Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'll admit he should have complied, but really don't you think it odd that he was being interrogated like that? Like he was committing a crime? Really wonder if police are bored or something. 

I'm reminded of something Detective Lennie Briscoe, played by Jerry Orbach, once told a suspect on Law and Order when the detectives were asking him a few routine questions.  "You think you're being interrogated?" he asks the guy.  "Believe me, when we're interrogating you, you'll know it."  Then, later on, after they had conducted additional investigation that resulted in the arrest of the guy they'd asked routine questions initially, Briscoe says (and not softly), "Pay attention, genius, because now, we are interrogating you!"  I'm also reminded of Inigo Montoya's line from The Princess Bride, when, after hearing the exasperated Vizzini exclaim, "Inconceivable!" regarding a number of things which, since they actually happened, were not, in reality, inconceivable, says, "You keep using that word.  I danna think that word means what you think it means."  As Inigo said to Vizzini regarding the word "inconceivable," so I say to you regarding the word "interrogation": I don't think that word means what you think it means.

There's routine questioning, and then there's interrogation.  And they're not the same thing.  Routine questioning, such as was occurring in this instance, is conducted to investigate whether a crime has occurred, and officers are allowed to do that to anyone.  Interrogation, by contrast, occurs only after officers have arrested someone and taken him or her into custody.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

... Ed Maguire had some really interesting things to say and I would love to read more from him sometime.  He wrote a guide for police (which I haven't found yet) that he suggests be read by police officers.  I would seriously love to see this happen after learning a little about it.  I know initially it could be scary, but oh how cool the effects could be. 

 Something Maguire said:

Every police leader in the country right now should be viewing these protests as an opportunity to solidify the relationships they have with their community. This should not be an us verses them thing. This should be an us and them thing. We are all in it together. Let's use this opportunity to have dialog about how to improve policing in our community, in our little corner of the world and form enduring relationships with the many aspects and the many groups in out community so these kinds of unfortunately events don't happen here.

I like what Maguire says, and I want to believe it.  (It may, in many instances, even be true.)  However, if someone is determined to turn what would have been a peaceful protest into an orgy of looting, vandalism, assault, mayhem, rioting, and possibly even murder, I have a hard time believing that they want dialogue and that they haven't already turned demonstrations into an "us-versus-them" thing.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What did I deflect from? Why would I help you make your own argument?

Dude, you really need to take responsibility for your own ideas here. This is becoming a chronic behaviour with you in this thread.

That shock and trauma can disrupt a person's ability to follow directions is a scientific fact. If you want to discuss the implications of this with me further, or where I am actually going with it, you can simply ask. 

Then I am asking. It looks more like apologetic for bad, ultimately self-defeating behavior. I'm suggesting that the behavior is taught. Despising and refusing to cooperate with police comes from something. Somewhere.

Blaming the highly trained, exquisitely armed who get serially provoked seems a deflection. And why should assume the provocative non-cooperating person is innocent of malintent? And the cop inevitably malintended?

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I like what Maguire says, and I want to believe it.  (It may, in many instances, even be true.)  However, if someone is determined to turn what would have been a peaceful protest into an orgy of looting, vandalism, assault, mayhem, rioting, and possibly even murder, I have a hard time believing that they want dialogue and that they haven't already turned demonstrations into an "us-versus-them" thing.

That is true, but since often protests are because people don't feel they are being listened to and what we have seen happening isn't working well then it is worth a try or two.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

That is true, but since often protests are because people don't feel they are being listened to and what we have seen happening isn't working well then it is worth a try or two.

Are there people who are protesting in good faith, and who want to do so peacefully?  I have no doubt that there are.  Do they comprise the majority of people protesting?  Yes.  However, in several instances, what might otherwise be peaceful, good-faith protests have been co-opted by people who wish to turn those peaceful protests to their own lawless ends to engage in rioting, looting, arson, assault, mayhem, and murder.

And here's the other problem, even with a peaceful, lawful protest: It must have a valid predicate.  Is what happened to George Floyd wrong?  Yes.  Could, and should, it have been prevented?  Yes.  Is it a valid predicate for peaceful, lawful protest?  Yes.  Too many protesters, however, insist on treating all law enforcement use of force exactly the same, as though there's no valid reason for police to use any level of force, ever.  For days now, in downtown Salt Lake City, there have been protests against the shooting by Salt Lake City Police of Bernardo Palacios-Carbajal.  Mr. Palacios was shot by police after he had committed armed robbery and after he ignored multiple orders by law enforcement to stop and to surrender his weapon.

