What Can the Church do to Promote Anti-racism in America?

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it is.  It is quite unreasonable.

I'm much happier with the Church staying as apolitical as possible.  

I can't help but wonder whether you were as keen on Church leaders publicly calling out POTUS when Barack Obama was in the White House.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I addressed in the OP, the church has found it appropriate to become involve in social issues in the past. Systemic racism in the United States is a very important issue, and honestly, it may be impossible to fully address it without the full participation of most churches.

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Have you even checked?

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/28/us/jobs-training-police-trnd/index.html

 

Did you even read your own link?

Quote

Many trade jobs require more hours of training time to get a license than it takes to get a police badge. (Important caveat, though: Police departments can choose to go beyond their state's minimum training requirements -- and many do.)

 

[Duncan]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the article:

I am flummoxed that people in this thread are defending/rationalizing/excusing/condoning/endorsing behavior that is resulting in the deaths of private citizens, many of whom "were African Americans."

Folks, please reconsider your position relative to mob violence and looting.  Peaceful protests are a wonderful thing, and nobody is suggesting otherwise.  But we cannot endorse or condone extralegal violence.  The rule of law is a beautiful, but fragile, thing.  It takes a lot of effort to maintain it.  

The mob violence and looting need to end.  Let the legal system do its thing.  If appropriate, and once things have calmed down, we can look at changing or adding to statutes and other laws that govern how police interact with civilians.  But the violence and looting need to stop. 

Thanks,

-Smac

in the US the whole thing of "let's look at this after wards" it never happens, let's look at changing things when violence calms down-it never happens.We've heard that time and time again. Las Vegas, nothing changed after that. If your country did nothing when all those kids were were massacred at Sandy Hook, why does the rest of the world want to hear what you have to say?  Why is your President inciting violence through twitter tweets? isn't he supposed be in charge? rather he shoves off protestors just so he can hold an upside Bible(that he doesn't seem to read) in front of a Church (that he never attends) just for a photo Op?. Why are there unarmed Black men getting killed in the US by police? Why does that keep happening? 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Duncan

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Again, there are thousands upon thousands of peaceful protesters. Their grievances are valid.

Even if we grant the truth if this assertion, unfortunately, the peaceful protestors are greatly outnumbered by those who are engaged rioting, arson, vandalism, and looting (or at least, the lawlessness in which they are engaged is having a much greater negative impact than any positive impact that may result from these "peaceful protests.")

[Meadowchik]

14 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Did you even read your own link?

 

Of course I did. Many are not all. The examples cited support what I said. It is certainly not an unserious statement.

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Even if we grant the truth if this assertion, unfortunately, the peaceful protestors are greatly outnumbered by those who are engaged rioting, arson, vandalism, and looting (or at least, the lawlessness in which they are engaged is having a much greater negative impact than any positive impact that may result from these "peaceful protests.")

All of them are overpowered by the institutional powers they are protesting. That is an excellent reason why society needs other strong institutional powers to organize to support the valid agendas at issue.

[Meadowchik]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s blatantly political, notwithstanding. 

I've been careful band have tried to steer toward appropriate discussion.

Nemesis earlier stated that he allowed the thread to stay open and emphasized the need to dialogue to be nonpartisan.

 

 

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, this deleting history thing needs to stop. First, there were virtually no monuments to the Confederacy until the Jim Crow laws became a thing. Robert E. Lee discouraged these kinds of memorials as a bad idea. They showed up when African Americans were starting to or were getting rights as rallying symbols to keep them down. Same with the Confederate organizations and the campaign to turn the Confederacy into a glorious failure. It is very interesting how many went up in the 50s and 60s when you would think that would be something unnecessary.

Statues and monuments are not about remembering history. That is what museums are for. Statues and monuments are to honor things. We honor the unknown soldier, the dead at Pearl Harbor, and things of that nature. Germany does not have monuments honoring Hitler. We do not have statues of John Wilkes Booth. History must be recorded and remembered but if you put a large monument to a Confederate General up you are honoring their actions. What is there to honor. All the brave Confederate soldiers who gave their lives so that others would not be free?

