"Black Lives Matter" - it's stupid. Just cut the crap.....

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Critical thinking skills matter. Reading for content matters. And I kind of think that is the point.

Sure, of course. That doesn't mean that joke bios and such nonsense make that easier or contribute to the profession in any positive way.

 

[JimMIA]

With regard to deadly force, there is a phrase that has come up several times in this thread that is disturbing to me. It's been said in various ways, usually in the negative as in "...the person did not deserve to be shot."

Nobody deserves to be shot. Never. And that is never a part of the thought process when law enforcement officers are making a shoot-don't shoot decision.

Deadly force is employed ONLY when there is no other option. Sometimes, that is a split-second decision; other times, it's a decision that is made over the course of hours -- e.g. both Pulse and Dallas.

But what the subject has done in that instance, or in previous situations, is not a factor in the decision. The police are not judge, jury, and executioner -- nor do they want to be.

The questions are:

• can we resolve this without deadly force?
• ...or are the risks of less force too great?

When you have time to think things through and consider all the options, the decision is usually obvious. Split-second decisions are much more difficult and much more risky for everyone involved. They're really not decisions at all; they are reactions.

 

[roseaster]

My son is an LEO and I am concerned every time he works. The reality of the job is that every situation is dangerous. Even a simple traffic stop is a potential risk. The most dangerous calls are domestic violence. The job is not just driving around, issuing tickets and eating donuts!

After 6 months in the academy, after earning a 4 year criminal justice degree, he spent 3 months with different field training officers. His job involves anything from people reporting items missing from months ago, to searching for missing children, the last one being found dead. On his assigned beat he has known gang members, drug dealers, convicted felons, mental patients, lonely folks who have no relatives, he experiences it all.

For those demanding more training for LEOs, when would they receive it? The normal schedule for my son is 4 10 hour shifts, with on-call for court M-F, including days off. They are paid overtime for court, if they are requested to report, otherwise the on-call is unpaid. He works numerous extra details, the demands for uniformed officers at special events and as added security are constant. Even though they are scheduled 10 hours per shift, it is rare that they are off duty at the end of 10 hours. Since he has just completed his first year of service, academy time does not count, he is now eligible to take some vacation time. That's right, 18 months of work before being able to take a much needed vacation.

When would you require that this additional training be taken?

I think everyone realizes that being a police officer is a difficult and dangerous job. No one disputes the necessity of the job they do, but, with all do respect, these are just excuses.

In any profession if it is noted that there are deficiencies or processes that aren't working that organization has an obligation and will make it possible to get these problems fixed. Especially when there are human lives at stake.

My husband is a physician. Suppose his practice had a high infection rate or, worse high death rate. No one would accept, "we don't have time for extra training."

The truth of the matter is the Las Vegas Police Department did have a problem with use of force complaints and high rates of use of force. They did retrain and refresh their officers in many techniques, including de-escalation, and their instances where they had to use force decreased by 30 something percent. I linked the article up thread.

Going back to the Texas thing where the officer grabbed the teenage girl in the bathing suit by her hair and slammed her repeatedly to the ground and then kneeled on her lower back with her hands held behind her. Regardless of that child's racial make-up, that was an inappropriate use of force. That child was no physical threat to him, She was mouthy. I have teenage girls, they get mouthy. They don't always do what they are told. If I grabbed one of my girls by the hair and slammed her face down to the ground because she didn't comply with my 1st request and gave me lip. I would be in a world of legal trouble. I know not to do that, and I would never do it. A trained police officer should be held to the same standard.

I read the linked study earlier, but I admit that I was busy and more skimmed it, so I will have to go back to it. I have to see when this study was done and if it was done after BLM started drawing attention to police killing of black men.

Maybe BLM is getting their message out poorly. Maybe they do need to focus more on the bigger picture. I know that there is a perception that all BLM cares about are the killings. The truth is, as many have said, our problem is systemic. Minorities are more likely to be the focus of investigation, they are more likely to be subject to physical intervention, they are more like to be charged and prosecuted and given harsher sentences. I know I needn't bring up the judge in the Stanford rape case.

