Castile shooting, police violence, race, etc side discussion

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

No apologies necessary, I totally agree, it's a complete disgrace and honestly I wish it would get more exposure internationally. Australia is equally as bad if not worse with their Aboriginal population.

My wife travelled Australia for something like nine months right around the year 2000. She said the level of racism in rural areas would make any decent American blush. It wasn't even a subtext of conversation much of the time; they just came out out and said terrible **** we stopped saying in the 1970s.

[formerly33]

 

Or the dude in Sweden who went to a youth camp and killed dozens to preserve their culture.  Because apparently more than 1% of the population being anything other than blonde hair/blue eyes is an insufferable degree of diversity.

This reminds me of the homo erectus and their valient (albeit unsuccessful) efforts to preserve their nonpareil culture.

 

/Chief would know what I'm talking about.

[twinsnorth49]

 

My wife travelled Australia for something like nine months right around the year 2000. She said the level of racism in rural areas would make any decent American blush. It wasn't even a subtext of conversation much of the time; they just came out out and said terrible **** we stopped saying in the 1970s.

My Mothers side of the family is from Liverpool, she was born and raised there and other than her all of them still live there. Back in the 80's and part of the 90's my Aunt and Uncle had a black cat, I'll let you guess what it's name was.

 

It's embarrassing but it's true and pretty well just accepted there as no big deal.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

My Mothers side of the family is from Liverpool, she was born and raised there and other than her all of them still live there. Back in the 80's and part of the 90's my Aunt and Uncle had a black cat, I'll let you guess what it's name was.

 

It's embarrassing but it's true and pretty well just accepted there as no big deal.

That hits close to home. Switch out "Liverpool" for St. Paul and "Cat" for Dog, and I share your pain and embarrassment.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

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.

 

I don't think you can speak for what I do and do not understand.  That's just flat out arrogant.  Nowhere did I say the other side was any more classy/non-racist.  I'm not blaming the shootings on Black lives matter.  What I am saying is that race is being interjected into a much bigger issue, and it forces people to take sides where they should have plenty of common ground.

 

I'll go back to my sister for a second.  Every single on her force gets called racist every single day... many times a day.  Now how many of them actually are racist?  I'd hazard a guess that it's a low number.  By pulling race into it, you just piled on to another jaded group. 

 

There's plenty of common ground here, as senseless violence is all over the place, whether it's Castille, Orlando, Dallas, or whatever.  These problems need to be solved, but by drawing the battle ground on race, you not only miss the big picture, but eliminate the common ground that could unite so many groups.  If anything, it is one more form of that same latent racism we were just talking about. 

 

Black lives matter.  So do white lives.  So do cops lives.  So do everyone's lives.  The black community certainly has a right to be upset, but in focusing the issue on black lives, it becomes a slap in the face to the 5 white cops who died this weekend in what was without question a racially motivated attack. 

 

We have to unite on these issues, not further subdivide.

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

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.

 

The problem is that more than a wrist is broken, and for some silly reason you only want to treat that one.  It's a pretty bad analogy.  There's a lot broken here.  As I said before, the black community has a right to be upset, but by demanding treatment for their issues while eschewing that of others ignores the common ground we all share, and in so doing alienates people who would be on their side. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The problem is that more than a wrist is broken, and for some silly reason you only want to treat that one.  It's a pretty bad analogy.  There's a lot broken here.  As I said before, the black community has a right to be upset, but by demanding treatment for their issues while eschewing that of others ignores the common ground we all share, and in so doing alienates people who would be on their side. 

But race *is* a large component of the problem. If we ignore race, how do we actually begin to resolve this specific problem?

 

I don't view BLM as eschewing others' problems, I view it as a cry for help from a downtrodden community. While I haven't seen you use the #AllLivesMatter hashtag, that's a bigger problem than the #BlackLivesMatter hash.

 

Why? Because ALM doesn't actually stand for anything. It's a dismissal of peoples' voices and a vote for the status quo. "Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. Oh, and shut up, blackie."

