"Blue Lives Matter"

[Greta]

Exactly how much force is required for somebody without a gun? Why the heck are our cops so heavily armed anyway?

That article was truly horrifying.

[Tanaqui]

it doesn't sound to me like they are saying give equal weight. They qualify the lives that matter with the term black. They did not say black lives matter too. They just said black lives matter, as if other lives don't. If I am looking at all my children but then point only one out and say that one is so smart, it sounds as if I am saying the others are not or at least are less intelligent. It does not sound like equality at all.

 

If somebody came up to you and said "Wow, your daughter is really stupid" and you said "No, she's not, she's plenty smart", would your other children really think you'd called the rest of them stupid?

 

That's the situation here. Our society doesn't treat some lives as carefully as others. You really have to be stretching to think "black lives matter" implicitly means "and others don't".

[LucyStoner]

it doesn't sound to me like they are saying give equal weight. They qualify the lives that matter with the term black. They did not say black lives matter too. They just said black lives matter, as if other lives don't. If I am looking at all my children but then point only one out and say that one is so smart, it sounds as if I am saying the others are not or at least are less intelligent. It does not sound like equality at all.

That is a really simplistic way to look at it.

 

When suffragettes marched carrying signs "Votes for Women", why didn't they also carry signs that said "Votes for Women and Men"? Because men already had the right to vote.

 

That you and I both feel we can rely on the police to help us and keep us safe is a clear sign that white lives already matter to the police. I can drive a car with expired tabs (mom had just died, forgot to put them on), no current insurance card in the car and having left my wallet and license at home and get waved on without even a ticket. My black family and friends really don't receive that degree of trust from the vast majority of LEO or just any authority figures they come into contact with. I have witnessed this up close and personal throughout my life, having grown up with a white face and a black brother.

 

When have we ever heard of an unarmed white 12 year old kid getting gunned down by the police? I sure haven't. if it was just an honest mistake or the equivalent force was used across racial lines, we wouldn't see these heavily tilted data sets.

Edited May 1, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Miss Peregrine]

Nm

Edited May 1, 2016 by Miss Peregrine

[JoJosMom]

This is a thing? Really? There is a spate?

 

Yes.  This is "a thing," as you say.  And these statistics are very easy to find.

[JoJosMom]

The victim *should* have a presumption of innocence. That's how our system is supposed to work. Factually speaking, most (or maybe even all) of the cases that BLM has championed were people who were unarmed. Most of them were over crimes that were extremely minor - traffic violations, jaywalking, etc. or nonexistent - they were stopped just because, just because the officer had a hunch. And yet, even with that knowledge, the victims are still blamed, the officers' weak defense is treated as word. There usually aren't even trials because grand juries refuse to prosecute. It's a mockery.

 

No.  The presumption of innocence is a very specific standard that applies only in a court of law.  Officers must deal with reasonable cause, which is a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

 

As for the second part - the "only over crimes that were extremely minor" - you happily ignore all of the conduct that followed.  You pretend that  some poor innocent little child was walking to Bible study when some mean, nasty racist police officer shot him.   Ummm, no.  It was a bit more complex than that.

[Tanaqui]

As for the second part - the "only over crimes that were extremely minor" - you happily ignore all of the conduct that followed. You pretend that  some poor innocent little child was walking to Bible study when some mean, nasty racist police officer shot him.  Ummm, no. It was a bit more complex than that.

 

You mean Tamir Rice? He didn't have any chance for ANY conduct before he was shot. The officers drove up and shot him in two seconds flat. Kid didn't even have time to put his hands up. And then his sister was arrested for trying to get to her brother. Exactly what's so complex about this?

 

Or how about Eric Garner? Choked to death while screaming for help. Exactly what "conduct" justifies this?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No.  The presumption of innocence is a very specific standard that applies only in a court of law.  Officers must deal with reasonable cause, which is a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

 

As for the second part - the "only over crimes that were extremely minor" - you happily ignore all of the conduct that followed.  You pretend that  some poor innocent little child was walking to Bible study when some mean, nasty racist police officer shot him.   Ummm, no.  It was a bit more complex than that.

 

It is almost like we expect the police to be well trained and responsible.

 

And pray tell, do tell me what justification there is for abuse at the hands of the police, such as the "rough ride" Freddie Gray received?  Where is the complexity there?

 

Or in the shooting of Walter Scott in SC?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes.  This is "a thing," as you say.  And these statistics are very easy to find.

 

As a stats geek, I get so excited when someone gives me a links to statistics.  I was truly expecting a link showing how many ambush shootings that have killed police officers, and yet I didn't find that at your link.

