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

[goldberry]

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.

 

Is just holding a gun justifying deadly force?  Or what is the rule about that?

[Farrar]

Two thoughts...

 

One, unreliable witnesses indeed. Now that I've heard the black glove suggestion, it totally looks like black gloves.

 

Two... whether the video is good for the police or bad, releasing their (probably much clearer footage) would go a long way toward calming the whole thing down. If you compare to Tulsa... that video is bad for the cops, but they released it. And there wasn't any unrest. Every situation is unique, but it feels like no one wants to learn from best practices here.

[swimmermom3]

re trying to have a conversation

 

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.

 

Thank you so much for this post, Pam.  My son's university campus is in the middle of a firestorm due to a recent racist and/or sexist "incident" on campus. The conversations are really tough and you are right, the problems aren't going anywhere soon.  When there is significant injustice and inequality, the pressure can't build indefinitely. It just can't. 

 

 

[Kathryn]

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

The article you linked, and the one it links to, both say the police said the object in the photo is the gun.

 

ETA in case it changes, quote from right now: "No gun is clearly visible in the video footage, which appears to have been recorded from a nearby patch of grass. A photo, previously obtained by NBC News from local affiliate WCNC, appears to show an object at the scene that police sources identified to the affiliate as a gun. It is not known how long after the shooting the photo was taken."

 

And the article it links to captions the picture thus: "Police sources confirm to WCNC, the NBC Charlotte station, that a witness' photo taken moments after the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott shows a gun at his feet."

Edited September 23, 2016 by Kathryn

[Kathryn]

Is just holding a gun justifying deadly force? Or what is the rule about that?

I have no idea. It certainly doesn't seem like it should. But, I specifically mentioned that because the word I saw repeatedly used by police was that he was "brandishing" a gun, and what that video shows is definitely not brandishing.

[MaeFlowers]

Two thoughts...

 

One, unreliable witnesses indeed. Now that I've heard the black glove suggestion, it totally looks like black gloves.

 

Two... whether the video is good for the police or bad, releasing their (probably much clearer footage) would go a long way toward calming the whole thing down. If you compare to Tulsa... that video is bad for the cops, but they released it. And there wasn't any unrest. Every situation is unique, but it feels like no one wants to learn from best practices here.

I'm not sure it's the fact that they released the video. It think it may have more to do with other differences in the cities.

 

I can't speak for Charlotte but I grew up in Tulsa. It's a very, very white city. I don't think it is as divided now, but when I was growing up the city was highly segregated. The black population there is 10-15%. And, most people don't realize this, but what is considered one of the worst, if not the worst, race riot to ever happen in the US happened there.

[Susan in TX]

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.)

 

 

So you are saying that blacks can be racist against other blacks? And I suppose all police officers are racists because they are police officers. Just like all white people are racist simply because they are white.

 

Susan in TX

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So you are saying that blacks can be racist against other blacks? And I suppose all police officers are racists because they are police officers. Just like all white people are racist simply because they are white.

 

Susan in TX

 

Well.

Bless your heart.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The article you linked, and the one it links to, both say the police said the object in the photo is the gun.

 

ETA in case it changes, quote from right now: "No gun is clearly visible in the video footage, which appears to have been recorded from a nearby patch of grass. A photo, previously obtained by NBC News from local affiliate WCNC, appears to show an object at the scene that police sources identified to the affiliate as a gun. It is not known how long after the shooting the photo was taken."

 

And the article it links to captions the picture thus: "Police sources confirm to WCNC, the NBC Charlotte station, that a witness' photo taken moments after the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott shows a gun at his feet."

 

In cases like this where reporters are racing for the big scoop, I am hesitant to accept statements from unnamed sources. 

[KarenNC]

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.

 

I'm not understanding fully, either, particularly why one would think from my statements that I don't understand the First Amendment because I think it's important to distinguish between a peaceful protest and a riot??

 

Anyway, as to the Southpark thing, I was trying to ascertain several things:

1) Were the rumors heard about a protest being planned or an actual riot being planned. Sheryl was using the terms fairly interchangably, from what I could tell. 

2) What was the source of the rumor---was it from a specific group (there were several putting together protests) like THUG (and btw, who thought *that* was a good name for a peace group?) or the clergy coalition, who might well be planning a peaceful protest, or just general "I heard......" on FB/Twitter?

3) If the first, I would be more likely to believe it was really going to happen.

