Utah police shoot black man "lunging" w/ sword. Witnesses, autopsy say shot in back

Status
Not open for further replies.
The frequent danger of topics like this is that, to some people, it's an academic discussion of a far-away event, full of possibilities and opportunities for debate, and to others it represents the very real danger that they themselves might be hurt or killed -- by the police, by somebody standing their ground, whatever -- and their attacker might face no consequences because of a policy literally over 200 years old that African-Americans don't have fully recognized rights to their own bodies. To somebody who's learned to shape their behavior patterns around the threat of death, or has possibly seen real people around them suffer because of their failure to do so, a devil's advocate position might feel a little like if your house was on fire and a bystander is trying to talk to you about why would this be a problem since fire is the cornerstone of human civilization, so shouldn't it be a good thing?

Great post. Honestly that's what makes this stressful on people.
 
The frequent danger of topics like this is that, to some people, it's an academic discussion of a far-away event, full of possibilities and opportunities for debate, and to others it represents the very real danger that they themselves might be hurt or killed -- by the police, by somebody standing their ground, whatever -- and their attacker might face no consequences because of a policy literally over 200 years old that African-Americans don't have fully recognized rights to their own bodies. To somebody who's learned to shape their behavior patterns around the threat of death, or has possibly seen real people around them suffer because of their failure to do so, a devil's advocate position might feel a little like if your house was on fire and a bystander is trying to talk to you about why would this be a problem since fire is the cornerstone of human civilization, so shouldn't it be a good thing?

Excellent post.
 
The frequent danger of topics like this is that, to some people, it's an academic discussion of a far-away event, full of possibilities and opportunities for debate, and to others it represents the very real danger that they themselves might be hurt or killed -- by the police, by somebody standing their ground, whatever -- and their attacker might face no consequences because of a policy literally over 200 years old that African-Americans don't have fully recognized rights to their own bodies. To somebody who's learned to shape their behavior patterns around the threat of death, or has possibly seen real people around them suffer because of their failure to do so, a devil's advocate position might feel a little like if your house was on fire and a bystander is trying to talk to you about why would this be a problem since fire is the cornerstone of human civilization, so shouldn't it be a good thing?

Fucking nailed it.
 
The frequent danger of topics like this is that, to some people, it's an academic discussion of a far-away event, full of possibilities and opportunities for debate, and to others it represents the very real danger that they themselves might be hurt or killed -- by the police, by somebody standing their ground, whatever -- and their attacker might face no consequences because of a policy literally over 200 years old that African-Americans don't have fully recognized rights to their own bodies. To somebody who's learned to shape their behavior patterns around the threat of death, or has possibly seen real people around them suffer because of their failure to do so, a devil's advocate position might feel a little like if your house was on fire and a bystander is trying to talk to you about why would this be a problem since fire is the cornerstone of human civilization, so shouldn't it be a good thing?

Sounds about right.
 
I wish people would be honest and just say, "we fucked up," and accept any punishment.

The instinct to lie to save your ass is present in children and flows up through adulthood. It simply morphs from punishment avoidance on the personal level to liability avoidance at the organizational level. I understand what you're saying, and personally I strive to hold to those ethics, but for whatever reason, a lot of people just seem to lie reflexively. I have no idea if this is really a learned behavior or if a certain level of deceptiveness is hardwired into us as a survival mechanism.
 
The frequent danger of topics like this is that, to some people, it's an academic discussion of a far-away event, full of possibilities and opportunities for debate, and to others it represents the very real danger that they themselves might be hurt or killed -- by the police, by somebody standing their ground, whatever -- and their attacker might face no consequences because of a policy literally over 200 years old that African-Americans don't have fully recognized rights to their own bodies. To somebody who's learned to shape their behavior patterns around the threat of death, or has possibly seen real people around them suffer because of their failure to do so, a devil's advocate position might feel a little like if your house was on fire and a bystander is trying to talk to you about why would this be a problem since fire is the cornerstone of human civilization, so shouldn't it be a good thing?
Good post but what's the answer then? Ban any dissent from anyone because they disagree? Being an insensitive prick about things might be enough but people genuinely asking questions being lumped into the racist crowd is taking the extreme the other way. I mean look at this:

Funny how these 'theories' always end up supporting the cops.

This thread will go the same as others,

"We don't know the facts"
"Devil's advocate"
Enter Kharvey and Zoe with enough controversy
Bans dished out
Dudes releasing all that racist energy on the we hate neogaf reddit


Same shit different motherfucking day.

If this is what you're expecting of anyone with dissenting opinion then these threads should be posted and locked because no discussion ever will be allowed. I had to check what the neogaf reddit was only to find out it's an extremist reddit sub full of bigots and racists. Who is kharvey and zoe? Ive posted here for 7 years and vaguely know one of them. This is piling a whole heaps of baggage onto the next person who posts anything remotely out of step with the consensus of the first few posts.

I think it's fine to ask for some empathy but how about holding back on the assumptions of everyone being a racist twat looking to stir trouble?
 
Good post but what's the answer then? Ban any dissent from anyone because they disagree? Being an insensitive prick about things might be enough but people genuinely asking questions being lumped into the racist crowd is taking the extreme the other way. I mean look at this:



If this is what you're expecting of anyone with dissenting opinion then these threads should be posted and locked because no discussion ever will be allowed. I had to check what the neogaf reddit was only to find out it's an extremist reddit sub full of bigots and racists. Who is kharvey and zoe? Ive posted here for 7 years and vaguely know one of them. This is piling a whole heaps of baggage onto the next person who posts anything remotely out of step with the consensus of the first few posts.

I think it's fine to ask for some empathy but how about holding back on the assumptions of everyone being a racist twat looking to stir trouble?

Might do some good to check out the previous threads regarding similar situations before arriving at your conclusion man.

There's a significant difference between dissenting opinion and advocating on behalf of the police with no supporting evidence to do so other than theory. There's a difference between suggesting some restraint before concluding everything about a case, and repeating "we don't know the facts" ad nauseam when the facts we do know show it impossible to corroborate the police account of the story. We've been through this already. Several times.

