Controversial Coppers: Shootings, the racist argument, and the effects

[sivispacem]

25 police officer deaths over the last 15 years is a joke

Except, as usual, you've totally missed the point. Last time I checked, cybercrime was either the number one or number two priority for US law enforcement and that's directly killed a total of maybe one or two people in the entire world. You know it's not about casualty figures and that boiling every argument down to them is monumentally stupid so why of you do it?

 

What?? This is one of the more stupid things I've seen you say.. Or is this just one of your attempts of public discrediting?

Well you do. It's simple fact. Let's look at some of your comments objectively.

 

Have you expressed the view that the government wishes to instigate martial law to control the population? Yes.

 

Have you expressed agreement for theories concerning the "New World Order"? Yes.

 

Have you supported various conspiracy theories, alleging US government involvement in a variety of notorious events? Yes.

 

Have you expressed the view that the US government wishes to disarm the population? Yes.

 

Have you suggested armed resistance against the government of the US as a viable solution to any of the above? Yes.

 

It's not exactly hard to see how I came to thst conclusion.

[GrandMaster Smith]

Except, as usual, you've totally missed the point. Last time I checked, cybercrime was either the number one or number two priority for US law enforcement and that's directly killed a total of maybe one or two people in the entire world. You know it's not about casualty figures and that boiling every argument down to them is monumentally stupid so why of you do it?

 

 

Some pages back I claimed what we're currently seeing is the result of intentional training, I'm simply providing proof that the police are nationwide being trained through irrational fear of an imaginary threat of domestic terrorism.

 

 

 

Well you do. It's simple fact. Let's look at some of your comments objectively.

Have you expressed the view that the government wishes to instigate martial law to control the population? Yes.

Have you expressed agreement for theories concerning the "New World Order"? Yes.

Have you supported various conspiracy theories, alleging US government involvement in a variety of notorious events? Yes.

Have you expressed the view that the US government wishes to disarm the population? Yes.

It's not exactly hard to see how I came to thst conclusion.

 

Wait wait, so now if somebody is aware of facts they're a militia man? LOL..

 

Yes the U.S. government has the ability to declare martial law and suspend the entire constitution-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

 

Yes the government has engaged in conspiracies-

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Big_Buzz

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

 

These are facts so basically you've been brainwashed to believe anyone who is aware of what's going on is a terrorist.

 

Have you suggested armed resistance against the government of the US as a viable solution to any of the above? Yes.

 

This is what makes it most laughable.. I've never even owned a gun in my entire life let alone like to kill bugs I find in my room, maybe it's because you don't know me personally but the idea of me being a militia man is a joke.

 

 

 

This is how authoritarian states begin, anybody who is against the status quo is either a terrorist or a militia man, therefore an enemy of the state.

Edited August 20, 2015 by GrandMaster Smith

[sivispacem]

Some pages back I claimed what we're currently seeing is the result of intentional training, I'm simply providing proof that the police are nationwide being trained through irrational fear of an imaginary threat of domestic terrorism.

Is domestic terrorism any more of an imaginary threat than cybercrime is by virtue of the fact neither kills many police officers? Of course not. The notion that domestic terrorism in the US is nonexistent as you imply is utterly laughable to anyone even remotely educated on the subject. Your comments pretty much exactly mimic those made by numerous right wing apologists after Ruby Ridge and Waco- "oh, they're not a real threat, just some buddies playing soldier in the woods, why won't the man leave them alone"? And then what happened- Oklahoma.

 

Yes the U.S. government has the ability to declare martial law and suspend the entire constitution-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

...are ou being deliberately obtuse or do you genuinely see no difference between the two phrases "the US government has the power to declare martial law" and "the US government wishes or is actively involved in a plot to instigate martial law"? Of course you do, you must just be being obtuse for the sake if argument.

 

Yes the government has engaged in conspiracies-

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Big_Buzz

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Firstly, neither Big Buzz bor Sea Spray constitutes a "conspiracy". The legacy of unethical human experimentation in the US is pretty lengthy and I don't think any real efforts were made to cover it up. For that matter you can include the Syphillis experiments, Dioxin experiments and a myriad of others in that "not a conspiracy" list. MKUltra, COINTELPRO, yeah, they're arguably proper conspiracies. Mockingbird probably less do given that CIA influence was fairly open. But the relevance is still somewhat limited given we're talking about programmes from the 1950s through 1970s here. The Cold War is over, US domestic politics barely resembles that of the era, notwithstanding the fact they cease being conspiracy theories if they're demonstrably true.

 

This is what makes it most laughable..

Except you've said, basically verbatim, that you believe that people need to, and you would, resist by all necessary means any attempt to disarm or subjugate the populace by force shoumd you believe those efforts were being enacted.

 

Not to mention all the other points you conveniently decided to ignore.

 

the idea of me being a militia man is a joke.

I never said you were a militiaman. I said you share views with them. You admit you share views with them by the simple act of defending those views. You can't really pretend it isn't true because you've actually tacitly agreed it is.

[universetwisters]

Yeah probably because Islamic extremism is a laughable threat. You can thank the news for portraying it as any real danger.

 

So 9/11 and the Boston marathon bombing are laughable threats?

 

 

 

I know reaction pictures aren't really good around here, but goddamn, that's just dumb and disrespectful.

 

[Saggy]

 

Some pages back I claimed what we're currently seeing is the result of intentional training, I'm simply providing proof that the police are nationwide being trained through irrational fear of an imaginary threat of domestic terrorism.

Is domestic terrorism any more of an imaginary threat than cybercrime is by virtue of the fact neither kills many police officers? Of course not. The notion that domestic terrorism in the US is nonexistent as you imply is utterly laughable to anyone even remotely educated on the subject. Your comments pretty much exactly mimic those made by numerous right wing apologists after Ruby Ridge and Waco- "oh, they're not a real threat, just some buddies playing soldier in the woods, why won't the man leave them alone"? And then what happened- Oklahoma.

 

Yes the U.S. government has the ability to declare martial law and suspend the entire constitution-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

...are ou being deliberately obtuse or do you genuinely see no difference between the two phrases "the US government has the power to declare martial law" and "the US government wishes or is actively involved in a plot to instigate martial law"? Of course you do, you must just be being obtuse for the sake if argument.

