Understanding the divide white/black/blue

[gjonesy]

I can tell that carrying on this discourse with you will not produce anything productive. I'm opting out for now.

See that is why this whole divide thing exsist in the first place.

Im sure people would love to point at the justifiable use of force laws and interpretate that cops have a license to kill. That is Hollywood movie myth.

There are processes and legal procedure that has to be followed for every person. There is no exemptions for procedure. Whether you kill someone in cold blood or you are completely justifed in your actions the law makes no distinction.

 

[gjonesy]

The more abnormal the claim, the more proof things tend to require. Generally speaking

What is "abnormal" about this claim?

A person points a gun at another pulls the trigger and causes that person to die. All circumstances must be investigated and charges made, "pending the out come of said investigation."

Police have no special powers or privligage with regaurds to deadly force. They are infact subject to the same laws as anyone else. They are held to a higher standard.

 

[Tobias Funke]

"Three Modest Propositions"

(e.g., Al Sharpton: “I believe in offing the pigs. Well, they got pigs out here. You ain’t offed one of them. What I believe in, I do. Do what you believe in. Or shut up and admit you’ve lost your courage and your guts to stand up”).

That's such a misleading omission of single quotation marks that it's a flat out lie.

 

[gjonesy]

That's such a misleading omission of single quotation marks that it's a flat out lie.

I read the snopes articles, seen the video. Ever how sarcastic it may seem, don't you think its a bit inflammatory? He basically dared people to follow through on their threats. Now we are seeing this happen on a large scale. One thing i know from many years of training is you do not antagonize a potential threat because they just might take you up on it.

 

[Tobias Funke]

No, when the quote is put in context I don't think it's particularly inflammatory and I certainly don't think he's "daring" people to shoot cops.

But even if someone thinks that, the way the quote was taken out of context for the purpose of ascribing certain ideas to Sharpton himself instead of people he was making fun of is inexcusable, and it really shows how low the far-right will sink. You seem to think that disagreeing with you isn't "seeing both sides," but I see both sides and lean heavily towards one because of the constant lies and misinformation like that article.

 

[gjonesy]

No, when the quote is put in context I don't think it's particularly inflammatory and I certainly don't think he's "daring" people to shoot cops.

But even if someone thinks that, the way the quote was taken out of context for the purpose of ascribing certain ideas to Sharpton himself instead of people he was making fun of is inexcusable, and it really shows how low the far-right will sink. You seem to think that disagreeing with you isn't "seeing both sides," but I see both sides and lean heavily towards one because of the constant lies and misinformation like that article.

Well its certainly not a lie, he did infact make those statements. Even the snopes article points that out. And saying that i personally think that anyone who disagrees with me isn't seeing both sides is a falicy. People can certainly see both sides and reject one and ascribe to the other. But that's part of the problem.
The low left has done its share of mudslinging but this isn't about politics. That is a discussion for another thread seeing as it is going off topic.

I can make fun of rapist and pedophiles all day long. But the victims of such abuses probably wouldn't find it humorous at all.

This thread is about finding a common ground on which to stand and understand why these things are happening. Not to hash out who is right or wrong.

 

[gjonesy]

Personally i think killing anyone because of their race and or occupation is inexcusable.

I keep seeing this word "inexcusable", nothing about this topic is in any way, shape or form excusable. Civil disobedience, violence, death, destuction of property no matter the cause or how righteous someone believes it is within a civilized society. Thats inexcusable.

All lives matter!

 

[MarneMath]

Civil disobedience is inexcusable? So you're telling me that Rosa Parks action to sit in the seat of her choice is inexcusable? Why?

 

[Tobias Funke]

People can certainly see both sides and reject one and ascribe to the other. But that's part of the problem.

Why is it a problem to weigh both sides and come down in favor of one? I literally don't even know how you can think that's a problem. It's all well and good to say that we should try to find a common ground (and yes, not murdering police officers is definitely part of it), but it doesn't have to be in the middle due to the both sides are just as bad fallacy (it also didn't seem to be much of a concern to many of the posters here until police were getting shot...)

I'm not interested in hashing out who's right and wrong, since I think there's enough information out there for people to decide that themselves. I just wanted to say that suggesting that not being neutral--in regards to the big picture of police/courts and race relations--is somehow a problem is at best condescending and at worst a common deflection tactic. Of course hardly anyone is neutral when it comes to specific incidents like the recent attacks against police, but I think that goes without saying.

 

[gjonesy]

Civil disobedience is inexcusable? So you're telling me that Rosa Parks action to sit in the seat of her choice is inexcusable? Why?

Thats a far cry from what i was talking about, i wouldn't even call that civil disobedience, blocking an amublance so it can't take people to the hospital is what i was referring to. Hostile actions toward innocent people no matter if its none violent if it disturbs the peace cause tention and intimidation. Its flat out wrong.