Several people including myself have elaborated on the difference, going as far to acknowledge (for those who like to be semantic know it alls) that devil's advocate perspective can provide insight in the right situation and context. Rarely has it been utilized in that context and because of that we've seen plenty of names become greyed out. Looking to pin my acknowledgement of a consistent pattern in these threads and attribute that to some sort of discussion suppression beyond what I believe occurred is inaccurate and disingenuous.
 
The frequent danger of topics like this is that, to some people, it's an academic discussion of a far-away event, full of possibilities and opportunities for debate, and to others it represents the very real danger that they themselves might be hurt or killed -- by the police, by somebody standing their ground, whatever -- and their attacker might face no consequences because of a policy literally over 200 years old that African-Americans don't have fully recognized rights to their own bodies. To somebody who's learned to shape their behavior patterns around the threat of death, or has possibly seen real people around them suffer because of their failure to do so, a devil's advocate position might feel a little like if your house was on fire and a bystander is trying to talk to you about why would this be a problem since fire is the cornerstone of human civilization, so shouldn't it be a good thing?

Goddamn so much truth.
 
The frequent danger of topics like this is that, to some people, it's an academic discussion of a far-away event, full of possibilities and opportunities for debate, and to others it represents the very real danger that they themselves might be hurt or killed -- by the police, by somebody standing their ground, whatever -- and their attacker might face no consequences because of a policy literally over 200 years old that African-Americans don't have fully recognized rights to their own bodies. To somebody who's learned to shape their behavior patterns around the threat of death, or has possibly seen real people around them suffer because of their failure to do so, a devil's advocate position might feel a little like if your house was on fire and a bystander is trying to talk to you about why would this be a problem since fire is the cornerstone of human civilization, so shouldn't it be a good thing?


I wouldn't say it is a perfect analogy. Especially since it isn't just one side's house that is burning down. Even those of us who are being relatively calm and intellectual about the issue have our own stakes in the outcome. Just last week I picked up a local newspaper and a Caucasian male of about 35 years old was shot dead, unarmed, while fleeing police.

It isn't that we do not recognize that others are in danger. We merely feel that it is a broader issue than is being let on because of a mistake in the characterization of the issue. This isn't necessarily a racial issue so much as it is a classist or socio-economic issue. Police misconduct happens all the time. Police are not hiring appropriate personnel.

Just a few days ago an article was posted on Abovethelaw.com, a legal blog, about how law students were being denied entry into police departments because their IQ was too high.

This is an endemic corruption of the police force that speaks to more than JUST racial tension, and it is both insensitive and offensive to label those of us trying to point this out as bigots and racists.

Friends, romans, countrymen, my house is burning too!
 
Good post but what's the answer then? Ban any dissent from anyone because they disagree? Being an insensitive prick about things might be enough but people genuinely asking questions being lumped into the racist crowd is taking the extreme the other way. I mean look at this:



If this is what you're expecting of anyone with dissenting opinion then these threads should be posted and locked because no discussion ever will be allowed. I had to check what the neogaf reddit was only to find out it's an extremist reddit sub full of bigots and racists. Who is kharvey and zoe? Ive posted here for 7 years and vaguely know one of them. This is piling a whole heaps of baggage onto the next person who posts anything remotely out of step with the consensus of the first few posts.

I think it's fine to ask for some empathy but how about holding back on the assumptions of everyone being a racist twat looking to stir trouble?

Well people accepting that they probably to the point of certainly have internalized racist viewpoints that are a result of societal norms is a good start. Not playing devils advocate in a destructive way is a nice follow up. And actually listening to minorities about their experiences and placing more value on said experiences than theoretical conjecture that has no real basis in reality would be pretty aces too. Oh and it would be great if we stopped arbitrarily assigning value to minority lives. Being gunned down by the cops is not and should not be a regular occurrence. The job of police is the deescalate and police society, not execute. There are justifiable times to use a weapon, but it is and should be a last resort. Shooting someone with their hands up is wrong. Period. Shooting someone with a bb gun is wrong. Period. Shooting someone with a fake sword is wrong. The cops handled these badly. And its been going on for decades. One every 28 hours.
 
Might do some good to check out the previous threads regarding similar situations before arriving at your conclusion man.

There's a significant difference between dissenting opinion and advocating on behalf of the police with no supporting evidence to do so other than theory. There's a difference between suggesting some restraint before concluding everything about a case, and repeating "we don't know the facts" ad nauseam when the facts we do know show it impossible to corroborate the police account of the story. We've been through this already. Several times.

Several people including myself have elaborated on the difference, going as far to acknowledge (for those who like to be semantic know it alls) that devil's advocate perspective can provide insight in the right situation and context. Rarely has it been utilized in that context and because of that we've seen plenty of names become greyed out. Looking to pin my acknowledgement of a consistent pattern in these threads and attribute that to some sort of discussion suppression beyond what I believe occurred is inaccurate and disingenuous.

I'm not saying your pattern is wrong what I'm saying is the pattern is producing an environment where anyone who has a dissenting opinion is immediately lumped into a group called "devils advocates" or whatever, the label isn't important, it's that it's being applied way to early to the point where someone was banned in the other thread and then reinstated. If you're looking for a pattern then isn't it going to be a lot easier to jump the gun? All I'm saying is maybe be more careful before assuming the motivations of someone. If they fit the bill of someone who is always prodding at peoples emotions then I'm sure Bishop will gladly take out the trash.

Well people accepting that they probably to the point of certainly have internalized racist viewpoints that are a result of societal norms is a good start. Not playing devils advocate in a destructive way is a nice follow up. And actually listening to minorities about their experiences and placing more value on said experiences than theoretical conjecture that has no real basis in reality would be pretty aces too. Oh and it would be great if we stopped arbitrarily assigning value to minority lives. Being gunned down by the cops is not and should not be a regular occurrence. The job of police is the deescalate and police society, not execute. There are justifiable times to use a weapon, but it is and should be a last resort. Shooting someone with their hands up is wrong. Period. Shooting someone with a bb gun is wrong. Period. Shooting someone with a fake sword is wrong. The cops handled these badly. And its been going on for decades. One every 28 hours.
I agree with most of that except the part about internalised racist viewpoints. You are most probably right when referring to American posters because it seems ingrained there. That's a whole other discussion though. But yea police in America as a whole are far too fast to come out with weapons drawn and provoke more often than they descalate.
 
