Castile shooting, police violence, race, etc side discussion

[PseudoSABR]

 

No, I don't agree with blocking a highway. When you protest in front of a major political building and that protest affects the traffic on that one street, well, I guess I can forgive that as taking action and a pseudo-expected thing as part of our freedom of peaceful assembly near a political building like a city hall or capital building or such. A highway, however, is a different ballgame.

 

I think there's a definite attempt to make a bigger spectacle and be more demonstrative in actions on each side, but sadly, that's how we got where we are in Washington.

I just want to echo this.  I hate grandstanding.  I hate righteousness. I generally think protests are unhelpful; they pursue the wrong direction, when they should be assembling to hold a community forum as an alternative to what they are protesting.

 

And, any impediment of actions by those not directly involved in that which is being protested is totally unhelpful to the cause.  Don't block traffic, you're just being a dick.   

[biggentleben]

 

I don't disagree, but your link and ben's response came off as blaming and I see a lot of that from one ideological tribe but very little attempt to balance that.  (I should clarify, see it here in this thread.  Nationally there is plenty hurling around from both sides.  I'm more than tired of seeing stupid "blue lives matters, delete me if you disagree" BS on my facebook)

 

Personally, I take one's true willingness to come to the table from their ability to be consistent, fair, and willing to call out their own.  If it's always hammering in one direction, I start to seriously question that willingness.

 

Please don't take my response in the wrong way. If the officers working had worn "blue lives matter" shirts and the Lynx players had refused to play due to that, I'd have issue with their refusal to come to an opportunity to open dialogue on this topic.

 

I don't like either side not willing to come to the table to work on a solution best for all involved. No, it will not be the ABSOLUTE best for any single group involved, but when you work in a community manner, you end up with everyone knowing that their voice was heard and the corresponding decision(s) came from an informed position rather than a dictatorial one.

 

And yes, it is their secondary job they're walking away from, so it's not like they're making some big statement by walking out on their career. However, they know that making this statement as they did will get publicity. If the parking ramp adjacent was staffed by off-duty officers and the Lifetime Fitness within the Target Center happened to give all their employees BLM shirts, would there even be 12th page coverage of those parking ramp officers walking off the job in the STrib, let alone any national media coverage? I do believe this officers were intending to attempt a statement of their own by walking off the job in the manner they did. You let the company know that due to the actions of their employees, you'll no longer be able to work there any longer and don't come back again once your shift is over. Leaving in the middle of your shift is a grand-standing sort of move.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Who said that?  I lobbed blame at them.  I just didn't post that without also acknowledging their are a lot of bad actors on the other side either.  

 

Balance and honesty are necessary to a solution, not part of the problem.  All you're advocating with that message is ideological tribalism and that will always (always!) fail.  

 

Afterall, there is an inherent contradiction in what you want: you want the police to give but you want to grant them no measure in return.  Not even the measure of listening.  And, hell, you rightly want them to be honest and call out their own but you can't even manage to do that yourself when the stakes are much, much lower.  I find that really hard to side with.

That last paragraph is straw man. I'm totally willing to listen and understand other people's perspective on any issue.   And really, I think you're putting my character out of context, there's plenty of incidents in the election thread, where I politely engage and seek to understand those who think differently.  But when I post a link in this thread, I don't need to give "both sides equal due." I think I do just fine of leaving whatever link I post unadulterated by thieving liberalism (boo). 

 

There's bad actors on "both" sides, yes, yes, yes.  But I'll continue to emphasize it, only one of those are paid by the people's taxes, have a duty to protect us from harm, and safeguard our constitutional rights. 

 

This isn't a negotiation.  The police are our employees.  The whole notion that we should grant something in return fails to acknowledge the absurdity of the balance of the two groups I spoke of in the previous post. 

 

All that said, whether it's Black Lives Matters or some dumbass internet poster, the fact that someone speaks without violence demonstrates one's willingness to engage.  The whole 'treatment of both sides' issue is one that just delays assessing/fixing the problem.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

This isn't a negotiation.  The police are our employees.  The whole notion that we should grant something in return fails to acknowledge the absurdity of the balance of the two groups I spoke of in the previous post. 

