical theory and Political correctness programs to see what your search offers.
For "news" on the matter here are a couple links:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/11/ … -warriors/
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9604/social-justice
And Pre University perspectives
https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/c … ur-schools
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/social-ju … ine-harmon
The Pre University Education focus is clearly the more beneficial and positive, and I bring it up to point out the difference compared to what Higher Education today is, how extreme it is, almost across the board in the Nation today.
While there is plenty of opportunity for an abuse of Social Justice and Political Correctness teachings in grades 1-12 most education systems have not adopted harmful education practices, though there are some individual teachers, and perhaps school staffs that are so. Exceptions not the rule.
But at the University level, they are all becoming like Evergreen State College:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/01/3- … ays-riots/First, I won't touch edutopia.org as you are intent on using this site as a weapon to prove your theory that liberal colleges are teaching critical thinking and social justice skills as a way to create revolutionaries who you identify with BLM and Antifa (and one more time, or a dozen, if it takes that, is NOT an organization) and ignoring Liberty University (goodbye Jerry Falwell Jr.) and Brigham Young, two of the most conservative right-wing colleges in the country, as being just as much right wing educational indoctrination camps.
Ken, your bias is showing.
Also, it might be of interest that Mormons, practically forever Republican supporters, are abandoning Donald Trump as "blasphemous" and here, from a real non-biased news site is the proof.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/1 … ch-412234.
Furthermore, you tee off on far radical left wing organizations while completely ignoring far radical right wing members of the Proud Boys, Boogaloo Boys and Patriots Prayer, who have been identified as more of a threat to America than foreign terrorists. Once again from Politico, here it is, by your own Department of Homeland Security:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/0 … dhs-409236
I propose to you, sir, that both groups I have previously mentioned, make up a percentage of, maybe, 10-15 percent on each end of REAL Americans who sit firmly in the middle of these extremist groups. It is just unfortunate that you, like so many on the extreme right of Trump supporters refuse to acknowledge that REAL Americans are not that far apart when it comes to what they think this country needs to set us back on a course of being part of the UNITED States of America and not the DIVIDED States of America and the following link is proof positive.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/0 … dhs-409236
Also, PolitiFact.com and Factcheck.org both identify the rest of your references such as The Federalist and the National Review as being right wing leaning publications, further proving that you are firmly in the camp of Chaos Conspiracy Theory Party of new Republicans who seem incapable of bending over far enough to kiss the flabby buttocks of a so-called-President who is unintelligent, unlikeable, unstable, unfaithful and unable to perform the job he was elected to to do.
Sincerely,
The Masked Marauder.Sorry two of my links were incorrect. here is one.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/1 … oll-414687
It's on full display Cred. You'd have to try awfully hard to pretend it isn't happening.
In terms of the defund police aspect of this post, Colorado runs a program that seems to be the model of reforms that people are looking to achieve:
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/denver … 9461c.html
Watched that Tulsa video, pretty horrific. There are numerous stories over the years of unarmed people going for police guns during arrests. Not sure that this is something that has come from recent incidents though.There is not a single word in your link about defunding police - only that money was spent on a "co-responder program".
Those screaming about defunding police aren't interested in transferring some of the money to other programs (leaving insufficient police to respond); they want police presence gone.
Yes, there are a few misguided souls that truly believe that if we but cut the number of police in half, hiring social workers instead to handle domestic violence cases or PCP users, everything will be rosy and no more people will die at the hands of police. But they are a distinct minority; for the most part the demand is to eliminate all police presence. Just as was done in Seattle.Really? Please provide the stats for those that were polled about what defund the police should mean. In your own mind, that's what you think the majority means - likely because you equate all to the very fringe. But again, the reality is that people want to prevent things like the 13-year old autistic child from being shot during a mental health crisis.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/09/91097549 … ity-police
And this kind of program is in line with what Biden is proposing. He is proposing an increase in funding for police. Instead of denying a problem even exists like one candidate is doing.You tell me what the demands in CHAZ (Seattle) were. Then explain how leaving police with insufficient manpower will help anything; you can use the police report from Portland Ore., where the police did not term a riot as such because they had no manpower to control it - it remained a "protest" (not requiring much protection) as the city burned. You can use the same report to discuss how Portland police (in a city of well over a half million) had just four (4!) patrol cars to respond to the entire city after "defunding" police via attrition for several months.
And then you can explain how "the people" want that. You can quote the survivors of the people shot in CHAZ if you wish.
Biden may be calling for an increase in funding, but that is hardly what the cries from "protesters" mean when they demand that we defund police. You know that and I know that, just as we both know that Trump acknowledges a problem exists and has very plainly said so.
Here: I'll help you get started: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/n … ch=twitterIt certainly has been under-reported how extensive the efforts have been to defund the police in these extremist Democrat controlled cities.
I only hope all the tens of thousands that have fled places like NY & LA because of the homeless being moved into their areas by the thousands and the police being defunded and the riots being supported remember who is responsible and are smart enough to never vote Democrat again.
NY City
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 60626.html
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ny-city-coun … ypd-budget
LA
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investiga … h/2423332/
https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/los-angel … 08-levels/
Seattle
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 … es-defund/
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne … -pandemic/CHAZ wanted funds diverted from police to community programs and health care services. Along the lines of what is working in Colorado's program.
As for asking the survivors, two were apparently shot by members of the Proud Boys who called them racist terms before shooting them. Two other homeless underage kids had carjacked someone at knife-point before attempting to drive the stolen vehicle into the zone and were shot to prevent injury. Nice job putting all those actions on people within the zone though - very Mike Pence of you (when he tried to do the same thing at the RNC with the California shooting done by the Boogaloo Boys).
Here is a direct link to Trump denying systemic racism exists in policing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLMm3DDiv-MNot according to Oregon Sheriff's reports: "Police debunked a fake graphic spreading online that used the department's logo and a photo from an unrelated 2018 arrest to falsely claim five Proud Boys had been arrested for arson."
Do you have a reliable source?
No?
I didn't think so.Of course you don't think so, your right-wing media doesn't share statements from the actual victims with you, especially when they are black.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … mbers.htmlI am hesitant to doubt this victim's words because there is no proof he is lying or telling the truth. But, that you automatically present his words as the 'real truth', contradicting the sheriff's statement, when you have no more support for believing them than I do for doubting them is a strong indicator of bias.
Wouldn't you be more comfortable presenting this victim's statements as a possible counterpoint, rather than the actual truth?
If the victim had been a 'white Leftie' would his words have carried as much weight for you as being the real truth vs. the sheriff's statement?
GAApplying your own point to the original point I was rebutting, wouldn't Wilderness have been more comfortable actually doing some research about those shootings before intimating them to be the fault of those inside the CHAZ.
Second, it seems Savvy's post was to show that other crimes have been attributed to the Proud Boys, but I had not heard they were accused of setting fires in Oregon when I made my rebuttal to her. She left that fairly vague. I was talking about a shooting months ago and she was talking forest fires recently.
And sure, you can make the claim that this victim had no corroborating witness. At the same time, and much more to my actual point, Wilderness seemed to be attributing the violence to those inside CHAZ without knowing the actual details about any of the shootings."...Second, it seems Savvy's post was to show that other crimes have been attributed to the Proud Boys..."
No. That was not the point of my post.
The point of my post was to expose a bias.... and the UK article you provided to counter my comment is biased reporting.
I am neither a fan of Antifa nor Proud Boys, but I have no doubt that ANTIFA is more dangerous, in the grand scheme of things, as we stand right now....in that Antifa is well funded and highly organized to instigate violence, whereas Proud Boys are a smallish group of white guys who do not instigate violence, to my knowledge, but who have no problem fighting against Antifa when provoked.