. There are justifiable times to use a weapon, but it is and should be a last resort. Shooting someone with their hands up is wrong. Period. Shooting someone with a bb gun is wrong. Period. Shooting someone with a fake sword is wrong. The cops handled these badly. And its been going on for decades. One every 28 hours.

First, I would not speak in such platitude when it comes to the law. I would not say that shooting a man with his hands up is always wrong. The test is whether a person subjectively feels that they are in an imminent threat of severe bodily harm or death. A person can reasonably fear for their lives in situations in which hands are raised, a bb gun is being used against them threateningly, and the sword looks real.
 
First, I would not speak in such platitude when it comes to the law. I would not say that shooting a man with his hands up is always wrong. The test is whether a person subjectively feels that they are in an imminent threat of severe bodily harm or death. A person can reasonably fear for their lives in situations in which hands are raised, a bb gun is being used against them threateningly, and the sword looks real.

The same could be said of the person who the police are pointing guns at. Last week we saw a white guy with an ak-47 where the police calmy talked to him and de-escalated a situation. In this case the police seem to have guns drawn and that possibly caused the guy to panic and react in a way that then justified the police using force to protect themselves.(<--conjecture to prove a point). What people are saying is the police reaction to black people seems to be to default to guns drawn in most situations and that is making the situation become a life or death scenario by virtue of doing so. A 'lunge at officers' might mean an uncertain step to surrender or response to an order and to the officer with a gun out it might mean 'fuck I need to shoot now he's coming at me'.
 
I wouldn't say it is a perfect analogy. Especially since it isn't just one side's house that is burning down. Even those of us who are being relatively calm and intellectual about the issue have our own stakes in the outcome. Just last week I picked up a local newspaper and a Caucasian male of about 35 years old was shot dead, unarmed, while fleeing police.

It isn't that we do not recognize that others are in danger. We merely feel that it is a broader issue than is being let on because of a mistake in the characterization of the issue. This isn't necessarily a racial issue so much as it is a classist or socio-economic issue. Police misconduct happens all the time. Police are not hiring appropriate personnel.

Just a few days ago an article was posted on Abovethelaw.com, a legal blog, about how law students were being denied entry into police departments because their IQ was too high.

This is an endemic corruption of the police force that speaks to more than JUST racial tension, and it is both insensitive and offensive to label those of us trying to point this out as bigots and racists.

Friends, romans, countrymen, my house is burning too!

I'm on my phone so I'll address this briefly and succinctly.

First off in America race and class go hand and hand. Beyond that I think you're attacking a strawman there. I don't really see people going out of their way to say that ONLY Blacks face police brutality and abuse. However Blacks are more often the target of this abuse and arrest, empirical evidence backs up this claim.

Secondly police corruption exists not because their are shitty police officers but because the institution of policing is in dire need of reform. Police brutality and abuse happens because cops are not sufficiently trained to handle situations non-violently, what constitutes as abuse varies, they don't get punished for abuse sufficiently, the tax payers actually suffers when a department faces a suit, the police has been militarized since 911, corporate interests determine what laws are enforced, etc. I can literally go on. Add this to the fact that minorities namely blacks and Latinos are disproportionately targeted by the police and this spells big trouble for them. It don't matter where you're at in the tax brackets if you're existing while black you stand to be harassed by the police.
 
I'm not saying your pattern is wrong what I'm saying is the pattern is producing an environment where anyone who has a dissenting opinion is immediately lumped into a group called "devils advocates" or whatever, the label isn't important, it's that it's being applied way to early to the point where someone was banned in the other thread and then reinstated. If you're looking for a pattern then isn't it going to be a lot easier to jump the gun? All I'm saying is maybe be more careful before assuming the motivations of someone. If they fit the bill of someone who is always prodding at peoples emotions then I'm sure Bishop will gladly take out the trash.


I agree with most of that except the part about internalised racist viewpoints. You are most probably right when referring to American posters because it seems ingrained there. That's a whole other discussion though. But yea police in America as a whole are far too fast to come out with weapons drawn and provoke more often than they descalate.

I just pointed out in the previous post that dissenting opinion is not always equivalent to playing Devil's Advocate. Did I ever discourage anyone to post? No I did not. I identified things that have happened consistently in 3-4 threads on a FACTUAL basis.

If I'm doing anything wrong, or if any of my posts are creating a toxic environment for discussion, certainly the mods will either let me know or ban me accordingly. There's no need to backseat moderate me or anyone else in the thread. Worry about yourself.
 
First, I would not speak in such platitude when it comes to the law. I would not say that shooting a man with his hands up is always wrong. The test is whether a person subjectively feels that they are in an imminent threat of severe bodily harm or death. A person can reasonably fear for their lives in situations in which hands are raised, a bb gun is being used against them threateningly, and the sword looks real.



Yes people can fear for their lives but, once that trigger is pulled and you kill someone their is no going back, no reset button, no extra lives, no cheat code, nothing will bring back a dead person. Darrien Hunt, Michael Brown, John Crawford, Dillion Taylor, Jeremy Lake, John Winkler, and Andy Lopez all killed by police officers. All were killed unjustly and so far none of the police officers who killed these people have done a single day in prison and only one has been charged with anything.
 
I just pointed out in the previous post that dissenting opinion is not always equivalent to playing Devil's Advocate. Did I ever discourage anyone to post? No I did not. I identified things that have happened consistently in 3-4 threads on a FACTUAL basis.

If I'm doing anything wrong, or if any of my posts are creating a toxic environment for discussion, certainly the mods will either let me know or ban me accordingly. There's no need to backseat moderate me or anyone else in the thread. Worry about yourself.
This won't make any difference but the bolded was addressed to everyone not just you. Your post was best to describe the situation I was seeing, without quoting multiple people, is all.
 
Another pic has been released of the violent criminal.

Seven_Swords_Dance_Technique.PNG
 
I'm on my phone so I'll address this briefly and succinctly.

First off in America race and class go hand and hand. Beyond that I think you're attacking a strawman there. I don't really see people going out of their way to say that ONLY Blacks face police brutality and abuse. However Blacks are more often the target of this abuse and arrest, empirical evidence backs up this claim.