 

Yes the government has engaged in conspiracies-

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Big_Buzz

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Firstly, neither Big Buzz bor Sea Spray constitutes a "conspiracy". The legacy of unethical human experimentation in the US is pretty lengthy and I don't think any real efforts were made to cover it up. For that matter you can include the Syphillis experiments, Dioxin experiments and a myriad of others in that "not a conspiracy" list. MKUltra, COINTELPRO, yeah, they're arguably proper conspiracies. Mockingbird probably less do given that CIA influence was fairly open. But the relevance is still somewhat limited given we're talking about programmes from the 1950s through 1970s here. The Cold War is over, US domestic politics barely resembles that of the era, notwithstanding the fact they cease being conspiracy theories if they're demonstrably true.

 

This is what makes it most laughable..

Except you've said, basically verbatim, that you believe that people need to, and you would, resist by all necessary means any attempt to disarm or subjugate the populace by force shoumd you believe those efforts were being enacted.

 

Not to mention all the other points you conveniently decided to ignore.

 

the idea of me being a militia man is a joke.

I never said you were a militiaman. I said you share views with them. You admit you share views with them by the simple act of defending those views. You can't really pretend it isn't true because you've actually tacitly agreed it is.

 

 

Waco and Ruby Ridge are so overmentioned. Blacklives matter too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE

[Tchuck]

 

I agree with you for the most part but there really needs to be a bigger disconnect between the mention of police as individual entities, and the mention of police as the collective mechanism which serves the current criminal justice system. Because the latter is so intrinsically flawed, and so by extension so is the mechanism which serves it, i.e. the police of America. You just simply can't have it both ways where they're all honest, earnest and doing their job so they're good people, but then when their job detail is to uphold policy that is questionable then how can you really defend that they are good. Again it transitions into the talk of prisons filling up, systemic racism, and the police arresting people is pretty much the seed of all this so it's kind of hard to not identify them as part of the problem.

 

If there were a way to refer to the part that the police play in the current disrepair of the criminal justice system, how would you identify it in a way that separates the two facets? I feel like trying to find something like that honestly isn't even necessary, and that the cries of police officers being stigmatized really isn't as high a priority as say African American men being basically able to plan being incarcerated at some point because the job the police officer is sworn to do. Yeah we all want to go right to the top and change the laws that make him more likely to be arrested and thrown in prison on some bullsh*t, but first we have to identify and discuss the problem and part of the chronological order of events in this tale is being arrested by a police officer.

 

The only thing I will grant even a grain of merit to is the idea that police officers are being unfairly penalized and scrutinized more when these stories hit the news media, as if it is a big witch hunt. However I don't know that I'm really convinced by that, the Darren Wilson case is the closest I've ever seen to being a valid case of this but I feel that if the department itself hadn't bungled the internval investigation there wouldn't have been a need to call the DOJ to do an impartial review.

 

This might be a bad analogy depending on a person's view but I think the topic of gun control follows similar lines... Everybody wants to talk about how dangerous guns are. But they're not, they're just tools, it's how they are used that is dangerous. Likewise what I'm trying to get across is that police officers are tools too, they're a cog in the system. Unfortunately unlike guns they're also people too, so when they are villified and demonized there are actual human costs to this. However we can't just take the discussion about how they are implemented off the table, and I'll say it again since it seems to have been lost before, I REALLY believe police officers don't deserve to be used as pawns in the "War on Drugs" and that of all the police officers shot and killed in the line of duty, very many of them were probably while trying to enforce policy that was more closely related to drug crime than anything else.

 

 

So, your issue is mostly with the flawed system/outdated laws rather than the police officers themselves, correct? If so, I agree with you. Officers are doing their job, upholding the law, even when the law is old, out of touch with reality or should have been changed. Their job is to do so, and not question the law, even though they sometimes have discretion on what to pursue or not, and I'd argue most officers have common sense enough to not ticket/arrest you for trivial things (unless you're black or hispanic I suppose). Because of that, surely the main way to fix the solution is to go directly to the source; the laws, the policy makers, which will affect the work of the police officers, right? Otherwise you'd just be changing the police, but the laws they enforce would still be the same leading to the same outcomes.

 

It all begins with the stop. The officer will stop you if he thinks he has a reason to. That's his prerogative, that's part of his job. If he didn't have the power to stop you, he'd be useless. At this point, the person has two choices: To cooperate or to not cooperate. If you do cooperate, things will likely end up fine, otherwise we'd see a much larger number of people being killed by cops, right? If you don't cooperate, then things will likely end up badly, as you just gave him a reason to arrest you even if you had done nothing wrong. You may disagree on his reason for stopping you, you may be sure you didn't commit any crime, you may have numerous reasons to give him on why he shouldn't have stopped you. That is not the time to dispute it, that is the time to comply. If there's any wrong doings in the process, and you didn't escalate anything, there's channels you can go through to set the record straight. There are cases where the officer acts with unreasonable force, such as the Garner case. We can only wonder how things would have turned out if instead of arguing with the officers he just did what he was told to do. Maybe it would have made no difference, made he would still be alive but in jail, maybe nothing would have happened.

 

Guns are dangerous, though, that's why there should be stricter regulations on ownership since it's an instrument with no other purpose than killing. But yes, officers are merely tools of the system. They are there to enforce the laws. If the laws are bad, the population will see the officers as evil, unreasonable, bad, broken. If the laws are good, the population will have nothing to complain about. I think that's the common ground we can stand on, no? If there were better laws regarding drugs, I'd say the number of police incidents would fall to almost near 0, since that's the most often used excuse for pulling you over or stopping and frisking you. Change the laws, and you'll get a "better" police. And then we can work on racism, which is a far more complicated issue.

[Dingdongs]

 

 

 

 

 

 

A little outdated but these were the only relevant statistics I am able to find with the data you're mentioning. Though one thing to keep in mind of course is that these statistics inherently cannot account for the number of incidents ( let's call it figure x ) that represents the amount of police misconduct incidents that go completely under the radar because internal reviews didn't catch anything.

