smac97 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 Here: Quote Black lives matter should be a universally accepted message, Latter-day Saint leader tells BYU audience By Tad Walch@Tad_Walch Oct 27, 2020, 11:54am MDT The history of Black slavery in the United States is shameful and the idea that Black lives matter is an eternal truth that should be universally accepted, President Dallin H. Oaks, first counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Tuesday on the Brigham Young University campus in Provo. “Love is fundamental,” the apostle said during the first campus devotional with a handful of live spectators since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March. Tickets were randomly distributed to 1,200 students, faculty and staff who wore masks and sat in physically distanced, assigned seats in the 19,000-seat Marriott Center. President Oaks talked about the disruption to students’ lives caused by the pandemic and about the increase in anxiety on church college and university campuses, but as he did during the church’s general conference earlier this month, President Oaks said racism is an ongoing issue in the United States. “The recent nationwide protests were fueled by powerful feelings that this country suffers from and must abolish racism,” he said. “The shocking police-produced death of George Floyd in Minnesota last May was surely the trigger for these nationwide protests, whose momentum was carried forward under the message of ‘Black Lives Matter,’” President Oaks added. “Of course, Black lives matter. That is an eternal truth all reasonable people should support. Unfortunately, that persuasive banner was sometimes used or understood to stand for other things that do not command universal support. Examples include abolishing the police or seriously reducing their effectiveness or changing our constitutional government. All these are appropriate subjects for advocacy, but not under what we hope to be the universally accepted message: Black lives matter.” He said he was “thrilled” to hear President Russell M. Nelson’s “powerful doctrinal condemnation of racism and prejudice in his talk at general conference,” in which the church president said he “grieved that our Black brothers and sisters the world over are enduring the pains of racism and prejudice.” President Nelson again condemned racism and called on Latter-day Saints “to lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice toward any group of God’s children.” “Now, with prophetic clarification, let us all heed our prophet’s call to repent, to change and to improve,” President Oaks said. “Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can unite and bring peace to people of all races and nationalities. We who believe in that gospel — whatever our origins — must unite in love of each other and of our Savior Jesus Christ.” A few thoughts: 1. Over all, very cool. 2. I have struggled with the "Black Lives Matter" organization, which seems deeply problematic. See, e.g.: The Black Lives Matter Shakedown Continues Shakedown: BLM Demands Cut of Louisville Business Profits for Protection Cuban Immigrant Faces Down Black Lives Matter Over Attempted Shakedown Of His Restaurant Black Lives Matter occupies Seattle Trader Joe’s, demands 15 percent be given to black communities Watch Out: There’s A ‘Big’ Black Lives Matter Scam About Rioting is beginning to turn people off to BLM and protests while Biden has no solution The myth behind BLM’s ‘peaceful protests’ (How the media peddles data that under-represents BLM violence) The Black Lives Matter Movement Must Solve Its Violence Problem 3. I think the sentiment of "Black lives matter" is axiomatically true. It is, or should be, as Pres. Oaks put it, a "universally accepted message." The difficulty has arisen where, again as Pres. Oaks put it, this message is "sometimes used or understood to stand for other things that do not command universal support." 4. I am happy to see Pres. Oaks reiterate Pres. Nelson's General Conference address, the “powerful doctrinal condemnation of racism and prejudice." It is also pleasing to see Pres. Oaks reiterating Pres. Nelson's call “to lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice." I found it particularly noteworthy that Pres. Oaks characterized Pres. Nelson's remarks as a call for us "to repent, to change and to improve." Such universal calls generally should invoke introspection in all of us. 5. Any thoughts from y'all? Thanks, -Smac 3 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 Another black man was shot. He deserved some retaliation for wielding a knife, but why all they gunshots. Why not a shot in the leg to disable him? Something needs to be done. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-man-shot-dead-police-philadelphia-sparking-heated-protests-n1244888 I understand the predicament police are in, I wish there were some answers. Has it always been this way, and we're just seeing more footage because of cell phones? Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted October 27, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted October 27, 2020 Just now, Tacenda said: Another black man was shot. He deserved some retaliation for wielding a knife, but why all they gunshots. Why not a shot in the leg to disable him? A few resources: Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically Quote In light of this resurfacing of misguided “shoot-to-wound” thinking, Force Science News is reissuing a “position paper,” originally introduced following Paterson’s ’06 proposed legislation, that discusses why shooting to wound versus shooting to stop is neither practical nor desirable as a performance standard. We hope this information proves useful to you in addressing any shoot-to-wound advocacy that may arise in your jurisdiction. ... Studies by the Force Science Research Center reveal some of the practical problems with these positions. Lewinski explains some of the basics of human dynamics and anatomy and the relative risks of misses and hits: “Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts. For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second. “The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round. “There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect’s forearm or a weapon in a suspect’s hand in the time spans involved. “Even if the suspect held his weapon arm steady for half a second or more, an accurate hit would be highly unlikely, and in police shootings the suspect and his weapon are seldom stationary. Plus, the officer himself may be moving as he shoots. “The upper arms move more slowly than the lower arms and hands. But shooting at the upper arms, there’s a greater chance you’re going to hit the suspect’s brachial artery or center mass, areas with a high probability of fatality. So where does shooting only to wound come in when even areas considered by some to ‘safe’ from fatality risk could in fact carry the same level of risk as targeting center mass? “Legs tend initially to move slower than arms and to maintain more static positions. However, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity. A suspect who’s hit there can bleed out in seconds if one of the major arteries is severed, so again shooting just to wound may not result in just wounding. “On the other hand, if an officer manages to take a suspect’s legs out non-fatally, that still leaves the offender’s hands free to shoot. His ability to threaten lives hasn’t necessarily been stopped.” Why police don’t aim for the legs Quote Shooting someone in the leg doesn’t mean he or she will stop shooting. The same is true of someone who is shot in the arm or shoulder, or even in the chest. Shooting someone in the leg won’t necessarily stop him or her from standing, walking or even running. Shooting someone in the leg doesn’t even mean he or she will fall to the ground. And, it doesn’t mean the individual will stop feloniously aiming a gun at a police officer or an innocent citizen and pulling the trigger. Even so, if an officer did shoot someone in the leg, there is a chance it could sever the femoral artery and still potentially end that person’s life. Officers learn how difficult it is to shoot accurately under stress. An officer can be a near-perfect shooter on the range, but the stress of a real firefight is totally different. Shooting a gun out of a person’s hand is nearly impossible, and it would be dangerous to attempt in real life. Even if an officer wanted to shoot someone in an appendage (leg or arm), doing so would be incredibly difficult to do under stress. Real gunfights are not static; they’re mobile. Trying to hit a moving leg or arm would put an officer at a greater disadvantage than he or she already faces. Action is faster than reaction. Since police react to illegal confrontations, they’re at a disadvantage. Rarely is an officer ready for a lethal confrontation, even if his or her gun is already drawn. Police are not the aggressors; they are the defenders. They have to perceive and process the threat and then act based on a subject’s actions. The reaction won’t always be a lethal option either. Those with felonious intentions have the upper hand because police cannot read their minds. Those with murderous intentions have already made up their minds they’re going to murder, attack or otherwise injure another person, including a police officer. Criminals have the tactical advantage because they determine when to make the surprise attack. Police aren’t the ambushers or the murderers, but a lot of police have been both ambushed and murdered. Reacting to a threat decreases an officer’s effectiveness. Because an officer must react to another person’s actions, it changes the physical (cognitive) and mental (psychological) response more drastically than if the officer were the attacker. This causes a breakdown of cognitive and psychological performance. Reaction would do that to most people, particularly when feeling the mental and physiological effects of possibly being critically wounded or killed. Research by Dr. Bill Lewsinski of the Force Science Research Center shows that during actual officer-involved shooting incidents, officers only accurately hit moving threats 14 percent of the time at distance under 10 feet. On the corollary, attackers successfully hit officers 68 percent of the time within the same distance. At such rates, it’s fortunate that more police officers aren’t killed. This underscores two concerns: First, the near impossibility of an officer being able to shoot a weapon-wielding subject in the leg, and second, the need for law enforcement officers to be really good at their jobs. Kenneth Murray, a leading law enforcement trainer, said he may not want protector classes to take pleasure from shooting and injuring others, "but they must be good at it" for the sake of protecting their lives and the lives of the citizens they protect. Law enforcement officers are taught to shoot center mass on a threat or target. Those who shoot closer to the thoracic cavity on realistic-looking human targets and silhouettes score higher during live-fire training. Why? Because there is a higher likelihood that