Protest organizer Sofia Alcala has said that poor Mr. Palacios was someone's son, grandson, brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, and friend, and a beloved member of the community.  And I said, "Well, if my beloved family member or a beloved member of the community had just committed armed robbery, was fleeing with the weapon he used in that robbery, and was shot by law enforcement officers after he refused to stop and surrender his weapon, as much as I might rue what happened to him, I would consider it an unfortunate-but-understandable consequence of my friend's or family member's poor choices."  Neither widely-accepted police procedure nor the law require police to give suspects who flee with weapons the benefit of any doubt.  (See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)).

And here's the other problem with many of the protests that are occurring throughout the nation.  It's very likely that you have heard of the SMART formula for setting goals, that a goal must be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely.  The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., probably never heard of the SMART formula, but he understood it intuitively and instinctively.  If someone had asked a protester at a rally organized by the Rev. Dr. King, "Why are you here?" it is very likely that the protester was ready with a reply, such as, "We want everyone to be able to eat at this lunch counter," or "We want everyone to be able to ride this bus and to sit wherever he wants to," or "We want to be able to vote," or "We want to be able to do business here."

What about these protesters?  What might they say?  "We want to end police brutality"?  Okay, except that's not going to happen.  Should officers be prohibited from using certain arrest-control techniques?  Perhaps, but, while that will probably improve the safety of people being arrested, in itself, that's not going to end police brutality.  The truth is that the law is enforced by humans, and sometimes humans make mistakes; they act irrationally; they get angry; and so on.  And while I'm not arguing that mistaken, irrational, or angry behavior (and so on), should not be sanctioned, the truth is that the only way to cut the risk of police brutality to zero is to end policing.  (Cue Black Lives Matter: "Abolish the Police!" or "Defund the Police!")

Should training be improved or increased?  Perhaps, but rioting, or even protesting peacefully, isn't going to lead to that happening unless there is a specific (reasonable!) proposal already on the table.  Disband police departments?  Don't arrest people of color?  Release all people of color who are currently incarcerated or imprisoned?  None of that is going to happen, nor should it.  Anyone with a specific, reasonable proposal for reforming how law enforcement use of force is investigated, how officers deemed in need of discipline are disciplined, how they are prosecuted (if necessary), how complaints are tracked and officers with poor records are prevented from simply moving on to another agency if they face discipline at their current departments, and how training should be improved or increased, should be welcome at the table. 

But, again, rioting (or even protesting, in many instances) doesn't create an atmosphere conducive to the kind of discussion necessary to bring that about.  And even protesting needs to have a valid predicate.  If protesters insist on protesting even legitimate uses of force such as the Palacios shooting, while that, certainly, eventually will reform policing, protesters are not going to be happy with the sort of "reform" that their protests bring about eventually.  Instead of inspiring conscientious, caring, dedicated, empathetic, knowledgeable, intelligent officers who care about people and are committed to treating everyone with respect to stay in law enforcement, if protesters start from a paradigm that all or most all officers are racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, maladjusted, power-hungry and trigger-happy, anyway, guess what they're going to be left with after the conscientious, caring, dedicated, empathetic, knowledgeable, intelligent officers get the message that they're not welcome in law enforcement (after all, if, no matter what they do, everybody thinks they're racist, already, what would be the point of staying anyway, right)?

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Then I am asking. It looks more like apologetic for bad, ultimately self-defeating behavior. I'm suggesting that the behavior is taught. Despising and refusing to cooperate with police comes from something. Somewhere.

Blaming the highly trained, exquisitely armed who get serially provoked seems a deflection. And why should assume the provocative non-cooperating person is innocent of malintent? And the cop inevitably malintended?

Okay, so in response to Amulek saying this:

Quote

 

Well, count me in with the group of people (white or otherwise) who thinks he should have sat the heck down.

When a cop orders you to do something, the absolute safest course of action is to comply. 

When you fail to comply with a law enforcement officer's orders (lawful or not), you are only going to escalate the situation and potentially get yourself hurt or killed.

The time to get justice for misuse of authority is in a courtroom where you're surrounded by attorneys and judges - not on the street when it's just you and the police. 