 

http://www.policemisconduct.net/statistics/2010-annual-report/

 

You know honestly, that "figure x" can be applied to any segment of society. There's a lot to be made about low crime statistics overall in the country, but are they really that much lower? Do we even know about all the crime that occurs? Of course we can't and so there's always this discrepancy between how much crime is reported to happen and how much is actually taking place. However there's another part to consider, and that's the manipulation of the statistics and the strategies used in collecting the data in order to present them in ways that make the crime rate appear to be falling. It's manifested in things like "humble" arrests in Balitmore, or not recording anything short of an emergency room visit as an assault case. It's not exactly something one can prove but I think it's a little foolhardy to deny that it happens at all so it really questions the validity of statistics at all.

 

What I find interesting is how people refuse to look at the anecdotal side of this as if it has any validity and want to continue to pursue the notion that there needs to be some kind of large, big-picture, mathematical summation of this that they can look at by the numbers and it's just not going to happen like that. If and when it does, the numbers are so easily manipulated and determinable that they're just going to show one thing or the other depending on who is producing them; of course the ACLU is going to find more cases of abuse and misconduct than say the DOJ. In the meantime though, there's this very disorganized, very raw macrochosm of evidence available in the form of hundreds of videos of police and civillian encounters being published on the internet. Some people act like there's only a couple of them, but go look at YouTube, you can search "police brutality" and literally watch one questionable video after another for hours all day. I'm supposed to think, "Oh well, I don't know each individual little scenario that happened there, maybe that guy who was singing and just got manhandled had been warned not to trespass, that excuses everything these must just all be misunderstandings." It's just down right apathetic at worse and wilfully ignorant at best. People are looking toward the mouthpiece of lies for the "truth", and then viewing reality for themselves and rationalizing every which way about how it's not really how it seems.

 

We can ignore anecdotal evidence in the grand scheme of things because they might be a statistical anomaly. When you're talking about millions of things, one or two or one hundred or one thousand occasions are a very small trend to say that it is a huge problem. You can use them to indicate that there might be something wrong and act as a starting point, specially on these cases of police brutality, but you can't use them to say that everything is all bad. You can pretty much find anecdotal evidence to "support" any claim whatsoever, that's why you need more than that to show a trend, to show that something is actually as bad as you imply.

 

Similarly, you say that "oh what about the cases when it isn't reported/noticed by the media", what about the likely many, many cases where nothing happens at all because everyone follows procedure, but it doesn't get picked up by media? I wish these statistics were tracked, so we could get a proper view at how things really are, but alas they're not. The large majority of traffic stops don't result in death. According to this, which may be incomplete mind you, 323 people were killed by law enforcement officers this year. How many traffic stops have happened? How many drug busts? How many racist events? How many confrontations outside a convenience store? It sucks that these things happen when they shouldn't happen, and we should find ways to prevent them from happening, but to simply dismiss the entire police force as bad or corrupt based on a small percentage of issues is simply asinine.

 

And yeah, you can go on youtube and find thousands and thousands of "evidence" of "police brutality". Unfortunately most of them just show the confrontation itself when things have already escalated, and not the whole course of events which led to the confrontation. You can also search for "police kindness" or what have you and see other evidence of the police actually doing their job properly. It's not apathetic to think about the circumstances, because they are what are most important. Somethings can be excused based on them, somethings are not. If there was the whole video of the guy singing, and it did show him doing something improper or he already had a previous history, the officer's actions would have been justified. If there wasn't anything out of the ordinary, the penalty on the officer would be even heavier. No-one is defending that officer as well, he f*cked up and handled things bad and will pay for it.

 

Yeah, there are problems with some officers and how they handle their duty. No-one here is disputing fact. No-one here is saying that some officers aren't corrupt/racist/power-hungry. In the cases where the person seeks the proper channels, the officer gets disciplined, fired or has to respond for his actions. In the cases where the person escalates the issue on the spot, either by not complying or being confrontational, then the officer "wins" as you just provided him with all the legal reasons to do what he really wants to do.

 

Bottomline is: the police, overall, does far more good than bad. Few percentage of all police engagements end in the death of the suspect. The way to reform the police isn't simply "f*ck them all, fire them all", but it is an effort that should take both parties to. Civilians have to stop disobeying a police officer when he's being reasonable, even if he's wrong, and then take it up with the precinct, find a lawyer, go after the proper channels. With enough push, something will be done. On the police side, the bad officers MUST be dealt with, and careful selection must be done when recruiting the officers, to ensure you're not putting a psychopath in a position of power. The issue of racism is something that is far deeper inside American society that won't be fixed by fixing the police itself, when the population itself is racist.

 

 

I agree with you for the most part but there really needs to be a bigger disconnect between the mention of police as individual entities, and the mention of police as the collective mechanism which serves the current criminal justice system. Because the latter is so intrinsically flawed, and so by extension so is the mechanism which serves it, i.e. the police of America. You just simply can't have it both ways where they're all honest, earnest and doing their job so they're good people, but then when their job detail is to uphold policy that is questionable then how can you really defend that they are good. Again it transitions into the talk of prisons filling up, systemic racism, and the police arresting people is pretty much the seed of all this so it's kind of hard to not identify them as part of the problem.

 

If there were a way to refer to the part that the police play in the current disrepair of the criminal justice system, how would you identify it in a way that separates the two facets? I feel like trying to find something like that honestly isn't even necessary, and that the cries of police officers being stigmatized really isn't as high a priority as say African American men being basically able to plan being incarcerated at some point because the job the police officer is sworn to do. Yeah we all want to go right to the top and change the laws that make him more likely to be arrested and thrown in prison on some bullsh*t, but first we have to identify and discuss the problem and part of the chronological order of events in this tale is being arrested by a police officer.

 

The only thing I will grant even a grain of merit to is the idea that police officers are being unfairly penalized and scrutinized more when these stories hit the news media, as if it is a big witch hunt. However I don't know that I'm really convinced by that, the Darren Wilson case is the closest I've ever seen to being a valid case of this but I feel that if the department itself hadn't bungled the internval investigation there wouldn't have been a need to call the DOJ to do an impartial review.

 

This might be a bad analogy depending on a person's view but I think the topic of gun control follows similar lines... Everybody wants to talk about how dangerous guns are. But they're not, they're just tools, it's how they are used that is dangerous. Likewise what I'm trying to get across is that police officers are tools too, they're a cog in the system. Unfortunately unlike guns they're also people too, so when they are villified and demonized there are actual human costs to this. However we can't just take the discussion about how they are implemented off the table, and I'll say it again since it seems to have been lost before, I REALLY believe police officers don't deserve to be used as pawns in the "War on Drugs" and that of all the police officers shot and killed in the line of duty, very many of them were probably while trying to enforce policy that was more closely related to drug crime than anything else.

