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

[mnrose]

I'll give you an example...immediately dismissing the many examples that have been given on this thread of "driving while black." Things like 'I don't believe it." That comes across as terribly ignorant and dismissive. It's hard to have any sort of dialogue when that is the response. Is it racist? Who knows. I can't see into someone's heart. But. it sure as heck is helping to perpetrate a racist system. Denial of the problem IS part of the problem.

 

[disneyjunkie]

I admit I'm looking at this through the lens of a middle aged white guy but I'd really like to know what is offensive.

The whole idea that black people are playing the race, looking to be offended, looking for issues where there are none, are responsible for is happening, do not care about what is happening our own communities. ......

 

[mi*vida*loca]

Since there is black on black crime in the inner city and they are upset about cops killing black men it means the blm is a load of crap. Assuming that blacks don't care about the violence in their own community because the media doesn't report the protests against violence.

 

[mi*vida*loca]

When someone says they don't believe that a black man has been stopped dozens of times for driving through a white neighborhood in a Mercedes. Why lie about something like that? It happens. And to be called a liar about something that is common for some of us is insulting. (I'm not the one who made the statement but I believe the story.)

 

[mi*vida*loca]

The purpose of the BLM moment is to eventually make ALM a true statement.

 

[JoeA]

I'll give you an example...immediately dismissing the many examples that have been given on this thread of "driving while black." Things like 'I don't believe it." That comes across as terribly ignorant and dismissive. It's hard to have any sort of dialogue when that is the response. Is it racist? Who knows. I can't see into someone's heart. But. it sure as heck is helping to perpetrate a racist system. Denial of the problem IS part of the problem.

Isn't that, in a way, opposite of racism? I can see how that may be dismissivive but not racist.

Wouldn't a racist point of view be, "darn right, pull 'em all over!", or "its OK to pull over any person driving while black"?

 

[disneyjunkie]

Isn't that, in a way, opposite of racism? I can see how that may be dismissivive but not racist.

Wouldn't a racist point of view be, "darn right, pull 'em all over!", or "its OK to pull over any person driving while black"?

Most people won't come out and say stuff that way in mixed company.

 

[JoeA]

The whole idea that black people are playing the race, looking to be offended, looking for issues where there are none, are responsible for is happening, do not care about what is happening our own communities. ......

Thanks for responding. I want to ask a few questions but I'm truly exhausted and not sure I'd be able to give the attention your post deserves.

I'd like to try and revisit tomorrow of that is ok?

 

[Unas]

You are putting words in my mouth. I have said on this thread that racism exists. Of course I know that first hand, second hand and further.

My husband grew up in a large city in the projects amongst the poorest of the poor and the darkest of the dark. Please, you are seriously putting words into my mouth.

I pretty much understand "poorest of the poor." But please explain "darkest of the dark." Do you mean that literally?

 

[DLandgirlie]

When Bernie Sanders tried to use the words All Lives Matter during his bid for President, an outcry took place that said how dare he say that, and that he was coopting the movement and how racist and wrong he was. Sanders backed away from those words. BLM made sure that it was exclusively Black Lives Matter. There was no attempt to be inclusive. This was in July 2015. Some other candidates tried also, but were made to understand the exclusive nature of BLM. A President of the United States should care about All Lives and not be intimidated or swayed to just one group. We are all United States citizens and we all deserve our rights. As for slavery, I haven't experienced it, neither have you since slavery in the United States ended in 1865. The Civil Rights movement, maybe you had relatives or yourself that participated in it, did help to make things better in Black lives but not perfect. I am not saying that there isn't miscarriages of the Justice System, there was an example about a month ago that someone was in jail for a 2 dollar fine or bail that served 6 months in jail. There are racists in every community including Blacks, and to protest this peacefully is everyone's right, but Free Speech doesn't allow for incitement. The leader of BLM, Patrisse Cullors, aligned BLM to the Palestinian movement and BDS, which both call for the destruction of Israel. That is not being inclusive because a lot of American Jews fought for Civil Rights for Blacks in the 1950s and 1960s. Some even died for it. Are their lives not as important or their dignity? Do you have a right to tell me I can't be part of this conversation because I think of BLM as a divisive movement in which the narrative is based on lies such as Trayvon Martin being killed by Police and the ever slogan "hands up, don't shoot" which didn't happen? That since I have never experienced injustice I don't have a say? People were killed on lies in the past, it seems that lesson hasn't been learned, 5 officers in Dallas have testified to that.