More importantly, Sheriff's do not believe either organization is responsible for wildfires.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.htmlAs always, instead of debating the substance of quoted victim statements, we are left debating what sources Trump supporters find credible. Useless to engage.
Valeant.... It is never useless to engage in civil debate. You were correct to call me out. I am glad you did. My apologies.
You know better: the people occupying CHAZ demanded a complete end to any police presence in "their" area. And got it...until the violence and murders started.
I didn't put the violence on those wanting no police, even though you have tried to say (and plainly did say) that I made the comment. Rather, I pointed out the inevitable result of no police in a human community: while history points out that millenia of human society has always required rules and rule enforcement you're trying to say it doesn't.
I agree with Trump: there is no "sytemic racism" in policing. There are bad cops, no matter how hard we try to weed them out, but it is not "systemic".
Here; another link showing what happens when police are "defunded". The Minneapolis city council is doing just that...and then wondering why there is no police presence in their city, why citizens are complaining police do not respond to complaints after the council voted unanimously to disband the police and "replace it with a 'department of community safety and violence prevention'":
"Minneapolis residents are witnessing an increase in homicides, assaults, carjackings, and other violent crimes."
"Councilman Jamal Osman said police are leaving 911 calls from his constituents unanswered amid a violent crime spike in the city."
""Residents are asking, ‘Where are the police?'" Osman said."
"More people have been murdered already in 2020 than all of 2019, and arsons have increased by 55 percent this year."
"At the same time, police officers are leaving the force at twice the normal rate this year."
This is the result of your "defunding police", and you simply cannot spin it into what the people want. Nor can you spin "passed a measure that would disband the Minneapolis Police Department and replace it with a "department of community safety and violence prevention" into keeping police while spending more on related social/mental services during police calls.If we're going to wrongly make accusations about what the other thinks, this is going to get nasty quick. You clearly have no idea what myself, or people like me, thinks and you show that with every post you make. A prime example: This is the result of your "defunding police..." Myself and the majority of people like me agree with our presidential nominee that police should be well-funded and additional resources given for training and personnel in cases of mental health calls. What people like You cannot grasp in that it's pure idiocy to apply the views of the fringe to the majority. But that idiocy is what we see from Trump and his supporters to drum up fear.
I researched what the people in CHAZ asked for as demands. They made three key demands. And yes, your post definitely intimated that the responsibility for the violence was due to those inside the CHAZ.
And it's in no way shocking that an old, white dude sees no systemic racism in policing. Just compare the Tulsa shooting video to the George Floyd video. Police approached Floyd's car with guns drawn. The only gun drawn in the Tulsa video was by the white suspect, even after he physically resisted. But there's plenty more evidence:
In a purely educational outreach that I think you'll completely disregard anyway because of your denial, I'll provide this:
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-syst … ata-2020-6
As for rise in crime rates, it likely never occurred to you that high unemployment rates due to a botched Covid-19 response could be just as likely responsible for the increase in crime rates in major cities. That'd hit a little too close to home to an administration completely incapable of solving that or racial justice issues that have likely led to increased cases of arson. I'm not saying that reduced police presence isn't a contributing factor, but you putting it all on defund the police efforts is disingenuous at best.But you didn't present it as your view; you presented it as the desire of most people. Look back over the posts and you will find that.
In addition, I have yet to see anyone mention that "defund police" means to increase the operating budget to include social or other workers. That is your claim, but you are the very first person to make that in print, that I've seen.
It's also very difficult to feel that your claim that "defund" means to increase the budget, for the majority of people, when we see major cities actually "defunding" (removing financial resources) rather than increasing them.
The violence was inside the CHAZ. What are you trying to say - that the murders occurred a mile away and I'm claiming they happened inside?
I went over about half your link, before I got tired of it, without seeing a single reference to "systemic racism" by cops, which is what you're claiming. Can you point to the graph that shows that, while taking into account the higher "systemic" of criminal activity by blacks (the inevitable result of poverty)?The Kool-aid has been replaced with a Critical Theory Cocktail.
Not sure any Trump supporter should be bringing up drinking the Kool-Aid. You don't hear our people saying to inject the disinfectant, let alone the 4% of them that actually did poison themselves after their cult leader suggested to.
Valeant, long time no talk. I hope that you are doing well.
That's not what Trump said, I was actually watching during that particular press conference, but I'm sure you don't care to hear about it, when in its full context.I understood he was talking about disinfectants in terms of their effects on internal pathogens. Something I discovered with some research after the fact.
The problem is, he didn't really have the medical background to adequately explain that to laymen and the result was taken out of context by many of his followers as well as those in the media who don't bother to do a deeper dive into topics.He was ( talking about disinfectants in terms of their effects on internal pathogens). But what Trump did NOT say was that it should be taken internally - that statement is pure fabrication by YOUR people. (" talking about disinfectants in terms of their effects on internal pathogens" and "their cult leader suggested to", from https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/349 … ost4155558)
So a statement about injecting disinfectants cannot be misinterpreted by laymen as taking them internally? You'll argue about anything at this point.
He didn't say orally, but to laymen, injecting them might not have been an option, so 4% of them chose to drink them because of his statement.Valeant, We have no control over what 4% of Dems might do.
Again, contrary to your claim he made a statement about disinfectants put inside the body (however it's done), he didn't do that. He asked a question of a medical expert...which you then turn into a statement that it would work. You know this, I know this - why in the world would you twist a question into a statement? The only answer I can think of is to demonize Trump, without need for truth - is that it?
As to 4% of "them" (whoever "them" is) - that's just another gross exaggeration by you. There never was 4% or any group that ingested disinfectants by any means, and the .00000001% (or whatever it was) that did, well, that's how we improve the gene pool.
Really, because after posting the link to the Colorado program, which you critiqued, in the very next post I laid out what the majority supports, including the increase in resources Biden was proposing. Again, you seem to be in major denial about what I've been saying and just want to link me to the defund the police fringe elements so you can have something to argue about. Like I said, you clearly have no idea what I think.
Three of the acts of violence occurred outside the CHAZ of the six. Two were from the pair of underage carjackers attempt to drive into CHAZ, and Young was shot after he left the CHAZ, allegedly by members of the Proud Boys.
I guess your boredom got the better of you as there were plenty of charts about systemic racism in policing and the justice system. Like I thought, your denial hinders your search for the data.That's what I said: you present it as what the majority wants. While thousands demand to remove resources and cities are doing exactly that.
OK, so 3 episodes of violence (having nothing to do with CHAZ) happened. And that shows what? That the murders and violence inside CHAZ indicate a safer environment without police?
No, there was not a single chart that showed systemic racism by police. There were several that showed blacks commit more crimes, though - is that what you call "police racism"? Personally, I think it's because poverty breeds crime, and blacks are disproportionally poor. That, of course, is not the cops fault and does not indicate police racism; it has far more to do with gang activity, drug usage, broken/fatherless homes, lack of education, etc.Thousands within a group of 63 million that voted in the last election for the Democratic candidate. I'd say that would constitute a minority.
Again, I was not making a case, just debunking your false intimation that all the violent activity was due to those within CHAZ. Nor was I in support of their stance, which you seem to be confused about.
So arrest rate differences between black and whites is not proof of systemic racism? The disproportionate rate at which black suspects are shot by police is not evidence? The denial is stronger than I thought.I see. Democrats support increasing police funding. That's why Democrat run cities are reducing police funding - because they support an increase. I have to say that this line of reasoning escapes me.
But I didn't say that all violence happened within CHAZ - there was violence in Portland, Chicago and New York city as well. (Will you now claim that I said those were because they were within CHAZ?) Only that a lack of police presence did not make it safer (and actually did the opposite) - it is YOU that once more put words in my mouth that were never there.