hitting a person in that area will stop him or her, but it won’t necessarily kill him or her. Moreover, the most obvious reason for shooting center mass is because that portion of the body is a larger target than, say, a leg. It is incorrect to believe that if someone gets shot in the chest he or she will die. Shooting someone in the thoracic cavity or abdomen may not even stop him or her. First responders and emergency medical personnel see plenty of people who survive gunshot wounds. Even after suffering an excruciating lethal hit to the heart, it can still take 10-15 seconds for a person to stop. In that amount of time, a motivated and moderately trained active shooter, for instance, can still murder a dozen people or more, and reload a gun once or twice. Police are trained to stop the threat. Police don’t shoot to wound or shoot to kill; they shoot to stop the threat, period. This is not just a manner of semantics either. The moment the threat no longer exists — when a violent criminal stops shooting or drops a weapon, for example — officers stop shooting. Of course, perceiving and processing this under stress can take time — even one second is a long time in a gunfight — but officers know to quit. Not stopping in a prudent and timely manner would be unjustified and considered excessive force. To reiterate, officers are not trained to shoot to kill. Instead they are taught to shoot until the threat has ended. It is a myth to believe that a single shot from a handgun will stop someone. Police are taught to keep shooting until the threat stops. Traditionally, officers will shoot twice and assess. Some of this is because of ingrained range training, but for their safety and the safety of others, officers should keep shooting until the threat stops. Just because a person is shot once or twice, if an officer can even tell the person was hit, it doesn’t mean that person is incapacitated or no longer a threat. Police are taught to save lives. After officers are involved in a lethal confrontation, they are taught to secure the scene to ensure there is no longer a lethal threat to any person. After that, officers will get help for the person they injured, and often times it's the person who just attempted to kill or seriously injure them or others. Police will do all they can to save that person by calling for emergency medical assistance and, where possible, perform medical treatment. Police place the lives of others before their own. In a very real way, law enforcement officers prioritize lives. Police will run into a hail of gunfire to save hostages and other innocent civilians. Police officers stand as the buffer between those who want to harm — as well those who will murder — and those who don’t. Although it may seem somewhat paradoxical, officers don’t want to end lives when they use deadly force; they want to save lives. As such, law enforcement officers often resolve hundreds of situations without using lethal force. Using lethal force is always the last resort. Officers don’t want to kill, but they’ve accepted the possibility that it may happen. And they’ve internalized the moral and legal right and wrong should the worst occur. Officers carry the burden when forced to use lethal force, and it changes their lives forever. They didn’t wake up that day thinking they would kill or injure someone; they reacted as part of their moral and legal obligation to do so. Police officers are trained to shoot center mass, and although extremely rare, they may even shoot unarmed attackers whom they fear will take away their guns and kill them with it. Officers may present the gun quicker than other tools on their belt because they know that over 20,000 police officers have died in the line of duty, and many of them were murdered. They know action is faster than reaction, so they want to be ready, just in case. No officer is trained to kill, but he or she understands that shooting someone in the arm or the leg won’t stop the threat either. The bottom line is officers don’t shoot to kill anyone; they shoot to save lives, including their own. Jeffrey Denning is a police officer in the Salt Lake City area. He is a former Federal Air Marshal and veteran of the war in Iraq. He is the founder of Warrior SOS and published a book by the same name. Here's why police don't shoot to wound in the case of deadly force Quote Do officers really operate under a shoot-to-kill policy? Police officers are trained to shoot as many rounds as necessary at the threat they are confronted with until the threat is neutralized – that is, they are trained to fire until the suspect is unable to shoot or in some other way injure the officer, other police or bystanders. Why not “shoot to wound” instead? For a couple of reasons: First, shooting to wound someone may not stop the threat. If a person is shot in the leg, the threat may still exist as a suspect could still use his or her hands to fire a gun or stab with a knife. Second, and most importantly, it takes a skilled marksman to hit someone exactly in the arm or leg, and, most officers are not skilled marskmen. In fact, outside of an old-fashioned TV Western, few people can make that shot, no matter the training. What’s the law on police using deadly force? Policy for the use of deadly force has been shaped by four U.S. Supreme Court rulings during the past 30 years. A 1985 U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down policies that allowed officers to shoot a suspect just because they are fleeing police. The court ruled that a suspect has to be posing an immediate threat of serious physical