Betsy Ross Flag vs Colin Kaepernick (controversial)

Wheww ... this topic has become a lot more broad than the issue about athletic shoes that began it! I'll own part of that, but other very reflective participants get part of the blame too.

We are clearly not all of the same mind about racism, slavery, and the merits of Nike's decision. But the conversation has stayed remarkably civil, given the dichotomy of perspectives. That is a mark of honor.

I'm afraid my available time and energy at the moment isn't sufficient to respond to at least one or two topics that have been voiced ... but more important than those added responses is a vision to which I suspect we can all agree:

May we grow ever closer to the ideals of equity and justice. May we remember that any person who stands before us has inherent worth, whatever that person's history may be, and may we act in accord with that recognition. And may we steer our society, wherever we may live, toward one that fosters friendship rather than domination, peace rather than violence, acceptance rather than marginalization, and love rather than hate.

I'm on a tight deadline today but I promise to get to this tomorrow after 10am and give it a fair assessment

ren wrote: Being offended has got to be the dumbest thing anyone can possibly do.

It is if your not actually offended, but offence is more like a category of reactions which are usually private or complex, which to me implies it's not a choice to be offended as much as a reaction. Not all reactions are logical, correct or useful but some are born of first hand suffering - and it's the those which can give us reason to act with care. I get tired of the 'better to say sorry then do the right thing' attitude of the lazy.... just because it puts the burden on the victim to extend understanding into accuracy during communication.

Having said that, it seems almost a form of cultural warfare to rewrite history because something is from a past which had victims. Dodgy causal chains + emotional bias = distortion and manipulation. If one is not actually a victim of a thing then really the second hand suffering should not be confused with first hand suffering. We can all feel the full extent of human experience with our imagination, and this can be supported by associated experiences, but it's not good rational process to blow things out of proportion for political reach, IMO.

So I ask you, how is any of this sensationalist garbage (like TYT) doing any good to heal the wounds or mend the rifts between races? All it is doing is furthering the divide and polarizing people against one another. This has to stop in favor of better and more constructive means to bring people together!

Okay I watched the video again. I remembered the story when it first came out but I hadn't read that article.

You're making assumptions just like everyone (which is why I'm not casting blame towards you) who doesn't know all the facts because we weren't there. There are 2 sides of the story and I typically believe the side with the most credibility IN THAT SITUATION. That means the cops COULD be more credible depending on their actions and behavior. Did they take steps to deescalate, etc. Did they treat the person like a human being; an equal? Did they use only the amount of force required by the situation? Were their actions necessary? Did they have probable cause? Would every other police officer reasonably act in the same manner? These are the questions I ask myself.

And then what did the suspect do? What were they charged for? Could they have a mental illness? Were they high? Were they doing something illegal? If so, is the act in question something that warrants a violent assault/takedown? Did they have a valid reason to be afraid of this suspect? How did the suspect react to the cops? Were they questioning them under the assumption of innocence or guilt? How would I have reasonably acted in the same situation?

So your first disagreement is what he was arrested for or if he was arrested at all. While this seems like a minor inflection the actual fact is he was brought to the station. That's an arrest. You can't just nab people off the street, hold them for awhile, and then let them go. That's not how the justice system is supposed to work. Now, first we should note that the suspect doesn't seem all that mad in the article. He was probably relieved to be let go but the problem is this happens to people all the time who do not know their rights or proper police procedure. People act like cops know exactly what they're doing at all times, that they know the law, and are following it. This is not true. There are plenty of failed arrest videos where an officer confronts a person who knows the law and their rights and those people are able to shut it down. Sometimes, even if you do know your rights just the fact that you're embarrassing them (a "crime" by many standards) often leads to "B.S." charges where the cop will arrest you first and think up a charge second. I'll quote one of the officers so you can see what I mean (because they know they do it even if they cannot admit to specific cases they could get in trouble for).

Before I go further. We have to understand Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause.
The language of the law often says "reasonable" of a person or suspicion. So as long as an officer can fit their thoughts into that box they know the boundaries of the grey area they have to work with. It's like the grey area is a basketball court and they can "cross you" over legally.

Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

Reasonable suspicion is a justifiable belief based on specific facts and/or circumstances that a person was involved in criminal activity. In order for the arrest to be legal, the person needs to be:

Arrested at the scene of the crime
Searched at the scene of the crime

Police Officer: "Well, better for us to take them in and release them as opposed to taking them in and just charging them with B.S. What, because we take them in we have to charge them? People wouldn't want that either."

What is this officer saying? He's suggesting that there are only 2 possibilities. Both involving making an arrest while one involves an actual criminal charge. And so he's saying that people (targets of arrest) would prefer the former to the latter. But I ask you. What is the latter proposition? "with B.S". That means the person did nothing wrong and the cops are making something (hence "B.S.") up in order to justify it. Here's an idea... How about we just not take people in at all? How about if you see a crime then you have a suspect. If there is no crime then there is no suspect.

"[The cops] tried to say I was in a 'drug area,'" Hill explained. "So they wanted to search the car. And they took me down to the station. I don't know what that was for, because they didn't see me with nothing and I didn't have nothing.

This is B.S. This is what makes me believe Hill over the police. And notice, Hill isn't too upset. He's not positioning himself for a lawsuit or trying to get anyone fired. He's the person who should be the most biased but he defends the officers. So to me, he has the most credibility. You may disagree but I'm explaining my thought process. But when a black person says "tried to say"... that means the person in question was fabricating a story that is unreasonable to believe. So in this case he has committed one of the cardinal sins of being a young black male. He was in the "wrong" place.

Now time out. There's a reason why 'drug area' is in quotes. I believe cops more when they can say they are reacting to a specific crime. Maybe there's a description. Maybe someone's running. But you can't just arrest people for running. Nor can you arrest everyone who runs in what YOU call a 'drug area'. People live in 'drug areas'. Does that mean their whole life they can never run or have any kind of normal life? And if you can just go around calling places 'drug areas' in order to justify an arrest then that could potentially be an abuse of power.

Was it an arrest? A cop pulls you over, he's detaining you because you're not under arrest but you're not free to go. Once he's gotten the information needed he or she has to make a judgment. They can let you go, write you a ticket, or if warranted by the crime, they can arrest you. But at that point they have to either arrest you or let you go. When they take you down to the station in handcuffs, you're not "Just visiting" like in Monopoly. You're under arrest. And then from there they have I think its 48 hours to charge you. This was designed with better intentions like... catching a murderer and locking them up temporarily to keep them from fleeing while you gather the evidence you need to get a specific charge that will stick. However, this can also be abused. So what happens is that cops just arrest people and then let them go before the time comes when they have to charge them. And cops don't have negative consequences for being wrong so letting you go is no skin off their back and there's no legal means you can retaliate. And this is certainly not what they would ever do to rich people. Not to mention people can sit in jail for days, weeks, or even months on a "B.S." charge that they can't disprove just waiting for a trial date. Happens all the time.

