Jump to content

Menu

Did I miss a Charlotte NC thread or have we gotten numb?


TechWife
 Share

Recommended Posts

Has releasing videos ever changed anyone's mind though? Like, has any family of a shooting victim from these types of incidents (meaning these types high profile racially related incidents, not every/any incident involving video) ever viewed the video and then said "ok, yeah, I can see how the officer was scared for his life." Has anyone who supports the police officers in these types of cases ever viewed a video and said "ok, yeah, this guy did nothing wrong, the cop was 100% wrong."

 

And, lets not forget...the video gets released, but the news media often tends to edit said video as they see fit. In part, they *have* to edit it both for length, and for "sensibility." For lack of a better word....lots of news media try not to put the actual act of someone dying on display. I remember a few years ago a newspaper got a whole lot of flack for publishing a pic of a guy seconds before he was hit by a train. And still today, even when some media outlets show the actual death....it's shown mostly because it's difficult to tell what happens. They almost always avoid showing anything that is generally considered "graphic" but then again, differing outlets have differing definitions of "graphic."

 

So I guess the point is...yes, withholding may increase the perception that someone is hiding something. But, there may be very legit reasons to withhold it and that just because someone thinks that the withholding of video is to hide something....that isn't necessarily always the reality.

In the case of the Tulsa shooting of Terrance Crutcher it became very clear the police were not telling the truth about him reaching inside the vehicle.

The open dialogue between the DA, family and community is going a long way to keep the poeace. She was also charged with 1st degree manslaughter this afternoon.

Edited by jeninok
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fix the root problem? Can't happen if people can't agree what the root problem is. And people can't agree on the root problem. Some people thing the deaths of Michael Brown, Philadro Castillio, and Treyvon Martin are all symbols of the same root problem and some see them as all three completely different situations. And riots...burning the contents of a tractor trailer in NC, looting a store in Furgeson, smashing cop cars, shooting cops in Dallas, beating truck drivers in LA, NONE of those actions will help to define the "root problem ". For anyone.

 

For most African-Americans, the root problem is institutional racism. It's already well defined, by statistics, by spokespeople, by the BLM movement. There's not any debate in some quarters, just despair. And telling law abiding African-Americans that if they'd just behave differently to the police, not have broken tail lights, not wear hoodies, not be large "bad dudes," not let their kids play with toy guns, not, not, not, then it would get better somehow then I think that attitude is just increasing the frustration.

 

If You Don't Understand Black Lives Matter After Terrence Crutcher's Death, You Never Will

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of the Tulsa shooting of Terrance Crutched it became very clear the police were not telling the truth about him reaching inside the vehicle.

The open dialogue between the DA, family and community is going a long way to keep the poeace. She was also charged with 1st degree manslaughter this afternoon.

There is also a little bit of trust in the DA and courts to actually take these things seriously after the conviction and sentencing of Daniel Holtzclaw who raped many women while on duty and the Reserve Sheriff's Deputy Bob Gates.

 

There are serious issues with law enforcement, arrest rates and incredibly harsh sentencing of women for relatively minor crimes.

But the DAs have shown a willingness to hold officers accountable to at least some degree.

 

Although, I can't help but wonder how being a woman in Oklahoma will ultimately affect the outcome vs a male officer.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of any curfew on Tuesday or Wednesday. They were considering one for tonight, but as of yet have not set one up.

 

There *were* peaceful protests, no quotes needed. My minister was there and part of one, even was tear-gassed along with many other peaceful protesters. She's back there tonight. That some agitators decided to riot does not negate that nor does that mean that everyone present was a "rioter."

 

Is there a riot planned for this evening, or a protest? They are different things. So far, all I have heard or seen are rumors that there might be a protest at Southpark, but nothing concrete, and the police say that they are merely rumors. Yes, a few businesses have decided to close early on the strength of those rumors. Hopefully nothing violent occurs anywhere this evening.

 

I'm not right on the Tuesday curfew.  I thought there was one last night, Wed.  Maybe not.   As of yet there is not one for tonight, Thursday. 

 

I don't know what you mean about no quotes needed.  Huh?  I simply restated what the mayor said.  There were several ministers there as was mentioned by one of the networks.  

 

Are you just making a point of reference here (red)?  Certainly not all the people there were rioters or protestors.  Many unfortunately were. 

 

Yes, a protest and riot are different sides of the same coin.  Similar yet different. 

 

Protesting is an inalienable right, recognizd by the Constitution. RIOTING is a crime.

 

And, certainly that is why I used the phrase "planned".  It's not concrete until it is an "active" event. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched one video today of a man being beaten in a parking garage by rioters and his pants were ripped away from him and he was kicked in the head.  The people around were laughing and hooting while a man was being beaten.  It was one vs. half a dozen or so.  It made my stomach turn.

 

I watched another video today of a black man crossing the protest line in a goodwill gesture towards cops.  He hugged them and shook their hands.  They thanked him and it seemed like a really heartwarming thing.  Except, I'm not posting the video here because the people on the protest line called him vile, foul, racist slurs.  All kinds of language.  They were in his face and shouting him down with nonsensical arguments and awful language.