harm in order for police to justify using deadly force. In 1989, the court went further saying officers can use deadly force if it is proven to be “reasonable” based on the circumstances of a specific situation. The third ruling on deadly force came in 1994 when the court ruled that officers do not have to use less lethal force before resorting to deadly force – for instance, an officer does not have to use a Taser before he or she uses a gun in a situation. In 2015, the court ruled citizens could not sue police for using deadly force against fleeing suspects unless it is "beyond debate" that a shooting was unjustified. Candace McCoy, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, suggested in an article in The Guardian that shooting to wound would lower the legal threshold for using deadly force. “As a policy, [shoot to wound] is a really bad idea because it would give the police permission to take that gun out of the holster under any circumstance,” she said. I hope this helps. Just now, Tacenda said: Something needs to be done. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-man-shot-dead-police-philadelphia-sparking-heated-protests-n1244888 I understand the predicament police are in, I wish there were some answers. Has it always been this way, and we're just seeing more footage because of cell phones? I think these things need to be taken in context. The use of lethal force is a heavily-regulated thing. Thanks, -Smac 5 Link to comment
Calm Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Why not a shot in the leg to disable him A leg is just not that easy to hit. Don't believe all those movies and tv shows where people can hit the knee cap every time. It tends to be in more motion than the trunk (it moves forward and back in relation to the body while the trunk moves forward) A leg is not that big, pants may confuse where it actually is and a graze might not cripple them. It would have to tear up enough muscle or break bone to disable. Pain is not always enough. They aim for center mass so they are more likely to hit something, anything. Added: smac not only got there first, but much better detail. Edited October 27, 2020 by Calm 3 Link to comment
stemelbow Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 It was good, except this last line: Quote Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can unite and bring peace to people of all races and nationalities. We who believe in that gospel — whatever our origins — must unite in love of each other and of our Savior Jesus Christ.” No. The teachings from churches, Christian ones, got us in this mess to begin with. The best to bring peace and unity is something along the lines of secular humanism. Link to comment
Calm Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 (edited) The why so many shots... Likely because of an expectation that many are going to be misses: Quote While popular culture has embedded both extremes the hardened mantra of “shoot to kill” and the benevolent private eye (think Barnaby Jones) who expertly inflicts only a flesh wound the truth is that neither practice is a staple of police guidelines. In fact, the most likely result when a policeman discharges a gun is that he or she will miss the target completely. So an officer could no sooner shoot to wound than shoot to kill with any rate of success. In life-or-death situations that play out in lightning speed such precision marksmanship is unrealistic. In New York, many other municipalities and some federal agencies, guidelines instruct officers to shoot to “stop” and in particular, to stop an assailant who poses a deadly threat to the officers involved or civilians. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html Quote In New York, many other municipalities and some federal agencies, guidelines instruct officers to shoot to “stop” and in particular, to stop an assailant who poses a deadly threat to the officers involved or civilians. “We do not train our agents to shoot to wound or to shoot the gun out of someone’s hand, we train them to shoot to stop the threat,” said William G. McMahon, the special agent in charge who heads the New York field division of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “In the milliseconds a law enforcement officer has to react during a life-threatening situation, aiming to wound is not an option.” Agent McMahon faced tough questions a few weeks ago when a federal officer in the Bronx shot a suspect in the head, after the suspect had brandished a hand grenade and sped away in a car, dragging the agent 20 feet. That followed two fatal police shootings in Brooklyn, one in which the victim pulled out a hair brush that the police said looked like a gun, and another in which the victim wielded a broken bottle in his hand. Both shootings raised questions about the use of deadly force. New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year. In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year. In all shootings including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance. In Los Angeles, where there are far fewer shots discharged, the police fired 67 times in 2006 and had 27 hits, a 40 percent hit rate, which, while better than New York’s, still shows that they miss targets more often they hit them. Bad marksmanship? Police officials and law enforcement experts say no, contending that the number of misses underscores the tense and unpredictable nature of these situations. For example, a 43 percent hit rate for shots fired from zero to six feet might seem low, but at that range it is very likely that something has