Police shootings at Dallas BLM protest.

[zapatos]

You are assuming that once black children start behaving is whatever manner you are imagining they should that policing will change.

 

No, I'm not. I've made no statements about policing.

[ajb]

Maybe off topic, but I just read about a shooting in the UK --- http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-36767865

[StringJunky]

 

 

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.

Yes, there are broad parallels between the two scenarios. My point was: should people respond defensively in a passive way until the root cause has been dealt with societally or take the risk of being attacked, shot etc whilst it happens?

[Ten oz]

Yes, there are broad parallels between the two scenarios. My point was: should people respond defensively in a passive way until the root cause has been dealt with societally or take the risk of being attacked, shot etc whilst it happens?

So maybe Rosa Parks should have just moved to the back of the bus until the root cause (segregation) had been dealt with? If everyone lays passive who will deal with the problem? What was segregation other than a state sponsored requirment that blacks behavior with additional care for the needs of whites? Now we are arguing that blacks should self impose additional behavior requirements on themselves to avoid being killed by police.

[StringJunky]

So maybe Rosa Parks should have just moved to the back of the bus until the root cause (segregation) had been dealt with? If everyone lays passive who will deal with the problem? What was segregation other than a state sponsored requirment that blacks behavior with additional care for the needs of whites? Now we are arguing that blacks should self impose additional behavior requirements on themselves to avoid being killed by police.

Rosa Parks made a personal choice to potentially become a martyr, and I bow with admiration to people like her, but not everybody is prepared to make such potential sacrifice of themselves. Do we have the right, as elders, to tell the younger ones it is beholden upon them to potentially sacrifice themselves in order to pursue a principle?

[ajb]

So maybe Rosa Parks should have just moved to the back of the bus until the root cause (segregation) had been dealt with?

Was her life in danger? Either way she took the risk for a meaningful cause.

 

Now we are arguing that blacks should self impose additional behavior requirements on themselves to avoid being killed by police.

'Should' is the problem here. No one thinks they should - just the harsh reality right now is that some people may need to be more careful when dealing with the US police than others. That sucks, it is unfair and wrong. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

 

And of course, it is not the root problem. It is much wider than just the police - it is an issue across US society. Segregation is still in force in the US, this is the biggest problem.

[Endy0816]

Armed private sector security shootings are fairly common. Investigated by the cops so you can imagine how that tends to go...

 

I think the point is to look out for yourself while not giving into the fear. You can modify your behavior while attempting to get others to modified theirs.

[Ten oz]

Was her life in danger? Either way she took the risk for a meaningful cause..

She was arrested. She also became the face of a movement that saw many of it participants killed.

[ajb]

Armed private sector security shootings are fairly common. Investigated by the cops so you can imagine how that tends to go...

I guess this is another related issue to look at - it is related to gun issue in the US.

[Ten oz]

'Should' is the problem here. No one thinks they should - just the harsh reality right now is that some people may need to be more careful when dealing with the US police than others. That sucks, it is unfair and wrong. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

 

And of course, it is not the root problem. It is much wider than just the police - it is an issue across US society. Segregation is still in force in the US, this is the biggest problem.

Not a huge difference between saying someone should do something vs "may need to be more careful when' doing something.

[ajb]

She was arrested.

Which she knew full well would happen. She took the risk for a greater good.

 

She also became the face of a movement that saw many of it participants killed.

We all know this... but it is besides the point.

 

All that some of us have said is that a measure that individuals can take today is to be extra careful when dealing with the police. Not that they should have to do that, but it could save their lives. If they want to risk getting shot for some higher goal then so be it. Only they can make that choice.

[Ten oz]

Rosa Parks made a personal choice to potentially become a martyr, and I bow with admiration to people like her, but not everybody is prepared to make such potential sacrifice of themselves. Do we have the right, as elders, to tell the younger ones it is beholden upon them to potentially sacrifice themselves in order to pursue a principle?

More people like her, willing to stand against what is wrong, is superior to asking a generation of young people to accomodate the fears and biases of an overly aggressive police force.