 

All that said, whether it's Black Lives Matters or some dumbass internet poster, the fact that someone speaks without violence demonstrates one's willingness to engage.  The whole 'treatment of both sides' issue is one that just delays assessing/fixing the problem.  

 

You think a solution will happen without negotiation?  Well, I believe we've found the issue then.  That's just naive and totally unrealistic.  Seriously, that paragraph is just way out of whack with reality.  Not to mention seriously unliberal-like as an approach to unions.

 

Dialogue, almost by definition, requires listening.  And that means both sides get a voice and both sides get consideration.  Some issues don't deserve a dialogue.  But this issue is not simple, it is very complicated with a myriad of considerations that have to go into any solution.  So I encourage you to rethink that last paragraph as well.

[PseudoSABR]

 

You think a solution will happen without negotiation?  Well, I believe we've found the issue then.  That's just naive and totally unrealistic.  Seriously, that paragraph is just way out of whack with reality.  Not to mention seriously unliberal-like as an approach to unions.

 

Dialogue, almost by definition, requires listening.  And that means both sides get a voice and both sides get consideration.  Some issues don't deserve a dialogue.  But this issue is not simple, it is very complicated with a myriad of considerations that have to go into any solution.  So I encourage you to rethink that last paragraph as well.

I apologize, that paragraph needed some unsaid conceits; I was speaking ideally, which can be righteous, so ugh.  

 

Yet, it's madness that it is a negotiation at all, given the supposed 'balance' of the relationship, one group being the other's employees.   The charge--again--seems to be YOU SHOULD NEGOTIATE TO GET THE OTHERSIDE TO THE TABLE.  I cannot concede that point.

 

Nonetheless, negotiation, of course, inevitably, is required--not with those who represent the exclusive interest of police, as an end into itself (as the unions might), but with those good actors who seek to do the possible.  And I mean good actors in the sense of willing to address the problem, that's really I want at this point.   (And not just on this issue.  Non-negotiation, of course, is a conscious tactic, no?)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Is it totally impossible that the shooting isn't justified?  Are we ruling out even the small chance that Castillo WAS drawing on the officer?  I ask, because your second point somewhat contradicts your first.  Shouldn't we wait a bit before making that declaration?

Obviously this is an informal discussion, and I think we are all prepared to re-assess as more information comes out.

 

But based on what we know, even from statements by the officer's attorney and the department, it is very hard for me to come up with a scenario around those facts that justifies the use of lethal force.  The victim was not remotely an immediate danger to the general public; it was a routine traffic stop, with suspicion stemming from a robbery 4 days prior.  If the officer felt he was an immediate danger to him, the officer was not backed into a corner either.  I don't know how or why that situation should become a "it's either him or me" one -- as I've noted, there was a second officer on the scene, a safe distance from the action.  What's the point of having that second officer if the first one is willing to use deadly force if there is a mere presence of a gun and the individual isn't completely following orders?  And a lot of the unknowns beyond that could favor the victim's side too -- how much of the danger felt by the officer was of his own making?  Did he approach the situation like this was his armed robber?

 

I should also add, I am not necessarily pinning this all on the officer.  Sounds like it might be the police procedures to blame, if indeed this is how police are trained to deal with traffic stops of a potential robbery suspects from 4 days prior.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Are those of you lobbing shade on the officers here also going to lob some the way of protesters on highways?

I haven't been able to follow the protest situation too closely.  But I'd be very careful of mixing that discussion -- the actions of the protesters, just like the actions of the insane person in Dallas, are really unrelated from the Castile case.  I've seen far too many people imply that overzealous protests effectively nullify any wrong that happened to Castile, or even further, turn the tables the other way and say that police are the only real victims through all of this.

 

If you want to discuss protesters, feel free, but it's a separate discussion that should have no bearing on Castile-specific discussion.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yet, it's madness that it is a negotiation at all, given the supposed 'balance' of the relationship, one group being the other's employees.   The charge--again--seems to be YOU SHOULD NEGOTIATE TO GET THE OTHERSIDE TO THE TABLE.  I cannot concede that point.

 

I never said that, nor meant to imply that.  I don't think either side is refusing to negotiate wholesale, the problem is who we allow to the table.  Those people have to be willing to listen and work for change in their own ranks.

 

We won't solve this merely by police reforms.  We'll also need fundamental changes in assisting those in poverty.  We'll also need black men and women, in their neighborhoods, to work with police once those changes happen.  It's going to take a combined effort.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

No, I don't agree with blocking a highway. When you protest in front of a major political building and that protest affects the traffic on that one street, well, I guess I can forgive that as taking action and a pseudo-expected thing as part of our freedom of peaceful assembly near a political building like a city hall or capital building or such. A highway, however, is a different ballgame.

There have been other recent highway protests in Minnesota without incident.  Usually the protesters have had police protection, in fact, and have let through emergency vehicles, etc.  I don't see any problem with that, in theory.  Not sure what happened the other night -- sounds like maybe the St Paul Police didn't approve of the protester's highway shutdown this time, but that's no excuse for throwing objects at police, of course.

[TheLeviathan]

 

If you want to discuss protesters, feel free, but it's a separate discussion that should have no bearing on Castile-specific discussion.

 

I agree, but so is talking about off-duty cops at a Lynx game which is where that issue came up.

 

I should also add, I am not necessarily pinning this all on the officer.  Sounds like it might be the police procedures to blame, if indeed this is how police are trained to deal with traffic stops of a potential robbery suspects from 4 days prior.

 

 

Sure, I don't disagree that this looks pretty open and shut.  It doesn't have any of the rampant false narrative problems the Ferguson case had.  But if you're going to argue for the sanctity of the presumption of innocence, you need to do that even for the officer.  Hell, what good are our rights if we won't fight for them when it's the hardest to do so?  There has been a lot of rhetoric tossed around here that doesn't offer the officer that same presumption and I find that troubling.

 

My personal opinion is that he probably should get charged here, but I'm not going to call him unjustified, or a cold blooded murderer, or anything else yet.  No matter how emotionally opposed I am to what he did, presumption of innocence has to remain important for everyone.  It's one of my deepest convictions about where he went wrong as well.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I agree, but so is talking about off-duty cops at a Lynx game which is where that issue came up.

Ah, okay.  I hadn't really read much of that Lynx tangent yet, so I didn't connect it your post.

 

The police union leader Kroll has come off pretty badly in his statements at times, but in general, it seems police and protesters have been well-behaved over the past few years in Minnesota.  I hope this latest animosity isn't a trend, it doesn't help with the actual issues.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Sure, I don't disagree that this looks pretty open and shut.  It doesn't have any of the rampant false narrative problems the Ferguson case had.  But if you're going to argue for the sanctity of the presumption of innocence, you need to do that even for the officer.  Hell, what good are our rights if we won't fight for them when it's the hardest to do so?  There has been a lot of rhetoric tossed around here that doesn't offer the officer that same presumption and I find that troubling.

 

My personal opinion is that he probably should get charged here, but I'm not going to call him unjustified, or a cold blooded murderer, or anything else yet.  No matter how emotionally opposed I am to what he did, presumption of innocence has to remain important for everyone.  It's one of my deepest convictions about where he went wrong as well.

That's fair.  For what it's worth, I don't think anyone in this thread has called him a murderer either, or even a racist.  I think most of the critical statements here have been aimed at the system that produces this bad situation, rather than the individual officer.

 

I would honestly be surprised if the officer is ultimately punished.  If he is charged, it will probably be more symbolic than specific.  Hopefully whatever the result, people are less likely to choose sides/teams and more likely to band together to simply say "we don't want these situations to happen anymore."

 

I should add, I'm grateful for this conversation here, because what I've read elsewhere is absolutely toxic.  Lots of "side choosing" and I'm not sure where we go from there.  The same sides crop up in politics, but honestly that's mostly a game akin to our precious baseball.  I hate to see those same "sides" line up when the issue is a man's life.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I would honestly be surprised if the officer is ultimately punished.  If he is charged, it will probably be more symbolic than specific.  Hopefully whatever the result, people are less likely to choose sides/teams and more likely to band together to simply say "we don't want these situations to happen anymore."

 

I will be surprised as well.  Whatever the result, I'm confident people will line up in their ideological tribes and go after each other again.   We've seen it time and again in these situations regardless of what results.

