Police shootings at Dallas BLM protest.

[CharonY]

And that's the underlying issue here. If you have an open carry law, then that's at odds with the police shooting people with little provocation. If there is some standard for being afraid for your safety, you've legally changed that threshold.

 

So that raises the question, at what point can "I feel threatened" be used as a legal defense? Personally, I would feel unsafe with someone carrying an AR-15 nearby, but the law in Texas (and elsewhere) says that I'm not legally allowed to. The police can't be, either. Does the gun need to be pointing at someone before this kicks in?

 

And this is not only a theoretical question. In Ohio (which allows open carry afaik) a man was shot while holding a BB gun:

[dimreepr]

So that raises the question, at what point can "I feel threatened" be used as a legal defense?

 

 

This, it seems, is at the core of this question; a fear of the future is what seems to drive our society; individual and societal fear are mutually exclusive, individual fear helps to protect one but societal fear endangers all.

Edited July 11, 2016 by dimreepr

[DrmDoc]

 

And this is not only a theoretical question. In Ohio (which allows open carry afaik) a man was shot while holding a BB gun:

 

And 12 year old Tamir Rice as well. Parent shouldn't permit their children to think of guns in any form as toys.

[dimreepr]

 

And 12 year old Tamir Rice as well. Parent shouldn't permit their children to think of guns in any form as toys.

 

 

When I was a child a stick was a gun, how can a parent prevent that?

[DrmDoc]

 

 

When I was a child a stick was a gun, how can a parent prevent that?

 

Under what circumstance should any simulation of gunplay be considered benign where child's play is involved? If we want to change the consciousness of a nation and its passion for guns, we will have to be particularly intolerant of the perception of any gun representation as a toy and as part of child's play. If a parent sees something, that parent should say something.

[dimreepr]

When I was a child, my friends and I used a stick as a machine gun; I have yet to kill, shoot or even threaten anyone, with an actual gun.

But if that stick was taken, we'd just point our invisible stick and shout bang bang bang with just as much gusto.

 

Under what circumstance should any simulation of gunplay be considered benign where child's play is involved? If we want to change the consciousness of a nation and its passion for guns, we will have to be particularly intolerant of the perception of any gun representation as a toy and as part of child's play. If a parent sees something, that parent should say something.

 

 

Intolerance is a two way street, you don't have to like it but you do have to accept it.

Edited July 11, 2016 by dimreepr

[DrmDoc]

When I was a child, my friends and I used a stick as a machine gun; I have yet to shoot, kill or even threaten anyone, with an actual gun.

 

When I was a child of 6, I owned a BB gun, which I used to hunt squirrels. By my teens, I was using more mature weapons, shotguns mostly, to hunt larger game. I don't hunt now and have never allowed my children, who are now adults, to handle even toy guns because I felt that there was something inherently wrong with the indoctrinating effect of guns a harmless play things, which they are not. Perhaps our gun play in youth didn't convert us to violent psychopaths as adults; however, child's play, in my opinion, is a gateway for attitudes and behaviors we might accept or engage as adults. Like violent video game play, I think playing with representations of gun could have a desensitizing affect on subsequent attitudes and behaviors regarding real gun use. We could chose to indoctrinate our kids with a benign view of guns through toys and play or we could chose take some small step toward limiting the proliferation of guns and gun violence in our nation.

Edited July 11, 2016 by DrmDoc

[dimreepr]

 

When I was a child of 6, I owned a BB gun, which I used to hunt squirrels. By my teens, I was using more mature weapons, shotguns guns mostly, to hunt larger game. I don't hunt now and have never allowed my children, who are now adults, to handle even toy guns because I felt that there was something inherently wrong with the indoctrinating effect of guns a harmless play things, which they are not. Perhaps our gun play in youth didn't convert us to violent psychopaths as adults; however, child's play, in my opinion, is a gateway for attitudes and behaviors we might accept or engage as adults. Like violent video game play, I think playing with representations of gun could have a desensitizing affect on subsequent attitudes and behaviors regarding real gun use.

 

 

Children reflect their culture, you can't control that or force them to think as you do.

 

 

We could chose to indoctrinate our kids with a benign view of guns through toys and play or we could chose take small small step toward limiting the proliferations guns and gun violence.

 

 

 

My point is education not indoctrination.

[DrmDoc]

It seems this discussion has turned to guns in American yet again, which owners and advocates will not relinquish until they are "pried from their cold, dead hands" (Charlton Heston). However, what happened in Dallas sprang from a larger issue of social inequality in American, which may only be adequately addressed by acts of conscience rather than words of support here.

