Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues

[DieselDaisy 17,699]

13 hours ago, soon said:

Fascinating. One doesnt see timocracy mentioned much. 

All great points. Thats why we call Bernie the democratic wing of the democratic party.

Should point out that enfranchisement state-by-state commenced 1792 in line with Jeffersonian-Jacksonian democracy, and that by 1856 ''near'' universal white male suffrage had been achieved - ''near'', as tax-paying requirements remained in five states. This was fairly impressive and slightly in advance of Great Britain for instance who only disenfranchised a large significant segment of her working classes in 1867. Situation in United States of non-whites (including freed slaves and Native Americans) and women fluctuated state-by-state given historic context and geo-political complexion of state - it is all state-by-state and creates a complicated and ever shifting mosaic of voting eligibility until the following Amendments: 15th (1870), abolishing distinction of race/religion/servitude*; 19th (1920), female suffrage; 24th (1964), tax-assessment abolished; 26th (1971), 18 years old eligibility.

*Circumnavigated in south by Jim Crow laws (e.g. literacy and ''morality'' tests), electoral fraud and general voter intimidation until the civil rights era Voting Rights Act, 1965. 

[Blackstar 8,718]

 

[Ace Nova 3,735]

On 9/8/2020 at 6:34 PM, Blackstar said:

 

Tragic.  As usual I will wait for all the facts to come out before forming a conclusion but if the boy was shot as an "unarmed autistic 13 year old" while "running away" from the police, during a mental breakdown...it's beyond disgusting. 

And regardless of what happens with this case that police department should be mandated to immediately put a "mental health unit" in place within their department.  (I would mandate such units be implemented everywhere but that obviously takes time.  Start with the police departments that have had issues with handling "mental health crisis'" in the past and go from there, imo).

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Ace Nova

[Ace Nova 3,735]

If this doesn't bring a smile to your face...

 

[Ace Nova 3,735]

 

[SoulMonster 7,660]

2 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

If this doesn't bring a smile to your face...

Why should that bring a sdmile to my face? The only positive was some people helping a police man out. The rest was just sickening violence.

[Ace Nova 3,735]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Why should that bring a sdmile to my face? The only positive was some people helping a police man out. The rest was just sickening violence.

I guess you could smile then frown? 

[SoulMonster 7,660]

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I guess you could smile then frown? 

Pretty much what I did  That smile got turned upside down pretty quick!

[MillionsOfSpiders 9,986]

19 hours ago, Blackstar said:

 

Absolutely sickening. What kind of person must you be to be able to shoot a child having a mental breakdown? 

[Silverburst80 1,257]

Reminds me of the time the cops hunted down a mentally ill man who was camping in the mountains and shot him to death in Albaquerque....his back was turned ( have we seen this before?) and they also had police dogs that could have handled the situation. 

[SoulMonster 7,660]

More than 93 % of all Black Lives Matter protests in the USA have been peaceful:

"In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations, meanwhile, have been limited to fewer than 220 locations — under 10% of the areas that experienced peaceful protests."
https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ACLED_USDataReview_Sum2020_SeptWebPDF.pdf

Despite this, "one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property".

Hmm...how can this be? How can people have such an erroneous perception of the movement? Can it be due to people deliberately focusing on the rare examples of violence and destruction to undermine the BLM movement because they don't agree with racial equality?

[Ace Nova 3,735]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

More than 93 % of all Black Lives Matter protests in the USA have been peaceful:

"In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations, meanwhile, have been limited to fewer than 220 locations — under 10% of the areas that experienced peaceful protests."
https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ACLED_USDataReview_Sum2020_SeptWebPDF.pdf

Despite this, "one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property".

Hmm...how can this be? How can people have such an erroneous perception of the movement? Can it be due to people deliberately focusing on the rare examples of violence and destruction to undermine the BLM movement because they don't agree with racial equality?

You mean like how 99.9999% of police encounters are safe and non violent? Just like people deliberately focusing on the on even rarer occurrence of police violence? To undermine the police in the US for political gain because they know that most people have no idea what the facts and true statistics are.

If you think 7% is a rare occurrence, what is 0.0001%?

Amazing how that works both ways, huh?  

[SoulMonster 7,660]

Just now, Ace Nova said:

You mean like how 99.9999% of police encounters are safe and non violent? Just like people deliberately focusing on the on even rarer occurrence of police violence? To undermine the police in the US for political gain because they know that most people have no idea what the facts and true statistics are.

If you think 7% is a rare occurrence, what is 0.0001%?

Amazing how that works both ways, huh?  

But no one is denying that the majority of police encounters are safe . It is just that with law enforcement you expect there to be zero examples of officers shooting people in the back, and it is even more worrisome when these people tend to be black.

As for mass movements of people you would expect there to be some looting and vandalizations. That's par for the course when unruly masses of people rise up. 

