grego

thats in interesting point- i actually dont know what the protocol is for dealing with someone who is having mental issues. i'm not sure what they should have or would have done differently. do you charge into the house like they do in prison with 8 guys with riot gear on and tackle the person? open the door and taze them immediately? i dont know if theres a good answer. and i'm not sure that knowing that she had a history of mental issues means that they could foresee her coming at them (if this is, in fact, what happened) with a knife. the race scale- how do you think race affected this shooting?

i understand and dont necessarily disagree, in an ideal world, anyway. kids, no kids, woman, pregnant, man, whoever- if you charge a cop with a knife (which is what appears to have happened based on the information currently available), there is a very good chance you will not live. clay, the officers didnt choose to be in that situation. she put them in that situation.

I dont think this is the one you want to hang your hat on. We'll see, but so far, it doesn't look good for her.

I've been trying to figure out how the jury came to the verdict they did in the Castile case - not one that I agree with necessarily, but one that they felt they were obligated to make legally. According to my neighbor (who's an incredible narcissist, but not a dishonest one, so far as I can tell), who trained cops in Minnesota for 7 years, the standard for a justifiable shooting is low there- the officer only has to feel that his or her life is in danger. Pretty vague and ambiguous, I think, we'd all agree. By this standard, if the cop even believes Castile is going for his gun, that would qualify, which is a problem, because Yanez had asked him for his license, which he apparently hadn't yet given him. He also apparently didn't ask Castile to put his hands on the steering wheel, either, which would have been a good idea rather than saying 'don't reach for the gun'. I think this is a problem with the law and the low standard of feeling endangered. But I don't know if it will be fixed. Here are two articles about police unions, and how they allow sub par cops to serve - http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/30/tamir-rice-cop-fired-police-union-appeal he Cleveland police union is filing an appeal of the termination of Officer Timothy Loehmann, who two years ago shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice and today was fired for lying on his job application. After the 2015 shooting, Buzzfeed revealed that Loehmann had not disclosed he was about to be fired for dismal performance when he resigned from his previous position in Independence, Ohio. Cleveland police say they didn't request Loehmann's personnel file from Independence before hiring him. Had they done so, they would have learned that Loehmann had been deemed "unfit for duty" because of his "dismal" firearms performance. (Among other problems, he had become "distracted and weepy" during an exercise at a gun range.) http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/14/police-unions-produce-rules-that-protect And so police chiefs and political leaders, like those in Ferguson, are powerless to fire cops who through their actions wreck community relations and compromise the perceived integrity of the police force. Whether Ferguson's police chief or mayor are actually interested in firing this cop is hardly known. But in the current situation, their hands are tied by an intricate system of legal protections built for cops around the country. Firing Michael Brown's killer would not make him guilty of murder. That's what jury trials are for in this free country. But cops, who are authorized by the government to use violence to attain their goals, ought to be held to a higher standard than everyday criminals, not lower ones. A job is a privilege, not a right. Much of the left has been pushing the opposite idea, especially about public sector jobs. The corruption and abuse of power that's cultivated ought to come as no surprise.

What do you base that on?

I want to know what the jury heard that made them decide not guilty cuz I haven't heard anything yet about him going for the gun - only that he allegedly didn't hand over the gun (or something to that effect) when he told the officer he had one and a permit to have one. Maybe something will come out??? Just weird that I haven't heard anything that makes it justifiable. He's not guilty cuz he had the misfortune of having a bad witness? Im gonna want to hear more than that.

agreed. that was actually refreshing to see- people on the far right policing their own, telling an actual nazi to gtfo.

oh ya. i dont disagree with that at all.

no, that wasnt the reason the story was false. I had read an article in the washington post about a day or two after i read the final calls version of it and the post pointed out that the officers were black because the principal was saying the arrest was racially motivated. my point was that the nation of islams version left that part out because it doesnt fit their agenda- white people are the devil, etc. a black woman arrested by two white cops sells, and fires up their membership- a black woman arrested for assaulting two black cops doesnt. the internet has made propaganda a very successful business. you have to check everything you read more than ever these days.