 

All I can think is...blessed are the peacemakers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is in instances like this  a group of people who will use any excuse to do things like loot or beat people up, if they think they can get away with it.  Their real interest is not in whatever is the root cause at all, they are very much like people who loot after sports events.  I think it does point to a sort of social breakdown but one that can be totally separate from other concerns.

 

A question I think for others is what do you do, as someone who would like to protest, when an element like that comes into the picture, or even when there is a real protest element that is likely to go to far.  I've avoided protest events I would otherwise have attended because there was likelihood of protestors initiating violence and I wasn't willing to associate myself with that.

 

It may be that when there has been enough social breakdown that riots and violence are very likely outcomes of protest, there is a need for some other way to be heard.  There are people who argue that the political traditional protest is no longer all that politically effective, and I wonder about that too.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, what determines whether the point holds? There are people on ALL sides of that coin. Are there folks who denounce both Kaepernick and the riots? Sure. There are also those who support both Kaepernick and the rioters. There are also those who support the rioters and DON'T support Kaepernick. And of course those who support Kaepernick and don't support the rioters. So, which position "holds?"

 

I am not sure I can make it any simpler.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is in instances like this a group of people who will use any excuse to do things like loot or beat people up, if they think they can get away with it. Their real interest is not in whatever is the root cause at all, they are very much like people who loot after sports events. I think it does point to a sort of social breakdown but one that can be totally separate from other concerns.

 

A question I think for others is what do you do, as someone who would like to protest, when an element like that comes into the picture, or even when there is a real protest element that is likely to go to far. I've avoided protest events I would otherwise have attended because there was likelihood of protestors initiating violence and I wasn't willing to associate myself with that.

 

It may be that when there has been enough social breakdown that riots and violence are very likely outcomes of protest, there is a need for some other way to be heard. There are people who argue that the political traditional protest is no longer all that politically effective, and I wonder about that too.

We go and participate with a clear understanding of what to watch for, and a plan of where to meet should things go badly.

 

Most protests are not riots, but that is boring so no one talks about them on the news.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

please try. Every one keeps saying "have an honest conversation and, I thought that's what we are attempting here. Particularly since we all recognize that nothing we say here on a homeschool board has any real impact on anything, AND, the beginning on the thread establishes that the threads go the same way. Why does a point about there being people being against both Kaepernick and the rioters hold, versus the point that there are three other options in the discussion?

 

Go back and reread the point being made about those types.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not right on the Tuesday curfew.  I thought there was one last night, Wed.  Maybe not.   As of yet there is not one for tonight, Thursday. 

 

I don't know what you mean about no quotes needed.  Huh?  I simply restated what the mayor said.  There were several ministers there as was mentioned by one of the networks.  

 

Are you just making a point of reference here (red)?  Certainly not all the people there were rioters or protestors.  Many unfortunately were. 

 

Yes, a protest and riot are different sides of the same coin.  Similar yet different. 

 

Protesting is an inalienable right, recognizd by the Constitution. RIOTING is a crime.

 

And, certainly that is why I used the phrase "planned".  It's not concrete until it is an "active" event. 

 

When you wrote There were 2 "peaceful" demonstrations that occurred yesterday, with only the word peaceful in quotes, I read it as someone using air-quotes sarcastically in speaking, in order to be obvious that they mean exactly the opposite of the word they said. In this case, I read it as you saying (or implying very strongly) that the protests were actually merely a pretense for rioting from the beginning, and all there were, therefore, rioters, ie criminals, rather than the majority being people exercising their inalienable right to peaceful protest. My apologies, as I appear to have mistaken your meaning. Yes, there were over 40 clergy of varied faiths there, and they are back tonight, as protesters.

 

You went on to say she is working a later shift at B/N b/c of a planned riot in SouthPark. It wasn't the planned vs active I was questioning, it was the use of the word riot (a criminal activity) vs. protest (a legal, legitimate activity), as well as trying to gauge the credibility of the original source of the information.  As you note, there's a huge difference between those two activities. I wanted to find out which you had actually heard/meant, and if you had any concrete, verifiable information that such an activity was actually planned, as I hadn't been able to find any. Unfortunately, right now rumors are running rampant on social media, which is making the situation that much worse. My husband also works across from SouthPark, but is fortunately working from home all week already due to the gas shortage. My daughter is supposed to go there tomorrow evening for a Deaf community event for her ASL class, so I also have a vested interest in verifiable info on the types of activities going on or planned there right now. My expectation is that the Deaf community event may well be cancelled (or that we just keep her home).

 

ETA: a curfew from midnight to 6 am until further notice has now been enacted.

Edited by KarenNC
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not numb to it but I am done discussing these incidents. The discussions are always the same, same people defending police no matter what, same people pissed at the police no matter what, and same people not speculating until more info comes out. I don't just mean on this forum, I mean in general, it is the same people having the same conversation over and over again.

 

Although one thing I appreciate on this forum - and it's a little thing, perhaps - is at least there's no blatantly overt racial bigotry. I don't know if it's a recency illusion or not, but there seems to be more of that lately than there used to be.

 

With regards to "I don't understand why people riot", I can only use this quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.:

 

I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

 

(emphasis mine)

Edited by Tanaqui
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's wrong for people to respond negatively to "taking a knee" during the national anthem, then is it also wrong to respond negatively to all the nonviolent ways that others express their views?  Every time someone says anything that isn't PC in everyone else's opinion, there's negative backlash.  We are adults, we can take it.  None of it justifies becoming violent or equating nonviolent protests to violent ones.