 

So, whether you actually agree with BLM or not, it's best to stay the hell away from ALM and any terminology of that kind. It doesn't actually stand for anything, it only stands in protest. If you want real division, that's how you get it. ALM is not only about ignoring the woes of others, it's about shouting down their ideas. It's pretty much the worst. Whether you agree with BLM or not, it's hard to deny ALM is a hell of a lot worse.

 

In a nutshell, All Lives Matter is the GOP and military veterans.

 

"Should we post a meme thanking our vets twice a year? Should we bathe in the red, white, and blue whenever possible? Should we sing songs about our vets?"

"YES!"

"Should we fund healthcare improvements, treatment, and aid for vets in need?"

"HELL NO!"

 

No ideas, only platitudes.

"All lives matter."

 

Of course they do. And if you really believe it, do something about it or STFU.

 

Not speaking to you specifically, diehard, just pointing out how problematic it is to distract and shout over someone with ideas when you have no plan whatsoever or intent to actually solve the problem. You may have ideas how to fix the problem, I have no idea, I'm only speaking in generalities.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

The problem is that more than a wrist is broken, and for some silly reason you only want to treat that one.  It's a pretty bad analogy.  There's a lot broken here.  As I said before, the black community has a right to be upset, but by demanding treatment for their issues while eschewing that of others ignores the common ground we all share, and in so doing alienates people who would be on their side. 

 

The police officers being murdered in Dallas is awful infinity. Philando Castile's murder is awful infinity, Alton Sterling, etc., etc...

 

I lived in the ghetto for a good amount of my life and I have seen the racial profiling first hand. I was in the car of a friend of mine, who was pulled over for no good reason and was treated like crap, he was African American. I watched it from the stairs of my mom's front entrance in the home she had in the ghetto and watched it happen many times... more than I care to remember. Not all of these people were innocent, but living in those situations you begin to understand why things went haywire. Drug addicted parents, no reasonable social plan to help the children of this mess and so forth.

 

Common Ground? We are certainly not there yet. I hope we can get there, we'll see.

 

We have seen 3 tragedies unfold before our eyes last week and maybe that unites us in mourning, confusion, and maybe chaos. For the rest of it to play out, I will wait and see.

 

Common Ground is an empty word right now and there is a decent gap in between the factions. Big bridges need to be built. Do we have the resources to build them?

[formerly33]

I don't think you can speak for what I do and do not understand.  That's just flat out arrogant.  Nowhere did I say the other side was any more classy/non-racist.  I'm not blaming the shootings on Black lives matter.  What I am saying is that race is being interjected into a much bigger issue, and it forces people to take sides where they should have plenty of common ground.

You know, it's pointless having a discussion with you if you're going to resort to name calling. If you don't want me to categorize you alongside conservative republicans, then don't call me arrogant. I'm sorry I came off that way.

 

 

Black lives matter.  So do white lives.  So do cops lives.  So do everyone's lives.  The black community certainly has a right to be upset, but in focusing the issue on black lives, it becomes a slap in the face to the 5 white cops who died this weekend in what was without question a racially motivated attack.

You keep focusing on the fact that peoples' feelings are hurt when we talk about the number of innocent black lives that are ruthlessly taken. I would like respectfully ask you to pause and think about the feelings that were hurt when these black lives were passed aside as unimportant while slain police never failed to draw media attention. I'm not saying that attention was undeserved. I'm not minimizing the atrocity of the Dallas shooting. All I'm saying is black lives matter. I won't apologize.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The problem is that more than a wrist is broken, and for some silly reason you only want to treat that one.  It's a pretty bad analogy.  There's a lot broken here.  As I said before, the black community has a right to be upset, but by demanding treatment for their issues while eschewing that of others ignores the common ground we all share, and in so doing alienates people who would be on their side. 

 

Look, I think the choice of "Black Lives Matter" as a name for the movement was unwise.  It causes confusion and is easy for thsoe that want to confuse things to lead others astray.  

 

But the term "All Lives Matter" is a rebuke.  It's dismissive.  Brock already laid it out well, but whatever your intentions the effect is what matters.  

