More Cops Assassinated

[Mister_T]

I wouldn't assume. Most likely Islam, Judaism or Christianity.

Not saying you should assume or stereotype, but let's be honest here: One of those 3 is the majority of the religions mentioned and most outspoken in this country with their anti-LGBT views...to the degree where we have politicians who affiliate with said religion and espouse said views.

But that really is a topic for another conversation. Point being this movement (which I once supported mind you) is potentially turning into something really ugly and becoming the very thing they're protesting against.

 

[Underhill]

I wouldn't assume. Most likely Islam, Judaism or Christianity.

The vast majority would be christian just based on demographics. And having grown up in a Christian home I would say it isn't uncommon at all.

 

[Underhill]

Not saying you should assume or stereotype, but let's be honest here: One of those 3 is the majority of the religions mentioned and most outspoken in this country with their anti-LGBT views...to the degree where we have politicians who affiliate with said religion and espouse said views.

But that really is a topic for another conversation. Point being this movement (which I once supported mind you) is potentially turning into something really ugly and becoming the very thing they're protesting against.

I don't think it's the movement. Whenever you have a movement of any kind there will always be the loons on the fringes. Especially these movements that involve life and death issues.

 

[Mister_T]

I don't think it's the movement. Whenever you have a movement of any kind there will always be the loons on the fringes. Especially these movements that involve life and death issues.

Like I stated earlier, I don't attribute it to the whole movement or even most. But the fringe has grown big enough for me to pull back my support for it for the time being at least.

 

[Underhill]

Like I stated earlier, I don't attribute it to the whole movement or even most. But the fringe has grown big enough for me to pull back my support for it for the time being at least.

I'm not involved in the movement at all. But these people do not speak for the movement, may very well have nothing to do with the movement. These murderers are just angered by the situation. They have been lumped into the movement because they (sort of) agree that police target black people. That is it.

 

[Mister_T]

I'm not involved in the movement at all. But these people do not speak for the movement, may very well have nothing to do with the movement. These murderers are just angered by the situation. They have been lumped into the movement because they (sort of) agree that police target black people. That is it.

You're entitle to your opinion of course. The amount of support these murders have got from self proclaimed BLM supporters on social media has been enough for me to disavow myself from supporting them, and that's just from what I've seen personally on my feeds. There were also a large amount of celebrities and news outlets that were very outspoken about racism with the recent killing of unarmed black suspects (as they should be) and yet, oddly silent when Dallas PD was assassinated for being white cops. I'm not in the business of supporting hypocrites or double standards.

 

[Underhill]

You're entitle to your opinion of course. The amount of support these murders have got from self proclaimed BLM supporters on social media has been enough for me to disavow myself from supporting them, and that's just from what I've seen personally on my feeds. There were also a large amount of celebrities and news outlets that were very outspoken about racism with the recent killing of unarmed black suspects (as they should be) and yet, oddly silent when Dallas PD was assassinated for being white cops. I'm not in the business of supporting hypocrites or double standards.

Obviously both are wrong.

When police kill an unarmed black man historically, they often get a slap on the wrist. When a cop is shot, the perp is hunted down using the full fury of the law and using every possible resource. I don't feel the need to condemn someone shooting a cop as I see it as patently obvious. But condemning a system that does not prosecute, or rarely prosecutes, police for shooting unarmed civilians needs to happen or the behavior will simply continue.

 

[Acim]

Maybe I can do a better job in explaining the post you commented on, that I had directed to @metis .

I see the root of the problem is that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, violent crime and social/domestic crimes and wrongs. This root problem will predictably produce the secondary problem of psychologically jading some police, judges and lay people giving them an occasional 'attitude'. While we can work on correcting this secondary problem, this is not a major problem in my opinion as I believe the police in general do their jobs very well and heroically.

Focusing on police issues, as the media has done with BLM, is only fueling the attitudes and emotions of all sides in this. It has been divisive and a net detriment to the country and has increased the national sense of racial divide.

I like this post and don't fully agree with it.

I like it because it reinforces my beliefs that if cops were all really friendly, never racially discriminating towards black folks and therefore never perceived in any injustices toward black persons, it still wouldn't mean we live in a society where a) black on black crime was horrendous and b) that some black people wouldn't think it totally okay to be violently rebellious toward law enforcement. I don't think BLM seeks a hunky dory perfect attitude from all police, and does seek better than its own perception of gross injustices. But it seemingly ignores the deeper issue of why cops are like this and presumes it to be only based on racial prejudice.

I don't fully agree that 'blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime' is the root problem. It is, I think, preceding issue to at least some of why police act the way they do. The root problem is where I still think there's disagreement as some believe racism (alone) is the problem while others believe fundamental cultural differences, such as lack of traditional family structure that instills law abiding values is perhaps closer to the root.

Fortunately, there are (a great many) examples of black folk that have overcome lack of structure instilling law abiding values, and thus not all (probably not even a majority) are part of that perceived problem, while many of those same black folk have probably experienced racial prejudice at some point. Perhaps as recently as today.