 

Furthermore, there was a lot of mature discussion that came out of the "taking a knee" incidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We go and participate with a clear understanding of what to watch for, and a plan of where to meet should things go badly.

 

Most protests are not riots, but that is boring so no one talks about them on the news.

 

But, if you have good reason to suspect that peaceful protests will become riots, or somehow provide fuel or cover for rioters, it may be the best decision to avoid both.  So - what does one do instead? 

 

What can be really offensive about people that take a violent approach is that it effectivly closes off the option of the peaceful protest and makes it non-effective, undermines its very existence really.  People have a right to protest, and they also have a right not to be a victim in a protest gone wrong, and those two things will work against each other.

 

As far as people not talking about boring protests, that is one of the reasons some people feel they are no longer effective political tools.  I think that may add something to the discussion of whether we should see protests of that kind as a good approach at all - if it's not only ineffective but can become really detrimental, maybe it's time to think about other, more robust, approaches.

 

But as Sadie said that is probably a different discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt there has ever been a logical riot.

 

If our brothers, fathers, sons, and neighbors were the ones being shot while simply walking home, or holding a toy, or experiencing car trouble, I think we'd be pretty angry at this point. 

 

Yes, looting and destroying property are wrong. But so are the murders of innocent people, and I'm willing to bet some loudly condemn the first while having nothing to say about the second.

 

Both should be loudly condemned.  And are, depending on whom you are talking to at the moment and about which subject. 

Edited by TranquilMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although one thing I appreciate on this forum - and it's a little thing, perhaps - is at least there's no blatantly overt racial bigotry. I don't know if it's a recency illusion or not, but there seems to be more of that lately than there used to be.

 

With regards to "I don't understand why people riot", I can only use this quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.:

 

 

(emphasis mine)

 

Yeah, I don't know.  It can be, but it can also be the language of those who really just want to do whatever they can get away with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone thinks that racism isn't real, A U.S. Representative, whose district includes parts of Charlotte, made the following statement about the Charlotte protestors when interviewed by BBC: 

 

“The grievance in their minds, the animus, the anger – they hate white people because white people are successful and they’re not,â€

 

​He has since apologized, saying he didn't say what he meant to say, that he was repeating what some protestors had said. 

 

No, no racism to see here. Pack it up, folks. (Sarcasm smilie). 

 

 

Edited by TechWife
  • Like 17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone thinks that racism isn't real, A U.S. Representative, whose district includes parts of Charlotte, made the following statement about the Charlotte protestors when interviewed about BBC: 

 

“The grievance in their minds, the animus, the anger – they hate white people because white people are successful and they’re not,â€

 

​He has since apologized, saying he didn't say what he meant to say, that he was repeating what some protestors had said. 

 

No, no racism to see here. Pack it up, folks. (Sarcasm smilie). 

 

:banghead:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, what determines whether the point holds? There are people on ALL sides of that coin. Are there folks who denounce both Kaepernick and the riots? Sure. There are also those who support both Kaepernick and the rioters. There are also those who support the rioters and DON'T support Kaepernick. And of course those who support Kaepernick and don't support the rioters. So, which position "holds?"

 

This position.  That those who would condemn both rioting AND condemn peaceful protest like Kaepernick are really just saying they don't want to hear about it in any shape or form - that the concern is invalid and they should just stop talking about it.

 

I too am baffled by the people who decry the riots but at the same time consider Kaepernick a traitor to America.  It's hard to see how that leaves any other option but just "get over it".  

 
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone thinks that racism isn't real, A U.S. Representative, whose district includes parts of Charlotte, made the following statement about the Charlotte protestors when interviewed by BBC: 

 

“The grievance in their minds, the animus, the anger – they hate white people because white people are successful and they’re not,â€

 

​He has since apologized, saying he didn't say what he meant to say, that he was repeating what some protestors had said. 

 

 

Oh dear lord....

 

ETA, because protesters were saying that?  Uh, yeah.

Edited by goldberry
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm flabbergasted at the inability to see how people all over the globe fight for their rights, or what they believe are their rights, with destruction.  It only becomes an issue when it's black people.

 

Ummm, Boston Tea Party anyone?  The treatment of Native peoples all over our country?  I mean, these are just the big, obvious ones.  

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

please define "our." As in "our brothers, fathers, sons and neighbors."

 

I am white. My brother, my father, my child, and the vast majority of my neighbors are white. If any of them were subject to the kind of racism that black people in this country are subject to, I would be very upset, as I'm sure we all would be.

 

I am of course upset regardless--as a Christian, I believe everyone is my neighbor, I have black brothers and sisters in the Lord, and I hate injustice of any kind and murder of anyone. 

 

Not sure what you're getting at here, but I am very worn out tonight. I'd be happy to try to clarify more if you want.  :)

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am white. My brother, my father, my child, and the vast majority of my neighbors are white. If any of them were subject to the kind of racism that black people in this country are subject to, I would be very upset, as I'm sure we all would be.

 

I am of course upset regardless--as a Christian, I believe everyone is my neighbor, I have black brothers and sisters in the Lord, and I hate injustice of any kind and murder of anyone. 