Secondly police corruption exists not because their are shitty police officers but because the institution of policing is in dire need of reform. Police brutality and abuse happens because cops are not sufficiently trained to handle situations non-violently, what constitutes as abuse varies, they don't get punished for abuse sufficiently, the tax payers actually suffers when a department faces a suit, the police has been militarized since 911, corporate interests determine what laws are enforced, etc. I can literally go on. Add this to the fact that minorities namely blacks and Latinos are disproportionately targeted by the police and this spells big trouble for them. It don't matter where you're at in the tax brackets if you're existing while black you stand to be harassed by the police.

They are disproportionately attacked, but that may have more to do with the socio-economic divide than a racial divide, which is what people are claiming to be the case in these most recent cases. Merely because these are the ones getting legal attention does not mean that men of other races and creeds of low economic standing are not being attacked. They are, and it is happening in your neighborhood and in mine. This is an issue that transcends race, and that is why I promote a fair and balanced approach to police problems in interacting with people.

It is doing a disservice to all the other poor people who are not a minority who are being harassed and wrongfully killed by the police.

And yes, the police service is in need of serious reform, as stated by the evidence I have linked. The police are crowding out people who are intelligent enough to be great police officers because they want people to follow orders.

All were killed unjustly and so far none of the police officers who killed these people have done a single day in prison and only one has been charged with anything.

Unjustly killed is a mistaken characterization based on insufficient facts. Negligently killed? Yes. Recklessly killed? Yes. But as I pointed out months ago and was chastised for, the law is more involved than people seem to realize when it comes to self defense. Most people do not know about fleeing dangerous felons and the right of self defense when a person points a BB gun at you. You can use deadly force if you fear for your life when someone points a BB gun at you.
 
They are disproportionately attacked, but that may have more to do with the socio-economic divide than a racial divide, which is what people are claiming to be the case in these most recent cases. Merely because these are the ones getting legal attention does not mean that men of other races and creeds of low economic standing are not being attacked. They are, and it is happening in your neighborhood and in mine. This is an issue that transcends race, and that is why I promote a fair and balanced approach to police problems in interacting with people.

It is doing a disservice to all the other poor people who are not a minority who are being harassed and wrongfully killed by the police.

And yes, the police service is in need of serious reform, as stated by the evidence I have linked. The police are crowding out people who are intelligent enough to be great police officers because they want people to follow orders.

If Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately targeted by police then why are you attributing this to a "socio-economic divide"? Cops are not gonna check your bank statements before they consider stopping and frisking you. Furthermore like I said before in the post you responded to, race and class go hand in hand. I also never said whites aren't the target of police brutality and abuse and I don't really see people doing the same. It's just that the numbers state blacks are targeted more. I don't see why you're going out your way to make this not a race issue when it clearly is; if your race factors into how the police treats you then that's a race issue, dawg.
 
I agree with most of that except the part about internalised racist viewpoints. You are most probably right when referring to American posters because it seems ingrained there. That's a whole other discussion though. But yea police in America as a whole are far too fast to come out with weapons drawn and provoke more often than they descalate.

You're going to need to show me a country that doesn't see white > black.
 
They are disproportionately attacked, but that may have more to do with the socio-economic divide than a racial divide, which is what people are claiming to be the case in these most recent cases. Merely because these are the ones getting legal attention does not mean that men of other races and creeds of low economic standing are not being attacked. They are, and it is happening in your neighborhood and in mine. This is an issue that transcends race, and that is why I promote a fair and balanced approach to police problems in interacting with people.

It is doing a disservice to all the other poor people who are not a minority who are being harassed and wrongfully killed by the police.

And yes, the police service is in need of serious reform, as stated by the evidence I have linked. The police are crowding out people who are intelligent enough to be great police officers because they want people to follow orders.



Unjustly killed is a mistaken characterization based on insufficient facts. Negligently killed? Yes. Recklessly killed? Yes. But as I pointed out months ago and was chastised for, the law is more involved than people seem to realize when it comes to self defense. Most people do not know about fleeing dangerous felons and the right of self defense when a person points a BB gun at you. You can use deadly force if you fear for your life when someone points a BB gun at you.

So much false equivalency in this post. There may be a small contingent of socio-econmic hardship exacerbating these cases, but NOWHERE near enough to be claiming that disproportionate police brutality and homicide on blacks transcends race. that's just outright ignorance.

You can hold and balance the scales as much as you want in your mind, but the moment you remove your hands it's going to tip right back to where always has been, which is a situation that is unequivocally in favor of non black/ non hispanic individuals.
 
If Blacks and Latinos are disproportionately targeted by police then why are you attributing this to a "socio-economic divide"? Cops are not gonna check your bank statements before they consider stopping and frisking you. Furthermore like I said before in the post you responded to, race and class go hand in hand. I also never said whites aren't the target of police brutality and abuse just that the numbers say blacks are targeted more. I don't see why you're going out your way to make this not a race issue when it clearly is; if your race factors into how the police treats you then that's a race issue, dawg.

I am going out of my way to point out that the evidence goes more to it being a class issue than it does a race issue. Why? The following logical reasons;

A) Because, as the previous poster so wisely pointed earlier; I feel that many of my non-minority friends are in just as insecure of a position as my minority friends. I am months away from my huge student loan debts becoming due myself. When you are in this position, you have a unique perspective on the issue. I could just as easily become poor and less off as anyone else. And that is where the true threat arises.

B) The reason why it is more likely to be class than is the issue than race is because people of low socio-economic standing are more prone to acts that would place them in situations that are dangerous to them. Loitering on street corners, improperly handling dangerous objects in convenience stores, and participating in the badgering of police officers. Most people of wealthy standing are not going to be in these situations. Why? Because they are not in Walmart. They are not in poor neighborhoods. They are not loitering in front of the stop and pump.

C) Because statistics are more likely to promote the idea that it is class and not race that is at issue. Merely because a sample has predominately one trait does not mean that is the controlling variable. Quick statistics lesson. Lets say that all the ice cream shops in town are great ice cream shops rated highly by the critically acclaimed ice cream association (CAICE). All the ice cream joints that are rated highly by the CAICE sell Vanilla ice cream. Some of that vanilla ice cream is based out of vanilla extract. Some is made with wood pulp. More of the stores in the town that offer wood pulp Vanilla for sale are highly rated than those that offer extract vanilla ice cream. Does that necessitate that it is wood pulp that makes them highly rated? Logically no. It could just as easily be the fact that them selling Vanilla ice cream makes them highly rated.