No, it does not represent systemic police racism. There are other, far more apparent and likely, possible causes...causes that you refuse to discuss or even acknowledge in the race to "prove" police racism.
Yes, it's called "denial" when one simply assumes a causal effect without ever looking at other possibilities. Doubly so when the are pointed out but then ignored in favor of the assumption.Your exact quote: 'And then you can explain how "the people" want that. You can quote the survivors of the people shot in CHAZ if you wish.'
What you just claimed: 'But I didn't say that all violence happened within CHAZ'
Case closed.
Yes, there are multiple cities shifting police funds to community programs and mental health programs. Cities such as Denver have been using such a program with success since 2018.
As for systemic racism, we will not find a middle ground. Your hypocrisy in putting a rise in crime on defund the police without considering a falling employment rate and then claiming only someone else makes an assumption of systemic racism without factoring in socio-economics was comical, at best."Yes, there are multiple cities shifting police funds to community programs and mental health programs."
There sure are - I gave you a link to one (Minneapolis), where the people are asking where the police are and why crime rates are soaring. Obviously they appreciate the effort by "your" group to put them in danger!
No, we will not find a middle ground on systemic police racism. You automatically assume it is there, while I want to know and understand the "whys" of those graphs. Then, when you mention socie-economics as a cause but still simply blame bad cops it becomes ridiculous. You don't care why, in favor of demonizing police, but I do. (Or are you off the "cops are racist" kick and willing to actually LOOK at socio-economic factors, along with cultural ones?)There you go again, making assumptions about what I believe.
Your accusatory statements to what others believe are ridiculous. Let me give you an equivalent statement to your own rhetoric: Oh, you don't want to shift some police funding to mental health experts. You must be someone that believes that shooting autistic children is acceptable.
Do I actually believe you like seeing children shot. No. But could I be like you and make that claim based on your arguing from your point of view, I sure could. But it's called respect that I don't. Learn it.
You seem to have this it's all or nothing way of arguing, that because I state I believe systemic racism exists, that I cannot also agree that socio-economics also has a contributary effect. Your brain cannot wrap your head around the fact that both can exist. That defunding police and a failure to respond to Covid-19 that has led to 40 million jobs lost could be why crime could be rising.
Honestly, it's irritating. I wish you would avoid me for this reason.
"What people like You cannot grasp in that it's pure idiocy to apply the views of the fringe to the majority. But that idiocy is what we see from Trump and his supporters to drum up fear."
------
He never seems to take this attitude in regards to the rightwing and the extremist goons that fly their banner.
Black systemic criminality, indeeed?
Oh but how quickly so many are to take everything he says out of context and run with it, repeat it over and over and over....in order to do damage to his Presidency. I'm always wondering where we could be in this Country, with this man in office, actually looking out for the best interest of the people, without this constant glomming on, in hopes of taking him down. And for what? Joe Biden?
Some of the distrust he gets was brought upon himself from day one. 'We had the largest crowds ever.' It was clearly apparent he didn't, and many understood that he was creating his own distorted reality from day one and wanted no part of it. Others, happily accept such simple falsehoods.
Nice use of the word glomming by the way.
As for Biden, with the disastrous government response to Covid-19, the social unrest that Trump will not be able to solve, the decimation of our agriculture industry, the eroding of alliances, the record trade deficit, the record budget deficit, and department heads appointed who have torn those areas apart, it's time to get our country back to the prosperity we had prior to Trump that saw record job growth, a near tripling of the stock market, and allies who weren't murderous dictators.You probably don't want to go into Covid territory and how the Dems initially responded to it, in comparison to Trump.
I'll just take the compliment offered up and run! Later.
'People are openly attacking and killing police, the messaging being put out by BLM, the MSM, and even Sports is that the criminals are the good guys and are being held up as martyrs and heroes, even though they are rapists, murderers, violent criminals.'
Breonna Taylor, shot in her home for sleeping.
Ahmaud Arbery, executed in the street, not by the police, for jogging and checking out a building site.
George Floyd, murdered in the street for allegedly passing a counterfeit bill.
Philandro Castile, killed for informing police that he had a gun (that he was licensed to carry).
This is about overreach and vigilantism that denied them due process under our laws. It's about police and private citizens executing unarmed black people in the streets and in their homes. I can agree with your point that they downplay the criminal background of many of the victims in making their case. But that doesn't change the fact that none of those listed above deserved to die in any of these incidents.
That's what BLM, MSM and athletes are trying to get through to people. That some people automatically stereotype all these victims as 'rapists, murderers, and violent criminals' because they are black. You basically just made their case of what they need to fight for, for them.
'And it is Democrat politicians, instead of demanding higher qualifications, and better training, and more support for the Police to help correct the problems so that those who are meant to protect and serve us can do their jobs to a higher standard... instead worsen the problem by defunding, lowering their wages and shrinking the size and ability of the Police, or try to do away with them all together.'
Simple solution for your point. Elect Biden who has proposed expanding funding for police and services. He will lead the party where you want them to go."That's what BLM, MSM and athletes are trying to get through to people."
If so, then they (and you) should not make such obviously false statements as "Breonna Taylor, shot in her home for sleeping." or "George Floyd, murdered in the street for allegedly passing a counterfeit bill.", for neither one has even a hint of truth in it. Breonna was not shot for sleeping and Floyd was neither murdered (yet - the jury is still out) nor killed for trying to pass counterfeit money.
This kind of fiction does absolutely nothing to aid in the (professed) cause of these groups. They are outright lies, easily seen through by anyone with a mind.Anyone with a mind could understand that the only thing they could have charged Taylor with was sleeping. The $12 million dollar wrongful death settlement and proposed police reforms attest to that fact. The police erred and killed an innocent woman, not some rapist, murderer, or violent criminal as Ken purports all of them to be and which you're more than happy to aid.
As for Floyd, he was not detained for a violent crime. He was sitting in his car after allegedly passing a counterfeit bill. After complaining about health issues, a knee to the back of his neck asphyxiated him to death. I guess since there is no conviction yet, you would prefer to say allegedly murdered as well. It's not fiction or an outright lie to note that the charges include second degree murder against the officer that committed homicide in this case. Again, he did not die because he committed a rape, murder, or violent crime.Yep. And anyone with a mind understands that cops didn't walk up to her and declare "Look! A sleeping woman! Automatic death penalty - shoot her!" Any settlement attests to that fact, right?
Yes, Floyd was allegedly murdered (that's the "charges", alleging he was murdered part). There is no conviction, meaning that we don't know why he was killed...yet you insist it was for passing bad money. We both know that isn't the reason, yet here you stand defending the claim. (You know as well as I do that the reasons for his detainment are NOT the reasons for his death.)
Why? Do you think it helps the case to lie about such things?I'm sorry that my mocking of Ken's claim that all of these victims were rapists, murderers and violent criminals went way over your head by noting that the only thing Taylor did wrong was to be asleep.
Again, you are failing to grasp the point that the reason Floyd was detained before being a victim of homicide and alleged murder was allegedly passing a counterfeit bill, not some violent crime as Ken claims. He died from that detainment, so it's not really a far reach to say he was a victim of homicide due to being detained for that alleged offense. Sorry, you cannot make that connection and instead need to accuse me of being a liar.
Valeant, you, like so many, have failed to mention the rest of the story and as a result of partial stories, bogus stories, partial videos, half-truths...people have been worked up into emotional frenzies and as a result, a target has been placed on ALL Police Officers!!
It's intentional.
It's sad that people sometimes die in these various situations, but they are so very rare! People aren't being hunted and targeted, as we are led to believe in the media. Shame on the media and activists stirring things up, intentionally trying to tear this Nation apart, they have blood on their hands.AB, Sorry that I didn't write a whole book pertaining to these instances of police violence. My point, which seems elusive for people to understand, is that none of the four people I listed were killed during instances of rape, murder, or violent crime.