 

All of that is great and I agree with most of this, apart from making every drug legal... but you've failed to demonstrate why this problem belongs in the hands of police officers. As Thchuck said, police don't make the laws, they enforce them. Yes they can employ discretion, but that doesn't mean they can flat out ignore crime. What you said about minority groups is true, they are overrepresented in prison and in felonious arrests because frankly, they commit a higher proportion of that crime to their representation as a demographic. You can fix that through trying to improve conditions in these communities and change the way the kids there grow up. Not through blaming cops for doing their jobs.

 

GMS - The government has the ability to do a lot of things. What indications do you have that they are more inclined to declare martial law right now? What indications do you have that militia groups and Islamic terrorism is not a threat to the United States? Are you more schooled in counterterrorism than the experts who set those priorities?

Edited August 21, 2015 by Irviding

[GrandMaster Smith]

GMS - The government has the ability to do a lot of things.

 

The fact the government even has the ability to suspend the contitution should be a red flag. Why do we need no rights in a state of emergency?

 

What indications do you have that they are more inclined to declare martial law right now?

 

The militarization of the police, that police being given equipment of war, police openly stating MRAPS are in preparation of constitutionalists.

 

 

What indications do you have that militia groups and Islamic terrorism is not a threat to the United States?

 

Well the fact that peanuts kill more people than terrorist do in the states for one. I mean by all means terrorism could be considered a threat just as much as vending machines could be considered a threat, but certainly not in the top 3 priorities of the U.S..

 

Do you think it's simply a coincidence police nationwide are being trained scary terrorists want to kill them while we simultaneously see an alarming rise in police murdering unarmed civilians? It begins to make sense why accountability isn't being upheld while internal investigations saying use of extreme physical force is justified, because it is exactly what they've been trained to do.

 

Are you more schooled in counterterrorism than the experts who set those priorities?

 

 

Wasn't there some other democratic country within the last 100 years that used terrorism as a fear mongering tactic to scare people into an authoritarian police state? I'm trying to recall the place but it's just stuck at the tip of my tongue..

 

 

Except you've said, basically verbatim, that you believe that people need to, and you would, resist by all necessary means any attempt to disarm or subjugate the populace by force shoumd you believe those efforts were being enacted.

 

 

Could you find a quote of me saying this? I mean first of all how would I resist a disarming of the public if I don't even own a gun? lol I wouldn't have anything to resist with. Maybe you misinterpreted me somewhere along the lines of talking about the right to bear arms and how it was initially created for the citizens to have the right to be armed to fight an invading or domestic threat. Me personally I would know much better than to ever go up to arms against trained shooters, I'd be dead in a second. I would long be gone in a different country before it would ever reach that state more than likely anyhow.

Edited August 22, 2015 by GrandMaster Smith

[sivispacem]

Could you find a quote of me saying this?

I'm fairly sure I could, though finding it when I'm limited to the mobile version of the site may be a challenge. I can't remember the verbatim quote but I definitely remember the gist of it- "the government is seeking to eradicate our liberties and only through resistance can we prevent it" is probably a pretty good guess. It may not have explicitly called for violent resistance but it certainly implies it. I don't think I've implied you said that you were personally willing to violent resist the government, only thst such resistance was feasible.

 

Also, nice Reductio ad Hitlerum.

[Saggy]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A little outdated but these were the only relevant statistics I am able to find with the data you're mentioning. Though one thing to keep in mind of course is that these statistics inherently cannot account for the number of incidents ( let's call it figure x ) that represents the amount of police misconduct incidents that go completely under the radar because internal reviews didn't catch anything.

 

http://www.policemisconduct.net/statistics/2010-annual-report/

 

You know honestly, that "figure x" can be applied to any segment of society. There's a lot to be made about low crime statistics overall in the country, but are they really that much lower? Do we even know about all the crime that occurs? Of course we can't and so there's always this discrepancy between how much crime is reported to happen and how much is actually taking place. However there's another part to consider, and that's the manipulation of the statistics and the strategies used in collecting the data in order to present them in ways that make the crime rate appear to be falling. It's manifested in things like "humble" arrests in Balitmore, or not recording anything short of an emergency room visit as an assault case. It's not exactly something one can prove but I think it's a little foolhardy to deny that it happens at all so it really questions the validity of statistics at all.

 

What I find interesting is how people refuse to look at the anecdotal side of this as if it has any validity and want to continue to pursue the notion that there needs to be some kind of large, big-picture, mathematical summation of this that they can look at by the numbers and it's just not going to happen like that. If and when it does, the numbers are so easily manipulated and determinable that they're just going to show one thing or the other depending on who is producing them; of course the ACLU is going to find more cases of abuse and misconduct than say the DOJ. In the meantime though, there's this very disorganized, very raw macrochosm of evidence available in the form of hundreds of videos of police and civillian encounters being published on the internet. Some people act like there's only a couple of them, but go look at YouTube, you can search "police brutality" and literally watch one questionable video after another for hours all day. I'm supposed to think, "Oh well, I don't know each individual little scenario that happened there, maybe that guy who was singing and just got manhandled had been warned not to trespass, that excuses everything these must just all be misunderstandings." It's just down right apathetic at worse and wilfully ignorant at best. People are looking toward the mouthpiece of lies for the "truth", and then viewing reality for themselves and rationalizing every which way about how it's not really how it seems.

 

We can ignore anecdotal evidence in the grand scheme of things because they might be a statistical anomaly. When you're talking about millions of things, one or two or one hundred or one thousand occasions are a very small trend to say that it is a huge problem. You can use them to indicate that there might be something wrong and act as a starting point, specially on these cases of police brutality, but you can't use them to say that everything is all bad. You can pretty much find anecdotal evidence to "support" any claim whatsoever, that's why you need more than that to show a trend, to show that something is actually as bad as you imply.