Same statistics rules applies here. Merely because a predominate amount of the low income people are minorities does not mean that racial tension is to blame. It could also be, and is more likely to be, the fact that they are low income people. Especially when you compile that with statistics that low income white people are disproportionately attacked compared to the wider white demographic.


All three of these arguments point out one common theme; it is intellectually dishonest to cry racism when it demeans the struggles of non-minority poor people and their interactions with the police. I feel just as bad about the death of the 35 year old guy the other day in my County as I do what is happening in Ferguson. But why are you not crying for him?

Police brutality is police brutality. No matter what color it takes.
 
Actually listening to minorities about their experiences and placing more value on said experiences than theoretical conjecture that has no real basis in reality would be pretty aces too. Oh and it would be great if we stopped arbitrarily assigning value to minority lives.

.
 
You're going to need to show me a country that doesn't see white > black.

I can't speak for a whole country really but I'll try. Here in Australia we had white men treat indigenous people inhumanely in early history but there was never a divide and segregation like in the states and the indigenous population ratio isn't as high so you don't tend to get a lot of segregated communities living side by side. The true injustice here was forcing people into a white society that they didn't necessarily want to be in. Most indigenous people I meet are fairly integrated or accepted as part of the whole community. There's not a culture of us and them, at least in the area I live. We do have plenty of ignorant people though and I've had my fair share of fights because of it.
 
They are disproportionately attacked, but that may have more to do with the socio-economic divide than a racial divide
No, it has to do with a race, as multiple studies point out.
Police Officers Are More Likely to Shoot Black Men, Studies Suggest
These are solid studies that flatly squash your theory that class, not race, is the root of the problem.
Social science research shows that, in video simulations, people are more likely to shoot black men. The participants&#8212;often undergraduate students, both black and white&#8212;play a simulation where they press &#8220;shoot&#8221; if they think the white or black suspect holds a gun. Consistently, psychologists have found the students more likely to shoot the unarmed black person over an unarmed white person.

For example, a study published in 2002 from the University of Colorado at Boulder and University of Chicago found that white undergraduates had higher error rates when it came to unarmed African American suspects (1.45 per 20 trials compared to 1.23 for unarmed white suspects).
Police officers who play the simulations have similar results. In a 2005 study from Florida State University researchers, a mostly white, mostly male group of officers in Florida were statistically more likely to let armed white suspects slip while shooting unarmed black suspects instead.
 
The frequent danger of topics like this is that, to some people, it's an academic discussion of a far-away event, full of possibilities and opportunities for debate, and to others it represents the very real danger that they themselves might be hurt or killed -- by the police, by somebody standing their ground, whatever -- and their attacker might face no consequences because of a policy literally over 200 years old that African-Americans don't have fully recognized rights to their own bodies. To somebody who's learned to shape their behavior patterns around the threat of death, or has possibly seen real people around them suffer because of their failure to do so, a devil's advocate position might feel a little like if your house was on fire and a bystander is trying to talk to you about why would this be a problem since fire is the cornerstone of human civilization, so shouldn't it be a good thing?
this is a great post .. And now that I think about it.. My first response was a little insensitive .. All I wrote was "not enough facts" .. In the future, if I deem something premature, I'll list more specific reasons as to why I feel that way..
I apologize to anyone that I may have angered with my initial response
 
I can't speak for a whole country really but I'll try. Here in Australia we had white men treat indigenous people inhumanely in early history but there was never a divide and segregation like in the states and the indigenous population ratio isn't as high so you don't tend to get a lot of segregated communities living side by side. Most indigenous people I meet are fairly integrated or accepted as part of the whole community. There's not a culture of us and them, at least in the area I live. We do have plenty of ignorant people though and I've had my fair share of fights because of it.

A quick looky loo at Google says that Australia is pretty racist too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Australia

White inherent supremacy is a global thing. Hollywood and video games and every other damn thing on the planet tells us that the white man is better, the white man is right, the white man is the one we should take at his word. Hell, part of the reason that Hollywood cast white males in the lead is because other countries literally don't consider movies led by minorities and women to be "real Hollywood movies", whatever the fuck that means. And that is what I'm talking about with internalized racism. I'm not gonna lie here, I suffer from it too, and I *am* black.

I really dont feel like going into it here (not the time nor place, plus I'm fucking ill on top), but just the fact that this
dT7dd4bT9.jpeg

is by default a white dude is telling.
 
I am going out of my way to point out that the evidence goes more to it being a class issue than it does a race issue. Why? The following logical reasons;

A) Because, as the previous poster so wisely pointed earlier; I feel that many of my non-minority friends are in just as insecure of a position as my minority friends. I am months away from my huge student loan debts becoming due myself. When you are in this position, you have a unique perspective on the issue. I could just as easily become poor and less off as anyone else. And that is where the true threat arises.

B) The reason why it is more likely to be class than is the issue than race is because people of low socio-economic standing are more prone to acts that would place them in situations that are dangerous to them. Loitering on street corners, improperly handling dangerous objects in convenience stores, and participating in the badgering of police officers. Most people of wealthy standing are not going to be in these situations. Why? Because they are not in Walmart. They are not in poor neighborhoods. They are not loitering in front of the stop and pump.

C) Because statistics are more likely to promote the idea that it is class and not race that is at issue. Merely because a sample has predominately one trait does not mean that is the controlling variable. Quick statistics lesson. Lets say that all the ice cream shops in town are great ice cream shops rated highly by the critically acclaimed ice cream association (CAICE). All the ice cream joints that are rated highly by the CAICE sell Vanilla ice cream. Some of that vanilla ice cream is based out of vanilla extract. Some is made with wood pulp. More of the stores in the town that offer wood pulp Vanilla for sale are highly rated than those that offer extract vanilla ice cream. Does that necessitate that it is wood pulp that makes them highly rated? Logically no. It could just as easily be the fact that them selling Vanilla ice cream makes them highly rated.

Same statistics rules applies here. Merely because a predominate amount of the low income people are minorities does not mean that racial tension is to blame. It could also be, and is more likely to be, the fact that they are low income people. Especially when you compile that with statistics that low income white people are disproportionately attacked compared to the wider white demographic.