 

If not for BLM, if not for people refusing to be passive, would we even be having this conversation?

[StringJunky]

Not a huge difference between saying someone should do something vs "may need to be more careful when' doing something.

But your posts appeared strongly biased towards the former and there is a clear distinction between the two.

 

All that some of us have said is that a measure that individuals can take today is to be extra careful when dealing with the police. Not that they should have to do that, but it could save their lives. If they want to risk getting shot for some higher goal then so be it. Only they can make that choice.

Indeed and that's what Rosa Parks did.

Edited July 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

Which she knew full well would happen. She took the risk for a greater good.

 

 

We all know this... but it is besides the point.

 

All that some of us have said is that a measure that individuals can take today is to be extra careful when dealing with the police. Not that they should have to do that, but it could save their lives. If they want to risk getting shot for some higher goal then so be it. Only they can make that choice.

A more effective way to save lives would be to adjust the way we training police officers and the degree to which we hold them accountable.

[StringJunky]

More people like her, willing to stand against what is wrong, is superior to asking a generation of young people to accomodate the fears and biases of an overly aggressive police force.

In principle...

[ajb]

More people like her, willing to stand against what is wrong, is superior to asking a generation of young people to accomodate the fears and biases of an overly aggressive police force.

You are missunderstanding. Nobody has said that nothing needs to be done. Nobody had said that people should accomodate fears and biases. Nobody has has said that people should tolerate police killings and so on.

[Ten oz]

Indeed and that's what Rosa Parks did.

But you don't recommend others do? Rather you say they "may need to be more careful when".

[ajb]

 

 

A more effective way to save lives would be to adjust the way we training police officers and the degree to which we hold them accountable.

Agreed... nobody has said it is all one sided or that the police do not need to look at themselves.

[Ten oz]

You are missunderstanding. Nobody has said that nothing needs to be done. Nobody had said that people should accomodate fears and biases. Nobody has has said that people should tolerate police killings and so on.

But what is being said is that people, specifically black youths, "may need to be more careful when". Being careful in general applied to anything always seems like a good idea. But ultimately there are expectations people in society should have and not having to fear being killed in one of them. If I do not need to be "more careful" than I will not ask, recommend, suggest, imply, or etc that other may need to.

[StringJunky]

But you don't recommend others do? Rather you say they "may need to be more careful when".

No, I don't "recommend" it because it might cost someone their life; it's their choice. That would be akin to a mullah encouraging young muslims to blow themselves up in the name of Allah. Thinking of doing something and actually doing it are very different things; only the person doing it can make such a decision. It's easy to chat about principles on the internet but I'm also being mindful of the reality in upholding such things.

Edited July 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[ajb]

But what is being said is that people, specifically black youths, "may need to be more careful when".

And you disagree?

 

But ultimately there are expectations people in society should have and not having to fear being killed in one of them.

Which is what I have said in this thread earlier. Nobody should be in fear for their lives when dealing with an officer of the law - but it seems that some people are and maybe for good reason.

 

 

 

If I do not need to be "more careful" than I will not ask, recommend, suggest, imply, or etc that other may need to.

I don't understand what you are really arguing here. I understand that in principle all peoples should be treated the same - but that is not what we are seeing.

 

 

------------------------------

There is a BBC report on 'Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men'. That report presents he finding from the study that I spoke of way back in this thread. It is interesting reading.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32740523

Edited July 12, 2016 by ajb

[swansont]

Yes, there are broad parallels between the two scenarios. My point was: should people respond defensively in a passive way until the root cause has been dealt with societally or take the risk of being attacked, shot etc whilst it happens?

 

 

 

It's not a simple issue. There are a lot of activities where you can reduce risk. I know that there are parts of the city where I should not go or risk being mugged, so I don't go there. I don't defiantly go there and complain about the injustice after losing my wallet. Crime is a reality of the world. It's not going away.