 

Similarly, you say that "oh what about the cases when it isn't reported/noticed by the media", what about the likely many, many cases where nothing happens at all because everyone follows procedure, but it doesn't get picked up by media? I wish these statistics were tracked, so we could get a proper view at how things really are, but alas they're not. The large majority of traffic stops don't result in death. According to this, which may be incomplete mind you, 323 people were killed by law enforcement officers this year. How many traffic stops have happened? How many drug busts? How many racist events? How many confrontations outside a convenience store? It sucks that these things happen when they shouldn't happen, and we should find ways to prevent them from happening, but to simply dismiss the entire police force as bad or corrupt based on a small percentage of issues is simply asinine.

 

And yeah, you can go on youtube and find thousands and thousands of "evidence" of "police brutality". Unfortunately most of them just show the confrontation itself when things have already escalated, and not the whole course of events which led to the confrontation. You can also search for "police kindness" or what have you and see other evidence of the police actually doing their job properly. It's not apathetic to think about the circumstances, because they are what are most important. Somethings can be excused based on them, somethings are not. If there was the whole video of the guy singing, and it did show him doing something improper or he already had a previous history, the officer's actions would have been justified. If there wasn't anything out of the ordinary, the penalty on the officer would be even heavier. No-one is defending that officer as well, he f*cked up and handled things bad and will pay for it.

 

Yeah, there are problems with some officers and how they handle their duty. No-one here is disputing fact. No-one here is saying that some officers aren't corrupt/racist/power-hungry. In the cases where the person seeks the proper channels, the officer gets disciplined, fired or has to respond for his actions. In the cases where the person escalates the issue on the spot, either by not complying or being confrontational, then the officer "wins" as you just provided him with all the legal reasons to do what he really wants to do.

 

Bottomline is: the police, overall, does far more good than bad. Few percentage of all police engagements end in the death of the suspect. The way to reform the police isn't simply "f*ck them all, fire them all", but it is an effort that should take both parties to. Civilians have to stop disobeying a police officer when he's being reasonable, even if he's wrong, and then take it up with the precinct, find a lawyer, go after the proper channels. With enough push, something will be done. On the police side, the bad officers MUST be dealt with, and careful selection must be done when recruiting the officers, to ensure you're not putting a psychopath in a position of power. The issue of racism is something that is far deeper inside American society that won't be fixed by fixing the police itself, when the population itself is racist.

 

 

I agree with you for the most part but there really needs to be a bigger disconnect between the mention of police as individual entities, and the mention of police as the collective mechanism which serves the current criminal justice system. Because the latter is so intrinsically flawed, and so by extension so is the mechanism which serves it, i.e. the police of America. You just simply can't have it both ways where they're all honest, earnest and doing their job so they're good people, but then when their job detail is to uphold policy that is questionable then how can you really defend that they are good. Again it transitions into the talk of prisons filling up, systemic racism, and the police arresting people is pretty much the seed of all this so it's kind of hard to not identify them as part of the problem.

 

If there were a way to refer to the part that the police play in the current disrepair of the criminal justice system, how would you identify it in a way that separates the two facets? I feel like trying to find something like that honestly isn't even necessary, and that the cries of police officers being stigmatized really isn't as high a priority as say African American men being basically able to plan being incarcerated at some point because the job the police officer is sworn to do. Yeah we all want to go right to the top and change the laws that make him more likely to be arrested and thrown in prison on some bullsh*t, but first we have to identify and discuss the problem and part of the chronological order of events in this tale is being arrested by a police officer.

 

The only thing I will grant even a grain of merit to is the idea that police officers are being unfairly penalized and scrutinized more when these stories hit the news media, as if it is a big witch hunt. However I don't know that I'm really convinced by that, the Darren Wilson case is the closest I've ever seen to being a valid case of this but I feel that if the department itself hadn't bungled the internval investigation there wouldn't have been a need to call the DOJ to do an impartial review.

 

This might be a bad analogy depending on a person's view but I think the topic of gun control follows similar lines... Everybody wants to talk about how dangerous guns are. But they're not, they're just tools, it's how they are used that is dangerous. Likewise what I'm trying to get across is that police officers are tools too, they're a cog in the system. Unfortunately unlike guns they're also people too, so when they are villified and demonized there are actual human costs to this. However we can't just take the discussion about how they are implemented off the table, and I'll say it again since it seems to have been lost before, I REALLY believe police officers don't deserve to be used as pawns in the "War on Drugs" and that of all the police officers shot and killed in the line of duty, very many of them were probably while trying to enforce policy that was more closely related to drug crime than anything else.

 

All of that is great and I agree with most of this, apart from making every drug legal... but you've failed to demonstrate why this problem belongs in the hands of police officers. As Thchuck said, police don't make the laws, they enforce them. Yes they can employ discretion, but that doesn't mean they can flat out ignore crime. What you said about minority groups is true, they are overrepresented in prison and in felonious arrests because frankly, they commit a higher proportion of that crime to their representation as a demographic. You can fix that through trying to improve conditions in these communities and change the way the kids there grow up. Not through blaming cops for doing their jobs.

 

GMS - The government has the ability to do a lot of things. What indications do you have that they are more inclined to declare martial law right now? What indications do you have that militia groups and Islamic terrorism is not a threat to the United States? Are you more schooled in counterterrorism than the experts who set those priorities?

 

Well I disagree why they're over-represented, I think it has more to do with the actual legistlation effecting them more, but that's kind of a separate argument really. The fact is that they're going to jail more, and I do believe demographics plays a little bit of a part in it because what you also see is poor people being arrested more, and undereducated people being arrested more. I think it becomes one of those issues where because they represent a majority of another majority, it seems like we're only arresting and jailing black people. However if you poll the same group of prisoners, you'll probably find income disparity to be a far more common denominator, so I see where you're coming from but I don't think it's that much of a concidence. There are things like weapons enhancement laws that so disprportionately effect African Americans that it could be argued that they're specifically written and voted in with the intent to disproritonately effect them. Of course this is legislation, not the police's problems UNTIL...

 

Profiling laws. So you have these policies or laws, tactics, I don't know what you want to call them, that are handed down that suggest we should stop people who look suspicious. Never says a thing about black people, but there's two things that happen... 1. Police officers are human, they have human emotions, which sometimes happen to be racism. 2. The areas where they are using this tactic are predominantly one race, because these are usually the high crime areas. With that mix it's pretty hard not to identify a problem, but finding a place to lay the blame and finding a solution? Pretty difficult.