People are worked up because they are tired of seeing unarmed black people killed in the streets and their homes and want reform. Reform that our current leaders deny even needs to happen - chalking it up to a few bad apples who choke when putting - instead of bringing the groups together to talk about solutions. Your claim of intentionally skewing info for the purpose of targeting police is about as inflammatory as it gets.
Since Floyd, there has continued to be plenty of violence on both sides (Boogaloo California shooting, shooting moms in Portland, roughing up the old guy in Buffalo, violently clearing protesters at LaFayette Park, Kenosha unarmed shooting, Portland Antifa Shooter, 13-year old autistic child shooting, LA police shooting). People are likely on edge due to the continued pandemic as well.
It's time for leadership that can mediate these groups instead of keeping them at each other's throats.I remember when this all started, Obama was in office.
Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman. It happened here in my neck of the woods. The first news to come out was that a white man had killed a black kid. An old picture was released of Trayvon, from when he was a little boy. People were outraged....a white man killed a young black boy in cold blood. It spread like wildfire!!! Turned out, Zimmerman was hispanic and Trayvon wasn't 12. But so began the formation of BLM and so began Obama inserting himself into every story, making it about race, before all of the details came out. Zimmerman and Martin crossed paths in the night and neither trusted the other, they fought and one died. It was sad, should never have happened, but it did! Because of the way it was spun...because of the spread of stories like the big lie of 'hands up, don't shoot', things are out of control for no good reason. Race relations have been good for a long, long time. I don't believe in this systemic racism crap. It is by design and it is tearing us apart and it most definitely has nothing to do with Trump, other than to be used against him to hurt him, along with everything else that has been hurled upon him.Your Trayvon Martin timeline is a spot-on example of the media's complicity in these times of trouble. And, as course as it sounds, ". . . they fought and one died . . ." is just the way life is among us humans. Has been, is, and forever will be.
GA"Race relations have been good for a long, long time."
AB,
White folks always say that, but again, it depends upon your point of view.
It is more like a boiling cauldron with the lid on that merely appeared contained for a time....White folks always say what? This is the way it went down. I watched the breaking story. It happened very close by. Do you have a point?
Oh....you disagree that race relations have been good for a very long time. Okay, we disagree.
AB,
My point is:
That is YOUR interpretation of events, many of US see the matter in quite a different light.
It may not be appropriate to assume that your perspectives on matters are the only correct ones...Well, I am repeating how it played out and then it played out in the courtroom, sooo....you can continue to call it my interpretation and perspective {and the courtroom's too} if you'd like.
I am not condoning what happened and I am not a fan of GZ, it was horrible, I like everyone else hated that it happened.
Attempting to change the narrative, did nothing positive in moving us past it then and it still doesn't.We agree on one thing, George Zimmerman was the flunkie of all flunkies.
This incident was the spark and the beginning of the focus on this issue across the nation. So much for the idea of "good" race relations.
How it played out and and the interpretation of events are two different things.
The man was acquitted, but certainly does not justify what happened and regardless of the view of those on the Right, I consider their views and interpretation as hardly objective.Cred, it is not about right or left, objective or subjective, it's just the facts.
The problem with that AB, is that it is the "facts" that are in dispute.
2X2=4 is what I consider an indisputable fact.
This Trayvon Martin thing had the entire nation up in arms, do you really think that so many people would stand against the "facts"?
By the way, it was interesting to note that while you criticize Obama for commenting on this and other questionable shootings, what do you say about Trump who intercedes in the same way regarding recent shootings and assaults?
So, it can be said that your "facts" and mine are going to be different. Your "facts" are interpreted through rose colored glasses while many will say mine are interpreted through lavender ones.
As far as I am concerned, race was a component of this tragic event paricularely when one look at the aftermath and all the hateful e-mails I read instantly condemning the kid and exalting Zimmerman.
Let's face it, we have a lot of work to do before any kumbaya can ever be realized within this society.
But it would be interesting to examine points as examples as to where our differences would be in this case...
People are worked up because the MSM stirs them into that state with their misrepresentation and constant coverage of out-of-context police interactions.
The people marching and rioting are not requesting reform, they are requesting the police be defunded, disbanded, they are supporting police being attacked and shot... and this MSM messaging is effecting how people interact with police, resist arrest, and fight the police, which only endangers their lives.
Police Precincts have been under attack for months in various parts of the country, police have been ambushed and murdered. And these actions have been tolerated and supported by the Democrats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfXD1I2vlLM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph0IC812q3k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSwhHhadA_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-RyzOCEhnI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV-3tkXt3EE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wFA23_MxtE
Just a handful of the tragic deaths of Officers killed in the past year.
Police Officers put their lives on the line every day, for citizens like you, so you can sit and type how terrible they are in safety.
No Police = No Peace
No Police = No Law & OrderMy father is a 22-year veteran of our state's police force. This article speaks to how he feels about these various incidents, not taken from the mainstream media, but from a fellow officer in a red state who must have just wanted to stir up protesters, right?
https://www.kxxv.com/hometown/mclennan- … loyd-death
And to say violence against police are tolerated and supported by Democrats is just a falsehood. Just as people shouldn't look at the incident in California where a member of the Boogaloo Boys who tend to support Trump shot and killed a police officer and generalize that behavior to all of Trump supporters.From your link:
" I speak for thousands of officers when I say you are not a part of us and your actions can never be justified in any way, shape, or form," Swanton said."
I completely agree, and I think most sensible Americans also agree. A lot more was lost than just one human life.
GA"And to say violence against police are tolerated and supported by Democrats is just a falsehood."
Really? As Democrats stood by during CHAZ and denied police the ability to end the criminal spree?
As Democratic DA's make public statements they will not prosecute rioters?
As Democratic mayors join riots and tell their companions in the riot that they are doing the right thing - that police have to go?
As Democratic "leaders" violate national law, aiding and abetting lawbreakers to avoid police?
You really need to re-think the Democratic stand about law and order; at best it amounts to "Obey laws you like, break those you don't", and includes violence against police.
"none of the four people I listed were killed during instances of rape, murder, or violent crime."
Is resisting arrest a violent crime (Floyd died during such an action)? Is shooting at cops a violent crime (Taylor died during such an action)?
As AB pointed out, what you leave out, the rest of the story is far more important than the irrelevant bits you want to make the centerpiece.Wilderness, in your universe, is it only Black folks that have no rights?
Was Taylor justified in using a weapon to defend herself against no-knock and unauthorized entry?
I guess that "stand my ground" doesn't apply to everybody in quite the same way does it?Her husband probably was...if it is true that he never heard the announcement of who it was. Does that mean that his wife was shot for sleeping?
That was the comment from Valeant, and the only thing I've addressed so far. If you wish a discussion on whether it was a good shooting or not, we can have that one too. Of even of how black folks, having the exact same rights as white people, don't have any rights.Yes, Wilderness, I would welcome such a discussion with you, maybe I can convince my self that Rightwingers do not necessarily see ALL blacks killed by police as a "good shoot"
As for the Taylor case 11 witnesses said that they did not hear the officers who had a warrant announce their presence at the Taylor residence since they were so directed by authorities to do. I am going to take the word of 11 witnesses over the wanton police trying to absolve themselves of blame.
When I read that there was an officer outside of the apartment firing shots through closed blinds and window, I consider that indiscriminate shooting without regard as to who was living in the house and the danger posed to innocents. "Alleged" (It is not the Dredge Report, see Wikipedia) The neighbor had his apartment perforated by bullets that threatened his family.
Obviously, the city had to pay as it should and the law officer's involved fired and should be further punished by not being hirable anywhere as law enforcement officers.