4) If the second, who posted it? The police, a news organization, the mayor's office, a random person? Lots of inflammatory rumors and panic were going on. If there was a specific protest planned, it would be good to know, as we have seen that there is the potential for agitators to use a peaceful protest for their own purposes and start trouble.

5) I was not discounting the possibility of a planned actual riot. There was a tweet from, I believe, the police that there was a group of agitators from SC who had planned to come in to cause trouble. I'll have to look for the tweet.

 

Here we go---this was from a local news organization, giving info from the police update after the curfew was imposed last night:

1. WSOCTV â€@wsoctv  8h8 hours ago

   .@cmpd Chief: That helped to make the decision to establish a curfew.

   2 retweets2 likes

   Reply

    

    

   Retweet

    

    

   2

    

    

    

   Like

    

   2

    

   More

    
2.  

   WSOCTV â€@wsoctv  8h8 hours ago

   .@cmpd Chief: At 8:45 pm, saw people putting on gas masks. At 8:52 got intelligence of a violent group coming from South Carolina

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by KarenNC

[goldberry]

So you are saying that blacks can be racist against other blacks? And I suppose all police officers are racists because they are police officers. Just like all white people are racist simply because they are white.

 

Susan in TX

 

Wow.  That's an awful lot you are reading into her statement.

 

But yes, blacks can be racist against other blacks.  Is that really a new concept to you?  Structural or institutional racism affects the behavior of everyone.  That's why it's so insidious.

 

ETA, think about the concept of implicit bias.  Here is a definition:  

 

Defining Implicit Bias

Also known as implicit social cognition, implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner.  These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control.  Residing deep in the subconscious, these biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal for the purposes of social and/or political correctness.  Rather, implicit biases are not accessible through introspection.

The implicit associations we harbor in our subconscious cause us to have feelings and attitudes about other people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, age, and appearance.  These associations develop over the course of a lifetime beginning at a very early age through exposure to direct and indirect messages.  In addition to early life experiences, the media and news programming are often-cited origins of implicit associations.

Edited September 23, 2016 by goldberry

[Kathryn]

In cases like this where reporters are racing for the big scoop, I am hesitant to accept statements from unnamed sources.

I understand, just posting where I saw what.

 

At any rate, I have a theory after reading this article and viewing frame by frame again. http://www.wcnc.com/mb/news/local/keith-scott-shooting/former-fbi-agent-breaks-down-cell-phone-video-of-keith-scott-shooting/324882723

Right after the shooting, before she goes back over there, there is something on the ground right where the red shirt guy ends up standing by the time she's over there. Throughout the rest of the video, he very consciously does not move his left foot. If the body was moved before the still photo was taken, that could be the same location.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Kathryn

[MomatHWTK]

Is just holding a gun justifying deadly force?  Or what is the rule about that?

 

It would appear that simply existing is a justification for deadly force. The lack of training, the lack of responsiveness to the NEED for training is appalling. Everything else is a side issue. If someone is so panicked by situations that they encounter on the job daily that they don't even think before responding, then the person needs a new job. Until that happens, most of us are powerless to do anything.

 

We can complain and protest, but nothing will change unless there is a new commitment to deep and intense psychological evaluation and training for everyone who is given authority by the state to wield a firearm. 

 

I genuinely feel helpless.

 

I sometimes feel targeted for blame and accusation because I'm not a member of the targeted demographic. I say the wrong things. I don't understand every reaction or statement I read. I want to believe in the good of those who should protect us. Right now, most of all- I fear for my friends and colleagues who are a part of the targeted demographic. But then, how can you really say to your business associates, "Hey, stay indoors man, I don't want you getting shot." And really, that's all these guys can do. Never go outside. Never drive a car. : ( 

 

I don't think police officers are inherently evil, but I do think many are carrying deep psychological scars that prevent them from carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, absent comprehensive examination of each and every officer there's no way to tell who is damaged beyond repair. Otherwise, how on earth can you tell which officer is so freaked-out that they think a person of color walking slowing or laying on the ground is a deadly threat?

[swimmermom3]

So you are saying that blacks can be racist against other blacks? And I suppose all police officers are racists because they are police officers. Just like all white people are racist simply because they are white.

