Violence in Baltimore

Wow. Just wow. First of all, the Justice Department of the United States concluded that Brown was NOT running away, and not one witness actually testified to actually seeing him run away or had his hands in the air. In addition, the multitude of physical evidence proved that Brown was running towards Wilson. The case of Garner is less cut and dry as to the events that occurred, and he was being placed under arrest. The only similarity to the current event is perhaps the issue of medical treatment. Out of all of these events, the severed spine is the most damning and telling of the issue of brutality IF it is found to have occurred. We just don't have all the facts yet.
I am going to take the time to address your whole post, after I read it a couple more times. But I want to address this part right now, because it highlights the very issue we are talking about.

I referenced a white officer shooting and killing an unarmed black guy, and you went off on your Brown/Garner tangent- I wasn't referencing Brown or Garner. I was referencing Michael Scott, in South Carolina. The officer has been charged with murder.

Just let this sink in- you've been railing on and on how race and race-related brutality aren't the main issue here, and you picked the wrong two cases because there have been too many at this point for you to keep them straight.

 
Apologies, I guess my debating needs work. I was trying to convey that racism exists because people believe the grass is greener by providing examples, and posit that removing those things that initiate racist feelings would remove the racism itself. As in attacking the root of the problem. What do the members here see as the reason racism exits?

No need to apologize, we're all in this thread to hash out our thoughts on these tough and thorny issues. My critique wasn't directed towards your debating technique - it was aimed at your thought process.

The claim that racism would just vanish without affirmative action, or everyone being so hyper-focused on it, is itself a classic example of 'privilege'. I get that you are well-intentioned, and trying to seek a solution to the problem. And there is some truth to your position - matters are certainly exacerbated by those in the new orthodoxy trying to make literally everything either an instance of racism or about race.

But.

None of us exist in an a-historical bubble. We all have a past and come from a lineage. And for Americans, that past is riddled with every kind of racism. You might not think you owe your ancestors much or anything - but that simply isn't true. Your proposed solution is unfortunately a naive one. It imagines that there is a firewall between the past and present. And it sounds like, from your earlier post, that your experience of racism has been pretty, I don't know, shallow?

The main thing I was driving at is that your exact argument is one that is held up by those in the new orthodoxy as evidence that they are correct. I'm sure you arrived at the position yourself, and it certainly seems sensible at first glance. But you need to dig deeper man. Things aren't that simple. And if you go around saying that, feeling like you've proven your point, you are only undermining yourself and giving credence to the other side.

I'd suggest that you do some self-education on this topic. Wikipedia, as always, is a great first resource. At the very least, you will become aware of where the debate currently is, and common rebuttals to ideas that you might have.
 
I am going to take the time to address your whole post, after I read it a couple more times. But I want to address this part right now, because it highlights the very issue we are talking about.

I referenced a white officer shooting and killing an unarmed black guy, and you went off on your Brown/Garner tangent- I wasn't referencing Brown or Garner. I was referencing Michael Scott, in South Carolina. The officer has been charged with murder.

Just let this sink in- you've been railing on and on how race and race-related brutality aren't the main issue here, and you picked the wrong two cases because there have been too many at this point for you to keep them straight.

Considering that you did not specify which shooting, the confusion lays on your end I'm afraid. Communication involves the sender ensuring the message was received properly. The trial has not even started and you are condemning the officer? If his motives were racial then that will come out when the evidence is presented. You are basing your inflammatory statement on a video that only shows a portion of what occurred. I am not defending the officer. In fact, given that the South Carolina state law enforcement has charged him with murder, it appears to indicate that he may have done many things wrong. However, being charged with murder is not the same as being convicted of murder. Why is it automatically assumed there were racial motivations in the shooting? A cursory review of the available information does indicate in this case that 1) he did not have probable cause to pull the vehicle over and 2) there was insufficient cause for the use of deadly force. IF the shooting was racially motivated then it is likely that he would have been charged under a hate crime statue as well.

I didn't pick those two cases. You did. I responded to your vague accusation. I am sorry that I don't take news reports at face value and convict someone in the court of public opinion. I make the determination based on the available information, and my training and experience. I give the officer the same benefit of the doubt I gave and subject I was investigating for any crime. Your final statement is irrelevant as each use of deadly force is different based on the facts of the situation. Although I admit that keeping all of the misinformation and gross speculation is difficult to keep straight.

EDIT: I recognize that I am not perfect, nor am I an authority on everything. If I was ever mistaken during a criminal investigation or trial I quickly admitted as such, whether or not it damaged the overall case.
 