already gone wrong: perhaps an officer got surprised, or had no cover, or was wrestling with the suspect. “When you factor in all of the other elements that are involved in shooting at an adversary, that’s a high hit rate,” said Raymond W. Kelly, the New York police commissioner. “The adrenaline flow, the movement of the target, the movement of the shooter, the officer, the lighting conditions, the weather ... I think it is a high rate when you consider all of the variables.” They don't do warning shots because those bullets have to go somewhere and that means potential hurting an innocent. They don't want to shoot for a graze or limb or shoulder because more misses and again morerisks to innocents. Remember if bullets don't hit the target, they will hit something else. As horrible as killing a suspect is, the possibility of death or maiming of bystanders or even someone unaware of what is going on (bullets can travel far) is worse imo. Not saying a suspect always deserves it, but they often have some control over the situation and even if it is wrong to require suspects/persons of interest/the guys getting arrested for driving while black that don’t deserve to be suspects to put themselves into humiliating positions in order not to be threatened or shot, they most often have a chance to make that choice and bystanders don’t usually. Quote Candace McCoy, a professor of criminal justice at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, said that officers must be intimately familiar with the neighborhoods they patrol, and understand its natural perimeters, so they can intelligently contain an incident and defuse it short of using deadly force. They can find an in-between tactic, experts said, such as using a Taser, a baton or pepper spray. But too often, Professor McCoy said, such middle ground for officers disappears. Once it does, and bullets start to fly, there is no telling where they will land. “You take Olympic shooters, and they practice all the time, and they can hit a fly off a cow’s nose from 100 yards,” said Mr. Cerar, the retired commander. “But if you put a gun in that cow’s hand, you will get a different reaction from the Olympic shooter.” Edited October 28, 2020 by Calm 2 Link to comment
mnn727 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Another black man was shot. He deserved some retaliation for wielding a knife, but why all they gunshots. Why not a shot in the leg to disable him? Something needs to be done. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/black-man-shot-dead-police-philadelphia-sparking-heated-protests-n1244888 I understand the predicament police are in, I wish there were some answers. Has it always been this way, and we're just seeing more footage because of cell phones? Spoken like a non-gun user--- In Hollywood the good guys can make impossible shots (which is what a leg shot is). If you miss at a leg shot what is behind the person? Cause that bullet will keep on going. You must stop the person before they hurt you or someone else, you do that by aiming for center mass, not some Hollywood trick shot! Link to comment
Tacenda Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, mnn727 said: Spoken like a non-gun user--- In Hollywood the good guys can make impossible shots (which is what a leg shot is). If you miss at a leg shot what is behind the person? Cause that bullet will keep on going. You must stop the person before they hurt you or someone else, you do that by aiming for center mass, not some Hollywood trick shot! I'm am a total non gun user. Now think, would a white guy get shot multiple times for holding a knife? Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 Note: The following Op-Ed appeared on Page O-1 of the January 1, 2011 edition of The Salt Lake Tribune. Officers sometimes forced to shoot armed suspects By Ken K. Gourdin As the son of a career law enforcement officer who spent 43 years on the job, I have little patience for those who endlessly dissect and critique officers actions such as the fatal shooting at the LDS Church's Oquirrh Mountain Temple of an armed subject who refused to obey officers' commands. Among the objections in on line comments to The Salt Lake Tribune's recent news coverage of the shooting are the following: 1. The officer should have used less-than-lethal force. This option makes no sense. Officers in such a situation would risk not disabling the suspect (instead, simply angering him further), at which time the suspect would have begun shooting real (lethal) bullets in response to those less-than-lethal measures. An officer's job isn't simply to engage suspects in a fair fight. It's to neutralize the threat they pose. Period. 2. The officer should have fired a warning shot into the air. Those who favor this option ignore basic physics: What goes up must come down, and what comes down may injure or kill a totally innocent bystander. Potentially endangering the innocent in order to protect the guilty also makes no sense. 3. The officer should have shot to wound rather than to kill. This option ignores basic police procedure. Officers are trained to shoot at “center mass” (the torso) rather than at arms or legs. Why? Because the adrenaline that kicks in, enabling officers to respond effectively to situations calling for the use of deadly force, also makes them less accurate. If officers shoot at center mass and miss, there's still a good chance that they will strike the suspect somewhere, while if they shoot at an extremity and miss, there's a good chance they'll miss the suspect entirely, leaving him free to harm someone else. 4. The suspect was fleeing, and therefore posed no threat to anyone. Officers can ill afford to give suspects who flee with weapons the benefit of the doubt. Officers are justified in using deadly force if a suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or to the public. 