About Police Shootings (in America, Duh)

soz i failed ta that quote thing

Wescli Wardest wrote: As much as many will dislike what I have to say, I feel that Trump being in office will be a catalyst for change. Change is often painful and uncomfortable, but it can lead to growth and development which I think we need. We, the US, seems to have stagnated a bit; become ridged in our thinking, politics and positions.

Like I said a second ago, change is painful. But, with a catalyst we, the people, can voice the change we want and have a real chance to shape and mold a better future.

If Miss Clinton gains the Presidency I feel things will continue as usual.

I am not found of either candidate. And I think neither of them will lead the country to a more positive future. But with one of them, he is just hot-headed and radical enough to spur the people in to action and create the change we need. I do not see Trump as being the change we need, but rather a common agitator that will spur the people into action.

I agree that a disruption of the status quo is needed for change... BUT which is theoretically more beneficial: keeping the status quo in the moment until a positive catalyst comes along, or allowing a negative catalyst to create violence in the name of change? Would a country benefit more from a quiet evolution towards social progress, or a revolution?

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm not saying that's my opinion. I was asking Lightstrider if that was what he (she? I don't know your gender ) was saying in his (her?) post.

I was trying to understand and clarify what was already written.

I personally think that Trump's anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, pro-gun, and so-called "real talk" behaviour is deplorable, and quite frankly the worst thing that could happen in the upcoming election is for America to vote him in. He is the "greater evil" in the race to the White House. I believe that having him in power would only encourage more violence to be perpetrated in American society, not just in the police force, but in the population in general.

Actually the doctrine specifies that you must defend the way of Jediism. As aspects of Islam are in direct opposition to what Jediism stands for, it is in fact correct to oppose Islam or parts of it. Not just Islam though. You should be fair and equally opposed to non-islamic anti-jedi ideas. Or not be a Jedi.

Wescli wrote: As much as many will dislike what I have to say, I feel that Trump being in office will be a catalyst for change. Change is often painful and uncomfortable, but it can lead to growth and development which I think we need. We, the US, seems to have stagnated a bit; become ridged in our thinking, politics and positions.

Congress tho.
Also it looks to me like things are becoming increasingly polarised. They're both extremists, and so are their opponents and proponents. I think this may get worse, the feminist SJWs are going to go batshit insane if Trump goes into office. Good thing is Trump might be mad enough to have them shot on sight.

If Miss Clinton gains the Presidency I feel things will continue as usual.

I'm pretty sure it's Mrs Clinton, and that's part of why it'll be just as usual. Literally the same family will be in the white house yet again.

ren wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm not saying that's my opinion. I was asking Lightstrider if that was what he (she? I don't know your gender ) was saying in his (her?) post.

I was trying to understand and clarify what was already written.

I personally think that Trump's anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, pro-gun, and so-called "real talk" behaviour is deplorable, and quite frankly the worst thing that could happen in the upcoming election is for America to vote him in. He is the "greater evil" in the race to the White House. I believe that having him in power would only encourage more violence to be perpetrated in American society, not just in the police force, but in the population in general.

Actually the doctrine specifies that you must defend the way of Jediism. As aspects of Islam are in direct opposition to what Jediism stands for, it is in fact correct to oppose Islam or parts of it. Not just Islam though. You should be fair and equally opposed to non-islamic anti-jedi ideas. Or not be a Jedi.

And if a Muslim comes up to me and starts talking smack about Jediism, I *will* defend it. As I would with anyone who insults my faith. But Islam and other faiths are not inherently attacking Jediism by existing. We're not on a crusade to take down any belief that isn't compatible with our own, but to promote harmony and cooperation. And violence begets violence.

In response to Miss_Leah,

Even in Gandhi’s peaceful revolution there was suffering, physical violence (police brutality) and a long drawn out struggle which caused a lot of Indians to suffer. I cannot think of one time in history that has had any level of significant change where the people did not suffer…

As much as we may not like it, violence is a part of the natural order. Human nature does not lead me to believe that the society as a whole is even capable of such a thing. Not yet at least.