 

Almost anything can be used as a weapon. He needed backup because he was the only officer on scene, the guy was becoming increasingly agitated, and and he was refusing to comply with orders. If the situation were to continue to escalate, he would need another officer there for assistance or at least be a witness.

 

You're confusing the stories. Nobody called anybody. And perhaps you should go back and read the independent report into the incident which I posted earlier - they concluded that race has nothing to do with the encounter. 

 

I have been questioned by the police before - including, within the last six months, for trespassing and attempted robbery (actually a really funny story). 

When I haven't been certain as to why they were questioning me I generally feel confused at first, because I am trying to puzzle out what they are looking for. So I usually just ask them. Sometimes they'll tell you, sometimes not. 

But so long as you remain calm and cordial, everything usually works out just fine. 

 

I replied:

Quote

Shock and trauma can disrupt a person's ability to follow directions.

Which is a scientific fact. Shock and trauma can interfere with our cognition, and therefore our ability to even hear or understand instructions, much less comply with them.

And so we as members of the public must be careful to not view any noncompliance as justification for force, so that we can expect proper conduct from our police and make sure they give due respect to human life. 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Okay, so in response to Amulek saying this:

I replied:

Which is a scientific fact. Shock and trauma can interfere with our cognition, and therefore our ability to even hear or understand instructions, much less comply with them.

And so we as members of the public must be careful to not view any noncompliance as justification for force, so that we can expect proper conduct from our police and make sure they give due respect to human life. 

And you missed or ignored again. Stating that shock or trauma may cause cognitive impairment is unhelpful in this context. Did you look at the little vid? It's but one example. But it demonstrates what I'm talking about. Assuming good faith and not intentionality, the woman in the vid acted about as stupidly as one could imagine anyone could under those circumstances.

Where's the evidence she was in shock? Where's the evidence of trauma? You simply assume they're present. I don't.

Compare the meme of the very large very loud sometimes violent black woman in popular entertainment. She acts out, blind to the probable effect of her behavior on others and heedless of consequences. Thus, the bus driver in Enchanted lights off after an armed white guy and with her empowerment and her sheer volume chases him off. 

Qualitatively, what's the difference between her behavior and the idiot in the clip? I ask, where's the idea coming from that this behavior is to be lauded or at least excused?

 

[Amulek]

51 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

Shock and trauma can disrupt a person's ability to follow directions.

Which is a scientific fact. Shock and trauma can interfere with our cognition, and therefore our ability to even hear or understand instructions, much less comply with them.

So what? Are you saying that every encounter with police is, ipso facto, a shock/trauma-inducing incident? 

 

[Meadowchik]

44 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And you missed or ignored again. Stating that shock or trauma may cause cognitive impairment is unhelpful in this context. Did you look at the little vid? It's but one example. But it demonstrates what I'm talking about. Assuming good faith and not intentionality, the woman in the vid acted about as stupidly as one could imagine anyone could under those circumstances.

Where's the evidence she was in shock? Where's the evidence of trauma? You simply assume they're present. I don't.

Compare the meme of the very large very loud sometimes violent black woman in popular entertainment. She acts out, blind to the probable effect of her behavior on others and heedless of consequences. Thus, the bus driver in Enchanted lights off after an armed white guy and with her empowerment and her sheer volume chases him off. 

Qualitatively, what's the difference between her behavior and the idiot in the clip? I ask, where's the idea coming from that this behavior is to be lauded or at least excused?

 

I wasn't referring specifically to the video, but the general comment (which I isolated the first time, bolded the second time) at the end.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So what? Are you saying that every encounter with police is, ipso facto, a shock/trauma-inducing incident? 

 

That's not what I said or meant, although a police encounter can be traumatic. What I meant is that police can be encountering people who are already in a compromised state like shock.

[USU78]

42 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I wasn't referring specifically to the video, but the general comment (which I isolated the first time, bolded the second time) at the end.

Why?

Presume?

Without?

Evidence?

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Are there people who are protesting in good faith, and who want to do so peacefully?  I have no doubt that there are.  Do they comprise the majority of people protesting?  Yes.  However, in several instances, what might otherwise be peaceful, good-faith protests have been co-opted by people who wish to turn those peaceful protests to their own lawless ends to engage in rioting, looting, arson, assault, mayhem, and murder.

And here's the other problem, even with a peaceful, lawful protest: It must have a valid predicate.  Is what happened to George Floyd wrong?  Yes.  Could, and should, it have been prevented?  Yes.  Is it a valid predicate for peaceful, lawful protest?  Yes.  Too many protesters, however, insist on treating all law enforcement use of force exactly the same, as though there's no valid reason for police to use any level of force, ever.  For days now, in downtown Salt Lake City, there have been protests against the shooting by Salt Lake City Police of Bernardo Palacios-Carbajal.  Mr. Palacios was shot by police after he had committed armed robbery and after he ignored multiple orders by law enforcement to stop and to surrender his weapon.

Protest organizer Sofia Alcala has said that poor Mr. Palacios was someone's son, grandson, brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, and friend, and a beloved member of the community.  And I said, "Well, if my beloved family member or a beloved member of the community had just committed armed robbery, was fleeing with the weapon he used in that robbery, and was shot by law enforcement officers after he refused to stop and surrender his weapon, as much as I might rue what happened to him, I would consider it an unfortunate-but-understandable consequence of my friend's or family member's poor choices."  Neither widely-accepted police procedure nor the law require police to give suspects who flee with weapons the benefit of any doubt.  (See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)).

And here's the other problem with many of the protests that are occurring throughout the nation.  It's very likely that you have heard of the SMART formula for setting goals, that a goal must be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Timely.  The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., probably never heard of the SMART formula, but he understood it intuitively and instinctively.  If someone had asked a protester at a rally organized by the Rev. Dr. King, "Why are you here?" it is very likely that the protester was ready with a reply, such as, "We want everyone to be able to eat at this lunch counter," or "We want everyone to be able to ride this bus and to sit wherever he wants to," or "We want to be able to vote," or "We want to be able to do business here."

What about these protesters?  What might they say?  "We want to end police brutality"?  Okay, except that's not going to happen.  Should officers be prohibited from using certain arrest-control techniques?  Perhaps, but, while that will probably improve the safety of people being arrested, in itself, that's not going to end police brutality.  The truth is that the law is enforced by humans, and sometimes humans make mistakes; they act irrationally; they get angry; and so on.  And while I'm not arguing that mistaken, irrational, or angry behavior (and so on), should not be sanctioned, the truth is that the only way to cut the risk of police brutality to zero is to end policing.  (Cue Black Lives Matter: "Abolish the Police!" or "Defund the Police!")

Should training be improved or increased?  Perhaps, but rioting, or even protesting peacefully, isn't going to lead to that happening unless there is a specific (reasonable!) proposal already on the table.  Disband police departments?  Don't arrest people of color?  Release all people of color who are currently incarcerated or imprisoned?  None of that is going to happen, nor should it.  Anyone with a specific, reasonable proposal for reforming how law enforcement use of force is investigated, how officers deemed in need of discipline are disciplined, how they are prosecuted (if necessary), how complaints are tracked and officers with poor records are prevented from simply moving on to another agency if they face discipline at their current departments, and how training should be improved or increased, should be welcome at the table. 

But, again, rioting (or even protesting, in many instances) doesn't create an atmosphere conducive to the kind of discussion necessary to bring that about.  And even protesting needs to have a valid predicate.  If protesters insist on protesting even legitimate uses of force such as the Palacios shooting, while that, certainly, eventually will reform policing, protesters are not going to be happy with the sort of "reform" that their protests bring about eventually.  Instead of inspiring conscientious, caring, dedicated, empathetic, knowledgeable, intelligent officers who care about people and are committed to treating everyone with respect to stay in law enforcement, if protesters start from a paradigm that all or most all officers are racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, maladjusted, power-hungry and trigger-happy, anyway, guess what they're going to be left with after the conscientious, caring, dedicated, empathetic, knowledgeable, intelligent officers get the message that they're not welcome in law enforcement (after all, if, no matter what they do, everybody thinks they're racist, already, what would be the point of staying anyway, right)?

 

Which is exactly why looking at it a different way is worth trying.  

When you behave reactively you get reactive responses most of the time.  When you come out with the idea that the only way to win is for both sides to win then you can proactively change a reactive situation.

Obviously it will not work in some situations - which is why Stott and others reccomend having the riot gear available, but even if it only changes things 10% of the time it can prevent a lot of damage to people, lives and property and has the potential to grow just as the protests grew. 

I know it can be really scary to try especially if you have been in a lot of violent situations, but seriously the benefits of this are so great, it has been studied and found effective in many situations. 

Blessed are the peacemakers...

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Rain

[Meadowchik]

38 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Why?

Presume?

Without?

Evidence?

Not sure what you are saying. To this generality from Amulek:

Quote

But so long as you remain calm and cordial, everything usually works out just fine. 

I say this:

Quote

Shock and trauma can disrupt a person's ability to follow directions.

and then I said

Quote

And so we as members of the public must be careful to not view any noncompliance as justification for force, so that we can expect proper conduct from our police and make sure they give due respect to human life. 

There's no presumption in what I said. It is a factual statement which can remind us to be cautious. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Shock and trauma can interfere with our cognition, and therefore our ability to even hear or understand instructions, much less comply with them.

Then there is the issue that at least 1/4 of shooting deaths by police are those who are mentally impaired.

https://ibpf.org/how-mental-illness-affects-police-shooting-fatalities/

Edited June 28, 2020 by Calm

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Not sure what you are saying. To this generality from Amulek:

I say this:

and then I said

There's no presumption in what I said. It is a factual statement which can remind us to be cautious. 

We plainly are speaking two mutually unintelligible languages. You cannot, plainly, understand my points about (a) lack of personal responsibility of police "victims" for their own safety, (b) "victims" despising police, (c) drugs, (d) "victims" choosing escalation of encounters, (e) lack of effective acculturation of "victims," (f) diminution of "victims" by excusing antisocial behavior, and (g) a few others. 

I, on the other hand, cannot grasp the need to blame cops for every deadly encounter and chalk them up to cops' moral failings. 

[Meadowchik]

10 hours ago, USU78 said:

We plainly are speaking two mutually unintelligible languages.

No, it's not that. 

10 hours ago, USU78 said:

You cannot, plainly, understand my points about (a) lack of personal responsibility of police "victims" for their own safety, (b) "victims" despising police, (c) drugs, (d) "victims" choosing escalation of encounters, (e) lack of effective acculturation of "victims," (f) diminution of "victims" by excusing antisocial behavior, and (g) a few others. 

When did you state those points and support them, to me?

10 hours ago, USU78 said:

I, on the other hand, cannot grasp the need to blame cops for every deadly encounter and chalk them up to cops' moral failings. 

Improving accountability for law enforcement and expecting personal responsibility from the public are not mutually exclusive values.

 

 

 

 

[Meadowchik]

I posted the following on another thread, but since the other is in the In the News section, I think it's appropriate to also include it here:

LDS church member Joanna Brooks has a book coming out very soon, Mormonism and White Supremacy: American Religion and The Problem of Racial Innocence, the Amazon description reads:

  Quote

To this day, churchgoing Mormons report that they hear from their fellow congregants in Sunday meetings that African-Americans are the accursed descendants of Cain whose spirits―due to their lack of spiritual mettle in a premortal existence―were destined to come to earth with a "curse" of black skin. This claim can be made in many Mormon Sunday Schools without fear of contradiction. You are more likely to encounter opposition if you argue that the ban on the ordination of Black Mormons was a product of human racism. Like most difficult subjects in Mormon history and practice, says Joanna Brooks, the priesthood and temple ban on Blacks has been managed carefully in LDS institutional settings with a combination of avoidance, denial, selective truth-telling, and determined silence.
As America begins to come to terms with the costs of white privilege to Black lives, this book urges a soul-searching examination of the role American Christianity has played in sustaining everyday white supremacy by assuring white people of their innocence. In Mormonism and White Supremacy, Joanna Brooks offers an unflinching look at her own people's history and culture and finds in them lessons that will hit home for every scholar of American religion and person of faith.

...and in 2018, Brooks published The Possessive Investment in Rightness: White Supremacy and the Mormon Movement (available for free download at JSTOR) which is well worth reading imo and in it she shows that Brigham Young's positions were corroborated by Eliza Snow:

  Quote

As Maureen Ursenbach Beecher wrote, “Eliza adopted ideas from whatever source she trusted—Joseph Smith’s utterances would be received without question—and worked them meticulously into a neatly-packaged theology with the ends tucked in and the strings tied tight.”15 In this poem, Eliza R. Snow endorses Brigham Young’s vision of a theocratic Utah governed by white priesthood holders. 

The JSTOR essay is the source I was referring to earlier @SteveO and @The Nehor when we were talking about Brigham Young and white supremacy.

In the JSTOR article cited above, The Possessive Investment in rightness, Brooks also quotes a journal entry of Brigham Young's from 1852, part of the time period of diaries written in BY's hand:

Quote

I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings. . . . Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; . . . In the kingdom of God on the earth the Affricans cannot hold one partical of power in Government. . . . The men bearing rule; not one of the children of old Cain, have one partical of right to bear Rule in Government affairs from first to last, they have no buisness there. this privilege was taken from them by there own transgressions, and I cannot help it; and should you or I bear rule we ought to do it with dignity and honour before God. . . . Therefore I will not consent for one moment to have an african dictate me or any Bren. with regard to Church or State Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do, but I know I know more than they do. If theAffricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what business have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others? . . . If we suffer the Devil to rule over us we shall not accomplish any good. I want the Lord to rule, and be our Governor and and dictater, and we are the boys to execute. . . . Consequently I will not consent for a moment to have the Children of Cain rule me nor my Bren. No, it is not right. . . . No man can vote for me or my Bren. in this Territory who has not the privilege of acting in Church affairs.

 

[USU78]

It must be so very comforting to watch one's personal responsibility for one's own sins ooze into the ozone and disappear forever through the expiatory act of judgifying and condemning the "we" that includes one's self and all them other unwokified systemic racifiers, spending all them Sundays congratulating themselves for their vile, bilious Caucasionness while one can, in very TRVTH, thank a gracious Providence that one is not a sinner like these.

Hail expiation! Praise wokiness!

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

So what? Are you saying that every encounter with police is, ipso facto, a shock/trauma-inducing incident? 

That's not what I said or meant [...]. What I meant is that police can be encountering people who are already in a compromised state like shock.

Oooookay. I just don't see how that little factoid has anything to do with the types of situations we have been discussing. 

Do you think there is a problem with law enforcement escalating their use of force unnecessarily when responding to people who are in shock or who have just experienced a traumatic event? 

Like, when they arrive on the scene of a car accident or show up for a sexual assault case - they can't help but shoot first and ask questions later? 

Sorry, but the overwhelming majority of police encounters are of the mundane / routine-car-stop variety.

And what I said about remaining calm and civil is perfectly within the capacity of ordinary people who experience these kinds of interactions.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I posted the following on another thread, but since the other is in the In the News section, I think it's appropriate to also include it here:

LDS church member Joanna Brooks has a book coming out very soon, Mormonism and White Supremacy: American Religion and The Problem of Racial Innocence, the Amazon description reads:

  Quote

To this day, churchgoing Mormons report that they hear from their fellow congregants in Sunday meetings that African-Americans are the accursed descendants of Cain whose spirits―due to their lack of spiritual mettle in a premortal existence―were destined to come to earth with a "curse" of black skin. This claim can be made in many Mormon Sunday Schools without fear of contradiction. You are more likely to encounter opposition if you argue that the ban on the ordination of Black Mormons was a product of human racism. Like most difficult subjects in Mormon history and practice, says Joanna Brooks, the priesthood and temple ban on Blacks has been managed carefully in LDS institutional settings with a combination of avoidance, denial, selective truth-telling, and determined silence.
As America begins to come to terms with the costs of white privilege to Black lives, this book urges a soul-searching examination of the role American Christianity has played in sustaining everyday white supremacy by assuring white people of their innocence. In Mormonism and White Supremacy, Joanna Brooks offers an unflinching look at her own people's history and culture and finds in them lessons that will hit home for every scholar of American religion and person of faith.

...and in 2018, Brooks published The Possessive Investment in Rightness: White Supremacy and the Mormon Movement (available for free download at JSTOR) which is well worth reading imo and in it she shows that Brigham Young's positions were corroborated by Eliza Snow:

  Quote

As Maureen Ursenbach Beecher wrote, “Eliza adopted ideas from whatever source she trusted—Joseph Smith’s utterances would be received without question—and worked them meticulously into a neatly-packaged theology with the ends tucked in and the strings tied tight.”15 In this poem, Eliza R. Snow endorses Brigham Young’s vision of a theocratic Utah governed by white priesthood holders. 

The JSTOR essay is the source I was referring to earlier @SteveO and @The Nehor when we were talking about Brigham Young and white supremacy.

In the JSTOR article cited above, The Possessive Investment in rightness, Brooks also quotes a journal entry of Brigham Young's from 1852, part of the time period of diaries written in BY's hand:

 

On the cultural background that accounts for Brigham's comments, see 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/curse-ham-race-and-slavery-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-biblical

Not inherent to Mormonism, but a cultural inherentance.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Oooookay. I just don't see how that little factoid has anything to do with the types of situations we have been discussing. 