 

Not sure what you're getting at here, but I am very worn out tonight. I'd be happy to try to clarify more if you want.  :)

 

Just piggybacking on your post, Mercy, not disagreeing.

 

I think part of the problem is that we are forced to see people as "my" people and "your" people.  We don't have a choice, really, because it isn't me, a white person, who is afraid of my boys growing up to be targets of law enforcement for no reason except their skin. 

 

When we should ALL be able to say "my people" and mean ALL the people of all the colors.  But we can't, because we don't all experience the same world.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man even when it is outright 1st degree murder and the officer is charged , folks here love to find ways to make it about their disgust with black people.SMH. All I think reading this is how many people defended those armed protestors in ... was in Oregon? Because they thought fighting against a perceived attack on the 2nd amendment made an extreme response understandable. Forgive me for forgetting the details , am writing in the dark in bed , never should have opened this thread.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re trying to have a conversation

please try. Every one keeps saying "have an honest conversation and, I thought that's what we are attempting here. Particularly since we all recognize that nothing we say here on a homeschool board has any real impact on anything, AND, the beginning on the thread establishes that the threads go the same way. Why does a point about there being people being against both Kaepernick and the rioters hold, versus the point that there are three other options in the discussion?

 

I can't speak for ChocolateReign or anyone at all other than my own halting self, and I have no particular insight or standing on racial issues.

 

To your bolded, it's mighty hard to have a "conversation" across 325 million people.  What does that even mean?  As you say we start out standing in different places, witnessing different experiences, seeing from different perspectives.  Language separates as much as it connects.  The issues are HARD.  How is "conversation" supposed to work?  

 

And yet four decades into the Colorblind Doctrine many people who are in a position to know what it is to live as a black person in our society today are saying: the work is not yet done.  And white people like me have to acknowledge that the subject matter experts on the lived experience of black people, are black people.

 

So like you I find myself saying, in various contexts, haltingly, please try.  I don't know that any such conversations go anywhere, they're uncomfortable and embarrassing, I know for sure I say stupid stuff that I cringe over after the fact.  Please try, because cramming our problems under the rug with a collective pretense that racism is behind us, all in our past, and we've moved on to a glorious colorblind society in which everyone is "equal" and race need never be spoken of... has left us fractured and distrusting and unable to face the challenges that face the nation, all of us.

 

Difficult though it is to orchestrate "conversation" across a nation of 325 million people, that is what Colin Kaepernick is trying to ignite.  Through symbolism, through his words (increasingly thoughtful as the season progresses), through a public platform that few have access to, through inspiring other athletes from middle school to the NFL to pick up the conversational thread, through his own charitable donations and inspiration of others.  Really it's not going to get more law-abiding, more peaceful and more constructive than what he's doing.  Yet he and other athletes who've joined him have been roundly critiqued, not by a small number of crank-o-heads but by thousands.  Middle school kids picking up his mantle have received death threats.  

 

If CK's doing it wrong, it's very hard to imagine what doing it right could possibly look like.  Thus -- I think, I can only speak for myself -- the frustration.

 

 

But the problems aren't going anywhere.  If we can't manage to get it right -- all of us, somehow, however unwieldy 325 million of us are -- they will only get worse, as they have been, steadily, throughout four decades of colorblind denial.  Please keep trying.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protests are constitutionally protected in the US. Even the ones that are raucous, or that make a lot of people uncomfortable, or that the police have trouble controlling. The ones where people are feeling so angry that they have to get out on the streets and do something. There are often raucous celebrations after sports victories too, sometimes including destruction of property and closed city streets and lots of junk to clean up afterward. The Boston Tea Party was physically violent and destroyed a lot of property.

 

I don't condone physically violent protests or celebrations. I also don't condone destruction of other people's property, even to make a political point. (I can think of a few exceptions with protests, but they're certainly not typical.) Looting isn't constitutionally protected, nor is vandalism, not is assault.

 

Widely condemning peaceful protests like taking a knee or lumping all protesters, whether they're peaceful, raucous, or destroying property, into one bag of unacceptable actors is not okay.

 

The story here isn't the looting. The story here is that yet again, communities of color in the US have been shown that there is not equal protection under the law. But some media outlets refuse to acknowledge that.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm flabbergasted at the inability to see how people all over the globe fight for their rights, or what they believe are their rights, with destruction. It only becomes an issue when it's black people.

 

Ummm, Boston Tea Party anyone? The treatment of Native peoples all over our country? I mean, these are just the big, obvious ones.

I don't really understand what this means. I don't think the problem with rioting is based on the skin color of those rioting but with the rioting itself. Personally, I don't know anyone who would say it's okay for white people to riot but not black people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I think part of the problem is that we are forced to see people as "my" people and "your" people.  We don't have a choice, really, because it isn't me, a white person, who is afraid of my boys growing up to be targets of law enforcement for no reason except their skin. 

 

When we should ALL be able to say "my people" and mean ALL the people of all the colors. 

 

(Just piggybacking on you, not disagreeing... :laugh:  ) 

 

I actually suspect it's rather new, for many white people in the US, to think of whiteness as "my people."  It is for me.   Whiteness is the default, invisible, largely unnoticed....

 

 

 

In fact, this was recently brought home to me...

.....  But we can't, because we don't all experience the same world. 