[twinsnorth49]

The term All Lives Matter is meaningless because it connotates equality, which we all know doesn't exist.

 

I don't think Black Lives Matter is drawing battle lines, they aren't saying "Black Lives Matter More". They're drawing attention to an issue which is real to them and seemingly wanting to be ignored by the people they are trying to reach.

 

If those people want to get offended by that or turn it into an issue of political correctness, well that's a bigger problem imo.

[nicksaviking]

How about we just get rid of traffic stops except in cases of auto theft or obvious cases of driver impairment?

 

Why do we need traffic stops? We certainly have the technology to read license plates and take dashboard video of the traffic violation. Upon the officer witnessing a violation an officer can flash lights and pull over the car as normal. Than an electronic notification can be sent to the driver advising of the infraction and advising that an ensuing ticket and video evidence of the infraction will soon be provided, but both parties can remain in their vehicles with no worry of a physical interaction.

 

There should be no need for a police officer to get out of the car for simple traffic violations. If the officer suspects the driver of something more malevolent than a broken taillight or illegal lane change, a detective can be dispatched to the residence corresponding to the license plate, which is how most violent crimes are investigated and solved anyway.

[jimmer]

 

How about we just get rid of traffic stops except in cases of auto theft or obvious cases of driver impairment?

 

Why do we need traffic stops? We certainly have the technology to read license plates and take dashboard video of the traffic violation. Upon the officer witnessing a violation an officer can flash lights and pull over the car as normal. Than an electronic notification can be sent to the driver advising of the infraction and advising that an ensuing ticket and video evidence of the infraction will soon be provided, but both parties can remain in their vehicles with no worry of a physical interaction.

 

There should be no need for a police officer to get out of the car for simple traffic violations. If the officer suspects the driver of something more malevolent than a broken taillight or illegal lane change, a detective can be dispatched to the residence corresponding to the license plate, which is how most violent crimes are investigated and solved anyway.

Shouldn't the police also be about trying to prevent crimes from happening?

 

Let's say the car is stolen, but hasn't been reported yet because the owners don't know it's been stolen, and the detectives show up at the owners house.  Car is long gone by then.

 

Or let's say that by the time the detectives get to the house, the crime has been completed and everything has been all tidied up as the detectives come and try to figure out if a crime was even committed at all.  What reason, at that point, would a judge give a detective a warrant?  Based on a patrolman's gut intuition hours or days ago that maybe the driver was up to 'something but no idea what'?

 

I think your idea is good in a classroom theory sort of way, but doesn't have real life application that shows any understanding of what law enforcement is about in it's entirety.

[Craig Arko]

Options are available if people choose to try them.

 

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/news/ci_26482775/use-deadly-force-by-police-disappears-richmond-streets

[nicksaviking]

 

Shouldn't the police also be about trying to prevent crimes from happening?

 

Let's say the car is stolen, but hasn't been reported yet because the owners don't know it's been stolen, and the detectives show up at the owners house.  Car is long gone by then.

 

Or let's say that by the time the detectives get to the house, the crime has been completed and everything has been all tidied up as the detectives come and try to figure out if a crime was even committed at all.  What reason, at that point, would a judge give a detective a warrant?  Based on a patrolman's gut intuition hours or days ago that maybe the driver was up to 'something but no idea what'?

 

I think your idea is good in a classroom theory sort of way, but doesn't have real life application that shows any understanding of what law enforcement is about in it's entirety.

 

As to the unreported but stolen car, I'd assume 99% of them aren't solved by a "random" traffic stop.

 

As to the second part, if a judge wouldn't give a warrant to the detective based on a patrolman's gut intuition, the patrolman sure as hell shouldn't be using his "gut intuition" on a traffic stop. Just as with the example with the stolen car, hardly any major crimes would go unsolved just because a detective went to the suspect's house instead of patrolman interrogating the guy in his car.

 

And I'm AOK with a minimal number of extra crimes going unsolved if it means less cops shooting people they pull over and less people pulled over shooting cops.

 

If keeping people out of unsafe situations isn't part of what law enforcement is about, than law enforcement needs to be about something else.

[USMCTwin]

 

As to the unreported but stolen car, I'd assume 99% of them aren't solved by a "random" traffic stop.

 

As to the second part, if a judge wouldn't give a warrant to the detective based on a patrolman's gut intuition, the patrolman sure as hell shouldn't be using his "gut intuition" on a traffic stop. Just as with the example with the stolen car, hardly any major crimes would go unsolved just because a detective went to the suspect's house instead of patrolman interrogating the guy in his car.

 

And I'm AOK with a minimal number of extra crimes going unsolved if it means less cops shooting people they pull over and less people pulled over shooting cops.

 

If keeping people out of unsafe situations isn't part of what law enforcement is about, than law enforcement needs to be about something else.

 

I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of crime law enforcement prevents. If you neuter cops it will be harder to recruit the best and the brightest. I know I wouldn't want to work in an environment that is at almost all times life threatening knowing I don't have the power or authority to defend myself. One thing to take a serious look into is crime rates and homicide rates in each of these areas after a cop kills someone that is highly publicized. The result is almost predictable at this point: Cops either are directed or choose to withdraw and crime rates and homicide rates sky rocket. 

 

I have no doubt that we need to do a better job training and recruiting law enforcement officers, but I also know that I don't envy the job they do on a daily basis. Even in this instance with Castile I have no idea whether the officer acted appropriately or not and I hope we do get answers that will allow us to have some healing, but you can tell the officer is even upset about shooting Castile. He knows what just transpired and is pretty visibly shaken by it. If the officer acted inappropriately I would definitely be in favor of prosecution, but I think we sometimes forget law enforcement officers are people too and for the most part they do a pretty fantastic job protecting the general public in my opinion.

[Brock Beauchamp]

A compelling article about why people block freeways and what they represent to the black community.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-highways-have-become-the-center-of-civil-rights-protest/

[TheLeviathan]

A compelling article about why people block freeways and what they represent to the black community.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-highways-have-become-the-center-of-civil-rights-protest/

It all falls apart for me when you consider how much harm/negativity it can cause versus the gains. These are dumb, ineffectual, and potentially dangerous.

[TheLeviathan]

As to the unreported but stolen car, I'd assume 99% of them aren't solved by a "random" traffic stop.

 

As to the second part, if a judge wouldn't give a warrant to the detective based on a patrolman's gut intuition, the patrolman sure as hell shouldn't be using his "gut intuition" on a traffic stop. Just as with the example with the stolen car, hardly any major crimes would go unsolved just because a detective went to the suspect's house instead of patrolman interrogating the guy in his car.

 

And I'm AOK with a minimal number of extra crimes going unsolved if it means less cops shooting people they pull over and less people pulled over shooting cops.

 

If keeping people out of unsafe situations isn't part of what law enforcement is about, than law enforcement needs to be about something else.

It seems you are making a lot of assumptions about how frequently stops are dangerous as well as assumptions about how effective stops are. I'm not really comfortable about either set of assumptions.

[nicksaviking]

 

I think you are seriously underestimating the amount of crime law enforcement prevents. If you neuter cops it will be harder to recruit the best and the brightest. I know I wouldn't want to work in an environment that is at almost all times life threatening knowing I don't have the power or authority to defend myself. One thing to take a serious look into is crime rates and homicide rates in each of these areas after a cop kills someone that is highly publicized. The result is almost predictable at this point: Cops either are directed or choose to withdraw and crime rates and homicide rates sky rocket. 

 

Law enforcement can prevent plenty of crimes with their presence in a patrol car, how much additional prevention is really happening by them getting out of a car to confront someone for a minor traffic offense?

 

And why would recruitment fall because police are putting civilians and themselves in a safer environment by reducing these roadside confrontations? Both police and civilians would be safer and I'd argue that the only people this would turn off from law enforcement are those that CRAVE confrontation which is exactly the type of people who have no business being a cop.

 

This would prevent altercations, I don't know why someone would think this makes it more dangerous for police or the communities they are charged with protecting. This wouldn't stop an officer from protecting him or herself, it would lessen their need to do so.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It all falls apart for me when you consider how much harm/negativity it can cause versus the gains. These are dumb, ineffectual, and potentially dangerous.

 

you really think protests that don't inconvenience people get ANY traction? Or, are some inconveniences ok (different roads, public buildings, ????) ? Because I don't think a bunch of people sitting on the capital lawn is going to do much good for anyone.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

you really think protests that don't inconvenience people get ANY traction? Or, are some inconveniences ok (different roads, public buildings, ????) ? Because I don't think a bunch of people sitting on the capital lawn is going to do much good for anyone.

That's my take as well. I don't necessarily agree with blocking freeways but mainly because it's kinda dangerous... But what else are protestors supposed to do? If they hide away in locations found convenient to the rest of the world, they'll be ignored because that's been the problem all along. We willfully ignore the voices of these people so they're forcing their voices into our daily lives.

 

And given how long this has gone on, what recourse is left them? Less obtrusive measures have been tried for years to little or no effect.

[jimmer]

If a ton of protestors block the highway, and an ambulance can't get to a person who needs it, or can't get a person to the hospital, can the protestors be charged?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It all falls apart for me when you consider how much harm/negativity it can cause versus the gains. These are dumb, ineffectual, and potentially dangerous.

My opinion is that there is a part of society that will react negatively, yes... But that's going to happen either way. Is negativity worse than indifference? It nets the same result.

 

But I think the benefit lies in the big, quiet middle... The people who never paid attention because they didn't have to pay attention. These actions get the black community airtime to argue their grievances. There will be a large segment of society when, once presented that opinion, will reconsider their position (or, more likely, examine it for the first time).

 

But there are concerns over how dangerous it is to block a freeway. I won't argue that. I wish I could think of a better way to get the community airtime without putting anyone in danger but I got nothin'.

[TheLeviathan]

you really think protests that don't inconvenience people get ANY traction? Or, are some inconveniences ok (different roads, public buildings, ????) ? Because I don't think a bunch of people sitting on the capital lawn is going to do much good for anyone.

I don't think protests are effective in general. These gain no traction, at least in the way they aim. Might be lots of negative traction.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If a ton of protestors block the highway, and an ambulance can't get to a person who needs it, or can't get a person to the hospital, can the protestors be charged?

Why are we using extreme fringe cases to defend an argument? How many ambulances use the freeway in the first place? When's the last time you saw an ambulance on a TC freeway? I live in Minneapolis and work downtown. I spend 95% of my time inside the city limits of Minneapolis. I can't remember the last time I saw an ambulance on the freeway. I see or hear them on city streets several times a week, though.

 

These protestors are blocking a dense metro area freeway. I just did a scan of the TC metro area in Google Maps and it's unlikely any ambulance will need to drive more than 4-5 miles to reach the nearest hospital.

 

I'm sorry but if your best reason to not block a freeway is "Think of the ambulances!", you're not going to sway me at all.

[jimmer]

I only asked becausehttp://www.allenbwest.com/matt-palumbo/black-lives-matter-block-highway-when-ambulance-tries-to-come-through-and-then

 

 

[jimmer]

http://www.masslive.com/news/boston/index.ssf/2015/01/black_lives_matter_protesters.html

 

or because...

[Craig Arko]

I see emergency vehicles on 35W all the time, whether it's north of town or by the 35-36 junction, or passing under the Hennepin Ave. bridge.

 

Although my main worry still is some crackpot will plow a vehicle through a line of protesters. Because more blood will make everything that much worse. I just can't support this, even though one of my nephews has participated in them.

[nicksaviking]

 

I don't think protests are effective in general. These gain no traction, at least in the way they aim. Might be lots of negative traction.

 

Well Rosa Parks can sit in the front of the bus now at least.

 

Something about who can use which schools and which water fountains too if I remember right.