Disclaimer: This post is not directed specifically at ke4gde, usage of the word 'you' is intended to be the general plural.

Why is it automatically assumed there were racial motivations in the shooting?... IF the shooting was racially motivated then it is likely that he would have been charged under a hate crime statue as well.

So this gets at both my original post in this thread attacking the new orthodoxy, and my last two seemingly on the other side. Folks, if you don't like the current state of the race discussion, you need to help move it forward. To do that, you need to be up to speed on where it currently is.

I mentioned the equivocation that the new orthodox-ers use. We need to be able to spot it, and figure out what they mean. Claiming that the Scott case is an instance of racially motivated violence does not, most likely, mean that the police officer just hates blacks and took this opportunity to murder one. Rather, it is a claim about structural racism. It is a claim that the system itself promotes this type of behavior.

If we (non-orthodox-ers [I know - it's a silly, made up word]) are to have even a chance to win the debate, we need to speak the same language. Or at least understand it. I would submit that it is intentionally confusing and unclear. (Again with the 1984 reference - really, if you haven't read it, you should!) Don't let that be used against you - learn their language and beat them at their own game!
 
Disclaimer: This post is not directed specifically at ke4gde, usage of the word 'you' is intended to be the general plural.

So this gets at both my original post in this thread attacking the new orthodoxy, and my last two seemingly on the other side. Folks, if you don't like the current state of the race discussion, you need to help move it forward. To do that, you need to be up to speed on where it currently is.

I mentioned the equivocation that the new orthodox-ers use. We need to be able to spot it, and figure out what they mean. Claiming that the Scott case is an instance of racially motivated violence does not, most likely, mean that the police officer just hates blacks and took this opportunity to murder one. Rather, it is a claim about structural racism. It is a claim that the system itself promotes this type of behavior.

If we (non-orthodox-ers [I know - it's a silly, made up word]) are to have even a chance to win the debate, we need to speak the same language. Or at least understand it. I would submit that it is intentionally confusing and unclear. (Again with the 1984 reference - really, if you haven't read it, you should!) Don't let that be used against you - learn their language and beat them at their own game!
Thank you for the clarification. Correct me if I am wrong, but this goes to one of my original posts about this being an issue about law enforcement and the culture within. Not necessarily about focusing on one minority or another, but about how it treats all citizens. Many agencies are still stuck in the old guard mentality of policing (ie pay at the pump, extra justice, ect..) where everyone is automatically assumed to be a dirtbag. That of course doesn't mean every cop is that way, but sometimes that attitude infects the command structure and those who have been in a while into the lower levels.
 
If we (non-orthodox-ers [I know - it's a silly, made up word]) are to have even a chance to win the debate, we need to speak the same language. Or at least understand it. I would submit that it is intentionally confusing and unclear. (Again with the 1984 reference - really, if you haven't read it, you should!) Don't let that be used against you - learn their language and beat them at their own game!

Who again would I be engaging with these new terms and understanding of the current situation? Other college educated individuals or can I just head down to my local ghetto?
 
Thank you for the clarification. Correct me if I am wrong, but this goes to one of my original posts about this being an issue about law enforcement and the culture within. Not necessarily about focusing on one minority or another, but about how it treats all citizens. Many agencies are still stuck in the old guard mentality of policing (ie pay at the pump, extra justice, ect..) where everyone is automatically assumed to be a dirtbag. That of course doesn't mean every cop is that way, but sometimes that attitude infects the command structure and those who have been in a while into the lower levels.

I would argue that there is a racial aspect to many enforcement strategies. While they may not be overt, they are there and are underlying. [insert black killed by police] may not have been killed because the cop was a racist, but the system that put both the cop and the victim/perp there in first place has structural issues at many levels.
 
@Florida173

Well, here for starters.

After that, anywhere else you find someone using these terms in the first place. But if you'd rather be a participant in the race to the bottom, be my guest.

edit: wording
 
Last edited:
I would argue that there is a racial aspect to many enforcement strategies. While they may not be overt, they are there and are underlying. [insert black killed by police] may not have been killed because the cop was a racist, but the system that put both the cop and the victim/perp there in first place has structural issues at many levels.
Ok, I can see that as being very probable. I will concede that there may be a racial aspect in some jurisdictions. Which should be stomped out if the basis of the strategy is to harass or infringe the citizenry in that area. Race should never be a single or primary enforcement strategy, but should be taken into the totality of the situation and only used as an identifier. As in a local gang is suspected of a specific type of crime in an area. In this example most gangs are racially segregated and the race is used to distinguish between other gangs of different races. Forgive me if that sounds negative, as it is difficult to articulate what I mean.
 