I think it doesn't help the case of 'overcoming racial prejudice' to think only one part of society, namely white people, engage in such behavior. But alas, that is how it is routinely spun even while street knowledge would clearly explain to anyone paying attention that this is clearly not the case of life in America. Just that one political party found way to capitalize on the alternative perception in hopes of garnering lifelong support from black community, even if root problems go virtually ignored. Arguably better for that political party if that remains the case. As if they have a vested interest in ensuring it stays this way indefinitely.

 

[leibowde84]

Not saying you should assume or stereotype, but let's be honest here: One of those 3 is the majority of the religions mentioned and most outspoken in this country with their anti-LGBT views...to the degree where we have politicians who affiliate with said religion and espouse said views.

But that really is a topic for another conversation. Point being this movement (which I once supported mind you) is potentially turning into something really ugly and becoming the very thing they're protesting against.

The other side is that police officers all over are being filmed shooting unarmed, innocent black people. So, that needs to stop as well if anything is to change.

 

[Mister_T]

The other side is that police officers all over are being filmed shooting unarmed, innocent black people. So, that needs to stop as well if anything is to change.

I don't recall saying one should be ignored over the other. Quite the contrary.

One is not a green light to do the other.

 

[Mister_T]

When police kill an unarmed black man historically, they often get a slap on the wrist.

Getting slapped on the wrist for misconduct and abuse happens all the time regardless of race.

I don't feel the need to condemn someone shooting a cop as I see it as patently obvious. But condemning a system that does not prosecute, or rarely prosecutes, police for shooting unarmed civilians needs to happen or the behavior will simply continue.

Both are patently obvious, and yet we have people on both sides encouraging/being content with both atrocities.

Racism is racism, period. If people are really for equality for everyone, then they should have no qualms calling out both.

 

[Underhill]

Getting slapped on the wrist for misconduct and abuse happens all the time regardless of race.
Both are patently obvious, and yet we have people on both sides encouraging/being content with both atrocities.

Racism is racism, period. If people are really for equality for everyone, then they should have no qualms calling out both.

Don't start putting words in my mouth. I have no qualms about it. But what is there to call out when the perpetrator is hunted down and killed or prosecuted? He killed a cop, he got was what coming. There is nothing to complain about. But when a innocent man is shot for no good reason, and the consequences are non-existent, then of course we should be raising Cain.

 

[metis]

I get the sense that BLM blames all police?

You have folks here that are speaking of the police as a whole and support BLM. I recently tried to acknowledge how much generalization there is going on from both sides, but it fell flat on the ground. Both sides are angry and just pointing the finger without trying to acknowledge where they can help and take responsibility.

BLM certainly doesn't blame all police, and this shows up in both their official website plus many comments that have been publicly made by their leaders. However, with that being said, I have heard at least a couple of men who have said some things that I feel are way too caustic, including threatening violence if changes are not made, which I find appalling and self-defeating.

BTW, did you see the video of an unarmed black man laying on his back with his hands up that got shot by a policeman just two days ago? This is the kind of stuff that has to stop.

 

[suncowiam]

BLM certainly doesn't blame all police, and this shows up in both their official website plus many comments that have been publicly made by their leaders. However, with that being said, I have heard at least a couple of men who have said some things that I feel are way too caustic, including threatening violence if changes are not made, which I find appalling and self-defeating.

BTW, did you see the video of an unarmed black man laying on his back with his hands up that got shot by a policeman just two days ago? This is the kind of stuff that has to stop.

Yes. I definitely feel that was wrong, to the point of negligent or event criminal. I also feel that the case of Castillo was as wrong. I can't say the same for other cases where the suspects were physically aggressive or if they weren't cooperative.

My point is about generalization. As I suggested before, we tackle each case one at a time. Let the facts speak for themselves. I am not seeing evidence from actual statistics that police are targeting blacks so I can't agree that this is systematic. SOME police are shooting unarmed citizens, not just black citizens. But then SOME citizens are not complying with police at the same time.

Change does have to come but, imo, from both sides. The way I see it now. Both sides are too busy pointing fingers and protecting individuals that were at fault, whether due to negligence or will.

Above all else, it is not OK to respond with violence whether in thought or with action. Absolutely this.

 

[metis]

Yes. I definitely feel that was wrong, to the point of negligent or event criminal. I also feel that the case of Castillo was as wrong. I can't say the same for other cases where the suspects were physically aggressive or if they weren't cooperative.

My point is about generalization. As I suggested before, we tackle each case one at a time. Let the facts speak for themselves. I am not seeing evidence from actual statistics that police are targeting blacks so I can't agree that this is systematic. SOME police are shooting unarmed citizens, not just black citizens. But then SOME citizens are not complying with police at the same time.

Change does have to come but, imo, from both sides. The way I see it now. Both sides are too busy pointing fingers and protecting individuals that were at fault, whether due to negligence or will.

Above all else, it is not OK to respond with violence whether in thought or with action. Absolutely this.

