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

[8circles]

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.

 

Sure, I was just follwing the same wording already used.  I think the point stands, but you're right - 1st degree murder isn't accurate.

[Bluegoat]

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.  

 

What makes something an excuse though?  Without information, it is really hard to say anything, and even in cases where there is video footage released, we'd have to be pretty naïve to think that is always clear.

 

It doesn't make any more sense to assume that every incident of a police shooting is murder, or even bad police work, than to say the opposite.  And the public is rarely in a great position to really make a judgement on the details.

 

I think there is a lot of people who go on about possibilities for an particular outcome - why might an incident have been justified?  Why might it not have been? - Because they know their information is always limited.

 

 And there are a lot of people who seem to make a purely biased argument as well, but that seems to be on both sides. Obviously, the guy was a criminal who was threatening and deserved to be shot.  Obviously, the police are power-hungry racists and so shot this person for no good reason. 

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bluegoat

[8circles]

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.

 

I think that these are all fine theoretical points.  I don't think they have much application in the current situation in the US.

 

I would love to discuss in more detail, but today is a big school day for us so I won't be able to put together as much as this topic needs.

[8circles]

What makes something an excuse though?  Without information, it is really hard to say anything, and even in cases where there is video footage released, we'd have to be pretty naïve to think that is always clear.

 

It doesn't make any more sense to assume that every incident of a police shooting is murder, or even bad police work, than to say the opposite.  And the public is rarely in a great position to really make a judgement on the details.

 

I think there is a lot of people who go on about possibilities for an particular outcome - why might an incident have been justified?  Why might it not have been? - Because they know their information is always limited.

 

 And there are a lot of people who seem to make a purely biased argument as well, but that seems to be on both sides. Obviously, the guy was a criminal who was threatening and deserved to be shot.  Obviously, the police are power-hungry racists and so shot this person for no good reason. 

I'm wondering how much you've actually been paying attention?  Have you seen any of the videos?  Have you heard the comments about the man being a "bad dude"?  

 

I mean, it's fine if you want to just have a philosophical discussion about it, but that isn't my thing.  This is a really disturbing problem in my country and my community that is affecting me very deeply.  I'm not really into discussing it in such a clinical way ATM.

[poppy]

Of course it was controversial

Edited September 23, 2016 by poppy

[Bluegoat]

I'm wondering how much you've actually been paying attention?  Have you seen any of the videos?  Have you heard the comments about the man being a "bad dude"?  

 

I mean, it's fine if you want to just have a philosophical discussion about it, but that isn't my thing.  This is a really disturbing problem in my country and my community that is affecting me very deeply.  I'm not really into discussing it in such a clinical way ATM.

 

Yes, I've seen the videos that are released, and heard the comments.  In very few cases would I be willing to make more than a limited statement about what the incident looked like to me.  I just don't ever feel like I have enough access to unbiased information about the particular incident.  In most cases I think people who do feel sure are saying more than is justified.

 

I have seen people be much more skeptical or disinclined to make a judgement when there is less to see, or things seem unclear.    And I also think that a lot of people are just wary of putting too much weight on video evidence and while that often has an element of reflecting a polarized political landscape (and a kind of conspiracy theory level of skepticism), it isn't unreasonable either.  People have too much experience of that kind of thing being used to manipulate, or in a way that obscures rather than enlightens.

 

In the current instance, we can't even look at the video evidence.  What was released from public comments was suggestive, but very difficult to evaluate from the perspective of someone in the public.  Yes, some people have made premature judgements that there must have been some really good reason for the police action.  Others have made a premature judgment that there must not have been.  As someone that has nothing to go on it would be difficult to say anything really specific.

 

As it stands now, it looks like the people who are in a position to make a call, have, and it isn't that the officer was justified, in fact it's a serious enough accusation that it's actually rather surprising in itself.  So far, I haven't really heard anyone seriously disputing that call and saying they must be making a mistake because of their bias, (though I suppose some may think they will be too harsh in order to take a stand against police violence, and that could be a danger to watch for I suppose.)  But I have heard in many cases where there is a decision that a shooting is justified people saying that it was only on the basis of bias. (Which could be true, but it isn't always going to be and there are certainly people who make that assumption too.)

 

As far as I can see, there is a group of people who think far too highly of the authorities, and a group of people that dismiss the possibility that the authorities could be right at times, and both hold those positions in completely irrational ways without regard to any evidence.  And then they both accuse people who tend to be more cautious in their judgements of being for the other side.

[SproutMamaK]

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

"I mean yes, it is, it is a welfare state. I mean, we have spent trillions of dollars on welfare. We put people in bondage so that they can't be all that they're capable of being. You know, America is a country of freedom and opportunity and liberty, and it didn't become that way because of a great government who provided everything for everyone, no! The destiny of America, the freedom to come to this country, uh, where they're still coming to our shores is because they can take their work ethic and their hard work and put up their capital and their risk and build up their lives."

 

On my initial listening I misheard "their risk" as "to invest"; to my Canadian ears he's got a bit of an accent, lol. Nonetheless, the guy thinks they're upset because welfare is *stopping* them from working hard and "building up their lives".

[MaeFlowers]

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.

I don't know. To be honest, I quit watching the news after Sandy Hook. I watch some but it is very limited. I am sure that riots involving black individuals probably do get more media attention. I would assume this is true right now because this issue is at the forefront in our country. Like I said, though, it is only an assumption and I might be naive.

 

I don't think most have an issues with protesting peacefully. I think there is a argument to made about how effective it is. Rioting, though, doesn't help anyone's cause and makes people less likely to respect those involved and, therefore, makes people more inclined to ignore the plight. I think for black people this is particularly true and more damaging for them than other groups.

[8circles]

Yes, I've seen the videos that are released, and heard the comments.  In very few cases would I be willing to make more than a limited statement about what the incident looked like to me.  I just don't ever feel like I have enough access to unbiased information about the particular incident.  In most cases I think people who do feel sure are saying more than is justified.

 

I have seen people be much more skeptical or disinclined to make a judgement when there is less to see, or things seem unclear.    And I also think that a lot of people are just wary of putting too much weight on video evidence and while that often has an element of reflecting a polarized political landscape (and a kind of conspiracy theory level of skepticism), it isn't unreasonable either.  People have too much experience of that kind of thing being used to manipulate, or in a way that obscures rather than enlightens.

 

In the current instance, we can't even look at the video evidence.  What was released from public comments was suggestive, but very difficult to evaluate from the perspective of someone in the public.  Yes, some people have made premature judgements that there must have been some really good reason for the police action.  Others have made a premature judgment that there must not have been.  As someone that has nothing to go on it would be difficult to say anything really specific.

 

As it stands now, it looks like the people who are in a position to make a call, have, and it isn't that the officer was justified, in fact it's a serious enough accusation that it's actually rather surprising in itself.  So far, I haven't really heard anyone seriously disputing that call and saying they must be making a mistake because of their bias, (though I suppose some may think they will be too harsh in order to take a stand against police violence, and that could be a danger to watch for I suppose.)  But I have heard in many cases where there is a decision that a shooting is justified people saying that it was only on the basis of bias. (Which could be true, but it isn't always going to be and there are certainly people who make that assumption too.)

 

As far as I can see, there is a group of people who think far too highly of the authorities, and a group of people that dismiss the possibility that the authorities could be right at times, and both hold those positions in completely irrational ways without regard to any evidence.  And then they both accuse people who tend to be more cautious in their judgements of being for the other side.

 

This is the last post I'll make on this thread.

 

I'm shocked that you can sit in a different country and continue to post about this issue in MY country in such a cold and removed manner without realizing how inappropriate it is.  You don't get what's going on.

[MaeFlowers]

"I mean yes, it is, it is a welfare state. I mean, we have spent trillions of dollars on welfare. We put people in bondage so that they can't be all that they're capable of being. You know, America is a country of freedom and opportunity and liberty, and it didn't become that way because of a great government who provided everything for everyone, no! The destiny of America, the freedom to come to this country, uh, where they're still coming to our shores is because they can take their work ethic and their hard work and put up their capital and their risk and build up their lives."

 

On my initial listening I misheard "their risk" as "to invest"; to my Canadian ears he's got a bit of an accent, lol. Nonetheless, the guy thinks they're upset because welfare is *stopping* them from working hard and "building up their lives".

I didn't take it that way. I don't think he articulated himself all too well, though. He did leave a lot of questions as to what he actually meant.

[SproutMamaK]

I didn't take it that way. I don't think he articulated himself all too well, though. He did leave a lot of questions as to what he actually meant.

I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational, because I don't mean it that way. I'm curious how you did take it/what you thought he meant if not that? I'm not sure how else to take it.

 

Just checked his twitter account and here's his official statement. 

What is taking place in my hometown right now breaks my heart.  My anguish led me to respond to a reporter’s question in a way that I regret.  The answer doesn’t reflect who I am.  I was quoting statements made by angry protestors last night on national TV.  My intent was to discuss the lack of economic mobility for African-Americans because of failed policies.  I apologize to those I offended and hope we can bring peace and calm to Charlotte.

[Bluegoat]

I think to a large extent, no matter where we are, any more complex and fraught issue will have more complex positions and combinations of opinions, and maybe even more extreme or weird opinions.  All of that gets added to the mix, and sometimes it isn't clear where people are coming from - people might have an extreme view on some aspects and not others, or just a really different experience, and you don't always know what is informing what seems like an odd or bizarre viewpoint or comment.

 

Even something like that crazy guy above who thinks welfare is a reason for racial hatred.  He sounds like a total nut-job, but OTOH I would not want to dismiss questions of class, or differences in monetary opportunities or income, or the gap between the rich and poor, from any discussion on race relations.  And those are intertwined with other issues like crime and education.  I would not be surprised at all for economic issues that are affecting the middle class in general to be a reason for degeneration of any kind of progress around race, especially when it has become a major ploy of the elite to distract from their own actions by pointing at other factors for people's economic instability.

 

I read a discussion a few days ago with someone who was really upset that her kid's pre-school carrying on with their community helper's unit, which talked about the police being helpful and such.  She felt it was not showing support to minority communities and they ought to be teaching the kids about how police violence can be perpetrated in various communities.  It was interesting to see how others responded, but especially when it became clear the person in question actually had a fairly extreme view of law enforcement that most would not have accepted - her ideas made more sense once that was made clear, but that wasn't initially part of the discussion at all.

 

Anyway - I think that's part of the reason it's such a discussed topic with so many different viewpoints.  There really is a great diversity of basic opinions and a lot of related issues that impact viewpoints.  Someone who is a pacifist will take a very different view than someone who tends to support revolutionary measures, even if they have a similar view of race  or the history of the situation.

[Bluegoat]

This is the last post I'll make on this thread.

 

I'm shocked that you can sit in a different country and continue to post about this issue in MY country in such a cold and removed manner without realizing how inappropriate it is.  You don't get what's going on.

 

Not everyone thinks about things in a mainly emotional way.  It doesn't have anything to do with being in one place or another.  What do you want people to say - yes, it's bad when people are hurt, when communities are hurt>  That's a bit of a truism and I really don't see how it helps anything much to leave it there.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bluegoat

[mommyoffive]

You know what is really sad.  I thought I knew which shooting this was, but the one I had heard about was the one in Tulsa not this one.  

 

How can we not be numb?  We all have to be on some level.  The news is just so overwhelming.

[poppy]

I don't know. To be honest, I quit watching the news after Sandy Hook. I watch some but it is very limited. I am sure that riots involving black individuals probably do get more media attention. I would assume this is true right now because this issue is at the forefront in our country. Like I said, though, it is only an assumption and I might be naive.

 

I don't think most have an issues with protesting peacefully. I think there is a argument to made about how effective it is. Rioting, though, doesn't help anyone's cause and makes people less likely to respect those involved and, therefore, makes people more inclined to ignore the plight. I think for black people this is particularly true and more damaging for them than other groups.

People have a problem with peaceful protests if they dislike the goals of the protest - occupy Wall Street, the NFL player who kneels instead of stands during the anthem. Lots of disgust. And it is ramped up, I think , when race is involved. The very idea of Black Lives Matter is inherently confrontational and offensive to some, whereas if it were a class- or religious-centric movement I suspect the reaction would be quite different .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pam in CT]

People have a problem with peaceful protests if they dislike the goals of the protest - occupy Wall Street, the NFL player who kneels instead of stands during the anthem. Lots of disgust. And it is ramped up, I think , when race is involved. The very idea of Black Lives Matter is inherently confrontational and offensive to some, whereas if it were a class- or religious-centric movement I suspect the reaction would be quite different .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Autism Speaks doesn't generate a backlash, but Cognitive Disabilities Speak Too!

 

Breast Cancer Awareness doesn't generate a backlash, but what about Heart Disease Awareness?

 

National Suicide Prevention Day doesn't generate a backlash, but how come there's no Automobile Accident Day?

 

 

 

There's something specific about Black Lives Matter that from the outset has pushed buttons in a unique way.

[Bluegoat]

Autism Speaks doesn't generate a backlash, but Cognitive Disabilities Speak Too!

 

Breast Cancer Awareness doesn't generate a backlash, but what about Heart Disease Awareness?

 

National Suicide Prevention Day doesn't generate a backlash, but how come there's no Automobile Accident Day?

 

 

 

There's something specific about Black Lives Matter that from the outset has pushed buttons in a unique way.

 

There is something of a backlash against breast cancer groups, though not nearly on the same scale of course.

[goldberry]

  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. 

 

 

 

This is why even when officers get prosecuted, they are so rarely convicted.  It seems a majority of these laws are written to favor a subjective view of whether the officer or person "felt" threatened, rather than an objective view of the circumstances, and whether a properly trained and functioning officer *should* have felt threatened to the point of using deadly force in that situation.

 

I think some of these laws are at the core of it, because even if we see more prosecution we are not going to see more convictions or accountability.  The anger and frustration will continue to rise.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

There's something specific about Black Lives Matter that from the outset has pushed buttons in a unique way.

 

Gee...wonder what that could be?

[SKL]

It is true IMO that government policies that purport to lift up minorities actually hold them down (often, not always).  Being held down is frustrating.  I do think that is a factor in a lot of problems we have in our society.

 

We have policies where there are always strings attached to every "leg up" - generally you have to prove you are still poor and miserable after your "leg up" or you get kicked off whatever benefit you're on.  You either have to say "no" to opportunities, or lie and work under the table.  Kids growing up in this are being shown a warped picture of potential, opportunity, and success.

 

Then folks try to place the blame on everyone except the policymakers that created this problem.  It's crazy, but somehow it works for the policymakers.  They will always have a job.

 

Of course it's complex and there's 100 other factors, but the strings are a big one.  We need to cut those strings and let people rise to their potential.  I believe it would save money as well as souls in the long run.

[EmseB]

As far as I can see, there is a group of people who think far too highly of the authorities, and a group of people that dismiss the possibility that the authorities could be right at times, and both hold those positions in completely irrational ways without regard to any evidence. And then they both accuse people who tend to be more cautious in their judgements of being for the other side.

This is it exactly.

 

Unlike other posters, I welcome an outside perspective from someone not in the U.S. I'm sorry people are trying to net nanny because you're Canadian(???) and not emotional about the topic. I think it's best to look at these things as objectively as possible, as per the paragraph I just quoted.

[EmseB]

I would condemn the tarring and feathering of colonial times as much as I would condemn stripping someone and beating them in the street today as much as I would condemn shooting an unarmed person for no reason. Treating people like that is universally worthy of disgust, I would hope?

 

I think the arguments about Occupy and the Oregon protests are non sequiturs. I might disagree with them, but violence against other humans and destruction of property is entirely different.

[MaeFlowers]

I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational, because I don't mean it that way. I'm curious how you did take it/what you thought he meant if not that? I'm not sure how else to take it.

 

Just checked his twitter account and here's his official statement.