 

 

... when I read, within the last few days, All Lives can't Matter until Black Lives do Matter.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case anyone thinks that racism isn't real, A U.S. Representative, whose district includes parts of Charlotte, made the following statement about the Charlotte protestors when interviewed by BBC: 

 

“The grievance in their minds, the animus, the anger – they hate white people because white people are successful and they’re not,â€

 

​He has since apologized, saying he didn't say what he meant to say, that he was repeating what some protestors had said. 

 

No, no racism to see here. Pack it up, folks. (Sarcasm smilie). 

I love how he gets in to how it's become a welfare state, and that people are frustrated because all those taxes going to pay for welfare for other people have made it impossible for them to invest effectively. Then in his "apology" tweets he says he meant THAT'S why BLM is rioting. Yep. I'm sure the protests and riots are happening because they're so angry about all those people on welfare raising their taxes so they can't invest as much as they'd like. #TotallyWhatThisIsAbout

 

The attempt to spin this and somehow turn it in to a economic talking point about how those on welfare are mooching off others is SICKENING.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man even when it is outright 1st degree murder and the officer is charged , folks here love to find ways to make it about their disgust with black people.SMH. All I think reading this is how many people defended those armed protestors in ... was in Oregon? Because they thought fighting against a perceived attack on the 2nd amendment made an extreme response understandable. Forgive me for forgetting the details , am writing in the dark in bed , never should have opened this thread.

 

 

I think if someone is openly expressing their "disgust with black people", it should be reported to the mods, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how he gets in to how it's become a welfare state, and that people are frustrated because all those taxes going to pay for welfare for other people have made it impossible for them to invest effectively. Then in his "apology" tweets he says he meant THAT'S why BLM is rioting. Yep. I'm sure the protests and riots are happening because they're so angry about all those people on welfare raising their taxes so they can't invest as much as they'd like. #TotallyWhatThisIsAbout

 

The attempt to spin this and somehow turn it in to a economic talking point about how those on welfare are mooching off others is SICKENING.

Where did he say anything about it keeping others from investing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has releasing videos ever changed anyone's mind though?  Like, has any family of a shooting victim from these types of incidents (meaning these types high profile racially related incidents, not every/any incident involving video) ever viewed the video and then said "ok, yeah, I can see how the officer was scared for his life."  Has anyone who supports the police officers in these types of cases ever viewed a video and said "ok, yeah, this guy did nothing wrong, the cop was 100% wrong." 

 

And, lets not forget...the video gets released, but the news media often tends to edit said video as they see fit.  In part, they *have* to edit it both for length, and for "sensibility." For lack of a better word....lots of news media try not to put the actual act of someone dying on display.  I remember a few years ago a newspaper got a whole lot of flack for publishing a pic of a guy seconds before he was hit by a train.  And still today, even when some media outlets show the actual death....it's shown mostly because it's difficult to tell what happens.  They almost always avoid showing anything that is generally considered "graphic" but then again, differing outlets have differing definitions of "graphic." 

 

So I guess the point is...yes, withholding may increase the perception that someone is hiding something.  But, there may be very legit reasons to withhold it and that just because someone thinks that the withholding of video is to hide something....that isn't necessarily always the reality. 

 

I started to write a lot more and then decided it was too personal for the internet and deleted it.  Trying again...

 

Um, yeah.  I almost always side with police, especially given that I have a lot of family in law enforcement, one of whom was murdered by a criminal (shot to death), and then there was my dad, who was shot at twice, pulled his own weapon, and in both cases was found to be in the right, and yes, there was dash cam video. 

 

I think the first tape that changed my mind was the Chicago video.  There have been probably five since then where DH came home from work to find me ranting at the TV about what was clearly murder once the tapes were released OR a bystander's video was released. The MN video was after the fact, and I still thought it demonstrated the cop was guilty.  Because fear isn't enough.  Seeing an actual gun being drawn and/or fired at you is what it takes.  Maybe not legally, but morally. 

 

My dad used to lecture me, long and deep, about the importance of never even drawing a gun on someone unless you were already certain that someone was going to die that day, and if you wanted it to be the criminal, you had to act.  I don't know.  Florida has become the butt of too many national jokes since I've been an adult, so maybe that isn't even the law there.  Maybe my dad learned that particular moral philosophy in the military and not in the police academy.  But that standard of culpability is what has been missing from all of the videos that have changed my mind.

 

I don't watch a ton of Fox News but I was stuck in an airport one night where it was on and Megyn Kelly was making a similar rant about a case that was quite clearly murder.  I think in most situations she's pretty firmly on the side of police too.  I think in that case it was one of the early situations in Dallas.  Similarly, after some cases over the summer, several childhood friends with dads and husbands in law enforcement posted sympathetic things on facebook.  These are not people given to sympathy before seeing evidence.  They've all heard too much to be naive about such things.

 

Literally the only reason I can see to temporarily withhold a video is 1) DA concern about prejudicing a jury, and 2) state laws about surveillance cameras and who owns the footage.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand what this means. I don't think the problem with rioting is based on the skin color of those rioting but with the rioting itself. Personally, I don't know anyone who would say it's okay for white people to riot but not black people.