5. Officers should not use deadly force unless they are absolutely sure of a suspect's intentions. For example, the suspect's gun may not have been loaded. [This contention ignores the fact that] a sizable cache of ammunition was found in the suspect's vehicle after he was shot. Failing to act without absolute surety of a suspect's intentions is a good way for both officers and the public to end up hurt or killed. Such second-guessing is a luxury which those who must make split-second life-or-death decisions can ill afford. The only thing gun-toting suspects have to do to avoid getting shot is to obey officers' commands. Most all officers do not want to shoot people; they just want to go home safe to their families at the end of their shift. As regrettable as it might be, sometimes it takes using deadly force to make sure that happens. We do officers a disservice when we demand that they protect us, while endlessly and unfairly critiquing how they do so. Ken K. Gourdin received a degree in criminal justice with a law enforcement emphasis from Weber State University and was recently certified as a paralegal by the National Association of Legal Assistants. [At the time of this writing, he lived] in Tooele. 4 Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 5 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I'm am a total non gun user. Now think, would a white guy get shot multiple times for holding a knife? Yes. Police officers are trained to shoot anyone who poses an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others, and they are trained to shoot as many times as necessary to neutralize the threat. 2 Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 (edited) I like how Elder Oaks acknowledges that there can be, and sometimes are, legitimate grievances, without giving up ground that cannot and should not be ceded, in order to to maintain peace, law, and order in a free society. Yes, there are mechanisms for addressing legitimate grievances (and perhaps there are legitimate, viable ways to improve mechanisms for addressing legitimate grievances), and no, rioting, arson, vandalism, looting, aggravated assault and battery, and murder cannot and should not be allowed, no matter how many legitimate grievances one who engages in one or more of such things has. Edited October 27, 2020 by Kenngo1969 Link to comment
Popular Post Kenngo1969 Posted October 27, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted October 27, 2020 59 minutes ago, stemelbow said: It was good, except this last line: No. The teachings from churches, Christian ones, got us in this mess to begin with. The best to bring peace and unity is something along the lines of secular humanism. Have the teachings of various faiths been pressed into service to support causes that they should not support? Yes. But it would be one of the most egregious instances imaginable of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to say that this is a valid reason for jettisoning faith altogether. Churches were at the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement. To say otherwise is to ignore history and to denigrate the contributions of The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., The Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, and too many others to list. Were there religious leaders on the "wrong" side of history, opposing the Civil Rights Movement? Certainly. That's why Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. penned his Letter from Birmingham Jail. Arguably, secular humanism is what has led, by contrast, to violence in the streets. If necessary, peaceful, nonviolent resistance is, by far, the better way to go. 5 Link to comment
Popular Post strappinglad Posted October 27, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted October 27, 2020 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: best to bring peace and unity is something along the lines of secular humanism. Sure , because that has worked out so well in Russia and China over the last 100 years. Oh sorry, I forgot . Secular humanism has never been properly practiced any where or when. If only people would seek the best interests of their neighbors and not themselves. If only there was a rule about that . 5 Link to comment
LoudmouthMormon Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: Another black man was shot. He deserved some retaliation for wielding a knife, but why all they gunshots. Why not a shot in the leg to disable him? People have posted some very, very, very, very sound, reasonable, and, after enough learning and thought, obvious answers to that question. The real question is, are you willing to hear the sound/reasonable answer, and are you willing to put the learning and thought into seeing why it's so obvious? I've found, whenever this question has been asked in the past, the person asking is doing so from a position of intense emotion, and is asking the question rhetorically as a way of bolstering their overall point (which is also usually along the lines of "something has to be done".) So you tell us Tacenda, did you avail yourself of the answers? Did it change your mind? 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: Now think, would a white guy get shot multiple times for holding a knife? I'm not filled with hope, so I thought I'd ask directly. Because an endless chain of emotional rhetorical questions can get rather frustrating, rather quickly. Edited October 28, 2020 by LoudmouthMormon 1 Link to comment
