|
Post by n00b on Jun 16, 2021 16:26:29 GMT -5
True. Attacked could be the wrong word. While being yelled at to get on the ground, he didn’t do that. He didn’t run. He didn’t slowly walk the opposite direction. He walked at the officer, seemingly without hesitation. A technicality of who threw the first punch I don’t think really matters here. If an officer is trying to arrest you and you walk into their space, where you can reach their weapons, they have to physically intervene. Why are we putting the burden on the civilian here, rather than on the police officers, who should be trained for this, to identify themselves in the ample available time to avoid him not knowing he was being arrested, rather than attacked? Yes, i place the burden of “do not physically confront police officers” on the civilian. Or even really, not physically confront anybody that is not putting you or others in immediate danger. And even then, only as a last resort when fleeing isn’t an option.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jun 16, 2021 16:27:32 GMT -5
Why are we putting the burden on the civilian here, rather than on the police officers, who should be trained for this, to identify themselves in the ample available time to avoid him not knowing he was being arrested, rather than attacked? Yes, i place the burden of “do not physically confront police officers” on the civilian. How can he meet that burden if he doesn't know they're police?
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jun 16, 2021 16:28:43 GMT -5
The racial wealth gap in this country has zero to do with racism? The free market just by chance created these divergent outcomes with no impact by racism at all? 'Free market' has very little to do with the racial wealth gap in this country. Government racism has had an impact. We need to eliminate racism in the Government - we should have equal protection under the law. We literally had this discussion very recently (see: redlining). You refuse to engage with this in an honest manner.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 16, 2021 16:28:44 GMT -5
Yes, i place the burden of “do not physically confront police officers” on the civilian. How can he meet that burden if he doesn't know they're police? You quoted me to quickly! I added that you probably shouldn’t physically confront anybody without a REALLY good reason. That person could be armed whether they are an officer or not.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 16, 2021 16:34:12 GMT -5
Also, in this White Privilege thread, are any of the individuals in this situation white? The audio in that YouTube video isn’t great, but to me it sounded like the woman was Asian and the officer was Pacific Islander.
|
|
trojansc
Legend
All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017), All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team (2016), 2021, 2019 Fantasy League Champion, 2020 Fantasy League Runner Up, 2022 2nd Runner Up
Posts: 28,375
|
Post by trojansc on Jun 16, 2021 16:40:49 GMT -5
I have never called the police in my life. White people calling the police on black people is the source the US racism in this country that has led to a racial wealth gap? I know of several people that have had some idiot neighbor call the police on them. It is on the police to respond appropriately. For. The. Zillionth time. It is an example of white privilege. Literally nobody said that this is the source of racism or relevant to the wealth gap. Wtf are you even talking about here? I’m so glad you know those several people. Is that your denial that Black people are not disproportionately harassed? Otherwise, what’s the point of saying that? Just more fuel for your ‘ALL or nothing’ which was already refuted? The fact that you don’t even see how this is all wrong. Even if the police do respond appropriately, do you even think you understand what that feeling is like? It’s an everyday reality for many. 7-11 worker called the police on a woman taking coffee creamers for her coffee while not putting them in her coffee on the spot. The officer acted appropriately and dismissed the worker (or owner, not sure) Doesn’t at all solve or address the problem, or help deal with this reality.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 16, 2021 16:41:12 GMT -5
The best way to stop police shootings is by taking guns away from the police! A better place to start is to make it much less likely that the people they are dealing with are armed. THEN maybe we can get to the disarming the police part. Let's work on both.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 16, 2021 16:48:38 GMT -5
The best way to stop police shootings is by taking guns away from the police! A better place to start is to make it much less likely that the people they are dealing with are armed. THEN maybe we can get to the disarming the police part. Why? Cops shoot unarmed people all the time. How much of a reduction in guns on the street would get cops to stop doing that? 50%? 75% I bet even 90% fewer guns in circulation wouldn't get them to stop killing civilians.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 16, 2021 16:53:42 GMT -5
A better place to start is to make it much less likely that the people they are dealing with are armed. THEN maybe we can get to the disarming the police part. Why? Cops shoot unarmed people all the time. How much of a reduction in guns on the street would get cops to stop doing that? 50%? 75% I bet even 90% fewer guns in circulation wouldn't get them to stop killing civilians. I think it would. Leaving aside the cops (and non-cops) who shoot people just because they want to shoot people, I believe most cops shoot people because they are afraid that they will be shot unless they shoot first. If there were fewer guns out there, cops would be less afraid. They could focus more on de-escalation. And their training could focus less on shooting people than it does now. And, ultimately, they would be comfortable not carrying guns everywhere. There are lots of places in this world where most cops don't carry guns, but none of them are places where a lot of the non-cops do carry guns.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 16, 2021 18:08:49 GMT -5