Yes, I know there is nuance and not every Confederate was a blah blah blah and that the Civil War did have other causes other than slavery but slavery was the defining cause. All you have to do is read the Confederate Constitution and read the speeches of its founding leaders. They knew secession was about slavery. Oh yeah, the whole Civil War has a lot of causes other than slavery thing? Came out in the 1950s and 1960s mostly in Southern schools and spread out a little. Gee, I wonder why.

Edit: I was late on the above while writing this post and others said it better.

 

In good news the mayor of Birmingham did show up as promised with heavy equipment and they smashed the Confederate obelisk. Still in progress last I saw. I guess it takes a while. In other news the San Francisco DA is taking on the local police union against intense opposition. He has a history of fighting police corruption and the police department hates him. The DA has asked the state bar to disband the police union.

In other news this evening........Helicopters are reportedly gassing protesters but no video so unconfirmed. I just watched a video of a cop forcing a man’s hand onto his weapon (baton?) while he and another cop subdued the man and then arrested him. It was very blatant he was going for prints on the weapon. He literally grabbed the guy’s wrist and shoved his hand onto it. I hope the video can be used to exonerate him. Someone ran their vehicle into some cops who were firing at what were reported to be fleeing protesters. Two cops were injured. One looked bad. I saw video of a business owner in LA that called for police protection. Police showed up and immediately arrested him. The rector of the church used in the earlier photo op is incensed over their using it without permission for the stunt and for irresponsible clearing the area for a photo is. Police in many areas are not respecting the press at all and are shooting, subduing, and arresting them. Other cities are more peaceful and protests continue.

I bet the current presidency of the church cringes when seeing quotes like the below, there are so many. I wish so much we could erase them, but all Americans must see them to end them I guess.

“The Negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom [i.e., godhood].”

~George F. Richards, Conference Report – April 1939, page 58-59~

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

This may have happened but Denver was peaceful tonight. The cops hung back. The protesters didn't riot or loot. They were incredible. One guy who tried to burn a flag was quickly subdued by the peaceful protesters and they kicked him out.

Why didn't you mention the shootings in Vegas and St. Louis? Six cops shot. The Bronx is burning. NYC is looted all down 5th avenue.

Yes, Denver was generally peaceful. The exchange with the cops I reported was in a video I watched. I did not want to say definitively that the threat was not followed through on because I did that once in a report and found out there were altercations but they did not involve the streams I was watching and I did not see reports of them so I try to avoid generalizations of a city.

I should have put more in my summary but I was falling asleep. Yes, those happened too. I did not hear as much about the looting on 5th Avenue. I mostly follow the streamers and most of the streamers I follow tend to stay with the main protest groups. I heard about looting in New York but never had time to research. Vegas was weird. One protester who reportedly had firearms and was wearing body armor reached for his weapon and was shot. My gut is he was not with the main protest group. They tend to take a dim view of carrying firearms because they know it can get everyone shot so if you showed up obviously armed they generally yell at you to get out and go away. I did not see a lot of footage of Vegas so maybe they were more permissive of weapons or more confrontational. Several officers were shot in a separate incident. One was gravely injured. I have not been able to check on his condition this morning. Have not heard anything about the shooters.

In St. Louis the shootings were odd. The only report I saw was four were shot. Luckily none were killed. It sounded like they were shot at almost the same time which could mean some kind of quick semi-auto or auto weapon was used or there were multiple shooters. Strange they were able to coordinate that well. It suggests it may have been someone outside of the protester and police lines but I am just speculating on a very scanty report.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

in the US the whole thing of "let's look at this after wards" it never happens,

It happens all the time. 

Quote

let's look at changing things when violence calms down-it never happens.

It happens all the time.

We have all sorts of laws and oversight mechanisms in place to address police misconduct.  They were not created ex nihilo.  See, e.g., here.

Quote

We've heard that time and time again. Las Vegas, nothing changed after that.

What happened in Las Vegas?

Quote

If your country did nothing when all those kids were were massacred at Sandy Hook, why does the rest of the world want to hear what you have to say?  .

What does Adam Lanza have to do with police misconduct or riots?

Moreover, what did the police do relative to Sandy Hook?  Well...

Quote

The first call to 911 was around 9:35 a.m. Newtown 911 police dispatch first broadcast that there was a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary (SHES) at 9:36 a.m., about 30 seconds after they received the first call. Connecticut State Police (CSP) were dispatched at 9:37 a.m. Newtown police arrived at the school street at 9:39 a.m., approximately four and a half minutes after the 911 call, and Connecticut State Police arrived at the school street at 9:46 a.m. Newtown police first entered the school at 9:45 a.m., approximately ten minutes after the first 911 call and approximately 14 minutes after the shooting started. This was approximately five minutes after the last shot was heard. No shots were fired by the police.

The Newtown police and Connecticut State Police mobilized local police dog and police tactical units, a bomb squad, and a state police helicopter.  Police locked down the school and began evacuating the survivors room by room, escorting groups of students and adults away from the school. They swept the school for other shooters at least four times.

Police arrived at the school in 4 1/2 minutes, approximatey one minute before Adam Lanza killed himself.

The police put themselves into (what they reasonably thought was) harm's way.  Just like police do every day in our country.  

Have you ever notice how other first responders - like firefighters and EMTs - are pretty much always held in high regard?  Whereas police - also first responders - are sometimes categorically vilified?  Why is that?  My sense is that firefighters and EMTs are "fighting" threats that are objectively and always bad.  Firefighters fight fires, and EMTs fight injuries.  Nobody is on the side of the flames engulfing a house, or on the side of a bullet lodged in the shoulder of a teenager caught in a crossfire between rival gangs.

Ah, there's the rub.  Firefighters and EMTs don't fight gangs, do they?  That's the job of the police.  Police quell violence and lawbreaking by people.  That's a job that is considerably more complex and morally ambiguous/challenging than fighting a fire or treating an injured person.

Police are our front line troops.  They put themselves in harm's way for our sake.  Every day.  It's a difficult job.  And it must be very discouraging when some amongst their ranks screw up and all police officers are stereotyped and blamed for that misconduct.  Indiscriminately vilifying police is harmful and destructive.  Individual officers need to be held accountable, and sometimes an entire department needs that.  But broadly speaking, I am very grateful to the men and women in law enforcement.  They have a tough - and increasingly thankless - job.

Quote

Why is your President inciting violence through twitter tweets? isn't he supposed be in charge? rather he shoves off protestors just so he can hold an upside Bible(that he doesn't seem to read) in front of a Church (that he never attends) just for a photo Op?.

Political.

Quote

Why are there unarmed Black men getting killed in the US by police? Why does that keep happening? 

This article tries to present some measure of proportion when evaluating police misconduct (emphasis added) :

Quote

According to the Washington Post, 19 unarmed African-American males were killed by police in 2017, and 17 in 2016 — an average of 18 per year. It’s unlikely that all 18 were unjustified, but let’s assume they were.

That’s 18 too many. But measured against the number of police interactions during the year with the kind of people who are rioting, and recognizing that there will always be some bad cops and some inexperienced ones, it’s a small number.

If American police forces were populated with an appreciable number of genocidal racists, or even just trigger-happy cops, the number of unarmed black males killed by police in a year would be much larger than 18. Indeed, if American police forces were populated with an appreciable number of out-of-control cops, we would be seeing a more violent response by the police to the rioting that’s plaguing our cities night after night.

After the dust settles from the current rioting, think about the day-to-day life of a big city cop. Think about what it must be like to confront on a daily basis the thugs we’ve seen on television the last few evenings. Think about the stress of the job. Think about the courage it must take to leave home every day to perform it.

The villains of the tragedy being played out right now are a few cops, two or three guys in Georgia who aren’t cops, and thousands of rioters throughout the country. American police officers as a class are not among the villains. If anything, they are heroes.

I agree with this sentiment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 2, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

As I addressed in the OP, the church has found it appropriate to become involve in social issues in the past.

'Cmon.  The Church has never publicly called out the sitting president of the United States, including when Barack Obama did things that injured our civil liberties.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Systemic racism in the United States is a very important issue, and honestly, it may be impossible to fully address it without the full participation of most churches.

I have serious questions about "systemic racism in the United States."  You presume that which has yet to be demonstrated.

I emphasize here the word "systemic."

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Don't you get frustrated when you fill out a response, often quite lengthy, and ZAP, it gets deleted. It is so deflating - I have often just given up on commenting on that thread when it happens. 

Having studied Chattel Slavery and read your link (thank you for providing), I still am not seeing that blacks were targeted to be slaves first and foremost because they were black. What I got out of your cited link, particularly, is that of a creation of reasoning as to why slaves existed. The reality was they had slaves already and were looking for a reason for them to remain as slaves. 

"America's history of slavery is why?" Can you name another country in the world that went to civil war to free their slaves? No - it does not exist. YET, slavery has and continues to exist. That reason makes no sense and is not logical at all. 

I'm not sure what the bolded is supposed to mean.  Could you clarify?

The only reason that America went to war was to keep the southern states from seceding.  Abraham Lincoln famously stated that if he could have kept the Union together without freeing a single slave, he would have.  And while the civil war certainly may have made slavery illegal, Jim Crow laws proved that the south didn't actually lose that fight.  They were able to 'legally' keep African Americans in an inferior place in society, and even kill them with impunity, for another century (and in some backward communities it's still not over yet). 

It's embarrassing that every other European country managed to stop slavery without needing to go to war, but in no other country was the economic consequences for doing so high, and one thing the United States is good at is leading with our pocketbooks.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Can someone just tell me yes or no or pm me if it needs more explanation?

Question:  was it a criminal act of the police to use tear gas and rubber bullets to clear a street for a nonessential event?  Are there legal limits to when they can be used and if so, a link please. I couldn’t find anything as too many articles on other stuff. 
 

As this borders on political, I am not going to engage in conversation; I just believe it is very important  for me to educate myself on this and need some pointing in the moderate direction. 
 

too many mistakes must sleep

I would argue yes as there is a higher bar for breaking up a first amendment event but that is probably a question for the courts. The optics look bad especially since D.C. had been peaceful all day. If you watch the Rose Garden address you can hear the rubber bullets and tear gas firings in the background. Someone last night was working on a composite video of the address and the protest and trying to sync up the two videos in time. I don't know if it was every finished.

I am also not familiar with any special laws involving D.C. Local government there is weird due to the city basically being governed by Congress with the mayor and other local officials working for them. D.C. has always had a fierce drive for more local self-governance but their weird legal situation makes it difficult to do even if Congress wanted to do anything. And I am rambling off topic so I will stop. I need a nap on my lunch break.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, you are indulging in armchair quarterbacking.

If police have a way of maintaining/restoring law and order, of stopping the mob violence and looting, they would do it.  Peaceful protests happen all the time in this country, usually with police on hand to ensure that things don't get out of hand.

Now, however, we have riots.  Mob violence.  Looting.  The rule of law has been lost in some areas.

Thanks,

-Smac

Until last night the police were generally instigating more conflict than they were preventing. I am not saying all the cops were in on it but there were violent elements in many cities. The same rationale you use to say that there are mostly peaceful protesters with some violent elements with them (though generally they were just nearby) also applied to the police in some cities. A lot of unprovoked physical attacks.

The "mob violence" has been overstated. Almost all the injured were police or protesters. I would argue that the rule of law is also heavily damaged by the police firing on the news media even after they identify themselves and this is not just in a crowd. There is video of the press taking fire from rubber bullets while not with other protesters. There have also been attacks by protesters on the news media but they tend to just chase them and drive them off but they mostly only target certain networks (Fox and its affiliates). At one point several days ago the protesters were caught and took refuge in a CNN building but there was also a police facility of some kind in the building. I have heard conflicting reports as to why they went there. Some say they were hemmed in and that was their only escape while others said it was done to get more cameras on anything that happened.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Hey Nehor would you go to Long Beach and pick up my watermaker motor for me. I really don't want to go. 

Will you pay for my flight? I would really like to go to California right now. Some time in the ocean would be wonderful right now.

Edited June 2, 2020 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, that is what I am saying.  Legislatures cannot perform their duties while riots and looting and anarchy prevails on the streets of our cities.  I invite you to consider why this is so.

I don't know about that. Debate in the Michigan chamber continued while a masked armed militia occupied the rostrum yelling at the legislators not long ago. Surely it would be even easier if the mayhem was out on the street.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure what the bolded is supposed to mean.  Could you clarify?

The only reason that America went to war was to keep the southern states from seceding. 

They were seceding because of slavery.

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Abraham Lincoln famously stated that if he could have kept the Union together without freeing a single slave, he would have. 

Context matters a lot here, I think.  First, the quote:

Quote

On August 22, 1862 Lincoln published a letter in response to an editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune, in which the editor asked why Lincoln had not yet issued an emancipation proclamation, as he was authorized to do by the Second Confiscation Act. In his reply Lincoln differentiated between "my view of official duty" — that is, what he can do in his official capacity as President — and his personal views. Officially he must save the Union above all else; personally he wanted to free all the slaves:^[44]

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

And the context:

Quote

Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer wrote in this context about Lincoln's letter: "Unknown to Greeley, Lincoln composed this after he had already drafted a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which he had determined to issue after the next Union military victory. Therefore, this letter, was in truth, an attempt to position the impending announcement in terms of saving the Union, not freeing slaves as a humanitarian gesture. It was one of Lincoln's most skillful public relations efforts, even if it has cast longstanding doubt on his sincerity as a liberator."^[45]  Historian Richard Striner argues that "for years" Lincoln's letter has been misread as "Lincoln only wanted to save the Union."^[46] However, within the context of Lincoln's entire career and pronouncements on slavery this interpretation is wrong, according to Striner. Rather, Lincoln was softening the strong Northern white supremacist opposition to his imminent emancipation by tying it to the cause of the Union. This opposition would fight for the Union but not to end slavery, so Lincoln gave them the means and motivation to do both, at the same time.^[46] In his 2014 book, Lincoln's Gamble, journalist and historian Todd Brewster asserted that Lincoln's desire to reassert the saving of the Union as his sole war goal was in fact crucial to his claim of legal authority for emancipation. Since slavery was protected by the Constitution, the only way that he could free the slaves was as a tactic of war—not as the mission itself.^[47] But that carried the risk that when the war ended, so would the justification for freeing the slaves. Late in 1862, Lincoln asked his Attorney General, Edward Bates, for an opinion as to whether slaves freed through a war-related proclamation of emancipation could be re-enslaved once the war was over. Bates had to work through the language of the Dred Scott decision to arrive at an answer, but he finally concluded that they could indeed remain free. Still, a complete end to slavery would require a constitutional amendment.^[48]

But a constitutional amendment has to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. There were too many slave states and not enough free states for a constitutional amendment to be ratified, so even as he was preparing to issue his Emancipation Proclamation he proposed a series of constitutional amendments that would make it easier for the federal government to pressure states to abolish slavery on their own, including compensation, a gradual timetable for abolition, and subsidies for blacks willing to colonize themselves outside the United States. None of those constitutional amendments came close to passage. But by 1863 Lincoln had other ways of pressuring the state to abolish slavery: By refusing to return slaves who escaped from loyal masters in loyal states, and by enlisting slaves from loyal states into the Union Army with the promise of emancipation, the Lincoln administration systematically undermined slavery in many of the southern states.

Lincoln had begun pressuring the Border States to abolish slavery in November, 1861, with no success. In 1862 he began to warn the states that if they did not abolish slavery on their own, the institution would succumb to the "incidents of war" and would be undermined by "mere friction and abrasion." But the abrasive was no mere incident; it was the policy of emancipation. Beginning in mid-1863 Lincoln intensified the pressure on all the slave states, and in early 1864 the policy began to pay off. Between January, 1864, and January, 1865, seven slave states abolished slavery, all under intense pressure from the federal government. By the time the House of Representatives sent the Thirteenth Amendment to the states for ratification the ratio of free to slave states was 27: 9, or three-quarters.

Lincoln was playing a long game.  And it paid off.

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

And while the civil war certainly may have made slavery illegal, Jim Crow laws proved that the south didn't actually lose that fight. 

They didn't?  So the Constitution was never amended to outlaw slavery?  Slavery still exists in the South?  I think not.

The right to root out slavery took a long time.  The fight to root out racism will take even longer.

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

They were able to 'legally' keep African Americans in an inferior place in society, and even kill them with impunity, for another century (and in some backward communities it's still not over yet). 

The exception that proves the rule.  Slavery is illegal in the United States.  Laws that discriminate based on race are (mostly) unconstitutional.

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

It's embarrassing that every other European country managed to stop slavery without needing to go to war, but in no other country was the economic consequences for doing so high, and one thing the United States is good at is leading with our pocketbooks.

I'm not sure our European friends have a pristine track record of respecting human rights.  And it's not like they've never had civil ward, revolutions, etc.

Also, what are your thoughts about the Haitian Revolution?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Until last night the police were generally instigating more conflict than they were preventing. I am not saying all the cops were in on it but there were violent elements in many cities. The same rationale you use to say that there are mostly peaceful protesters with some violent elements with them (though generally they were just nearby) also applied to the police in some cities. A lot of unprovoked physical attacks.

The "mob violence" has been overstated. Almost all the injured were police or protesters. I would argue that the rule of law is also heavily damaged by the police firing on the news media even after they identify themselves and this is not just in a crowd. There is video of the press taking fire from rubber bullets while not with other protesters. There have also been attacks by protesters on the news media but they tend to just chase them and drive them off but they mostly only target certain networks (Fox and its affiliates). At one point several days ago the protesters were caught and took refuge in a CNN building but there was also a police facility of some kind in the building. I have heard conflicting reports as to why they went there. Some say they were hemmed in and that was their only escape while others said it was done to get more cameras on anything that happened.

All the more reason to restore law and order.  Let's end the violence.  Then the investigations and lawsuits and corrections can begin.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Yes, that is what I am saying.  Legislatures cannot perform their duties while riots and looting and anarchy prevails on the streets of our cities.  I invite you to consider why this is so.

I don't know about that. Debate in the Michigan chamber continued while a masked armed militia occupied the rostrum yelling at the legislators not long ago. Surely it would be even easier if the mayhem was out on the street.

Are you seriously advocating that we pass legislation under threats of violence from "a marked armed militia occup{ying} the rostrum yelling at the legislators"?

Do you really want our legislatures to do their jobs under threats of violence?  What kind of legal system is that?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is an unserious and irresponsible thing to say.  Law enforcement officers receive extensive and ongoing training.

The animosity being expressed toward law enforcement is disturbing.

They earned a lot of the distrust I have over the past few nights. The idea that police are all a dedicated group of conscientious people dedicated to the rule of law and preservation of people's rights is not borne out in many of the incidents I have seen.

People talk about bad apples but the expression is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. The protests are about those bad apples and how no one will get rid of those bad apples. What is more dangerous. A group of volunteers protesting that have some violent hanger-ons or a law enforcement agency with a few officers willing to turn to unnecessary violence while wearing the protection of a badge? You should expect some nasty elements in the former since there is no screening process to join the former. We should expect better from the latter. You can probably never prevent all bad cops from getting in but the history of systemic racist violence and the incidents of the last week show it is not an isolated problem. It is systemic.

[Danzo]

Qualified Immunity

Right now police know they can get away with almost anything without consequences

until qualified immunity goes away, police will continue to be able to get away with murder (and other crimes).

If we can successfully get this taken away from police, then perhaps some good will come out of this mess. 

 

[smac97]

Just now, The Nehor said:

They earned a lot of the distrust I have over the past few nights. The idea that police are all a dedicated group of conscientious people dedicated to the rule of law and preservation of people's rights is not borne out in many of the incidents I have seen.

This sort of stereotyping/profiling of police officers is contemptible.

Just now, The Nehor said:

People talk about bad apples but the expression is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. The protests are about those bad apples and how no one will get rid of those bad apples.

Anarchists and white supremacists are fomenting the mob violence and looting.  Meanwhile, the "bad apples" involved in the May 25 death of Mr. Floyd - all four of them - "were fired the day after the incident."  

Just now, The Nehor said:

What is more dangerous. A group of volunteers protesting that have some violent hanger-ons or a law enforcement agency with a few officers willing to turn to unnecessary violence while wearing the protection of a badge? You should expect some nasty elements in the former since there is no screening process to join the former. We should expect better from the latter. You can probably never prevent all bad cops from getting in but the history of systemic racist violence and the incidents of the last week show it is not an isolated problem. It is systemic.

There are ways to address police misconduct.  Mob violence and looting is not the way to go.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Qualified Immunity

Right now police know they can get away with almost anything without consequences

until qualified immunity goes away, police will continue to be able to get away with murder (and other crimes).

If we can successfully get this taken away from police, then perhaps some good will come out of this mess. 

I think qualified immunity needs to be regulated by statute, not by common law (judge-made decisions).  It's a complex topic, and deserves some real attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, Denver was generally peaceful. The exchange with the cops I reported was in a video I watched. I did not want to say definitively that the threat was not followed through on because I did that once in a report and found out there were altercations but they did not involve the streams I was watching and I did not see reports of them so I try to avoid generalizations of a city.

I should have put more in my summary but I was falling asleep. Yes, those happened too. I did not hear as much about the looting on 5th Avenue. I mostly follow the streamers and most of the streamers I follow tend to stay with the main protest groups. I heard about looting in New York but never had time to research. Vegas was weird. One protester who reportedly had firearms and was wearing body armor reached for his weapon and was shot. My gut is he was not with the main protest group. They tend to take a dim view of carrying firearms because they know it can get everyone shot so if you showed up obviously armed they generally yell at you to get out and go away. I did not see a lot of footage of Vegas so maybe they were more permissive of weapons or more confrontational. Several officers were shot in a separate incident. One was gravely injured. I have not been able to check on his condition this morning. Have not heard anything about the shooters.

In St. Louis the shootings were odd. The only report I saw was four were shot. Luckily none were killed. It sounded like they were shot at almost the same time which could mean some kind of quick semi-auto or auto weapon was used or there were multiple shooters. Strange they were able to coordinate that well. It suggests it may have been someone outside of the protester and police lines but I am just speculating on a very scanty report.

This happened too. https://www.google.com/amp/s/fox2now.com/news/one-person-dies-after-shooting-outside-lees-pawn-and-jewelry/amp/?espv=1

This was a retired, black police captain killed by looters defending a pawn shop. 

 

[Danzo]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They earned a lot of the distrust I have over the past few nights. The idea that police are all a dedicated group of conscientious people dedicated to the rule of law and preservation of people's rights is not borne out in many of the incidents I have seen.

People talk about bad apples but the expression is that a few bad apples spoil the bunch. The protests are about those bad apples and how no one will get rid of those bad apples. What is more dangerous. A group of volunteers protesting that have some violent hanger-ons or a law enforcement agency with a few officers willing to turn to unnecessary violence while wearing the protection of a badge? You should expect some nasty elements in the former since there is no screening process to join the former. We should expect better from the latter. You can probably never prevent all bad cops from getting in but the history of systemic racist violence and the incidents of the last week show it is not an isolated problem. It is systemic.

The problems with law enforcement go back years and years, it isn't something that just happened last week.  

The protesters aren't really helping anything though. People need to understand the roots of the problems,  protesters aren't fixing those (I suspect most of them aren't even aware of those)

Although it won't fix everything, the following would go more after the roots of the problem

1.   End qualified immunity for law enforcement

2.   Take police out of squad cars and put them on the street where they can regularly interact with people in non confrontational ways. Too often we only see a police officer when either we or someone else is doing (or being accused of doing) something wrong.  People start seeing police as enemies and police see everyone as criminals

3.   Repeal mandatory sentencing laws.  These put too much power in the hands of prosecutors and cause them to inflate charges so they can bargain them down to a plea.    Too many innocent people feel the need to accept a deal because the threat of these inflated charges.

4.  Stop criminalizing drug possession and distribution. This does nothing but fill up the prisons to train people to be better criminals. (who thought up the dumb idea that a short period confined with the worst of society would somehow reform people anyway?).  

I am sure people could think of other things that would be helpful, but this list would be a good start.  

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Danzo