 

That's the other thing about race in all this... Melting pots, diverse neighborhoods, are typically not high crime areas. It's when you have a neighorhood that is all one race, that things get interesting. This is mostly true because it's generaly a result of gentrification and income disparity or a subtle mix of the two.

 

Anyway, the other big factor I think is a lack of education, and so what you wind up having is communities that see nothing but arrest after arrest and no one realy has the wisdom of the depth of knowledge to think about the reasons why past, "Because the cops are evil." They don't realize that it's the people who vote that make the laws, because they already feel so far removed from that system... They already feel unrepresented and as if they're just a part of a wayward system they can't control, so the notion that it's not the police's fault doesn't really occur to them before hating the police as an extension of the system they're trapped in does. This is what I eee so predominantly here, it takes a lot to get past, "f*ck the police," but once you do it usually turns out the animosity has litlle or nothing to do with interaction with the police at a personal level.

 

Oh and it's important to realize I'm not talking about general apathy, like, "Well it's just one voice I can't make a difference." There are literally so many people who do not even realize that the laws are written by us, they actually believe in something like "the man" that just decides this policy. It's not exactly untrue, because by virtue of their own lack of education they don't vote or have any determination over their own future.

Edited August 23, 2015 by SagaciousKJB

[Clem Fandango]

So, your issue is mostly with the flawed system/outdated laws rather than the police officers themselves, correct? If so, I agree with you. Officers are doing their job, upholding the law, even when the law is old, out of touch with reality or should have been changed. Their job is to do so, and not question the law

 

Good to know cops will do any brutal, irrational sh*t they're told to. Makes me feel safe.

[Dingdongs]

The fact the government even has the ability to suspend the contitution should be a red flag. Why do we need no rights in a state of emergency?

Because a state of emergency is an emergency. Do you have any clue whatsoever about emergency management and crisis response? Think New Orleans during Katrina for a modern example, or a historical one, the entire Civil War, when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and activated that provision during the management of the war. Or even the Baltimore riots, where in order to restore order the National Guard acted in a civil response function and arrested anybody on the street past curfew to quell the rioting.

 

 

 

 

The militarization of the police, that police being given equipment of war, police openly stating MRAPS are in preparation of constitutionalists.

MRAPs used by police are unarmed. And local/state police do not report to the federal government by any shred of imagination, so your theory sort of goes out the window right there.

 

 

 

Well the fact that peanuts kill more people than terrorist do in the states for one. I mean by all means terrorism could be considered a threat just as much as vending machines could be considered a threat, but certainly not in the top 3 priorities of the U.S..

 

terrorism is not a threat primarily due to the deaths it inflicts but because of the panic and ability it has to stop the citizenry from living a safe and peaceful life. Peanut allergies do not have the same effect on the DOW and by extension housing prices, local coffers for welfare/aid, that a terrorist attack would.

 

 

 

Do you think it's simply a coincidence police nationwide are being trained scary terrorists want to kill them while we simultaneously see an alarming rise in police murdering unarmed civilians? It begins to make sense why accountability isn't being upheld while internal investigations saying use of extreme physical force is justified, because it is exactly what they've been trained to do.

Police are killing less people than 10 years ago, no rise. Again more BS from you.

 

 

 

 

Wasn't there some other democratic country within the last 100 years that used terrorism as a fear mongering tactic to scare people into an authoritarian police state? I'm trying to recall the place but it's just stuck at the tip of my tongue..

Please answer the question of whether or not you are more skilled in counterterrorism than the experts both inside and outside of government who set those priorities. If you could do so without referring to Nazis that'd be great.

 

sagacious-

 

 

 

Well I disagree why they're over-represented, I think it has more to do with the actual legistlation effecting them more, but that's kind of a separate argument really. The fact is that they're going to jail more, and I do believe demographics plays a little bit of a part in it because what you also see is poor people being arrested more, and undereducated people being arrested more. I think it becomes one of those issues where because they represent a majority of another majority, it seems like we're only arresting and jailing black people. However if you poll the same group of prisoners, you'll probably find income disparity to be a far more common denominator, so I see where you're coming from but I don't think it's that much of a concidence. There are things like weapons enhancement laws that so disprportionately effect African Americans that it could be argued that they're specifically written and voted in with the intent to disproritonately effect them. Of course this is legislation, not the police's problems UNTIL...

Because poor and undereducated people are the ones on the street dude. They're the ones that are out there carrying illegal guns shooting people for stepping onto their gang's drug corners. And that is unfortunately overrepresented in the minority community, though white folks use illegal drugs at a pretty similar rate, it's not on the street corners.

 

 

 

Profiling laws. So you have these policies or laws, tactics, I don't know what you want to call them, that are handed down that suggest we should stop people who look suspicious. Never says a thing about black people, but there's two things that happen... 1. Police officers are human, they have human emotions, which sometimes happen to be racism. 2. The areas where they are using this tactic are predominantly one race, because these are usually the high crime areas. With that mix it's pretty hard not to identify a problem, but finding a place to lay the blame and finding a solution? Pretty difficult.

Not really. The blame is on the wider community for not taking care of these low income, high crime areas through opportunity for education and jobs and things other than pushing crack on the corners.

 

 

 

Anyway, the other big factor I think is a lack of education, and so what you wind up having is communities that see nothing but arrest after arrest and no one realy has the wisdom of the depth of knowledge to think about the reasons why past, "Because the cops are evil." They don't realize that it's the people who vote that make the laws, because they already feel so far removed from that system... They already feel unrepresented and as if they're just a part of a wayward system they can't control, so the notion that it's not the police's fault doesn't really occur to them before hating the police as an extension of the system they're trapped in does. This is what I eee so predominantly here, it takes a lot to get past, "f*ck the police," but once you do it usually turns out the animosity has litlle or nothing to do with interaction with the police at a personal level.

 

Oh and it's important to realize I'm not talking about general apathy, like, "Well it's just one voice I can't make a difference." There are literally so many people who do not even realize that the laws are written by us, they actually believe in something like "the man" that just decides this policy. It's not exactly untrue, because by virtue of their own lack of education they don't vote or have any determination over their own future.