What is wrong with the statement Black Lives Matter, specifically addressing Black lives? Why is that an issue? The issue is that, the people who have a problem with it interpret the statement that 'only black lives matter'. That is a defensive interpretation. The movement is allowed to have a focus, and by being dismissive to that focus, deduces that black lives do not matter. So you decide to bring it back to the people behind the movement. I wanted to take baby steps and focus on the words, so much for that. That's funny you think slavery ended, but I won't go into that as it might cross some lines in how I define the transformation of slavery and how the root of it's existence is embedded in our justice system. Oh wait......that's a huge part of systemic racism. Well like I stated if you feel systemic racism is non existent, your voice is not heard by those wanting change, so no, you are not helping and therefore contributing to the problem. Regarding the bold statement: We need to focus on the message of systemic racism, which is the heart of the issue. Now, for those who feel there's no such thing; congratulations, you are apart of the problem and therefore have no voice in this conversation for change. You don't get to tell someone how they should feel about the injustice you don't even acknowledge or have ever experienced. It's not right, nor is it fair. No constructive convo is going to be had by people with that viewpoint.

If that describes you then there is no need to continue this conversation, change is only accomplished when those who cry out are heard. Those who view there is no such thing as systemic racism are not contributing to change they are contributing to silence the cry of injustice. I'll add, you can talk all you want but the core values of justice are not aligned and therefore you aren't being heard.

 

[Unas]

No it isn't the opposite. An unwillingness to accept years of reality faced by certain groups is what allows structural racism to continue.

 

[roseaster]

Also to address the "Hands up, don't shoot" thing. While most people understand that this isn't literal, and it did not actually happen in the Michael Brown case it remains an important narrative because this is how many minorities have to deal with the police and how they teach their children to deal with the police.

Put your hands in the air. Keep them visible at all times. Keep your head down as not to seem challenging or aggressive. Answer only "Yes, sir" or "No, sir." and if you are under age don't talk without a parent present.

The sad fact is when an 18 year old white man is interacting with the police and scratches his butt, it is because his butt itches. When an 18 year old minority man interacts with the police and scratches his butt he is, potentially, reaching for a weapon and deserves to be shot.

Also, just look at the title of this thread. The thought that black lives matter is "stupid" and "crap."

 

[Disneylover99]

The purpose of the BLM moment is to eventually make ALM a true statement.

Through sabotage and blackmail? If their purpose is to make ALM, they're going about it in the wrong way IMO.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/black-lives-matter-toronto-pride-parade-1.3663659

 

[Planogirl]

I admire the ideals behind BLM but I dislike their tactics. I see that as two different things. There are other groups that are involved in this and some of them seem much more reasonable. I think that BLM's tactics often overshadow what they are trying to accomplish.

I'm done with this topic too though now. We have several funerals coming up in our area and that will be all I can personally take for a while. I hope that everyone can come to some sort of understanding that will propel people forward.

 

[Unas]

Well, we're all speculating on speculation about unsubstantiated reports about what the motivation for the stop might have been.

Having said that, IF a similarity to an armed robbery suspect is what precipitated the stop, and IF someone in the car asked, "Why did you stop me officer?" the officer would have to be a blithering idiot to tell them the real reason. It wouldn't be unusual to cite some innocuous reason for the stop, and there is nothing the least bit improper in that.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. The legal requirements for searching a vehicle without a search warrant are quite stringent -- not liberal at all. But I haven't heard anything about a search in this case.

Interesting perspective . . . LEO can lie to civilian. It is a technique endorsed by SCOTUS. But a civilian lieing to a LEO is a whole other story. It's likely to lead to the LEO asserting you are being evasive and rolling into justification for a warrantless vehicle search. The of the requirements placed on LEOs for warrantless searches, especially if trickery is employed aren't really all that high.

 

[TLSnell1981]

As I stated I'm done with this thread. But please note... I never labeled anyone. I specifically said somethings "mentioned" were racist/prejudice.
You don't not have to agree with me and I do not have to agree with you. Its very simple, you are free to think and feel whatever you like.

FWIW I was speaking in general, not specifically.

 

[TLSnell1981]

They know, they just don't care. I have been a DISer for a long time. This is actually pretty mild. I think the 2008 election season really opened my eyes to the hate.

Once again, disagreeing with one's beliefs or policy isn't hateful or racist..