 

I can think of a couple, at least two of which were due to terrorists (ISIS sympathizer in one and some right wing/sovereign citizen types in the other).  While I think even one is too many, I am struggling to see where this is a "thing" that can be traced back to Black Lives Matter.

 

[Carrie12345]

it doesn't sound to me like they are saying give equal weight. They qualify the lives that matter with the term black. They did not say black lives matter too. They just said black lives matter, as if other lives don't. If I am looking at all my children but then point only one out and say that one is so smart, it sounds as if I am saying the others are not or at least are less intelligent. It does not sound like equality at all.

 

I'm curious about your thought process here.  Is it your belief that the supporters of BLM truly feel that black lives matter more than those of others?  That black people want elevated status? That they're looking to reign over white people?

 

I'm trying to understand whether your issue is with the purpose or the name, itself.

[poppy]

Yes.  This is "a thing," as you say.  And these statistics are very easy to find.

 

That is not statistics. It is a memorial page, currently featuring an officer killed in a car crash.  Which is very sad - he looks so young. But, it really has nothing at all to do with the conversion here.

[poppy]

I think the slogan "Black Lives Matter" is rude. I think it says only black lives matter. And it was in response to a situation where it appears the police officer was defending himself. Blue Lives Matter too seems to me to be a very appropriate response. I do not think a police officer should have to allow himself to be killed just because the assailant is black. I agree that police officers make mistakes, but usually, they are doing the right thing. And it is way way more common for an officer to end up dead than for him/her to make a mistake and kill someone else. The police put their lives on the line every day to protect us. Yes, some do the wrong thing. Most do not. Most criminals do the wrong thing. No one is more important based on their race alone. 

 

You've gone way further than I've ever seen Blue Lives Matter go......but I think that subtext is always there. 

[Slojo]

Just realized why I'm probably seeing Blue Lives Matter more this week.  Tamir Rice's family recently had a settlement regarding his death.  

 

No matter how you feel about Black Lives Matter, that case is just terrible. Emotionally unstable officer shots a child with a fake gun. No medical help called in a timely manner. Dead 12 year old.  Poor child.

 

Blue lives matter incredibly, and absolutely. With that said, this is where the "Blue Lives Matter" movement falls down for me. It is often touted, not just after police have been slain in the line of duty, but after situations like this. Keep it focused on the blue lives, and not in causing more pain to a family whose kid was wrongfully murdered. What harm has Tamir Rice caused to any police officer - absolutely none. 

 

I think the slogan "Black Lives Matter" is rude. I think it says only black lives matter. And it was in response to a situation where it appears the police officer was defending himself. Blue Lives Matter too seems to me to be a very appropriate response. I do not think a police officer should have to allow himself to be killed just because the assailant is black. I agree that police officers make mistakes, but usually, they are doing the right thing. And it is way way more common for an officer to end up dead than for him/her to make a mistake and kill someone else. The police put their lives on the line every day to protect us. Yes, some do the wrong thing. Most do not. Most criminals do the wrong thing. No one is more important based on their race alone. 

 

Janeway, no it doesn't. Surely you've taught your children to look for context clues?  I'm asking you to look for the context clues here. "Black Lives Matter" is a statement emerging from the context of a pattern of disparities in how black individuals are treated versus white individuals in the justice system, and in other systems in society. The "too" is implied and need not be said. In fact, to say it ends up having the effect of diminishing its power (which I suppose is what some people want anyway -- but I'm going to assume you're not in that number and wish only the best for black people as your fellow citizens). As someone else said, "Votes for women" came up within a context as well. Didn't mean they wanted to disenfranchise men.

 

Would you apply the same logic to the folks marching in the Civil Rights movement -- that they were only concerned that black people got to use bathrooms, drink from water fountains, and attend well-resourced schools, to the detriment of white people (I better not say that twice - because someone on this thread just might think that :sad: )?  I mean, there wasn't a whole lot of emphasis on whether white individuals were being treated fairly back then. Goodness - context clues, they are your friend!  

 

It is almost like we expect the police to be well trained and responsible.

 

And pray tell, do tell me what justification there is for abuse at the hands of the police, such as the "rough ride" Freddie Gray received?  Where is the complexity there?

 

Or in the shooting of Walter Scott in SC?

God forbid that we actually provide more and better training to the police, and expect them to improve disparity rates. I don't really understand the argument against that. Seems like that would provide more support to police, making everyone safer all around. But our country is very short-sighted on this and other social policies. 