Do you think there is a problem with law enforcement escalating their use of force unnecessarily when responding to people who are in shock or who have just experienced a traumatic event? 

Like, when they arrive on the scene of a car accident or show up for a sexual assault case - they can't help but shoot first and ask questions later? 

Sorry, but the overwhelming majority of police encounters are of the mundane / routine-car-stop variety.

And what I said about remaining calm and civil is perfectly within the capacity of ordinary people who experience these kinds of interactions.

 

Well I do think it is relevant to the general topic and the many paths it has taken in this thread.   If our attitudes about police do not adequately hold them accountable when they do engage in misconduct, then it's less likely that the system will hold them accountable. Accountability is impacted at all levels. As members of the public we should also be careful about how we use 911 and request police service. There was a pretty clear example of this is this report about a study on wandering police officers:

Quote

 

Motives for the questionable hires included budget constraints preventing small police departments from paying salaries that could attract more experienced candidates, or the limitations of a smaller pool of qualified officers that year.

But some were apparently willing to turn a blind eye to past records of misconduct.

“Some agency leaders may even believe they are doing a service to the profession by helping a cast-out comrade find his way,” the study said. “Unlike a new recruit, a wandering officer has earned his spot in policing’s ‘band of brothers’;  that he has been fired may signal only that he was unfairly maligned or fell victim to ‘politics.'”

The consequences of such hiring decisions can be tragic, noted the authors.

A well-known example is Tim Loehmann, a Cleveland police officer who in 2014 shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was carrying a replica toy gun. Loehmann had been “allowed . . . to resign” from his previous job in Independence, Ohio, after suffering a “dangerous loss of composure” during firearms training.

According to his supervisors at the Independence Police Department, Loehmann “would not be able to substantially cope, or make good decisions” in stressful scenarios. Nevertheless, he was hired a year or so later by the Cleveland Police Department, according to the study, without a full review of his personnel file.

Loehmann was subsequently hired by another Ohio police force, but quit a few days later after community residents protested.

 

In this example, his supervisors reported that he was unfit to serve, but Cleveland rehired him before he shot Tamir Rice. He was rehired again by another after that., but fortunately community outcry made that rehire short-lived.

Also in this example, the caller said twice that the gun Tamir Rice was waving was "probably a fake" and he did say it was a kid (although dispatch might not have relayed that fact).  So, in this instance, perhaps the caller would have been more responsible to not call the police when a kid was playing with what they believe is probably a toy. If people recognize that things won't necessarily turn out right when the police intervene, maybe they will realize that asking for police help is not always the cautious decision and will rethink calling the police.

And if people recognize that things won't necessarily turn out right when the police intervene, maybe they will pay more attention to police records when hiring, to try to improve safety in their communities.

 

[Meadowchik]

Just now, Kevin Christensen said:

On the cultural background that accounts for Brigham's comments, see 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/curse-ham-race-and-slavery-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-biblical

Not inherent to Mormonism, but a cultural inherentance.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Hi Kevin, thanks for the link. I was not totally sure even though the time period seemed to match, but do you agree that the journal entry was likely written in Brigham Young's hand?

[The Nehor]

On 6/27/2020 at 10:45 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

"It's only a ..." has gotten more than a few police officers killed, Tacenda.  And "racial profiling"?  Tell me again which one of the officers mentioned race, and when?  Listen to police officers?  Yep.  Do what they tell you to do, even if you think they're being unreasonable?  Yep.  Later on, you can complain to anyone who will listen about how racist, unreasonable, et cetera the cops were being.  The media eat that stuff up, so it's not as if you won't find anyone to listen to you. You can complain to the officer's department.  You can file a complaint with the agency responsible for certifying police officers in the jurisdiction.  And you can even file a lawsuit if you want to do that.  But then and there?  Yep.  Listen.  Do exactly what they tell you to do, exactly when they tell you to do it.

Because otherwise you might get killed.

That is a problem. In fact that is the current problem.

[Tacenda]

I had no idea, dummy that I am. Our country was designed to segregate us all. We missed a lot by not having diversity.

 

 

[USU78]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because otherwise you might get killed.

That is a problem. In fact that is the current problem.

Seems to me achievable goals actually achieved are preferable to perfection never approached.