I agree with you 100% here. The police are not able to fix social problems. They can't give jobs and education to people in poverty ridden cities. They can only arrest and cite them when they commit crime. Which is a lot.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Irviding

[The Dedito Gae]

Well the fact that peanuts kill more people than terrorist do in the states for one. I mean by all means terrorism could be considered a threat just as much as vending machines could be considered a threat, but certainly not in the top 3 priorities of the U.S..

Are you seriously comparing vending machines to terrorists?

Did i read this right?

Terrorists kill a f*ckton of people on the other side of the world and they wouldn't have/ didn't had a problem doing it in another countries.

[Tchuck]

 

So, your issue is mostly with the flawed system/outdated laws rather than the police officers themselves, correct? If so, I agree with you. Officers are doing their job, upholding the law, even when the law is old, out of touch with reality or should have been changed. Their job is to do so, and not question the law

 

Good to know cops will do any brutal, irrational sh*t they're told to. Makes me feel safe.

 

 

Yes, that's exactly what I said . People do stupid, irrational sh*t regardless of their job. A percentage of the officers are brutal/irrational/reckless. A percentage of all people are like that. Cops are people, so you will have some bad seeds at some points. To curb that, they need stricter evaluation when recruiting, and proper punishment when it happens. The officers are a reflect of their society. The American society is very violent, so you'll end up with more violent cops. The solution to that isn't removing all cops, no matter how much you dream of that. It's reworking the laws so that they go after what they should be going, punishing those that do badly and enforcing better recruitment practices.

Edited August 23, 2015 by Tchuck

[jatiger13]

 

 

So, your issue is mostly with the flawed system/outdated laws rather than the police officers themselves, correct? If so, I agree with you. Officers are doing their job, upholding the law, even when the law is old, out of touch with reality or should have been changed. Their job is to do so, and not question the law

 

Good to know cops will do any brutal, irrational sh*t they're told to. Makes me feel safe.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I said . People do stupid, irrational sh*t regardless of their job. A percentage of the officers are brutal/irrational/reckless. A percentage of all people are like that. Cops are people, so you will have some bad seeds at some points. To curb that, they need stricter evaluation when recruiting, and proper punishment when it happens. The officers are a reflect of their society. The American society is very violent, so you'll end up with more violent cops. The solution to that isn't removing all cops, no matter how much you dream of that. It's reworking the laws so that they go after what they should be going, punishing those that do badly and enforcing better recruitment practices.

They need to stop allowing people who fail the psychological evaluation become cops. In some areas, they still allow them to become cops just because there's a big need.

Years ago, they even had an add out that said something like "we are also accepting people who previously failed the psychological evaluation."

[Dingdongs]

Ferguson grandmother critiques Black Lives Matter, says group is defending a ‘thug’

http://globalnews.ca/news/2182350/ferguson-grandmother-critiques-black-lives-matter-says-group-is-defending-a-thug/

 

 

She kills it

Edited August 25, 2015 by Irviding

[make total destroy]

Except Black Lives Matter isn't just about Mike Brown.

[sweller]

Ferguson grandmother critiques Black Lives Matter, says group is defending a thug

http://globalnews.ca/news/2182350/ferguson-grandmother-critiques-black-lives-matter-says-group-is-defending-a-thug/

 

 

She kills it

I listened to the first 2 min of that and knew this lady is misinformed. There was a vigil and a protest for that girl. The person that shot that girl will go to jail unlike cops that shoot people. The guy that was shot did not pull a gun and shoot at cops the autopsy proved he was shot in the back while running. Edited August 25, 2015 by sweller

[Niobium]

it was uncle ruckus's gf

[Dingdongs]

Except Black Lives Matter isn't just about Mike Brown.

She's not talking about just Mike Brown, she was talking about the entire movement and the video itself was about the response to the guy two weeks ago who fired on police officers in Ferguson and got himself shot.

 

 

 

The guy that was shot did not pull a gun and shoot at cops the autopsy proved he was shot in the back while running.

Can you explain the bullet holes in the police car then or no? Just because bullets enter through the back doesn't mean somebody was literally shot in the back. The guy was firing on officers (evidenced by the rounds in their car) and was either taking cover with his back to them or tried to flee the engagement and that's why the entry wound was in the back.

[make total destroy]

She's not talking about just Mike Brown, she was talking about the entire movement and the video itself was about the response to the guy two weeks ago who fired on police officers in Ferguson and got himself shot.

 

You mean, the guy defending his community from police occupation?

[sweller]

 

Except Black Lives Matter isn't just about Mike Brown.

She's not talking about just Mike Brown, she was talking about the entire movement and the video itself was about the response to the guy two weeks ago who fired on police officers in Ferguson and got himself shot.

 

The guy that was shot did not pull a gun and shoot at cops the autopsy proved he was shot in the back while running.

Can you explain the bullet holes in the police car then or no? Just because bullets enter through the back doesn't mean somebody was literally shot in the back. The guy was firing on officers (evidenced by the rounds in their car) and was either taking cover with his back to them or tried to flee the engagement and that's why the entry wound was in the back. He didn't shoot at the cops. And I doubt he even pointed a gun at them.

[Dingdongs]

 

 

Except Black Lives Matter isn't just about Mike Brown.

She's not talking about just Mike Brown, she was talking about the entire movement and the video itself was about the response to the guy two weeks ago who fired on police officers in Ferguson and got himself shot.

 

The guy that was shot did not pull a gun and shoot at cops the autopsy proved he was shot in the back while running.

Can you explain the bullet holes in the police car then or no? Just because bullets enter through the back doesn't mean somebody was literally shot in the back. The guy was firing on officers (evidenced by the rounds in their car) and was either taking cover with his back to them or tried to flee the engagement and that's why the entry wound was in the back.

He didn't shoot at the cops. And I doubt he even pointed a gun at them.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/man-shot-by-police-in-ferguson-after-he-fired-at/article_baaf86fd-2de0-53a7-b840-1941159aa5c7.html

 

from St. Louis today -

 

FERGUSON • A peaceful day of protest and remembrance dissolved into chaos late Sunday when a man fired multiple shots at four St. Louis County plainclothes detectives in an SUV. The detectives fired back and the shooter was struck, said county Police Chief Jon Belmar. He was in critical condition.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Irviding

[sweller]

 

 

 

Except Black Lives Matter isn't just about Mike Brown.