Why? Cops shoot unarmed people all the time. How much of a reduction in guns on the street would get cops to stop doing that? 50%? 75% I bet even 90% fewer guns in circulation wouldn't get them to stop killing civilians. I think it would. Leaving aside the cops (and non-cops) who shoot people just because they want to shoot people, I believe most cops shoot people because they are afraid that they will be shot unless they shoot first. If there were fewer guns out there, cops would be less afraid. They could focus more on de-escalation. And their training could focus less on shooting people than it does now. And, ultimately, they would be comfortable not carrying guns everywhere. There are lots of places in this world where most cops don't carry guns, but none of them are places where a lot of the non-cops do carry guns. Would that leave cops in a more vulnerable position to be attacked and physically assaulted?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 16, 2021 18:46:58 GMT -5
I think it would. Leaving aside the cops (and non-cops) who shoot people just because they want to shoot people, I believe most cops shoot people because they are afraid that they will be shot unless they shoot first. If there were fewer guns out there, cops would be less afraid. They could focus more on de-escalation. And their training could focus less on shooting people than it does now. And, ultimately, they would be comfortable not carrying guns everywhere. There are lots of places in this world where most cops don't carry guns, but none of them are places where a lot of the non-cops do carry guns. Would that leave cops in a more vulnerable position to be attacked and physically assaulted? Nevermind the actual process of getting those people to give up their guns...
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 16, 2021 19:03:12 GMT -5
I think it would. Leaving aside the cops (and non-cops) who shoot people just because they want to shoot people, I believe most cops shoot people because they are afraid that they will be shot unless they shoot first. If there were fewer guns out there, cops would be less afraid. They could focus more on de-escalation. And their training could focus less on shooting people than it does now. And, ultimately, they would be comfortable not carrying guns everywhere. There are lots of places in this world where most cops don't carry guns, but none of them are places where a lot of the non-cops do carry guns. Would that leave cops in a more vulnerable position to be attacked and physically assaulted? I mean, they signed up for a potentially dangerous job. Civilians didn't. Perhaps it would attract people with a different skillset to the profession.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 16, 2021 19:26:02 GMT -5
'Free market' has very little to do with the racial wealth gap in this country. Government racism has had an impact. We need to eliminate racism in the Government - we should have equal protection under the law. We literally had this discussion very recently (see: redlining). You refuse to engage with this in an honest manner. I must have missed 'redlining' mentioned earlier? But really (?) - redlining was the result of the racist New Deal from FDR that was later reinforced in a housing act in 1948 (or 49). It was the Federal Government that was the primary culprit in housing segregation, approval of insurance, etc... It was the Feds that caused the housing wealth race gap in the US. It was white northern liberals like Hubert Humphrey that perpetuated this housing racism into the 60's and 70's. I am not denying the horrible racist stuff that has gone in this country. We have made progress - but most of the problems lie with the Government instituting racist laws. I am not going to claim the free market (in so much as we have had one) is perfect, but it is very clear that Government action has been horrible and the major problem. The #1 one thing is equal protection under the law. The law and and application of the law cannot be racist. And where the law and application of the law is racist, I am 100% for fixing.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jun 16, 2021 19:29:27 GMT -5
Yeah there definitely weren't any racist business owners during Jim Crow or segregation no sir!
Every swimming pool and lunch counter in Alabama was secretly run by government plants.
|
|
|
Post by dc on Jun 16, 2021 19:33:06 GMT -5
We literally had this discussion very recently (see: redlining). You refuse to engage with this in an honest manner. I must have missed 'redlining' mentioned earlier? But really (?) - redlining was the result of the racist New Deal from FDR that was later reinforced in a housing act in 1948 (or 49). It was the Federal Government that was the primary culprit in housing segregation, approval of insurance, etc... It was the Feds that caused the housing wealth race gap in the US. It was white northern liberals like Hubert Humphrey that perpetuated this housing racism into the 60's and 70's. I am not denying the horrible racist stuff that has gone in this country. We have made progress - but most of the problems lie with the Government instituting racist laws. I am not going to claim the free market (in so much as we have had one) is perfect, but it is very clear that Government action has been horrible and the major problem. The #1 one thing is equal protection under the law. The law and and application of the law cannot be racist. And where the law and application of the law is racist, I am 100% for fixing. How is life in fantasyland, good?
|
|