Keep in mind, these are just my opinions based on a lifetime of one person’s experience. I could be completely wrong.

Miss_Leah wrote:

ren wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm not saying that's my opinion. I was asking Lightstrider if that was what he (she? I don't know your gender ) was saying in his (her?) post.

I was trying to understand and clarify what was already written.

I personally think that Trump's anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, pro-gun, and so-called "real talk" behaviour is deplorable, and quite frankly the worst thing that could happen in the upcoming election is for America to vote him in. He is the "greater evil" in the race to the White House. I believe that having him in power would only encourage more violence to be perpetrated in American society, not just in the police force, but in the population in general.

Actually the doctrine specifies that you must defend the way of Jediism. As aspects of Islam are in direct opposition to what Jediism stands for, it is in fact correct to oppose Islam or parts of it. Not just Islam though. You should be fair and equally opposed to non-islamic anti-jedi ideas. Or not be a Jedi.

And if a Muslim comes up to me and starts talking smack about Jediism, I *will* defend it. As I would with anyone who insults my faith. But Islam and other faiths are not inherently attacking Jediism by existing. We're not on a crusade to take down any belief that isn't compatible with our own, but to promote harmony and cooperation. And violence begets violence.

People who "talk smack" about Jediism or "insult" the faith are irrelevant, and protecting the faith does not involve them. Jedi should not feel insulted, and informing the misinformed isn't defense, but sharing.
People who promote ignorance over knowledge, blind obedience over wisdom (to use tenets as an example) are a different story, and opposing that is defending the faith. Nothing to do with defending Jediism's imaginary honour or defending a Jedi's feelings as these are supposed to be imaginary as well.

ren wrote: People who "talk smack" about Jediism or "insult" the faith are irrelevant, and protecting the faith does not involve them. Jedi should not feel insulted, and informing the misinformed isn't defense, but sharing.
People who promote ignorance over knowledge, blind obedience over wisdom (to use tenets as an example) are a different story, and opposing that is defending the faith. Nothing to do with defending Jediism's imaginary honour or defending a Jedi's feelings as these are supposed to be imaginary as well.

It's far more useful to encourage harmony, serenity, peace and knowledge in the people who we have contact with on a day-to-day basis than to shout to the world at large "I'm against this!!!!!!" Whatever your "this" may be. It's the difference between opposing something negative and encouraging something positive:

"Where you tend a rose, my lad, a thistle cannot grow"

documentary about car jacking in newark, new jersey, from the perspectives of the people who do the jacking i.e. the thieves

for those who dont know
"car-jacking" means pointing a gun at someone (usually a firearm is used but not always) and taking their car from them directly; this is not stealing a car from a parking lot or from someones drive, this is using force to take the car from them personally

theres something of a "we do this because we dont have any other choices" theme in the docu

i am not endorsing that theme, i am only sharing the docu as one glimpse into one segment of people who commit one particular kind of crime

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmH6d839Ytk


crime and poverty in Chicago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAA3aQt4AGQ

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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwytoxMuk4U

guy
"im walking, dont harm me"

cop
"ok"

guy
"keep your word"

cop
"now!"

dead

I completely agree that police brutality is real.

But it's a symptom, not the root problem.

OB1Shinobi wrote: guy
"im walking, dont harm me"

cop
"ok"

guy
"keep your word"

cop
"now!"

dead

Ok 99.999999999% of those video clips were brutality. However the first clip of the first video was not. That man came at the officers with a pipe bending jig which is a solid metal bar and that is a lethal threat. You do not play games in that situation. Further you shoot until the threat stops that means the weapon is down and the threat is not trying to move.

yeah, i thought that was an ironic first choice of that video also

but thats appropriate to the discussion in ins own right, as a reminder not to be too quick to judge in either direction

Miss_Leah wrote: I completely agree that police brutality is real.

