• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Racial Tension in the U.S.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Where should the thread go from here?

  • Racial Tension in the U.S.

    Votes: 16 51.6%

  • Extremist Views on the U.S.

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Mending Years of Racial Stereotypes.

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Protest Culture.

    Votes: 1 3.2%

  • Racist Idiots in the News.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 10 32.3%
  • Total voters
    31
Whittaker said:
Here is part of an article from National Review on the Castile shooting. Full article and full video available in the link.
It should be noted that NR is conservative and would be expected to favor the police in our identity politics world.


"Yesterday afternoon, Minnesota officials finally released the full video of the traffic stop that cost Philando Castile his life. It’s a tough video to watch. I’m embedding it below, but beware, it is very raw: If you watch carefully, two salient facts should emerge. First, Philando Castile was quite literally following the police officer’s instructions when he was shot. The officer asked for his license and told him not to reach for his gun. Castile reached for his license while verbally assuring the officer that he was not reaching for his gun. The officer shot him anyway. The second fact overwhelmed the first. The officer panicked. His terror is palpable. The man went from conducting a relatively routine traffic stop to shrieking and firing in a matter of seconds. Part of this is understandable. Life can change in a flash, and when we’re in a state of ultimate distress, few of us can be as composed as SEAL Team Six. When I saw that palpable panic, I immediately knew why he was acquitted. The unwritten law trumped the statutes on the books. The unwritten law is simple: When an officer is afraid, he’s permitted to shoot. Juries tend to believe that proof of fear equals proof of innocence."

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-shooting-police-must-display-reasonable-fear
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the charge was, but if the charge required specific intent, then honest fear would be a valid defense. But I suspect the standard was something like "gross negligence", and for that, an unreasonable fear shouldn't get you off the hook.
 
Rasmussen

Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe President Obama has brought Americans of different races closer together, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Forty-seven percent (47%) think Obama has driven those of different races further apart instead. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say his words and actions have had no major impact either way. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Click to expand...
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
I'm not sure what the charge was, but if the charge required specific intent, then honest fear would be a valid defense. But I suspect the standard was something like "gross negligence", and for that, an unreasonable fear shouldn't get you off the hook.
Click to expand...
it was culpable negligence according to the jury instructions of the case. no mention of fear at all

Authorized use of force was defined as "apparent" risk of death or bodily harm.

the prosecution had to prove that the officer created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a risk..

It then goes on to define culpable negligence as more than gross negligence but gross negligence with recklessness.
 
David. said:
Rasmussen
Click to expand...
Was this Obamas platform?
Obama at most times went out of his way not to bring race into his platform.

which president did voters feel brought them closer together as a race?
 
Even though President Obama nods to his Christian faith regularly in both serious and light-hearted settings, a large number of Americans still believe he is a Muslim. According to a new CNN/ORC poll, 29 percent of Americans say they think that Obama is a Muslim, including 43 percent of Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ent-obama-is-a-muslim/?utm_term=.dc38d55d9807
Click to expand...


72 percent of registered Republican voters hold doubts about the president's citizenship.

It found that 40 percent of knowledgeable Republicans disagree that Obama was born in the U.S. Forty-two percent of lower-knowledge Republicans said the same.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ll-majority-of-republicans-still-doubt-obamas
Click to expand...


Interviewed on Fox News's "Fox and Friends," Trump appeared to imply at two different points that Obama was failing to address the threat of terrorism because maybe he didn't want to. Host Steve Doocy askedTrump why the presumptive Republican nominee had suggested on Twitter that Obama should resign. (Our emphasis added in bold.)

DOOCY: So, Mr. Trump, the president called for more gun controls. He also said it was terror and he said it was a hate crime -- but he did not say that it was Islamic terrorism. And for that reason, you say he should quit.

TRUMP: He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands -- it's one or the other, and either one is unacceptable.

Later in the program, Trump went further.

TRUMP: I've been right about a lot of things. I don't want congratulations. What I want them to do is be tough and vigilant, our government. Look guys, we're led by a man that either is not tough, not smart or has something else in mind. And the something else in mind -- people can't believe it. People cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words radical Islamic terrorism. There's something going on. It's inconceivable. There's something going on.

Again, emphasis added. "There's something going on."

On the "Today" show, host Savannah Guthrie pressed Trump on those comments.

GUTHRIE: Just this morning on a different network you said about the president he doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands. What do you mean by that?

TRUMP: Well there are a lot of people that think maybe he doesn't want to get it. A lot of people think maybe he doesn't want to know about it. I happen to think that he just doesn't know what he's doing. But there are many people that think maybe he doesn't want to get it. He doesn't want to see what's really happening.

GUTHRIE: Why would that be?

TRUMP: And that could be. Because Savannah, Savannah, why he isn't addressing the issue? He's not addressing the issue. He's not calling it what it is. This is radical Islamic terrorism. This isn't fighting Germany, this isn't fighting Japan, where they wear uniforms.

An honest answer to Guthrie's second question from Trump, of course, would be that perhaps maybe Obama is a Muslim.

​
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...p-terrorism-wink-wink/?utm_term=.c1a743d9fadc
Click to expand...


Any republicans care about this?
 
-Akronite- said:
Don't be dense. The narrative was part of the conversation regarding the event with or without Obama chiming in. That was the discussion, that was the narrative, that's what was relevant to people.
Click to expand...

The fact that you cannot see that is a one-sided view of the issue is the precise problem. And frankly, also you're displaying a recency bias. That incident happened in 2009 -- years before Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, or BLM.

If someone just acted like an asshole that's not really a story.
Click to expand...

No, but acting like an asshole and then making it an issue of police racism is a story. It is why this is a two-sided problem. False accusations of racism make the entire problem of racial division worse. It builds more anger and resentment from people who are going to make that "racist" incident part of their "experience", and respond with greater rage and anger towards the police. It fuels the cycle and makes it impossible to defuse/improve the situation. It is a recipe for things getting worse and worse instead of better.

That requires looking at both sides of the issue, and that means honesty about citizens who misbehave and then blame it on race to inflame racial tensions. But you see just one issue. One discussion, one narrative, one story that is "relevant to people", and that is the story of police mistreatment of minorities.

Anyway, though we don't agree, the discussion itself makes the point.
 
Last edited:
The Human Q-Tip said:
The fact that you cannot see that is a one-sided view of the issue is the precise problem. And frankly, also you're displaying a recency bias. That incident happened in 2009 -- years before Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, or BLM.
Click to expand...

:celb (13):

:chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle:

I know you didn't mean to suggest this BUT come on buddy. The issue of race relations between black communities and police didn't just appear in 2009.

And you can quit talking about my bias as if you aren't displaying any. I mean Jesus, we're both taking the pretty obvious sides of this argument based on everything else we fight about, you don't have to pretend you're purely objective because we know you aren't.
 
-Akronite- said:
:celb (13):

:chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle:

I know you didn't mean to suggest this BUT come on buddy. The issue of race relations between black communities and police didn't just appear in 2009.
Click to expand...

Of course it didn't. But there wasn't anything close to the level of discussion there is now, and Obama had zero obligation or pressure to comment on this thing at all. Which would have been the wiser course.

And you can quit talking about my bias as if you aren't displaying any. I mean Jesus, we're both taking the pretty obvious sides of this argument based on everything else we fight about, you don't have to pretend you're purely objective because we know you aren't.
Click to expand...

I've been saying consistently that there are two sides to the issue, and that if you don't address both 1) police misconduct and 2) false allegations of police misconduct/racism, the problem is going to get worse.

You consistently describe the issue as being just police misconduct/racism, and haven't said a peep about the harm caused by false/bogus accusations of racism.

In fact...do you recall President Obama ever talking about the harm caused by false accusations of racism, that people should not use racism as an easy excuse when the real problem was their own conduct?
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
I've been saying consistently that there are two sides to the issue, and that if you don't address both 1) police misconduct and 2) false allegations of police misconduct/racism, the problem is going to get worse.

You consistently describe the issue as being just police misconduct/racism, and haven't said a peep about the harm caused by false/bogus accusations of racism.

In fact...do you recall President Obama ever talking about the harm caused by false accusations of racism, that people should not use racism as an easy excuse when the real problem was their own conduct?
Click to expand...

The harm from false accusations doesn't hold equal weight in my opinion. It's kind of like the debate over rape culture. Yes, there are instances where people make false accusations and they can be very harmful to the person accused, but that doesn't mean there isn't a larger more pervasive issue of people getting away with this.
 
-Akronite- said:
The harm from false accusations doesn't hold equal weight in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Really doesn't matter how much relative "weight" they hold. Because each incident can and should be judged on its own merits, the weight belongs on the side of whatever the truth is for that particular incident.

It's kind of like the debate over rape culture. Yes, there are instances where people make false accusations and they can be very harmful to the person accused, but that doesn't mean there isn't a larger more pervasive issue of people getting away with this.
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention the latter. In my opinion, some laws designed to protect women who are alleged victims of domestic abuse or rape violate the constitutional rights of the accused. I cannot go into the details here, but I'll just say that my nephew almost got wrongfully convicted of domestic violence/elder abuse because the laws of California wouldn't permit the introduction of evidence of the "victim's" background. His life would have been ruined had he been convicted -- of something he didn't do.

The only thing that saved him was fortune -- the woman ended up confessing that she had made the entire thing up, and had coerced the other witness/victim to corroborate her story. We would not have been able to introduced evidence devastating to her claim otherwise. But the law in California was an absolute nightmare if you are wrongfully accused.

So no, I don't believe the rights of the victim should trump the rights of the accused.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
Really doesn't matter how much relative "weight" they hold. Because each incident can and should be judged on its own merits, the weight belongs on the side of whatever the truth is for that particular incident.



Funny you should mention the latter. In my opinion, some laws designed to protect women who are alleged victims of domestic abuse or rape violate the constitutional rights of the accused. I cannot go into the details here, but I'll just say that my nephew almost got wrongfully convicted of domestic violence/elder abuse because the laws of California wouldn't permit the introduction of evidence of the "victim's" background. His life would have been ruined had he been convicted -- of something he didn't do.

The only thing that saved him was fortune -- the woman ended up confessing that she had made the entire thing up, and had coerced the other witness/victim to corroborate her story. We would not have been able to introduced evidence devastating to her claim otherwise. But the law in California was an absolute nightmare if you are wrongfully accused.

So no, I don't believe the rights of the victim should trump the rights of the accused.
Click to expand...

Can my replies to you and @Maximus be considered elder abuse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top