 

Susan in TX

 

I don't think that is what she's saying. Let's take the case of ex-Vanderbilt football player Brandon Vandenberg.  He's the swell guy that passed out condoms to fellow teammates and encouraged them to rape a passed out woman that he had dated, while he filmed the proceedings.  When the boys were all done with their "project," they dumped her out in the hallway and left her there, nude or semi-nude, beat-up, and pissed on.  Some of their teammates walked right past her and did nothing.  Now, obviously the observers aren't the rapists, but they were part of the culture and I would imagine they thought it was in their best interests to say nothing.

 

It seems certain that Joe Paterno had some idea of what Jerry Sandusky was doing, and while Paterno was not a child molester, he was part of the culture that allowed the situation to occur and he had too much at stake to do anything about it.

 

I've seen women stick it to other women just to look good to the men in the room.

 

My son attends a university which is 55% white, which is fairly good in a country that is what, 77% white?  They have an African-American student body president. That doesn't mean racism doesn't exist on campus.

 

[Susan in TX]

Wow.  That's an awful lot you are reading into her statement.

 

But yes, blacks can be racist against other blacks.  Is that really a new concept to you?  Structural or institutional racism affects the behavior of everyone.  That's why it's so insidious.

 

ETA, think about the concept of implicit bias.  Here is a definition:  

 

Defining Implicit Bias

Also known as implicit social cognition, implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner.  These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control.  Residing deep in the subconscious, these biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal for the purposes of social and/or political correctness.  Rather, implicit biases are not accessible through introspection.

The implicit associations we harbor in our subconscious cause us to have feelings and attitudes about other people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, age, and appearance.  These associations develop over the course of a lifetime beginning at a very early age through exposure to direct and indirect messages.  In addition to early life experiences, the media and news programming are often-cited origins of implicit associations.

 

Ok, but one can be biased against someone for ANY reason. Racism is not the same thing:

 

noun

noun: racism

th     1. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to        another race or races.

 

2. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

 

Susan in TX

[Farrar]

So you are saying that blacks can be racist against other blacks? And I suppose all police officers are racists because they are police officers. Just like all white people are racist simply because they are white.

 

Susan in TX

 

In addition to the other responses to this, I'll just add... It's so hard when we don't all share a decent understand of what racism even is. I think a lot of white people are stuck on the idea of active racism as being the only form of racism. People who explicitly believe that white people are better and act upon that in various ways, denying jobs to non-whites when they can or insulting them or using racist slurs.

 

The reality is that the vast majority of racism now is unintentional. It's things like how names that sound more white get more call backs from employers. It's how doctors don't recommend procedures to Black (and female) patients even when their symptoms are identical to white patients. It's how white legislators are less likely to respond to constituents with Black sounding names. And that's just a few examples - there are studies about how juries convict Black defendants more for the exact same crimes, and a huge variety of variations on the workplace and hiring study, showing that Black employees with the exact same qualifications aren't chosen to advance as often.

 

The people who make these decisions, by and large, are not engaged in active racism. They're not KKK members by a long shot. They do not know they're being racist. They think they just had a "gut feeling" that Emily was a better candidate for the job than Jamal. Or they think they've decided randomly because all things were equal. But statistically, they didn't. This is the face of racism today. We all can do it. It takes actively fighting against it.

[Farrar]

Ok, but one can be biased against someone for ANY reason. Racism is not the same thing:

 

noun

noun: racism

th     1. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to        another race or races.

 

2. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

 

Susan in TX

 

Everyday Feminism to the rescue once again!

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/03/dictionary-definition-racism/

 

I think the Mirriam-Webster simple definition is pretty decent actually. One of them is just, "poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race"

[MaeFlowers]

Ok, but one can be biased against someone for ANY reason. Racism is not the same thing:

 

noun

noun: racism

 

th 1. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

 

2. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

 

Susan in TX

There a lot of black people who hate other black people for being black. I've known quite a few.

[Janeway]

It's just an excuse to riot.

 

Police shootings are as old as, well, police. They happen, a lot. Until there is proof of something unjust happening, it doesn't really belong in national news. It only ended up there because of the riots and the shooting was just an excuse to riot.

[Joules]

The Atlanta NAACP Rally is streaming live on a local news station.  Not the best camera work, but some good stuff.  The only drama I've seen so far is someone passed out from the heat.

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/georgia-naacp-holds-news-conference-on-police-shootings/324776897

(You may have to click the red Live Stream banner at the top.)