Game, are you talking about my reference to the Nation of Islam story?

white people and black people- speaking generally (which i generally hate to to) statistically do tend to see things differently, no question. (not all, obviously,) historically, blacks have been victims of institutional racism- no sane person would debate this. i'm certain that that fact affects how one sees the police. much of our perception is shaped by what we see, or what we choose to see. its a confirmation bias. if we believe blacks are systematically targeted by police based on race, we will find it. but we dont even have to look - it comes to us through our filter bubbles, our chosen information websites. those sites are in business to make money. there are 1,000 people killed on average by police. why do we only hear about a tiny fraction of those? because man bites dog sells clicks, not dog bites man. i think its healthy to keep an open mind and question everything. look at both sides of a particular issue. ive said this before, but one of the earliest memories i have of a publication purposefully distorting the truth was reading an article in the final call, the Nation of Islam newspaper. it was a story about a black female principal who got arrested at school for disorderly conduct. the premise, obviously given their platform, was that the police unjustly arrested the woman and did so based on her skins color. the newspaper left out a small detail- the arresting officers were 2 black men. an NOI member and reader of that newspaper is going to read that article, believing it to be a source of truth. that article will confirm what they believe to already be true, even though, in actuality, the story was verifiably false. this happens now, but x1000. people are so often more interested a cause, we dont check to see what we're being told is actually true, or if the numbers mean what someone says they actually mean. we;re inundated with stories about 'unarmed black teen killed by white cop' to the point we think its an epidemic. you can find articles containing phrases like 'our kids are being murdered in the streets by the cops'. the truth is, if we were made aware of every time X crime happened, whether its a kid being abducted, woman being raped, kid shot in drive by, etc, we'd hardly have time to do anything else, for one, and we'd probably go nuts. some crimes are, apparently, more 'important' than others.

Part 1- you want more white motorists shot? Jeezuz More white people are shot than blacks, BTW. You posted an article called 'the myth of the absentee black father' not too long ago- which was crap- so I get it. Part 2- tell that to my wife. You understand that 'white cop shoots black kid' gets more clicks that 'Latino cop shoots black kid'. I hope?

That guy is white? Lopera is a 'white' name? Hispanic, Latino or 'POC' probably doesn't get as many clicks.

Anti semitic islamophobic no problem

why do you feel that way?

forgive me for not feeling up to responding yesterday. yesterday was memorial day. there was a thread about it to remind anyone who forgot. its at the bottom of the page, i believe, so i can see how one could miss it. because i served, i pay extra attention to the holiday. because i lost a platoon mate and friend in the gulf war, i try to take a day reflect on life and everything i have that he will never see because he died fighting for his adopted country while i lived doing the same. because of that, i thought it was best that i take a moment from posting about how lucky people in america are. i feel like i made the right decision.

Gonna pass, koala.

Is it a trend, game, or are we just seeing things like that covered more now? (I actually don't know) Im curious because I think it's interesting how the media influences what we think. Cop shootings are a hot topic for awhile, we are convinced it's a trend (even if it's not statistically, it's just the story du jour) then something else becomes a hot topic.

I dont think we disagree. Im not (not attempting to, anyway) justifying any crime. I'm putting it in context. (look at the article again, BTW, as far as the bolded part) Crime happens here - black on white, white on black, all of it. It's all bad. When it comes to America, gun violence is a problem compared to other countries, no question. I wouldn't disagree with that.

"The statistics show that the 500 killings of white people attributed to blacks last year were the most since black perpetrators were determined to be responsible for the homicides of 504 white people nationwide in 2008. Last year's total was up 12 percent from the 446 recorded in 2014 and 22 percent from the 409 seen in 2013, a year that saw the lowest total this century and one that capped seven years of general declines in black-on-white homicides. Prior to that, 2006 saw the most black-on-white killings since 2001, with 573. " ^Not a problem " The 229 black lives taken by white killers last year, however, marked an even larger leap from 2014, jumping more than 22 percent from the 187 black victims killed by whites that year, which was the second-lowest total since 2001. The tally was last exceeded in 2008, when 230 blacks were slain by whites. The highest total in the last 15 years came in 2007, when 245 black people were killed by whites." ^Problem. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

I understand that incidents of white on brown crime to be quite low in many countries. But you choose to live here.

Why did you say this? "They come here to make a better life for themselves, not to be shot down because a domestic terrorist thought they looked Iranian."

Nothing about what I am saying means America is perfect or that it can't improve, by any stretch. The domestic terrorist example is an example of what I posted earlier. It sucks, but it hardly means brown people are running serpentine to their mailboxes to avoid potential racist terrorists.

I definitely wouldn't argue that I can control how people feel. But people's feelings don't change the reality of life in America compared to most of the world. My dad didn't have a steak til he was nearly old enough to drink a beer legally. That's not great. It's unfortunate, but compared to places where people are literally starving, he was doing far better. People want to come here. There is a reason for that.

For me, lll bring up the sins of other countries when the claim seems to be wrapped in "America is awful" kind of thinking while lacking perspective or context. If America is awful, country x y and z are 10 times worse for reasons a b and c. Its myopic and self hating. (I point this out as an immigrant for context). I rarely if ever see an argument lamenting the horrors of being forced to grow up in America (hyperbole alert ) that acknowledges this.