 

We really don't need to justify and contort these cases in order to support the police. Just let these cases be what they are, without demonizing 12 year old boys or suggesting adults who should have come out of their interactions with the police alive somehow deserved death -- and support the police. I think that's what most reasonable people want. 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Slojo

[Guest]

I am pretty sure all Americans, black or otherwise, are familiar with the word "only."

 

So if they wanted to imply that ONLY BLACK LIVES MATTER FORGET ABOUT WHITE, ASIAN, TANNED, ETC LIVES Y'ALL JUST THE BLACK PPL FROM HERE ON OUT YIPPY KAI AI! ...then they'd just say "Only black lives matter."

 

Note that they don't.

 

And, seriously, even if you think that every-single-without-exception person being arrested, is a guilty as sin criminal....the police are not actually judge, jury and EXECUTIONER in this country.

 

With that in mind, you might want to ask yourself why your response to being made aware of the fear of other people (inherent in the BLM movement, if you'd listen to them) is to point out that "most criminals do the wrong thing."

 

So what, even if it's true? Where are you going with that line of thinking?

 

Even if most police are good*...so what?

 

*a sentiment I heartily agree with, because it is baldly obvious in the kinds of places I'm liable to live. Though, like members of the the military, police have much higher rates of domestic violence. But hey man! Most police are good (again, I agree, in earnest) and I'm sure all those ladies have it coming. Otherwise why would that be happening?

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by OKBud

[Daria]

it doesn't sound to me like they are saying give equal weight. They qualify the lives that matter with the term black. They did not say black lives matter too. They just said black lives matter, as if other lives don't. If I am looking at all my children but then point only one out and say that one is so smart, it sounds as if I am saying the others are not or at least are less intelligent. It does not sound like equality at all.

 

I have a friend who has a child with a severe physical disability.  Her school often plans field trips at a local bowling alley which is accessed by a large flight of stairs.  The parents have had to insist that their daughter matters.  That she deserves to attend field trips with her classmates.

 

Do you think that by insisting that they choose a destination that is accessible they're saying that children who can walk don't matter?  Or do you think it's obvious that the school is already valuing those students?

[LucyStoner]

No. The presumption of innocence is a very specific standard that applies only in a court of law. Officers must deal with reasonable cause, which is a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

 

As for the second part - the "only over crimes that were extremely minor" - you happily ignore all of the conduct that followed. You pretend that some poor innocent little child was walking to Bible study when some mean, nasty racist police officer shot him. Ummm, no. It was a bit more complex than that.

I don't care if a child of any color is walking home from bible study or from hanging out with their friends or riding home on the bike he just stole from ME. Police don't get to be judge, jury and executioner. Even if the person did just commit a crime, unless they are posing a fatal threat to someone at that moment, they shouldn't end up dead. Death is not a reasonable penalty for resisting arrest or being rude or for selling illegal cigarettes or jacking a bike or standing in the middle of a park with a toy gun.

 

You are underscoring the point that I think Daria made- to some people, black youth don't deserve to reach adulthood unless they are perfect. We are all imperfect. Most of us though aren't at high risk of being shot by our police for less than compelling reasons.

Edited May 1, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

I think we had quite a few people in more than one Tamir Rice thread twist all sorts of crap in order to make excuses for these officers. It's insane, but typical.

Oh, yes. Crazy times, crazy threads.

[Pam in CT]

I don't care if a child of any color is walking home from bible study or from hanging out with their friends or riding home on the bike he just stole from ME. Police don't get to be judge, jury and executioner. Even if the person did just commit a crime, unless they are posing a fatal threat to someone at that moment, they shouldn't end up dead. Death is not a reasonable penalty for resisting arrest or being rude or for selling illegal cigarettes or jacking a bike or standing in the middle of a park with a toy gun.

 

You are underscoring the point that I think Daria made- to some people, black youth don't deserve to reach adulthood unless they are perfect. We are all imperfect. Most of us though aren't at high risk of being shot by our police for less than compelling reasons.

 

 

...standing in the middle of a park with a toy gun in an OPEN CARRY STATE.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

...standing in the middle of a park with a toy gun in an OPEN CARRY STATE.  

 

A legal correction though: even open carry states do not allow for "brandishing" and (could be wrong but don't think so) no state allows open carry of a handgun for anyone under 21.

 

However, the bigger issue is that the officers in the Rice case approached the situation in such a reckless manner that it is difficult to believe they really believed he was a threat, which makes everything else moot.

Edited May 1, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Slojo]

A legal correction though: even open carry states do not allow for "brandishing" and (could be wrong but don't think so) no state allows open carry of a handgun for anyone under 21.