But it's a symptom, not the root problem.

what IS the problem?

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I completely agree that police brutality is real.

But it's a symptom, not the root problem.

what IS the problem?

Well, I'm no expert, but my read of it is that the problem has a lot to do with the fact that our society sees certain people as less than human, and so, expendable - ethnic minorities (especially youth), the homeless, Muslims, etc.

And this stems from an "us vs. them" mentality. THEY are lesser, THEY are the enemy, THEY are not deserving of what we have, THEY are not worthy, THEY don't matter...

This is why politics of fear are so dangerous, they propagate this mindset of other humans being less worthy of being here, of having life, even. The police are a branch of our government, and so, a branch of our society. They represent us, they ARE us. And when our society devalues the lives of others who are "other" or "not us" or "them", it's too easy to treat them like second class citizens.

Miss_Leah wrote:

ren wrote: People who "talk smack" about Jediism or "insult" the faith are irrelevant, and protecting the faith does not involve them. Jedi should not feel insulted, and informing the misinformed isn't defense, but sharing.
People who promote ignorance over knowledge, blind obedience over wisdom (to use tenets as an example) are a different story, and opposing that is defending the faith. Nothing to do with defending Jediism's imaginary honour or defending a Jedi's feelings as these are supposed to be imaginary as well.

It's far more useful to encourage harmony, serenity, peace and knowledge in the people who we have contact with on a day-to-day basis than to shout to the world at large "I'm against this!!!!!!" Whatever your "this" may be. It's the difference between opposing something negative and encouraging something positive:

"Where you tend a rose, my lad, a thistle cannot grow"

Positive reinforcement creates SJW zombies. And they in turn cause a backlash, in the form of Trump-like characters. I'd rather tell people they can believe and do what they like with minimal restrictions, than brainwash them into believing what I believe...

Defending the faith is what you do once it's under attack. When you use positive reinforcement (which is a form of brainwashing and an affront to freedom of conscience), you shoot first and others defend against it.

I won't tell the cop who gets shot at 9 out of 10 times by blacks to love blacks. That's insulting to his intelligence and simply aggravating. I'll just prevent him from spreading racism when and if it ever reaches that point.

ren wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote:

ren wrote: People who "talk smack" about Jediism or "insult" the faith are irrelevant, and protecting the faith does not involve them. Jedi should not feel insulted, and informing the misinformed isn't defense, but sharing.
People who promote ignorance over knowledge, blind obedience over wisdom (to use tenets as an example) are a different story, and opposing that is defending the faith. Nothing to do with defending Jediism's imaginary honour or defending a Jedi's feelings as these are supposed to be imaginary as well.

It's far more useful to encourage harmony, serenity, peace and knowledge in the people who we have contact with on a day-to-day basis than to shout to the world at large "I'm against this!!!!!!" Whatever your "this" may be. It's the difference between opposing something negative and encouraging something positive:

"Where you tend a rose, my lad, a thistle cannot grow"

Positive reinforcement creates SJW zombies. And they in turn cause a backlash, in the form of Trump-like characters. I'd rather tell people they can believe and do what they like with minimal restrictions, than brainwash them into believing what I believe...

Defending the faith is what you do once it's under attack. When you use positive reinforcement (which is a form of brainwashing and an affront to freedom of conscience), you shoot first and others defend against it.

I won't tell the cop who gets shot at 9 out of 10 times by blacks to love blacks. That's insulting to his intelligence and simply aggravating. I'll just prevent him from spreading racism when and if it ever reaches that point.

Ok, so rather than criticizing someone else's examination of the problem, why not offer some of your own?