This is not the hight of the civil rights movement.

 

[gjonesy]

Of course hardly anyone is neutral when it comes to specific incidents like the recent attacks against police, but I think that goes without saying.

Not everyone is denouncing it. Some people think its well deserved. I have a problem with that. And you obviously have your own opinion as to what's the root of the problem here. Who is right. So my opinion is irrelevant to you any way.

I simply suggest that those peacemakers on both sides of the divde should not rush to judgement.

That being said no one who gets killed during this is going to come back. Dead is dead, living in the past and not learning from it. Will perpetuate this cycle of violence.

 

[MarneMath]

Thats a far cry from what i was talking about, i wouldn't even call that civil disobedience, blocking an amublance so it can't take people to the hospital is what i was referring to. Hostile actions toward innocent people no matter if its none violent if it disturbs the peace cause tention and intimidation. Its flat out wrong.

This is not the hight of the civil rights movement.

It's what you said though that civil disobedience is inexcusable. Now you're saying that civil disobedience that is hostile towards innocent people is inexcusable. So does that imply that some civil disobedience in your book is, in fact, excusable?

 

[gjonesy]

civil disobedience in your book is, in fact, excusable?

You obviously want to argue about this, and I am not backing away from my statement. Lawful protest of today (2016) that causes no harm and is in order, I WOULDN'T EVEN CALL IT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!

If its breaking the law and causing harm then it is inexcusable, in my opinion.

 

[MarneMath]

So to clarify, a lawful protest is fine, since you don't call it civil disobedience?

 

[gjonesy]

So to clarify, a lawful protest is fine, since you don't call it civil disobedience?

If it doesn't cause harm, if brings attention to a problem in our society without being inflammatory or hate speech. There is a gray area i believe exist. And that's the area that will finally at some point prevail. I am very confident in that.

 

[collinsmark]

We should probably nail down our definition of civil disobedience to avoid semantic misunderstandings.

Civil disobedience can be non-violent, peaceful and an effective tool in peaceful protests. But it is usually, technically illegal all the same.

A good example is Rosa Parks' refusal to sit in the back of the bus per the then segregation laws. That's a textbook case of civil disobedience. Her actions were technically illegal. But they're nothing that I would call immoral or unethical by any means.

 

[gjonesy]

We should probably nail down our definition of civil disobedience to avoid semantic misunderstandings.

I agree, it is semantics, but for lack of any better terms, the type of civil disobedience i have been talking about has made the resent news all over the country. I wouldn't even classify it as non-violent when people are chanting about killing cops. Or blocking streets and threating people, blocking emergency services, intimidating the population at large.

Most cops and pulic officials (in 2016) wouldn't call an assembly of people that caused no disruption and in general voicing of opinion without hateful rhetoric civil disobedience either. They blocked summit ave in st. Paul for 11 days before protesters were asked to move. And they were only asked to move to the side walks.

Staging a silent sit in is much different then doing something that potentially harms an innocent person. But both are called the same.

 

[mheslep]

That's such a misleading omission of single quotation marks that it's a flat out lie.

About the Sharpton quote from 1992 being misquoted by the author, after watching the video I think that you are ... right.

 

[mheslep]

No, when the quote is put in context I don't think it's particularly inflammatory and I certainly don't think he's "daring" people to shoot cops.

But even if someone thinks that, the way the quote was taken out of context for the purpose of ascribing certain ideas to Sharpton himself instead of people he was making fun of is inexcusable, and it really shows ...

Nothing, but what you want to put there. If one only reads the transcript and doesn't see the video then it is very easy to miss Sharpton's mockery of the Panthers. Good grief, you just inserted your own words inside the quote, I think by mistake, but I too could go off and claim to know your purpose, etc.

BTW, in the speech Sharpton uses mockery to draw distinction between himself and his marches, and the Panthers and their threats of violence, but at the same time he makes an equivalence between the two methods. In effect he says, they have their way and I have mine, dancing around granting legitimacy to murder.

 

[Astronuc]

Somewhat relevant to the frustration of folks and to the discussion:

When a 23-year-old autistic man carrying a toy truck wandered from a mental health center out into the street Monday, a worker there named Charles Kinsey went to retrieve him.

A few minutes later the autistic man was still sitting cross-legged blocking the roadway while playing with the small, rectangular white toy. And Kinsey was prone on the ground next to him — a bullet from an assault rifle fired by a police officer having struck his leg.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article90905442.html

Kinsey said when he asked the officer why he fired his weapon, the cop responded, “I don’t know.”

By Wednesday, North Miami police hadn’t offered much of an explanation. Assistant Police Chief Neal Cuevas said the investigation has been turned over to the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office.