LoudmouthMormon Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 (edited) I notice the blacklivesmatter.com website has revamped it's "about" section. It no longer contains language about destroying the nuclear family. That's a step in the right direction, I think. (At least, to the extent that someone said "whoa, that shouldn't be on our website!". If the thinking was more like "we're losing donations because of that line", then it's not really a step in the right direction at all.) Edited October 28, 2020 by LoudmouthMormon 2 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 11 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said: People have posted some very, very, very, very sound, reasonable, and, after enough learning and thought, obvious answers to that question. The real question is, are you willing to hear the sound/reasonable answer, and are you willing to put the learning and thought into seeing why it's so obvious? I've found, whenever this question has been asked in the past, the person asking is doing so from a position of intense emotion, and is asking the question rhetorically as a way of bolstering their overall point (which is also usually along the lines of "something has to be done".) So you tell us Tacenda, did you avail yourself of the answers? Did it change your mind? I'm not filled with hope, so I thought I'd ask directly. Because an endless chain of emotional rhetorical questions can get rather frustrating, rather quickly. There were several police and they didn't have a taser gun? The guy was bi-polar and was shot and killed in front of his family, another bites the dust. I read recently that police aren't trained near as long as other countries out there. But I feel we are veering to much away from the topic. I just want change. I'm sick of the protests as well as everyone out there. https://www.wbtv.com/2020/06/13/some-us-police-train-just-few-weeks-some-countries-they-train-years/ Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Tacenda said: There were several police and they didn't have a taser gun? Not all police officers are trained in the use of conducted energy weapons, no. And again, the job of the police is to neutralize the threat posed by those who pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to others; it is not simply to engage them in a fair fight. And even for those who are trained in the use of conducted energy weapons, their use is not feasible in every case. Distance, positioning, whether a person is under the influence of illicit substances, and numerous other factors determine the effectiveness of conducted energy weapons in any given case or situation. 27 minutes ago, Tacenda said: The guy was bi-polar and was shot and killed in front of his family, another bites the dust. I read recently that police aren't trained near as long as other countries out there. But I feel we are veering to much away from the topic. I just want change. I'm sick of the protests as well as everyone out there. https://www.wbtv.com/2020/06/13/some-us-police-train-just-few-weeks-some-countries-they-train-years/ The training models for our law enforcement are different than those in other countries, yes, but I'm not convinced that this makes their training, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur, worse or less adequate than that in other countries. I don't have hard numbers, so if someone would like to point anyone interested to reliable sources, s/he's welcome to do so. However, not a few U.S. police officers have bachelor's degrees. Some of them have master's degrees. And a few of them even have doctorates and juris doctor degrees. Most all states that I'm aware of require their officers to attend dozens of hours each year in in-service training in order to maintain certification. Edited October 28, 2020 by Kenngo1969 Link to comment
RevTestament Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 5 hours ago, stemelbow said: It was good, except this last line: No. The teachings from churches, Christian ones, got us in this mess to begin with. The best to bring peace and unity is something along the lines of secular humanism. The true gospel is what will finally bring peace to the earth ... so that we will call every man under the fig tree his neighbor. In this regard it is really sad what the Gentile churches have done to the gospel by their misinterpretations... So to a certain extent you are right... they have caused confusion and a mess. They excused and even promoted slavery. They have persecuted the truth, because they have been blinded by the teachings of men. I am not excusing "orthodoxy" in this regard either. "Orthodoxy" promoted numerous wars. Sadly, not even the peace of the millennium will last. Your belief that secular humanism can lead to a utopia is pie in the sky. Link to comment
sunstoned Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 5 hours ago, stemelbow said: It was good, except this last line: No. The teachings from churches, Christian ones, got us in this mess to begin with. The best to bring peace and unity is something along the lines of secular humanism. Agreed. Consider this a rep point. Link to comment