 

However, the bigger issue is that the officers in the Rice case approached the situation in such a reckless manner that it is difficult to believe they really believed he was a threat, which makes everything else moot.

 

Tagging on to a post by a member "of the choir" - so not disagreeing with you.

 

Yes, what you say is the larger issue, but I don't think we should back down from open carry. I think open carry is dangerous and should be done away with. It has elevated an environment in which race becomes a significant deciding factor in the snap judgments police must make about "threat." At the time that the cops came, Tamir couldn't have been accused of "brandishing" anything. The weapon wasn't pointed anywhere at all. This in a state where there are reported and recorded instances of much more brandishing and "meant to intimidate" style behavior. 

 

Several police departments admit to the subjectivity involved in determining when someone is just carrying and when someone is brandishing. It is not a clear cut line, and can actually be anywhere from a headache to a nightmare for police. I think if you are going to be an open carry state, then you've got to step up your game in this area (and risk far more lawsuits). And while it may be illegal for anyone under 21 to open carry a handgun I would hope that 1) officers would think "kid" and do everything in their power to have the outcome be that the kid comes out of this alive and 2) I think it was the case that the cops thought this was an adult who then would have been within his rights to be carrying a firearm that got "brandished" for some time, but actually was not being brandished at the time officers could have made a decision to de-escalate (there were no individuals around in immediate danger, the weapon was not positioned in a threatening manner, etc...). It just doesn't sit easy with me to let the "open carry" proponents off the hook for doing some long hard thinking on this one. I will continue to assert that "open carry" is a de facto policy for white people. People of color, approach with caution.   

Edited May 1, 2016 by Slojo

[Katy]

Are you intending to imply that most of those shot by the cop are actually criminals?

 

With a few obvious exceptions, yes, those shot by cops are actually criminals.  If you don't understand that by far the vast majority of those incidents are justified, you are never going to agree with those of us who have cops in the family that were murdered by criminals.  There is no logic with someone who thinks that.  I hope you never live in an area where there are no police, only gangs or anarchy.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Tagging on to a post by a member "of the choir" - so not disagreeing with you.

 

Yes, what you say is the larger issue, but I don't think we should back down from open carry. I think open carry is dangerous and should be done away with. It has elevated an environment in which race becomes a significant deciding factor in the snap judgments police must make about "threat." At the time that the cops came, Tamir couldn't have been accused of "brandishing" anything. The weapon wasn't pointed anywhere at all. This in a state where there are reported and recorded instances of much more brandishing and "meant to intimidate" style behavior. 

 

Several police departments admit to the subjectivity involved in determining when someone is just carrying and when someone is brandishing. It is not a clear cut line, and can actually be anywhere from a headache to a nightmare for police. I think if you are going to be an open carry state, then you've got to step up your game in this area (and risk far more lawsuits). And while it may be illegal for anyone under 21 to open carry a handgun I would hope that 1) officers would think "kid" and do everything in their power to have the outcome be that the kid comes out of this alive and 2) I think it was the case that the cops thought this was an adult who then would have been within his rights to be carrying a firearm that got "brandished" for some time, but actually was not being brandished at the time officers could have made a decision to de-escalate (there were no individuals around in immediate danger, the weapon was not positioned in a threatening manner, etc...). It just doesn't sit easy with me to let the "open carry" proponents off the hook for doing some long hard thinking on this one. I will continue to assert that "open carry" is a de facto policy for white people. People of color, approach with caution.   

 

A handgun out in the hand can be construed as brandishing.

 

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, and as I said, if the officers really believed there was a threat the way they approached the scene was wrong in so many ways.

 

[Guest]

With a few obvious exceptions, yes, those shot by cops are actually criminals.  If you don't understand that by far the vast majority of those incidents are justified, you are never going to agree with those of us who have cops in the family that were murdered by criminals.  There is no logic with someone who thinks that.  I hope you never live in an area where there are no police, only gangs or anarchy.

 

Anarchy is EXACTLY the result if we decide it's OK for police to execute suspected criminals at-will.

 

And yo, Katy! not everyone with cops in the family (living or deceased) agrees with you that this is necessarily a two-side issue, and you either agree with the police or you agree with BLM.

[Slojo]

With a few obvious exceptions, yes, those shot by cops are actually criminals.  If you don't understand that by far the vast majority of those incidents are justified, you are never going to agree with those of us who have cops in the family that were murdered by criminals.  There is no logic with someone who thinks that.  I hope you never live in an area where there are no police, only gangs or anarchy.

