Racial Tension in the U.S.

[The Oi]

To me, if you are high on paht you deserve to die.

 

[TopGun]

To me, if you are high on paht you deserve to die.

Is that you AG Sessions?

 

[Tlyons]

Is that you AG Sessions?

He doesn't recall

 

[Cavatt]

Yes, there was.

If an officer finds weed in my car and in my system then there is, at the very least, evidence that I was high.

It's not strong evidence. It stays in your system for 1 month. So he had definitely smoke din teh last 30 days.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yikes.

Guess he's decided it's time to being his second career....

View: https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/875832378501074944/photo/1

 

[Jack Brickman]

Someone being high does not justify actions. That was the point of my post. It's a weak defense that, in all honest, works because of how misunderstood weed intentionally has become.

And let's be real here...if you're high, you're probably not out looking for a fight. You're out looking for a Taco Bell. Weed doesn't make people dangerous. It makes them docile and hungry. Alcohol is the drug that gets a lot of people into a fighting mood.

 

[Zeus69]

Yikes.

Guess he's decided it's time to being his second career....

View: https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7/status/875832378501074944/photo/1

Flyer!!

 

[Tlyons]

I know before I shoot a cop I'm gonna use my manners, call him sir and tell him about the murder weapon beforehand.

That dashcam video is disgusting.

I've never seen two cops at the same scene acting in such completely different extremes.

 

[AZ_]

Jigo Beauregard Oi

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

But again, he didn't pick that narrative. He didn't make a assumptions if you look at his words.

Wait a minute -- of course he picked that narrative. You quoted him. He said he didn't know the specifics of this incident, but nevertheless immediately launched into the general narrative where it is the police who are at fault -- including tossing in the gratuitous claim that the police "acted stupidily" despite admitting he didn't know all the facts. Here's exactly what he said:

"I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."

Had he stopped there -- fine. That's where you should stop when you don't know all the facts. But he chose to then advance a particular narrative anyway:

But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

How did he know that narrative was even relevant to what actually happened?

The issue of race relations and law enforcement was clearly the broader issue in this as that's what the discussion was about nationally. It's the reason it was a story. Obama states that he does not know if it played a role but acknowledged the broader issue.

Wow. This is a great illustration of the problem. You see only one narrative possible. One issue. A problem that only has fault on one side -- that of the police.

There is a second narrative, which actually turned out to be the true narrative in this case. And that's the narrative where someone is rude and antagonistic to a police officer who is just doing their job and being polite. The rude, antagonistic person creates the problem in the first place, and then claims the issue was racism rather than their own behavior.

Why isn't that also an important message to get out there? That just as we expect police not to be racist, it is up to us as citizens not to be assholes, create problems, and then falsely attribute the problem to racism.

Why didn't the President go with that narrative after saying that he didn't know all the facts? Why did he choose instead to go with the police "acting stupidly", and then talk about mistreatment of minorities by police?

Of course, what he should have done was not mention any issue or narrative before knowing the facts. But then, that's not how people who have a bias behave.

 

[-Akronite-]

Wait a minute -- of course he picked that narrative. You quoted him. He said he didn't know the specifics of this incident, but nevertheless immediately launched into the general narrative where it is the police who are at fault -- including tossing in the gratuitous claim that the police "acted stupidily" despite admitting he didn't know all the facts. Here's exactly what he said:

"I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."

Had he stopped there -- fine. That's where you should stop when you don't know all the facts. But he chose to then advance a particular narrative anyway:

But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

How did he know that narrative was even relevant to what actually happened?

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. If someone just acted like an asshole that's not really a story. Race is the reason the story got to Obama, aside from him knowing the guy (funny, I can't find a quote where Obama gushes about the dude and pretends he's incapable of being an asshole).

You are overlooking a key point I'm making:

"...what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."

See that? He's not directly blaming racism for the incident. He said they acted stupidly to arrest a man in his home. Perhaps that was presumptuous, that's why he clarified later, like an adult. And because the conversation on the matter was surrounding race, he acknowledges the broader issue. Big whoop.

Wow. This is a great illustration of the problem. You see only one narrative possible. One issue. A problem that only has fault on one side -- that of the police.

There is a second narrative, which actually turned out to be the true narrative in this case. And that's the narrative where someone is rude and antagonistic to a police officer who is just doing their job and being polite. The rude, antagonistic person creates the problem in the first place, and then claims the issue was racism rather than their own behavior.

Why isn't that also an important message to get out there? That just as we expect police not to be racist, it is up to us as citizens not to be assholes, create problems, and then falsely attribute the problem to racism.

Why didn't the President go with that narrative after saying that he didn't know all the facts? Why did he choose instead to go with the police "acting stupidly", and then talk about mistreatment of minorities by police?

Of course, what he should have done was not mention any issue or narrative before knowing the facts. But then, that's not how people who have a bias behave.

When I am talking about narrative I'm talking about the national conversation. The conversation that came about from this was absolutely race-related. The questions that arose were about race. Obama addressed that and clearly DID NOT make a claim about race having a direct role. EDIT: The fact that he included these caveats but you ignore them is showing YOUR bias, given how often you find the best possible interpretation of Trump statements to let his nonsense slide.

There is a conversation to be had about respecting police as well, clearly. But Obama's statement really isn't that controversial to me. Sure, you'd have preferred he not speak on the matter. But let's say he's already speaking on it. Do you expect him to throw in a "well maybe he was being an asshole." Because at that point, this comment would really feel like victim-blaming as this dude should not have been arrested as a result of getting into his own home.

 

[AZ_]

There is a second narrative, which actually turned out to be the true narrative in this case. And that's the narrative where someone is rude and antagonistic to a police officer who is just doing their job and being polite. The rude, antagonistic person creates the problem in the first place, and then claims the issue was racism rather than their own behavior.

Why isn't that also an important message to get out there? That just as we expect police not to be racist, it is up to us as citizens not to be assholes, create problems, and then falsely attribute the problem to racism.

Why didn't the President go with that narrative after saying that he didn't know all the facts? Why did he choose instead to go with the police "acting stupidly", and then talk about mistreatment of minorities by police?

Of course, what he should have done was not mention any issue or narrative before knowing the facts. But then, that's not how people who have a bias behave.

At what point do you start holding police officers to a higher standard than you do those who antagonize.

I don't treat people who respond to trolls the same as I treat trolls,

The President doesn't have it within his power to stop trolls, he does have the power to help identify problems within law enforcement and work towards correcting them.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

At what point do you start holding police officers to a higher standard than you do those who antagonize.

Tell you what -- you answer the questions I posed in my post, and then I'll be happy to answer yours.

ETA: Oh hell, I'll be nice so you don't think I'm ducking anything.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

At what point do you start holding police officers to a higher standard than you do those who antagonize.

That would depend a great deal on the situation. Cops have the legal authority to do things that citizens don't. For example, I'm going to be a hell of a lot more sympathetic to a cop drawing his gun on a citizen than I am on a citizen drawing a gun on a cop.

But that's not even the racial issue anyway. The point is that false accusations of racism divide people and hurt race relations as well. So you have to do both -- point out when racism occurs, but also don't let false accusations of racism poison relationships and divide people either. Apparently, the President didn't consider that very important, because that that was the teaching moment suggested by the particular facts in the "beer summit" case.

The President doesn't have it within his power to stop trolls, he does have the power to help identify problems within law enforcement and work towards correcting them.

When it comes to the bully pulpit, and speaking out on issues of race, he has the power to say whatever he wants. So why didn't he speak out on the issue of citizen misconduct and false accusations of racism? Why did he choose to say the police "acted stupidily", and focus on an issue of racial profiling by police, when there wasn't a speck of evidence that had anything to do with this incident?

And bully pulpit aside, his actual power over local police is minimal unless they violate federal law. Which, interestingly enough, is pretty much mirrored by his power over citizens. Actually, he has even more power over ordinary citizens than he does over local police in the performance of their jobs.

 

[Whittaker]

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