All three of these arguments point out one common theme; it is intellectually dishonest to cry racism when it demeans the struggles of non-minority poor people and their interactions with the police.
I feel just as bad about the death of the 35 year old guy the other day in my County as I do what is happening in Ferguson. But why are you not crying for him?

Police brutality is police brutality. No matter what color it takes.

Life isn't a fucking statistics model dude.

Holy motherfucking shit.

I don't even know what to say. This might be the most mind blowing post I've ever seen on gaf. I'm fucking speechless.
 
All three of these arguments point out one common theme; it is intellectually dishonest to cry racism when it demeans the struggles of non-minority poor people and their interactions with the police. I feel just as bad about the death of the 35 year old guy the other day in my County as I do what is happening in Ferguson. But why are you not crying for him?

Police brutality is police brutality. No matter what color it takes.

It's not intellectually dishonest to point out that institutionalize racism exists. It's not intellectually dishonest to point out that minorities are disproportionately targeted by the police. It's not intellectually dishonest to point out that minorities are sent away to prison way more often than those of the majority group. It's not intellectually dishonest to point out that a lot minorities come for impoverished backgrounds. It's not intellectually dishonest to point out that minorities go to segregated and broken schools and live in segregated and forgotten communities. It's not intellectually dishonest to point out that minorities are misrepresented in mass media or erased from it. It's not intellectually dishonest to point out racial profiling and how the police are more likely to shoot a black man. It's not intellectually dishonest to acknowledge the fact that race and class are intertwined due to the effects of slavery, post-slavery, and jim crow. What is intellectually dishonest is your post. Not only is it intellectually dishonest but it is down right shameful and disgusting. How dare use that "35 year old guy the other day" in your County who's name you can not remember as a rhetorical tool in a debate to shame a minority who personally faces police abuse and racial profiling consistently. How dare you equate that to what happened in Ferguson. You're being intellectual dishonest.
 
A quick looky loo at Google says that Australia is pretty racist too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Australia

White inherent supremacy is a global thing. Hollywood and video games and every other damn thing on the planet tells us that the white man is better, the white man is right, the white man is the one we should take at his word. Hell, part of the reason that Hollywood cast white males in the lead is because other countries literally don't consider movies led by minorities and women to be "real Hollywood movies", whatever the fuck that means. And that is what I'm talking about with internalized racism. I'm not gonna lie here, I suffer from it too, and I *am* black.

I really dont feel like going into it here (not the time nor place, plus I'm fucking ill on top), but just the fact that this
dT7dd4bT9.jpeg

is by default a white dude is telling.
Yea, google isn't a substitute for living in the area though which is why I tend to believe you when you say there inherent racism in the US and I'm not inclined to look it up to check. Of course Hollywood and mainstream media is going to appeal to the lowest common denominator though. For the rest of us we have independent films and books where we can get some perspective on the lives others lead and the hardships they face. For me, I like to hear what a person says and where their heart lies because the colour of a persons skin isn't going to tell me anything about what's inside.
 
They are disproportionately attacked, but that may have more to do with the socio-economic divide than a racial divide, which is what people are claiming to be the case in these most recent cases.

Let's just take this statement at face value and say socio-economic is the bigger driver than the racial driver. That doesn't mean you should just ignore or hand wave the racial component.

More and more studies are coming to light that racial factors are too significant to ignore such as how male children with darker skin color are regarded as older than their peers or that social factors are in place that makes it easier for the children of up and coming black families to drop back down into poverty.
 
www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/darrien-hunt-police-shooting-family-friends-remember#comments


Darrien Hunt's family and friends remember 'a boy in a man's body'

As they try to understand how Hunt came to be killed in Saratoga Springs, people who knew him are seeking explanations in a youthfulness they say belied his tender age


‘He may have been 22, but at heart he was 15. He was the nicest kid, and would never have hurt anyone,’ a family friend said. Photograph: Facebook
Jon Swaine in New York
Wednesday 17 September 2014 12.55 EDT

A verbal slip-up by his aunt seems to sum up how friends and relatives viewed Darrien Hunt before he was shot dead by police in Utah last week. “He was just like a normal teenager,” Cindy Moss said of her nephew, who was 22.

As they try to understand how Hunt came to be killed after walking around a strip mall in Saratoga Springs with a decorative samurai-style sword, people who knew him are seeking explanations in a youthfulness that they say belied even his relatively tender age.

To his mother, Susan, he was “a boy in a man’s body”. Cristina Caffiero Kurzmann, a family friend, agreed. “He was a child at heart,” she said. “He may have been 22, but at heart he was 15. He was the nicest kid, and would never have hurt anyone.”

Police and prosecutors allege, however, that on Wednesday, Hunt “brandished the sword and lunged toward the officers” responding to a 911 call from a nearby gas station that reported he was acting suspiciously. One or both of the officers shot at him, and he fled up to 100 yards north. He then died outside a restaurant, having been shot repeatedly.

Randall Edwards, an attorney for Hunt’s family, has said that a private autopsy shows that he was shot six times from behind. The deadly bullet in his back had no exit wound, said Edwards. County authorities, who have altered their account of how Hunt was killed since their first statement about the shooting on Saturday, are investigating.

Hunt’s family and Edwards are meanwhile looking into several possible explanations for Hunt’s actions in the minutes before his altercation with the two officers, who have not been identified by the Saratoga Springs police department, and are both on paid leave.

One is that Hunt was playing out some kind of public performance. “From what I’ve heard from witnesses that have talked to us, he wasn’t bothering anyone,” said Moss. “He had his earbuds in, and was kind of doing spins and stuff, like pretending he’s a samurai, without even being near a person. Just in his own little world, doing his own thing.”

Attention has also been drawn online to Hunt’s remarkable resemblance as he walked around on the morning of his death to Mugen, a swordsman character in the short-lived Japanese anime series Samurai Champloo.

Edwards volunteered without prompt a possible link with the Comic Con convention that had taken place in Salt Lake City the previous weekend. “We had lines and lines of people dressing up like Princess Leia and Starship Troopers and anime characters and that kind of thing,” he said. “I don’t know if that factored into it at all.”

His mother has suggested alternatively that Darrien may have been seeking a job, and could even have been seeking to attract a crowd and impress potential employers by carrying the sword, a souvenir that the family says was purchased at an “oriental gift shop” by Darrien’s younger brother.