This is often what cops do to "humble" people who are acting tough, disrespecting their authority, etc. AKA "locked up on a humble"

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=a%20humble

This is what the officer was talking about when he said "B.S. charge".

What should the police have done? First... you need reasonable suspicion to do a search. They didn't have that so they shouldn't have been allowed to search the vehicle at all. The problem is people tend to believe whatever the police say because of the authority that person represents; totally ignoring the character of the person wearing the badge. Black people are simply less likely to do this because we run across their very human side more often. You assume "reasonable suspicion" because of the arrest where as I want to know WHY they thought it was "reasonable" to suspect EITHER of them for having drugs. You have to keep in mind that what we're both hearing from BOTH sides is a "story" told after the facts. Police stories often do not line up with events. We know this from officer camera footage. An officer in Florida just got busted for planting drugs on people probably forgetting he didn't turn off his camera or he didn't think it would even be seen. Police lie. They lie in order to boost their arrest numbers. It's not all about race but what some officers will tell you is that they use racial profiling in order to help them meet their quotas. So they're going to tell whatever story they need to knowing all they have to do is look more credible than the person they're arresting. That's not difficult because if you look like a professional you're less likely to be used in that way.

So in this case, what they tell one of the suspects isn't necessarily going to be true or what they told the other suspect. Cops often lie in order to coerce a confession or see if two people's stories line up. They tell people all the time "we're not after you. You're good. You're good." Guess what? You're not good. That's just a tactic. What does it do? They can use it to get you to admit to a crime you may or may NOT have committed because they'll tell people that they're not in trouble and if they tell the truth they're going to let them go. You may not believe that but plenty of people (especially younger people) do. And if they "oh we're after this other person" then what it implies is that 'if you help us get this other person we'll let you go that much sooner'. It's a tactic. However, if his friend actually did have drugs on him there is no way for them to know he's not an accessory to a drug deal. So why would they say "you're good" ? Because it's a lie. Cops lie. Had they found drugs they would have charged them both. That's the reality of policing. Arrest as many people as possible and try to get someone to flip on someone higher up the chain.

Hill isn't stupid. The reason he believes the cops were lying is because if the arrest was legit when they [using reasonable suspicion] would have let him go as soon as the search turned up nothing. They weren't after him, right? Well if they were targeting his friend (which was probably sublime B.S.) then they would have had no reason to believe or suspect he had anything to do with drugs or that he was a possible accessory. They wanted him. That's why they arrested him. If they didn't want him, after the search, they would have let him go. And when they don't charge you it gives them the ability to really muddy up the water and use the weakest excuse possible because they barely need one, legally speaking.

However, that doesn't fully stop it from being a "false arrest". The problem with "false arrest" is that it is intentional which means you have to prove intent. And there lies the problem. Unless the cop says "I'm arresting you because you embarrassed me the other day" your lawyer is going to look at you and shake his head. He's not going to want to entertain that case because it's too difficult to prove. Now... if you're rich then you may have a lawyer on retainer and you're willing to pay those hours. This is why cops are less likely to pick on people with real money. They're not stupid either and by suing thing can actually win and be compensated.

Now, because people committing crimes don't normally admit such you cannot make the standard that the cop has to admit he's lying or else you're going to believe whatever he says. I mean... of course you can. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm just explaining why I myself would be incredibly skeptical and believe the victim. And that's because I see him as a victim where maybe you don't. He was minding his business, not doing anything wrong and got harassed to the point of actually being taken to the station in cuffs. That's not an insignificant event in one's life. That's not nothing, especially when you know there's a possibility that you could be executed if you resist. And all they have to do is SAY you resisted because its your word against theirs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/opinion/prosecutors-police-misconduct.html

I'm not asking you to read this article. The article is merely evidence to show that though of course there are good officers out there, there are also very bad people wearing badges and they know how to use their authority in abusive ways. A choke hold is supposed to be a necessary reaction to a situation. When you're pre-meditating it then you're looking for a person to do it on and maybe you just tell the story in such a way to make it sound like reasonable force. But I don't fault you because I think you're asking the same human question I'm asking of the victims.

"Why would they?"

Why would a cop WANT to choke someone before even knowing who?
Why would a 50+ year old black man charge armed police with a knife?

One of these questions has moral implications. The other questions the person's sanity or mental capacity. It's easier for me to believe a cop isn't a pinnacle of morality than believe a sane person without mental handicap would charge armed police as if he doesn't know what they're trained to do in that situation.

The reason the commentators are speculating about what could have happened is because there are tons of stories about those other outcomes actually happening. But it depends a lot on the cop involved and how pissed off they get. It's like a bully at school. He may bump you in the hall way or 100 other things short of fighting unless he gets pissed off. The commentators were commending the cops for playing basketball. That was a good thing. I've seen cops in my neighborhood do the same thing at the city's block party. It's definitely a good thing. But the speculation is that they were fine until the video started getting around and all their buddies at work started giving them a hard time. TYT isn't the news. It is 99% commentary on the news. They've never pretended not to have any bias. In fact they make fun of media outlets that are restrained by this. So they're allowed to express an opinion that includes speculation. That's why people, including myself, watch them. And it's not inflammatory. What they're commenting on is inflammatory. What they were saying was the police did a good thing but then negated that good thing by doing a bad thing and the timing was extremely suspicious. And to the credit of TYT, a lot of people, even those who hate them, would not have seen many of these videos if it weren't for them giving exposure to them. I see more of them because I'm subscribed to Roland Martin's show. But I would assume that the white viewership for his show is not nearly as high as TYT. And yes, how they feel is exactly how a lot of us feel when we hear stories like that because we know good and well that the police did not have to search that car; nor did they have to handcuff him, or take them to the station. These are all very optional things that they normally don't do. People act like they have to do these things. No, they don't. It was within their discretion and they had no actual reason to suspect either one of them. The guy even thought they were "cool" because they played basketball. And to be honest with you, one of the biggest reasons why I like TYT is because of these stories because for me, empathy from white people means the world.

When the only people who want to talk are the people going through it and everyone else doesn't seem phased or bothered and just want whatever's happening to you to happen quietly because they don't really want to deal with it or have it spoil whatever it is they'd rather do. That's why people protest; to be heard and to be taken seriously. TYT takes it seriously. I can actually feel that they hear what we're trying to say. And if everyone did that and everyone got collectively frustrated and outraged then policing across America would drastically change overnight. But as long as people find it so much easier to believe the police, no matter what they do, then they [police] feel like they have license and tacit approval from "their community" to keep going. And like Trump told them, "maybe don't be so gentle when you're putting them into the car" (handcuffed).

What kills me about the conversation about racism is that... often one side simply doesn't want to have the conversation and if you want to have the conversation you're automatically going about it the wrong way as if the right way is to either not have it at all or have it in the most quiet, polite, and respectful way like "I do declare, I think that fine gentleman could might possibly may be doing something untoward as if he might have some sort of otherwise non-existent racial bias. But... I can't say for certain so let's pretend that couldn't possibly be the case because racism was extinct in the 90s and the proof is that we elected Obama."

We now have a president that says "Go back to [s-hole]Africa" while people still try to pretend the man isn't racist because they don't want to believe they ever supported one. The conversation about race hardly happens because, imho, people having that conversation are scared to be seen as or supporting racists and racism. But we [all] need to have that conversation so we [all] can understand what racism is all about so that we aren't supporting it by mistake even when we don't really believe it and even though we don't really hate anyone. People are afraid of the "us vs them" of it all but aren't realizing that it is what racism does for a living and so we are/were already divided and need to "reason together" in order to be united.

You asked, "So I ask you, how is any of this sensationalist garbage (like TYT) doing any good to heal the wounds or mend the rifts between races? "

Empathy. Empathy. These aren't your wounds. They're my wounds. And it is illadvised to tell me how my wounds can be healed. People want to pretend the rifts simply don't exist; ignore them. And while black people keep trying (because of course we do) to ignore them they [racists] keep happening to us. It keeps happening and now we're afraid of the police more than ever because they always get away with it.

Imagine if we weren't talking about racists but rather rapists. People easily empathized with women who said they were abused by Bill Cosby and his show was pulled (which affects the income of the other actors and actresses earning residuals), future plans cancelled, etc. all before he was ever even prosecuted and found guilty. These women hadn't been touched in decades and no one told them "you should just get over it and not sensationalize what happened to you." Joe Biden even looks at a woman the wrong and he gets criticized. Al Franken's hand was a bit too low and he was pushed to resign. That's the power of moral outrage. To heal a wound you have to treat it. Ignore it and it just gets infected. I don't want what has happened to us to happen to you. I just don't want one group of people to keep doing it while another group of people acts like its not being done simply because both of those groups are white.

Things depend on their context though, just because something can be interpreted as racist does not mean it necessarily is. Trumps comments could be said its not about race but rather nationalism, such that he might say the same thing to a white US citizen about leaving if they don't support it. Trump was smart enough to make that specific qualification as the context for his earlier more targeted comments. It is actually racist to automatically assume someone's intent is racist because of their own race, and jumping to definitive conclusions in that regard is in-line with that methodology. It is though fair and important to seek out such clarification because there is no doubt he was being rude..... For while he might be trying to have a valid conversation, it's hardly a respectful, compassionate, or useful way to do it. A Jedi Trump is not, by a long margin in my opinion..... But society should move forward in how it tackles issues like this (especially this one in the US), which so many suffered, and still suffer to resolve - discrimination (of all sorts).

Just a few quick comments before I try and move this forward Zealotx. Thanks for your reply. I am making no assumptions here. I am not finding blame on either side. The situation simply is what it is. Police appearing to be doing their job and potential suspects being treated according to protocol but no accusations of guilt being brought forth. In fact they were shown to be innocent.

We don’t know the details of the case and so have no real ability to take any side, one way or the other except in personal bias. Something I strive to never do. You mention the story brought forth by the commentators in TYT, and you mentioned the story brought forth by the suspect. And from this you conclude certain things, thinking you are complete in your assessment. But the part you are missing is the story that might be brought forth by the cops. Nowhere have they had the opportunity to tell their side of the story. And because that part is missing you can’t conclude anything beyond suspicion and conjecture.

Cops can legally lie to you. They are actually trained in these techniques. But if you lie to them or evade them or run from them or refuse to answer questions or resist them they have the legal right to arrest you. The charge for these offenses is called obstruction of justice. The reason for these things is that they are incredibly effective techniques designed to get you talking and if you have committed a crime to get you to admit that crime or incriminate yourself. The defense to these techniques on the suspect’s side is a lawyer and your Miranda rights. Lawyers are professionally trained to counter these techniques, you are not. So if you are confronted you get a lawyer – never try and handle it on your own.

As for the “rich person” you mention. You are simply stereotyping here, which is not much different from racism. Are you suggesting that a rich young man who is also black will not be confronted by police? That a young black man in a suit and driving a BMW that is in the same drug neighborhood would be left alone? I find that not credible.

Beyond that, let’s try and get past this minutia of detail and point counter-point we have been discussing. I think we have each presented a coherent and complete set of arguments that support our positions and I see no reason to carry that on further without risking repetition into oblivion. I appreciate all the time and effort you have given to this undertaking and I have enjoyed our conversation. But I want to take a step in a new direction now.

I want to take this from your standpoint at this time. I admit that racism does exist and there are examples of it in not only the police force but also society in general. Groups exist that further these causes and individuals that have been poorly raised have been indoctrinated in such ways. And there exist groups out there that are fighting to end such practices by shinning lite on these incidents when they happen. Groups like TYT are an example of this. However my point of contention now becomes one in which I don’t agree with how TYT are handling this. I disagree with their approach because I see it as only furthering that divide and further polarizing those sides against each other. I want a better solution and I want you to help me arrive at one. You see the problem that exists. So what steps would you take to fix our society? How would you handle the training of future generations so that sort of abuse stops? Are there policies, or procedures or laws or reform that you see as fitting to help end this sort of racial bias in our society? In effect what do you see as effective means to bring us together as a society that sees the individual only instead of the color of our skin?

Adder wrote: Things depend on their context though, just because something can be interpreted as racist does not mean it necessarily is. Trumps comments could be said its not about race but rather nationalism, such that he might say the same thing to a white US citizen about leaving if they don't support it. Trump was smart enough to make that specific qualification as the context for his earlier more targeted comments. It is actually racist to automatically assume someone's intent is racist because of their own race, and jumping to definitive conclusions in that regard is in-line with that methodology. It is though fair and important to seek out such clarification because there is no doubt he was being rude..... For while he might be trying to have a valid conversation, it's hardly a respectful, compassionate, or useful way to do it. A Jedi Trump is not, by a long margin in my opinion..... But society should move forward in how it tackles issues like this (especially this one in the US), which so many suffered, and still suffer to resolve - discrimination (of all sorts).

