Unarmed man shot in miami by police

[Estil]

Yes... that's kind of the point.

The Black Lives Matter guy is the one saying, "My house is on fire! Please help me save my house!" while the other guy - the one with the hose - is the All Lives Matter guy, who's saying, "Yes, but my house matters, too, and if it were burning, it should be saved, too! As a matter of fact, I'm gonna hose it down now, just on general principle, because it could catch on fire."

Are you really not getting that?

No, the All Lives Matter people are saying that black guy's house does indeed need to be saved. But that goes equally for anyone's house that needs to be saved.

Good strawman try though.

[s_stabeler]

it's not precisely the issue. The BLM activists portray the issue as a racial one: black people being targeted by cops. ALM portrays the issue as one of police violence- that is, that the issue is that police are too willing to use lethal force. The problem is that BLM activists focus on teaching the police not to be racist- a legitimate problem, but sometimes they come off as not caring if police shoot every white person they see rather than every black person they see. ALM- apart from a minority faction that are just plain racist- think the police should be taught more about when lethal force is actually appropriate.

Ultimately, the issue is that the third side- people who support the status quo-have successfully portrayed it as BLM v ALM, where only one side can get what they want. It's classic divide and conquer. A parallel can be drawn in the civil rights area- far too many times, bigots have been able to block progress by pointing to another marginalised group that wouldn't be helped, and claiming that it means the group that is achieving something supports marginalisation of that group.(feminists V gay rights activists V anti-racism activiists (sometimes V disability rights activists as well) rather than all of them V bigots, in other words)

[Estil]

Or, perhaps we could do both? As I've said a few times before about this whole ALM vs. BLM stuff, I think you'll find that at least the rational (read: majority) of people subscribing to either label has the same goal: To reduce overall violence and hate. Let's hose down the big freaken fire, sure, but there's nothing wrong with wetting one's proverbial own house as well to prevent spread of fire (which is the analogy of violence and hate, after all).

Yes, thank you. The All Lives Matter people (which is the vast majority of this country) simply believe that any flagrant abuse of power/force by those swore before God to serve the public trust and protect the innocent should pay the price. The concern is that the BLM movement is sending the wrong message (intended or not) that only certain types of police brutality count...when a white cop does so to a black person, and is automatically assumed to be a racist hate crime regardless of whether or not the cop really did so for racist reasons. Seriously, how often do the BLM activists show up when a white cop commits police brutality towards a white victim? Or even a black cop to a black victim for that matter!

Punish the same people for the same crimes.

[mjr]

Yes, thank you. The All Lives Matter people (which is the vast majority of this country) simply believe that any flagrant abuse of power/force by those swore before God to serve the public trust and protect the innocent should pay the price. The concern is that the BLM movement is sending the wrong message (intended or not) that only certain types of police brutality count...when a white cop does so to a black person, and is automatically assumed to be a racist hate crime regardless of whether or not the cop really did so for racist reasons. Seriously, how often do the BLM activists show up when a white cop commits police brutality towards a white victim? Or even a black cop to a black victim for that matter!

Punish the same people for the same crimes.

I think there's also a certain key element the BLM movement is missing. Fixing the violence in their own communities. I mean, how much black-on-black crime is there? And what are the percentages, per capita?

They don't seem to be too concerned with black civilians shooting other black civilians...just when Officer Whitey has a run-in with a black civilian.

[Gravekeeper]

Fixing the violence in their own communities. I mean, how much black-on-black crime is there? And what are the percentages, per capita?

Oh, oh! Keep going you two. I'm only one more space away from Brietbart Bingo.

[Kheldarson]

Oh, oh! Keep going you two. I'm only one more space away from Brietbart Bingo.

I <3 you. That made me laugh pretty hard.

[mjr]

I <3 you. That made me laugh pretty hard.

It just made me roll my eyes. Notice he didn't refute what I said. He can talk about Breitbart Bingo all he wants. He's the one who looks foolish, not me.

[Kheldarson]

It just made me roll my eyes. Notice he didn't refute what I said. He can talk about Breitbart Bingo all he wants. He's the one who looks foolish, not me.

He's not the ones repeating right wing talking points like they're profound revelations either.

Because in a discussion on "How the establishment treats people of color" bringing in "How neighbors treat neighbors" is a red herring. Because, yes, more crime will happen between individuals of the same ethnic group, no matter what crime it is. 90% of all crimes against white folks are perpetuated by whites, against blacks by blacks, against Hispanics by Hispanics. This is a normal facet of life as we tend to live by and deal with people of our own ethnicity more often than not.

So saying that the statistic of crimes of the police against minorities is equivalent to the crimes of a community is a false comparison. One is an outside issue that is being protected by societal and structural norms. The other is a natural consequence of how we live.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/ar...black-murders/

[Gravekeeper]

He's the one who looks foolish, not me.

That is debatable to put it politely. -.-

I didn't refute your "point" because you have none. As Kheldarson said, its a red herring.

[mjr]

He's not the ones repeating right wing talking points like they're profound revelations either.

To some, they probably are "profound revelations".

Because in a discussion on "How the establishment treats people of color" bringing in "How neighbors treat neighbors" is a red herring.

I disagree. "The Establishment" implies "everyone", does it not? If not, what does "the establishment" mean to you?

Do you REALLY think a majority of police officers are just going around looking for trouble? Do you really think a majority of police officers are saying to themselves, "I can't wait to rough up a black guy!"

I certainly don't. And I'd hope you wouldn't, either.

And a simple solution is as follows: If people of color are worried about "Officer Whitey", then guess what. Let's only put African-American officers in those neighborhoods.

Because, yes, more crime will happen between individuals of the same ethnic group, no matter what crime it is. 90% of all crimes against white folks are perpetuated by whites, against blacks by blacks, against Hispanics by Hispanics. This is a normal facet of life as we tend to live by and deal with people of our own ethnicity more often than not.

Thanks for playing, but I already knew this. That's not my broader point. You're trying to cast my argument as a strawman, where none exists.

[mjr]

I didn't refute your "point" because you have none. As Kheldarson said, its a red herring.

I believe it's because you can't.

Is your logic perfect in every situation? I'd guess no.

Bottom line is this: a LARGE majority (I'd wager over 90%) of African Americans are good people. They go to work, obey the law, and stay out of trouble. They're great people I'd be honored to know.

A small majority aren't. They have rap sheets and get into trouble.

A LARGE majority of police (I'd wager over 95%) are good people. They WANT to go to work every day and NOT have anything bad happen. They want uneventful days. I believe that. I get the feeling you don't.

[Canarr]

No, the All Lives Matter people are saying that black guy's house does indeed need to be saved. But that goes equally for anyone's house that needs to be saved.

Good strawman try though.

You know... when I first read that comic, I thought it was over the top. Just a bit of an exaggeration to prove the point. But apparently, it's not.

There's an interesting article here on why cops behave like they do. No, they probably don't go out with the express plan of shooting a black man; but there's a problem with the mindset prevalent among US police with regards to black people that isn't there with most other groups.

From the second article:

A lot of US police work is inherently racially biased. Cops are told to patrol predominantly poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods that are so segregated that most of the residents are black. And since police are mostly present in these neighborhoods, most of the arrests and actions they take end up impacting a disproportionate numbers of black people.

"When departments concentrate enforcement efforts, for example, in high-crime areas, those areas are likely to be areas with disproportionate numbers of minority residents," David Sklansky, a law professor at Stanford Law School, said. "That means minority residents of the community are getting policed more intensely than people that live in other neighborhoods that have smaller proportion of minority residents and lower crime rates."

The problem is police aren't just deployed in predominantly black neighborhoods; they're also encouraged to arrest and ticket as many people as possible while on the job. Until 2014, a federal grant program financially incentivized local police departments to make as many arrests as possible for drug crimes. Many police departments also use number of arrests as a measure for evaluating individual police officers for raises and promotions. Coupled with deployment in certain areas, these incentives effectively encourage cops to arrest minority residents in large numbers.

[Gravekeeper]

I believe it's because you can't.

You can believe whatever you want. Your "point" boiled down to "Why doesn't group trying to do x go do y instead?". That's a red herring. Then to add icing to your shit cake it also attempts to shift blame back onto black people.

Crime and violence are systemic problems that are the result of complex socioeconomic factors. None of which have to do with race. So unless you're about to argue that black people are naturally inclined to violence and crime your point is moot.

A small majority aren't. They have rap sheets and get into trouble.

And yet they make up a disproportionate percentage of your prison population. But I'm sure it totally has nothing to do with racism.

A LARGE majority of police (I'd wager over 95%) are good people. They WANT to go to work every day and NOT have anything bad happen. They want uneventful days. I believe that. I get the feeling you don't.

Again, you can believe whatever shit you want. But the problematic incidents with police in the US never occur in a vacuum. They're the result of ingrained culture within departments. The "bad apple" argument is a myth. You don't have a police department full of saints that just happens to have one asshole ( who they inexplicably tolerate and protect for years ). You have departments full of assholes who retaliate against good officers that try speak up about it.

Its a systemic problem with American police culture. Not a one off incident that just coincidentally keeps happening over and over and over.

[Canarr]

An interesting read:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/th...1/pageall.html

[s_stabeler]

while true, there's still the point that positioning it as a racism issue ignores the fact that police are using lethal force in a situation where a lower use of force is more appropriate.

in essence, the ALM/BLM issue smacks of divide and conquer- both want to address the issue, but have allowed an artificial wedge to be driven between them. (sort of like how the divide between Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters could- if it means people are sufficiently blinded to the threat- cause enough of a split to cause a Trump presidency.