Ongoing U.S Police Brutality and Corruption Discussion Thread

otm. truly disgusting and unhelpful stuff.

What can we learn about ourselves and our enemies as we stand on this side of the chasm? If you now find yourself on the other side of the rupture…good riddance.

Por el comunismo y la anarquía,

L.N.F.C.

cool bolshevism

hillary is so brave and wise
*shits pants*

I think she's right in that there's no contradiction or hypocrisy in both thinking police violence needs to be controlled and being horrified by the police shootings in Dallas.

― Al Moon Faced Poon (Moodles), Saturday, July 9, 2016 12:50 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's horribly sad that anyone would even suggest that there's a contradiction. There may be vast differences between the respective situations and their causes and possible solutions, but I'd like to think that a desire to not see anyone senselessly murdered is something most people could get behind.

while at the same time not indulging in knee jerk false equivalency

The difference is, random criminals/shooters don't act in the name of the state.

I'm sure I didn't phrase things in a particularly clear or helpful way. I'm not suggesting that anyone is eager to see anyone be murdered. I had in mind people like my Lt. Gov. who thinks that BLM protesters are "hypocrites" for peacefully protesting horrible police killings and then running from sniper fire. Or anyone who suggests that there's a war against police.

The whole point of Clinton's post is that all those issues she listed should be common sense to understand and support, yet there are plenty of moronic people who believe that protests against police or calls for reform basically equals outright war vs. the police. It's absurd and sad that these things she's saying should be anything less than obvious, but clearly lots of Americans do not support police reform, criminal justice reform, or stricter gun laws and think that anyone who does is anti-police, anti-law and order, anti-2nd ammendment, etc, etc.

this guy

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cm8PPhcUEAAybh7.jpg

self parody anime face ass

I had in mind people like my Lt. Gov. who thinks that BLM protesters are "hypocrites" for peacefully protesting horrible police killings and then running from sniper fire.

Well, that's a whole separate issue where people shouldn't use words containing more syllables than they're cognitively developed enough to count.

I'm sure in his head it was spelled "hippo crits"

It's a particularly egregious example, but symptomatic of this whole disgusting line of thinking that gets applied to BLM and anyone who dares point out that there are police officers doing a less than stellar job in this country.

It's not hard to figure out that the people who defend the police when they kill unarmed black men are never unarmed black men.

one fella offered a defense yesterday "well statistically, it's cos black individuals commit more gun crime than whites, and the cops are reacting to that".

when asked why he thought that was, he replied "cos statistics".

One of the most disgusting things about D. Patrick's statement is the very real notion that if somehow the protesters resisted sane human nature and actually took those bullets and died like martyrs, he'd probably have said something along the lines of "Well, I'd say they had it coming..."

there was one photo Shaun King posted about a copy showing unrelenting patience with a white gunman IN A WEAVER STANCE with his gun trained on the damn cop and meanwhile, while meanwhile a Black passenger cannot even go for his registration after proactively announcing what is in his pocket first. It's heartbreaking because you could tell he was doing that because he's been trained after years of Black civilians being shot that this was the thing to do AND STILL WOUND UP PAYING THE PRICE.

there's a rumor going around that the car was stopped because Castile resembled a suspect in a robbery (I won't repeat the physical attribute the cop allegedly stated on the scanner cos it's infuriatingly offensive) - but fairly sure that's just noise (not that it would have justified the shooting anyway).

I got three minutes into that video and boy that cop is scum but he also sounds like he knows he fucked up in the exasperated tone of his voice...it's not the voice of someone who actually thinks he used necessary force. praying to God this one gets a conviction but I have very little faith it will.

if I hear "was no angel" as a phrase one more time....

-meanwhile

i know when i rob a bank i always bring my partner and child w/ me - 'robbery suspect' sounds suspiciously like apologetics

of course. the story is that supposedly the cop made a comment on a police scanner saying he resembled a recent suspect, and audio has surfaced but it hasn't been officially confirmed. if that were true, it'd probably make the cop look worse because there's nothing to suggest that he actually committed any crime and it was based on a physical characteristic that would be very difficult to see when pursuing someone in a car.

hasn't stopped conservative media (of the fringe variety) from saying things like "HE WAS AN ARMED ROBBER OMG LIBERALS LOVE BAILING OUT CRIMINALS"

What is the NECESSITY for people like this guy to feel they have to make public statements?!!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawyer-officer-who-shot-philando-castile-case-has-nothing-do-n606471

finally figured out why republican brass are so scared they're jumping on the black lives matter train. they're _really_ terrified of a race riot at their convention next week. predict they will revert to typical form after the convention is over.

dallas police locking down blocks again / calling in swat after some kind of threat + "masked man/men" sighted

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20160709-masked-man-spotted-near-dallas-police-hq-after-threat-triggers-lockdown-there.ece

http://www.snopes.com/philando-castile-was-not-wanted-for-armed-robbery/

seems the (extremely academic, so far as i know them) police-abolitionists in my feed are keen on the uh less mainstream sentiment here

http://www.luchanofeik.club/2016/07/08/clarityofrupture/

― j., Saturday, 9 July 2016 05:06 (Yesterday) Permalink

people are going to criticize that as trying to be all things to all people, but I honestly think that's the role of the president, to a degree. It is empathetic, intelligent, and reasoned.

