NationStates

Galloism wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Of course. Are you putting yourself into their situation? Unless you are a non-white; it’s a little silly to do so.

Much as we like to belive the US is more color blind; we have moved backwards a few years…..

Daniel Shaver was white, and Adam Toledo was white hispanic.

The #1 risk factor to being killed by police is being male. #2 is being black.

The data is absolutely crystal clear on this front.

So yes. This is a reasonable fear I possess as a man.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Kowani wrote:...daniel shaver is white
or
was white, i guess
he's kinda dead
cops murdered him

Wait…..that was that wereass hallway shooting by a tac team right? He was drunk wearing basketball shorts and they wanted him to crawl backwards to him. That was without question murder. Anyway.

I could be pulled over and a black man could be pulled over. Who is in more danger?

Neutraligon wrote:

Galloism wrote:Daniel Shaver was white, and Adam Toledo was white hispanic.

The #1 risk factor to being killed by police is being male. #2 is being black.

The data is absolutely crystal clear on this front.

Add age in and you get the trifecta. Young, black, and male. The desposibility of young men to society is disgusting.

Galloism wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Add age in and you get the trifecta. Young, black, and male. The desposibility of young men to society is disgusting.

Ah yes, age is also a very important factor. You are correct.

Depending on how you weight your measures, perhaps the most important.

Over 50 or so, people are very rarely killed by police, and over 60, almost never. Regardless of race or sex.

Genivaria wrote:

Galloism wrote:Ah yes, age is also a very important factor. You are correct.

Depending on how you weight your measures, perhaps the most important.

Over 50 or so, people are very rarely killed by police, and over 60, almost never. Regardless of race or sex.

I'm reminded of this old but humorous video of a crazy Karen charging and swiping at a cop while screaming at him, and getting tased after the cop retreats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vK10un ... GAMINGCORP

Galloism wrote:

Genivaria wrote:I'm reminded of this old but humorous video of a crazy Karen charging and swiping at a cop while screaming at him, and getting tased after the cop retreats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vK10un ... GAMINGCORP

NGL, I chuckled at the scenario.

I'm going to hell, apparently.

Genivaria wrote:

Galloism wrote:NGL, I chuckled at the scenario.

I'm going to hell, apparently.

The point is that boomer Karen aggressively charges a cop, and the cop retreats (as opposed to the 'stand your ground' nonsense we hear so often) and uses a taser instead of a deadly weapon.

Nine months after racial justice protests swept across New York City and videos showed police punching, kicking and trapping demonstrators, the city agency responsible for investigating abuses has revealed the number of officers who have so far faced serious disciplinary charges.

Two. The Civilian Complaint Review Board released the figures on Tuesday after ProPublica reported that the CCRB was declining to disclose how much progress it had made on protest cases. The new numbers show about 60% of the agency’s 297 protest-related cases are still open.

CCRB investigations can take a long time, about eight months on average. Its investigations into the summer protests have been slowed in particular by a lack of NYPD cooperation, as ProPublica detailed last week, and agency staffers have been discouraged from confronting the NYPD. After our reporting prompted pointed criticism from a City Council member and others, CCRB officials promised at a public board meeting last week to release figures as soon as possible. So far, the agency has only been able to fully investigate 37 cases. About 75 cases were closed before a full investigation could be completed. Sometimes civilians did not follow up or decided to withdraw their complaints to pursue lawsuits.

The relatively few completed investigations have resulted in 14 complaints being substantiated so far. In 12 cases, the CCRB has recommended relatively minor punishment, which is to be decided by the officers’ commanders. In the other two, the CCRB has moved for departmental disciplinary trials.

The CCRB said in an emailed statement on Wednesday that one of the two cases involved an officer who appeared to flash a white power sign, and the other concerned an officer who allegedly hit a protester with a baton.

The chair of the CCRB, Rev. Frederick Davie, also acknowledged at a City Council hearing on Tuesday that investigators have faced a challenge “around access to information from the Police Department.”

As ProPublica’s story last week noted, CCRB staffers emailed superiors that the NYPD repeatedly said it had no body-worn camera footage of an incident, only to have investigators later discover that there was, in fact, footage. In response to questions, the NYPD said in a statement last week, “We have spoken with senior executives at the CCRB who state they do not have any complaints” about footage.

The CCRB’s statement Wednesday also said investigators have had difficulty identifying officers “due to the Police Department not keeping track of where officers were deployed and due to officers wearing protective gear with incorrect shield numbers.” The release of information about the protest cases comes as the city and the NYPD face increasing pressure to change the discipline process for officers. On Tuesday, state legislators introduced a bill to strip the NYPD commissioner of final authority over discipline. The move follows a New York City Council resolution in January calling for the legislature to act.