 

So from that point of view I agree that some amount if risk mitigation is prudent. However, the difference is that society makes an effort to reduce crime; everybody accepts that mugging is wrong. If muggers are caught, they are tried and convicted. Nobody is covering for them. When it comes to sexual assault and BLM issues, someone is covering for the perpetrators. We have rapists and their apologists who whine about the perpetrators' lives being ruined by their convictions. We have police who are found not guilty of some pretty heinous things under cover of police immunity and/or the timidness of a justice system when it comes to their own members.

 

We also have a societal bias in how this all plays out in the media. What kind of picture is included in the story, for victims and perpetrators alike, when the involved person is black, vs being white? Do we get the yearbook picture, or mug shot (or other unflattering candid picture)? What about the supplemental narrative? Do we hear about their past troubles or their future potential? What does that do in regard to reinforcing stereotypes?

[StringJunky]

There is BBC report on 'Why do US police keep killing unarmed black men'. That report presents he finding from the study that I spoke of way back in this thread. It is interesting reading.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32740523

From your link:

 

 

Seth Stoughton: 'Warrior police' culture endangers civilians'

 

Former policeman Seth Stoughton is now a law professor at the University of South Carolina.

"The first rule of law enforcement is to go home at the end of your shift. The key principle is officer survival. That's what all training is designed to promote. But it ends up endangering civilians rather than preserving their safety.

"The warrior culture - the belief that police officers are soldiers engaged in battle with the criminal element - that has contributed to some shootings that were most likely avoidable.

"It starts in police recruitment videos that show officers shooting rifles, strapping on hard body armour, using force. That attracts a particular type of candidate, and the Police Academy further entrenches this.

"It teaches officers to be afraid by telling them that policing is an incredibly dangerous profession.

"Officers are trained to view every encounter as a potential deadly force incident:......"

In Reuters "Editor's Images of the day" today is a picture that encapsulates perfectly, what the above quoted piece is talking about is partly wrong with the US police force. I find the image poignant and very, very sad that this is modern America. The overkill here is unbelievable:

 

http://uk.reuters.com/news/picture/editors-choice?articleId=UKRTSHD37

 

 

 

It's not a simple issue. There are a lot of activities where you can reduce risk. I know that there are parts of the city where I should not go or risk being mugged, so I don't go there. I don't defiantly go there and complain about the injustice after losing my wallet. Crime is a reality of the world. It's not going away.

 

So from that point of view I agree that some amount if risk mitigation is prudent. However, the difference is that society makes an effort to reduce crime; everybody accepts that mugging is wrong. If muggers are caught, they are tried and convicted. Nobody is covering for them. When it comes to sexual assault and BLM issues, someone is covering for the perpetrators. We have rapists and their apologists who whine about the perpetrators' lives being ruined by their convictions. We have police who are found not guilty of some pretty heinous things under cover of police immunity and/or the timidness of a justice system when it comes to their own members.

 

We also have a societal bias in how this all plays out in the media. What kind of picture is included in the story, for victims and perpetrators alike, when the involved person is black, vs being white? Do we get the yearbook picture, or mug shot (or other unflattering candid picture)? What about the supplemental narrative? Do we hear about their past troubles or their future potential? What does that do in regard to reinforcing stereotypes?

The point I was labouring was to Ten Oz who was insistent that pursuance of principle mattered more than personal safety. I don't disagree with you here in your post. I've exhausted my thoughts on it so I shall retire from that point I was addressing.

Edited July 12, 2016 by StringJunky

[Delta1212]

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

Do you think that rape is triggered by the way someone dresses? In other words, do you think that if everyone dressed modestly, rapists would refrain from raping anyone? Would they rape less frequently? Would it make much or any difference to the overall number of rapes if the way people dressed was different?

[StringJunky]

Do you think that rape is triggered by the way someone dresses? In other words, do you think that if everyone dressed modestly, rapists would refrain from raping anyone? Would they rape less frequently? Would it make much or any difference to the overall number of rapes if the way people dressed was different?

i think It may tip the balance on a potential rapist's decision-making. No, I don't think that if all women dressed modestly it wouldn't happen. You have framed your question as all or nothing; it isn't.