|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 9, 2015 16:31:17 GMT -5
And that has what to do with the SC case? Except that it was a white racist shooting. You imply that the police are quick to shoot. I was pointing out that then the police are on duty if they err in the direction of not considering people as potential criminals the results are not always favorable to them. It was criminals shooting policemen. Of course. That's why they are policemen. We don't hire them to behave as criminals, we hire them to do mature police work. We expect dogs to bite people, but we don't expect people to bite dogs. Why pay them if we're going to let them behave like common criminals?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 9, 2015 16:42:29 GMT -5
You imply that the police are quick to shoot. I was pointing out that then the police are on duty if they err in the direction of not considering people as potential criminals the results are not always favorable to them. It was criminals shooting policemen. Of course. That's why they are policemen. We don't hire them to behave as criminals, we hire them to do mature police work. We expect dogs to bite people, but we don't expect people to bite dogs. Why pay them if we're going to let them behave like common criminals? Are you comparing people to dogs?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 9, 2015 16:59:20 GMT -5
You imply that the police are quick to shoot. I was pointing out that then the police are on duty if they err in the direction of not considering people as potential criminals the results are not always favorable to them. It was criminals shooting policemen. Of course. That's why they are policemen. They are policemen so people can shoot and kill them at dinner?We do. And when you are working in that field there will be mistakes made. In this case the police did not shoot at the people who entered even though there may have been clues that they should have.We do but we also have to expect that if the policeman suspects that someone is going to do them harm they have the right/duty to protect themselves.Because for the most part they are not behaving like common criminals.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 9, 2015 17:40:45 GMT -5
Of course. That's why they are policemen. We don't hire them to behave as criminals, we hire them to do mature police work. We expect dogs to bite people, but we don't expect people to bite dogs. Why pay them if we're going to let them behave like common criminals? Are you comparing people to dogs? No. I'm comparing criminals to dogs and cops to people. You do know the difference, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 9, 2015 18:06:05 GMT -5
Of course. That's why they are policemen. They are policemen so people can shoot and kill them at dinner? No. They are policemen and they know that dogs/violent criminals might shoot them. You know damn well what I meant. And in this state they execute people who make deadly mistakes. Unless you think policemen should be excused for THEIR deadly mistakes, what is the point of your argument. I presume you're talking about the NV case. Where did you get the idea that the two policemen had any clues? SO you have no other definition of protecting oneself than shooting someone? ? As a matter of fact, this discussion didn't even start out concerning policemen who had reason to suspect he was in danger -- remember? I thought the hot head had no reason to shoot the guy eight times in the back, kill him, and plant the taser by his dead body -- you cautioned that we didn't know everything. We knew we didn't know EVERYTHING -- but we're not dingbats for saying that we can't imagine what mitigating circumstances there could be in this case. For crying out loud, his own police chief had no more reason to charge him with murder, and you're questioning our intelligence in coming to the same conclusion. Sheeesh. You don't read well. EVERYONE knows they don't all behave like criminals. No one even suggested they did. What is your vested interest in protecting criminal cops? You don't normally listen and talk this irrationally.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 9, 2015 18:09:51 GMT -5
You seem determined to disrupt this thread. There is a healing path available to you: Present your concerns to admin. Direct & indirect experience suggests they will not tolerate this important relevant thread to become a victim of histrionics. Of course you'll have to be prepared to accept that admin may consider the 'disruption' of greater relevance than the subject. You're like the blond who let her house burn down because she couldn't find "eleven" on the telephone. There is no "cancel" button sir. Like dialing eleven it's a two step process. (1) Read the thread title, and (2) ignore it if you don't like it. It's good for the blood pressure.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 9, 2015 18:36:58 GMT -5
The huge lack of any relevance to the church particularly is what struck me! Do you belong to any other forums apart from this one? Posts about vegetarian eating on forums for vegetarian eating Posts about model trains on forums for model trains Posts about white policemen shooting black men on forums for civil rights, police violence etc. But I realise I there is no logic, no sense in what I write. dmg, matise etc have roundly corrected and shamed me on that! I repent in sackcloth and ashes and will try to never bring up such a foolish matter ever again! Can you see parallels in the need for more accountability both in "the work" and in US policing? Michael Slager should have been made accountable for using excessive force in 2013: news.nationalpost.com/news/world/michael-slager-excessive-force-737545What? Excessive force. The man has a very dangerous job and he feared for his life. Are you listening to yourself, or do you think there's something different between what you just wrote and what I've been saying all along? Of course the man should have been PROSECUTED at the time -- and the reason he wasn't is because the national news didn't broadcast it and the police department hid it from the public. I knew you agreed with me all along. Your problem is that you don't know how to fix it. How you fix it is forbid police departments to investigate their own and having all internal investigations done by a separate entity. In the meantime, videotape everything and embarrass them into being honest. You know why you can't fix it "in the work" -- you're not willing to embarrass select groups of people, like workers and policemen. As long as they know you'll NEVER expose them, they can get away with anything.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 9, 2015 19:08:06 GMT -5
Time to move on to the clip of the San Bernardino policemen jockeying to take turns kicking a man in the desert.