I'm really sorry for your loss. No one should ever have to go through that. But it doesn't have to be an either/or. And no one should ever have to go through what Tamir Rice's family (or any of the other families that have been in the news) has gone through either. You should see yourself as having particular insight into the pain of having a family member murdered.

 

It doesn't have to be accept any and all police behaviors without questions or complaint or be fine with only gangs and anarchy. Do you really live in such extremes? Are you living in an area where they is only gangs or anarchy?

 

I didn't think so. When the instances are not justified (and that's the only instances that I've seen people marching or protesting against -- I live in Chicago, the home of the infamous "16 shots" and unreleased video tape), are you really suggesting that people not speak out against that? That the murders of those individuals are of no consequence because most incidents are justified. Most cops come home without being murdered as well, but that shouldn't take away from the sobering circumstances surrounding those who are murdered in the line of duty. It does not have to be an either/or in terms of empathy and support. 

 

Please don't wish "gangs and anarchy" on others who see complexity in the circumstances of the present, and room for improvement in certain aspects of policing. If you don't understand that, then there is no logic with you for thinking that. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

With a few obvious exceptions, yes, those shot by cops are actually criminals.  If you don't understand that by far the vast majority of those incidents are justified, you are never going to agree with those of us who have cops in the family that were murdered by criminals.  There is no logic with someone who thinks that.  I hope you never live in an area where there are no police, only gangs or anarchy.

 

Pull this back again to the meat of the discussion.  Look at the number of unarmed suspects that have been shot by the police.  While they may be "criminals" (though at the time of these shootings suspects is a better term), doesn't it seem unusual that our police departments kill more unarmed citizens than those in other nations?

 

Know one rational has questioned when the police have acted to defend themselves from armed suspects.  We are questioning why:

1.) Some suspects end up dead on the way to jail (Freddie Grey).

2.) Some are shot in the back and the officer involved blatantly lies about what happened (Walter Scott).

3.) A suspect walking away from the police was shot 16 times (15 of those while on the ground, all from an officer on the scene for less than 30 seconds) and then the video showing what happened was withheld by the police department for 13 months (Laquan McDonald). This occurred in front of eight other officers who did not come forward and engaged in the cover up.

4.) A man engaged in a misdemeanor is subdued and choked to the ground by multiple officers (Eric Garner).

[poppy]

Here's the thing, Tamir Rice's death was ridiculous by any standard.  But from an investigative standpoint? It was justified. There was no prosecution.  The deck is so stacked against kids like Tamir.  That's why Black  Lives Matter is a movement. 

 

I don't really know why Blue Lives Matter is a movement.  We've been told on this thread that lots of officers are being executed for being police at the encouragement of Black Lives Matter. Then that got dialed back to 'there are more shootings this year' ..... which while sad, appears to be unrelated to Black Lives Matter.  But somehow people get more riled up about fictionional assassination than actual victims and victim's families.  That's terrible, to me.

Edited May 1, 2016 by poppy

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Here's the thing, Tamir Rice's death was ridiculous by any standard.  But from an investigative standpoint? It was justified. There was no prosecution.  The deck is so stacked against kids like Tamir.  That's why Black  Lives Matter is a movement. 

 

I don't really know why Blue Lives Matter is a movement.  We've been told on this thread that lots of officers are being executed for being police at the encouragement of Black Lives Matter. Then that got dialed back to 'there are more shootings this year' ..... which while sad, appears to be unrelated to Black Lives Matter.  But somehow people get more riled up about fictionional assassination than actual victims and victim's families.  That's terrible, to me.

 

What I find bizarre is that at least one shooting of officers was by members of a group on the opposite end of the spectrum of BLM, yet for some reason they never seem to enter the discussion.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/09/las-vegas-shooting-officers-dead-possible-white-supremacists.html

[Pam in CT]

re "brandishing," minimum age requirements for open carry, and reckless response:

 

A legal correction though: even open carry states do not allow for "brandishing" and (could be wrong but don't think so) no state allows open carry of a handgun for anyone under 21.

 

However, the bigger issue is that the officers in the Rice case approached the situation in such a reckless manner that it is difficult to believe they really believed he was a threat, which makes everything else moot.

 

Yes.  And Tamir Rice did look older than 12, which in terms of in-the-moment-response I guess cuts both ways... 

 

 

For me the bigger issue is, if a black male holding what appears to be a gun is deemed to be such a clear-and-present threat to LEO, we are not yet having the right debate around open carry.  

 

Surely open carry advocates don't mean 2nd Amendment rights apply for white folks only?  

[Daria]

re "brandishing," minimum age requirements for open carry, and reckless response:

 

 

Yes. And Tamir Rice did look older than 12, which in terms of in-the-moment-response I guess cuts both ways...

 

 

For me the bigger issue is, if a black male holding what appears to be a gun is deemed to be such a clear-and-present threat to LEO, we are not yet having the right debate around open carry.

 

Surely open carry advocates don't mean 2nd Amendment rights apply for white folks only?

I think it is often difficult for people to judge the age of people of other races. When my son was a toddler, I frequently got comments about how tall he was (e.g. He's so tall! You have a future basketball player there), despite the fact that he was below the 3rd percentile for height. I also frequently got comments about how he looked like a "handful" or how "I bet he wears you out", often while he was asleep in a stroller.

 

In contrast, I have a cousin from Vietnam. She has so many stories about being mistaken for a child. She and her husband were once turned away by a dog breeder who "didn't place in homes with children". When she was in her 40's.

 

Tamir looked like so many 12 year olds that I taught. The 911 caller clearly saw him as "child". If an officer serving in a community with a large AA population didn't see him that is a sign that they aren't familiar with the community they serve.

[Tanaqui]

With a few obvious exceptions, yes, those shot by cops are actually criminals. If you don't understand that by far the vast majority of those incidents are justified, you are never going to agree with those of us who have cops in the family that were murdered by criminals. There is no logic with someone who thinks that. I hope you never live in an area where there are no police, only gangs or anarchy.

 

Yes, let's just jump off that slippery slope. Whee! If this is your idea of "logic", I want no part of it.

 

Yes.  And Tamir Rice did look older than 12, which in terms of in-the-moment-response I guess cuts both ways...

 

Not really - however, it's a known issue that people tend to add four or five years to the ages of black adolescents (which they don't do with white kids).

 

The problem here is definitely in the eye of the beholder, and not in the kid.

 

[La Condessa]

If I am looking at all my children but then point only one out and say that one is so smart, it sounds as if I am saying the others are not or at least are less intelligent. It does not sound like equality at all.

 

 

If somebody came up to you and said "Wow, your daughter is really stupid" and you said "No, she's not, she's plenty smart", would your other children really think you'd called the rest of them stupid?

This exchange is the best explanation I have ever heard for the disparate perceptions and responses people have to "Black Lives Matter". Some people have the context and others don't. Those who don't have that context really aren't trying to stretch and twist things to justify ignoring the problem. Those who do have the context really are responding reasonably to the situation.

 

To plenty of people who don't have experience of the racism in our country, Black Lives Matter feels just as uncomfortable and charged with unspoken meaning as the mother looking at all her kids and saying, "Oh, she is so smart!" And to many who do, the response against BLM is just as glaringly unjust as the mother who doesn't speak up in defense of her kid with, "She is too smart!"

[MSNative]

Interesting article on BLM comparing it in a way to the Tea Party movement. I know it's not exactly about blue lives matter but deals with is BLM racist, etc.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/08/no-black-lives-matter-isnt-about-hurting-cops/

 

"What many fail to realize is that social movements are decentralized heterogeneous coalitions—meaning that different types of people can be drawn to the same movement, sometimes for different reasons. One shouldn’t label an entire movement by the comments and actions of just a few activists"

Edited May 1, 2016 by MSNative

[Tanaqui]

social movements are decentralized heterogeneous coalitions

 

Try saying that one three times fast :P

 

[Katy]

Pull this back again to the meat of the discussion.  Look at the number of unarmed suspects that have been shot by the police.  While they may be "criminals" (though at the time of these shootings suspects is a better term), doesn't it seem unusual that our police departments kill more unarmed citizens than those in other nations?

 

Know one rational has questioned when the police have acted to defend themselves from armed suspects.  We are questioning why:

1.) Some suspects end up dead on the way to jail (Freddie Grey).

2.) Some are shot in the back and the officer involved blatantly lies about what happened (Walter Scott).

3.) A suspect walking away from the police was shot 16 times (15 of those while on the ground, all from an officer on the scene for less than 30 seconds) and then the video showing what happened was withheld by the police department for 13 months (Laquan McDonald). This occurred in front of eight other officers who did not come forward and engaged in the cover up.

4.) A man engaged in a misdemeanor is subdued and choked to the ground by multiple officers (Eric Garner).

 

Sure, those are the four worst events of the past several years, and I agree, they are terrible.  Everyone involved in at least #2 & #3 should be in jail.  They are criminals.  The other two are also troubling on several levels, though the fact that juries haven't found them quite as clear cut as protesters is also troubling (in a different way).