The Dallas mayor is a very wise man, and he had many great points. We do need community involvement, but to fix a problem people have to admit that there is a problem. We need to not only look at our systems, but look in our own hearts.

How many people have clutched their purse when a black man got on an elevator? Or assumed a black woman was paying with EBT at the grocery store? How many people have asked not to be seated next to a middle eastern man on an airplane? or assumed a latina/o couldn't speak English? Or was from another country? Or checked to make sure their car doors were locked in a predominately black neighborhood?

 

[cabanafrau]

LOL. I'm sure you didn't mean that quite the way you phrased it! It would be pretty difficult to come up with ANY "rational explanation" for "...a reckless use of deadly force!"

Yes, I do mean it. In the sense that I could respond with deadly force to what I believed was a weapon being used to attack in a situation of imminent danger. In the aftermath it could be revealed that I misunderstood the situation completely and I had recklessly used deadly force. Something like this could play out within a violent altercation where a hostage or victim was mistaken for an attacker during an attempt by them to disable the attacker.

 

[Disn3yVision]

If given the choice of a fresh start why would anyone choose to build over wreckage when you can choose to start fresh and try to live how you want to live?

Given the choice to be happy or sad why wouldn't you choose happy? However there are millions of sad and depressed people out there. Why don't they just choose to be happy? Your logic is faulty. Its simply not that easy as choosing to start over "fresh".

declare it a new day, a day where all of that would be let go, left in the dust and we could simply be as WE want to be, not forced to be constricted by the fights of other people, many of whom are dead before the last century even began.

Once again real easy to suggest "letting it go and leaving in the dust" when you aren't the one who has been wronged and mistreated for hundreds of years. Im sorry but I don't think, "get over it" is a good response, yet thats basically what I keep hearing in one way or another. And good job minimizing the damage by reminding us that is happened to people who were dead before this century began. Nevermind that the exact same thing is still happening today, hence our current conversation.

 

[cabanafrau]

Sure, of course. That doesn't mean that joke bios and such nonsense make that easier or contribute to the profession in any positive way.

They can cut two ways. It's likely they're intended simply for amusement and meant to be entirely lighthearted. Then sometimes they can be misunderstood and undercut the seriousness of the real work product or cast doubt on it.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

Nobody deserves to be shot. Never. And that is never a part of the thought process when law enforcement officers are making a shoot-don't shoot decision.

Deadly force is employed ONLY when there is no other option. Sometimes, that is a split-second decision; other times, it's a decision that is made over the course of hours -- e.g. both Pulse and Dallas.

Agree with your post. And to the point that "Sometimes, that is a split-second decision" and how DIFFICULT a call that can be, I found this interesting:

 

[Colleen27]

If someone is throwing out false information, the interviewer should be calling them on it and pushing that fact. Problem is, there is no real "journalism" anymore. Every "story" is done with a particular slant/POV for a reason, with very little if any actual research done. Woodward & Bernstein would be ashamed. I'm not at all surprised TMZ is the most accurate lately, the rest of them are hogwash.

Journalists can only be as good as their outlets. W & B worked in a very different era, with the Fairness Doctrine still in place to rein in obvious slant, advertising still a reliable source of financial support for newspapers, and a non-profit/service mindset running the major news organizations. They wouldn't have been able to do the things they did in the current media climate, and Bernstein has said so in as many words. Now they have to think about readership, about ratings, about going viral... because without those things, they'll find themselves out of work like so many other serious journalists. That's why TMZ can still "do" journalism, at least within the scope of their subject matter - because unlike real, socially important coverage of current events, the latest scandal surrounding the Kardashians and the feud between Taylor and Kanye reliably attract viewers/readers.

Unless and until our country develops a taste for serious news and reliable information - and I don't think there's much chance of that - "news" will continue to morph into little more than expert confirmation of viewers 'biases, celebrity gossip, and the latest viral sensations.

That's exactly right, and that's the problem that needs to be addressed. But that's where BLM misses the mark because they are instantly exploiting deaths because they can get more mileage and more of a response out of it. You can't use lies, innuendo and exagerations to rile people up and then expect to channel that energy into addressing something different.

That's why they are losing credibility with a rapidly growing number of reasonable people.

Actually, a lot of grassroots movements do just that, ex. using manufactured outrage over late-term abortion to drum up support for sweeping measures against early abortion, trumping the dangers of the procedure to regulate away clinic-based settings, etc. Using lies, distortions, and hyperbole has been a highly effective strategy for a long time and is becoming even moreso in the echo chambers of social media.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I think everyone realizes that being a police officer is a difficult and dangerous job. No one disputes the necessity of the job they do, but, with all do respect, these are just excuses.

In any profession if it is noted that there are deficiencies or processes that aren't working that organization has an obligation and will make it possible to get these problems fixed. Especially when there are human lives at stake.

My husband is a physician. Suppose his practice had a high infection rate or, worse high death rate. No one would accept, "we don't have time for extra training."

The truth of the matter is the Las Vegas Police Department did have a problem with use of force complaints and high rates of use of force. They did retrain and refresh their officers in many techniques, including de-escalation, and their instances where they had to use force decreased by 30 something percent. I linked the article up thread.

Going back to the Texas thing where the officer grabbed the teenage girl in the bathing suit by her hair and slammed her repeatedly to the ground and then kneeled on her lower back with her hands held behind her. Regardless of that child's racial make-up, that was an inappropriate use of force. That child was no physical threat to him, She was mouthy. I have teenage girls, they get mouthy. They don't always do what they are told. If I grabbed one of my girls by the hair and slammed her face down to the ground because she didn't comply with my 1st request and gave me lip. I would be in a world of legal trouble. I know not to do that, and I would never do it. A trained police officer should be held to the same standard.

I read the linked study earlier, but I admit that I was busy and more skimmed it, so I will have to go back to it. I have to see when this study was done and if it was done after BLM started drawing attention to police killing of black men.

Maybe BLM is getting their message out poorly. Maybe they do need to focus more on the bigger picture. I know that there is a perception that all BLM cares about are the killings. The truth is, as many have said, our problem is systemic. Minorities are more likely to be the focus of investigation, they are more likely to be subject to physical intervention, they are more like to be charged and prosecuted and given harsher sentences. I know I needn't bring up the judge in the Stanford rape case.

The Dallas mayor is a very wise man, and he had many great points. We do need community involvement, but to fix a problem people have to admit that there is a problem. We need to not only look at our systems, but look in our own hearts.

How many people have clutched their purse when a black man got on an elevator? Or assumed a black woman was paying with EBT at the grocery store? How many people have asked not to be seated next to a middle eastern man on an airplane? or assumed a latina/o couldn't speak English? Or was from another country? Or checked to make sure their car doors were locked in a predominately black neighborhood?

I think often we are oversimplifying the appearance by focusing on skin color. Certainly, it plays a role in how one reacts to a person, but there's much more to it than that.

If I'm a cop & I pull over someone who looks & dresses like say Steve Harvey, I'm not too likely to think I need to be on my toes. OTOH, someone who looks & dresses like Snoop Dog? Yeah, I admit it. My guard is up. Of course my guard is also up if I'm pulling over someone who looks like Ron Pearlman in Sons of Anarchy garb - much MORE so than the previously mentioned Steve Harvey lookalike.

What's the income level of these black citizens who are being targeted? Is it across the board or primarily low income? And if the latter, does the nature of targeting low income factor in as much as skin color?

Now, driving through a bad neighborhood with my doors locked? Absolutely. My black friends do that as well (unless they can avoid the neighborhood completely, which they prefer).

 

[ASchwa]

Going back to the Texas thing where the officer grabbed the teenage girl in the bathing suit by her hair and slammed her repeatedly to the ground and then kneeled on her lower back with her hands held behind her. Regardless of that child's racial make-up, that was an inappropriate use of force. That child was no physical threat to him, She was mouthy. I have teenage girls, they get mouthy. They don't always do what they are told. If I grabbed one of my girls by the hair and slammed her face down to the ground because she didn't comply with my 1st request and gave me lip. I would be in a world of legal trouble. I know not to do that, and I would never do it. A trained police officer should be held to the same standard.

He was exonerated on June 23, 2016.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Journalists can only be as good as their outlets. W & B worked in a very different era, with the Fairness Doctrine still in place to rein in obvious slant, advertising still a reliable source of financial support for newspapers, and a non-profit/service mindset running the major news organizations. They wouldn't have been able to do the things they did in the current media climate, and Bernstein has said so in as many words. Now they have to think about readership, about ratings, about going viral... because without those things, they'll find themselves out of work like so many other serious journalists. That's why TMZ can still "do" journalism, at least within the scope of their subject matter - because unlike real, socially important coverage of current events, the latest scandal surrounding the Kardashians and the feud between Taylor and Kanye reliably attract viewers/readers.

Unless and until our country develops a taste for serious news and reliable information - and I don't think there's much chance of that - "news" will continue to morph into little more than expert confirmation of viewers 'biases, celebrity gossip, and the latest viral sensations.



Actually, a lot of grassroots movements do just that, ex. using manufactured outrage over late-term abortion to drum up support for sweeping measures against early abortion, trumping the dangers of the procedure to regulate away clinic-based settings, etc. Using lies, distortions, and hyperbole has been a highly effective strategy for a long time and is becoming even moreso in the echo chambers of social media.

In regards to the journalism party of your post...
That's reminds me of Buzzfeed. Now I know I'll probably get interesting responses but here goes. Buzzfeed is actually building itself a good invesitgative journalism team. Of course that doesn't really attract the readers though. They've been able to take the revenue from all that fluff and use some of it for real journalism. Of course when you mention something coming from Buzzfeed it doesn't sound too great because it's not known for serious journalism. They are trying to change that but without all the fluff it would be possible because there'd be no money in it.

 

[MickeyMinnieMom]

They can cut two ways. It's likely they're intended simply for amusement and meant to be entirely lighthearted. Then sometimes they can be misunderstood and undercut the seriousness of the real work product or cast doubt on it.

Agree.

I'm sure they're mostly meant for amusement. I just don't need to be amused by the people who deliver the news! There's enough entertainment out there.

And just the fact that it can be misunderstood is enough for a serious journalist to stay away from nonsense like a "joke bio". Who needs it?

 

[CPanther95]

Actually, a lot of grassroots movements do just that, ex. using manufactured outrage over late-term abortion to drum up support for sweeping measures against early abortion, trumping the dangers of the procedure to regulate away clinic-based settings, etc. Using lies, distortions, and hyperbole has been a highly effective strategy for a long time and is becoming even moreso in the echo chambers of social media.

That's fine if they choose to do that, but then they shouldn't whine about the fact that those intelligent enough to see what their doing aren't sympathetic with their cause. Or accuse them of being insensitive or unwilling to understand the plight of the people they represent.

 

[cabanafrau]

Given the choice to be happy or sad why wouldn't you choose happy? However there are millions of sad and depressed people out there. Why don't they just choose to be happy? Your logic is faulty. Its simply not that easy as choosing to start over "fresh".

OnIf given the choice of a fresh start why would anyone choose to build over wreckage when you can choose to start fresh and try to live how you want to live? Once again real easy to suggest "letting it go and leaving in the dust" when you aren't the one who has been wronged and mistreated for hundreds of years. Im sorry but I don't think, "get over it" is a good response, yet thats basically what I keep hearing in one way or another.

I shudder to think of the future you're wishing for. I'm aiming high. I may be disappointed, but I'm hopeful the old adage about aiming high and missing leaves you falling among stars applies.

If you can't see a difference between a disorder like depression and the decision of how you interact with your fellow humans in day to day life, I haven't the time to explain it to you, or why your analogy doesn't hold water. If I attempted to apply your version of "logic" I have no idea how I would conduct myself differently, because I don't see how I can fix hundreds of years of mistreatment I had no part of. The way I treat people is what I'm capable of controlling.

ETA I applaud how you snip what you quote when responding, it really helps sharpen the tenor of your responses and gives a real context and flavor to the discussion in a way that exchanges ideas for constructive dialogue.