The underside of police work in America.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 9, 2015 20:21:18 GMT -5
They are policemen so people can shoot and kill them at dinner? No. They are policemen and they know that dogs/violent criminals might shoot them. You know damn well what I meant. Actually Bob, I only know what you write. You said that was why they become policemen. I am sure they are aware that they are targets and their actions/reactions reflect that fact.In your state they do not execute people when they make mistakes. Even deadly mistakes. Read all the words Bob. I didn't say the policemen had clues I said there may have been clues. Again, Bob, I did not say they should shoot anyone, I said protect themselves. You can't twist the words to suit your preconceived ideas.And at the time we didn't, no matter how difficult that may be for you to accept.I think the rush to judgement before all of the facts are known would be close to the definition of prejudice. Your lack of imagination is no reason to condemn anyone.The chief of police was in possession of many more facts than you had at the time. For example, the video from the dash camera was just released today. I am not protecting anyone. I am speaking out against armchair judges condemning people when they are not in possession of all the data.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 9, 2015 21:18:42 GMT -5
Actually Bob, I only know what you write. And you suspected that I was foolish enough to think all policemen were criminals. I've had law enforcement people in my family for the last 3 decades -- and I'm not stupid. Yes, I did. And guess what kind of policemen I was referring to. Think real hard. And by the way, I didn't make that up. It came from America's top cop, and the honest ones don't mind admitting it -- within the confines of the "fraternity". Of course. And being a police officer serves them better than when they were in the army -- in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing. If you can imagine ANYTHING that justifies that cop's shooting that man, I would sincerely love to hear it. I really would. What the police chief knew that we didn't know at the time is that the same police officer had a problem with an excessive use of force charge 2 years ago, and the department had kept it out of the national news. Now he also knows that the cop lied about the circumstances of this shooting. Now -- tell me you seriously believe what you saw on the dashcam justified anything you saw in the other clip. Too bad you didn't have any data to counter what others thought they saw. BTW, before it was even suggested that I was jumping to an armchair conclusion I was about to say that I would not be surprised at all if this cop actually gets found not guilty of murder. You tell me why he might get off and I'll tell you why I think he might get off.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 9, 2015 21:23:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 9, 2015 21:27:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Apr 10, 2015 0:14:54 GMT -5
Bob, wrong again, they kicked him in the head and elsewhere but not in the desert. regards, your rational friend
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 10, 2015 0:54:52 GMT -5
Some of you may find this interesting - similarities in patterns of "state violence" (e.g. police) against black and brown youth across countries with economies built on slave and poorly remunerated labor (e.g. France, Brazil, Colombia, Britain and the U.S.). Written by Michael Hanchard, SOBA Presidential Professor in the Political Science Department of Johns Hopkins. State Violence Against Black and Brown YouthWorth repeating...and I believe key to some of the difficulties of the conversation, and the unfortunate ongoing need for good video footage (to tie back into the OP): "Most black and brown people I know, whether in the United States, Brazil, France, Colombia, Britain and many other nation-states, have an Emery Robinson in their lives. Most whites, with the exception of those who have intimate relations with black and brown people in predominantly white societies, do not have an Emery Robinson in their memories."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 10, 2015 0:59:24 GMT -5
Bob, wrong again, they kicked him in the head and elsewhere but not in the desert. regards, your rational friend Oops, missed that one. I was most worried about the kick in the nuts!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 10, 2015 1:10:19 GMT -5
Actually Bob, I only know what you write. And you suspected that I was foolish enough to think all policemen were criminals. I've had law enforcement people in my family for the last 3 decades -- and I'm not stupid. Actually this has nothing to do with the comment I made. You said: You said that was why they become policemen.And I questioned if that was why they became policemen or it was a consequence of their becoming a policeman. America's top cop said that was why people became policemen? Do you have anything that supports that claim? Where do you come up with these things? Soldiers have to follow rules of engagement which specify quite clearly when they can and when they cannot open fire. Failing to follow those rules could result in a charge which could include murder charges. In addition, there is the Geneva Convention which could subject soldiers to international sanctions.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 10, 2015 1:14:09 GMT -5
Very good reading. I'll attempt to attach the following article: 10 Ways White People Are More Racist Than They ThinkProgressives like to believe they are enlightened, but they’re no less vulnerable to their implicit biases. Kali Holloway, Alternet Wednesday, March 4 2015 PS: Matisse kindly made a better attachment a couple of posts down. Mine didn't work properly.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 10, 2015 1:34:06 GMT -5
You said that was why they become policemen.And I questioned if that was why they became policemen or it was a consequence of their becoming a policeman. Further elaboration -- yes, that is the most obvious pattern of overuse of violence by US police officers -- they were first trained for war and get an easy pass into police work when they come home and they're not trained for police work at all. And I didn't make that up -- they have inside data that indicates that relationship. The other recognizable correlation is between excessive police force and the lack of college education. Policemen with university degrees have far fewer incidents of excessive violence than less educated police officers. Yes, he absolutely did. And no, I don't have documentation for you. But I'm rather doubtful that I would forget such a statement when I heard it only a week ago as he was addressing a national group of police officers. I also should have saved the article in which he explained how non-racist Americans still practice racism. I wondered at the time is someone would try to refute this and I wish I'd saved it now. But what difference -- L don't expect to change anything anyway.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 10, 2015 1:44:03 GMT -5
Very good reading. I'll attempt to attach the following article: 10 Ways White People Are More Racist Than They ThinkProgressives like to believe they are enlightened, but they’re no less vulnerable to their implicit biases. Kali Holloway, Alternet Wednesday, March 4 2015 Here is a link to the article as it appeared in Salon: 10 Ways White People Are More Racist Than They Think
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 10, 2015 2:01:24 GMT -5
Very good reading. I'll attempt to attach the following article: 10 Ways White People Are More Racist Than They ThinkProgressives like to believe they are enlightened, but they’re no less vulnerable to their implicit biases. Kali Holloway, Alternet Wednesday, March 4 2015 Here is a link to the article as it appeared in Salon: 10 Ways White People Are More Racist Than They ThinkThanks. I don't think my copy attached properly.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 10, 2015 10:15:11 GMT -5
You're forgetting that this is what the policeman reported before he had learned that he was being taped. Really? The policeman said that he feared Walter Scott was running to kill his wife and child because she had reported him for not paying child support? This has been at the top of several news cycles, the policeman's former lawyer released a statement, the police department has released a statement yet the situation I presented from my imagination was never mentioned. Working at home I have the news on while I work and have not heard this.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 10, 2015 10:21:32 GMT -5
It might be easier to address one point at a time. Perhaps you missed this: And being a police officer serves them better than when they were in the army -- in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing. Where do you come up with these things? Soldiers have to follow rules of engagement which specify quite clearly when they can and when they cannot open fire. Failing to follow those rules could result in a charge which could include murder charges. In addition, there is the Geneva Convention which could subject soldiers to international sanctions. Can you explain why you believe " ...in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing"?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 10, 2015 13:24:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 10, 2015 13:30:30 GMT -5
Just in case you think my criticism of policemen is all about white policemen -- you're wrong. But they should have let him go -- he was robbing a Muslim business. rt.com/usa/248469-florida-shooting-mentally-ill/But then, the cop must have been a Muslim too.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 10, 2015 13:34:59 GMT -5
Just in case you think my criticism of policemen is all about white policemen -- you're wrong. But they should have let him go -- he was robbing a Muslim business. :) rt.com/usa/248469-florida-shooting-mentally-ill/But then, the cop must have been a Muslim too. ;) In case this was directed to me - I never mentioned race at all.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 10, 2015 13:52:18 GMT -5
It might be easier to address one point at a time. Perhaps you missed this: And being a police officer serves them better than when they were in the army -- in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing. Where do you come up with these things? Soldiers have to follow rules of engagement which specify quite clearly when they can and when they cannot open fire. Failing to follow those rules could result in a charge which could include murder charges. In addition, there is the Geneva Convention which could subject soldiers to international sanctions. Can you explain why you believe " ...in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing"? www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=youtu.be
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 10, 2015 16:53:46 GMT -5
It might be easier to address one point at a time. Perhaps you missed this: Where do you come up with these things? Soldiers have to follow rules of engagement which specify quite clearly when they can and when they cannot open fire. Failing to follow those rules could result in a charge which could include murder charges. In addition, there is the Geneva Convention which could subject soldiers to international sanctions. Can you explain why you believe " ...in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing"? www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=youtu.beThanks for that link Bob. I have no doubt that there were many such incidents. While atrocities have happened since the beginning of human warfare (perhaps before) this does not support your statement saying ...in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing anymore than the fact that at times you can drive way above the speed limit and not get fined supports the statement that drivers can drive as fast as they wish anywhere they wish. The fact is that soldiers are responsible for their actions and do have to answer for murders if it is determined that they did not follow the rules of engagement.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 10, 2015 19:35:26 GMT -5
Thanks for that link Bob. I have no doubt that there were many such incidents. While atrocities have happened since the beginning of human warfare (perhaps before) this does not support your statement saying ...in the army they never had to answer for killing the enemy no matter what the enemy was doing anymore than the fact that at times you can drive way above the speed limit and not get fined supports the statement that drivers can drive as fast as they wish anywhere they wish. The fact is that soldiers are responsible for their actions and do have to answer for murders if it is determined that they did not follow the rules of engagement. Oops, sorry. Wrong clip. That was the one where they shot friendlies, as well as the children, and laughed when they drove over the bodies in the street. And there were no consequences to the killers, and no apparent interest on the part of either the military or the civilian government to provide consequences. Maybe the rules of war don't apply to killing "friendlies" ? I'm imagining they treat the enemies more harshly, assuming they know the difference between their friends and their enemies. But probably not -- they didn't even know the difference between a camera and a gun. Oddly enough the majority of American military casualties in the Iraq War (according to Pentagon statistics) were from "friendly" fire. So much for the rules of war, huh. Maybe it would be an improvement if we taught our policemen the rules of war -- the guy in North Charleston may still be alive.
|
|