zapatos

When I was younger and dumber I had no idea what women and minorities had been putting up with their entire lives. I didn't see it or experience, and I certainly didn't participate in overt bias. I was therefore confident that it wasn't nearly as bad as many made it out to be. I was shocked when I finally understood how blacks are treated every day in the US. From being followed around in stores, to being ignored as if they are not there. And that's your vantage point. My point is that when one thinks they are right, there is nothing dismissive or assumptive about those statements. They are simply making a statement of fact (as they see it). It is very difficult to change someone's mind simply by using words, when that person already "knows" they are right.

Yours is a response I tend to see from conservatives. "I'm not racist, I just have an opposing viewpoint, and it's your fault we cannot talk because you keep yelling at me". Of course the liberal shouting at someone is convinced that person is indeed a racist. You say 'crying wolf'. I say 'hitting the nail on the head'. We all see things from our unique vantage point. In my mind the problem is not so much use of terminology or lack of dialogue. It is that people generally see themselves as clear thinkers who understand what is really going on, and are justified in their beliefs. In other words, everyone thinks they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

Fear is a good thing. The problem arises when we let fear make decisions for us, rather than using it to recognize a situation that requires especially vigilant thought. When you see the snake, don't just run and possibly injure yourself or fall off a cliff. Instead use your higher brain function to quickly decide upon a course of action. Easier said than done since fear arises from that lizard part of our brains, but we can train ourselves to do better. "Never take counsel of your fears." --Stonewall Jackson

I'm having a hard time believing this actually occurs. Presumably it would be the engineers doing the trash-talking. If so, do you really want to spend the rest of your life working with these people? I'm not sure you understand the role of government.

Burgess loves to read. That's how he would like to spend his life if he only had the time. He even has super thick Coke bottle eyeglasses. Can't remember the details, but some apocalypse causes the end of the world and only Burgess survives. He goes to the library and gathers all the books he's ever wanted to read, sorts them by category and the year going forward that he intends to read them. A life of reading bliss awaits him. He couldn't possibly be happier. Then he stumbles, his glasses fall off and shatter. Oops!

No

Actually I wasn't addressing this case in particular. I was responding to a post that made an observation about our overall system, and I was responding in kind. My follow up comments were meant to be about the overall system as well. If that's your objective then as I said, judge everyone under the same set of rules. And let's not stop with police vs civilian. Surgeons, accountants, lawyers and trash collectors should all have the same rules too.

Fine, have it your way. Hit someone in the head if they refuse to let you put cuffs on them, and we'll treat you the same way we treat a cop who does the same thing.

Yet you keep saying that they should both face the judge given the same circumstances. Fine, then make my second example (e.g. the cop shot a black man because of an unconscious and subtle change of perception) My point is that sometimes police are doing exactly the right thing when they shoot someone, and we shouldn't assert it has anything to do with race unless we have evidence it has something to do with race.

Then you should change the law, because right now the police are not required to face the 12 under all the same circumstances that a civilian must face the 12. Everyone does face jeopardy, it is just that jeopardy is different for different people. Read the regulations and laws. You don't seem to accept there are different laws and rules for different classes of people.

First of all, I was not talking about this case in particular, just in general as a response to dimreepr, Second, she was a police officer, not a civilian. You do not lose your authority as an officer when you go off duty.

I agree. Lack of fairness is widespread. Whites have it better than blacks. The rich have it better than the poor. The powerful have it better than the weak. A problem that arises when addressing those disparities though is that often times the same broad brush that is criticized for causing the disparities (e.g. police assuming blacks are reaching for a gun) is used to address the disparities (e.g. the cop shot a black man so he must be racist). While things may get better over time, I fear the problems will never go away. The rich & powerful have been abusing the poor & weak forever. I see nothing that tells me that will change.

The law gives police wide discretion on when to use force, which is very reasonable considering we hand them a gun and insert them into potentially dangerous situations. We train them then ask them to make judgement calls. The average citizen is not allowed a similar wide discretion regarding use of force. It is therefore not reasonable to judge all police actions by the standards that apply to you and me. I might not be allowed to shoot a man running away from me, but an officer is allowed to decide if that person is a danger to others, and therefore can be justified in shooting them in the back. Police should only face the 12 if they've violated police standards, not if they've violated civilian standards.

Sometimes it should. That's what makes the standard different.

I feel we should have a different standard for police, just as we have a different standards for youth, people in their homes vs those in public, people who are afraid, the military, etc. The problem from my perspective is that the the police standard is TOO different in many cases.

We must be the same age.

Har!

Whoa I guess if her father was my king, I'd say whatever he wanted to hear about his daughter. But damn...

Fun...

When I was very young, my dad replaced a step on our back porch, then nicely painted it. I noticed he left a phillips head screwdriver outside and out of curiosity I poked it into the step. Seeing what a neat imprint it made, I then proceeded to put a hundred or so additional indentations into the step. Sometimes the source of the behavior is just that it is fun from the perspective of the kid.

That's a pretty big presumption.

I agree completely with SJ and studiot. Diversion is one of your best allies. I put up as few limits as possible, because limits are a point of confrontation. The limits I used were primarily for safety and not annoying those around us. As far as corporal punishment, I never hit either of my children. Not even a slap on the wrist. I don't know if corporal punishment has any lasting long term affects on children. I just didn't do it because I felt I could find an alternative, and because it would have made me feel awful. I couldn't smack my kids any more than I could smack my wife.

Really? Now you are questioning our education levels and ability to consider your ideas? Sometimes when you find yourself in a hole, it is best to quit digging.

This is pretty much the definition of soap boxing. I've seen born again Christians preaching on street corners doing exactly that. The only thing missing was an actual soap box to stand on.

A term readily found by a Google search.