State of Emergency: Baltimore Edition

[Victarion]

So, if people getting killed by cops is the primary concern, that would mean by default that property damage is the secondary concern. So what exactly was so abhorrent about my statement?

They're both equally concerning, in my opinion. Both feed the cycle of violence.

 

[The Question]

They're both equally concerning, in my opinion. Both feed the cycle of violence.

If you refer to the article I posted, the claim that property damage feeds the cycle of violence is dubious at best.

Nothing is forcing the police for respond to property damage with extreme use of force.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

They're both equally concerning, in my opinion. Both feed the cycle of violence.

Not being criminals would surely cut down the violence and arrests in the first place

 

[The Question]

Question, my question:

In these major media cases, the person whether rightfully or wrongfully handled by the cop... had criminal records. Why aren't any of the activists worrying about the nature of these communities?

They are. There is zero evidence to show that they aren't. Most of these activists are heavily involved in their communities.

As pointed out by some before- Much of what has happened in all of these cases would have been avoided by not being a criminal, not committing a crime, and compliance with the officer and law.

Being a criminal, committing a crime, and not complying with a cop does not excuse police brutality and murder.

Put it another way: Much of what has happened in all of these cases would have been avoided by the cops not beating and killing people.

You're blaming the victims of these crimes by arguing that they brought it upon themselves by engaging in activities that, regardless of their inherent worth in a vacuum, could never result in violent beatings or shootings.

 

[Schlosser85]

What are the police supposed to do when mobs are burning down people's businesses and destroying their lives?

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Isn't is possible to see that 1. In some sames the cops are too brutal. 2. Sometimes the criminal fights the cop and leads to their death. 3. Not committing crimes avoids such an event in the first place?????????????

 

[The Question]

What are the police supposed to do when mobs are burning down people's businesses and destroying their lives?

1: Not cause the situation in the first place by grossly overreacting to protests with tanks and SWAT gear.

2: Not cause the situation in the first place by killing black kids and the attempting a coverup.

3: Not grossly overreact to the riot with more force than is necessary, thus escalating the tension even further, and actually learn some proper riot-control techniques to boot.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ev...ferguson-police-tactics-are-dumb-541156b710f2

Isn't is possible to see that 1. In some sames the cops are too brutal. 2. Sometimes the criminal fights the cop and leads to their death. 3. Not committing crimes avoids such an event in the first place?????????????

Because it's placing the blame away from the root of the problem. The problem is cops killing people. Yes, these people would be less likely (but far from guaranteed) to come into contact with police if they didn't commit a crime, but the problem is brutal cops killing people.

 

[Schlosser85]

That's a one-sided oversimplification.

 

[The Question]

That's a one-sided oversimplification.

How so?

 

[Victarion]

If you refer to the article I posted, the claim that property damage feeds the cycle of violence is dubious at best.

Nothing is forcing the police for respond to property damage with extreme use of force.

I didn't see a .gov or citation that would indicate it comes from a credible source.

 

[The Question]

I didn't see a .gov or citation that would indicate it comes from a credible source.

It cites several sources in the article on the website itself. They didn't translate when I copy/pasted on the Hype for a quick read, because they were links imbedded in the text.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

In situations where someone is:

Committing crimes and then being caught while doing one, they choose to fight the cop. They choose not to comply. The situation escalates and they refuse to do what they are told.

Doesn't this suggest that being a criminal is the actual root of the problem?

 

[The Question]

In situations where someone is:

Committing crimes and then being caught while doing one, they choose to fight the cop. They choose not to comply. The situation escalates and they refuse to do what they are told.

Doesn't this suggest that being a criminal is the actual root of the problem?

No, it does not. Because shooting or beating a person is not a reasonable or justifiable response to noncompliance.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

No, it does not. Because shooting or beating a person is not a reasonable or justifiable response to noncompliance.

It kind of gets to a point where a cop is gonna say, "Don't run, or I won't arrest you." *runs*

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Are we really going to play this game?

White people get called thugs all the time.

It's a code word. I mean, it's more often than not used to describe the "blackness" of someone black. You might not use the word in that manner, but it's how it's used in the media.

I can't remember the last time white people got called thugs.

Well it also applies to the "thug life" media of rap culture. It is fair to say he was playing with the gun imitating what he has seen from thug life. The rap industry, movies related to gangbangers, and actual gangbangers refer to themselves as thugs. Like I said, if he was trying to be a cowboy I'd say he was playing as a cowboy.

Doesn't it play into the confirmation about how the word is used, if people make those conclusions just because he's black?

It was a typo. It should say "were killed by police with a gun"

I just found that stat today. I'm sure the validity could be questioned as it is featured on a faux news program.

That's funny.

You can't wave a gun around in front of a cop or charge a cop, and be surprised when you get shot.

Some of these deaths are suspect. The guy who got shot 8 times in the back. Gray dying in the back of the cruiser. But the Ferguson kid who attacked Darren Wilson?

Brown's death in Ferguson was officially called a suicide by cop. So, if you go by what Wilson said, then Brown did what he did because he wanted to die.