 

[Kathryn]

Second video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YxktBbFgFVE

 

They did move the body and take his pants off.

[Susan in TX]

I just found a website where you can take a test to find out if you have an implicit bias against African Americans or European Americans. I found the results intriguing. It said I have a " moderate automatic preference for African American compared to European American." ( I am European American). I really expected the results to show that I had a bias against African Americans.

 

Here is the link if anyone else wants to try it https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

 

Susan in TX

[Tanaqui]

So you are saying that blacks can be racist against other blacks? And I suppose all police officers are racists because they are police officers. Just like all white people are racist simply because they are white.

 

Let's look at each sentence individually.

 

1a. If you're asking if I mean that black people can harbor a racial bigotry towards members of their race, then I'd have to say that yes, I am saying that. Look at Bill Cosby, who for years seemed to think that the sole reason black people had troubles in America is because of how some black people dress and speak. (He may still think that, but I've long since stopped caring.)

 

1b. If you're asking if I mean that black people can suffer from implicit bias against other blacks because of their race without it being conscious, or if they can be caught up in a structurally racist system - well, yes, I'm saying that too. Remember Brown v Board of Education? One of the reasons they managed to win that case is by showing that black children preferred white dolls. A few years ago somebody re-ran that same experiment, and got much the same results. You can see a video here, and if you don't think it's heartbreaking to watch small children say that the dolls that look more like them are "bad" or "ugly" then I have nothing more to say about this.

 

The makers of this test - which you can take for yourself! - state that their results show that 50% of African-Americans have some implicit bias against other blacks.

 

2. I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion, and I think your statement is unwarranted. I certainly do not think that "all" members of any group (such as "the cops" or "blacks") share any particular point of view, unless that group is explicitly about that point of view (so I do think all members of the KKK are probably racist, and all members of this forum care about education).

 

3. I'm white. I am not a bigot. I probably do have some levels of unconscious bias, though - that's normal for humans. I certainly benefit from the racist aspects of our society - for example, I'm unlikely to get "randomly" stopped and frisked, and if I walk down the street in a different neighborhood from the one I live in, I doubt people will call the cops.

[Tanaqui]

Police shootings are as old as, well, police. They happen, a lot.

 

They do not happen "a lot" outside of America. And inside America they happen a lot more to some groups of people (such as Native Americans, Latinos, the mentally ill)  than to others (such as whites and Asians).

 

[Susan in TX]

Let's look at each sentence individually.

 

2. I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion, and I think your statement is unwarranted. I certainly do not think that "all" members of any group (such as "the cops" or "blacks") share any particular point of view, unless that group is explicitly about that point of view (so I do think all members of the KKK are probably racist, and all members of this forum care about education).

 

3. I'm white. I am not a bigot. I probably do have some levels of unconscious bias, though - that's normal for humans. I certainly benefit from the racist aspects of our society - for example, I'm unlikely to get "randomly" stopped and frisked, and if I walk down the street in a different neighborhood from the one I live in, I doubt people will call the cops.

 

For 2. I should change that to: all police officers who shoot black people are racist, and the reason blacks (as a percentage of the population) are shot more often is because all police officers have an implicit bias against black people.

 

And  what I said about all white people being racist was a tongue in cheek statement that stems from personal experience of people assuming I'm racist, or otherwise have an implicit bias against blacks, because I'm white.

 

Susan in TX

Edited September 24, 2016 by Susan in TX

[Tanaqui]

For 2. I should change that to: all police officers who shoot black people are racist, and the reason blacks (as a percentage of the population) are shot more often is because all police officers have an implicit bias against black people.

 

I see.

 

I think we have a number of issues which make police shootings exceptionally frequent in the USA. Structural racism and racial bigotry certainly are part of the problem, but the trouble with structural racism is you never know whether it affected any particular incident, and if so, how much. It kinda sneaks in everywhere, like the smell of cigarette smoke or cat pee. Can't figure out for sure which items caused the stink, but neither can you avoid the pervading stench.

 

Undoubtedly this can make people twitchy. If any particular incident might or might not be racially charged, and all you know for sure is that you've had a lot more of those little (and not so little) incidents than your white friends and co-workers, sooner or later you're bound to start thinking that race is always a reason, or even the reason. And you might well be right.

 

And  what I said about all white people being racist was a tongue in cheek statement that stems from personal experience of people assuming I'm racist, or otherwise have an implicit bias against blacks, because I'm white.