I've done a little searching online, and a little contemplating. White privilege is something that you never heard of when it came to the civil rights fight in the 1960's. Racism was the problem, and that's what MLK, Malcolm X, et al addressed in leading their movements and organizations. Everyone and their brother has read and heard the audio for King's "I Have a Dream" speech at least once in their lives, and how he called for blacks to be recognized by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Fast forward a couple of generations. The civil rights fighters of both colors are now either grandparents or deceased. There is still racism in America, but a larger number of white people were raised to take King's words to heart, and take them to heart they did. Gen X gave birth to the millennials, and now you have a generation of Caucasians that legitimately do not understand why the way they were raised is still wrong, even though they do everything right when it comes to respecting others.

Any massive changes that King would hope to have wrought would only now be starting to become apparent. Changing the hearts and minds of a generation is not something that takes a year or two. The entry-level and middle men of King's time were the senior managers and CEO's of the 80's and 90's, and to some extent the first decade of the new millennium. Those who took his words to heart were only just getting their feet in the door, graduating college, and establishing themselves at that time.

However, to the black community, after 100+ years of getting shit on, that wasn't quick enough. They wanted the changes NOW!!! AA was created so that the racists still in charge could not subvert the changes that the activists of the time have made. Rather than teach successive generations that things were changing, that it would be slow, and that patience was needed, they were taught that AA was their right, and that without it they will never ascend.

Humans, by their nature, are impatient and violent. Centuries of warfare bear out this statement. These most recent generations in particular are notorious for instant gratification as opposed to learning to eat soup with a knife. What a white man of the 80's (or certain regions of the US today, like ID) would say is typical of blacks because blacks are dumb fucks, a white man of today is not going to understand because they were raised the way they should have been raised fifty years ago, while the black community ran out of patience and eventually came to unofficially declare war on those who aren't black. Witness the one reporter for the Guardian who, when covering day one of the riots, tweeted about how black business owners queued up to defend black businesses but pointed out explicitly which ones were run by the Chinese. Did the Chinese make them sit at the back of the bus? Was George Wallace from Beijing? If anything, the Chinese got a pretty raw fucking deal themselves in the race history of the nation, so why send the mob to their businesses to burn it out?

To someone who was brought up from the cradle to believe that all men are truly equal, affirmative action will look unnecessary and racist in the literal definition of the word. To someone who was taught that all the white man will do is lie, even the sincere white man is nothing but a bag of flesh that deserves to be eradicated from the face of the planet. Generational failure has ensured that King's efforts will never truly come to pass.
 
...snip...
Alright, I am not real sure where your animosity is coming from here, and I am not real concerned to find out. Just take a breath.

  • What was inflammatory about me saying a police officer from South Carolina shot an unarmed black man and was charged with murder? Did you mean the original comment about police shooting unarmed black people? I never commented on the innocence or guilt of anyone. Never condemned anyone. Never convicted anyone in a court of anything.
  • After your cursory review of the information, which you readily admit wasn't great- wouldn't it be fair to say that Michael Scott was pulled over for no good reason and then shot dead illegally? So, what makes you so mad about me saying, "A white cop pulled over a black guy illegally and then shot him illegally, and using the race issue in America I feel exists as a basis, I feel this could be a motivation and is relevant to the conversation we are having."
  • There is really no way for me to retort to your contention that a media bias is the influencing factor in available information about all things; I just want to point out that this gives you the freedom to both use and discard ALL information available to everyone, except cases that you're directly involved in.
 
Alright, I am not real sure where your animosity is coming from here, and I am not real concerned to find out. Just take a breath.

  • What was inflammatory about me saying a police officer from South Carolina shot an unarmed black man and was charged with murder? Did you mean the original comment about police shooting unarmed black people? I never commented on the innocence or guilt of anyone. Never condemned anyone. Never convicted anyone in a court of anything.
  • After your cursory review of the information, which you readily admit wasn't great- wouldn't it be fair to say that Michael Scott was pulled over for no good reason and then shot dead illegally? So, what makes you so mad about me saying, "A white cop pulled over a black guy illegally and then shot him illegally, and using the race issue in America I feel exists as a basis, I feel this could be a motivation and is relevant to the conversation we are having."
  • There is really no way for me to retort to your contention that a media bias is the influencing factor in available information about all things; I just want to point out that this gives you the freedom to both use and discard ALL information available to everyone, except cases that you're directly involved in.
There is no animosity. I am responding in the same tone as you did. However, we can both take a step back.