 

In the same time span of the last few years there were 115 are the on-duty murders of police:

• So far in 2016, 16 officers have been murdered by (non-accidental) gun fire.
• In 2015, 3 officers were murdered by assault, 6 were murdered by bombs, and 39 were murdered by (non-accidental) gun fire.
• In 2014, 3 officers were murdered by assault, 1 by fire, 47 murdered by (non-accidental) gun fire.

 

All these statistics are from www.odmp.org, and I took out accidents, car wrecks, heart attacks, etc when looking these numbers up.

[MSNative]

Try saying that one three times fast :P

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[Tanaqui]

115 murders of on-duty cops in two years and a bit.

 

In this year alone, 38 of the 335 people shot by the cops were unarmed.

 

Our per capita rate of police shootings is through the roof, especially when you compare it to other industrialized nations. And non-whites are way, way, way overrepresented among the victims.

 

Of course, it's not just the shootings. It's everything else about our inherently racist justice system, from arrests to convictions, sentencing to paroles. There is something rotten in this country.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sure, those are the four worst events of the past several years, and I agree, they are terrible.  Everyone involved in at least #2 & #3 should be in jail.  They are criminals.  The other two are also troubling on several levels, though the fact that juries haven't found them quite as clear cut as protesters is also troubling (in a different way).

 

In the same time span of the last few years there were 115 are the on-duty murders of police:

• So far in 2016, 16 officers have been murdered by (non-accidental) gun fire.
• In 2015, 3 officers were murdered by assault, 6 were murdered by bombs, and 39 were murdered by (non-accidental) gun fire.
• In 2014, 3 officers were murdered by assault, 1 by fire, 47 murdered by (non-accidental) gun fire.

 

All these statistics are from www.odmp.org, and I took out accidents, car wrecks, heart attacks, etc when looking these numbers up.

 

Going back to my examples...do you think those are the only ones?  We wouldn't have been able to get what little justice there has been in those cases without video evidence.  Think about that.  Those sworn to protect us have covered up murders. 

 

In the cases where officers have been killed, are there any where prosecutors have refused to indite?  Where the murders have been covered up?  No?

 

I rest my case.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

115 murders of on-duty cops in two years and a bit.

 

In this year alone, 38 of the 335 people shot by the cops were unarmed.

 

Our per capita rate of police shootings is through the roof, especially when you compare it to other industrialized nations. And non-whites are way, way, way overrepresented among the victims.

 

Of course, it's not just the shootings. It's everything else about our inherently racist justice system, from arrests to convictions, sentencing to paroles. There is something rotten in this country.

 

And not to drop conspiracy theories, but based on the blatant cover ups exposed in some well known cases, it does cause one to wonder if everyone "armed" suspect shot by the police was actually armed.

Edited May 1, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Tanaqui]

And not to drop conspiracy theories, but based one the blatant cover ups exposed in some well known cases, it does cause one to wonder if everyone "armed" suspect shot by the police was actually armed.

 

It's not like that's never happened before.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It's not like that's never happened before.

 

 

The LAPD is a case study on why we need serious reforms of policing policies throughout this country.

 

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

[Haiku]

I believe our society, with all its faults, has long since passed the point where black lives / racial justice did not matter.  

 

I do not think this is the case. I think there is a sizable proportion of the population who thinks that black people need to just shut up about racial injustice already and who minimize and completely deny that systematic racial injustice is very real and very present in this country. Because they don't think that racism is a problem, they aren't concerned about the racial disparities in killings by police.

 

On a related note: my son is 13. Ever since he started getting a mustache, about a year ago, the way he is treated in stores has been markedly different. People no longer regard him as a child. They see him as a potential predator/potential criminal. They apparently think he is older than he is (and studies have proven that white people consistently believe that black boys/young men are several years older than they actually are), or they just think that all black young men are threats.

 

I was talking about this recently in a group of people and one of the people said, "Well, he should just shave."

 

WTF??

 

So, the solution to racism is to try to appear younger than he is? Even if there were an ounce of sense in this idea (there's not, by the way), it might work for a few years, and then what? Eventually my son will be a man and be unable to hide it, and then what? How is he then supposed to protect himself from racism?

 

This is one of the most blatant and egregious examples of blaming the victim I have ever had experience with. "It's your son's fault he is followed in stores because his mustache makes him scary."

 

Holy guacamole!

[Katy]

Going back to my examples...do you think those are the only ones?  We wouldn't have been able to get what little justice there has been in those cases without video evidence.  Think about that.  Those sworn to protect us have covered up murders. 

 

In the cases where officers have been killed, are there any where prosecutors have refused to indite?  Where the murders have been covered up?  No?

