zapatos

Since the Brown shooting there were two instances of men pulling guns on police in St. Louis. In both cases the police killed the person who pulled the gun. I suspect that in those two instances that had the police not been prepared to use lethal force that they might very well be dead now. It is for that reason that I don't share your optimism that we would not see a lot of dead police if they are barred from using lethal force. I completely agree. Police should use the absolute minimal force necessary. They are policing their fellow citizens after all. They are not the military.

Is it your opinion that barring the use of lethal force by police in the US will not lead to a lot of dead police? Why?

Getting on the sidewalk when asked. Saying 'yes sir'. Not struggling. Not running. Not arguing. While I could be wrong, I don't think that Wilson saw Brown and decided before the confrontation began that he was going to kill him. Can you please tell me what those nations are and whether or not their populace is armed like they are in the US?

Good. I couldn't agree more. And in the case of Brown/Wilson, that is exactly what happened. But given the controversy of their decision that just highlights the fact that a system that pleases everyone is unlikely. I don't agree that it should be a requirement. I suspect that if police cannot use lethal force then we will end up with a lot of dead police. If you fear for your life and that is deemed a reasonable fear, then yes you may kill them. I don't think he said "equivalent". But yes, Brown also has some kind of responsibility to defuse the situation. What is bizarre to me is the number of people who absolve others of personal responsibility. Wilson may have been completely in the wrong and on his way to prison, and Brown completely in the right. but Brown is still dead. Whether or not he thought he should have been expected to act differently, it was in Brown's power to act in a way that would likely have resulted in him being alive today.

I have never challenged the direct connection between the two. I challenged your assertion that "They are protesting because here in the USA the police kill citizens at a substantially higher rate than the rest of the developed world." I don't think the protesters give a rat's ass what is happening in the rest of the developed world. I think they are worried about what is happening here. But I'm prepared to change my mind if you can provide some sort of citation. How does one prove frame of mind? Are you suggesting that I have to PROVE that I feared great bodily harm? How does one do that? Fine, then change that to "How am I supposed to know if you didn't really intend to 'choke me', or 'kick me into a bloody stump', or 'poke my eyes out', or 'take my gun and shoot me'?"

You are moving the goalposts. That is not what you said before. You are moving the goalposts. That is not what you said before. If this is what you meant then this is what you should have said. Don't criticize me for responding to the words you used instead of the words you meant to use. Everyone knows the protests are about more than those few people. Whoever said it was only about them? No one does. He was probably also justified in using deadly force. As you said it was a mistake. I imagine most people feel that way. And your right to continued existence does not trump my right to continued existence. If I fear you are about to kill me then I have the right to defend myself. If you aren't actually trying to kill me, then please don't do anything that could lead me to believe otherwise. It could lead to a deadly mistake. Of course it is. How am I supposed to know if you didn't really intend to pull the trigger? Am I supposed to put my life at risk because you didn't really intend to harm me? If you do something that looks to a reasonable person like a risk to life or limb, then you should expect that person to react as if that is really what you are intending to do.

While telling, statistics like that are not as useful as they could be without context. Given the right to keep and bear arms in the United States we should expect that deaths from police shootings would be greater than they are in a country which has stricter controls on gun ownership. I know it is hard to determine how much police violence on its citizens is race based, and frankly I'm not sure it even matters. The goal of the police should be to use the minimum force necessary to maintain order, and every case where force is used should be reviewed to determine if different tactics were appropriate or if the police acted appropriately. Of course that in itself would be a major undertaking. But if half the people blame the blacks and don't see that the system must make accommodations, and half the people blame the system and don't think blacks must make accommodations, then I'm afraid we'll never get anywhere. We'll be just like the Palestinians and the Jews, neither able to forget about the past long enough to achieve a mutually desirable outcome.

Well, as I was not one of those protesting around the country you are back down to 2. Assuming of course that you and Ten oz were out there protesting. But to answer your question, I don't think any of the people protesting need be aware of the relative difference to move forward. But Ten oz made a claim as to why they were out there and I find his assertion to be highly questionable, hence my request for evidence. No need to be any less demanding of accurate assertions just because we are on a political thread.

What do you think should be the minimum justification for a shooting by police? I'd like to see some evidence that people are even aware of the rate at which police shoot people in other developed countries.

Who? Can you be specific?

Exactly.

Agreed. It shows that people are discriminated against due to racism. But it does not show that personal responsibility is not a factor in some person's or some group's circumstances. I'd go so far as to say that the majority of people; you, me, or anyone else, could improve our circumstances if we worked harder.

