Police Brutality

[Xier0]

So your basic argument is that police are treated unfairly, in that they're able to use force when citizens are not. Yes, this is entirely true. That is actually apart of their job. If you do not comply with the commands of an officer, but decide to charge at him, I am not sure what you expect from them, when they are wielding a weapon and do not know what you're trying to do.

These situations aren't about when an officer uses self defense. Cops are chasing people down for child support money and shooting people in the back as they run away is what is happening. Cops are always on the aggression. Think about how many more private security guards there are, and how few incidents of complaints, abuse, or killings with them, compared to police.

You're walking down a hall, and see a bigger guy bullying some small guy. You, trying to be a good person, call him out and tell him to stop. He turns towards you, and starts to quickly walk to you. As he gets closer, he reaches in his pocket. Do you feel safe? If you had a method of protection, would you use it? Would you pull out a knife, taser, or even gun to protect yourself? Many would. In that instance, it's either you or them.

The police are the bullies though. If he reaches in his pocket and pulls out a badge, you definitely don't feel safe.

 

You are being absurd. Put aside your bias for one second and think about it philosophically and see just how horrid that statement I just quoted is. In order to say a race to be disproportionately targeted by a negative thing, you must first acknowledge that the negative thing is occurring at all.

Uhm.. I think I lost count of how many times I've stated that the act itself should be abolished, and agreed with you a couple times now in previous comments about the distaste of the act. I'm pretty sure I'm the one not being bias here.

If right now, you could snap your fingers, and make more white people would be searched & detained, attacked, etc by police, so that the proportion of whites & minorities were equally targeted by police bullies: Would anyone be better off? No. Would the problem be solved? No.

In this situation, no one would call for more people of a specific race to be pulled over to equalize rates. They would call for the rates to decrease for all races based on the ineffectiveness of the method. In my example I said 4.3% of the 84% stopped and search had firearm(s) and drugs in their possession. Similar to the rates of stop and frisks.

Are you shitposting? No... You mentioned Islam specifically, and so called "Islamophobia"

Context buddy, context. The setting of all of this takes place in America.

Don't try to back your way out of this by moving the goalposts to Christianity. We are talking about ISLAM

I was talking about the phobia of islam within America if it wasn't obvious enough. Comparing the religion to Christianity is fair, and it gives you insight on the ignorance and double standards people give for both religions.

There is no other "interpretation", the writings and actions of Mohammad are unambiguous and straightforward. He was a warlord pedophile who conquered and killed a lot of people. Crimes against humanity are being committed on a widespread scale in Islamic dominated areas where gays, unbelievers, etc are being executed. A 75 year old man is currently facing 350 lashes (a death sentence) in Saudi Arabia for being caught by Muslims with homemade wine. The Islamic holy texts are littered with passages about killing and enslaving infidels. To be a Muslim & worship or follow this man seems worse than worshiping or following Hitler

++Nazis

-Leader exterminated groups of people, gays, political opponents, invaded other countries
-Calls other races subhumans, advocates for enslavement & mass killings of gays, other races

++Islam

--Leader exterminated groups of people, gays, political opponents, invaded other countries
--Calls other races infidels, advocates for enslavement & mass killings of gays, other races
--Completely strips women of rights, women will be put to death for having sex outside of marriage, driving a car, being out in public without a male owner
--Death penalty for anyone who renounces Islam

God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees.

I can pull up tons of heinous crimes inspired by Christianity, it's not hard.

Do you see where I'm getting at?

 

[Xier0]

Uhm.. I think I lost count of how many times I've stated that the act itself should be abolished, and agreed with you a couple times now in previous comments about the distaste of the act. I'm pretty sure I'm the one not being bias here.

So why mention racial disparity at all if the act itself is the problem? As I mentioned before, you are just touting the same non-sequitur fallacy.

In this situation, no one would call for more people of a specific race to be pulled over to equalize rates. They would call for the rates to decrease for all races based on the ineffectiveness of the method.

So basically, the action itself needs to stop. For all races. Which means mentioning race is, once again, non-sequitur.

In my example I said 4.3% of the 84% stopped and search had firearm(s) and drugs in their possession. Similar to the rates of stop and frisks.

Having a firearm or drugs isn't immoral. Also, laws against carrying firearms also happen to be prohibited by the 2nd Amendment, laws against search & seizure without a warrant happen to be prohibited by the 4th Amendment.