What is taking place in my hometown right now breaks my heart. My anguish led me to respond to a reporter’s question in a way that I regret. The answer doesn’t reflect who I am. I was quoting statements made by angry protestors last night on national TV. My intent was to discuss the lack of economic mobility for African-Americans because of failed policies. I apologize to those I offended and hope we can bring peace and calm to Charlotte.

 

 

 

I think he was saying that we became the land of opportunity because if one worked hard, one could collect the fruits of their labor regardless of their color, creed, etc. Obviously, that is true to point but has not worked out for everyone.

 

Second, I think he was making the argument that the welfare system has created a trap for black people. Again, the welfare system has been a trap for some people, not others. (Probably not the majority).

 

I think he was trying to say that black people are upset because they have not had the same opportunity to succeed and *he* was blaming that on welfare. I think he was talking about multiple issues and conflating them. (Erroneously, in my opinion.)

[MaeFlowers]

People have a problem with peaceful protests if they dislike the goals of the protest - occupy Wall Street, the NFL player who kneels instead of stands during the anthem. Lots of disgust. And it is ramped up, I think , when race is involved. The very idea of Black Lives Matter is inherently confrontational and offensive to some, whereas if it were a class- or religious-centric movement I suspect the reaction would be quite different .

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people don't care that much. I mean in terms of Occupy Wall Street or a player taking a knee. People like to gripe. And they are allowed to, really. It's really just a matter of expressing their opinion.

 

I **think** the BLM issue is slightly different in that race relations have been an ongoing issue since the beginning. The emotions are deep seated. There also seems to be slot of confusion as to what these groups hope to achieve and the measure by with we will know we have achieved them.

[MaeFlowers]

I think he was just stupid and forgot to use the code words and dog whistle phrases of his ilk. He said exactly what he meant the first time, freaked out when he realized his mistake, then sweetened it up and put out the official Twitter statement. I'm sure he'll be more careful from now on. Too late.

You know, this doesn't do anything but alienate people.

[8circles]

This is it exactly.

 

Unlike other posters, I welcome an outside perspective from someone not in the U.S. I'm sorry people are trying to net nanny because you're Canadian(???) and not emotional about the topic. I think it's best to look at these things as objectively as possible, as per the paragraph I just quoted.

 

Oh, get over yourself.  I'm not net nannying anyone.  I'm commenting on someone's complete lack of awareness of what the climate is here, in this country.  Because her assessment is wrong and the paragraph that you quoted is not "as objectively as possible", it is missing a huge part of the picture.  

 

"As far as I can see, there is a group of people who think far too highly of the authorities, and a group of people that dismiss the possibility that the authorities could be right at times, and both hold those positions in completely irrational ways without regard to any evidence. And then they both accuse people who tend to be more cautious in their judgements of being for the other side."

 

Except there are also people who think highly of the authorities who are seeing that despite pockets of goodness and fairness and exceptional individuals, there is massive racial discrimination built into those authority structures.  And then there are those who continue to deny that the racism exists despite the massive amounts of historical and current evidence to the contrary.

[8circles]

Gee...wonder what that could be?

 

I think they just aren't very emotional about things and can look at them more objectively.  Or something like that.

[TranquilMind]

Gee...wonder what that could be?

 

The aggressiveness?    According to some black pastors, anyway: 

 

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Black-Lives-Matter-Too-Aggressive-Pastors-337215051.html

 

[8circles]

Not everyone thinks about things in a mainly emotional way.  It doesn't have anything to do with being in one place or another.  What do you want people to say - yes, it's bad when people are hurt, when communities are hurt>  That's a bit of a truism and I really don't see how it helps anything much to leave it there.

 

I don't generally "think about things in a mainly emotional way" - this is a highly traumatizing situation for people.  I'll make sure to remind my father not to think of things too emotionally when he recalls the trauma of living in a warzone.  We have to be objective, after all.

[goldberry]

There is a video the wife took out there.  

 

http://www.complex.com/life/2016/09/video-shows-moments-lead-to-fatal-police-shooting-keith-lamont-scott

Warning, intense plus language.

Edited September 23, 2016 by goldberry

[goldberry]

Two things I noticed.  The wife told them "he has TBI and just took his medicine", which obviously made no difference.  Also, there is definitely a gun on the ground, but it kind of appears out of nowhere from one frame to the next.