 

Well, miscommunication happens :)

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

 

People who undergo trauma will be affected by it, yes.  No one has said it is wrong to have strong feelings about their experiences - you are telling people that is the only way to talk about it.

 

That people have strong feelings doesn't mean that it is a bad thing for people to look at the situation from another perspective, or apply reason or some kind of analysis to it.  I can't think of any situation of that kind that has been made better when no one tries to be objective.

[Scarlett]

The police released the video.

 

I watched it over and over. I can't see a gun.....but he did not have his hands away from his body all the time.

[SKL]

People are so certain that this is racism, despite the shooter being black.

 

It could not possibly be that the black cop had a reason to shoot, besides hating other blacks for being black.

It could not possibly be that the black cop was not given appropriate training to de-escalate without shooting, regardless of the color of the skin of the person being arrested.

 

It could not possibly be that the black cop made a human mistake - or was just a bad / incompetent cop - regardless of the color of the person who got shot.

 

Also, I don't think it matters that the wife was hollering "he doesn't have a gun, he just took his medication."  Do spouses /close friends of criminals usually tell the truth about whether they have a gun or are up to something bad?  If you thought you saw a gun being pointed at you, but some lady was telling you it wasn't a gun, would you let your defenses down on her word?  I wouldn't.

[MaeFlowers]

Internalized racism is a symptom of systemic racism.

Maybe. I'm not sure though. When you're black and abused by black people your whole life I would think it might come pretty naturally regardless of the system. A biased system at that point would only seem to reinforce an already existing notion. Maybe.

Edited September 25, 2016 by MaeFlowers

[Pam in CT]

re implicit association test

 

I just found a website where you can take a test to find out if you have an implicit bias against African Americans or European Americans. I found the results intriguing. It said I have a " moderate automatic preference for African American compared to European American." ( I am European American). I really expected the results to show that I had a bias against African Americans.

 

Here is the link if anyone else wants to try it https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

 

Susan in TX

 

You are statistically speaking extremely unusual, then.  

 

Every person I know personally who has taken the test, including myself, has been dismayed by our results.  It is a powerful test, and because it is designed based on the speed by which participants do the sorting tasks, rather than the responses, it is much harder to "game" towards a particular result than a typical Cosmo quiz.  As I got to the third and fourth parts of the test, I could physically feel my brain slowing down, struggling.  

 

In Blind Spot: Hidden Biases of Good People, a recent book which summarizes some of the findings and implications of the IAT, co-author Tony Greenwald wrote about his own first experience taking the test:

 

It was a rare moment of scientific joy to discover -- mid performance -- that the new method could be important.  It was also a moment of jarring self-insight. I immediately saw that I was very much faster in sorting names of famous White people together with pleasant words than in sorting names of famous Black people together with peasant words. I can't say if I was more personally distressed or scientifically elated to discover something inside my head that I had no previous knowledge of. But there it was -- it was as hard for me to link names of Black people and pleasant words as it had ben... to link insect names and pleasant words.

(p.45)  (Highly recommended book, BTW.)

 

 

 

That is a good description of the discomfort that *I* felt taking the test, and it evidently is so common that the online test actually carries a disclaimer:

 

If you are unprepared to encounter interpretations that you might find objectionable, please do not proceed further. You may prefer to examine general information about the IAT before deciding whether or not to proceed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

eta typo

Edited September 25, 2016 by Pam in CT

[SKL]

Does anyone think that it's racism behind all the non-cop black-on-black shootings?  Wouldn't the same logic apply?

 

If so, what should be done about it?

[poppy]

People are so certain that this is racism, despite the shooter being black.

 

It could not possibly be that the black cop had a reason to shoot, besides hating other blacks for being black.

It could not possibly be that the black cop was not given appropriate training to de-escalate without shooting, regardless of the color of the skin of the person being arrested.

 

It could not possibly be that the black cop made a human mistake - or was just a bad / incompetent cop - regardless of the color of the person who got shot.

 

Also, I don't think it matters that the wife was hollering "he doesn't have a gun, he just took his medication."  Do spouses /close friends of criminals usually tell the truth about whether they have a gun or are up to something bad?  If you thought you saw a gun being pointed at you, but some lady was telling you it wasn't a gun, would you let your defenses down on her word?  I wouldn't.

 

You really truly think when people talk about racism, they mean "person X hates black people"?  That's the sole concept you can fathom where race is a factor in the many, many shootings of unarmed black men in the past few years? 

[MomatHWTK]

It is a very specific form of racism, targeted at men of color. Perhaps a different name for the situation would help those who don't understand. 

[Susan in TX]

The thing that makes the Charlotte incident seem racist isn't the race of the shooter, it is the reason why the police chose to engage in the first place. The person was determined to be a threat to public safety because he was smoking marijuana and he had a gun. Keep in mind that North Carolina is an open carry state so he was not breaking the law by being in possession of a firearm. Now, think about it, if it had been a white male with a gun smoking marijuana would the police have treated that as a threat to public safety? Would they have reacted in the same way?

 

Susan in TX

 

 

[goldberry]

It is a very specific form of racism, targeted at men of color. Perhaps a different name for the situation would help those who don't understand. 

 

I agree very much here.  It has to do with an ingrained fear of black people having a higher potential for violence.  A police officer who doesn't "hate black people" might feel more threatened in a situation involving a black person than a white person, resulting in a more aggressive response.  This might not even be a conscious reaction, but purely an unconscious one.  

 

I absolutely agree that training is an issue.

 

Edited, because of course there are other ways to deal with it, but training is the best way to prevent it from happening in the first place.

Edited September 25, 2016 by goldberry

[goldberry]

Does anyone think that it's racism behind all the non-cop black-on-black shootings?  Wouldn't the same logic apply?

 

If so, what should be done about it?

 

You're talking about a totally different issue that does not involve authority dynamics.  It's not relevant to this particular topic of police interaction.  

[Miss Peregrine]

The thing that makes the Charlotte incident seem racist isn't the race of the shooter, it is the reason why the police chose to engage in the first place. The person was determined to be a threat to public safety because he was smoking marijuana and he had a gun. Keep in mind that North Carolina is an open carry state so he was not breaking the law by being in possession of a firearm. Now, think about it, if it had been a white male with a gun smoking marijuana would the police have treated that as a threat to public safety? Would they have reacted in the same way?

 

Susan in TX

He would not have been allowed to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition because of a felony conviction, open carry or not.

[HomeAgain]

He would not have been allowed to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition because of a felony conviction, open carry or not.

 

That's presumed information on the part of the police, though, until they knew for a fact that he was a felon.

[MomatHWTK]

He would not have been allowed to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition because of a felony conviction, open carry or not.

But possession is not a death penalty offense. 

[Miss Peregrine]

That's presumed information on the part of the police, though, until they knew for a fact that he was a felon.

Just answering Susan who said he was not breaking the law.

[Miss Peregrine]

But possession is not a death penalty offense.

He wasn't shot for being in possession. He was shot because he apparently wasn't putting the gun down and kept walking.

[Susan in TX]

He would not have been allowed to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition because of a felony conviction, open carry or not.

 

But did the police know this information when they chose to engage him?

 

 

Susan in TX

[Miss Peregrine]

But did the police know this information when they chose to engage him?

 

 

Susan in TX

They should have ignored a man exiting a vehicle holding a gun? He engaged them. And no, I don't believe he should have been killed.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's presumed information on the part of the police, though, until they knew for a fact that he was a felon.

 

Correct.

However, the report released by the police department states the police approached him due to observing the marijuana possession.   Once the police engage in a lawful stop, they do have the right to ask someone to drop any weapons they are holding, legal or not.  Most concealed carry permits require the holder to inform the officer if they are carrying when stopped by the police.

[MaeFlowers]

Alienate people on this board? Concerning racist-leaning remarks, I don't mind calling it as I see it. As a general subject? I see a difference between ignorance and stupidity. He was stupid. He realized it, and desperately tried to rectify it. Have you ever heard of the southern strategy, Nixon, etc? It was a concentrated effort, in order to win back the South, and one way was to change the language regarding minorities and the grievances against them. That's a fact, if you care to delve more into it. It's not a conspiracy, and It's still being used today. This man forgot to use that language and spoke his mind.

https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

Yes, it's a progressive magazine, and many may close their minds to it, but the entire 42 minute Atwater discussion is there. It's a great starting point to the present day topic of using language to sway opinions. Of course all sides engage in this, but this faction is overwhelmingly horrifying.

I guess I'm naive. I don't assume a person's intent especially when I don't know the person speaking. Maybe he meant in the way you believe, maybe not. I do not believe either of us saw the interviews he was speaking of (of protestors).

[HomeAgain]

I watched the dash cam/body cam video.  I don't see a gun. When he gets out of the car he turns his hands slightly and nothing is in them.  Moreso, the officer who shot him does appear to be white, not black as reported.  I'm not sure what to believe at this point. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/24/read-the-charlotte-police-report-on-the-fatal-shooting-of-keith-lamont-scott/?utm_term=.d8f77bcded3f

[Susan in TX]

They should have ignored a man exiting a vehicle holding a gun? He engaged them. And no, I don't believe he should have been killed.

 

This is what happened according to the official statement from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department:

 

"There have been numerous unconfirmed reports published in the media concerning this case. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department has prepared the following case update to provide factual information about the officer-involved shooting.

Two plain clothes officers were sitting inside of their unmarked police vehicle preparing to serve an arrest warrant in the parking lot of The Village at College Downs, when a white SUV pulled in and parked beside of them.

The officers observed the driver, later identified as Mr. Keith Lamont Scott, rolling what they believed to be a marijuana “blunt.†Officers did not consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority at the time and they resumed the warrant operation. A short time later, Officer Vinson observed Mr. Scott hold a gun up.

Because of that, the officers had probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and to further investigate Mr. Scott being in possession of the gun.

Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers.

Upon returning, the officers again witnessed Mr. Scott in possession of a gun. The officers immediately identified themselves as police officers and gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun. Mr. Scott refused to follow the officers repeated verbal commands.

A uniformed officer in a marked patrol vehicle arrived to assist the officers. The uniformed officer utilized his baton to attempt to breach the front passenger window in an effort to arrest Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun. Officer Vinson perceived Mr. Scott’s actions and movements as an imminent physical threat to himself and the other officers. Officer Vinson fired his issued service weapon, striking Mr. Scott. Officers immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene."

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1143232625751292&id=124757580932140

 

According to this account, Mr. Scott was in his vehicle when the police chose to engage him. He exited the vehicle because the police were demanding that he do so.

 

Susan in TX

[Miss Peregrine]

This is what happened according to the official statement from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department:

 

"There have been numerous unconfirmed reports published in the media concerning this case. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department has prepared the following case update to provide factual information about the officer-involved shooting.

Two plain clothes officers were sitting inside of their unmarked police vehicle preparing to serve an arrest warrant in the parking lot of The Village at College Downs, when a white SUV pulled in and parked beside of them.

The officers observed the driver, later identified as Mr. Keith Lamont Scott, rolling what they believed to be a marijuana “blunt.†Officers did not consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority at the time and they resumed the warrant operation. A short time later, Officer Vinson observed Mr. Scott hold a gun up.

Because of that, the officers had probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and to further investigate Mr. Scott being in possession of the gun.

Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers.

Upon returning, the officers again witnessed Mr. Scott in possession of a gun. The officers immediately identified themselves as police officers and gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun. Mr. Scott refused to follow the officers repeated verbal commands.

A uniformed officer in a marked patrol vehicle arrived to assist the officers. The uniformed officer utilized his baton to attempt to breach the front passenger window in an effort to arrest Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun. Officer Vinson perceived Mr. Scott’s actions and movements as an imminent physical threat to himself and the other officers. Officer Vinson fired his issued service weapon, striking Mr. Scott. Officers immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene."

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1143232625751292&id=124757580932140

 

According to this account, Mr. Scott was in his vehicle when the police chose to engage him. He exited the vehicle because the police were demanding that he do so.

 

Susan in TX

I see the engagement starting when he held up the gun. I'm guessing we'll just have to disagree about that.

[MomatHWTK]

Two issues: 

1. Do we as a society agree with training and procedures that permit deadly force in circumstances where an officer identifies a potential weapon without further acts of aggression?

2. Do officers act with the same level of aggression toward citizens of all gender and race when presented with similar circumstances? 

 

Beyond those two issues, of course, there are the situations where an individual has disclosed the legal possession of a firearm or is lying on the ground unarmed, sometimes face down, and still executed.

 

At this point in time, I don't think society as a whole has an understanding of or consensus on what constitutes proper police conduct in a given situation. We as a people need to determine and restate the clear standards that we expect to be applied to every person in every situation then provide for the training and enforcement to ensure those standards are met.  How? I don't know.