Cuevas said officers received a 911 call indicating a man was in the street with a gun threatening to kill himself. They responded to Northeast 127th Street and about 14th Avenue and began barking orders. When the autistic man didn’t comply, an officer fired three times, striking Kinsey once in the leg. He was transported to Jackson Memorial Hospital.

I can understand LEOs are pumped with adrenaline when arriving at a scene where there may be a gunman, but what about identifying the situation and the potential perpetrator before shooting? I can imagine Kinsey was thoroughly confused, since he and his ward did not have guns.

It does appear that the systems needs changing in order to deal with mentally ill and the general public - before the fact, not after.

 

[gjonesy]

About the Sharpton quote from 1992 being misquoted by the author, after watching the video I think that you are ... right.

It was sarcasm, boardering on satire. But think of it this way. Say i did the same thing with the KKK, No matter how i said it. Sarcasm or mocking, or how ever i may mean it to be. How do you think people would veiw such speech? Some may write it off a satire, others who have been victimized or subjected to the crimes of that group probably wouldn't appreciate it. Id be worried what both groups may do to me, or some innocent victim to prove a point.

Think of it this way, would you poke a stick at a pit bull dog that already doesn't like you? Any crackpot within said group may take those words seriously.
It was insensitive and in poor taste.

 

[gjonesy]

Somewhat relevant to the frustration to the discussion:Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article90905442.html
I can understand LEOs are pumped with adrenaline when arriving at a scene where there may be a gunman, but what about identifying the situation and the potential perpetrator before shooting? I can imagine Kinsey was thoroughly confused, since he and his ward did not have guns.

It does appear that the systems needs changing in order to deal with mentally ill and the general public - before the fact, not after.

I find that equally deplorable. And i said before i will say so again. Some cops either need much better training (shoot don't shoot) training or they should be cut from the force.

Some police are just bad at the job and trigger happy. But that shouldn't reflect on law enforcement as a whole. The good does out weigh the bad. I still have some good friends in the department, 2 of my favorite Sgts are black. One of my best trainees is a black female officer. Id go through the door with them behind me any day into any situation.

 

[Astronuc]

I find that equally deplorable. And i said before i will say so again. Some cops either need much better training (shoot don't shoot) training or they should be cut from the force.

I modified my comment after you quoted it.

Beyond the police, I think the governments and the larger community need to do more to mitigate confrontations among the public and LEOs. I think police are put in situations by default, because of the lack of government services in areas like mental health.

Also, there is so much more that the churches should be doing, IMO. I know of various programs of civic groups, e.g., Rotary, and various churches, but more is needed.

 

[gjonesy]

Beyond the police, I think the governments and the larger community need to do m ore to mitigate confrontations

I agree that community policing can make a difference. I know that a well supervised police substation placed in the communities that are affected by high crime that works with citzen groups have in the past made progress. And the government could help by funding it. And that is a problem all the way around, local state and federal Barely have the funds to train and outfit the officers they have. Thats probably the reason training is poor in smaller departments. Training and using auxiliary deputies still cost money.
The average Corrections officer cost around 8000 bucks to train, they receive 4 weeks and some special teams reicive additional training SORT SWAT PERT. These officers are bare minimum. I imagine a well trained force with auxiliary back up and community groups support would cost a pretty penny. Politicians wouldn't appreciate the pay cut.

 

[gjonesy]

because of the lack of government services in areas like mental health.

Unfortunately also it seems prisons and jails are more commonly use to deal with mental health cases then competent mental health facilities and professionals

 

[gjonesy]

I am convinced that understanding this problem and just having a bit of compassion will go a long way to maybe figuring out a solution.

This is how the world should be.

https://gma.yahoo.com/good-samaritan-gives-shirt-off-back-homeless-man-013639440--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[mheslep]

I think police are put in situations by default, because of the lack of government services...

I'm still going with government is the problem, not the solution. In the 1940s, 1950s, early 1960s, well before the government got involved with various poverty programs, narcotics laws, and transfer payments, things were better, much better (poverty rate, incomes, murder rate, unwed pregnancy, etc). These factors good or were improving dramatically, despite the oppression of segregation and Jim Crow laws. Then came the War on Poverty.

 

[collinsmark]

I'm still going with government is the problem, not the solution. In the 1940s, 1950s, early 1960s, well before the government got involved with various poverty programs, narcotics laws, and transfer payments, things were better, much better (poverty rate, incomes, murder rate, unwed pregnancy, etc). These factors good or were improving dramatically, despite the oppression of segregation and Jim Crow laws. Then came the War on Poverty.

That article link in your post (about the War on Poverty) is very biased to the right. It even says in its home footnote, "Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news."

 

[mheslep]

That article link in your post (about the War on Poverty) is very biased to the right. It even says in its home footnote, "Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news."