 

Edited.  There is an object on the ground, it looks sort of like a gun, but still unclear.

Edited September 23, 2016 by goldberry

[sheryl]

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.

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.  No sarcasm.   If you knew me you'd know that but you don't.  While I don't agree with protestors (peaceful or not) and rioting, I do support the First Amendment and enjoy this myself.  Here is an easy to understand definition.  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and right to petition.

 

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).  You mentioned they were just rumors.   At that point they were and thankfully they stayed that way.  However, my point is there is a line crossed from rumor o full fledged peaceful demo. or rioting.  Does that make sense?  The rumor "was" the plan.  Once there is an "eruption" it becomes an active riot or more so, in this case, rioting.   Verifiable info?  Hmmm.  Everybody I've been speaking with has heard of the "planned" event last night.  Again, it didn't "erupt" into a riot and I'm thankful.

 

And, yes, that is correct.  A curfew was imposed beginning with last night (Thursday) from 12 am - 6 am.  I haven't heard of any updates re: lifting that order. 

 

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

[Susan in TX]

Oh, get over yourself.  I'm not net nannying anyone.  I'm commenting on someone's complete lack of awareness of what the climate is here, in this country.  Because her assessment is wrong and the paragraph that you quoted is not "as objectively as possible", it is missing a huge part of the picture.  

 

"As far as I can see, there is a group of people who think far too highly of the authorities, and a group of people that dismiss the possibility that the authorities could be right at times, and both hold those positions in completely irrational ways without regard to any evidence. And then they both accuse people who tend to be more cautious in their judgements of being for the other side."

 

Except there are also people who think highly of the authorities who are seeing that despite pockets of goodness and fairness and exceptional individuals, there is massive racial discrimination built into those authority structures.  And then there are those who continue to deny that the racism exists despite the massive amounts of historical and current evidence to the contrary.

 

I do not understand how one can say that there is "massive racial discrimination" when the police chief in Charlotte is Black. If there is so much racial discrimination in the police force how did he get to be in such a position? And he isn't the only one. The Dallas police chief is also Black. More than a quarter of the police officers nation wide are minorities https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/05/14/justice-dept-says-more-than-a-quarter-of-local-police-officers-are-minorities/?utm_term=.e1dc97c23780

 

And how can the Charlotte shooting even be about race  since the it was a black police officer shooting a black man?

 

Susan in TX

[Farrar]

Two things I noticed.  The wife told them "he has TBI and just took his medicine", which obviously made no difference.  Also, there is definitely a gun on the ground, but it kind of appears out of nowhere from one frame to the next.

 

Do you actually think that's definitely a gun? There's definitely something. It definitely could be a gun. I definitely can't see well enough to know for sure. And that's the line most of the media is giving it too. I don't think it appears out of nowhere - I think it's behind one of the guy's feet. But then... I dunno... it's weird that he's standing there like that straddling it if it's a gun? Or maybe not. I have no clue. I just don't know how anyone can see that video and be sure of what that tiny, blurry object is.

[goldberry]

Do you actually think that's definitely a gun? There's definitely something. It definitely could be a gun. I definitely can't see well enough to know for sure. And that's the line most of the media is giving it too. I don't think it appears out of nowhere - I think it's behind one of the guy's feet. But then... I dunno... it's weird that he's standing there like that straddling it if it's a gun? Or maybe not. I have no clue. I just don't know how anyone can see that video and be sure of what that tiny, blurry object is.

 

I don't know, I did kind of frame by frame (with repeated pausing) watching that area closely.  It really did not seem like the feet moved at all where the gun appeared.  (it really does look like a gun, and police are saying a gun was recovered from the scene)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't know, I did kind of frame by frame (with repeated pausing) watching that area closely.  It really did not seem like the feet moved at all where the gun appeared.  (it really does look like a gun, and police are saying a gun was recovered from the scene)

 

There is something that is dropped at one point, and while it has the shape of a gun it doesn't hit the pavement like one.

[goldberry]

 

  No sarcasm.   If you knew me you'd know that but you don't.  While I don't agree with protestors (peaceful or not) and rioting, I do support the First Amendment and enjoy this myself.  Here is an easy to understand definition.  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and right to petition.

 

 

 You mentioned they were just rumors.   At that point they were and thankfully they stayed that way.  However, my point is there is a line crossed from rumor o full fledged peaceful demo. or rioting.  Does that make sense?  The rumor "was" the plan.  Once there is an "eruption" it becomes an active riot or more so, in this case, rioting.   Verifiable info?  Hmmm.  Everybody I've been speaking with has heard of the "planned" event last night.  Again, it didn't "erupt" into a riot and I'm thankful.

 

 

 

Now I'm not understanding.  Regarding the planned riot, riots aren't usually planned.  Protests are planned.  A protest can be peaceful or it can turn into a riot.  So I *think* that is what Karen meant, that a "planned riot" is not really accurate.  If it was a planned riot, that would be kind of stupid to let that out.

 

Secondly... are you saying you don't agree with any kind of protest, peaceful or not, or just these protesters?  Because I don't understand that sentence.

[goldberry]

There is something that is dropped at one point, and while it has the shape of a gun it doesn't hit the pavement like one.

 

Were you able to see it dropped?  I couldn't see that.  

 

But, I'm sure the film will be analyzed and enhanced and we'll see more detail after that.

[Farrar]

I don't know, I did kind of frame by frame (with repeated pausing) watching that area closely.  It really did not seem like the feet moved at all where the gun appeared.  (it really does look like a gun, and police are saying a gun was recovered from the scene)

 

NBC News were the ones who obtained the video. They said, "No gun is clearly visible in the video footage, which appears to have been recorded from a nearby patch of grass."

 

It definitely looks like it could be a gun. I'm just not sure. The talking head people were analyzing it and zoomed in and it still just looks like a dark blur to me. Honestly, in the zoom in, it almost looked like a walkie talkie to me, like a cop had put theirs down. Though, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The cops have planted guns before (remember the guy in SC?) but this seems like way too many people to have planted a gun in the open like that. Apparently the cops haven't claimed that's the gun, just that a gun was found.

 

I didn't think the guy's feet moved... I thought her perspective moved a little. It's shaky video in places.

 

It's scary to me that she's screaming at them that he is basically mentally challenged and they don't even pause.

[goldberry]

 

It's scary to me that she's screaming at them that he is basically mentally challenged and they don't even pause.

 

Yes, she said he has TBI and is on medication.  I'm wondering why since she was there they didn't ask her to talk to him when at first he wouldn't get out of the car.

[Kathryn]

If you pause the video and go through frame by frame, you can see that the black cop was trying to put black gloves on, then threw them down. The man in red then picked the gloves up and threw them back on the ground. The first guy then gets a different pair of gloves on. Those are the only gun-like objects I see. The photo that the cops say shows the gun has it down by his feet, where there is clearly no gun in the video that the wife recorded.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

NBC News were the ones who obtained the video. They said, "No gun is clearly visible in the video footage, which appears to have been recorded from a nearby patch of grass."

 

It definitely looks like it could be a gun. I'm just not sure. The talking head people were analyzing it and zoomed in and it still just looks like a dark blur to me. Honestly, in the zoom in, it almost looked like a walkie talkie to me, like a cop had put theirs down. Though, that doesn't make a lot of sense. The cops have planted guns before (remember the guy in SC?) but this seems like way too many people to have planted a gun in the open like that. Apparently the cops haven't claimed that's the gun, just that a gun was found.

 

I didn't think the guy's feet moved... I thought her perspective moved a little. It's shaky video in places.

 

It's scary to me that she's screaming at them that he is basically mentally challenged and they don't even pause.

 

Correct.  Someone looking at earlier still photographs pinpointed that as the gun, but that has not come from the police.

 

The police were yelling at him to put the gun down in the video, which makes it likely there was a gun.  And like you said, that is not the time or place for a planted gun.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If you pause the video and go through frame by frame, you can see that the black cop was trying to put black gloves on, then threw them down. The man in red then picked the gloves up and threw them back on the ground. The first guy then gets a different pair of gloves on. Those are the only gun-like objects I see. The photo that the cops say shows the gun has it down by his feet, where there is clearly no gun in the video that the wife recorded.

 

Has that been in a statement from the police?  I thought it was journalist who reported that was the gun?

[swimmermom3]

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

 

Thanks for bringing this up, Poppy.  We were just out in Harney County this past weekend and the refuge is still closed for repairs from damage caused by the "protesters".  The latest number I could find was a cost of $6.5 million to Oregon taxpayers.  These guys vandalized the heck out of the place, looted Native American artifacts, threatened the locals with physical violence and to shoot law enforcement officers.  Yet, somehow they are different from the race rioters?  How?  Oh yeah, they are white with guns. That made them right, of course. Honestly, most of those good ol' boys were looking for an excuse for a month-long gun-totting cowboy-themed frat party. They were every bit as opportunistic as many of the violent rioters are.

[Tanaqui]

And how can the Charlotte shooting even be about race  since the it was a black police officer shooting a black man?

 

Racism does not necessarily mean simple racial bigotry and hatred.  We can use the term that way, but frequently we mean "structural racism", which both whites and blacks can get caught up in.

 

(And even if we are using it to mean bigotry, members of an in-group can still hate other members of that same group. Self-hating is a thing.)

 

I do not understand how one can say that there is "massive racial discrimination" when the police chief in Charlotte is Black. If there is so much racial discrimination in the police force how did he get to be in such a position? And he isn't the only one. The Dallas police chief is also Black. More than a quarter of the police officers nation wide are minorities https://www.washingt...=.e1dc97c23780

 

 

Discrimination doesn't mean "people from the marginalized group never are promoted", it can mean "people from the marginalized group have to work harder to get the same results". Additionally, tokenism is also a thing, though I don't know if that applies here.

[Farrar]

Has that been in a statement from the police?  I thought it was journalist who reported that was the gun?

 

No, definitely media speculation. The police have really said very little.

[Kathryn]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-release-photo-keith-lamont-scott-shows-gun-nearby-article-1.2803052

 

"The photo, taken by a witness just after the shooting, shows two police officers hovering over Scott as he lies facedown on the ground. An apparent firearm — which police circled in red — is lying inches from his feet, which supports the police account that Scott was armed when he was shot.

 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police chief Kerr Putney released the photo while refusing to make dashcam video of the shooting public, saying Thursday that "transparency is in the eye of the beholder."

 

North Carolina ACLU spokesman Mike Meno criticized the department's release of a photo that supports their narrative while withholding the video. "

[Kathryn]

Also, if you go frame by frame, you see him seemingly calm with arms at his sides for several seconds, up to one second before shots were fired when the camera is off him. Not at all what I'd call "brandishing" a gun.

[goldberry]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-release-photo-keith-lamont-scott-shows-gun-nearby-article-1.2803052

 

"The photo, taken by a witness just after the shooting, shows two police officers hovering over Scott as he lies facedown on the ground. An apparent firearm — which police circled in red — is lying inches from his feet, which supports the police account that Scott was armed when he was shot.

 

 

 

Okay thanks... then it is in a different place than the object on the ground in the wife's video.

[Farrar]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/cops-release-photo-keith-lamont-scott-shows-gun-nearby-article-1.2803052

 

"The photo, taken by a witness just after the shooting, shows two police officers hovering over Scott as he lies facedown on the ground. An apparent firearm — which police circled in red — is lying inches from his feet, which supports the police account that Scott was armed when he was shot.

 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police chief Kerr Putney released the photo while refusing to make dashcam video of the shooting public, saying Thursday that "transparency is in the eye of the beholder."

 

North Carolina ACLU spokesman Mike Meno criticized the department's release of a photo that supports their narrative while withholding the video. "

 

Weird, that's the exact opposite of what the MSNBC video on this NBC post says about that photo - they said that police released the photo and claimed there was a gun recovered, but didn't claim that was the gun. Or maybe I'm confused and it's a different photo?

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/charlotte-shooting-video-footage-shows-fatal-encounter-between-police-keith-n653426