Edited July 11, 2016 by DrmDoc

[waitforufo]

Take the guns out of the equation and the social inequality can be simply ignored.

[ajb]

I do not think the "if blacks are afraid of the police than they should just do as they are told" argument is an effective one.

Of course not, and that is not really my argument here. The point is that if you really think that the people are out to shoot you then you would be wise to be extra careful. It is wrong, you should not have to think this etc. But right now every black kid in the US has to be told in school and at home to carefully comply with the instructions of a police officer. This, is by no means a fix - not even a bandaid.

 

 

However, what happened in Dallas sprang from a larger issue of social inequality in American, which may only be adequately addressed by acts of conscience rather than words of support here.

It is a much deeper issue that goes back a long way - for example your race can determine where you live, what school you go to, your local services and even the shops you go to.

 

The BBC wrote a report in this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35255835

 

It seems that guns are not the prime issue, but for sure they make a bad situation worse.

Edited July 12, 2016 by ajb

[Ten oz]

Of course not, and that is not really my argument here. The point is that if you really think that the people are out to shoot you then you would be wise to be extra careful. It is wrong, you should not have to think this etc. But right now every black kid in the US has to be told in school and at home to carefully comply with the instructions of a police officer. This, is by no means a fix - not even a bandaid.

We we subtract away all minorities killed by police the U.S. still has more people killed by police overall and per capita than the UK, Germany, France, and etc. The statistics do not lie. Police in this country kill citizens at a rate significantly higher than the rest of the western world. Teaching black children to be "extra careful" is not useful. It is akin to telling girls to not dress pretty if they fear being raped. It is absurd and does nothing to address the real problem.

[StringJunky]

It is akin to telling girls to not dress pretty if they fear being raped. It is absurd and does nothing to address the real problem.

I agree with the principle, in principle, but is it justifiable or ethical to ask girls to become potential martyrs for that principle, bearing in mind some will get attacked, or rather, more will be attacked if they dress such a way than if they don't? I'm butting up ideology against pragmatism; which to choose?

Edited July 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

We we subtract away all minorities killed by police the U.S. still has more people killed by police overall and per capita than the UK, Germany, France, and etc. The statistics do not lie. Police in this country kill citizens at a rate significantly higher than the rest of the western world. Teaching black children to be "extra careful" is not useful. It is akin to telling girls to not dress pretty if they fear being raped. It is absurd and does nothing to address the real problem.

 

That makes no sense. I cannot think of a single situation where telling someone to be careful in a risky situation is not useful. I'm sure I could come up with 10 ways in two minutes that would increase the likelihood of a black person getting home safe. You cannot ignore the reality of the situation just because you do not like it.

[Ten oz]

I agree with the principle, in principle, but is it justifiable or ethical to ask girls to become potential martyrs for that principle, bearing in mind some will get attacked, or rather, more will be attacked if they dress such a way than if they don't? I'm butting up ideology against pragmatism; which to choose?

In various countries in the Middle East women cover themselves completely from head to toe and guess what; they still get raped. Concessions to aggressors is not a solution.

[StringJunky]

In various countries in the Middle East women cover themselves completely from head to toe and guess what; they still get raped. Concessions to aggressors is not a solution.

You are muddying the discussion by referencing a culture that is polar to the Western one. They are a different kettle of fish.

Edited July 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

 

That makes no sense. I cannot think of a single situation where telling someone to be careful in a risky situation is not useful. I'm sure I could come up with 10 ways in two minutes that would increase the likelihood of a black person getting home safe. You cannot ignore the reality of the situation just because you do not like it.

And yet this isn't a black problem is it? As previously stated if we only look at the number of whites killed by police that number is still significantly higher overall and per capita than that of other western nations. So why are we focusing on the way black people bahave? Would a national movement aimed at making black child more careful lead to a per capita rate of police shooting that mirror the UK? In my opinion it is a distraction.

You are muddying the discussion by referencing a culture that is polar to the Western one. They are a different kettle of fish.

I disagree. We once enslaved people here too. Eventually people stood up and refused to behave. Many died but we are a better nation today. Telling peiople to adjust their behavior to accommodate aggressive acts that they should not have to accommodate is simply never the answer. If the property manager of the building I live in told me to be extra careful in the morning exiting the building because they had hired a new security guard and that security might shoot and kill me I would move and consider suing for any expenses the move cost me.

[zapatos]

And yet this isn't a black problem is it?

Huh? Of course it is. Why do you think Black Lives Matter was formed?