Things do depend on their context. You are correct. And yet racists have been hiding behind dog whistles and political spin for ages. They know how they feel about other races and guess what? They don't have to tell you. No one has to be so obvious about racism if they are racist. It is hardly ever that overt. And so most people who deal with the issues of race are fully aware of the differences and demeanor of overt racism vs covert racism.

"Go back to Africa" is a very racist statement. There is almost no context that would make it NOT racist. But part of the problem is that politically it is made to seem like it is the other side who has the burden of proving something to be racist beyond reasonable belief. But "reasonable" belief is different depending on who you are and whether racist ideas or ideology is part of your personal ethos.

Most people don't experience positive social benefits to revealing their overt beliefs about race so if you ask them they will say "I don't have a racist bone in my body" even though they've said numerous things, lest you be confused by one, that have had racist under or overtones. People who have dealt with racism know that racists often like to deny a non-white person's "PLACE" in America. My ancestors were here longer than Trumps. He was talking to 4 US citizens, most of whom were born here just like he was. He himself complained about America to the full extent of saying that it needed to be made great (again); thus indicating that it was going in the wrong direction. "The Squad", as they are called, are also saying that right now the country is going in the wrong direction and as congress people it is their job to say so and work to fix it, representing those of us who feel the same way.

So what is the difference between them and Trump whereas no one ever told Trump to go back to where his family came from because this is not typically anything people say outside of attacking someone's "PLACE" in America; attacking their very substance as an American that anchors them to their nation which is the nation of their birth and heritage. It is the idea that they should have a deeper connection to some place else because THAT, not American, is what they truly are.

It's not the same argument as "Don't like this Hotel? Go home. Don't like this restaurant? Go home." In these 2 cases you can assume 2 things. 1 The person is not an owner/operator of the establishment. 2 The establishment is not that person's "home". This person is speaking as someone who is an owner/operator critizing a patron/guest. Telling someone in itself, where to go, is rude, but doing so as if you have more right to be there than they do... well that crosses the line into something else.

This is why "Go back to Africa" is a racist statement. Even if you disagree, I hope to have shed some light on the reasons why it is for others who may not be sure. Because I think it's fair to not be sure, because I suspect, racism is a difficult subject for many people to understand because they don't really have to deal with it, not being the targets of it.

Identifying a racist is like identifying someone's gender. Both genders have eyes, even nipples. And truth is we've all seen at least one person who we had to look hard at because it was hard to tell their gender at a glance. I had that experience again just a few days ago. But the more you understand gender and have a mental library of different faces and shapes the easier it is to tell male from female; even if the person is cross dressing. By the same token racists don't dress like racists (white hoods). They're not trying to make it obvious. There's no benefit to coming out of that closet. The only reason why they ever do is to normalize it so that other people who were flirting with it will join them. Trump is different. He's a narcissist with a huge ego. He knows to lie to hide himself but he cannot ever completely hide what he is. Those who like him find excuses to pretend he's not what he is. Those who don't like him are much quicker to see through the deception.

Trump actually proves what I'm saying because his history shows that he is racist but if you simply go by his words you may mistakenly believe that he is the "least racist person you've ever met in your life". And usually people who lie to such degree do so in exaggerated fashion because they overcompensate. But as long as we pretend what's racist isn't racist we continue to attempt to raise the bar of what constitutes racism to the degree that nothing will be seen as racist and the simple truth is that other whites will go for that but minorities wont. And until we address "What is" and what's right in front of us we cannot move forward; nor does "moving forward" have any weight and meaning when it fails to acknowledge experience and reoccurring history. And I have yet to truly hear what that means as it is typically undefined by white people making this argument (which boils down to "thou dost protest wrongly"). If we're to be criticized by racists and criticized in our criticism of racists I think it's only fair to hear what the RIGHT way to do it is.

VixensVengeance wrote: I am making no assumptions here. I am not finding blame on either side. The situation simply is what it is. Police appearing to be doing their job and potential suspects being treated according to protocol but no accusations of guilt being brought forth. In fact they were shown to be innocent.

Except that you literally said...

"At 0:13 – commentator says the kid was arrested for nothing. This is not true. In fact I don’t think he was ever under arrest, he was detained because of what I would assume is reasonable suspicion."

Notice, I did not cast any blame at your feet for making certain assumptions. We all do and I think the key to understanding each other on racial issues is understanding why and how we reach these assumptions. Maybe your assumptions are valid. Maybe not. Maybe mine are valid. Maybe not. I can be just as biased by my experiences as you are biased by NOT having my experiences. You're assuming the police are doing their jobs. This causes you not to question their motives. Because why would they have ulterior motives for doing the job they're paid to do? Except... the whole point is... they have power. Power corrupts. And power can be used in perverted ways. Politicians can be bought off. Local officials can be bribed; all while doing their so-called jobs. So we have to dive a bit deeper so that we're not just taking the word of potentially corrupt persons at face value. The same way you're calling these innocent boys "potential suspects" I'm calling these officers "potentially corrupt". Is that cool? Because all 4 of them are human. Those kids COULD, by virtue of not being immune to bad or immoral decisions, have been into drugs. But by the same token, the cops, not being immune to corruption and humiliation, COULD have had corrupt intent.

Let me use Trump, again, as an example. As part of his job he can set policies for the nation. However, some of his ideas did not make it past a judge. Why? Because his intended purpose was outside the legal standard. He doesn't have the authority to simply do whatever he wants. The same is true of police. We need to be skeptical as an informed population the same way we need to hold everyone in public office to account for their actions whenever they seem suspect. In our system of government this makes us good citizens. Is that fair?

The mandate of police is to protect and serve [the community]. They're not allowed to make up fictional crimes in order to treat someone as a suspect of said crime. Imagine if you went overseas and someone wanted to chop off your head because you come from a country with too many atheists. Whether you partake in it or not why should you be judged based on demographics in an entire country? By the same token, why should anyone be an automatic suspect just by being in a "drug area" especially when one could argue that nearly every area is a "drug area" because it's a human problem, not a geographic problem. I've already mentioned that whites sell marijuana at the same rates as black people. But as long as the police don't call the white suburbs "drug areas" then there's justification for not treating them like suspects just because of where they happened to be... or live.

There are always areas of a city that are more of a hot spot for prostitution. Does that mean every couple in a car should be pulled over and questioned? When people get pulled over for speeding it's not because people in that area tend to speed. Without anyone seeing a crime in progress they weren't responding to anything and had no reasonable suspicion to go on. They were just hassling them hoping to find something.

The Fourth Amendment requires that before stopping the suspect, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by the suspect.

This is not what happened and often the police just take it as their power and privilege to hassle people and on paper report that they had some "reasonable" suspicion to do it. They lie because they don't have to prove "reasonable". It's only ever challenged if the person gets a lawyer to challenge it and that's rare for the most targeted groups. So no, its not that the police aren't getting to tell their stories. They are. But the more they talk the more they can get in trouble so they normally do not speak to reporters and stick to whatever they wrote in their reports. Usually the police chief or someone higher up speaks for them based on whatever they said in their report. I don't know if you've ever heard the term "blue shield" but it basically refers to how the police tend to protect each other from getting in trouble. So just as there are suspects who lie and fabricate to get out of trouble there are are also police officers who lie and get out of trouble because lying to get out of trouble is not something restricted to a certain role, race, gender, job, etc. Most if not all people at least bend or massage the truth at times in order to stay out of trouble; even if it is just your wife asking if she looks fat in those jeans.

We're talking about something, that by it's nature, isn't easily proven. So we have to use our best judgement. In doing so it would be dishonest if I said "hey, I'm not biased at all." But I haven't said that because it isn't true. TYT has a "Progressive" bias they do not apologize for. Opinions are just that. However we do know some facts in the case. They searched a vehicle and found nothing. Those are facts. They took them down to the station. Also a fact. On these things there is no dispute. Hill isn't saying one thing and the officer's another. So we take those facts and what we know from other experiences (the application of wisdom) to inform us about what we cannot see on the surface because it is hidden. The most important thing is the story that's told by the evidence, not by people. Did they search? Did they find anything? From there you can ask, "was there ever anything to find?". Or... "why did they think they would find something?". If the excuse is "drug area" and that came from the officer and not Hill (who has no reason to lie about this and isn't disputed by any other information in the story) then the officers had no specific knowledge of any crime in the present. And we have the words of the officer saying that bringing them in and letting them go is better than hitting them with a bogus charge (which cops do all the time). And what investigation do you think they conducted during the time they were being detained? They already searched the vehicle at the scene. Unless they paid to disassemble and reassemble the car it isn't likely they did anything but hold them hostage for however many hours it lasted before they decided to let them go. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is often experienced.

Cops can legally lie to you. They are actually trained in these techniques. But if you lie to them or evade them or run from them or refuse to answer questions or resist them they have the legal right to arrest you. The charge for these offenses is called obstruction of justice.

Exactly! (hey that's MY argument lol) And isn't that why Trump didn't want to testify? Because he didn't want to get trapped into saying something untrue and getting caught in a lie? So if we're on the same page about the police lying then why would either of us believe that the officer telling Hill "you're good. you're good. We're not after you." was telling the truth? According to you he was doing his job which involved lying. And why would people who get harassed by cops believe the stories that cops tell when part of the story is lying to them? But they had no reason to suspect him. They were just trying to trick and manipulate him into saying something they could then use as "probable cause". But they had nothing and that's why they let them go.

If they would have had PC from the beginning or the search had turned up something or someone smelled like weed or SOMETHING like that I would be more inclined to believe the police. But they had NOTHING except some lame excuse about the 'area'. And that's what opens the doors to speculation about retaliation. First of all... police are already known to retaliate. You may not be aware of this but that's not an unusual thing. So you couple that 'possibility' with the complete lack of evidence and weak suspicion and it does make it look like they were embarrassed and saw the kid that humiliated them on the internet and caused their buddies to make fun of them and they took revenge. Of course we don't KNOW that happened for that reason because we're not psychics. But we can make "reasonable" inferences based on what actually happened. And let me say it again. Police are not saints and yes they are human and as such they sometimes retaliate based on their individual personalities and who their partner is.

So if you are confronted you get a lawyer – never try and handle it on your own.

Again... lawyers tend to be expensive and not everyone can afford to have a lawyer on retainer which is why they tend to get targeted more often. You can get free representation on defense but not as the plaintiff.

As for the “rich person” you mention. You are simply stereotyping here, which is not much different from racism. Are you suggesting that a rich young man who is also black will not be confronted by police? That a young black man in a suit and driving a BMW that is in the same drug neighborhood would be left alone? I find that not credible.

Ahh... you're kinda getting it but let me help you. Stereotypes are exaggerations of reality. In the mind of a racist bigot, black people who have earned their way into wealth are unicorns. It is more likely (to them) that if a black person has a really nice car then they are more likely (than a white person) to be a drug dealer and obtained these things illegally. Now... if you're wearing a business suit then it legitimizes you. If you tell the officer what college you went to (if he believes you) that can also have an effect similar to telling a hostage taker that you have children. Not trying to be melodramatic here. But seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy

Henry Gates was arrested on the porch of his own home. He wasn't wearing a suit and tie. Because of that he was made to prove that he actually lived there but was arrested anyway. How you present yourself to the police makes a world of difference because your presentation is battling the stereotypes running around in their heads. I don't dress like someone who makes more money than them because I work at a family business. So yes, they might stop me in that neighborhood but why? You don't know why I'm there or if I'm just passing through. My point is no one should be stopped just because of the area they're in. That's not reasonably suspicious. But yes, if I were wearing a suit I'd be in less danger. We kind of all know that. And it's not because he thinks I'm rich but rather he thinks I'm probably educated and less likely to be a criminal. He may still not like me, but he can't charge me without "reasonable" suspicion leading to probable cause. And if his description of me in his report puts doubt in other people's minds then he's risking his own career if he arrests me.

https://mashable.com/2015/08/08/black-men-dressing-up-police/

To avoid becoming yet another statistic, black men across the country, like Pegram, have adopted a dress code to deflect negative attention as a conscious means of survival. They want to send this message: “I’m safe. I don’t pose a threat. You can trust me.”

I want to take this from your standpoint at this time. I admit that racism does exist and there are examples of it in not only the police force but also society in general. Groups exist that further these causes and individuals that have been poorly raised have been indoctrinated in such ways. And there exist groups out there that are fighting to end such practices by shinning lite on these incidents when they happen. Groups like TYT are an example of this. However my point of contention now becomes one in which I don’t agree with how TYT are handling this. I disagree with their approach because I see it as only furthering that divide and further polarizing those sides against each other. I want a better solution and I want you to help me arrive at one. You see the problem that exists. So what steps would you take to fix our society? How would you handle the training of future generations so that sort of abuse stops? Are there policies, or procedures or laws or reform that you see as fitting to help end this sort of racial bias in our society? In effect what do you see as effective means to bring us together as a society that sees the individual only instead of the color of our skin?

This is a very mature move on your part. I respect that. Just like I can respect that you don't like TYT. For me... TYT talks about these issues pretty much the same way I do and same way millions of people of color do when we hear about these stories. These are "kitchen table" conversations that most of this country is too mentally segregated to be privy to. I'm making you privy in a sense because I feel more connected to this community and I accept you as part of it. Therefore I want us to have greater understanding and a closer relationship. TYT also exposes more whites than I'll ever talk to in life to these conversations about race that are more in tune with the attitudes of people of color on these issues. People aren't used to it because historically black people haven't had any ability in the media to really use their platforms (if they had a show) to speak freely on these issues because of fears of what will happen to their ratings. But you're always going to offend someone whether you're a conservative talk show host on the right or one on the left. So you can't simply not say anything that will provoke someone on the other side. You'll end up not saying very much at all. And that becomes a misrepresentation of not only your opinions but also the people who share those opinions that you COULD be representing. And always the question that comes with criticism is how should TYT be handling this?

You see it as furthering the divide because you're afraid of what people will think. Fear is the path to the dark side, which means for me, is that it has a tendency towards destruction. In this case I challenge you because I believe the exact opposite is true. We need to confront racism and not let it hide. People want to ignore it in hopes it will go away and to them it doesn't exist as long as they can't or don't hear anyone talking about it. But these same people tend not to have black friends that come from affected communities. To me it furthers the divide by pretending it doesn't exist. Because we [collectively] want to know who's on our side? We too are Americans. And if Americans are overseas getting lynched by Kim Jung Un we'd be talking about war. At least sanction them and that's over 1 American. Black Americans are tired of all this undercover quiet racism where we don't know who to trust. Because it's like being abused by one parent and the other parent just ignores it even though they know it's happening. Well guess what? Eventually the child will blame both parents. In law enforcement that's called aiding and abetting. It's called being an accomplice. You're in the getaway car helping the racists get away with their crimes because every time we want them held accountable a jury of their peers lets them go. And it seems more hopeless and less like anything changes because the efforts we put into trying to fix it are met with massive resistance.

Racism is LEARNED. And like Creation vs Evolution, the word of parents is very strong so if the children are not educated to know better they simply wont and will likely carry on whatever traditions their parents put in place. Often, kids have a clouded view of history because African American history is relegated to private black schools. And so the history books tell them how great these historic white figures were and that black people were slaves until white people benevolently freed them. The gaps in education also allow incredibly foolish ideas to take shape; such as race based intelligence. These ideas reinforce the ignorance of their parents which the ignorance of their parents and the ignorance of their parents. You have to stop that ignorance. And I'm not saying lie. No.... the WHOLE truth needs to be told. There were some black slave owners. That needs to be told too. Most whites did not own slaves. That needs to be told too. The whole truth needs to be told. What as different between slavery in America and "slavery" elsewhere in the world? That needs to be told. The story of black people conquering Europe needs to be told. We need stop white washing Egytian (Kemetic) history and tell the story of how we ALL came out of Africa. History needs to become OURstory. And then black people don't need to go to black schools to get their history. Show Africa's true size. Show pictures of African cities. There's a whole lot but it starts with education.

I have a lot more than this, but I said before that we could agree on education. So that seems like a good place to start. I'd also teach kids the brown eyes blue eyes experiment.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/karinabland/2017/11/17/blue-eyes-brown-eyes-jane-elliotts-exercise-race-50-years-later/860287001/

Certain white people have been absolutely over the top awesome on racial issues and Jane's one of them.

Scientists agree that biological races do not exist among humans.

“It is a lie perpetuated so some of us can see ourselves as superior to others,” Elliott said. “You’ve got to stop believing it, and you have got to stop living it.”

the idea of race-based intelligence is a good example of this. Intelligence doesn't come from race but rather your minds adaptation to its environment and mental challenges. So the reason why some people are more intelligent is all about the mental gymnastics they have to do in their daily lives. I was into computers since I was young and got started reading books about programming computers in 4th grade so... yeah...

another one...

https://www.theconsciouskid.org/white-fragility

Dr. Robin DiAngelo, anti-racist educator, scholar, and author of the New York Times best-selling book, White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism, coined the term White Fragility in 2011. She defines White Fragility as: "a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium and prevent any meaningful cross-racial dialogue."

As for the “rich person” you mention. You are simply stereotyping here, which is not much different from racism. Are you suggesting that a rich young man who is also black will not be confronted by police? That a young black man in a suit and driving a BMW that is in the same drug neighborhood would be left alone? I find that not credible.

I'm white, drive a fancy car, and they stopped me. On suspicion of doing something I wasn't doing, and cautioned me for it. (A caution is a spent conviction) I was in fact committing far more serious offences but it never occurred to them.

ZealotX wrote: And I have yet to truly hear what that means as it is typically undefined by white people making this argument (which boils down to "thou dost protest wrongly"). If we're to be criticized by racists and criticized in our criticism of racists I think it's only fair to hear what the RIGHT way to do it is.

Well I did but the iPad ate my reply..... In short Trump's context was socialist
policies being discussed not being advantageous to the US and that if they liked those policies they should move there rather then change the US. Not racist. Did it sound racist in iolation, sure.... but one shouldn't assume intent and then construct a narrative to support it, or think that everything a racist does is racist. Your surely not arguing for a burden of innocence? Seems much fairer to have a presumption of innocence and a burden of guilt. So in this case, that is just what being rude is, saying things that upset ppl while actually saying something that doesn't. We shoulndt steteotype anyone really, groups, cultures, races or even individuals on their past - treating people on what they actually do means referencing that above all else, as context. If you clarify your question I might be better able to get a response sent through to it.

I'd like to continue on the vein of solutions. I talked about education. One form of education, and an extention of the public education that all children should receive is proper officer training. Officers need to be trained on different cultures so that they're not filling in gaps of ignorance with racial stereotypes. Let me give you an example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K-7SS0-Lhc&t=328s

What you see in this video is a fishing attempt similar to the Hill arrest. The difference is that this guy knew his rights and proper police procedure. Therefore, he was able to shut this down. And he's not the only one. I've seen at least a dozen people (of cases caught on video AND distributed online such that it came across my feed) who shut the police down in their unlawful attempts to harass private citizens. I repeat. Unlawful. In this video you'll hear the driver ask a question the officer simply cannot answer because it would expose the fact that he had no lawful reason for the stop.

The reason many black people do know their rights and police procedure enough to shut down these fishing attempts is because of the sheer amount of cases and stories where these things happen. So learning what an officer can and cannot do has become a survival technique in reaction to racism. But this reaction that forces us to adapt isn't shared by whites in general who don't have the same need to react, therefore don't need to understand proper police procedure and the their rights under the 4th amendment because they are far less likely to receive the same treatment. It does happen however and therefore they should understand these things as it is beneficial but its simply less likely to happen. So without this extra understanding a white person's first glance at one of these stories may not be the same because it might appear the officer is simply doing his job, simply asking questions, and looks very reasonable while doing so. And so it is easy to assume that the officer also has a valid REASON for the stop.