Your original statement:
Well, I don't really know, and I am ok with saying I am neither a lawyer nor a civil rights expert. Was it? Is that story relevant to a guy ending up with a severed spine, or being choked to death, or being shot while running away?
Forgive me, but I don't see a reference to that specific case. In the early days of reporting, the Brown shooting was alleged to have occurred as he was running away. Hence my original response. The tone of that response was generated from the statement occurred with the statement that :
Just let this sink in- you've been railing on and on how race and race-related brutality aren't the main issue here, and you picked the wrong two cases because there have been too many at this point for you to keep them straight.
How was that supposed to be received? Too many cases to keep straight as in cops are on a murderous rampage of black folk?

It would absolutely not be fair to say that Scott was pulled over for no good reason, or was killed illegally. What were the subject factors of the encounter? Did the subject attempt to go for the taser or handgun? Were other weapons found at the scene? What officer safety factors can the officer articulate to justify the use of deadly force? These are all legal reasons for the justifiable use of deadly force. We don't know with certainty yet. Preliminary information can be wrong or distorted. Your statement was a condemnation of someone before he was convicted. Which, in the spirit of the discussion, leads to overreaction and misinformation being propagated.

Just because information released in the media is available to everyone it does not make it accurate. If you should point anything out, it is that I don't let others think for me. I gather data and come to logical conclusions based on available information. Which is what I have done here. I rarely comment in these forums unless I can provide input from a perspective of someone directly familiar with the subject based on training and experience. Which I feel I am able to do on this topic. Now, we can continue to attempt to out snark each other, or we can return to topic, or just about face and go our ways.
 
I've done a little searching online, and a little contemplating. White privilege is something that you never heard of when it came to the civil rights fight in the 1960's. Racism was the problem, and that's what MLK, Malcolm X, et al addressed in leading their movements and organizations. Everyone and their brother has read and heard the audio for King's "I Have a Dream" speech at least once in their lives, and how he called for blacks to be recognized by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Fast forward a couple of generations. The civil rights fighters of both colors are now either grandparents or deceased. There is still racism in America, but a larger number of white people were raised to take King's words to heart, and take them to heart they did. Gen X gave birth to the millennials, and now you have a generation of Caucasians that legitimately do not understand why the way they were raised is still wrong, even though they do everything right when it comes to respecting others.

Any massive changes that King would hope to have wrought would only now be starting to become apparent. Changing the hearts and minds of a generation is not something that takes a year or two. The entry-level and middle men of King's time were the senior managers and CEO's of the 80's and 90's, and to some extent the first decade of the new millennium. Those who took his words to heart were only just getting their feet in the door, graduating college, and establishing themselves at that time.

However, to the black community, after 100+ years of getting shit on, that wasn't quick enough. They wanted the changes NOW!!! AA was created so that the racists still in charge could not subvert the changes that the activists of the time have made. Rather than teach successive generations that things were changing, that it would be slow, and that patience was needed, they were taught that AA was their right, and that without it they will never ascend.

Humans, by their nature, are impatient and violent. Centuries of warfare bear out this statement. These most recent generations in particular are notorious for instant gratification as opposed to learning to eat soup with a knife. What a white man of the 80's (or certain regions of the US today, like ID) would say is typical of blacks because blacks are dumb fucks, a white man of today is not going to understand because they were raised the way they should have been raised fifty years ago, while the black community ran out of patience and eventually came to unofficially declare war on those who aren't black. Witness the one reporter for the Guardian who, when covering day one of the riots, tweeted about how black business owners queued up to defend black businesses but pointed out explicitly which ones were run by the Chinese. Did the Chinese make them sit at the back of the bus? Was George Wallace from Beijing? If anything, the Chinese got a pretty raw fucking deal themselves in the race history of the nation, so why send the mob to their businesses to burn it out?

To someone who was brought up from the cradle to believe that all men are truly equal, affirmative action will look unnecessary and racist in the literal definition of the word. To someone who was taught that all the white man will do is lie, even the sincere white man is nothing but a bag of flesh that deserves to be eradicated from the face of the planet. Generational failure has ensured that King's efforts will never truly come to pass.

