BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Rodney Bathgate

Overheal wrote: »

There was a manhunt for him. You're mistaken.

Of course there was a manhunt once they identified the suspect. Did he ‘resist arrest’ when they caught up with him?

biko

Tell me how wrote: »

You want to keep doing this?

Yes, who doesn't love Dave Chappelle?
Did you see his piece on Juicy Smolé?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124

Rodney Bathgate

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah, he fled the scene looking for a police station to voluntarily present.

Did he ‘resist arrest’ when they caught up with him?

Rodney Bathgate

biko wrote: »

Yes, who doesn't love Dave Chappelle?
Did you see his piece on Juicy Smolé?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZXoErL2124

That lying piece of sh1t.

Overheal

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Of course there was a manhunt once they identified the suspect. Did he ‘resist arrest’ when they caught up with him?

:rolleyes:

corks finest

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Did he ‘resist arrest’ when they caught up with him?

Anyone see his first court appearance( that I know of) on hijacking and assault etc as a 17 yrs old?
Judge Judy,,,,, major attitude ,pity his poor dad who appeared with him and was visibly upset by the cheeky don't give a **** attitude of his son

Tell me how

biko wrote: »

Yes, who doesn't love Dave Chappelle?
Did you see his piece on Juicy Smolé?

Cool, everyone loves Dave.

Rodney Bathgate

Overheal wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It is a simple question. We are taking about ‘resisting arrest’, not manhunts.

From Wikipedia, ‘resisting arrest’ consists of one or more of the following:

- fleeing a police officer while being arrested
- threatening a police officer with physical violence while being arrested
- physically struggling to free oneself from being restrained (handcuffed or put into the police vehicle)
- attacking a police officer while being arrested (also known as assault)
- providing an officer with false identification (either verbally or by presentation of a false official document, i.e. a fake ID)

Sorry, but triggering a manhunt or not turning himself in at the local police station is not ‘resisting arrest’.

Overheal

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

It is a simple question. We are taking about ‘resisting arrest’, not manhunts.

From Wikipedia, ‘resisting arrest’ consists of one or more of the following:

- fleeing a police officer while being arrested
- threatening a police officer with physical violence while being arrested
- physically struggling to free oneself from being restrained (handcuffed or put into the police vehicle)
- attacking a police officer while being arrested (also known as assault)
- providing an officer with false identification (either verbally or by presentation of a false official document, i.e. a fake ID)

Sorry, but triggering a manhunt or not turning himself in at the local police station is not ‘resisting arrest’.

Rodney Bathgate

Overheal wrote: »

Tell me how attempted to make a comparison between these two arrests and I asked a simple question about ‘resisting arrest’ in these 2 instances.

Gentlemanne

The obsession with "resisting arrest" as if that is such an important distinction or that that is an excuse for police to just straight up murder someone who has been apprehended is frankly psychopathic.

Tell me how

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

Tell me how attempted to make a comparison between these two arrests and I asked a simple question about ‘resisting arrest’ in these 2 instances.

I didn't attempt anything. I did make a comparison on the 2 arrests. You guys are focusing on the determination of 'resisting arrest' as being paramount and implying that therefore any outcome is the responsibility of the person being arrested.

Ignoring the fact that the police behaviour can influence whether or not someone resists arrest, or is viewed to have done so, or that if they do so, excessive force is therefore acceptable.

DelaneyIn

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you not see how people would like to see one of the noted members of their community, with facial features recognized as being prominent within that community, would like to see actors, from that community, with the same facial features represent that person in a movie rather than someone from outside the community wearing a prosthetic to do so.

It's not just about Nina Simone being represented but it is about the implied suggestion that no one with such facial features was capable of playing her in the movie which grates with people.

How is any of that racism hysteria?

The actress is a black woman. Should we protest when people playing native Irish characters aren’t white enough? Did her not being black enough make any difference to the quality of the film?

The film was pretty good and the actress was credited with a good performance and portrayal. The only issue some people with her acting in the film is that her skin wasn’t dark enough.

Is that not the dictionary definition of racism? Treating someone negatively purely due to their skin colour?

Tell me how

DelaneyIn wrote: »

The actress is a black woman. Should we protest when people playing native Irish characters aren’t white enough? Did her not being black enough make any difference to the quality of the film?

The film was pretty good and the actress was credited with a good performance and portrayal. The only issue some people with her acting in the film is that her skin wasn’t dark enough.

Is that not the dictionary definition of racism? Treating someone negatively purely due to their skin colour?

Talk to the members of the Simone estate who weren't happy with the portrayal, or the actress who felt an apology was appropriate.

The actress did not possess pretty indicative facial features which many people do possess, she wore a prosthetic to alter her image to reflect Nina Simone more and so people felt it someone else should have gotten that opportunity.

The film is rated at 2% on Rotten Tomatoes apparently.

stinkypinky

Are we just going to completely keep ignoring the fact that blacks make up 13% of the population yet are responsible for over 50% of homicides, and over 50% of other violent crimes? 13% is both male and female. Black males are committing the vast majority of those crimes so that actual percentage is closer to 7 or 8% of the entire population being responsible for over 50% of murders. It's not just violent crime, that are grossly over represented in crime across the board.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

"It’s true that around 13 per cent of Americans are black, according to the latest estimates from the US Census Bureau.

And yes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Only 45 per cent of the offenders were white."

"The verdict
There is evidence in the official police-recorded figures that black Americans are more likely to commit certain types of crime than people of other races.

While it would be naïve to suggest that there is no racism in the US criminal justice system, victim reports don’t support the idea that this is because of mass discrimination.

Higher poverty rates among various urban black communities might explain the difference in crime rates, although the evidence is mixed."

----

Politicians have completely failed black communities, not the police. Decade after decade nothing changes - it's a naive cop out especially for liberals and democrats to continue scolding the police ignoring their complete failures in finding solutions for areas which have been under their total control for more than half a century.

Tell me how

stinkypinky wrote: »

Are we just going to completely keep ignoring the fact that blacks make up 13% of the population yet are responsible for over 50% of homicides, and over 50% of other violent crimes? 13% is both male and female and males are committing the vast majority of those crimes so that actual percentage is closer to 8% of the entire population being responsible for over 50% of murders.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

"It’s true that around 13 per cent of Americans are black, according to the latest estimates from the US Census Bureau.

And yes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Only 45 per cent of the offenders were white."

"he verdict
There is evidence in the official police-recorded figures that black Americans are more likely to commit certain types of crime than people of other races.

While it would be naïve to suggest that there is no racism in the US criminal justice system, victim reports don’t support the idea that this is because of mass discrimination.

Higher poverty rates among various urban black communities might explain the difference in crime rates, although the evidence is mixed."

----

Politicians have completely failed black communities, not the police. Decade after decade nothing changes - it's a naive cop out especially for liberals and democrats to continue scolding the police ignoring their complete failures in finding solutions of areas which have been under their total control for more than half a century.

The concept of redlining has been widely discussed of having influenced peoples opportunities and as a consequence the paths they end up on as well as how they are perceived and treated by the police.

You really should look in to this.

stinkypinky

Tell me how wrote: »

The concept of redlining has been widely discussed of having influenced peoples opportunities and as a consequence the paths they end up on as well as how they are perceived and treated by the police.

You really should look in to this.

Why do the Democrats not want school choice for low income families?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/biden-should-back-school-choice-democratic-voters-want-it-his-ncna1092121

"That’s why school choice programs exist — because high-quality schools shouldn’t just be for rich kids. Through school choice, parents can use some portion of the government funding allotted for their child’s education on alternatives to conventional district schools, such as charter schools, vouchers or tax credit scholarships to reduce the cost of private school tuition.

The irony is that while Democratic politicians slap down school choice proposals, Democratic voters are clamoring for them.

But most of the Democratic presidential candidates won’t support choices like these for lower-income parents. Nearly the entire primary field has opposed or refrained from backing any proposed model beside the standard public school system."

Tell me how

stinkypinky wrote: »

Why do the Democrats not want school choice for low income families?

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/biden-should-back-school-choice-democratic-voters-want-it-his-ncna1092121

"That’s why school choice programs exist — because high-quality schools shouldn’t just be for rich kids. Through school choice, parents can use some portion of the government funding allotted for their child’s education on alternatives to conventional district schools, such as charter schools, vouchers or tax credit scholarships to reduce the cost of private school tuition.

The irony is that while Democratic politicians slap down school choice proposals, Democratic voters are clamoring for them.

But most of the Democratic presidential candidates won’t support choices like these for lower-income parents. Nearly the entire primary field has opposed or refrained from backing any proposed model beside the standard public school system."

So, what do you suggest? Leave the politicians in place who haven't acted where it is needed yet, or, have protests to showcase the demand for meaningful action?

stinkypinky

Tell me how wrote: »

So, what do you suggest? Leave the politicians in place who haven't acted where it is needed yet, or, have protests to showcase the demand for meaningful action?

I don't know what the solutions could and should be - it's something that's extremely complicated and will take many generations to fix. What I do know is hammering the police and campaigning to defund their departments will have a very predictable outcome - low morale across the board and higher levels of crime.

Overheal

DelaneyIn wrote: »

The actress is a black woman. Should we protest when people playing native Irish characters aren’t white enough? Did her not being black enough make any difference to the quality of the film?

The film was pretty good and the actress was credited with a good performance and portrayal. The only issue some people with her acting in the film is that her skin wasn’t dark enough.

Is that not the dictionary definition of racism? Treating someone negatively purely due to their skin colour?

It wasn't purely due to her skin color though, it was part of it, a larger part of that was wearing makeup to appear blacker than you actually are.

Overheal

stinkypinky wrote: »

Are we just going to completely keep ignoring the fact that blacks make up 13% of the population yet are responsible for over 50% of homicides, and over 50% of other violent crimes? 13% is both male and female. Black males are committing the vast majority of those crimes so that actual percentage is closer to 7 or 8% of the entire population being responsible for over 50% of murders. It's not just violent crime, that are grossly over represented in crime across the board.

It is incredibly unfaithful and dishonest posting to keep trotting out the talking point that this statistic has been 'ignored.' Continuing to trot out this line, I believe, is what ultimately shut down the George Floyd thread. Because, everytime it was trotted out, it was met with the same reasoned response: that blacks are overpoliced, and there is overhwelming amounts of data to show it. I understand why people feel like the debate should be completely enclosed within that one fact, but it is far, far more complicated than that.

stinkypinky

Overheal wrote: »

It is incredibly unfaithful and dishonest posting to keep trotting out talking point that this statistic has been ignored. Continuing to trot out this line, I believe, is what ultimately shut down the George Floyd thread. Because, everytime it was trotted out, it was met with the same reasoned response: that blacks are overpoliced, and there is overhwelming amounts of data to show it. I understand why people feel like the debate should be completely enclosed within that one fact, but it is far, far more complicated than that.

If blacks are over-policed, why do 61% want of them want to retain the same police presence in their neighborhoods and 20% want increased numbers?

This is a recent poll long after the George Floyd incident.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx

"Black Americans Want Police to Retain Local Presence

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When asked whether they want the police to spend more time, the same amount of time or less time than they currently do in their area, most Black Americans -- 61% -- want the police presence to remain the same. This is similar to the 67% of all U.S. adults preferring the status quo, including 71% of White Americans.

Meanwhile, nearly equal proportions of Black Americans say they would like the police to spend more time in their area (20%) as say they'd like them to spend less time there (19%).

Overheal

stinkypinky wrote: »

If blacks are over-policed, why do 61% want of them want to retain the same police presence in their neighborhoods and 20% want increased numbers?

I won't pretend to know why those polled answered poll questions the way they did in a rhetorical manner such as this. They are surely many and varied.

Tell me how

stinkypinky wrote: »

I don't know what the solutions could and should be - it's something that's extremely complicated and will take many generations to fix. What I do know is hammering the police and campaigning to defund their departments will have a very predictable outcome - low morale across the board and higher levels of crime.

We will see, given the metrics around policing, any increase in crime should be obvious quite quickly. The ingrained sense of being disenfranchised or being more likely to consider crime will definitely take longer.

We have seen in Ireland, that meaningful change quite often originates with marches.
Same Sex Marriage, repeal of the 8th, roll back on water charges, better health and safety conditions on construction sites all originated with marches. And I'm hoping for the same in terms of environmental action but I am much less confident in that respect than I was previously.

stinkypinky

Overheal wrote: »

I won't pretend to know why those polled answered poll questions the way they did in a rhetorical manner such as this. They are surely many and varied.

A rhetorical manner?

You have a habit of using big meaningless words to confusticate when you can't issue a good retort.

Tell me how

stinkypinky wrote: »

If blacks are over-policed, why do 61% want of them want to retain the same police presence in their neighborhoods and 20% want increased numbers?

I suspect that they, like anyone else wants to feel safe. But, they want those same police people to behave differently.

Both things are not mutually exclusive.

Overheal

stinkypinky wrote: »

A rhetorical manner?

You have a habit of using big meaningless words to confusticate when you can't issue a good retort.

You are using this poll to circumvent the fact there are years of data and research that overwhelmingly show that blacks are overpoliced. By way of posing a rhetorical question to me, using this poll, you are trying to say "blacks can't be overpoliced look how many blacks Gallup says want to be policed."

Again: I have no idea why people answered how they did. Do they think they are overpoliced, do they think the policing in their area is fine and they just want to see more policing equally applied to white suburbs? I have no clue. It's a complicated multigenerational problem that one gallup poll is not going to encompass well.

stinkypinky

Overheal wrote: »

You are using this poll to circumvent the fact there are years of data and research that overwhelmingly show that blacks are overpoliced. By way of posing a rhetorical question to me, using this poll, you are trying to say "blacks can't be overpoliced look how many blacks Gallup says want to be policed."

Again: I have no idea why people answered how they did. Do they think they are overpoliced, do they think the policing in their area is fine and they just want to see more policing equally applied to white suburbs? I have no clue. It's a complicated multigenerational problem that one gallup poll is not going to encompass well.

I think the idea that more blacks are disproportionately arrested because they're specifically targeted is tomfoolery of the higher order. Even if it were true, should cops spent less time in crime riddled areas to try be more diverse in their arrests?

biko

Would it help to have mainly black police in black neighbourhoods?









And mainly white police in white neighbourhoods?

Biker79

Tell me how wrote: »

Because of the very real risk that he might be killed in the course of a pretty low intensity engagement with the police?

That is why people are protesting, because the system of policing in the US has not gotten to the stage where such interactions litterally escalate to become matters of life and death.

It should absolutely not be this way with an organisation who is there to protect and serve.

There is a very low risk of escalation when you 100% co-operate with police requests.

If you have a violent criminal history, then you should aim for 150% co-operation with police requests. That much is very clear to me. I cant grasp why people don't get this, I truly cant. But that's me and I cant imagine resisting someone who has a gun.

Also note that in a society that does not have a violent element, strong police measures are not necessary. Living in a violent society, you have to accept certain things are necessary when engaging with the police, like being 100% co-operative.

Simple as that.