 

[ASchwa]

What is wrong with the statement Black Lives Matter, specifically addressing Black lives? Why is that an issue? The issue is that, the people who have a problem with it interpret the statement that 'only black lives matter'. That is a defensive interpretation. The movement is allowed to have a focus, and by being dismissive to that focus, deduces that black lives do not matter. So you decide to bring it back to the people behind the movement. I wanted to take baby steps and focus on the words, so much for that. That's funny you think slavery ended, but I won't go into that as it might cross some lines in how I define the transformation of slavery and how the root of it's existence is embedded in our justice system. Oh wait......that's a huge part of systemic racism. Well like I stated if you feel systemic racism is non existent, your voice is not heard by those wanting change, so no, you are not helping and therefore contributing to the problem. Regarding the bold statement: We need to focus on the message of systemic racism, which is the heart of the issue. Now, for those who feel there's no such thing; congratulations, you are apart of the problem and therefore have no voice in this conversation for change. You don't get to tell someone how they should feel about the injustice you don't even acknowledge or have ever experienced. It's not right, nor is it fair. No constructive convo is going to be had by people with that viewpoint.

If that describes you then there is no need to continue this conversation, change is only accomplished when those who cry out are heard. Those who view there is no such thing as systemic racism are not contributing to change they are contributing to silence the cry of injustice. I'll add, you can talk all you want but the core values of justice are not aligned and therefore you aren't being heard.

You said in the first post I responded to, that BLM is not exclusive and it includes all. Well, I proved that in July 2015, that BLM in their own words is exclusive and doesn't want any narrative to the contrary. I never in any of my posts dismissed anyone's story about injustice. Look through my posts. I also know that the Constitution made sure that Blacks had the same rights as White citizens. Slavery did end in the United States, but I agree that attitudes and prejudices took a long time to change. Change they did and the Justice system helped with that. BLM can stand for whatever it wants to, but I have a right to criticize it for the stands that they take, the incitement that BLM fosters, and the lies that helped take the lives of police officers. If BLM wants to exclusively deal with Black issues, then be upfront about it and bring the conversation. I don't hear dialogue coming from BLM, I hear that because Zimmerman wasn't convicted that was racism, because the DOJ and the Grand Jury didn't indict the police officer that was systemic racism. Then because it was racism, we have a right to throw chunks of concrete, throw Molotov cocktails, loot, shoot guns. I didn't hear in McKinney, Texas any dialogue, only fire the police officer, who didn't kill anyone or else there was going to be trouble. BLM silences people by the label of racism, because if you don't agree with BLM you are a racist and your values are suspect and that means you support oppression. People then try to prove they aren't racist so there is no dialogue. Guess what, no Justice system is perfect, no Government is perfect. Our system allows individual people to sue or bring grievances to the attention of our representatives, or lawyers, sometimes it is addressed, sometimes it's not. If you feel that laws are racist then you start a conversation with either your state government or the federal one. Change the laws. It does sometimes work.

 

[Chocolate Cake]

Put your hands in the air. Keep them visible at all times. Keep your head down as not to seem challenging or aggressive. Answer only "Yes, sir" or "No, sir." and if you are under age don't talk without a parent present.

Do you think black parents are the only ones that teach these tactics to their children?

 

[JimMIA]

Interesting perspective . . . LEO can lie to civilian. It is a technique endorsed by SCOTUS. But a civilian lieing to a LEO is a whole other story. It's likely to lead to the LEO asserting you are being evasive and rolling into justification for a warrantless vehicle search. The of the requirements placed on LEOs for warrantless searches, especially if trickery is employed aren't really all that high.

Actually, it's not generally against the law to lie to a police officer. It's against the law to make a false report claiming a crime occurred when it didn't, but people lie to officers all the time. About the only other time it would be illegal to lie to an officer would be if you were under oath and giving sworn testimony. That would be perjury, whether the person lying was an officer or a civilian. But of course, you can't be compelled to give sworn testimony.

If an officer falsifies probable cause for a search warrant, that's certainly perjury. If they falsify probable cause for a warrantless search of a vehicle, that's perjury.

There are VERY few warrantless searches of vehicles anyway, and the bar is set very high. It has to be a situation where you have sufficient probable cause for a warrant, but there is some kind of urgency which precludes waiting for a judge. Usually, it's something like a kid or dog locked in a car, not some loser with drugs in their trunk.

If an officer tricks a suspect into giving consent for a search, that's legal but the search would certainly be attacked in court and the evidence could very well be suppressed. For that matter, even a search with a warrant will usually be attacked in court, sometimes successfully.