 

I don't think anyone actually *says* "they aren't allowed to riot because they're black".  & I'd be shocked to hear the words "white people can riot but not black people".  But it's interesting - in a disgusting way - that we never really comment against these destructive actions unless it's black people doing them.

 

So nobody needs to actually say those words to make it true.  We can see it right here in this thread.  There is nothing black people can do to fight for their rights that will be condoned - because people ultimately don't want to give them their rights.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So nobody needs to actually say those words to make it true.  We can see it right here in this thread.  There is nothing black people can do to fight for their rights that will be condoned - because people ultimately don't want to give them their rights.

 

It really does feel like nothing can be done.  If there is crime in a peaceful protest, suddenly it is a riot.  I'm not in the current areas, but in my experience, most peaceful protests are just that, but most areas have gangs and ne'er-do-wells of all colors.  When a peaceful protest is planned, the criminals in the area see it as an opportunity.  The looting is off to the side, round the corner at the mini-mart, and is not committed by protesters, but by criminal opportunists who know that the police are spread too thin.  Unfortunately even if 95% of the people present are participating in peaceful prayer, the only ones who end up on TV are the 5% causing destruction.  Then around the country, people think that protest=riot and think that 95% should find a better way.  But they've tried everything...what else is there?

 

A different example of what I'm thinking of:  We have outdoor music festivals.  They are huge crowded events and a great opportunity for criminals of all sorts: drug-dealers, pick-pockets, predators.  Despite great policing, lots of crime happens during these things.  No-one ever suggests that all music goers are criminals, and these events should be cancelled.  

 

Same is true in sporting events where rioting is happened.  Most people acknowledge that it is a few bad apples.  Why in these protests do people not see that it is a few bad apples doing the rioting, often just a small percentage? (Though IME, it is a larger percentage as the evening goes on, because the peaceful families protesting get scared and go home, defeated, depressed and unheard.)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone actually *says* "they aren't allowed to riot because they're black".  & I'd be shocked to hear the words "white people can riot but not black people".  But it's interesting - in a disgusting way - that we never really comment against these destructive actions unless it's black people doing them.

 

I do, but I don't post on here because even that would not go over well.  When there is violence or destruction or essentially terrorism in the name of unions or "green" or socialist movements etc., I have a problem with that too.  Why those don't make the news to the same extent, I'm not sure, but I assume it's because the news people are less intent on creating division between those groups and the rest of society.

 

I believe some people (some of whom purport to be fighting racial division / inequality) profit from racism, and actually fuel it for their own ends.  And I don't see that changing in my lifetime.

 

PS it's also true that you don't see the many, many peaceful demonstrations by majority black groups on TV.  I believe the vast majority of protests are as peaceful as they should be, so why don't certain people seem to want us to see that?  Who is making the decision to selectively report so that it appears all protestors are violent or uncivilized?

Edited by SKL
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm flabbergasted at the inability to see how people all over the globe fight for their rights, or what they believe are their rights, with destruction.  It only becomes an issue when it's black people.

 

Ummm, Boston Tea Party anyone?  The treatment of Native peoples all over our country?  I mean, these are just the big, obvious ones.  

 

Well, quite a lot of people don't think those things are always, or sometimes ever, justified, or likely to be sucessful.  So I would hardly say it is only an issue when it is black people.

 

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I don't consider the Boston Tea Party to have been obviously a good idea.  I don't really consider oppressed people anywhere who are using violence against fellow citizens to make a point or try and create political change to be ok, even if I think that oppression is really being perpetrated very deliberately.  It might be understandable but that is not the same as saying it is ok.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man even when it is outright 1st degree murder and the officer is charged , folks here love to find ways to make it about their disgust with black people.SMH. All I think reading this is how many people defended those armed protestors in ... was in Oregon? Because they thought fighting against a perceived attack on the 2nd amendment made an extreme response understandable. Forgive me for forgetting the details , am writing in the dark in bed , never should have opened this thread.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Who isn't disgusted with police officers who engage in first degree murder?

 

It might be less discussed because it is less controversial or nuanced.  There isn't much to say when everyone agrees something is really bad.

 

Also - in this case there is a real lack of detail about what has led to the decision to charge her, so there is a real limit to what people could say about that.

 

The question of riots though, is complicated and constroversial, and there is really quite a lot one could say specifically and in general about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started to write a lot more and then decided it was too personal for the internet and deleted it.  Trying again...

 

Um, yeah.  I almost always side with police, especially given that I have a lot of family in law enforcement, one of whom was murdered by a criminal (shot to death), and then there was my dad, who was shot at twice, pulled his own weapon, and in both cases was found to be in the right, and yes, there was dash cam video. 

 

I think the first tape that changed my mind was the Chicago video.  There have been probably five since then where DH came home from work to find me ranting at the TV about what was clearly murder once the tapes were released OR a bystander's video was released. The MN video was after the fact, and I still thought it demonstrated the cop was guilty.  Because fear isn't enough.  Seeing an actual gun being drawn and/or fired at you is what it takes.  Maybe not legally, but morally. 

 

My dad used to lecture me, long and deep, about the importance of never even drawing a gun on someone unless you were already certain that someone was going to die that day, and if you wanted it to be the criminal, you had to act.  I don't know.  Florida has become the butt of too many national jokes since I've been an adult, so maybe that isn't even the law there.  Maybe my dad learned that particular moral philosophy in the military and not in the police academy.  But that standard of culpability is what has been missing from all of the videos that have changed my mind.

 

I don't watch a ton of Fox News but I was stuck in an airport one night where it was on and Megyn Kelly was making a similar rant about a case that was quite clearly murder.  I think in most situations she's pretty firmly on the side of police too.  I think in that case it was one of the early situations in Dallas.  Similarly, after some cases over the summer, several childhood friends with dads and husbands in law enforcement posted sympathetic things on facebook.  These are not people given to sympathy before seeing evidence.  They've all heard too much to be naive about such things.

 

Literally the only reason I can see to temporarily withhold a video is 1) DA concern about prejudicing a jury, and 2) state laws about surveillance cameras and who owns the footage.

 

My dh thinks there has been a change in policing and police training that has created an idea of the police as something closer to para-military, or maybe a feeling that the situation when policing is like that.  He even thinks the change in uniforms may be a factor - it feels different to go to work in a uniform that looks like you expect to be attacked at any moment with your ray bans and trendy facial hair than it does to go in what are modified office clothes with a tie and a hat. 

 

We don't have quite the same kind of police incidents here in Canada on a regular basis, but there seem to have been a really significant change in the way police respond and think - I connect this particularly with the RCMP which overall, in the past, were considered to have quite a high standard of community policing and professionalism.  Now they seem to reach for their tazars at the drop of a hat and see every situation in terms of a dangerous liability and not a policing problem to be solved with good interpersonal skills.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS it's also true that you don't see the many, many peaceful demonstrations by majority black groups on TV.  I believe the vast majority of protests are as peaceful as they should be, so why don't certain people seem to want us to see that?  Who is making the decision to selectively report so that it appears all protestors are violent or uncivilized?

 

The last NAACP event in Atlanta was peaceful (though a traffic headache, but every event in Atlanta is a traffic headache!)  We saw it on local news, and there were plenty of pictures, but I don't know that it made national news since it was pretty much peaceful and boring.

 

Some pictures here:

http://www.mdjonline.com/neighbor_newspapers/naacp-sponsored-protest-through-atlanta-july-in-pictures/article_5cea37d6-45c8-11e6-9515-e7d9f81f448c.html

And a video news story here:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/large-protest-planned-in-downtown-atlanta/392468978

 

I think this is what true peaceful protestors are going for everywhere, but it often ruined by criminal opportunists or overzealous police.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re what you see depends on where you stand

Well, quite a lot of people don't think those things are always, or sometimes ever, justified, or likely to be sucessful.  So I would hardly say it is only an issue when it is black people.

 

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I don't consider the Boston Tea Party to have been obviously a good idea.  I don't really consider oppressed people anywhere who are using violence against fellow citizens to make a point or try and create political change to be ok, even if I think that oppression is really being perpetrated very deliberately.  It might be understandable but that is not the same as saying it is ok.

 

 

Exactly.  It is possible both to condemn riots for reasons x, y, and z*  and simultaneously to understand that riots are the language of the unheard.  

 

(I do take your earlier point re: rioting sports fans, which I agree appear to be merely opportunist rather than in response to any cause other than The Team, so, OK... can be the language of the unheard.)

 

 

The Boston Tea Party helps me to frame two important issues -- one, how much perspective is framed by position -- the merchant captains whose private property was destroyed WERE NOT the government whose tea tax was deemed tyrannical, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time much like the looted businesses adjacent to modern-day riots; and two, the narrative that comes down is the one written by the winners -- we see the Luddites as rioters and the Tea Partiers as patriots.  Helpful lessons both.

 

 

 

* x = unjust to the businesses caught in the wrong place whose fault it largely isn't,

y= ineffective tactically because they undermine political support for the cause, and

z= backfiring/cutting off the nose to spite the face in that they leave the afflicted neighborhoods desolate and discourage future business investment in them

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, quite a lot of people don't think those things are always, or sometimes ever, justified, or likely to be sucessful.  So I would hardly say it is only an issue when it is black people.

 

Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I don't consider the Boston Tea Party to have been obviously a good idea.  I don't really consider oppressed people anywhere who are using violence against fellow citizens to make a point or try and create political change to be ok, even if I think that oppression is really being perpetrated very deliberately.  It might be understandable but that is not the same as saying it is ok.

 

Yes, that would be why.  

 

I'm sure there are some USians here who are now going to be tempted to say "the tea party was bad because it was destructive" but I guarantee you, this is not what USians generally think.  & IRL, the ones who appaud events in our history the loudest, like the BTP, are the ones who decry the protests the loudest.

 

I think your last comment is interesting.  I don't often hear any willingness to understand people's motivations for doing drastic things against other people - I hear the exact opposite.  I hear how it's proof of how awful they are and clearly they have no leg to stand on because they were violent.  I had a very lengthy discussion with my very "rah-rah founding fathers!", "isn't America wonderful with our Christian heritage" USian traveling-mates in Ireland discussing the IRA violence there.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re what you see depends on where you stand

 

 

Exactly.  It is possible both to condemn riots for reasons x, y, and z*  and simultaneously to understand that riots are the language of the unheard.  

 

(I do take your earlier point re: rioting sports fans, which I agree appear to be merely opportunist rather than in response to any cause other than The Team, so, OK... can be the language of the unheard.)

 

 

The Boston Tea Party helps me to frame two important issues -- one, how much perspective is framed by position -- the merchant captains whose private property was destroyed WERE NOT the government whose tea tax was deemed tyrannical, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time much like the looted businesses adjacent to modern-day riots; and two, the narrative that comes down is the one written by the winners -- we see the Luddites as rioters and the Tea Partiers as patriots.  Helpful lessons both.

 

 

 

* x = unjust to the businesses caught in the wrong place whose fault it largely isn't,

y= ineffective tactically because they undermine political support for the cause, and

z= backfiring/cutting off the nose to spite the face in that they leave the afflicted neighborhoods desolate and discourage future business investment in them

 

Funnily I think of the Tea Party people as rioters and the Luddites as much closer to people protecting their direct interests.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that would be why.  

 

I'm sure there are some USians here who are now going to be tempted to say "the tea party was bad because it was destructive" but I guarantee you, this is not what USians generally think.  & IRL, the ones who appaud events in our history the loudest, like the BTP, are the ones who decry the protests the loudest.

 

I think your last comment is interesting.  I don't often hear any willingness to understand people's motivations for doing drastic things against other people - I hear the exact opposite.  I hear how it's proof of how awful they are and clearly they have no leg to stand on because they were violent.  I had a very lengthy discussion with my very "rah-rah founding fathers!", "isn't America wonderful with our Christian heritage" USian traveling-mates in Ireland discussing the IRA violence there.

 

 

:iagree: 

 

American history books teach that the Boston Tea Party was a heroic act, among the very earliest rounds of a just rebellion against unjust Taxation Without Representation.  That's what the symbol means culturally.  I was in my 40s before it occurred to me to look at it from any other perspective.  

 

We even have a modern-day Tea Party movement, which sees itself as rebelling against unjust governance.  Not rioting against private business interests.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily I think of the Tea Party people as rioters and the Luddites as much closer to people protecting their direct interests.

 

Ah, but see you're Canadian, and revolutionary to boot...

 

:lol:

 

 

 

(FWIW I more or less agree.  Just don't think either view is culturally dominant in the US.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who isn't disgusted with police officers who engage in first degree murder?

 

It might be less discussed because it is less controversial or nuanced.  There isn't much to say when everyone agrees something is really bad.

 

Also - in this case there is a real lack of detail about what has led to the decision to charge her, so there is a real limit to what people could say about that.

 

The question of riots though, is complicated and constroversial, and there is really quite a lot one could say specifically and in general about them.

 

I think the more relevant question is who is willing to make excuses for police officers so that they can say it wasn't 1st degree murder.

 

The amount of explaining why the black person deserved to be shot that I see & hear is astounding.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the more relevant question is who is willing to make excuses for police officers so that they can say it wasn't 1st degree murder.

 

The amount of explaining why the black person deserved to be shot that I see & hear is astounding.  

 

To clarify something, these situations are hardly ever first degree murder.  3rd degree or manslaughter, yes, but it's not rational to argue that police are picking out who they're going to murder in advance and plotting out the whole thing, blowing up their entire lives in the process.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that would be why.  

 

I'm sure there are some USians here who are now going to be tempted to say "the tea party was bad because it was destructive" but I guarantee you, this is not what USians generally think.  & IRL, the ones who appaud events in our history the loudest, like the BTP, are the ones who decry the protests the loudest.

 

I think your last comment is interesting.  I don't often hear any willingness to understand people's motivations for doing drastic things against other people - I hear the exact opposite.  I hear how it's proof of how awful they are and clearly they have no leg to stand on because they were violent.  I had a very lengthy discussion with my very "rah-rah founding fathers!", "isn't America wonderful with our Christian heritage" USian traveling-mates in Ireland discussing the IRA violence there.

 

I think when we are talking directly about an individual or group, it is often the case that perpetrating violence will mean that they have no leg to stand on. 

 

If a particular situation is bad, and a person thinks he can highlight that by engaging in evil against people who are really innocent or haven't any particular power in the situation, it undermines that person's own argument about evil in every way.  Their moral judgement is no longer something that many people will care to listen to. 

 

I think the situation in the modern middle east is largely one that has been created or enabled by the west and has more to do with poverty and exploitation than anything else.  I also am probably more inclined than many to be sympathetic to arguments against secularism as a model of government.  But I also do not think people who are involved with fundamentalist terrorism have a leg to stand on - at best, in their vulnerability, they have been used by others as instruments of evil.  And I would say much worse things about their leaders.

 

As far as people who make rather shallow or ignorant arguments about history and such - while I would not go so far as to say those people aren't accountable for their attitudes, I see them in some ways as very similar to those who allow their oppression to move them in poor directions.  Maybe they suffer from poor education, maybe from an upbringing that has made them vulnerable to certain kinds of rhetoric or stress or narrowing of vision, maybe they are slower thinkers, whatever.  In both cases their thinking and actions aren't all that well thought out and may lead to poor outcomes.  It's a bad sign when those elements become too large in society and when people in leadership start to use the same kind of talk. 

 

I think that to some extent it is probably inevitable that there will be people like that, and so the tone tends to be set by the leadership and their vision.  When that isn't available things tend to get very bad.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...