She's not talking about just Mike Brown, she was talking about the entire movement and the video itself was about the response to the guy two weeks ago who fired on police officers in Ferguson and got himself shot.

 

The guy that was shot did not pull a gun and shoot at cops the autopsy proved he was shot in the back while running.

Can you explain the bullet holes in the police car then or no? Just because bullets enter through the back doesn't mean somebody was literally shot in the back. The guy was firing on officers (evidenced by the rounds in their car) and was either taking cover with his back to them or tried to flee the engagement and that's why the entry wound was in the back.

He didn't shoot at the cops. And I doubt he even pointed a gun at them.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/man-shot-by-police-in-ferguson-after-he-fired-at/article_baaf86fd-2de0-53a7-b840-1941159aa5c7.html

 

from St. Louis today -

 

FERGUSON A peaceful day of protest and remembrance dissolved into chaos late Sunday when a man fired multiple shots at four St. Louis County plainclothes detectives in an SUV. The detectives fired back and the shooter was struck, said county Police Chief Jon Belmar. He was in critical condition.

I was talking about the dude who was shot during the search warrant.

[Dingdongs]

 

 

 

 

Except Black Lives Matter isn't just about Mike Brown.

She's not talking about just Mike Brown, she was talking about the entire movement and the video itself was about the response to the guy two weeks ago who fired on police officers in Ferguson and got himself shot.

 

The guy that was shot did not pull a gun and shoot at cops the autopsy proved he was shot in the back while running.

Can you explain the bullet holes in the police car then or no? Just because bullets enter through the back doesn't mean somebody was literally shot in the back. The guy was firing on officers (evidenced by the rounds in their car) and was either taking cover with his back to them or tried to flee the engagement and that's why the entry wound was in the back.

He didn't shoot at the cops. And I doubt he even pointed a gun at them.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/man-shot-by-police-in-ferguson-after-he-fired-at/article_baaf86fd-2de0-53a7-b840-1941159aa5c7.html

 

from St. Louis today -

 

FERGUSON A peaceful day of protest and remembrance dissolved into chaos late Sunday when a man fired multiple shots at four St. Louis County plainclothes detectives in an SUV. The detectives fired back and the shooter was struck, said county Police Chief Jon Belmar. He was in critical condition.

I was talking about the dude who was shot during the search warrant.

 

At the house, near Page Boulevard, police confiscated crack cocaine and four guns, including the one police say Ball-Bay had in his possession. It was described by police as a handgun with an extended magazine stolen from Rolla, Mo.The search warrant that police came to serve was for guns and narcotics involved in a felony.

 

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-fatally-shoot-teen-while-trying-to-issue/article_975d6843-73a1-5fae-a3da-e6c094f6a57b.html

 

 

Looks like a group of innocent kids huh!!!

Edited August 25, 2015 by Irviding

[Saggy]

Irv you said police shootings are lower now than they were 10 years ago, where did you find that little factoid? Because from what I've seen there's no agency keeping official records on that.

 

Tchuck, agree wholeheartedly with your post but here is the issue that I've tried to point out repeatedly, which is the difference in the prosecution for police officers vs. civillians...

 

http://www.policemisconduct.net/statistics/2010-annual-report/#Prosecuting_Police_Misconduct

 

 

Per a recent analysis we published this year using data gathered by the NPMSRP from April of 2009 through December of 2010 we determined that prosecuting police misconduct in the US is very problematic with conviction rates, incarceration rates, and the amount of time law enforcement officers spend behind bars for criminal misconduct are all far lower than what happens when ordinary citizens face criminal charges.

[Tchuck]

I wish they had more data on that for the recent years as well. But I can see the trend, and can understand why they'd have lower conviction rates. While I do think it's a problem and that it should be worked on, I think it is but a symptom of the bigger issue, rather than the real disease.

 

I believe that if the laws were adjusted to better reflect today's society, that if there were better practices when recruiting officers and punishment was properly enforced, that those problems would slowly fade. But there would also need to be a change in the population as well, to stop seeing officers as evil assholes there to ruin your day and understand that they are simply upholding the law that you just broke. A corrupt society begets a corrupt police force. A racist society begets a racist police force. A violent society begets a violent police force.

[Clem Fandango]

The solution to that isn't removing all cops, no matter how much you dream of that. It's reworking the laws so that they go after what they should be going, punishing those that do badly and enforcing better recruitment practices.

 

This isn't supported by anything but your personal whims and an apparently deeply engrained desire never to rock the boat.

 

You're looking at cops as though they are a natural force in society rather than a recent invention with a sinister purpose. If you go into a law school and claim we've always had police and always will you'd be laughed out of the room once they're done explaining that systems of justice are entirely artificial, and are not an inherent part of the human experience that invariably flux and flow with changing circumstances. The police do not and will not reflect your personal views on what is just, they'll just keep fulfilling their purpose until one day there's no fatcat to pat their head and feed them treats.

 

I'm also not interested in 'punishment' at least not in my day to day life.

Ferguson grandmother critiques Black Lives Matter, says group is defending a ‘thug’

http://globalnews.ca/news/2182350/ferguson-grandmother-critiques-black-lives-matter-says-group-is-defending-a-thug/

 

 

She kills it

 

I'd ask you to stop trotting out the scant view black people that actually agree with you as though people like you weren't considered a destructive force by the black community. You are entirely at odds with them, and no amount of 'ferguson grandmothers' 'REAL african americans' or 'black female sergeants' can change that.

[Dingdongs]

I'd ask you to stop trotting out the scant view black people that actually agree with you as though people like you weren't considered a destructive force by the black community. You are entirely at odds with them, and no amount of 'ferguson grandmothers' 'REAL african americans' or 'black female sergeants' can change that.

I would say the destructive force in the black community is the fact that 93% of black homicides are carried out by other blacks, and that gang violence and lack of opportunity is much higher up on that scale than "the police". In fact it seems like educated people in the community tend to speak the same tune as the grandmother.

[make total destroy]

 

I would say the destructive force in the black community is the fact that 93% of black homicides are carried out by other blacks, and that gang violence and lack of opportunity

The result of a system the police exist to uphold. Like, what part of this whole thing do you not understand?

 

 

In fact it seems like educated people in the community tend to speak the same tune as the grandmother.

 

Ha. Yeah, alright.