As ProPublica has detailed, commissioners have often used their discretion to overturn not only the CCRB’s recommendations for punishments but also rulings by NYPD hearing officers and even guilty pleas agreed to by police officers.

Allegations of misconduct by officers can also be investigated by the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau, and the department has said that investigations of some protest encounters have been referred for disciplinary action. The department did not respond to a request this week for comment about the status of any discipline stemming from protest cases.

Salus Maior wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It would be difficult for me to be surprised by things that have been happening for several decades, including the entire span of my life.

Then really you should know better; and not advocate for things that will put the powerful at a greater advantage over minorities.

Ifreann wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Then really you should know better; and not advocate for things that will put the powerful at a greater advantage over minorities.

Yes, Jesus said not to resist evil. And look where it got him.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yes, Jesus said not to resist evil. And look where it got him.

Jesus was for resisting evil. He just wasn't violent, and we saw what happened next.

Ifreann wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Jesus was for resisting evil. He just wasn't violent, and we saw what happened next.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
- Jesus

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Ifreann wrote:But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
- Jesus

Okay then, guess he wasn't for resisting evil.

Ifreann wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Then really you should know better; and not advocate for things that will put the powerful at a greater advantage over minorities.

Yes, Jesus said not to resist evil. And look where it got him.

Salus Maior wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yes, Jesus said not to resist evil. And look where it got him.

You’re moving the goalposts. We were not talking about ‘resisting evil’, you were saying that the poor should essentially just loot to get what they want, and that’s justified.

I said that moving into that mode is a losing proposition for the poor for reasons I’ve already given.

And speaking of losing propositions, attempting to get into a theological debate with me when you’re completely inept in that area is another one.

Ifreann wrote:And it might be. But evidently some people are willing to take that chance.

Salus Maior wrote:

Ifreann wrote:And it might be. But evidently some people are willing to take that chance.

Which is why we got Trump on his ‘law and order tough guy’ platform. And we’re going to get more of that the more it appears that social order is breaking down

Ifreann wrote:

Boomhaueristan wrote:Do you want me to support rioting and violence?

Yes. Rioting is most often defensive violence in response to police aggression. You should support people defending themselves from attack by agents of the state.

Ifreann wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Which is why we got Trump on his ‘law and order tough guy’ platform. And we’re going to get more of that the more it appears that social order is breaking down

I really don't think that the conservative belief in "law and order" is based on people robbing shit during a riot.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I really don't think that the conservative belief in "law and order" is based on people robbing shit during a riot.

They tend to define it different. Notice how with January 6; there is little comments about the theft and vandalism that went on. If a BLM protest goes bad; you hear about it all the time.

The Republic of Fore wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yes. Rioting is most often defensive violence in response to police aggression. You should support people defending themselves from attack by agents of the state.

The only thing we should support is rioters being dumped in the nearest empty jail cell. Don't be violent thugs and agents of the state generally won't harm you.

If they do, then you've got the chance to win a nice lawsuit.

The Republic of Fore wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yes. Rioting is most often defensive violence in response to police aggression. You should support people defending themselves from attack by agents of the state.

The only thing we should support is rioters being dumped in the nearest empty jail cell. Don't be violent thugs and agents of the state generally won't harm you. If they do, then you've got the chance to win a nice lawsuit.

The Republic of Fore wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yes. Rioting is most often defensive violence in response to police aggression. You should support people defending themselves from attack by agents of the state.

The only thing we should support is rioters being dumped in the nearest empty jail cell. Don't be violent thugs and agents of the state generally won't harm you. If they do, then you've got the chance to win a nice lawsuit.

Ifreann wrote:

The Republic of Fore wrote:The only thing we should support is rioters being dumped in the nearest empty jail cell. Don't be violent thugs and agents of the state generally won't harm you.

Did you know that tear gas affects everyone it comes into contact with, regardless of whether they have been violent? It's true. Chemical weapons are totally indiscriminate. The police will harm people who just happen to be in the vicinity of a crowd they want to control.

If they do, then you've got the chance to win a nice lawsuit.

Unless you're dead.

Vassenor wrote:

The Republic of Fore wrote:The only thing we should support is rioters being dumped in the nearest empty jail cell. Don't be violent thugs and agents of the state generally won't harm you. If they do, then you've got the chance to win a nice lawsuit.

Don't wear a short skirt then you won't get raped.

Still shitty logic.