I agree with the above, and I certainly don't view the shooting two days ago as being "systemic".

I'm 71, and only once in my life was I stopped by a police officer for questioning (case of mistaken identity that was cleared up immediately). OTOH, Representative Elijah Cummings told a congressional committee that he has been stopped over 50 times during his lifetime even though he said he had done nothing wrong.

In NYC under Giuiliani, the NYPD was legally cited for racial profiling, searching blacks and Hispanics much more frequently than whites, and we're not talking about those being arrested for a crime. The same was found to be true in Ferguson, and I heard of this also in the small city where I grew up (I played on a police/fireman baseball team for 5 years, and I heard the stories). This too has to stop.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't recall saying one should be ignored over the other. Quite the contrary.

One is not a green light to do the other.

Oh I agree. That's why I said that needs to stop "as well".

 

[suncowiam]

I agree with the above, and I certainly don't view the shooting two days ago as being "systemic".

I'm 71, and only once in my life was I stopped by a police officer for questioning (case of mistaken identity that was cleared up immediately). OTOH, Representative Elijah Cummings told a congressional committee that he has been stopped over 50 times during his lifetime even though he said he had done nothing wrong.

In NYC under Giuiliani, the NYPD was legally cited for racial profiling, searching blacks and Hispanics much more frequently than whites, and we're not talking about those being arrested for a crime. The same was found to be true in Ferguson, and I heard of this also in the small city where I grew up (I played on a police/fireman baseball team for 5 years, and I heard the stories). This too has to stop.

I can agree with that. If there is data to suggest real life events then it would suggest a real life problem. Which is then justification for change. However, some folks suggesting that police are systematically killing blacks are, I feel, creating false narratives that are putting more innocent lives at stake.

I don't know about the city of NY or Ferguson, but where I am, our city counsel proactively mandated that all police are required to where body cameras. I think this will help with such scenarios like profiling in the long run. Plus police are quick to release videos of related cases and if I'm correct, ?they are required by certain jurisdiction?. It shows a systematic response to the problem. The intent is to improve which I hope is followed by real life improvement.

Back to our original topic concerning BLM. I'm actually in the all life matters at least from a literal stand point. To me, a single name or label can be very confusing if it doesn't naturally state its intentions. If I have to go to a website and read up on it, then it has a small hole in its messaging. If there are conflicting views from various supporters and then from various websites, then its just going to be a mess. One can get into a true Scotsman fallacy way too easily and quickly. If the supposed leaders of #BLM wants to identify their organization as peaceful and civil then they will have to start condemning their own members that are in conflict. There are narratives here in RF and across the nation from BLM supporters that support violence and retaliation. How is one supposed to accept BLM if not all its member are aligned to its supposed narratives and ideals?

 

[metis]

I can agree with that. If there is data to suggest real life events then it would suggest a real life problem. Which is then justification for change. However, some folks suggesting that police are systematically killing blacks are, I feel, creating false narratives that are putting more innocent lives at stake.

I don't know about the city of NY or Ferguson, but where I am, our city counsel proactively mandated that all police are required to where body cameras. I think this will help with such scenarios like profiling in the long run. Plus police are quick to release videos of related cases and if I'm correct, ?they are required by certain jurisdiction?. It shows a systematic response to the problem. The intent is to improve which I hope is followed by real life improvement.

Back to our original topic concerning BLM. I'm actually in the all life matters at least from a literal stand point. To me, a single name or label can be very confusing if it doesn't naturally state its intentions. If I have to go to a website and read up on it, then it has a small hole in its messaging. If there are conflicting views from various supporters and then from various websites, then its just going to be a mess. One can get into a true Scotsman fallacy way too easily and quickly. If the supposed leaders of #BLM wants to identify their organization as peaceful and civil then they will have to start condemning their own members that are in conflict. There are narratives here in RF and across the nation from BLM supporters that support violence and retaliation. How is one supposed to accept BLM if not all its member are aligned to its supposed narratives and ideals?

I could only skim the above because I'm out the door in one minute, but thanks for responding. If there's any question for me, please just post it and I'll try and get back later today.

Take care.

 

[suncowiam]

I could only skim the above because I'm out the door in one minute, but thanks for responding. If there's any question for me, please just post it and I'll try and get back later today.

Take care.

No worries. Have a good one.

 

[Mister_T]

Don't start putting words in my mouth.

I don't feel the need to condemn someone shooting a cop as I see it as patently obvious.

Okay.

But what is there to call out when the perpetrator is hunted down and killed or prosecuted? He killed a cop, he got was what coming. There is nothing to complain about. But when a innocent man is shot for no good reason, and the consequences are non-existent, then of course we should be raising Cain.

The argument is not whether the person who killed the police got what was coming, it's the selective outspoken outrage that follows. The police being assassinated are innocent and being shot for no good reason as well. If your whole principle for "raising Cain" is innocents being senselessly killed, one's profession or race should not be a requirement over the other for "raising Cain." That's a double standard. Both acts deserve the same level of outspoken condemnation since they are both the same act.