You ma'am are the generation gap whisperer
 
@ke4gde , I will be honest, it seems like you're reading my posts long enough to just hit reply, real fast.

My first question, you completely ignored. You defended the fact that you were talking about Brown, and not Scott, but I am not taking you to task because you were wrong. I am highlighting the fact that there are too many instances of white police officers being in some way responsible for the death unarmed minorities to keep them all straight this year- and it's May.

My second quip was meant to be received exactly as it was typed. You are an avid follower and have experience in police brutality cases, and even you have too much on your plate right now to address them all correctly. Anything more than that is what you inferred, and you reinforced that fact here.
How was that supposed to be received? Too many cases to keep straight as in cops are on a murderous rampage of black folk?
No, I meant exactly what I typed the first time, and then re-explained above. The "murderous rampage of black folk" is you putting your personal spin on a national issue, like the damn biased news you so despise. Don't put words in my mouth.

As for Scott's pull over and subsequent murder- I was using your words. Sorry if I paraphrased, but you said of the Scott case:
A cursory review of the available information does indicate in this case that 1) he did not have probable cause to pull the vehicle over and 2) there was insufficient cause for the use of deadly force. IF the shooting was racially motivated then it is likely that he would have been charged under a hate crime statue as well.
No probable cause to pull Scott over, and insufficient cause for use of deadly force. Do you not feel that way now? Are you saying that the semantic difference of "pulled over illegally" and "the officer did not have probable cause to pull over the vehicle" and "killed illegally" and "insufficient cause for use of deadly force" make me someone that condemns police officers and holds them in the court of public opinion?

Im good with whatever you want to do as far as continuing the conversation.
 
I know your post is sarcasm, but it gets at a good point. We are so divided here in the states that if you say something different than the views of others you are immediately a socialist/communist/progressive windbag, or the fascist/neocon/racist. However there is a lot of gray in the world. Many of us fall somewhere in the middle on many of these issues. I personally hate that there are people destroying their communities. I also hate that there is video of a cop shooting an unarmed black teen in the back as he runs away. I don't think there are easy solutions to the problems that face America today, but I think writing things off as not problems because you can't see them is one of our biggest issues. I have been trying to point that out, but I am neither the smartest, nor the most articulate. I know my writing style can come across as smug or accusatory, but I have been here long enough that long time members should know that, and y'all obviously don't mind as I was regularly elected to site leadership:) It is good to have a dialogue, and I am a member of this site for topics like this that go on for pages and pages. They often get very interesting.

Which is why you're comfortable SJW'ing and trying to then flip my post about my experience about racism (SURPRISE, IF YOU READ IT I RECEIVED IT HEAVILY FROM 0-17y/o) around as though it bolsters your argument.

I'm laughing that you flat out ignored B&S coming off the cerebral top rope.


Ignore that which does not support your argument, attack the individuals, twist statements to fit the narrative. Where have I seen this before?
 
I don't think those statistics say what you think they do. While yes 42% of the total reported deaths by police were white, the population of whites is 77% of the population. The statistics say that although African American Males account for 6-8% of the US population, they account for 35% of the people killed by police. So, speaking on a true percentage basis, you are more likely to be killed if you are young black man than if you are a young white man.
However, white males tend to interact with the cops at a lower rate (percentage wise) than black males; so a white male stands a greater chance of dying if he interacts with the police.






see stats can be made to mean anything.
Do those white lives matter?
 
Which is why you're comfortable SJW'ing and trying to then flip my post about my experience about racism (SURPRISE, IF YOU READ IT I RECEIVED IT HEAVILY FROM 0-17y/o) around as though it bolsters your argument.

I'm laughing that you flat out ignored B&S coming off the cerebral top rope.


Ignore that which does not support your argument, attack the individuals, twist statements to fit the narrative. Where have I seen this before?

Your post did bolster my position because you literally "pffft" the idea of privelege due to personal experience, which makes it seem like you don't understand what privilege is, and scoff at the idea of something you don't understand. Privilege in the sense we are discussing does not involve individuals. So individual experience has little bearing on the discussion.

I don't get what you are saying referencing B&S's posts, I didn't have anything to engage him about. I am not a social justice warrior. I have made my points clear. I think I have clearly addressed anything that has been purported towards me. If I didn't understand @Board and Seize's posts then maybe I'm not smart enough to get what he is saying, but I didn't get him attacking my position off the cerebral top rope, that is for sure.

I haven't twisted anything to support any narrative, as I don't have any narrative. I have expressed what I see are problems with our country today.
 
Back
Top