[SoulMonster 7,660]

And further to my point: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/

We can't just swipe away police killings by pointing to the fact that the majority of police encounters are non-violent. That is doing the police force a disservice. And its victims.

[Ace Nova 3,735]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

As for mass movements of people you would expect there to be some looting and vandalizations. That's par for the course when unruly masses of people rise up. 

How about people getting killed?

Are you aware that you are (at least) 100x more likely to get killed at a BLM/Antifa vs. Militia protest/riot than you are by police?  (And it's likely more than "100x more likely" but I just don't feel like doing the math now  )

[SoulMonster 7,660]

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Are you aware that you are (at least) 100x more likely to get killed at a BLM/Antifa vs. Militia protest/riot than you are by police?

Are you arguing that since you are more likely to be killed during a mass protest like BLM than at the hands of the police, the police are not to be critisized? Is that how low you have set the bar for the police who are supposed to protect us, supposed to be trained in non-violent conflict resolution, and is an accountable arm of the government? 

[Ace Nova 3,735]

20 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Are you arguing that since you are more likely to be killed during a mass protest like BLM than at the hands of the police, the police are not to be critisized? Is that how low you have set the bar for the police who are supposed to protect us, supposed to be trained in non-violent conflict resolution, and is an accountable arm of the government? 

No.  I'm saying it's a two-way street.  There are "bad people" in the U.S. that commit violent (sometimes deadly) acts.  To defend them (all) as being "innocent" victims is just ignoring reality. 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Ace Nova

[Ace Nova 3,735]

29 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

And further to my point: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/

We can't just swipe away police killings by pointing to the fact that the majority of police encounters are non-violent. That is doing the police force a disservice. And its victims.

Police officers in the U.S. are shot, killed and injured at much higher rates than any other country.

https://nleomf.org/facts-figures/law-enforcement-facts

 

It's correlated to a "culture of violence" (among a very small % of the population that tends to commit the vast majority of violent acts)  more than anything else... and the statistics support it.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Ace Nova

[Ace Nova 3,735]

@SoulMonster Sometimes it can be difficult to understand the "other side of it"....take a look at this....

 

[SoulMonster 7,660]

23 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

There are "bad people" in the U.S. that commit violent (sometimes deadly) acts.  To defend them (all) as being "innocent" victims is just ignoring reality. 

No one is denying that many of the people shot by the police are criminals and might have done something bad immediately prior to being shot by the police. What we are saying that this is irrelevant, the police killings are still not justified.

[SoulMonster 7,660]

22 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Police officers in the U.S. are shot, killed and injured at much higher rates than any other country.

https://nleomf.org/facts-figures/law-enforcement-facts

It's correlated to a "culture of violence" (among a very small % of the population that tends to commit the vast majority of violent acts)  more than anything else... and the statistics support it.

And as I have said before, one of the reasons why you have a "culture of violence" is the fact that the police are so quick to shoot, which results in people arming themselves and being quicker to fire at the police, too. This is a two-way street, and the militarization of your police is part of the problem.

This "culture of violence" is also evident in people defending the police when they shoot people in the back and people cheer civilians who use violence on others, even when helping the police. You are a fucked up society.

[Ace Nova 3,735]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

No one is denying that many of the people shot by the police are criminals and might have done something bad immediately prior to being shot by the police. What we are saying that this is irrelevant, the police killings are still not justified.

The few you see on social media may not be.  But the majority of police shootings in the U.S. are likely justified....you just don't see them on social media because the cops are probably getting shot at or assaulted first. 

[SoulMonster 7,660]

Just now, Ace Nova said:

The few you see on social media may not be.  But the majority of police shootings in the U.S. are likely justified....you just don't see them on social media because the cops are probably getting shot at or assaulted first. 

The majority of police shootings everywhere are likely justified in the sense that it is the last resort to protect the officers or bystanders. Bu fact still remain that the police in USA more frequently commit unjustified killings (a result of bad police) and in general shoot more (a result of bad society).

[Ace Nova 3,735]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

And as I have said before, one of the reasons why you have a "culture of violence" is the fact that the police are so quick to shoot, which results in people arming themselves and being quicker to fire at the police, too. This is a two-way street, and the militarization of your police is part of the problem.

This "culture of violence" is also evident in people defending the police when they shoot people in the back and people cheer civilians who use violence on others, even when helping the police. You are a fucked up society.

No...lol.

Most of the "violent people" in the U.S. are likely drug dealers, armed robbers, gang members,  murderers, rapists, etc that are on the streets and they have guns because they commit crimes with their guns....not because they are "scared to be shot by police". Smh.

[SoulMonster 7,660]

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

No...lol.

Most of the "violent people" in the U.S. are likely drug dealers, armed robbers, gang members,  murderers, rapists, etc that are on the streets and they have guns because they commit crimes with their guns....not because they are "scared to be shot by police". Smh.

I said "one of the reasons"....