― akm, Saturday, 9 July 2016 05:40 (Yesterday) Permalink

lol

Deray McKesson was arrested last night in Baton Rouge. Clearly targeted by police. No news as to where he is, his last tweet was eight hours ago.

Treeship: "random criminals/shooters don't act in the name of the state."

I have a friend who likes to put this as "it's one thing for the quarterback to be sacked by the opposing team; quite another to be sacked by the referee." (Not a perfect analogy of course.)

i dont know how to read all the quite variable stats on race/police killings. one site even posted that there were more white deaths this year at the hands of the police than black deaths (though in proportion to respective populations, black men are more likely to be killed than white men).

im slightly disappointed though to see everywhere (well bbc radio news reports at least) reporting so enthusiastically that the gunman who killed police *wanted to kill white people*. plenty of police have posted questionable stuff but im not seeing that picked up on with the same relish.

this is obv not good news for BLM who will obv have their reputation muddied now, though ive not been keeping track of the story enough to really know whats been happening at the weekend.

i've seen several white people "clarifying" that "black lives matter actually means black lives matter TOO" which, while well intentioned, seems like another way of re-centering whites? maybe i'm being handwringy

no you are otm

imo

I think you're right, but I also think that many of these other people simply are not equipped to get it and need it spelled out for them.

idk, you could maybe see it as some acknowledgement at least. im not really into coming down hard on every single micro inanity. BLM's very name ruffles people, cos just saying 'black' anything seems to come with baggage. there was some piece doing the rounds of a group of anon law students complaining to their university about a lecturer wearing a BLM t shirt, saying something like it was 'alienating'.

Ahem, non-colored people deserve to be advanced on a national level TOO.

I'm being glib. I do think there's a pretty great extent to which we all need to be more understanding of where other people are starting from if we ever have any hope of bridging the divides in this country. I'd like to think most of the 'black lives matter TOO' people are starting from a place where it isn't even a question that black lives matter but maybe don't understand why that's a thing that needs to be stated outright.

sometimes i think BLM should had a different name. good for drawing attention, straight to the point directness, but also they know its not really going to endear many people to the cause that easily.

"The endearing Fuzzle Wuzzles, a group centred around opposing the increasingly visible and punishment-free murder of African-Americans..."

er... it seems to have endeared/energized/spoken to like, millions of people?

besides, it isn't like butthurt white folk wouldn't have found a problem with any myriad of other names.

lol

"er... it seems to have endeared/energized/spoken to like, millions of people?"

wasnt denying that. just that anything with black in the name will eventually get accused of the usual stuff.

kinda feel like if you're starting from a place of wanting to not upset the apple cart, you're kinda rendering your movement toothless from the onset....

why cater to the thickheaded dummies who weren't going to get it anyway?

it is a super super powerful name imo. states forcefully and positively something that should be an obvious given, and in doing so points out that in so many situations and contexts it is not one. it asserts humanity in the face of terrible violence and injustices, righteously and unapologetically. it seems very dicey to start suggesting that if only the movement had adopted a more conciliatory, appealing/appeasing tone, then... etc etc. but i know you did couch your comment in a "sometimes i think" so i don't mean to pin all that on you.

but also the "they" here (the ones who ostensibly might have considered a different name) is unclear - it was a hashtag first, right? like, it became the name of the movement because it was popular; many many people who saw it felt it spoke to them, and adopted it too. or am i misremembering the sequence of events?

i'm a little fuzzy on how BLM evolved from a hashtag into an organized movement but i hadn't really considered that anyone really chose it as a "name"

xp

every successful civil rights movement had people telling them they were alienating potential allies with their rhetoric and would do better if they moderated their tone

"We Shall Overcome (with your permission, of course)"

but in all seriousness, there will always be factions of people that don't get it. these are the same assholes who, after Pulse shooting happened, said things like "I'm not putting a rainbow on my profile, I'm putting an American flag because it was 49 Americans who died, why the focus on the LGBT community (or the Latino community)?"

"if only the movement had adopted a more conciliatory, appealing/appeasing tone"

im not advocating they make the message or rhetoric moderate, just the name. but yeah, IIRC it just started as a hashtag.

can someone plz direct me to an accurate breakdown of people killed by US police this year? ive tried searching but cant seem to find one that i trust.

it's exactly the right name, the necessary name. that so many white people react negatively to it - a self-evident and utterly inoffensive truth - proves that.