I thought the Tamir Rice shooting was stupid and reckless. Even if you ignore the fact that they knew it was a kid, it happened in an open carry state. I haven't heard of any white people excersing their right to openly carry assault rifles into fast food locations in other open carry states.

There is an incident where a black man is killed by a white cop. There are riots. Police respond in force. People get angrier. Another shooting. More riots.

They perpetuate each other. Hence why I called it a vicious circle. Neither side is blameless.

I think you'd have to consider the circle, in how you view it, as a train. Each time it happens, you have another cart latched onto it with it being added to the others.

Tamir Rice, for example, doesn't get forgotten just because the man who killed him wasn't arrested, charged, etc. It piles on with the other names.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Question, my question:

In these major media cases, the person whether rightfully or wrongfully handled by the cop... had criminal records. Why aren't any of the activists worrying about the nature of these communities?

As pointed out by some before- Much of what has happened in all of these cases would have been avoided by not being a criminal, not committing a crime, and compliance with the officer and law.

They probably thought about it, and then figured that it didn't matter. This is the United States, and not Mega-City One after all.

Does it matter, if in the end the death was fishy? Freddie Gray's death is seeming more and more like a cover up, but should people ignore it because of his drug crime past? Does it matter if his criminal past is drug related...or does it have to be murder for us to ignore it?

It sounds like a really detailed approach you want to how we should feel about possible wrongful deaths based on the deceased's past. The logic with this just seems like it's on a slippery slope that ultimately leads to Judge Dredd or something.

 

[The Question]

It kind of gets to a point where a cop is gonna say, "Don't run, or I won't arrest you." *runs*

Responding to a fleeing suspect with gunfire is illegal in all fifty states.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Responding to a fleeing suspect with gunfire is illegal in all fifty states.

Yes, I think you missed the point.

 

[Kelly]

Responding to a fleeing suspect with gunfire is illegal in all fifty states.

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. —Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner

 

[The Question]

Yes, I think you missed the point.

What was your point?

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. —Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner

I'm aware of the case. I've studied it in school. It was, in fact, exactly what I was referencing. That's why I said "responding to a fleeing suspect with gunfire is illegal in all fifty states" and not "responding to a fleeing suspect who is armed and has displayed violent intentions with gunfire is illegal in all fifty states."

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

The points were that 1. Not committing crimes would avoid the altercation in first place. 2. It's ridiculous to think that a criminal should be able to freely run every time they are stopped by a cop.

I guess criminals should just train in track running. It's going to become a cartoon. "Hey you can't arrest me. I'm running. weeeeeeeeeeeee"

Rest assured you are being detained. In which case, cooperate. It's the simplest and most logical way to avoid escalation.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The points were that 1. Not committing crimes would avoid the altercation in first place. 2. It's ridiculous to think that a criminal should be able to freely run every time they are stopped by a cop.

I guess criminals should just train in track running. It's going to become a cartoon. "Hey you can't arrest me. I'm running. weeeeeeeeeeeee"

Rest assured you are being detained. In which case, cooperate. It's the simplest and most logical way to avoid escalation.

1. Not everyone who gets stopped is committing any crime, at all. ie: Driving while black, or looking black or hispanic.

2. Agreed. But, firing your gun at an unarmed fleeing suspect shouldn't be justified by "well, I can't run" or, being lazy.

You can still get **** from cops even if you cooperate. But, that's a given. You should try to make sure they don't have a legal reason for killing you, really.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

1. Not everyone who gets stopped is committing any crime, at all. ie: Driving while black, or looking black or hispanic.

2. Agreed. But, firing your gun at an unarmed fleeing suspect shouldn't be justified by "well, I can't run" or, being lazy.

You can still get **** from cops even if you cooperate. But, that's a given. You should try to make sure they don't have a legal reason for killing you, really.

On 1. I was specifically talking about cases with someone that did commit a crime.

 

[The Question]

The points were that 1. Not committing crimes would avoid the altercation in first place.

Yes, but the police are often the ones responsible for it escalating to a violent or deadly end. The police should not use the amount of brutality and deadly force we so often see in these cases. Simply committing a crime does not warrant or justify murder.

2. It's ridiculous to think that a criminal should be able to freely run every time they are stopped by a cop.

And they shouldn't. But it is even more ridiculous to think that excessive or deadly force is ever a reasonable response to a criminal running away unless that criminal is a significant active danger to human lives, and in fact as it stands it is a thoroughly illegal response.

I guess criminals should just train in track running. It's going to become a cartoon. "Hey you can't arrest me. I'm running. weeeeeeeeeeeee"

Then the cops should train in track running as well. They should never use their guns as a means of stopping someone from simply running away.

Rest assured you are being detained. In which case, cooperate. It's the simplest and most logical way to avoid escalation.

Don't escalate the violence to excessive and deadly levels. It is the simplest and most logical way for cops to not kill people.

You are blaming the people who got beating and killed, and not the people who did the beating and the killing. That is messed up.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

It's not excusing the cops for bad shoots at all. I'm not trying to justify the shootings if you think that's my position. I'm saying the best way to avoid these situations, is to not be committing criminal acts in first place. There is blindness to the societal issues that need to be addressed in order to avoid these altercations all together. Regarding those that are actual criminals mind you.