Has anyone posting here done that? Unless you have shown that personal responsibility is not a factor then why is it unreasonable to discuss it?

Wow. Where to begin...

If I had to guess that sounds the most plausible to me. Followed by escalation with neither one backing down. Both a couple of dumb asses in my opinion. Wilson for not being more professional and Brown for arguing with someone carrying a gun. Finally ending in a tragedy that never had to happen.

If you don't know then why did you bring it up? If you are using it to support your argument then the onus is on you to explain it. Asking me to support your argument for you is ridiculous. As it is you appear to just have thrown a red herring out there in the hopes that a generic 'Republicans are Bad' post would somehow prove blacks in Ferguson are somehow unable to fully exercise their right to vote. Adding to that the insulting nature of this latest post is really too much. I don't believe I've earned it.

Okay, then back to my original questions: Are these undefined efforts in Missouri to restrict voter fraud the reason Ferguson has white leadership? Are they justification for people not taking personal responsibility? Did they cause confusion on the part of black voters so that they now do not know how to cast a ballot? How many legitimate voters will be disenfranchised if Missouri passes their proposed laws.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Does what you said have anything to do with the current line of discussion we are following or was it more of a random post on voting rights?

Why did you bring this up? Are these undefined efforts in Missouri to restrict voter fraud the reason Ferguson has white leadership? Are they justification for people not taking personal responsibility? Did they cause confusion on the part of black voters so that they now do not know how to cast a ballot? How many legitimate voters will be disenfranchised if Missouri passes their proposed laws. I get the same feeling of biased debate from the left as I get from the right. The only difference is that here no one calls me names.

I don't understand how you think starting a multinational corporation is in any way similar. That seems to be a ridiculous comparison. You could figure out how to vote by stopping random people in the street. Black people are neither children nor mentally defective.

We are not talking about them becoming someone they aren't. We are talking about someone walking down the street and casting a ballot. People vote every year. They hear about it on the news. A black President was elected. This is not some monumental shift in their paradigm. Your expectations of people are too low.

So you think the personal responsibility of voting is on a par with developing a company like Microsoft? I would have put it on a par with going grocery shopping. Just as hard and takes about the same amount of time. You are exactly the kind of person I was talking about in my previous post. I do not need to understand how hard it was for blacks to vote in the '60s to expect that 50 years later they either manage to get to the polls or not complain who their representatives are. It's not hard to vote. In the 2012 Presidential election a higher percentage of blacks voted than did whites.

I did acknowledge it. I said "exactly the same". In my previous post I acknowledged government responsibility, but I also said that individuals have responsibilities. This is no different. It is you who is minimizing the 'personal responsibility' side of the equation. You just jumped into another example that focused on government responsibility. I agree with much of it. I agree, but probably not for the reason you think it is true. If someone has the right to vote, the ability to vote, and chooses not to vote, they are choosing to not be part of the team. I can't make them be team players. That is part of their responsibility. Never said they did. The problem I find with this type of issue is that it carries a lot of emotion with it. People have a hard time seeing things from the perspective of others. This site tends to lean liberal. If things are bad for blacks it is because we have mistreated them and it is our job to fix it for them. Other sites tend to lean conservative. If things are bad for blacks it is because they take no personal responsibility to get a job, vote, etc. From my perspective it a combination of the two. Government and individuals need to share the responsibility. It may have been institutionally hard for blacks to vote in the past due to their race, but when it comes to voting now their race rarely comes into play. If you can be organized enough to plan protests and have the time to march and rally, then you are capable of voting too. If you are not able to vote because the system is getting in your way, then I am onboard and it is 'our' responsibility to fix that. But if you are able to vote but choose not to, then while you may have my sympathy that we put you in a lower socio-economic tier, I don't have much sympathy for the fact that your elected officials are still predominately white in your predominately black community. On liberal sites the conservatives think I am on their side. On the conservative sites the liberals think I am on their side. But I think I am on the side of the centrists.

Exactly the same. All the government regulation in the world means nothing if you don't take on the personal responsibility that comes with driving a car. Don't drive 100 mph then get mad at me when you get hurt in an accident. I refuse to accept responsibility for you if you won't accept responsibility for yourself.

Fundamental difference of opinion I guess. I don't think it is the government's responsibility to enforce personal behavior. I expect the government to make it fair. If someone has the right to vote, the ability to vote, and chooses not to vote, that is their problem, not the government's. Don't expect the government to make sure you are fairly represented if you couldn't be bothered to go to the polls yourself.