What's your analysis of the root cause of police brutality and how do you think it could be managed?

ren wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote:

ren wrote: People who "talk smack" about Jediism or "insult" the faith are irrelevant, and protecting the faith does not involve them. Jedi should not feel insulted, and informing the misinformed isn't defense, but sharing.
People who promote ignorance over knowledge, blind obedience over wisdom (to use tenets as an example) are a different story, and opposing that is defending the faith. Nothing to do with defending Jediism's imaginary honour or defending a Jedi's feelings as these are supposed to be imaginary as well.

It's far more useful to encourage harmony, serenity, peace and knowledge in the people who we have contact with on a day-to-day basis than to shout to the world at large "I'm against this!!!!!!" Whatever your "this" may be. It's the difference between opposing something negative and encouraging something positive:

"Where you tend a rose, my lad, a thistle cannot grow"

Positive reinforcement creates SJW zombies. And they in turn cause a backlash, in the form of Trump-like characters. I'd rather tell people they can believe and do what they like with minimal restrictions, than brainwash them into believing what I believe...

Defending the faith is what you do once it's under attack. When you use positive reinforcement (which is a form of brainwashing and an affront to freedom of conscience), you shoot first and others defend against it.

I won't tell the cop who gets shot at 9 out of 10 times by blacks to love blacks. That's insulting to his intelligence and simply aggravating. I'll just prevent him from spreading racism when and if it ever reaches that point.

Insulting to his intelligence? Yea failing to tell him to take people on a case by case basis and allowing him to judge based on one factor alone is a good way good for him to end up dead or killing the innocent. When in use of force or potential use of force situations assuming based on anything but the facts of that exact moment is an good way to die or kill the innocent. All people and situations should be judged on a case by case anything else is a lack of intelligence and a good way to foul up big time.

http://www.fox2detroit.com/the-americans-with-charlie-leduff/173584868-story

Here's something to think about. We like to pin it to the whole of the white population. But there's a lot more to consider. As this article suggests, we might need to adjust the numbers to look at economic demographics and see what happens to the race killed by cops ratio. There are other things that are problematic, such as the fact that Killed by Police (cited in a few articles) includes data on off-duty officers shooting people- in one case an accidental discharge while cleaning their weapon. We need to adjust for the fact that "White" in the US Census of 2010 includes the Latino population (I checked, checked and rechecked just to make sure that's an accurate statement), and that the black hispanic population is not included in African American in the US Census (which is a very specific definition), but the Killed by Police lumps all together (it's difficult to discern looking at the raw information, so I don't hold it against them or anything). There are so many issues with the way we look at the numbers, because of our limited access to what the full demographics are- not to mention the difference that occurs over the course of 5-6 years- that any estimates we produce don't necessarily tell the whole story. I'm not saying there aren't issues, but what I will say, is that we can't look at the problem without fully knowing all of the variables involved. Maybe, just maybe, if we stopped screaming "BLACK LIVES MATTER", "ALL LIVES MATTER", "(INSERT GROUP HERE) LIVES MATTER", we could find solutions. There are plenty of white people out there that don't have this "privilege" that everyone keeps talking about, and it hurts them to see others tell them that they have something which they don't have access too.

You'd think mandatory body camera's and vehicle camera's would reduce or even eliminate the inappropriate/illegal conduct by Police. But they might have to have all actions reviewed by an independent third party in ongoing terms, to vet for misconduct. Then it should be safe to assert that its not the Police's fault for the proportion of any particular group in shootings, if the conduct is proper, and it might point to a higher criminal activity of those particular groups more then anything else.

Adder wrote: You'd think mandatory body camera's and vehicle camera's would reduce or even eliminate the inappropriate/illegal conduct by Police. But they might have to have all actions reviewed by an independent third party in ongoing terms, to vet for misconduct. Then it should be safe to assert that its not the Police's fault for the proportion of any particular group in shootings, if the conduct is proper, and it might point to a higher criminal activity of those particular groups more then anything else.

But is the issue truly being solved if police are only conducting themselves properly because they're being watched?