 

So why are we focusing on the way black people bahave?

Because this thread is about what happened at a BLM protest.

 

Would a national movement aimed at making black child more careful lead to a per capita rate of police shooting that mirror the UK? In my opinion it is a distraction.

Who cares if it mirror's the UK, as long as they are safer? Now THAT was a distraction.

If the property manager of the building I live in told me to be extra careful in the morning exiting the building because they had hired a new security guard and that security might shoot and kill me I would move...

But why should YOU have to modify your behavior? You should just keep doing things the same way.

[StringJunky]

I disagree. We once enslaved people here too. Eventually people stood up and refused to behave. Many died but we are a better nation today. Telling peiople to adjust their behavior to accommodate aggressive acts that they should not have to accommodate is simply never the answer. If the property manager of the building I live in told me to be extra careful in the morning exiting the building because they had hired a new security guard and that security might shoot and kill me I would move and consider suing for any expenses the move cost me.

OK, tell your teenage daughters they are allowed to wear mini-skirts with diaphanous tops when they go out because they have a principle to uphold. Picture a relevant scenario with a black person/police officer confrontation too. My point is one of trying to highlight the real life practical dilemma and not your principle which I agree with, in principle.

Edited July 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

Huh? Of course it is. Why do you think Black Lives Matter was formed?

 

Because this thread is about what happened at a BLM protest.

 

Who cares if it mirror's the UK, as long as they are safer? Now THAT was a distraction.

But why should YOU have to modify your behavior? You should just keep doing things the same way.

Blacks are killed at a higher rate but in general the rate for all Americans kill by police is much higher. Singling out one victimized demographic to change their behavior solves nothing. I think the objective BLM is to draw focus on the ones pulling the trigger which seems legitimate in my opinion. Police are professionals. They are paid above the per capita average generally, they are unionized, and receive regular organized training. Effecting change amongst them is the more logical course of action in my opinion.

 

You are right that I should not have to adjust me behavior. That is why I stated I would consider suing. I should not have to entertaining being extra careful because a security guard may shoot me. No one in this country should have to.

[zapatos]

Singling out one victimized demographic to change their behavior solves nothing.

Again, you are not making any sense. It makes them safer. I don't see how you can deny this.

You are right that I should not have to adjust me behavior.

Then why would you move? Isn't it so that you would be safer?

Sounds hypocritical to suggest blacks not modify their behavior due to it making no difference, but then to modify your behavior to be safer.

[Ten oz]

OK, tell your teenage daughters they are allowed to wear mini-skirts with diaphanous tops when they go out because they have a principle to uphold. Picture a relevant scenario with a black person/police officer confrontation too. My point is one of trying to highlight the real life practical conundrum and not your principle which I agree with, in principle.

Are min-skirts the issue? 1-5 women in this country say they have been sexually assualted at somepoint in their life. If we banned mim-skirts how much do you honestly think those numbers would change?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html?_r=0

 

Focusing more appeasing behavior from victims is never the answer. Millions of people in abusive (emotional or physical) relationships go home everyday with the intention to not upset the abuser. It never works. Tip toeing around abusive people is no way to live. Police should not beat up citizens, tase citizens, shoot citizens, kill citizens unless they absolutely have to in order to save their own life or the lives of others. That is what I believe is a better thing to focus on.

Again, you are not making any sense. It makes them safer. I don't see how you can deny this.

Then why would you move? Isn't it so that you would be safer?

Sounds hypocritical to suggest blacks not modify their behavior due to it making no difference, but then to modify your behavior to be safer.

I do not believe it makes them safer. Conceding ones rights when they should not have to an aggressive authority normally leads to having to concede more and more rights. You are assuming that once black children start behaving is whatever manner you are imagining they should that policing will change. I do not believe that.

[zapatos]

Focusing more appeasing behavior from victims is never the answer. It never works.

You are either being disingenuous or you have zero experience with the real world.

[ajb]

No one in this country should have to.

You are right, no one should have to... I think we all agree with that.

[swansont]

OK, tell your teenage daughters they are allowed to wear mini-skirts with diaphanous tops when they go out because they have a principle to uphold. Picture a relevant scenario with a black person/police officer confrontation too. My point is one of trying to highlight the real life practical dilemma and not your principle which I agree with, in principle.

 

 

The outfit is an excuse for victim-blaming. A huge problem here is that we have a culture in which men aren't taught about consent and told not to rape; i.e. accountability for their actions.

 

Victim-blaming is a large part of the police shooting issues we're discussing, too, as well as a culture of guns, and a lack of accountability for actions.