 

I rest my case.

 

What percentage of police shootings do you think are murder?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What percentage of police shootings do you think are murder?

Shootings by the police? No idea. They often aren't investigated fully/correctly. Even one is way too many. Factor in those that could be avoided by better policing and the number of unnecessary shootings is higher than we should accept as a society. And it is no coincidence that they appear to be disproportionately directed towards the poor and minority groups.

[EmseB]

Did anyone see this article in the Washington Post?

 

I thought it sort of related to the thread. More fodder for discussion, anyway.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27/this-study-found-race-matters-in-police-shootings-but-the-results-may-surprise-you/

Edited May 2, 2016 by JodiSue

[Ravin]

How many unarmed black people killed by the police were clearly resisting arrest, being threatening, or doing something else that might make a police officer feel that force was necessary? You absolutely cannot assume that just because the person didn't have a weapon when it was all over with that they didn't do something resulting in their deaths. We people on the Internet are not qualified to make judgements about whether or not a shooting was justified.

 

The criminal justice research shows over and over that all other things being equal (same situation as far as actual criminal behavior going on or not, etc.), the police are more likely to pull over/stop/frisk/arrest, to use unnecessary (or a questionable level of) force against a suspect, to victimize/terrorize/harass people (including victims of crime), to seize the property of, to search (legally or not), and to shoot/kill a person of color than a white person. The statistics are worse for black people than for Hispanic people, and worse for Native American people than for black people.

 

Asking a question like this suggests that you don't understand or care how the scientific method is applied in the social sciences. No one makes the assumptions you assume. When statistical analyses are done, factors like this are accounted for.

[SKL]

The criminal justice research shows over and over that all other things being equal (same situation as far as actual criminal behavior going on or not, etc.), the police are more likely to pull over/stop/frisk/arrest, to use unnecessary (or a questionable level of) force against a suspect, to victimize/terrorize/harass people (including victims of crime), to seize the property of, to search (legally or not), and to shoot/kill a person of color than a white person. The statistics are worse for black people than for Hispanic people, and worse for Native American people than for black people.

 

Asking a question like this suggests that you don't understand or care how the scientific method is applied in the social sciences. No one makes the assumptions you assume. When statistical analyses are done, factors like this are accounted for.

 

Actually the statistics do not support the bolded, at least not nationwide.  I can't comment on the accuracy of the rest.  Also statistically a "blue life" is much more likely to be lost to a black shooter than a white shooter.  It is not a fairy tale that sometimes the cop has to decide "me or him."  But even so, studies and stats have shown cops more unwilling to shoot a black person than a white person.  Even before "Black Lives Matters" was formed, before Michael Brown etc.

 

Not wanting to argue, just want to make sure we are talking about facts, especially when citing "the scientific method" etc.  Some of the things "everybody knows" are not actually supported by facts and statistics.

Edited May 2, 2016 by SKL

[Ravin]

Actually the statistics do not support the bolded, at least not nationwide.  I can't comment on the accuracy of the rest.  Also statistically a "blue life" is much more likely to be lost to a black shooter than a white shooter.  It is not a fairy tale that sometimes the cop has to decide "me or him."  But even so, studies and stats have shown cops more unwilling to shoot a black person than a white person.  Even before "Black Lives Matters" was formed, before Michael Brown etc.

 

Not wanting to argue, just want to make sure we are talking about facts, especially when citing "the scientific method" etc.  Some of the things "everybody knows" are not actually supported by facts and statistics.

 

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/the-real-story-of-race-and-police-killings/?_r=0

[Tanaqui]

Actually the statistics do not support the bolded, at least not nationwide.

 

Yes, they do - at least, when you bother to take demographics into account.

 

But even so, studies and stats have shown cops more unwilling to shoot a black person than a white person.

 

One study. That's hardly evidence. There are multiple studies showing just the opposite, and other studies that are unclear. However, when we look at who gets shot in America by the cops - not experiments in different settings, but the demographic data - we see that some people are much more likely to get shot than others. That's a fact.

[SKL]

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/the-real-story-of-race-and-police-killings/?_r=0

 

The problem with that analysis is that they are comparing stats for the whole population - not for the people who are in confrontations with police.  In confrontations with police, white people are statistically more likely to be killed by police.  Even though police are more likely to be killed by black people.

[Tanaqui]

In confrontations with police, white people are statistically more likely to be killed by police.

 

And blacks are more likely to be "randomly" stopped to be frisked or have their car searched or whatever. So... they have more confrontations with police? But most of them are BS, and so nothing comes of it?