I will only concede that it may not have been a racist act, but it does attest to the need for a revision of police procedures, the kind that conservatives are always instinctively against, starting with the Fomenter and Chief, Donald Trump.
I respond to him and the right wingers that stand behind him with the retort,"no justice, no peace"
So, YES, it was a bad shoot.You take that word of witnesses that heard nothing; I'll take the video evidence when it comes out. I've seen far (far) too many "witnesses" claim something diametrically opposite of what the camera ultimately showed. Family, friends and neighbors are notoriously bad at this, and with the uproar any time a black person is harmed by police, regardless of circumstances, it only become worse.
I have wondered just how a woman in bed was shot by cops - cops that I assume could not see what they were shooting at. If they did indeed do that then they were as wrong as it is possible to be, whether they were shot at or not. If, however, they did see a shooter and missed, hitting the woman, that is another matter entirely. Still a very bad thing, but a completely different problem.
In addition, if (IF) they fired at a target they could not see then they should certainly never serve again. You don't know that, and will thus make the statement whether they did or not, but that comes from your assumption that cops indiscriminately shoot black people...even as you know as I do that they were in the wrong house and could not have known what race of person was inside.
When you come up with something as foolproof as what we have (in that innocent people are not hurt), while still being effective at removing criminals from the streets, then you should promote and propose it. Until that happens, though, a simple decree that cops shall never shoot under any circumstances (even when being shot at) is not a part of any game plan I would find acceptable.
Perhaps it WAS a bad shoot. I haven't seen any investigative report into the incident, and don't think you have either or you would have linked to it. As always, I will wait for that report.So many if, perhaps, and I assume statements from someone who clearly hasn't researched what happened in this case, otherwise they would have seen that there was no body cam footage.
You're right - I haven't researched it. Though I DO have a hard time, in this day and age, believing that not a single cop had a body cam on.
But that does not mean that I will blindly accept the word of "witnesses" that are reporting what they want me to hear rather than what happened, OR that a whole gaggle of cops broke into a house without a single one hollering out "POLICE!". Will you?I'd love to see you on a jury. Sorry, your honor, I refused to accept the testimony of those twelve witnesses since I wasn't actually there or no one videoed the incident.
You're right...until BOTH sides have been heard from. As with Credence, you're listening to one side but not the other. Without ever hearing them you've decided their words are false.
I'd hate to see you on a jury. Closed minds are never a good thing.But we have heard from them in the amount of a $12 million concession that they were at fault, as well as policing reforms.
And to your false statement about Glover, they were not looking for him as you just claimed. That's not why they went to Taylor's.Absolutely! No one pays a settlement unless guilty of a crime. Not sure what planet you are on....
I WILL say, however, that it appears that a cop shot blind into an occupied home (and was fired for it). Inexcusable under any circumstances, and worthy of a settlement. Of course, that has nothing to do with whether they announced their presence, what witnesses (apparently right next to the SWAT team as they broke down the door) report they saw, or even who they wanted.
Then why were they there, and why was Glover's name on the warrant? What I could find indicates he is a drug dealing scumbag, but all I saw about Taylor was that she MAY have had money that was his. Doesn't seem sufficient to issue a no-knock warrant.I'd say a settlement for wrongful death is a statement of culpability. When do people pay $12 million for a death they were not responsible for on your planet?
Glover had already been arrested that evening at his home before police went into Taylor's residence. So your claim that police had to be concerned with him was the latest lie you're trying to sell for an incident you clearly don't know a lot about.Settlements are done all the time to save money in court/lawyer costs. And they are done for political reasons as well. On MY planet at least - yours may be different.
I repeat: why was his name on the warrant then, and why was his address given as hers?
But I agree that I don't know a great deal about the matter. Possibly even less than you do, although I try not to make assumptions (as you do) and don't take as gospel the mutterings of so-called "witnesses" that could not have reasonably been in a position to see or hear what they claim they did.Indeed, settlements are done all the time for various reasons. This one, the mayor admitted the city's fault. So your own hypothetical reasons for settlements were not the the ones given in this particular case.
Possibly? You seem to be unable to form conclusions because you don't ever do the work to know the facts about what happened in many of the topics we talk about. You just like to put your own personal skepticism about every topic on display for the world to see. I think you just like to argue with people. Again, if that's your motivation, please avoid me.I will assume you are right, and the city admitted fault. Now. The question was not whether it was a bad shooting, it was whether the police had called out their identity as they broke in. Have you changed the topic for a reason?
No, the motivation is to discover the truth and the whole truth. Something that doesn't seem to be a part of your agenda at all, not when you indiscriminately take the social media reports of so called "witnesses" without ever examining their claims.
Finally, and particularly in this matter, had you stayed on topic (not whether it was a bad shooting or not, but whether police had announced themselves) instead of drifting off into something else, while failing to make it clear you WERE on a different subject, the argument would not have happened.Obviously, before the city of Louisville admitted guilt, it was determined that the police was negligent, because as Valeant says, municipalities are not in the habit of handing out such sums unless there was wrongdoing that they themselves acknowledge.
If you doubt the account of 11 witnesses, why should I believe the account of the police officer?LOL Cities hand out money every day as a political expediency and to stay out of court. You know that as well as I do.
First, it would be the account of police officers, not a single officer. Second, I'm still having trouble understanding how these 11 witnesses, all obviously gathered in a small circle around a SWAT team breaking down a door, were there at all. This is NOT standard procedure as far as I can see - the first step is to remove any bystanders to prevent harm to them. So just how were they all close enough to see/hear everything that went on?
Did you consider that? How do you resolve that? Do you care?Apparently, you never lived in an apartment complex. You can hear people coming and going. It wasn't so late in the evening that at least a few of the witnesses might still have been awake.
And why on other arrests, a few of the officers always had body cams on, but on this one, there was no recoverable footage?
Did you consider that? How do you resolve that? Do you care?Political expediency, how do you get to the truth?
The real tangible outcome is the city paying the settlement, political expediency is an excuse. Louisville is not a big city and 12 million is quite a sum of money to pay and would only be paid if the city did not have a legal leg to stand upon.
So, as far as I am concerned, the payment is an acknowledgement of guilt, period.
I do care about justice for the family of the woman killed and that gestapo type police tactics, in the form of this warrant be curbed. Now, that does not sound anything like defunding the police, now does it?
Not changed the topic. I just moved on, since you're so skeptical that you would never accept a dozen witness statements and really want to keep arguing about the fact that the reason why the police got shot at is because the person shooting did not know they were police because he, and 11 other people who gave statements, did not hear them identify themselves.
I hadn't heard the "11 witnesses" clam before and Google didn't offer any help. Where is that information coming from?
I must admit that at 12:40 AM in an apartment complex I am skeptical of that claim.
As a side note; the police department also considered the officer that fired shots through closed blinds wrong—they fired him. Otherwise, if you were the police officer entering a dark suspected drug apartment and you were fired on—and wounded, what would you do, back off, and say okay you win?
GAThe wiki page has the 11 witness information.
If you were shot/shot at, wouldn't you normally back off any way? Then you could identify yourself as police, finally. Your information had Taylor as a medical tech, and supposed to be alone. That kind of resistance was likely not expected. It would have made sense to regroup.What has her job got to do with anything? Glover, who was the man being looked for, is a convicted drug dealer. A person you can reasonably expect violence from, and likely the reason a "no-knock" warrant was issued (although it wasn't used that way.
Floyd died after informing police he had medical issues that should be considered, and all he wanted was to not be placed in the back of the squad car. Now who is leaving out details and fabricating violence to sell the killing of a black man in the street? To you, that is resisting. To him and others, that might have been a life or death scenario he was pleading to avoid. Just as he pleaded to breathe as Chauvin asphyxiated him to death in front of onlookers.
And there you go leaving out more details. Seems you're just as guilty of what you're whining about. The person with Taylor (not her husband, which is clear you don't even know that well-known detail) didn't know he was shooting at cops. Eleven other witnesses at the scene deny police identified themselves, even though the warrant had been changed to a knock and announce warrant. Perhaps if they had stepped back and identified themselves once the firing began, they could have prevented shooting an unarmed and innocent black woman. Another reason for that $12 million settlement.
Seems with all the details you are leaving out, you can go ahead and accuse yourself of being a liar too.Just wanted to address one point of your comment; what are the police expected to do when an arrestee doesn't want to get into the back seat of a squad car?
Is it reasonable to expect them to put everything on hold and call a paddywagon? (that was a bit sarcastic, so substitute ambulance)
Now, let's accept that given his claimed condition, (the cops didn't know, and we can all just imagine the claims and excuses given to cops in an arrest situation), that maybe an ambulance was the appropriate call—I might be able to accept that—can we also imagine the hoops that police officers might have to jump through for all future arrests?
Don't want to go to jail, just claim a medical condition . . .
This Floyd conversation is nuts. Yes, the police were tragically wrong, and I think there should be an accounting for that wrong, (even for the rookie officers that stood by and let it happen), but, as I view the information, the police tried to do it right—before they did it wrong. If Floyd had just complied we would be having a different conversation.
*By the way, I am not picking on your comments, I am just engaging a fellow forum participant that isn't part of the choir. ;-)
GAAs breathing is pretty important in the big scheme of things, you'd think you'd want to be a little more careful when someone says they have issues. If a suspect is injured during arrest and needs treatment, an ambulance can be called and they get treated before heading to be processed.
Given Floyd's heart condition, combined with his recovery from Covid, which does make breathing harder (currently, I struggle to take deep breaths after forty days since my symptoms hit, and I was in very good cardio shape prior to getting my Covid), when he complained of breathing issues, having him checked out by an EMT is not outside the realm of normal procedures.From watching the additional videos showing Floyd claiming he couldn't breathe in the back of a squad car, (fairly open space), with the officers pledging the windows would be lowered, and that they had no knowledge of his "COVID" or "heart condition" claims, I can't go along with the COVID and heart condition rationalizations.
That's a hindsight argument Valeant. Looking at it as an in-the-moment event do you really fault the officers for their actions to place him in a squad car for transport?
GAI never said he informed police of the heart condition or covid. But he was cuffed already when he began complaining of breathing issues. And I will stick with breathing being something you treat a little more serious than something you can treat with first aid.
Thao noted the distress in Floyd when Chauvin had him pinned and tried to get him to let him up. It wasn't until he went unconscious that they did what they could have done right away, and call for someone trained medically to help.We are not in disagreement—relative to the tragic actions of the officer kneeling on Floyd Valeant, but we are in disagreement in the police actions prior to that.
I completely agree the 'bystanding' officers should have intervened, but I can also understand that they were rookie officers admonished to stand back by a veteran officer when they did try to intervene. Sort of a damned if you do and damned if you don't for those two rookies.
As for Floyd's complaints when he was put in the squad car . . . consider the officers' possible perspectives; a real and serious complaint, an issue of claustrophobia, an exaggeration of conditions, etc.etc. How ould you have perceived his exhortations in the heat of the moment?
I have frequently heard a minority demand that we walk a mile in their shoes, well here is an example where we should walk a mile in an officer's shoes.
As tragic as this Floyd issue is, with simple compliance it would have been a total non-issue. Drugs and mental issues, it is never black and white right or wrong.
Unfortunately, I feel I must add a caveat: The officer kneeling on Floyd's neck is, in my mind, guilty of manslaughter at best. No part of my response is intended to diminish his culpability.
G AA quibble. Simple compliance might have made it a non issue, but as we have seen with our own eyes, police still sometimes kill people who are complying.
That said, it doesn't matter at all. There was no legitimate reason for Chauvin to murder Floyd.Yes, that is a quibble. Rather than "might," I think compliance would have 'almost certainly' made this a non-issue.
To your point that ". . . we have seen with our own eyes, police still sometimes kill people who are complying," no incidence with those circumstances comes to mind.
GA
I agree GA, manslaughter at best and at most.
When the video in its entirety was released, my husband and I were so angry that only a small portion had been released initially, igniting a firestorm across this nation. Knowing it was done intentionally by a corrupt media, hellbent on keeping conflict front and center...was so infuriating! Knowing the damage done couldn’t be undone.
We thought for the longest time that George Floyd was instantly drug out of his car and murdered. But, now we know, that wasn’t the case.
The officers were so patient for so long, leading up to this tragedy.
My daughter and son-in-law are both in the medical profession and have told me how crazy PCP makes people (which may have been in his system) George Floyd was obviously having issues with his thinking and with his breathing, long before he died.
Not saying that the officer(s) aren’t culpable, but this wasn’t murder.You just noted that Floyd was having thinking and breathing issues 'long before he died.' Kind of cements my thought that medical personnel should have been called in.
Yes, many things could have been done differently. No doubt.
And here you include a point of truth amongst a paragraph of rhetoric:
" The police erred and killed an innocent woman. . . "
I agree that the police erred. Tragically so. However, I would also say that Ms. Taylor's skin color or that she was sleeping prior to the home assault had little to do with her death.
So, no, Ms. Taylor was not killed for the crime of sleeping. She was killed in the adrenalin rush of a police assault on a suspected drug house. The settlement is testament to the reality that the police were at fault, but it is not confirmation that it was a racism motivated action.
I think your George Floyd is another example of poor, (and tragic), police action. Contrary to your assertion that he was just sitting in his car, the police action that resulted in his death was a direct result of his resisting arrest. As bad as the police response was, (kneeling on his neck for that long), it would not have happened had he not resisted. To be very clear, none of that is intended to excuse or mitigate the error of the police action, but only to note that Floyd wasn't murdered for just sitting in his car or passing a counterfeit bill.
GABut it doesn't sound nearly as provocative, nearly as evil, if we tell the truth about those causes. Thus they are left out, and lies made up about the cause of police actions. This is found in very nearly every police shooting, and appears to be an effective method of raising emotional responses...from people that fail to grasp that they are being lied to.
PP, I haven’t seen with my own eyes, Police killing people who are complying. Where is this happening, what are your examples?
The Philandro Castile shooting might be the one example. Numerous examples of people fleeing being shot from behind, but only the one of compliance leading to a shooting.
Is this the case where the girlfriend kept filming and where the suspect was told not to reach, but reached?
The police dashcam video shows that 40 seconds elapsed between when Yanez first started talking to Castile through the car window and when Yanez began shooting at him. According to the dashcam, after Yanez asked for Castile's driver's license and proof of insurance, Castile gave him his proof of insurance card, which Yanez appeared to glance at and tuck in his outer pocket. Castile then calmly informed Yanez: "Sir, I have to tell you that I do have a firearm on me." Quoting the Star Tribune description of the next 13 seconds of the video:
Before Castile completed the sentence, Yanez interrupted and calmly replied, "OK," and placed his right hand on the holster of his own holstered weapon. Yanez said, "Okay, don't reach for it, then ... don't pull it out." Castile responded, "I'm not pulling it out," and Reynolds also said, "He's not pulling it out." Yanez repeated, raising his voice, "Don't pull it out!" as he quickly pulled his own gun with his right hand and reached inside the driver's window with his left hand. Reynolds screamed, "No!" Yanez removed his left arm from the car and fired seven shots in the direction of Castile in rapid succession. Reynolds yelled, "You just killed my boyfriend!" Castile moaned and said, "I wasn't reaching for it." Reynolds loudly said, "He wasn't reaching for it." Before she completed her sentence, Yanez again screamed, "Don't pull it out!" Reynolds responded, "He wasn't." Yanez yelled, "Don't move! Fuck!"
When they removed Castro's body, the gun was in his pocket and would not have been visible to Yanez.
Reynolds' four-year old daughter was in the backseat.
Yes, that is one. There are multiple instances of cops shooting people who are raising their hands, or smothering/beating (yes, and even shooting) people who are handcuffed on the ground, or shooting people who are holding up their wallets.
Hearsay?
The only story that comes to my mind right off, is of Dorian Johnson, who made up the whole story of Michael Brown having his hands up and saying don’t shoot. Turned out...Michael Brown was reaching for Officer Wilson’s weapon. But, how much damage was done in the meantime?Philando Castille, reaching for wallet
Jamar Clark, witnesses say he was handcuffed when shot in the head. Police say otherwise, of course
Tamir Rice,12 years old, not even given a chance to comply
There are more. I'm sure you can find them if you want to.
I didn't remember that one when I responded to your previous comment. However, this one might not be the best example of "compliance." After the fact, it seems clear Castile was complying, but in-the-moment it easily appears that from the officer's perspective he was not complying—he continued to "reach" after repeated commands not to.
As we all have seen with our own eyes, time after time, it could easily have been the officer dead on the ground as a result of that "reach."
GA
So what was he doing? Why was he reaching? He was told not to reach.
All who say that police shooting compliant people is of epidemic proportions, are reaching!
I don’t have to reach at all, to find story after story of police officers being ambushed, ran over, having their own weapons used against them, pummeled, hit with all types of flying objects....Compliant may be a reach, but unarmed and black (Arbery, Taylor, Blake), let alone asphyxiated (Garner, Gray, Floyd), there are plenty of examples.
My point is that I would not want to be a Police Officer.
He had just given his license and registration and had moved his hand back inside the car. Logically speaking, if the plan is to shoot at the policeman, would you tell him you are carrying a gun? The cop, based on the $3.8 million settlement, panicked.
- PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago
0Just a general comment. Police officers have a difficult job. This is obvious. No one is arguing otherwise. However, the system is set up to allow bad cops to get away with murder. Literally. This must change so that bad cops are held accountable and removed from a job they clearly are not fit to do.
We can also make systemic changes to ease the burden on police officers, who must deal with mental health crises, as one example, for which they are not trained.
This is the main thrust of the Defund the Police movement. It should be named differently because very few people want to abolish police. Changing their roles and funding other social services is a reasonable response to a system that continues to allow murder by cop, often with no or insufficient consequences.While a rational response, and while I agree with the first two paragraphs.
The last is a falsehood. The main thrust of the Defund the Police movement is to Defund the Police. And fool Democrat politicians are doing just that.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ny-city-coun … ypd-budget
https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/los-angel … 08-levels/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 … es-defund/
I do not agree, in the least, that "we have a system which continues to allow murder by cop". There is no such system. There is no such thing happening.
Isn't it fascinating how two people can watch killing after killing after killing over the course of decades with few consequences to the killers and one person sees a serious systemic problem and the other sees.....what?
Unrestrained power by cops that can only be checked by a hanging mob and as much disregard for law as those bad cops.
I don’t think it is fascinating. For me, it is heartbreaking, knowing that enemies of this country work tirelessly to divide us and this is one thing, among many, that they use to divide us, tear us apart and they seem to be winning right now.
I would never call you an "enemy of the country" simply because I see a serious problem in our justice system and you don't. Disagreement does not equal "enemy" in my book. So, who is being divisive here? I am 100% confident it isn't me.
I wasn't talking about you. It is sad that after all of these years you would automatically think that.
When I speak of this country, I am speaking of our country; yours and mine. When I speak of our enemies; I am speaking of any and all who don’t believe that the United States of America deserves to exist. They, like the Palestinians in their belief that Israel doesn’t deserve to exist, never stop, never cease in working to put an end to us.
Whatever it takes, however they can accomplish it, that’s what they’ll do. If they have success in working from within, pitting one group against the other, that’s what they’ll do. They love all of this civil unrest right now within our borders, count on it."I am speaking of any and all who don’t believe that the United States of America deserves to exist. They, like the Palestinians in their belief that Israel doesn’t deserve to exist, never stop, never cease in working to put an end to us."
Okay, who are these people, exactly?Well, not counting the obvious, Islamic terrorists, any and all individuals talking about burning us down, tearing us down. F------ us up... In my opinion, they don't seem to come off as any friendlier toward this Country than those that always have us in their cross hairs.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … ection-day
Do you disagree?
"Guy ignores a pandemic"...you mean guys and gals of the Democratic Party ignore a pandemic because that's how it went down. They called the President racist and xenophobic for the actions he took. Did you miss all of that? Did you start paying attention after they needed him to come through for them...which he did?!
Did you start paying attention after he, the President, was praised for it, from Cali to NY?I didn't miss how he ignored the briefing pertaining to the pandemic on January 16 because he had to golf. I didn't miss how he only banned Chinese nationals (hence the xenophobic claim - seems like I'm not the only one to leave out important details) after the virus was already here, 16 days later, but allowed another 40,000 people to enter the US from China after his 'ban.' Nor did I miss how he didn't do anything about travel from Europe until six weeks later.
Yes, the Democrats made some misstatements during this time as well. But the CDC and Department of Health and Human Services are under the executive branch, not under Congress' direction. Trump, literally, downplayed the severity of the virus while telling Woodward in private how dangerous it actually was. He was literally telling Woodward how a sneeze cleared a room in the White House while tweeting for his followers to liberate Democratic states, undermining Governors.
If by turning Governors against each other for much needed supplies, while denying much of the government's stockpile, Kushner saying it wasn't for the states to have, then I was paying attention. And then failing to get testing up for weeks after they could have accepted the WHO's test that had already been proven to work, which allowed the virus to spread.Gosh, I wonder why he singled out China? That is suspicious!!
Take care, I am tired of this one, moving on.Actually, he only singled out Chinese nationals, not all people coming from the country where the virus originated. Hence, the xenophobia. If he said we're pausing ALL travel from China, that might have been a sound policy choice. It's like he couldn't process that anyone that was in that country could have been exposed to the virus, not just the Chinese people.
LOL When he banned ALL travel from certain middle east countries that refused to vet their travelers he was accused of hating Muslims and having a program against them.
And you think it would have made a difference if he banned ALL travel from China? Fat chance - anything he does will be twisted into something wrong.LOL. He took flack from the middle east decision because he exempted Saudi Arabia due to his personal business interests there. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were citizens of that country. Kind of an important detail to omit, but based on your propensity to discuss topics without a solid background knowledge, not surprising.
That was the claim, yes. Which bears out my point (that he can do no right) for the reason was that Saudi Arabia did a MUCH better job vetting their people. Kind of an important detail to omit, but hey - if it helps demonize the man then it's all right!
Plus, of course, exempting a Muslim country doesn't fit very well with banning Muslims from the country, so was never mentioned in the hate diatribe against Trump.No, not when he claims to want to ban all muslims from entering the US. Not terrorists, mind you.
Anderson Cooper asks Trump, “Is it really a Muslim problem or is it a radical Islamist problem?” Trump responds: “Maybe its a Muslim problem, maybe its not.” When you can't separate the two, that's some serious xenophobia.
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation … sm/514361/Well, Valeant, the facts are in. I'm listening to the report from Kentucky investigators now.
Breanna was NOT asleep as has been claimed; she was standing next to her boyfriend at the end of the hall.
Police not only knocked but also called out, identifying themselves. Just so you know, this is corroborated by at least one witness at the site, plus the 3 cops.
The boyfriend fired first, wounding a cop.
All three cops returned fire, killing Breanna.
The results of the investigation: one cop is indicted on endangerment as he fired three shots into an adjacent apartment, recklessly endangering the 3 people there. The grand jury did not indict the other two cops, finding there was no crime involved. That they had every right to return fire. Personally I question how they fired 24 shots (16+8) at a man standing in firing position and that had fired on them, and succeeded in hitting a nearby person 8 times, killing her. Someone needs some real time on the firing range.
Not quite what we've all been led to believe, is it? Funny how that is always the case; witnesses claim what is not true, emotions are raised against any cop the shoots a gun, and the mob begins screaming for a hanging. Never fails.
And another one bites the dust. One of my favorites. Seems kind of prophetic at this point. Well put my friend.
It never ends, with story after story, the mission to keep people worked up and angry.
Eventually, we hear the rest of the story, a whole other story, the real story...but it’s too late, the damage has been done. Sad.Over and over and over it happens. What has happened that so many people just shut off their brain and depend on their feelings to determine truth?
There are so many factors, which have brought us to this ugly place in time.
Too many people have been taught...are being taught, to hate everything about this Country. How we change that...if we even can, remains to be seen.
Seems to me that ANY ONE shouting, "burn the Country down", must be under the impression that it doesn't deserve to exist.
Do you disagree? https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl … s-n2575047I do not support violent extremists of any kind. I don't understand why you even brought that into the conversation.
This particular thread stemmed from my belief that enemies of this country seek to destroy us by dividing us! They have success when they pit us one against the other. I do not doubt for a second that this is currently happening in our country.
so, just so I understand, are you saying that those who believe there is systemic racism in the justice system in general, which has resulted in a repeated and continuing failure to hold police accountable for their negligent and criminal actions in particular....are you saying those who believe this are tools of enemies of the country who seek to divide us?
I do not believe we have systemic racism.
I believe that many... who seek to destroy us, use our past against us (whatever it takes) and yes I do believe that many people are unwitting tools.Are YOU saying that rioters burning cities, buildings and police cars while holding signs and shouting "Kill the pigs!" "Abolish the police!" are not divisive? That those causing as much harm (from death to being late to work) are not dividing us? That those that take over portions of a city and refuse entry to those that live there are not instrumental in dividing the people?
Because I would have to disagree; those actions are taken with the express intent of dividing people.I already stated I do not support violent extremists of any kind. How can I make that more clear?
Not supporting it and declaring it to be "divisive" and contributing to the massive divisions in our country are two very different things.
I've got to go with AB here - I don't see any "systemic racism" (although I DO see pretty severe racism from many, of every color) and I DO believe that those honestly trying to "help" the problem through violence and anarchy are unwitting tools of those wishing to destroy America.Yes, violence is, by definition, "divisive."
The Proud Boys are descending upon Portland today, many armed and carrying Confederate flags. While I support their right to lawfully assemble, I find their accoutrements to be "divisive" as well.
That word is starting to annoy me, as it seems some people use it to describe any disagreement. I don't believe disagreement, in and of itself, is divisive.If "descending upon" means they will be doing anything like this, I will call them out too! https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ … JDAV1V4kE9
I also wonder if you've ever used that terminology about BLM or Antifa.Many, if not most, are from Washington. Would you prefer I say they are "touring" Portland with their guns and Confederate flags? Are they "dropping by with housewarming gifts" of racist symbols and loaded weapons?
Is that PC enough for you.
Edit: I have no idea what the video is showing other than a noisy crowd disrupting people's outdoor dining. Did I miss something?LOL If you missed it, don't feel bad. I couldn't understand the shouting and couldn't read the signs. Like you, all I caught was a bunch of boors trying to ruin other people's entertainment and relaxation. (Don't know that I would call it "dining"; looked more like what I would expect with peanuts and beer
Or a hamburger at best.)LOL, and I thought it was just me. If that is what ab considers being "descended upon" then I think my use of the term for The Proud Boys' march in Portland is definitely an underwhelming understatement. ;-).
You mentioned descended upon and the couple in the video was definitely descended upon. We used to call that harassment, disturbing the peace, public nuisance.... I don't see anything funny about it. I would have a very big problem with a bunch of overgrown brats surrounding me and invading my space like that.
I think most people would.Why were those "overgrown brats" there? Were they targeting that couple in particular? Sorry, I couldn't discern anything from that video.
Pure guess, but I would imagine most of those "brats" were there to disturb others as much as possible, and targeted anyone they could find.
Or perhaps they were all musicians, not just the one that played the solo.I found the shofar soloist to be much more annoying than any of the drum soloists who have come down the pike. Mission accomplished?
Maybe - I thought some of the store patrons looked like they were laughing at the idiocy of those in the street. I rather doubt that was the goal.
They were there to annoy and target any one in their path, they had worked their way through, harassing others. This particular encounter was caught on video and shared. I am sure there are other videos, if you aren’t impressed with the quality of this one.
Oh, I see disagreement as divisive...in it's most technical aspect. In practice it can actually bring people together, but ONLY if both listen to the other with an eye to understanding.
But I DON'T see demands for anarchy (the root of nearly every "protest" today, peaceful or not), violence (in nearly every "protest" today) or racist calls for special treatment of one race over another. These kinds of things ARE divisive, IMO, and are common to the point of every day activity any more.
I think the one patron laughing (the one whose table they crashed) took the high road....the Sandmann approach.
From the video that IslandBites shared, it was even worse than I first thought.
Shame on them for passing judgement on all, that weren’t participating in their parade.Yes, shame on that bunch of overgrown brats for passing judgement!
Did you watch it all? They stopped to call a store owner, racist. Made sure the patrons of the business, heard them loud and clear. Based on what? Hearsay, is that all it takes?
They picked on the older couple....why? Why did they pick on them! They were heard earlier chanting about white supremacists. Did they assume, because they are white, that makes them white supremacists?
Do you have some insider information that I am not aware of? Please share.
Related Discussions
- 42
How to stop the rioting plaguing our cities!
by Dan Harmon 4 years ago
It seems that Portland, Or, has finally figured out how to stop this - "defund" the police, cutting the force necessary to control such things and then refuse the designate a riot for what it is because they no longer have the force necessary to address...
- 46
Antifa now protesting Biden
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
I thought Antifa hated President Donld Trump. Seems they don't like Biden either.“WHAT HAPPENED?Violent protesters, who were reportedly associated with Antifa, marched down the streets of Portland’s Pearl District smashing cars and vandalizing businesses.WHY WERE THEY PROTESTING?The...
- 44
Guiliani either has a big mouth or the goal is GOP nominee 2016
by Credence2 9 years ago
As my stomach turn listening to former NY Mayor, Guiliani blame the President and the current mayor for the deaths of the 2 officers in Bed-Sty, New York City, I had reason to pause. I think for myself and the insinuation that all the people involved in PEACEFUL protests were incited beyond reason...
- 192
Is a common sense approach to immigration even possible?
by TheSituation 14 years ago
I just finished writing a hub on this topic and I am wondering if people out there think that we will be able to come to a consensus on a common sense approach to immigration or is this topic just too emotional for serious rational discussion? Thought?
- 48
What's Excessive Force in Crowd Control?
by ptosis 7 years ago
Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) 500X-RE can be heard 2 miles / 2,000 meters away. At 149 decibels the blasts is not only well past the 120-decibel discomfort mark but also above the 130-decibel threshold for potential hearing loss.And before you blast me with troll bias about how it is not used...
- 95
Musk to NYT columnist calling for ‘overthrow’ of the Constitution
by Ken Burgess 6 days ago
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2024/09/03 … n-1484487/The Constitution has always been the ultimate goal of the progressive left, a key obstacle that prevents them from “fundamentally transforming” America into something more to their liking and they are now getting bold enough to say it.With...