 

It shouldn't be that hard for us to sit down and look at police procedure and find ways to make it safer for all involved.  To look at the underlying problems and make that better for all. Really, at the end of the day, that's what we all want.  But that will take some concessions and that seems like something really hard for people to fathom these days.  

 

(I highly recommend that link by the way)

[Mike Sixel]

What is the incentive to sit down and make things better? Most people don't come to the table unless they see something in it for themselves......just look at Congress and this Presidency. So, why, if the union head can't even handle shirts at a basketball game, why would we expect him to be ready to compromise on anything that actually effects his members?

 

Now, it is clear the some communities are doing better than others, but it is also clear that some communities (on both sides) have no interest in compromise.

 

As for looking at underlying problems? This is a nation that can hardly spend 2 minutes looking beyond the headlines on their biased news channel (both sides)......I can't see the nation having a serious conversation about underlying problems. That's science and math and stuff, that has nothing to do with faith/belief/certainty. 

[TheLeviathan]

For safety and ease of their job, cops should have plenty of incentive. But we have to get their union to understand that.

[nicksaviking]

 

Ah, okay.  I hadn't really read much of that Lynx tangent yet, so I didn't connect it your post.

 

The police union leader Kroll has come off pretty badly in his statements at times, but in general, it seems police and protesters have been well-behaved over the past few years in Minnesota.  I hope this latest animosity isn't a trend, it doesn't help with the actual issues.

 

I agree, and I don't get the police walk out. Nearly everyone, including those who support Black Lives Matters agree that what happened in Dallas was awful and shouldn't have happened. Why doesn't everyone agree what happened to Castile was awful shouldn't have happened?

 

Not all police action needs to be uniformly defended and supported. They're just people, people do stupid and terrible things on a daily basis, why would police be exempt from normal human failings?

 

Does anyone think the Browns are going to show universal support to Isaiah Crowell after his terrible Tweet about a cop getting killed?

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Link

 

More from here.

Did the Minneapolis Police decide to withhold their services once they encountered speech they didn't agree with? Seems completely contrary to their entire mission. 

 

[Craig Arko]

So the Union is circling the wagons again? Is that how this is (should be) interpreted?

[Mike Sixel]

Quite the contrast from other areas, where the police are actively being civil with protesters. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

(I highly recommend that link by the way)

I was with the article until I came to this paragraph:

For the entire country, 28.9 percent of arrestees were African-American. This number is not very different from the 31.8 percent of police-shooting victims who were African-Americans. If police discrimination were a big factor in the actual killings, we would have expected a larger gap between the arrest rate and the police-killing rate.

 

If there is police discrimination at work, it would operate on both the initial encounter and the actual killing.  To suggest that police discrimination isn't a big factor in the actual killing seems off-the-mark.   The same discrimination that may lead to an unjustified arrest (or encounter) may also lead to the unreasonable use of lethal force. The author's explanation about why police encounter and arrest more African-Americans isn't data based, but rather arm-chair sociology, that seems bent on finding factors beyond race.  Maybe I'm picking nits or I'm failing to grasp the author's point about the significance of the data, but the analysis seems titled towards the more compelling conclusion (that race isn't a factor).

[TheLeviathan]

 

I was with the article until I came to this paragraph:

If there is police discrimination at work, it would operate on both the initial encounter and the actual killing.  To suggest that police discrimination isn't a big factor in the actual killing seems off-the-mark.   The same discrimination that may lead to an unjustified arrest (or encounter) may also lead to the unreasonable use of lethal force. The author's explanation about why police encounter and arrest more African-Americans isn't data based, but rather arm-chair sociology, that seems bent on finding factors beyond race.  Maybe I'm picking nits or I'm failing to grasp the author's point about the significance of the data, but the analysis seems titled towards the more compelling conclusion (that race isn't a factor).

 

I think the author was getting at one part of the issue - that proportionally to the number of encounters between police and black men (typically, it's always men, regardless of race), there isn't a higher rate of violent endings.  So the idea that black men are killed or attacked more frequently than their rate of population is backed by the data, but when compared to the rate of arrests/encounters, there doesn't appear to be as clear a difference.  So the real discrepancy seems to be in the number of encounters, not so much how they end.  (Though, the other link does show that cops tend to be more "hands on")

 

I would fill in the blank with race as the prime factor for why there are more encounters, however.  I don't think the author was daring to go that far though.  For me, the reason black people are disproportionately (to the population) having encounters with police is likely due to poverty which is a byproduct of generations of socioeconomic racism.  That seems to be the real problem, but it is worth pointing out that some of the "blacks are killed more often" rhetoric may not be the entire story.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Before I say anything else, thanks for the thoughtful post. You're one of many examples of someone who either works in the police force or is related to someone who does who actually admits police brutality is a thing, unlike the bandwagon fans who act like they're without fault. My Facebook feed (mostly conservative homers) is so loaded with ridiculous posts/memes that I sometimes forget these people exist. So thanks.

 

However,

 

 

 

Focusing on one over the other breeds the very racism that you're trying to prevent, and it alienates the very people who will be more sympathetic to the cause.  I understand why it is that people are focusing on black lives matter.  I'm also saying that in so doing they are missing the point and become part of the problem. 

 

A lot of people died last week in tragic and avoidable ways.  Ironically, when you focus on the two, you miss the other five and further divide an already divided country (or worse yet, you force people to take sides where they shouldn't be taking sides).  All lives matter.  Period.  Put that in perspective and you'll solve a whole lot more problems than just police brutality. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

I should also add, I am not necessarily pinning this all on the officer.  Sounds like it might be the police procedures to blame, if indeed this is how police are trained to deal with traffic stops of a potential robbery suspects from 4 days prior.

 

I've had this same debate with my sister.  It isn't even as  much police procedures as the constitution of the US doesn't give them much else to go on.  That is the very reality of living with a concept called probable cause.  I'm of the opinion that at that point you leave them alone and actually go out looking for said perp, not looking to bust someone with a broken tail light.  She doesn't agree with me by the way...  But less laws, not more is what makes a free country free, and this is nothing more than an another way to make an end around the 4th amendment.  We have a real problem in this country where we are trading our freedoms away for some measure of security.  People could put an end of the broken tail light thing by simply standing up and calling it what it is.  But we don't... and yeah, blacks suffer from this worse b/c it is enforced in areas stricken by poverty, and unfortunately poverty is found in a much higher percentage of black homes than others.  I don't even think it's intentionally racist.  Crime is highest where there's poverty and as such, that is where police tend to focus their efforts.

 

Truthfully, that whole poverty thing is a bigger problem here, but I don't think we want to turn this into another economic debate

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

There have been other recent highway protests in Minnesota without incident.  Usually the protesters have had police protection, in fact, and have let through emergency vehicles, etc.  I don't see any problem with that, in theory.  Not sure what happened the other night -- sounds like maybe the St Paul Police didn't approve of the protester's highway shutdown this time, but that's no excuse for throwing objects at police, of course.

 

You want to protest on the side of the highway, by all means do so.  But there are plenty of people on said highway for a number of highly personal reasons, some of which I might add, could very well be life and death or other very important things to them such as catching a flight or going to see a dying relative or whatever....  You should have a problem with blocking a highway.  A huge one.  There's no place for that.  I'm sure you'd have an issue with blocking an abortion clinic or something else.  There's no excuse for either behavior here. 

 

By all means, protest, but do so in a civil manner. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I was with the article until I came to this paragraph:

If there is police discrimination at work, it would operate on both the initial encounter and the actual killing.  To suggest that police discrimination isn't a big factor in the actual killing seems off-the-mark.   The same discrimination that may lead to an unjustified arrest (or encounter) may also lead to the unreasonable use of lethal force. The author's explanation about why police encounter and arrest more African-Americans isn't data based, but rather arm-chair sociology, that seems bent on finding factors beyond race.  Maybe I'm picking nits or I'm failing to grasp the author's point about the significance of the data, but the analysis seems titled towards the more compelling conclusion (that race isn't a factor).