Context buddy, context. The setting of all of this takes place in America.

The Koran still commands Muslims to conquer unbelievers & kill them if you read it in America in English too, you know.

I was talking about the phobia of islam within America if it wasn't obvious enough. Comparing the religion to Christianity is fair, and it gives you insight on the ignorance and double standards people give for both religions.

God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees.

I can pull up tons of heinous crimes inspired by Christianity, it's not hard.

Old Testament Christianity is barbaric as well, but we aren't talking about about Christianity, we are talking about Islam, so don't move the goalposts.

Please make sure not to use the same fallacies in response posts..

 

[Xier0]

In this situation, no one would call for more people of a specific race to be pulled over to equalize rates. They would call for the rates to decrease for all races based on the ineffectiveness of the method.

Also, let's put the nail in the coffin for this specifically. So since you don't advocate that police should stop more whites to make the proportion equal, you support decreasing the stops of blacks/hispanics. So if we reduced that 83% minority stop rate to a porportional, say, 30% you would reduce the total number of stops by 75%

Why not reduce it 100%? This is why the race issue is completely non-sequitur. It doesn't have any logical conclusion that makes a meaningful difference to the problem that wouldn't already be reached without race being a factor in the discussion whatsoever.

 

So why mention racial disparity at all if the act itself is the problem? As I mentioned before, you are just touting the same non-sequitur fallacy.

Many people acknowledge that the method is poor in effectiveness, and is a violation of your privacy. It's the rates in which the act is being practiced, and on whom. That is the bigger issue here. The police/system targets minorities purposely.

I'm honestly surprised you're still supporting the idea that racism isn't a factor in this, especially with the Ferguson investigation that proved otherwise.

So basically, the action itself needs to stop. For all races. Which means mentioning race is, once again, non-sequitur.

See my response above.

Also, let's put the nail in the coffin for this specifically. So since you don't advocate that police should stop more whites to make the proportion equal, you support decreasing the stops of blacks/hispanics. So if we reduced that 83% minority stop rate to a porportional, say, 30% you would reduce the total number of stops by 75%

Why not reduce it 100%? This is why the race issue is completely non-sequitur. It doesn't have any logical conclusion that makes a meaningful difference to the problem that wouldn't already be reached without race being a factor in the discussion whatsoever.

I said:

They would call for the rates to decrease for all races based on the ineffectiveness of the method

I'm in favor of pulling people over with a plausible cause. It's the stops and searches that don't have one that should be decreased. It's logically impossible to demand police to stop pulling people over with no plausible cause, and have them all comply with this order.

Having a firearm or drugs isn't immoral. Also, laws against carrying firearms also happen to be prohibited by the 2nd Amendment, laws against search & seizure without a warrant happen to be prohibited by the 4th Amendment.

Don't take the example literally. It's inspired by the laws of New York, which I live in. It's illegal to own guns here, same with drugs.

The Koran still commands Muslims to conquer unbelievers & kill them if you read it in America in English too, you know.

Pardon?

Old Testament Christianity is barbaric as well, but we aren't talking about about Christianity, we are talking about Islam, so don't move the goalposts.

Please make sure not to use the same fallacies in response posts..

The focal points of both religions are bad in their own way, but do you see Christians going out and stoning homosexuals to death? No? The same logical thinking should apply to muslims living in America. It's unfortunate you can't see this rationally.

 

[Xier0]

It's the rates in which the act is being practiced, and on whom. That is the bigger issue here. The police/system targets minorities purposely.

How you could be so purposely ignorant and say that the bigger issue is race disparity in abuse victims than the abuse itself is pure cognitive dissonance. Very disappointed in your complete disregard for philosophy and even ethics.

The focal points of both religions are bad in their own way, but do you see Christians going out and stoning homosexuals to death? No? The same logical thinking should apply to muslims living in America. It's unfortunate you can't see this rationally.

Really? http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/us/mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/

Because it looks like Muslims tried to exterminate a group of infidels who don't follow their god with guns in America. Also, it would probably be irrational to believe "Well.. Muslims commit human rights atrocities commanded by god on a massive scale across entire other continents, but Muslims in America who follow the same commands by the same god are totally okay."

 

How you could be so purposely ignorant and say that the bigger issue is race disparity in abuse victims than the abuse itself is pure cognitive dissonance. Very disappointed in your complete disregard for philosophy and even ethics.

As I've said before, stop and frisk is here to stay (it was reconstructed with reforms). I understand why they're doing it, but at the same time I don't support it. There is some good that comes out of it, it's just that the negatives outweigh the positives significantly. I believe that purposely targeting minorities for looking a certain way, and practicing the offensive act on them at alarming rates is a much more heinous crime that extends farther than personal invasion (crime against human rights as well).

Here is my calculation about how I deem which is worst.

1 (personal invasion) + 1 (discrimination) = 2

Really? http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/us/moh...test-shooting/

Because it looks like Muslims tried to exterminate a group of infidels who don't follow their god with guns in America. Also, it would probably be irrational to believe "Well.. Muslims commit human rights atrocities commanded by god on a massive scale across entire other continents, but Muslims in America who follow the same commands by the same god are totally okay."

Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012

I can do this too you know. It's not hard.

 

[Xier0]

As I've said before, stop and frisk is here to stay (it was reconstructed with reforms). I understand why they're doing it, but at the same time I don't support it. There is some good that comes out of it, it's just that the negatives outweigh the positives significantly. I believe that purposely targeting minorities for looking a certain way, and practicing the offensive act on them at alarming rates is a much more heinous crime that extends farther than personal invasion (crime against human rights as well).

Here is my calculation about how I deem which is worst.

1 (personal invasion) + 1 (discrimination) = 2

If that's what you believe, fine. I think it's a red herring to discuss race when the police state very obviously affects all races. Having it affect all races proportionately seems like a ridiculous goal.

Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012

I can do this too you know. It's not hard.

Do what? That source doesn't somehow show that Islam doesn't indoctrinate its followers to commit violence against innocent people.

 

Do what? That source doesn't somehow show that Islam doesn't indoctrinate its followers to commit violence against innocent people.

The virulent, neocon-fueled Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims; the traditional Sikh attire, including their turbans, is different from traditional Sunni, Shiite or Sufi attire. But to a racist, a bearded Sikh looks like a Muslim. Only four days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by Frank Silva Roque, a racist who obviously mistook him for a Muslim.

Sorry, that was a story I remembered about the influence of islamphobia and the effect of it. It does not exist though, correct?

Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008

On July 27, 2008, Christian Right sympathizer Jim David Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee during a children’s play and began shooting people at random. Two were killed, while seven others were injured but survived. Adkisson said he was motivated by a hatred of liberals, Democrats and gays, and he considered neocon Bernard Goldberg’s book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, his political manifesto.

This is the article you should be looking at. I'll add some more just because.

The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996

Paul Jennings Hill is hardly the only Christian terrorist who has been praised by the Army of God; that organization has also praised Eric Rudolph, who is serving life without parole for a long list of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Christianity.

Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994

1994, the radical anti-abortionist and Army of God member attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline, Massachusetts, shooting and killing receptionists Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols and wounding several others.

Let me know if you want some more articles.

 

[Profit Snake]

You can't say whether they're abusing their powers or not as a general statement. You have to look at it case by case. The ones you see on the news are obviously abuse of power though

 

[Ronaldo7]

Yeah, well whether you'd like to admit it or not, majority of the policemen (and americans in general) are racist to some extent. See an african-american in a nice sports car? Well he's got a higher chance of being pulled over than a white dude in a nice sports car.

 

[Hostblapstat]

Yeah, well whether you'd like to admit it or not, majority of the policemen (and americans in general) are racist to some extent. See an african-american in a nice sports car? Well he's got a higher chance of being pulled over than a white dude in a nice sports car.

This is 100% true.

 

[uJesternWind]

Yeah, well whether you'd like to admit it or not, majority of the policemen (and americans in general) are racist to some extent. See an african-american in a nice sports car? Well he's got a higher chance of being pulled over than a white dude in a nice sports car.

Although this is terrible and sucks that it's the reason behind a lot of brutality towards african-americans, it's true. Personal bias, no matter how much one tries to suppress it, will always play a role no matter your job. It's just the duty of people working in the judicial system to try and let it influence them as little as possible.

 

[malakadang]

So your basic argument is that police are treated unfairly, in that they're able to use force when citizens are not. Yes, this is entirely true. That is actually apart of their job. If you do not comply with the commands of an officer, but decide to charge at him, I am not sure what you expect from them, when they are wielding a weapon and do not know what you're trying to do.

You're over simplifying my argument. I will quote it again: "Compliance is all good and well, but if you non-comply by being mildly disrespectful to the cop, but not anymore disrespectful than you might be to a non-cop approaching you in that manner, and you say that automatically makes the situation dangerous. Is the citizen then allowed to shoot the cop? No, they would be hung. But the cop is allowed to shoot the citizen because of the dangerous situation. A dangerous situation for the cop is also a dangerous situation for the citizen. The cop however is paid to handle dangerous situation professionally, whereas ordinary citizens are not."

Note the bold. You're analogies aren't relevant to the point I'm making.

I'm all for better training and more training. Overweight cops who look down at the public are despicable, so we agree on that point. Here is a scenario for you to consider:

Fixed.

You're walking down a hall, and see a bigger guy bullying some small guy. You, trying to be a good person, call him out and tell him to stop. He turns towards you, and starts to quickly walk to you. As he gets closer, he reaches in his pocket. Do you feel safe? If you had a method of protection, would you use it? Would you pull out a knife, taser, or even gun to protect yourself? Many would. In that instance, it's either you or them.

I never said cops couldn't defend themselves. Anyways, this is different to a situation where say a cop pulls out a taser because you're recording. I am not so much concerned about the former situation, I am concerned about the latter, as are the majority of people when they talk about police brutality situations.

 

[Saint Grimm]

To a point, I believe police do abuse their power. However, for every bad cop, theres 1000 good ones, you just never hear about them, because they're doing their job.

However, a lot of those videos, the cops are in the right of way. It is a cops right to use force if they feel threatened. I highly doubt in all of the recent cases they felt threatened, especially the one about that high school girl that refused to leave the class. BUT in cases like the Ferguson one, the man had already tried to steal the cops gun, and autopsy results, including the private autopsy ordered by the mans family came back saying the man must have been lunging at the officer for the bullets to go in the way they did....

Take a moment now and imagine...

You are alone in a car, you get a report that a store has just been stolen from, a man matching the description is walking toward you. After a few words, the man attempts to steal your gun. The gun goes off. You're not even sure if you've been hit. You might be about to die... Then you realize the man's hand was shot, not you. He starts to run away, you get out of the car. Your body is shaking, your mind is racing, you're in a state of shock. You yell at the man to freeze, he turns around and starts running towards you.

But that's enough about Ferguson. It's clear the cop was afraid for his life and was within the law to shoot; if he was shooting to stun or shooting to kill was his choice due to the amount of danger he must've believed he was in. (it is advised to shoot to stun, especially if the person is unarmed, but it is NOT the law to do so)

Let's take a look now, at the black man who was killed for selling single cigarettes outside of a store. I do not know much about this case, so correct me if I am wrong...

From my understanding, though I do not know if it is fact, he resisted arrest BUT HE DID NOT MAKE HIMSELF A THREAT. As far as I know, he didn't physically touch an officer, expect perhaps attempting to free himself. THIS was a case of police brutality where the officer was in no danger but chose to use excessive force regardless. Now some would argue that resisting arresting is making yourself a threat... I don't really have a stand point on that; I usually look at the evidence and just pick threat or no threat. This man was very large and his size could have been scary for the officer and made him feel in danger when the man was trying to get away... I do believe I read somewhere that he refused to leave the area where he was loitering and "illegally" selling cigarettes, which I believe (again, this one is all just speculation for me) is enough to get someone detained/arrested.

So, really, it's hard to tell the good from the bad sometimes... There IS brutality problem, and I've read PLENTY of articles about white, unarmed citizens being killed by police. The thing is, it just doesn't get to the news. My personal belief on that is that they don't want us to know. If it were public knowledge that all races are being treated equally badly, they wouldn't have an excuse to fall back on. They wouldn't be able to make things about things that they are simply not about - Though I do not fully understand what those things are or what they're about, it's a simply hypothesis I have on the situation.

 

[GeniiGames]

Vast majority of Americans are ignorant and therefore racist, education is the way forward!

 

[Hostblapstat]

Let's hear some more opinions

 

[Xier0]

[YOUTUBE]LSxrW9xxmaw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Hostblapstat]

[YOUTUBE]LSxrW9xxmaw[/YOUTUBE]

Fucking pathetic, shit like that irritates me.

 

[Hostblapstat]

Lets hear some more opinions