 

[Gracie09]

I think often we are oversimplifying the appearance by focusing on skin color. Certainly, it plays a role in how one reacts to a person, but there's much more to it than that.

If I'm a cop & I pull over someone who looks & dresses like say Steve Harvey, I'm not too likely to think I need to be on my toes. OTOH, someone who looks & dresses like Snoop Dog? Yeah, I admit it. My guard is up. Of course my guard is also up if I'm pulling over someone who looks like Ron Pearlman in Sons of Anarchy garb - much MORE so than the previously mentioned Steve Harvey lookalike.

What's the income level of these black citizens who are being targeted? Is it across the board or primarily low income? And if the latter, does the nature of targeting low income factor in as much as skin color?

Now, driving through a bad neighborhood with my doors locked? Absolutely. My black friends do that as well (unless they can avoid the neighborhood completely, which they prefer).

The attorney I worked with was ivy league educated and wore a suit and tie every day. He still managed to get pulled over several times a month driving pretty much the same streets I did to work. I never was pulled over.

 

[Disn3yVision]

I don't see how I can fix hundreds of years of mistreatment I had no part of.

You can start by listening and trying to understand how those hundreds of years of mistreatment might have repercussions on so many people today. How it might have created certain ideas, prejudices, and social constructs that need to be acknowledged, addressed, and broken down before we can even start to move towards this utopia you are dreaming of.

 

[sunshinehighway]

He was exonerated on June 23, 2016.

A grand jury deciding there's not enough to bring charges doesn't mean he did nothing wrong. I've seen this in several of your posts.
Police officers have more leeway in what they are allowed to do and what is criminal than the average citizen does. They have to by the nature of there job. With that being the case, it's often more difficult to get indictments and/or guilty verdicts because they are held a different standard. That lack of indictment of guilty verdict doesn't mean they did nothing wrong. It doesn't mean people are wrong to question their actions.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

The attorney I worked with was ivy league educated and wore a suit and tie every day. He still managed to get pulled over several times a month driving pretty much the same streets I did to work. I never was pulled over.

In & of itself that's meaningless. Maybe he was a crappy driver. I have a friend who looks a lot like me who was pulled over more than 3 times as much as I was as a teen. OTOH, I received more tickets.


Did your coworker ever get the impression cops were more cautious or anxious around him than they would have been with you?

 

[roseaster]

I think often we are oversimplifying the appearance by focusing on skin color. Certainly, it plays a role in how one reacts to a person, but there's much more to it than that.

If I'm a cop & I pull over someone who looks & dresses like say Steve Harvey, I'm not too likely to think I need to be on my toes. OTOH, someone who looks & dresses like Snoop Dog? Yeah, I admit it. My guard is up. Of course my guard is also up if I'm pulling over someone who looks like Ron Pearlman in Sons of Anarchy garb - much MORE so than the previously mentioned Steve Harvey lookalike.

What's the income level of these black citizens who are being targeted? Is it across the board or primarily low income? And if the latter, does the nature of targeting low income factor in as much as skin color?

Now, driving through a bad neighborhood with my doors locked? Absolutely. My black friends do that as well (unless they can avoid the neighborhood completely, which they prefer).

I didn't say a bad neighborhood, I said a predominately black one. See how you associated a black neighborhood with a bad neighborhood? It's an excellent example.

The clothing, too. Why (unless it is obvious gang insignia) would someone's style of dress cause you to automatically assume they were dangerous? Because it is a predominately "urban" style?

He was exonerated on June 23, 2016.

I don't care. He was wrong. Dead {word I can't use here} wrong. How would you feel if that were your child? Would you think it was okay?

I had an argument with my daughter at Macy's over a prom dress (she is 17) she got sassy and didn't get dressed and get moving when I told her to. If you were in Macy's and saw me grab her by the back of the hair and slam her, face down, to the floor and then kneel on the small of her back while twisting her arms behind her what would you do what would you do?

 

[taitai]

Did anyone watch the Memorial Service for the Dallas officers? President Obama addressed what these last 37 pages tried to do in a much more eloquent way. I strongly encourage everyone to find a video or transcript.