sunstoned Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, RevTestament said: The true gospel is what will finally bring peace to the earth ... so that we will call every man under the fig tree his neighbor. In this regard it is really sad what the Gentile churches have done to the gospel by their misinterpretations... So to a certain extent you are right... they have caused confusion and a mess. They excused and even promoted slavery. They have persecuted the truth, because they have been blinded by the teachings of men. I am not excusing "orthodoxy" in this regard either. "Orthodoxy" promoted numerous wars. Sadly, not even the peace of the millennium will last. Your belief that secular humanism can lead to a utopia is pie in the sky. The LDS church has done no better than most Christian churches. In the past, our church excused and promoted slavery, It does no good to point fingers. All of us as a nation need to work together to stamp out injustice and racism once and for all. 4 Link to comment
RevTestament Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 6 hours ago, smac97 said: Here: A few thoughts: 1. Over all, very cool. 2. I have struggled with the "Black Lives Matter" organization, which seems deeply problematic. See, e.g.: The Black Lives Matter Shakedown Continues Shakedown: BLM Demands Cut of Louisville Business Profits for Protection Cuban Immigrant Faces Down Black Lives Matter Over Attempted Shakedown Of His Restaurant Black Lives Matter occupies Seattle Trader Joe’s, demands 15 percent be given to black communities Watch Out: There’s A ‘Big’ Black Lives Matter Scam About Rioting is beginning to turn people off to BLM and protests while Biden has no solution The myth behind BLM’s ‘peaceful protests’ (How the media peddles data that under-represents BLM violence) The Black Lives Matter Movement Must Solve Its Violence Problem 3. I think the sentiment of "Black lives matter" is axiomatically true. It is, or should be, as Pres. Oaks put it, a "universally accepted message." The difficulty has arisen where, again as Pres. Oaks put it, this message is "sometimes used or understood to stand for other things that do not command universal support." 4. I am happy to see Pres. Oaks reiterate Pres. Nelson's General Conference address, the “powerful doctrinal condemnation of racism and prejudice." It is also pleasing to see Pres. Oaks reiterating Pres. Nelson's call “to lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice." I found it particularly noteworthy that Pres. Oaks characterized Pres. Nelson's remarks as a call for us "to repent, to change and to improve." Such universal calls generally should invoke introspection in all of us. 5. Any thoughts from y'all? Thanks, -Smac Of course black lives matter. It is the platform and beliefs of the BLM leaders that is concerning - so I am not for giving the Black Lives Matter moniker any power by using it. Anyone who believes they cannot get justice under a capitalist system... well nuff said. Combined with Christian norms, capitalism has done more for mankind than any other system of governance and economics in the history of the world... does anyone want to go back to a non-electrical economy? No appliances, no cars, no planes, no trains, no phones, no computers, etc, etc... all invented and brought about in the capitalist system by a free and prosperous people(yes, blacks were free in the US by then and have also benefited by the capitalist system). The BLM leadership is steeped in far leftist ideology. If they want to pursue that somewhere else, more power to them. But insisting the best system in the history of the world needs to be completely overhauled is just not a good plan imho. 3 Link to comment
RevTestament Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 15 minutes ago, sunstoned said: The LDS church has done no better than most Christian churches. In the past, our church excused and promoted slavery, It does no good to point fingers. All of us as a nation need to work together to stamp out injustice and racism once and for all. Sadly, there is truth to what you say. There has been a certain exclusionism practiced by the Church. I won't deny that. What I said is the true gospel is the answer - not the Church's current practice of its interpretation of it. 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 8 hours ago, smac97 said: 3. I think the sentiment of "Black lives matter" is axiomatically true. It is, or should be, as Pres. Oaks put it, a "universally accepted message." The difficulty has arisen where, again as Pres. Oaks put it, this message is "sometimes used or understood to stand for other things that do not command universal support." Black lives mattering does not currently have universal support. 4 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Yes, there are mechanisms for addressing legitimate grievances (and perhaps there are legitimate, viable ways to improve mechanisms for addressing legitimate grievances), and no, rioting, arson, vandalism, looting, aggravated assault and battery, and murder cannot and should not be allowed, no matter how many legitimate grievances one who engages in one or more of such things has. So Jefferson's list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence did not justify the revolution and no matter how many grievances they had it would never be enough? 2 Link to comment
Storm Rider Posted October 28, 2020 Share Posted October 28, 2020 7 hours ago, stemelbow said: It was good, except this last line: No. The teachings from churches, Christian ones, got us in this mess to begin with. The best to bring peace and unity is something along the lines of secular humanism. Oh, please. Let me just shoot myself in the head now. Really, that is your enlightened remedy? 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts