Ten oz

Diversity is a huge benefit. Humans sharing knowledge is what has propelled our understand of science and the world. It is not a coincidence that once transportation allowed more cultures to engage each other the industrial revolution exploded. No one culture is unique responsible for knowledge. Isolated nations are nations that far more often than not are behind in technology, healthcare, services, and etc. More specifically directed at the U.S., during segregation the South was not a industry leader or econimic driver for the nation. The opposite is true. California and New York drove industry and lead the coiuntry. They were and are two of the most diverse states in the country. Foriegn investment, immigrant workers, international joint projects, and etc only increases technology and education. It is all a net positive. Those who imply otherwise and merely opposing progress in favor of their own biases.

The Innocence Project alone has help exonerate 342 people. So we know for a fact innocent people go to prison. A life sentence can be overturned. A innocent person serving life in prison can be released when exonerated. An executed person cannot be brought back to life when exonerated.

Expecting anyone to given up their firearms is not a good place to start. Tying the gun discussion back to BLM and police violence no meaningful voices are calling for police officers to no have guns. BLM is not calling for any specific gun measures. Rather the debate if about the frivilous way formalities are used to justify killing people. A police officer shouts orders to a citizen who is unarmed and innocent of a crime and any small disobedience even if done out of confusion becomes justification for an office to use deadly force. That is the problem. Such formalities have been extend include civilian on civilian cases. George Zimmerman was armed, took notice of an unarmed Trayvon Martin, got out of his vehicle armed with the intention to confront, then after killing Trayvon the formality of not know for sure who instigated their dispute justified Zimmerman killing Trayvon. A teenage boy walking around on the phone in his own nieghborhood. It was easier for a jury to accept that Trayvon Martin may have spontaneously decided to try and kill Zimmerman for no known reason than to acknowledge that it is more logical that exiting a vehicle armed with the intention to confront a stranger is a reckless and dangerous action which resulted in Trayvon Martins death. We don't need to start are people giving up guns. That may be too many steps at once. A good start is from us to get to a place where we stop defending those who use guns against unarmed people with petty debates about self defense.

This logic gets applied to vehicles too. A lot of people drive gaint SUVs and trucks and as a result many other people don't feel safe driving smaller vehicle which perpetuates more people by large SUVs and truck. Meanwhile larger heavier vehicles are actually more difficult to drive and cause more damage when involved in accidents.

I think you make a good point. In my opinion justice is mischaracterized when attached to punitive outcomes. Synonyms for justices are: justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, evenhandedness, impartiality, honesty, morals, and etc. Justice is proactive and not reactive. Justice is what our Gov't seeks to maintain; fair play for us all. That is why it says "serve and protect" on the side of police cars. Justice is a proactive thing that serves and protects society. Synonyms for revenge are: vengeance, retribution, retaliation, reprisal, requital,redress, and etc. People in our society generally understand that revenge is a bad thing so they replace the word revenge with the word justice in an attempt to make it more palatable.

Sexual predators are called so because they behave as predators behave. They assualt the weak and volnerable. Pimps don't exploit healthy women with strong supportive families. Child molesters aren't able to pray upon child that communicate openly with their parents. Your notion that the how one dresses is or can be a determining factor with regards to rape is simply wrong. Predators look for weakness not sex appeal. By your bikinis logic simply being more attractive or having naturally larger breast would increase ones chances of being raped. That isn't how it works. Predators seek target that they can rape and get away with it. If a girl covers herself from head to toe but has a bad relationship with her family and is thought by some to be untrustworthy that girl is a much more volnerable target than a girl in a bikini that has a healthy relationship with her family and is well regarded by others. BLM operates on two assumption: Police violence against citizens in this country is far too common and that blacks receive worse treatment. The case you brought up (Michael Brown) isn't the best example but it isn't the only one BLM discusses. The Brown case is a reasonable example of how frivolous the life of suspects are treated by police and society at large. Simply saying Brown did something wrong has been all they evidence needed to justify the actions of the officer. Brown's life is so valueless in the eyes of many that any legal formality to explain why shooting him at distance was justified is accepted and rock solid proof Brown had to die. Meanwhile at the other information we know is disregarded. We know there were nurmerous racist emails circulating within the department. We also know the officer who killed Brown had by lay off from another department that was disbanned after it was determined to be mistreated people based on race. It is also laughable that the officer literally claimed that he looked into Brown's eyes and saw a demon. Obvilously there was a lot of history in Ferguson and many strained feelings. In my opinion it is not accurate to dismiss the whole thing with legal formalities. Someone died and perhaps they didn't need to. It is a very big deal.

We entrust of govt to exercise t for us. I don't agree with that. I think it is more about is all agreeing and holding ourselves to one standard and the govt enforces that standard. But for argument sake I will accept your govt is entrust to enforce for us. That still doesn't explain why the govt gets to do what us as individuals cannot. When parents entrust daycare centers to watch their children (huge responsibility) those centers must follow the same standards of behavior as everyone else. Merely representing others or a larger groups doesn't provide them cover to alter standards.

Each person knows to a person individually that killing is wrong. Every person knows that they cannot go out and kill. Those who do anyway understand they are basically at odds with the world. Only in the context of a group does killing start to become an option. Like minded people come together in an echo chamber of ideas and agree to kill. One man or women kills based on their preferences and they are just murderers. When a group kills they are soldiers or a movement. Many things in society are this way. When a person shoplifts they are just a thief. When a bank exploits long groups of people taking their savings it is just business. If a fan at a football game punches another fan he gets arrested for assault. When the players on the field do the same no happens. If I kill someone for any reason other than self defense it is wrong. We all agree. Why does the Govt get a separate standard?

In many areas of the country speeding tickets are just mailed to people. They take a pic of the plate and just send the fine. No interaction with police at all. So the question in my opinion is why she was resisting but rather why did the office need to touch her in the first place. If I touched someone that didn't want to be touched and they responded by slapping me in the face that would be a perfectly acceptable response by that person. Yet with the police everyone is expected to go limp and allow whatever for even common infractions like speeding. It isn't right.

@ DrmDoc, the police officer claims to have been aiming for the patient. As if that makes it excusable. This case is a prime example of how bad the problem is. A therapist had to take a bullet trying to keep the police from killing a disabled person who posed no threat and was not mentally capable of following their instructions. The bar needs to be raised. The follow my instructions perfectly or risk death approach is not working. People mishear instructions, get confused, have disabilities, language barriers, and etc.

NWA's F the police track came in in 1988 I believe. Ice T had a track called Cop Killer in 1992. LA also experienced rioting in 1992 following the Rodney King verdict. Much of what we are experiencing today has been happening for a very long time. Each new generation experiences if differently and in turn the media keeps representing it as new. It isn't In my opinion Rap music expressing agression toward police, the LA riots, and etc actually helped get the Federal Assualt Weapons ban passed in 1994. Weapons like AK-47s and TEC-9s were often cited by name in the rap lyrics of groups like NWA. Perhaps groups like BLM and the concerns over tensions between minority communities and police will lead to action on gun laws again. It is very troubling though that action when race is involved often seems more likely than when considering other factors. We have have college shootings, grade school shootings, we had a congress women shot, police murdered, and etc but those things haven't been enough to move the needle. It seems that having a good ol fashion race debate goes further to get guns addressed than most other things may be able to.

I do not understand your first question. The Constitution is a legal structure but doesn't necessarily outline how law is to be administered on citizens locally. For example if a city chooses they can mount cameras at intersection and punitively fine citizens who violate law however other cities may just choose to employ a safety patrol person to monitor traffic while others still may just choose to do nothing. The Constitution mostly limits the punitive authority of the goverment rather than empowers it. The government can't punitively take my land, deny me a voice, deny me all the guns I want (sadly), and etc, etc, etc. I disagree about that there is a "religous nature" to the Constitution. Many foundering fathers were atheist. The wording reflects the popular language of their time. I know athiests today who still say things like "god bless you", "thank the lord", "god given talent", "god rest their soul" and etc. So I do not think it is accurate to say the Constitution was particularly religious. They used the language that was most accommodating to the general public at the time. Sort of like when Trump says "no one loves the bible me than me". Non-punitive parenting, first I will say that how parents, spouses, siblings, etc behave amongst themselves and How they manage their private relationships is very different from how I believe the Gov't should be interacting with its citizens. I have a say in how my gov't behaves. I don't have a say in your personal affairs. And that is how it should be. That said I think millions of families in this countries are broken and have dissolved relations specifically because of punitive parenting. The more a parent most spank, yell at, ground, and etc a child the worse that parent child relationship is. I know many would argue that I am wrong. Many would argue that sometimes kids simply most be hit or what not. I simply do not see it. Anecdotally; many people have serious issues with their parents far fewer have any issues with there grandparents. Even people raised by their grandparents. Perhap old people simply don't have the energy required to get worked up and scream, perhaps on average older people work less so they are less distracted, perhaps they learned from earlier parenting mistakes, and etc but most people that I know general have nothing but sugar and spice memories of grandparents. Myself included. I spent summers with my grandmother. A full summer is long enough to be bad or wear down nerves. I do not recall a single time my grandmother every scolded me, hit me, or anything. Obviously she must of. No way she didn't have to once. Yet I don't recall a single time we were ever at odds. Whatever she did was subtle enough to not have left a trace. Meanwhile my parents, I don't recall a single week I there wasn't multi punitive actions taken against me. Statiscally states where higher percentages of parents report hitting their kids generally have worse overall societal outcomes. We are know the basic numbers. That most prison inmates, abusive spouses, cruel bosses, and etc were abused as children. And I understand that you did not specifically mention abuse or parents hitting children. My point is simply the more a parent uses punitive parenting the worse it is in my opinion. I apply that to most relationships. I do not do punitive things to my wife when she upsets me. Rather we discuss things until I am blue in the face and want to jump off the roof. ; )

Exactly, I don't want my Gov't "punishing" its citizens. I want my gov't protecting citizens. We should be locking people up when they are dangerous to protect society from them. Punishment is not a business I think the Gov't needs to be in.

Last Resort - A final course of action, used only when all else has failed http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/last-resort Punishment - The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/punishment The Death Penalty is not a last resort. It is retribution for an offense. Perhap you are okay with that. Perhap you think the gov't should kill as retribution. If so than argue that point. However the death penalty is not a last resort. It is not used only when all else have failed. Whether or not life in prison is worse is relative. For me it is about what the criminal justice system is for and what I believe my gov't should or should not be in the business of doing. Retribution is not what I believe our criminal justice system should be used for. "Protect and Defend",& "Serve and Protect" are common law enforcment slogans. "Avenge and Punish" is not a slogan I learned growing up.

Everyone, of course not. But the type of examples we set and the type of behaviors we justify do matter.

If we look at violence in overall in countries without the death penalty and tha look at violence in countries with the death penalty what would be the average trend? Perhaps promoting that killing people is the right course of action if that person(s) deserved it isn't a good attitude to promote. Gavin Long thought police officers deserved to die in Baton Rouge. He was wrong but stands as an example of how everyone has their own definitions for who deserves what. In my opinion it is best for the Gov't to stay out of that business. Gov't should be using death as a last resort and never as a preferred option. If for no other reason than to set the bar high for society.

Not all species kill.

Eye for an eye works both ways. Every individuals desire to kill for punitive purposes validates killing as an appropriate punitive response. Based on ones beliefs honor killing women is an appropriate punitive response. Sure, we have higher standards (realitive to our own values) but punitive killing is punitive killing.

Too many guns is an obvious problem. They multiply the easy at which negative outcomes can be realized. I feel the media has some culpability too for exploiting fears and infaming passions in trade for ratings. These recent killings are very sad. Unfortunately we aren't able to agree that all killing is sad. I have no reservations saying that the Police in Baton Rouge did not deserve to die, that the police in Dallas did not deserve to die, that no police in any U.S. city deserves to die. Unfortunately we hesitate to say the same the vice versa and that hesitation contributes to tensions, fear, animosity, and other negative feelings that sick/dangerous individuals manifest into violence. Would a more universal rejection of violence broadly reduce violent atcs considerably; maybe, maybe not. I certianly don't see how it could possibly make anything worse.

When is this ever not the case?

I had highlighed arc's comments in bold. My post primarily was with regards to his 30yrs reference. I included yours to piggy back on comments like ""our nation appears to be approaching a crisis but it is not one that we didn't similarly experience during the protests of the 1960s". While what we see today does seem bad is clearly isn't worse. I would argue that is is better. Statistically it is provably better. As for the current climate giving police a reason for fear you listed "current protests" and "increasing hostility" towards police. I assume comments like those to mostly be in reference to Black Lives Matters. Just last year the Dallas police headquaters was attacked by a man in an Armored van. Snipers were able to kill him. Police found 4 bags of explosives around Dallas headquaters.The attacker was James Boulware a white male upset at police over his own legal situation. In Las Vegas 2014 militia advocates in the area for the Bundy ranch standoff targeted police in an attack at a pizza shop next to Walmart and killed 2 officers. I mention those 2 cases because they are well known but there are many others. The politics of race and our capitalist media's ability to profit off race doesn't always lead to an accurate picture being painted. The police killed in Las Vagas didn't lead to a national discussion about hostility towards police. Yet militia groups in this nation have sizable numbers. The armed occupation of the Malheur wildlife refugee at the beginning of the year was another dangerous protest by related militia groups. Yet when attempting to justify police fear we often find ourselves debating race. Have groups ike BLM actually been more substantial? We have mass shooting in this country seemingly every month. I recall during the Ferguson protests media commonly covered hearsay reports of gunshots being heard or violence directed toward police. Watching the news it appeared to be riot conditions night after night. From time to time a camera man would accidentally pan to far and we'd get a glimpse of other camera men and news vans. They were lining the streets far as the eye could see. Some nights between camera men, sound guys, hair & make up, reporters, and etc there was more media on the street than protesters. A camera for almost every protester. This sort of inflation of reality is nothing new. After Katrina the media reported that roving gangs were murdering people in the superdome. The truth; not one person was murdered in the superdome. Recscue helicopters were grounded after reports they were shot at. The post katrina congressional investigation and the Coast Guard's post Katrina investigation bith showed no there was no evidence helicopters were fired on. False reports of violence slowed our response and worsened the situation. So when you say Dallas and BLM may justify extra fear despite what the statistics suggest I recommend caution. As mentioned in an earlier post in isolation anything can seem significant. In my opinion looking at the actually numbers is the best method of determining what is actually significant.

30 ago was 1986, population of 240 million. That year 179 police officers were killed in the line of duty. Last year in 2015, population of 318 million, 123 police officers were killed. 30 years before 1986 was 1956. In 1956 the population 168 million and 108 police officers were killed in the line of duty. If we look at the decade of the 1980's 1911 police officers were killed. An average of 191 per year. If we look at the last 10yrs (06'-15') 1436 police officers were killed. An average of 144 per year. In the 1950's with a population of about half today's size 1195 police officers were killed in the line of duty An average of 119 a year. http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html I present the numbers to illustrate that police today are not being killed at greater rates, Rather the opposite is true. A police officer today is less likely to be killied than 30yrs ago. Why that is can be debated: body armour, training, medical response, etc. However the numbers I provided also correspond with lower levels of crime in society as a whole. The average murder rate in the U.S.through the 1980's was 8.7. The murder have been below 5 every year since 2010 and below 6 since 2000. Average forcible rape rate was 36.6 through the 1980's and has been at 27 of below every year since 2010. So not only are less police being killed but crime in general is down. These number would imply that the extra fear you describe that police feel is not rational. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm Despite decreases in crime and the number of police killed the number of police involved in justifiable homicide cases appear to be up since 2000; at least per the FBI count as I am sure you are aware we do not actually have a national tracking system local department report numbers voluntarily. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/08/15/how-the-number-of-justified-police-homicides-has-changed-since-the-1990s/

Guns are a huge part of the problem. You are correct. My point about safer police cars was to sarcastically point out how poorly we evaluate risk in this country. Drinving is the most dangerous thing most people in the U.S. do including the majority of gun owners yet millions get their panties in a bunch about needing weapons in their homes to protect their families. In reality a top safety rated car would provide a family better protection. It is a insestuous relationship. Soceity loves guns so police have to worry about people with guns because there are so many guns but at the same time because everyone loves guns hyper focusing on guns become the popular training focus for police partly because there is a need but also because that is simply what some want to focus on. The cool factor of being tactical is a real thing. Some people go into law enforcement wanting to be armed because they think it is cool. And I do not mean that as an insult. People who pursue any career often focus on the cool factors that may be provided. Kids don't dream of being fire fighters because that want to maintenance hoses and wash fire trucks all day. The imagine fighting fires: kicking down doors, saving babies, and etc. Equally people don't dream of being police officers because they want to issue parking tickets and spend their weekends in traffic court. They imagine chasing people down, shooting bad guys, and etc. Those desires do shape the way the train. As previously mentioned I also think so many police not living in the communities they police matters too. I feel a lot more comfortable in my own community than I do outside of it. Even when I have lived in communities that statistically had high rates of crime I still felt more comfortable being in my own community than in other ones. That is just natural. Being part of a community provided a sense of comfort. It speaks to the unease many police officers report to work with every day that so many choose to live an hour away and commute in.

It is strange that this doesn't go without saying. Killing people should be reserved for situations where no other choice can equally ensure safety.

I agree. There obviously must be a training component involved. People keep pointing to race but in my opinion race merely serves as cover here. By viewing this issue through a filter of race it allows those who don't feel personally impacted or compelled by race to ignore it. The issue goes beyond race though. For example Idaho has 1.6 million people and is 94% white. Police have killed 48 people since 2000. That is more than the UK which has a population of 64 million and is more racially diverse. That is the magnitude of this. 48 killed in Idaho since 2000 - http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/watchdog/article48289280.html Being a police officer is a dangerous job. Getting home safely is very important. Per 100,000 Loggers have that most dangerous job in the country with 110 deaths. Other dangerous jobs per 100k: Fishers 80, roofers 47, Iron workers 25, Electricians 19, taxi drivers 18, and etc. Being a police officer is the 15th most dangerous with 14 deaths per 100k. http://time.com/4326676/dangerous-jobs-america/ While every dangerous job in the country take precautions to ensure safety only police are killing people. Taxi driver is a more dangerous job and taxi drivers are not killing thousands of people a year. Of course taxi drivers and police officers face different risks however traffic accidents is the leading cause of in the line of duty deaths for both police officers and taxi drivers. So maybe more energy should go towards making safer police cars. "Seventy-three law enforcement officers died in traffic-related incidents in 2010. These LOD deaths represented a 37 percent increase from the year before. Although the 2010 totals were a significant increase from 2009 and they approached the record high of 84 officers killed in traffic-related incidents in 2007, they do not, unfortunately, represent an anomaly. For the 13th straight year, traffic-related incidents were the leading cause of LOD deaths." http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=2422&issue_id=72011