Again... there has to be a specific crime being committed. And the officer MUST have reasonable suspicion that the person has engaged in that crime or is about to. You can't just pull people at random. You CANNOT do that.

The cop follows the guy and when he pulls into the apartments where he lives (and I wouldn't want that cop knowing my exact address either) he's following the guy onto PRIVATE property which makes it worse. But he doesn't ask any questions about how he was driving before he entered the property. So why is he suspicious? What exactly did the driver do? This clearly cannot be called a 'drug area' so what's the deal? People assume that you have to cooperate fully with police officers. That's not true. You have to cooperate with any LAWFUL requests of a police officer. If his request isn't in the pursuit of a specific crime then his request becomes unlawful. And this is key to understand. Police BREAK THE LAW all the time. Not all police do it. Not all of them. But definitely overzealous cops and cops trying to hit quotas have a tendency to break the law. They don't get caught doing so because when a suspect suspects them of breaking the law they refuse to answer questions that would prove it and if they can't find something before over exposing themselves they simply walk away. The key point is that as long as they don't PROVE that they have broken the law it doesn't matter. They can get away with it. What are you going to do? Call the police on them?

So pay close attention to how this unfolds. The cop isn't in some kind of racist angry rage throwing out the N-word and other obscenities. He's not forcing the guy to the ground overreacting. You have to notice everything. They're both being civil and as such the driver gives him nothing to use against him. Plus he may or may not have been aware that he was being filmed which meant he had to be extra careful. But all the professionalism in the world couldn't cover up the fact that he had no real reason for following him and then approaching him. He certainly wasn't familiar with every resident of the apartment complex enough to know that he didn't live there. And if he was familiar he would have checked his parking sticker. I have one too. It's obvious; especially if you're parked next to other vehicles with the same sticker. So the driver allows him to ask questions and answers the ones that are lawful without giving away too much information but in turn and only up to the point he [the driver] can establish why the cop is questioning him which he has a right (by law) to know.

This leads to the key question which is how you (anyone) get out of this situation. He asks, "am I being detained or am I free to go?" Notice, before this the police officer asks his name and the driver says "I don't have to tell you that". So it's not that he doesn't have a name and its not that he doesn't know his address. He simply knows he does not have to give up that information. Now if he was being pulled over for speeding that would be different. The officer can then ask for his license and registration. But you CANT do that without a crime. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. The point of all this is to show you beyond a reasonable doubt that police officers often use unlawful tactics in dealing with (all) people. However, who would they try this with predominantly? People who are dressed in suits and might be lawyers? Or people who "look" like they're out of place (car, neighborhood, etc.)?

Solutions:
I don't believe in the quota system. The quota system assumes that crimes are happening all the time and that if officers are in the right place they're going to run into them. The quota system creates an incentive for cops to make arrests whether people are innocent or not. If someone calls the police on you and it takes an hour or two to investigate and write a report that's time he cannot get back and could need in order to hit his numbers. So you have to either kill the quota system entirely and stop using the justice system as an income stream for the local municipality (because that's exactly what it becomes and why they have quotas). OR you have to at least use the cops GPS data to make sure they are spending equal time in all communities in their jurisdiction.

I would also look at their "rules of engagement" and create penalties (disincentives) for breaking those rules. Cops should have a point system just like drivers and once they run out of points they should be under a microscope until their points refresh. If I'm late to work its the same thing. If I get too many points I automatically get fired. Much of the problem that these illegal tactics are encouraged by the quota system, by the economic incentive of the municipality which then rolls down to individual officers. And if they feel the only way to hit their numbers is to bend or break the law then its better to violate someone's 4th amendment rights than to get reprimanded or fired for not meeting their quota. They're more afraid of the quota system than the constitution because like I said before they're not afraid of being caught because the people they target rarely (if ever) have lawyers and most lawyers will not touch those cases because you have to prove intent. And if the officer doesn't have to answer your questions... as long as he's not an idiot he can almost always get away with it.

Take out the quota system and arrests will drastically decrease. Take out the quota system and cops will target so many people based on their race and gender. These solutions aren't complicated but often the problem is capitalism itself. Because capitalism drives the behavior of the municipality to seek more money. They're not telling anyone to be racist or use racial profiling so they can always say their hands are clean. If the cop can say "I stopped them because.... um... uh.... drug area" it doesn't matter if its B.S. their hands are clean in the eyes of the law. As long as people's hands are clean they have no reason to change what they're doing. Therefore, the laws have to be changed and new policies put in place. If a municipality needs more money then raise property taxes. Period. They should not be using a public service as an income booster. Whatever money a public service brings in should fund only that public service and any extra should be a surplus held until taxes can be lowered.

I believe the quota system actually seduces police officers into being bad cops. If there's not enough crime to meet the quota then they are tempted to "create crime" by fishing attempts. The success rate of a fishing attempt simply depends on the knowledge of the suspect and their vulnerability to the system. Vulnerable people often don't even complain or ask for an officer's name and badge number because they don't believe anyone will believe them anyway. And who are they going to complain to? The buddies of the cops back at the station?

So you also need a civilian oversight board, staffed by volunteers from the community. They can hear complaints and then turn those into more formal investigations which to go directly to the police chief with. These civilians should review body cam footage and act as arbitrators. One of them should be in the viewing room monitoring suspects being questioned. And it would be their job to know the law, the person's rights, and stop anything that violated the law.

Body cams.... body cams should be controlled by Bluetooth, GPS, and voice activation. If an officer goes to the bathroom it should be
off. At the station it should be off. In his car it should be off. I respect their privacy but if their heart rate is elevated it should automatically turn on. If it hears loud voices such as the officer giving commands it should turn on. If the officer is walking and outside of a 2 mile range of the station it should turn on. And if it's not on then an officer should not be allowed to touch the suspect. If they have to they can hold them at gun point until their partner arrives with a working camera. Malfunctioning cameras or blocked cameras should beep loudly, even letting the suspect know that it's off. Body cams should be standard issue, given to an officer at the same time they're given their weapons. Eventually, I would invest in technology so that cams are put on guns and the gun would only fire if the camera is recording audio and video. Is this really so difficult to do? No. Is it worth doing to save lives? Yes. The lives of the guilty are still human lives and the fact is that innocent people have also been killed by police. And they can shoot you and put a knife in your hand after the fact.