Yes, Townhall the Web site is on the right, but Townhall did not write the article. The author, Thomas Sowell, is an academic and scholar.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=thomas+sowell&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,22
The particular metrics he cites about murder rate, income, unwed mothers, etc, are not debateable, though the causes that changed them post 1967 may be.

 

[MarneMath]

Stating Thomas Sowell wrote your the article doesn't help. He is an academic and scholar, but he's a rather well know conservative scholar. In fact, I would argue that this just further's collinsmark point.

 

[mheslep]

Stating Thomas Sowell wrote your the article doesn't help. He is an academic and scholar, but he's a rather well know conservative scholar. In fact, I would argue that this just further's collinsmark point.

I don't see any relevant point, other than that collinsmark doesn't like the article.

The author, as you say, is a scholar and an academic, and is writing on a topic on which he is widely published, making the source "reputable", the requirement of PF Guidelines for CE. Every author has a political viewpoint.

In any case, the data claimed in the article can be found elsewhere, which I'll dig up time permitting. It is relevant to understanding, I think, how America has arrived at where it is now with respect to the thread topic.

 

[MarneMath]

I don't see any relevant point, other than that collinsmark doesn't like the article.

The author, as you say, is a scholar and an academic, and is writing on a topic on which he is widely published, making the source "reputable", the requirement of PF Guidelines for CE. Every author has a political viewpoint.

In any case, the data claimed in the article can be found elsewhere, which I'll dig up time permitting. It is relevant to understanding, I think, how America has arrived at where it is now with respect to the thread topic.

I bring it because you made the point to say that even though the website is right the author is a scholar, thus somewhat implying that the article was written by some unbiased mind. Nevertheless, I felt the need to point out that even though the article was written by an academic, it was written by an academic who does have a social agenda. He clearly is bias and choses to view the data through a conservative lens. There's nothing wrong with that, but admitting his bias is an important aspect of having an honest and intelligent discussion. Unfortunately, the article you posted was written for an audience that already agrees with him, thus he doesn't take the time to articulate his thoughts more clearly. He simply says, "The War on Poverty" caused these issues. There exist other reasons why the reversal occurred, or why there was a decline in the first place. In a typical Sowell fashion, he dismisses the alternative and claims definitively that xyz have to be the cause because of some correlation. This particular article of his has very little substance and merit.

 

[collinsmark]

I don't see any relevant point, other than that collinsmark doesn't like the article.

Ha! (It's true I didn't like the article, and I didn't elaborate on why I didn't).

My post was more about critical thinking: Always question the source of your material. Check and evaluate the references you use if they form a basis for your claims.

I would be a little skeptical of any posted link from a website that had anything like the following in their home page's footnotes:

• So-and-so is the leading source in conservative news. (<== used in the referenced website.)
  
• So-and-so is a leading source in conservative news.
• So-and-so is the leading source in news.
• So-and-so is the only source in news.
  
• So-and-so is a leading source in left-leaning, liberal news.
• So-and-so is a leading source in UFO news.
• So-and-so is a leading source in news that the government does not want you to know.
• So-and-so is a leading source in new-age, transcendental, psychic news.
• So-and-so is a leading source in ultra right wing Nazi and White Power news.
• So-and-so is a leading source in Pokémon news.

That, and checking other articles in the website, it seemed to me that not only the linked article, but every article on that website was heavily right-leaning. Could the linked, referenced article be the rare Hope Diamond that was tossed into a huge pile of rubbish? Maybe, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[jim hardy]

Thomas Sowell's writing parallels much of Eric Hoffer 's. He quotes Hoffer a lot and uses much of the same logic.

before dismissing either of them one should familiarize with Hoffer, he's pretty well accepted as one of 20th century's better thinkers.

But he does advocate personal responsibility which i suppose lends him a perception of right-leaning.

If you have some time i recommend
"The True Believer", Hoffer's classic study of mass movements and mass psychology, it makes a lot of what goes on today understandable.
and "The Passionate State of Mind", a collection of aphorisms which if studied cannot but cause introspection and self discovery.

Sowell's intellect may or may not be a giant one, i wouldn't know, but he has the sense to emulate one.
Don't dismiss him lightly.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/the-rights-working-class-philosopher/

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2003/06/18/the_legacy_of_eric_hoffer

old jim

 

[gjonesy]

I really don't think ones political beliefs has much to do with why people are shedding blood in our streets.

Leaning right or left whether conservative or liberal makes no difference. But i do observe a trend in my own area. Violent crime is rising. And i personally believe its because police are doing less policing. These big media stories coupled with increased resistance to police presence has impeded progress. Made our police forces less effective, and is causing them to neglect doing what we need them to do.
I live in a small town by comparison to others and home invasions, robberies and shooting are in the local news daily. It use to not be this way. But i see why. They are scared to do their jobs and are hesitating.

I think history is going to judge this entire mess harshly. And the only element benifiting from all this is criminal enterprises.