 

I think the author thinks the difference falls into the normal range of error.  That's possible.  I think the problem though is that we fail to understand the difference between unconscious bias (something the Cops need and quite frankly can keep them alive) and racism.  Both exist.  One is intentional.  One is far more latent.  It isn't racist by intent, but it can certainly be racist when one looks at the numbers.  Like it or not though, it's there because it is proven right more often than not.  Case in point, my sister can tell me cop stories, and I can more often than not accurately guess race, gender, etc.  I'm not saying it is right, but I think you have to find a middle ground between the ugly racism of the KKK and the actions of people who are trying to survive while doing a very dangerous job. 

 

That's where I really struggle (and abhor) the race card, especially when it is played far too frequently.  The problem is that when you tell someone they are being racist when they have good reason to behave the way they do... well, it gets back to that us vs. them and forcing someone to take a side they had no plans on taking.  It's a bad thing.  Unconscious bias is real.  There's more value in training someone to recognize when they are doing it than simply playing the race card.  Doing so forces an us vs. them scenario.  I've been harping on this a lot lately, and perhaps that is because I'm constantly finding myself defending something because ideology has forced it. 

 

All that bickering on TD did teach me something

 

[TheLeviathan]

1) Is it really surprising the head of the union is a total d-bag?  Do people not realize what unions largely are at this point?  If you're a liberal, I suggest you look at Kroll real close - that's what you largely support when you support unions.  Guys like that who could give two *@$% about truth and integrity and only about keeping their pockets lined and their position of power intact.

 

2) Protesting on a highway is always a stupid, thoughtless action.  I hope they do charge those people.  Go stand outside the Police Chief's house or wherever, ust don't block a place amublances would have to use.

[formerly33]

 

Focusing on one over the other breeds the very racism that you're trying to prevent, and it alienates the very people who will be more sympathetic to the cause.  I understand why it is that people are focusing on black lives matter.  I'm also saying that in so doing they are missing the point and become part of the problem. 

 

A lot of people died last week in tragic and avoidable ways.  Ironically, when you focus on the two, you miss the other five and further divide an already divided country (or worse yet, you force people to take sides where they shouldn't be taking sides).  All lives matter.  Period.  Put that in perspective and you'll solve a whole lot more problems than just police brutality. 

No, I can't say you do understand why people are focusing on black lives.

 

If it's racist to focus on black lives, is it classist of people on the other side to act like the police have it all together, blindly trusting that Philando Castile (among others) needed to die without pausing to ask so much as "WTF?!"? I doubt you believe this.

 

Blaming the Dallas shooting on Black Lives Matter (or, even more broadly, people who support them) is no different than blaming all cops (even Dallas cops) for instances of police brutality.

 

You may call it apples to oranges if you like. I call it green apples vs red apples.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Focusing on one over the other breeds the very racism that you're trying to prevent, and it alienates the very people who will be more sympathetic to the cause.  I understand why it is that people are focusing on black lives matter.  I'm also saying that in so doing they are missing the point and become part of the problem. 

 

A lot of people died last week in tragic and avoidable ways.  Ironically, when you focus on the two, you miss the other five and further divide an already divided country (or worse yet, you force people to take sides where they shouldn't be taking sides).  All lives matter.  Period.  Put that in perspective and you'll solve a whole lot more problems than just police brutality. 

 

Look, the term is confusing to many people, but you're missing the point of it.  I saw a meme going around, but it's right on - if you go to the doctor and say "my wrist is broken" and the Doctor puts you in a full body cast because "all bones matter" - do you think that makes one ounce of sense?

 

No?  That's sort of what your response is.

[formerly33]

I have one more thing to say. Of course all lives matter. The problem is, while most people verbally agree on this subject, there seems to be an ongoing trend that some lives matter more than others, hence Black Lives Matter.
 
All it really comes down to is the right's (I'm broadly generalizing here for the sake of simplicity - no offense intended) inability (or refusal) to understand the meaning of a few simple words. For clarification, allow me to rephrase it for you:
 
Black Lives Matter, Too.

 

Does that make more sense?

[twinsnorth49]

In similar news, this is a positive step forward. This isn't a whole lot different than Black lives matter, the RCMP are to be commended for becoming part of the solution and the largest part of that was admitting they are a big part of the problem. 

 

It's ok to be on one side, as  long as you're willing to listen to the other.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/afn-meeting-niagara-falls-1.3674114