Decriminalize drugs. I think drugs as well as prostitution should be legal and taxed. As long as you have 2 consenting parties of legal age whatever activity they engage in together should be legal as long as it doesn't effect anyone else. So buying cocaine should be legal. Driving under the influence of any drug should not. Same with alcohol. Remember prohibition? Gangsters controlled the flow of alcohol and because it was a black market commodity people got hurt and shot and people still got drunk and people still gambled and all that. Making things illegal doesn't stop it from happening. If there's a market for it then it will happen. People smoke. Now there's a market to help people stop smoking. There can be a market to help people get off dangerous drugs the same way but it wont be utilized like AA until its stops being criminal. Hurting yourself should never be a crime. Once you get drugs into actual stores then there's no need for gangs because what do gangs do outside of selling black market goods? And many illegal weapons are supplied in order to maintain the black market territories against other suppliers. So get the drugs off the street, the gangs off the street, and most of the guns off the street. When you can legally purchase these things and the prices are competitive this destroys the black market demand and the supply can be taxed. Revenue from that taxation can fund treatment centers and health care in general. Taxing it can also fund local public schools and trade programs. If a student isn't doing well and isn't on a college track they should be able to switch to a trade school and pick a trade to go into. That should be free public education that yields certifications at the end. And then instead of people calling that kid to buy drugs they can call that kid to come fix their sink.

If you do the things I mentioned in this post it will deal a major blow to racism in and outside of the police force. Why? Because all those arrests help to paint a false narrative about black people being criminals and that gets taught to new generations of racists. If you get rid of the black market for drugs and tax it you can train other skills and help people launch businesses that generate taxable income that can support their families as well as others in need. You get kids off the street and you give them another opportunity they can believe in so that they know they can survive and have the same things that every one has in the pursuit of happiness and the American dream. Do these things and it will only be a matter of time before racism itself becomes a thing of the past.

Adder wrote: In short Trump's context was socialist
policies being discussed not being advantageous to the US and that if they liked those policies they should move there rather then change the US.

sure, but by this logic we don't need a congress or a president or a supreme court. We can just say "it is what it is and if you don't like it you can move"

changing the US is baked into the constitution. Changing the US is as American as the American flag. Changing the US, for the better, is what the US is all about.

And it is OUR country that we want to make better. The socialist argument is simply propaganda meant to scare the ignorant. Socialism is a system of political-economics where the means of production, distribution and exchange of commodities are regulated by the people or community rather than a private entity or a top elite. Universal healthcare is a social program, not socialism.

https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2018/09/05/is-universal-health-care-socialism/
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-universal-healthcare-california-20170313-story.html

What happened to "make America great again"? Isn't that the exact same thing? Why don't they just "go back to Europe"?

I should not have to explain why this is racist. White people shouldn't need to 'ask a black dude' every time something racist happens so they can know it was racist. There are plenty of whites who have called it out for being racist and a resolution even passed the House.

But... to explain... As I said before, racist often attack the notion of your "place" in this country or any community or territory they believe "BELONGS" to them. They don't recognize your equal stake or ownership. They view it as "their country", not yours. And so by extension they're "ALLOWING" you to live here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnm5wgvwpGM

What citizen has the right to either remove or tell another citizen to leave? What US citizen has more right to live here than another? Do we want to play the game of whose family has been here longer? Because Trump doesn't win that fight. Many racists base their idea of ownership on the demographics; they're in the majority. So... racists will very commonly be against "race mixing" or non-white immigration because it threatens their pure white majority ownership (as if their majority will vote in the interest of their own race). We've seen that they're very scared of the demographics of the country changing to no longer be a "white country" which gives rise to white terrorist training camps and terrorists like Dylan Roof who was treated to Burger King. It's about who belongs here.

This has ALWAYS been about race and ethnicity. Many whites view this as a white country. Period. "Jews will not replace us!" was the chant of white nationalists. It's racist! Of course it is. It shouldn't even be a question. When you tell someone to get out you are implying that the place they are getting out of is YOUR place. You can tell people to get out of your house, get out of your car, get out of your business establishment, get out of your face, etc. But you're implying ownership that the other person simply doesn't have. You're saying they don't have equal right to be there.

And that's why part of the "Southern Strategy" is about gerrymandering and denying black people from voting. You don't do that if you believe that this is just as much their country and they have every right to vote. You do that because you're racist and you want the power to stay in the hands of your race.

There are certain things racists say all the time. Black people are well aware of them. We've heard them numerous times. It's not new or surprising. So while I can understand if its not normal to you and so you're trying to take it on an individual basis and figure out the context... while that's cute and all... this was already figured out several decades ago. It's not something that non-racists say. If they did there wouldn't really be a controversy right now. They don't because it doesn't occur to them to use the race of the person and their country of origin in an argument. Why would they? They're not racist. Someone who is racist is definitely thinking of the person's race and country of origin and will use that in their argument if they get upset enough. I've been in enough situations to know and not be guessing. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tells you to go back to Africa, then buddy, I'm sorry but that duck is a racist duck. At this point, Trump is leaning into his racist identity by continuing the attack and allowing racists to take it in exactly that way (the way he meant it). And he can say it wasn't for the sake of... whatever at this point-it doesn't matter... but they [racists] know what it is. They knew back when he was attacking Obama and asking for his birth certificate. This simply is not a conspiracy to make Trump into a racist. Many people have known this whole time but have had to hold back until more people could catch on to it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comments/588067/

I cannot stand that loathsome creature and I personally have no issue with history or its monuments. If the USA was a proper empire, I’d likely not care if they strapped TNT to them and exploded them sky high. It’s not, so my position is to leave history and its monuments be.

As for corporations? If I don’t like what they do enough, I don’t buy their products. It’s simple for me.

Excuse me if I am out of line, but I must ask 3 questions and add a humble opinion.

Why that exact flag?

Why now? In 2009 it flew behind Obama at his inauguration.

I understand certain flags for sure, yes they are history but yet some directly support darker parts of history (The Confederate Battle Flag). Should they be banned, no, but they shouldn't be flown proudly (but free-speech, so, that's my opinion). At what point did this exact flag become an issue? As a student of history I just don't really get this one, I feel like those placing this much feeling into the symbolism of this (Betsy Ross) flag is a little of an ideological stretch.

Do you think Nike cares about the principle it acted in, or is the ticking in their stock price due to name recognition more important?

IMHO and in some of my knowledge, outrage sells doesn't matter what its about just as long as it happens. I.E. Trump says racist thing, everyone tweaks and in the side articles there is a small mention about the executive order and rule change to asylum he made. Which is a very very significant thing. Sometimes it seems like a play by either side of the political spectrum to add a factor of control.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Here it is.