Acknowledging that the theory “might sound kind of silly”, Moss stressed nonetheless that “Susan had kind of been on his case to get a job. He had quit his last job. He dressed up in a dress shirt and pants, and then Susan ran off to work.”

The Hunt family insists that the sword, which Hunt had been carrying in a plastic sheath, had a “rounded edge” to its two-to-three-foot blade, and ultimately was not dangerous. However “it was not a toy”, said Tim Taylor, the chief deputy attorney for Utah County. “It is a steel-type sword with a sharpened point and what looks like a sharpened edge,” he said.

Edwards, the family attorney, stressed that under Utah’s liberal weapons laws, Hunt, who was not a felon nor adjudged mentally ill, was legally entitled to carry a sword in public. Still, opinions differ on why he might not have considered that unsheathing and brandishing it could get him into trouble. Moss said that a witness had told her that as Hunt walked around the strip mall, someone walked out of the gas station – which sits opposite a drive-through bank where Hunt would soon be confronted by police – and told him: “Some people are feeling nervous, would you mind leaving?”

Kayden Mitchell, an 18-year-old friend, said that some people assumed Hunt was “kind of a little mentally slow, a little slower”. Moss rejected this. “Not at all,” she said. “He was very bright, a bright young man.” She added that her nephew was “kind of shy but giving and loving”, and idealistic about world events. He graduated from Battlefield High School in Haymarket, Virginia, in 2010. An obituary published by his family said: “He had a strong desire to serve his country in the Marine Corp and unfortunately never got that chance.”

Hunt lived at his mother’s house in Saratoga Springs, about 35 miles south of Salt Lake City, with his younger brother Kerahn, who is 20, and two younger sisters Taryn and Aliya, who are in their teens. In a city with a population that is 93% white and only 0.5% black, Hunt, who was brown-skinned and had recently been sporting an Afro hairstyle, stood out.

The family moved to Utah in 2011 after domestic troubles flared in Virginia. Susan, Hunt’s mother, told reporters last weekend that she had fled an abusive relationship. Hunt suffered a “rough childhood”, said Moss, because the same person was “kind of abusive” to him.


A memorial for Darrien Hunt is set up at the Panda Express in Saratoga Springs. Photograph: Spenser Heaps/AP
So after moving west, Darrien began to indulge in some of the things he had missed out on as a teenager the first time around. “He was trying to catch up,” said Moss. “He could have lost a little bit of time with some of the stuff that went on.”

He attended boy scout camp only this year with boys who were several years younger than him, according to relatives and friends. “He was fun to hang out with because he hadn’t done any of those things,” said one. “He wanted to try it all, he wanted to learn, he wanted to have experiences that he hadn’t had.”

The family only had one car, so it was typical for Hunt to walk about on his own after his mother, 51, had left for her job as an administrative and procurement specialist for an agricultural company. He would often slip in his earbuds and listen to hip-hop. His favourite rapper was Tech N9ne, the stage name of Aaron Dontez Yates of St Louis, Missouri. “My brother considered Tech N9ne his God,” his sister Aliya said in a Facebook post. Getting to meet his hero had been a “dream come true for him”, she added.

Mitchell, the 18-year-old friend, shared Hunt’s music tastes. He recalled laid-back discussions about their favourite artists. “He went out of his way to come and talk to me at the birthday party where we met,” said Mitchell. “He introduced himself, and was just a super-cool guy.”

Yet Hunt appears to have suffered at least two stressful setbacks this year. First, in January, he was arrested after a drunken fight at his house with two friends of one of his sister’s, who “jumped him”, said Moss. She said that despite being injured himself, Hunt, as the only participant of adult age, was initially charged with child abuse, assault and intoxication.


Hunt’s mugshot from earlier this year Photograph: Utah County sheriff
Edwards, the family attorney, said that Hunt entered a guilty plea that was being held by Utah’s courts system “in abeyance”, which meant it would be dismissed and disappear from his record if he got into no further trouble for a year. “His mugshot shows that he was pretty beat up,” said Edwards. “He hadn’t had any problems since.”

His family dismissed suggestions that he was perhaps depressed or seriously unhappy. “He had good days and bad days,” said Moss.

But he had hinted at troubled thoughts in a series of cryptic, one-line posts to his Facebook page over several months. “Just still feel like these people are out to get me type of paranoid,” he posted in June. “What people? We all love you,” replied his aunt. “Just dealing with memories,” Hunt said in response.

He also appeared to have encountered some romantic anguish. “I think he was having some girl problems,” said Mitchell. “He texted me. He was saying once he got everything sorted with this girl, we would hang out.”

“You know I would give you my everything,” he said in one Facebook post in August. “I’m fine with being alone,” he added on Monday. Late on Tuesday night, he posted again. “I wanted to share my everything with her,” he said. About 10 and a half hours later, someone called 911.
 
First, I would not speak in such platitude when it comes to the law. I would not say that shooting a man with his hands up is always wrong. The test is whether a person subjectively feels that they are in an imminent threat of severe bodily harm or death. A person can reasonably fear for their lives in situations in which hands are raised, a bb gun is being used against them threateningly, and the sword looks real.

...So you understand that someone with his hands up is surrendering, right? It's the universal sign of giving up. This isn't some movie shit where someone fake surrenders only to pull out a hidden gun to try to kill the one hero cop that he hates down while he goes out in a blaze of glory.

And given that we see people with open carry guns not posing a threat, and seeing as how we've seen officers diffuse situations with others who have guns without anybody being dead, the last part of your post just doesn't wash. It's interesting that we live in this amazing gun culture that certain people just can't stand the idea of being regulated or changed in any other way (besides more guns), but the moment there's the possibility that a black person has a weapon, all bets are off when it comes to their life and the law.

Why do you suppose that is?

Edit:

I just saw your new award winning post after I replied to this one. Never mind. Christ. That's the exact reason I'm trying to stop posting in threads like this.
 
I read the article, and I still don't fully agree.

I do think that the quickness to shoot a black suspect over a white suspect is race, but more of a case where the people mistakenly attribute behavior to skin color rather to scio-economic class. So, the problem isn't simply "racism."

Until people understand why the black community seems so much more violent than "others" (the problem here is that it's not a black community thing, it's a POOR community thing), it's not going to get better any time soon.

What "black community"? You have black people from all socioeconomic classes being burdened with racism. The persistent notion that class is a bigger factor than race is being colorblind.
 
Unjustly killed is a mistaken characterization based on insufficient facts. Negligently killed? Yes. Recklessly killed? Yes. But as I pointed out months ago and was chastised for, the law is more involved than people seem to realize when it comes to self defense. Most people do not know about fleeing dangerous felons and the right of self defense when a person points a BB gun at you. You can use deadly force if you fear for your life when someone points a BB gun at you.

Lets see the very definition of Unjustly is not just; lacking in justice or fairness. None of the people I listed that were killed by police officers were convicted felons at the times of their deaths at the hands of police officers so, I do not know why you brought up the bs about the law being more involved or the whole BB gun example except to be obtuse.
 
I read the article, and I still don't fully agree.

I do think that the quickness to shoot a black suspect over a white suspect is race, but more of a case where the people mistakenly attribute behavior to skin color rather to scio-economic class. So, the problem isn't simply "racism."
I dont understand what you're trying to say. The studies show that racial bias against black males is very real, even among trained officers of the law. Im not sure what socio-economics has to do with the rather sinister implications those studies are revealing.
 
. Quick statistics lesson. Lets say that all the ice cream shops in town are great ice cream shops rated highly by the critically acclaimed ice cream association (CAICE). All the ice cream joints that are rated highly by the CAICE sell Vanilla ice cream. Some of that vanilla ice cream is based out of vanilla extract. Some is made with wood pulp. More of the stores in the town that offer wood pulp Vanilla for sale are highly rated than those that offer extract vanilla ice cream. Does that necessitate that it is wood pulp that makes them highly rated? Logically no. It could just as easily be the fact that them selling Vanilla ice cream makes them highly rated.

Same statistics rules applies here. Merely because a predominate amount of the low income people are minorities does not mean that racial tension is to blame. It could also be, and is more likely to be, the fact that they are low income people. Especially when you compile that with statistics that low income white people are disproportionately attacked compared to the wider white demographic.


All three of these arguments point out one common theme; it is intellectually dishonest to cry racism when it demeans the struggles of non-minority poor people and their interactions with the police. I feel just as bad about the death of the 35 year old guy the other day in my County as I do what is happening in Ferguson. But why are you not crying for him?

Police brutality is police brutality. No matter what color it takes.
Dude take a step back for a second. These few paragraphs here are almost laughably absurd and condescending. Few (if any) people will take your opinions about this topic seriously now.
 
People need to understand the difference between Individual Racism which is internalized biases and prejudices you have in your self and how you act out those biases and prejudices in interpersonal relationships vs Institutionalized Racism which is the racists policies and discriminatory practices that occur in institutions such as schools, work places and government that produce unjust or unfair outcomes for people of color that institution is supposed to serve.

The police are apart of an institution and when were talking about police brutality and racial profiling we aren't necessarily saying that the officers who perpetrated are individually racists who acted upon their internal biases and prejudices while policing. Rather it's important to see the role the institution of policing plays and how it may facilitate discrimination, racial profiling and police brutality. In one of my previous posts I noted very important practices in policing that frequently end up producing unjust and unfair outcomes for people of color. I can also lean on empirical evidence that shows that the institution of policing target people of color more often and arrest them more often. In other words we aren't arguing that there's an epidemic of racists cops but that the institution of policing frequently produce unfair and unjust outcomes for people of color. There's racism on the institutional level.

Saying "it's not class it's it's race" is nothing more than a rhetorical game, one that demonstrates a poor understand of the concepts of classicism and racism.
 
The frequent danger of topics like this is that, to some people, it's an academic discussion of a far-away event, full of possibilities and opportunities for debate, and to others it represents the very real danger that they themselves might be hurt or killed -- by the police, by somebody standing their ground, whatever -- and their attacker might face no consequences because of a policy literally over 200 years old that African-Americans don't have fully recognized rights to their own bodies. To somebody who's learned to shape their behavior patterns around the threat of death, or has possibly seen real people around them suffer because of their failure to do so, a devil's advocate position might feel a little like if your house was on fire and a bystander is trying to talk to you about why would this be a problem since fire is the cornerstone of human civilization, so shouldn't it be a good thing?

This is the greatest thing I have read on the internet in a LONG time. Bravo, sir or madam.
 
I wonder what's happened in recent years that's made US cops so much more willing to just shoot people they deem a threat?

There was a time when they'd try to take the less lethal route...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejs71S2OCn8

I know this probably has been said before but... that guy wasn't black. There was even the video of a guy brandishing a gun in a park, who was shot in a non lethal area and inmediately sent to a hospital. He wasn't black either.

This kid was shot, and then he was left to run away 100 yards, bleeding out in the process. I firmly believe that for some cops, some of these people are "creatures they need to deal with" rather than people. It's not that they hate them, its that they don't register as fellow human beings, so taking the less dangerous route for their peers (other people), they shoot them dead.

EDIT: Never mind, the guy is actually black! (I think)
 
No, it has to do with a race, as multiple studies point out.
Police Officers Are More Likely to Shoot Black Men, Studies Suggest
These are solid studies that flatly squash your theory that class, not race, is the root of the problem.

From your article:

According to a comprehensive comparison of police vs. civilian shooting rates published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, training makes an even clearer difference. Though police officers took longer to decide whether to shoot if the person was black, that analysis found trained officers weren't influenced by race when it actually came to pulling the trigger.
 
From your article:
Dude, same article:

Study 1: Armed blacks, unarmed whites:
...participants fired on an armed target more quickly when he was African American than when he was White, and decided not to shoot an unarmed target more quickly when he was White than when he was African American

Study 2: Armed whites, unarmed blacks:
Participants in this study failed to shoot an armed target more often when that target was White than when he was African American. If the target was unarmed, participants mistakenly shot him more often when he was African American than when he was White
 
From your article:

The study is pointing out that with "extensive training", officers were able to eliminate their bias, not that the bias doesnt exist.
"Upon initial exposure to the program, the officers were more likely to mistakenly shoot unarmed black compared with unarmed white suspects. However, after extensive training with the program, in which the race of the suspect was unrelated to the presence of a weapon, the officers were able to eliminate their bias"
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/racialbias.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom