That's fair. I guess the guiding principle should be the statistics and finding a way to get them into parity where one racial minority isn't arrested or shot more than anyone else.
It's not about the flag or the military, it's fear of black people standing up for themselves.
I don't have a fear of black people standing up for themselves. To me it is about the flag and the military
How does taking a knee during the anthem disrespect the flag or military? Both presumably are representations of American liberty...how can it possibly be disrespectful to exercise freedom of speech - the epitome of American liberty?
If it's about the flag, then why is this specific (supposed) expression of disrespecting it the one that's causing people to freak out when the US Flag Code is openly violated - literally - millions of times per day?
Because in this society, and most societies that Im aware of there are cultural rules and customs that demonstrate respect for the nation, its emblems, etc. just as there are customs that show respect on an interpersonal level. If you and I met in person and you extended your hand to indicate you wanted to shake my hand and I refused to do so, that's a snub, the act of not doing so communicates disrespect by nature.
Likewise, the practice of not standing for the flag is usually a communication of disrespect, at the very least it may be presumed to be so. Some groups like Jehovas witnesses don't do so out of religious reasons, but they wouldn't stand for any flag, be it America, or Argentina, or U.K. Or Zimbabwe or anyone, but to not stand in this society, especially over a poorly defined political cause is communicating disrespect. Same as snubbing someone who wants to shake your hand.
And you take that action knowing how it perceived, you can't cry foul that people take it how you intended it to look.
Right, but a handshake isn't a the embodiment of freedom of speech the way the flag often is meant to be, and a primary freedom that the military fights for.
Of course these guys are doing it because they know it will anger people, draw attention to themselves and give them a spotlight to raise awareness for their issue.
I've been critical of those on the left - I called them stupid - who protest against right-wing speakers on college campuses because they're doing what the other side wants. It's not by random choice that people like Milo go to a place like Berkley - it's where he knows his presence will cause the biggest reaction. "We're" dumb for falling for it time and time again.
I make that same observation now - the right is being stupid. You hate what these people are doing SO much that you're giving them the spotlight that they want. You're not stopping it, you're guaranteeing that it keeps happening.
The broader problem is the hypocrisy on the right - when Trump directly violated the Flag Code no one reacted and when Trump insulted the Khans and McCain's military service, very few reacted. You can drive down just about any street in America or walk into any store or restaurant and see dozens of Flag Code violations - no one cares. It's this particular offense that is driving people crazy...so I say, it's not the offense - it's the colour of the people doing it.
I'm not arguing an idea that the flag "embodies freedom" or whatever. that's an argument that's not measurable, and it's really irrelevant. No one is suggesting someone be arrested or imprisoned for not standing for the anthem, this is entirely a discussion about the message communicated by such an action. you have a right to do many things people don't like. And when some teams playing in London decided to sit out the Star Spangeled Banner but stand for God Save the Queen, that is purely showing disrespect to the US. And they have a right to do so, just as the elected president of the United States has a right to criticize them for it.
The Berkely situation is entirely different, nobody criticizes the idea people at Berkely have a right to protest, it's when it's arson, and disrupting classes, and property damage that it becomes an issue.
Contrary to your assertion, I do not hate these people at all. the list of people I actually hate is single didgets long and no one in the NFL is on that list. I also (and most people I bet) do not mind paying attention to a current issue in politics. I don't want anyone who's expressing an opinion peacefully to slink away in obscurity, if I disagree I want them to be public about so I can publically criticize them and contradict their views. Again making assumptions about people's thoughts.
And as far as race, have you ever heard of whites going and complaining about flag code violations by blacks in general? yes the flag code has a lot of obscure provisions, but everyone knows about standing during the national anthem, that's a universally held and known tradition. not printing the flag on solo cups or napkins or bikini tops or holding the flag parallel to the ground, or not ilumnating it at night, are not as widely known, and I'm aware of exactly zero cases where blacks have been criticized for not following the flag code (which is not a law by the way!) when whites widely violate it. if a team of mostly white players didn't stand for the national anthem at a sports event, I am sure the same people would be criticizing it. So trying to claim disparate treatment is a false argument.
That's fair. I guess the guiding principle should be the statistics and finding a way to get them into parity where one racial minority isn't arrested or shot more than anyone else.
but different racial groups commit crime at different rates, if the rate of committed crime was uniform across all groups and there was heavily disparate rates of police shootings that would indicate a problem. when some groups commit a share of the violent crime far above their numerical proportion of the population then they will be on the recieving end of not just police violence, but violence in general.
In addition you cannot punish police officers as individuals for what occurs across the entire society, each incident must be reviewed in isolation, and out of all the cases that BLM supports have pointed to, only two that I'm aware were wrong, and of those two, only one involved a white police officer, the other was a latino. I'm sorry, I simply don't view it as racism if a black criminal who just committed a strong arm robbery of a shop clerk of color and attempted to murder a police officer and grab his gun gets shot. if that's your viewpoint (as black lives matter seemingly endorses on their website) I'm not exactly sure what discussion there is to be had, from either a personal or public policy perspective, and when you discuss these cases with BLM supporters you quickly find out facts don't really matter to that side. they'll outright deny facts of a case that are not in any serious dispute.
years ago I was arguing with someone over the Martin/Zimmerman case and she outright wouldn't believe that Martin assaulted George Zimmerman and had him grounded and was pummeling him, Martin had cuts to his face and back of scalp, fully consistent with that type of assault, his back was wet from the grass and the only injuries on Martin (other then the fatal gunshot wound) were bruises on his knuckles (against consistent with throwing punches) her response was outright denial of what was documented evidence, and you want me to lobby lawmakers based on that argument?
Re: research, I'm not going to get into it with you because I suspect that you know what I'm referring to and you're just waiting to nit-pick and parse my point. It's not a criminal code violation...it's been defunded for the last 20 years, attempts to change that have been shot down, anything even remotely close to it results in lawsuits filed by the NRA. So, no not a criminal code violation - but effectively illegal when all tempts are shut down by lawsuit/threat of law suit. I'm keep forgetting that we have a resident nit-picker and will be more exact with my choice of words in the future.
Re: flag, I didn't say that you hated the people, I said that you hated what they were doing. Also, I meant the collective 'you' not you personally - just as I didn't mean me personally in the above paragraph when I said that 'we' keep falling for it...I obviously didn't mean myself as I'm pointing it out - not falling for it. In both cases I was broadly painting each side with a wide brush, thinking it was a casual conversation and not something that would be technically dismantled.
That's fair. I guess the guiding principle should be the statistics and finding a way to get them into parity where one racial minority isn't arrested or shot more than anyone else.
but different racial groups commit crime at different rates, if the rate of committed crime was uniform across all groups and there was heavily disparate rates of police shootings that would indicate a problem. when some groups commit a share of the violent crime far above their numerical proportion of the population then they will be on the recieving end of not just police violence, but violence in general.
In addition you cannot punish police officers as individuals for what occurs across the entire society, each incident must be reviewed in isolation, and out of all the cases that BLM supports have pointed to, only two that I'm aware were wrong, and of those two, only one involved a white police officer, the other was a latino. I'm sorry, I simply don't view it as racism if a black criminal who just committed a strong arm robbery of a shop clerk of color and attempted to murder a police officer and grab his gun gets shot. if that's your viewpoint (as black lives matter seemingly endorses on their website) I'm not exactly sure what discussion there is to be had, from either a personal or public policy perspective, and when you discuss these cases with BLM supporters you quickly find out facts don't really matter to that side. they'll outright deny facts of a case that are not in any serious dispute.
years ago I was arguing with someone over the Martin/Zimmerman case and she outright wouldn't believe that Martin assaulted George Zimmerman and had him grounded and was pummeling him, Martin had cuts to his face and back of scalp, fully consistent with that type of assault, his back was wet from the grass and the only injuries on Martin (other then the fatal gunshot wound) were bruises on his knuckles (against consistent with throwing punches) her response was outright denial of what was documented evidence, and you want me to lobby lawmakers based on that argument?
Statistics, not anecdotes, are how you identify systemic problems and then measure the efficaciousness of remedies. Systemic problems are defined as much by when you choose not to do something as when you choose to do something.
If you look at the criminal justice stats in this country and are not convinced that there is an issue, then we simply live on different planets and have no basis for discussion. Rates of being pulled over, cited, arrested, length of sentence for the same crimes, death penalty rates, crack vs cocaine penalties, etc., show that there is a problem.
If you say that, for example, drug use among the African American community is higher, that's self-referential as you're looking at law enforcement stats to support the assertion whereas surveys and polls show that the illegal drug usage is essentially equal (it's just that members of that community get cited and arrested more).
Like in NYC under stop and frisk. Significant spike in offenses among minorities, which of course makes sense when >90% of those frisked were minorities. The white folks carrying weed and unregistered handguns simply weren't checked and so they never got caught.
That's fair. I guess the guiding principle should be the statistics and finding a way to get them into parity where one racial minority isn't arrested or shot more than anyone else.
but different racial groups commit crime at different rates, if the rate of committed crime was uniform across all groups and there was heavily disparate rates of police shootings that would indicate a problem. when some groups commit a share of the violent crime far above their numerical proportion of the population then they will be on the recieving end of not just police violence, but violence in general.
In addition you cannot punish police officers as individuals for what occurs across the entire society, each incident must be reviewed in isolation, and out of all the cases that BLM supports have pointed to, only two that I'm aware were wrong, and of those two, only one involved a white police officer, the other was a latino. I'm sorry, I simply don't view it as racism if a black criminal who just committed a strong arm robbery of a shop clerk of color and attempted to murder a police officer and grab his gun gets shot. if that's your viewpoint (as black lives matter seemingly endorses on their website) I'm not exactly sure what discussion there is to be had, from either a personal or public policy perspective, and when you discuss these cases with BLM supporters you quickly find out facts don't really matter to that side. they'll outright deny facts of a case that are not in any serious dispute.
years ago I was arguing with someone over the Martin/Zimmerman case and she outright wouldn't believe that Martin assaulted George Zimmerman and had him grounded and was pummeling him, Martin had cuts to his face and back of scalp, fully consistent with that type of assault, his back was wet from the grass and the only injuries on Martin (other then the fatal gunshot wound) were bruises on his knuckles (against consistent with throwing punches) her response was outright denial of what was documented evidence, and you want me to lobby lawmakers based on that argument?
Statistics, not anecdotes, are how you identify systemic problems and then measure the efficaciousness of remedies. Systemic problems are defined as much by when you choose not to do something as when you choose to do something.
If you look at the criminal justice stats in this country and are not convinced that there is an issue, then we simply live on different planets and have no basis for discussion. Rates of being pulled over, cited, arrested, length of sentence for the same crimes, death penalty rates, crack vs cocaine penalties, etc., show that there is a problem.
If you say that, for example, drug use among the African American community is higher, that's self-referential as you're looking at law enforcement stats to support the assertion whereas surveys and polls show that the illegal drug usage is essentially equal (it's just that members of that community get cited and arrested more).
Like in NYC under stop and frisk. Significant spike in offenses among minorities, which of course makes sense when >90% of those frisked were minorities. The white folks carrying weed and unregistered handguns simply weren't checked and so they never got caught.
Regardless, what I referenced was statistics on violent crime, which are very relevant to police use of force. Force gets used on violent people who refuse to comply with lawful commands. Force does not get used on people who do comply and are non violent. and violence and not race is the root. The reason crack gets punished more severely then cocaine is not because of some conspiracy to lock black people up in prison, it's because when that law was passed we had entire urban areas in free fall decay and nightly shootings over the crack trade. Many black legislators voted yes for that very law, and black federal prosecutors had no problems bringing those charges, and juries in areas comprised mainly of people of color had no problems convicting under that law. And a white person possessing crack is equally liable for that penalty. It's actually interesting since many of these laws had widespread support amongst the black community, black churches in New York overwhelmingly lobbied for the passage of New York's Rockefeller laws on drug possession, and it was the same deal in Chicago. These were not laws created by The KKK to imprison only blacks, blacks were involved heavily in the legislative process and were widely supportive because law abiding blacks are overwhelmingly the victims of black criminals. In addition the majority of blacks live in urban areas where police and courts have resources to bring charges and political will to bring many charges, many whites live in rural areas where drug possessors might be let go with a ticket if the jail is full that night. These are all documented causes, it's not racism on the part of the justice system that results in disproportionate arrests, at least not the majority of them.
As far as stop and frisk goes, if I were benevolent dictator the crimes that those frisks look for wouldn't exist and thus it would be a moot issue, but strangely enough I don't see liberals widely railing to end all laws against gun and drug possession, in fact in Oregon they actually passed a law (in the democratic legislature) that decriminalized drug possession FOR THOSE WITH NO CRIMINAL HISTORY and since blacks are so discriminated against and arrested so disproportionately blacks can be arrested but whites who are less likely to have any criminal history basically have consular immunity against drug possession laws!
So if you're advocating for complete repeal against drug and gun possession laws I fully agree with you, arrests will stop being disproportionate, they will be equal across all groups at zero
@emnofseattle ;No one here is arguing that the laws were enacted by a bunch of KKK members. Who are you arguing with?
Why does it matter who enacted a law or what the the intended effect was? A law enacted by black politicians, supported by white politician, or written by a literal scarecrow (a straw man - get it?) can still fail to solve a problem or have unintended consequences.
Focus on finding common goals with people in other identity groups and you'll see a lot more get done.
@emnofseattle ;No one here is arguing that the laws were enacted by a bunch of KKK members. Who are you arguing with?
Why does it matter who enacted a law or what the the intended effect was? A law enacted by black politicians, supported by white politician, or written by a literal scarecrow (a straw man - get it?) can still fail to solve a problem or have unintended consequences.
Focus on finding common goals with people in other identity groups and you'll see a lot more get done.
It's a rhetorical device, it's a common argument that drug laws were written for racist purposes, in fact Michelle Alexander who is a former ACLU director and racial studies professor has made this very argument.
Regardless I don't think the consequences of these laws were unintended, if you pass a law that Makes it a crime to possess a drug known as crack and mandates severe penalties, your intent is obviously to sentence people under that law. If the base of people violating it skew towards a certain demographic, that demo will be impacted more. That's the predictable result.
I'm all for finding common ground to get things done, but what's being done has to be something that works. If the thing people want is "police reform" and then to support that people are saying "I mean look at the arrests being conducted under these laws" that's an invalid argument, the conclusion does not follow the premise.
In addition I view it as an unsound argument to claim that disprotionate arrests largely stem from racism on the part of police officers, while ignoring the violent crime and traffic death disparities which served to make a competing argument
And part of finding a solution is to identify what the problem even is. When it comes to issues of disproportionate arrests or uses of force there is like six different claims being made as to what constitutes the problem, so if no one can even clearly identify what the actual problem that needs to be addressed is and then propose workable legislation to address it, where is the solution? like I said, I'm not willing to throw the cops under the bus especially since most people's complaints really stem back to the criminal code and the vehicle code which is the domain of legislators.
Re: research, I'm not going to get into it with you because I suspect that you know what I'm referring to and you're just waiting to nit-pick and parse my point. It's not a criminal code violation...it's been defunded for the last 20 years, attempts to change that have been shot down, anything even remotely close to it results in lawsuits filed by the NRA. So, no not a criminal code violation - but effectively illegal when all tempts are shut down by lawsuit/threat of law suit. I'm keep forgetting that we have a resident nit-picker and will be more exact with my choice of words in the future.
Re: flag, I didn't say that you hated the people, I said that you hated what they were doing. Also, I meant the collective 'you' not you personally - just as I didn't mean me personally in the above paragraph when I said that 'we' keep falling for it...I obviously didn't mean myself as I'm pointing it out - not falling for it. In both cases I was broadly painting each side with a wide brush, thinking it was a casual conversation and not something that would be technically dismantled.
No, it is illegal to conduct fake research for the purpose of anti gun political advocacy. Because there was a concerted effort before the Dickey Amendment to use public dollars to create a case for gun legislation. Not surprisingly, people who are gun owners might not appreciate their tax dollars being used to advocate legislation against them. The NRA asked for the amendment after a man named Arthur Kellerman created a study in 1993 using public money that was outright fraudulent. It was the gun control equivalent of the linking vaccines to autism. It used false premises and bad data to conclude a "gun in the home results in being 43 times more likely to being shot" the study didn't control for criminal history or who even owned the gun resulting in the shooting. Some people question whether the "gun in the home" premise included shootings of people who owned a gun at home wo were shot while unarmed outside their residence or whether the gun was brought by the assailant to the home, Kellerman still has not released all the original data he used, but he later walked back his own original study to say the risk factor only increase by three times. That's the history in context.
You can study gun violence all you want, you can even get public funding for it, you simply cannot conduct advocacy for new legislation with public dollars. That's very common sense.
Re: research, I'm not going to get into it with you because I suspect that you know what I'm referring to and you're just waiting to nit-pick and parse my point. It's not a criminal code violation...it's been defunded for the last 20 years, attempts to change that have been shot down, anything even remotely close to it results in lawsuits filed by the NRA. So, no not a criminal code violation - but effectively illegal when all tempts are shut down by lawsuit/threat of law suit. I'm keep forgetting that we have a resident nit-picker and will be more exact with my choice of words in the future.
Re: flag, I didn't say that you hated the people, I said that you hated what they were doing. Also, I meant the collective 'you' not you personally - just as I didn't mean me personally in the above paragraph when I said that 'we' keep falling for it...I obviously didn't mean myself as I'm pointing it out - not falling for it. In both cases I was broadly painting each side with a wide brush, thinking it was a casual conversation and not something that would be technically dismantled.
No, it is illegal to conduct fake research for the purpose of anti gun political advocacy. Because there was a concerted effort before the Dickey Amendment to use public dollars to create a case for gun legislation. Not surprisingly, people who are gun owners might not appreciate their tax dollars being used to advocate legislation against them. The NRA asked for the amendment after a man named Arthur Kellerman created a study in 1993 using public money that was outright fraudulent. It was the gun control equivalent of the linking vaccines to autism. It used false premises and bad data to conclude a "gun in the home results in being 43 times more likely to being shot" the study didn't control for criminal history or who even owned the gun resulting in the shooting. Some people question whether the "gun in the home" premise included shootings of people who owned a gun at home wo were shot while unarmed outside their residence or whether the gun was brought by the assailant to the home, Kellerman still has not released all the original data he used, but he later walked back his own original study to say the risk factor only increase by three times. That's the history in context.
You can study gun violence all you want, you can even get public funding for it, you simply cannot conduct advocacy for new legislation with public dollars. That's very common sense.
That's complete BS. They've attacked and stifled almost all research, funding dropped by 90%+ because they went after all research claiming it was a violation. The simple fact is that the NRA has a vested interest in there not being reliable states available because they know that it would turn the tide against them.
Re: research, I'm not going to get into it with you because I suspect that you know what I'm referring to and you're just waiting to nit-pick and parse my point. It's not a criminal code violation...it's been defunded for the last 20 years, attempts to change that have been shot down, anything even remotely close to it results in lawsuits filed by the NRA. So, no not a criminal code violation - but effectively illegal when all tempts are shut down by lawsuit/threat of law suit. I'm keep forgetting that we have a resident nit-picker and will be more exact with my choice of words in the future.
Re: flag, I didn't say that you hated the people, I said that you hated what they were doing. Also, I meant the collective 'you' not you personally - just as I didn't mean me personally in the above paragraph when I said that 'we' keep falling for it...I obviously didn't mean myself as I'm pointing it out - not falling for it. In both cases I was broadly painting each side with a wide brush, thinking it was a casual conversation and not something that would be technically dismantled.
No, it is illegal to conduct fake research for the purpose of anti gun political advocacy. Because there was a concerted effort before the Dickey Amendment to use public dollars to create a case for gun legislation. Not surprisingly, people who are gun owners might not appreciate their tax dollars being used to advocate legislation against them. The NRA asked for the amendment after a man named Arthur Kellerman created a study in 1993 using public money that was outright fraudulent. It was the gun control equivalent of the linking vaccines to autism. It used false premises and bad data to conclude a "gun in the home results in being 43 times more likely to being shot" the study didn't control for criminal history or who even owned the gun resulting in the shooting. Some people question whether the "gun in the home" premise included shootings of people who owned a gun at home wo were shot while unarmed outside their residence or whether the gun was brought by the assailant to the home, Kellerman still has not released all the original data he used, but he later walked back his own original study to say the risk factor only increase by three times. That's the history in context.
You can study gun violence all you want, you can even get public funding for it, you simply cannot conduct advocacy for new legislation with public dollars. That's very common sense.
That's complete BS. They've attacked and stifled almost all research, funding dropped by 90%+ because they went after all research claiming it was a violation. The simple fact is that the NRA has a vested interest in there not being reliable states available because they know that it would turn the tide against them.
No, if it were impartial unbiased research the NRA would benefit greatly.
The problem is, the CDC was paying for studies specifically intended to advocate for gun control because presidents Bush and Clinton wanted justification for gun bans.
That's fair. I guess the guiding principle should be the statistics and finding a way to get them into parity where one racial minority isn't arrested or shot more than anyone else.
but different racial groups commit crime at different rates, if the rate of committed crime was uniform across all groups and there was heavily disparate rates of police shootings that would indicate a problem. when some groups commit a share of the violent crime far above their numerical proportion of the population then they will be on the recieving end of not just police violence, but violence in general.
In addition you cannot punish police officers as individuals for what occurs across the entire society, each incident must be reviewed in isolation, and out of all the cases that BLM supports have pointed to, only two that I'm aware were wrong, and of those two, only one involved a white police officer, the other was a latino. I'm sorry, I simply don't view it as racism if a black criminal who just committed a strong arm robbery of a shop clerk of color and attempted to murder a police officer and grab his gun gets shot. if that's your viewpoint (as black lives matter seemingly endorses on their website) I'm not exactly sure what discussion there is to be had, from either a personal or public policy perspective, and when you discuss these cases with BLM supporters you quickly find out facts don't really matter to that side. they'll outright deny facts of a case that are not in any serious dispute.
years ago I was arguing with someone over the Martin/Zimmerman case and she outright wouldn't believe that Martin assaulted George Zimmerman and had him grounded and was pummeling him, Martin had cuts to his face and back of scalp, fully consistent with that type of assault, his back was wet from the grass and the only injuries on Martin (other then the fatal gunshot wound) were bruises on his knuckles (against consistent with throwing punches) her response was outright denial of what was documented evidence, and you want me to lobby lawmakers based on that argument?
Im going to have to just agree to disagree if you don't find the statistics valid. Actual law enforcement stats are subject to selection bias, as I've said, and do not capture the actions not taken which are the crux of the issue.
If I stipulate that every law enforcement action taken on minorities is entirely legitimate (I don't, but for the sake of argument...), then the broad population vs arrest/conviction/sentencing/prison population/death penalty stats inform that law enforcement does not take equivalent legitamate legal action in many more cases involving the majority population.
I don't know if you've met people, but I have and a lot of them (myself included) have biases. If you don't think that those biases are involved in law enforcement, then we simply have no basis for further discussion.
Mind you this is not a slam against law enforcement. I admire the vast majority of folks who take on such a challenging and under appreciated career, but they're human and we need some checks and balances that protect against human biases. It's really unhealthy to pretend that they don't exist.
It's not that folks are crazy nazi white supresimisits in law enforcement (I'm sure there are a few, but that's not the real issue), it's the unconscious bias that all humans have that we need to erect policies/training/systems/monitoring against that is the problem in desperate need of a solution.
I do get where you are coming from. I used to be an ideological libertarian also. It's just that the world does not conform to ideological purity and so you have to make messy compromises.
Sorry, I hate long posts like this and now I've done it.
And speaking of guns, an excellent decision from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to let stand a decision striking down the Districts "good cause" requirement to get a concealed carry license.
In the majority of states (including my lovely home state of Washington, which was the first state in the country to pass this law) there are laws allowing someone to get a license to carry a firearm subject only to objective criteria, the issuing authority (normally the police department) MUST by law issue the license to any qualified applicant.
Some states and the District of Columbia have a law that says the opposite, the Police can deny a license (after collecting a non refundable fee) for any reason they want, and they don't have to justify not issuing a license.
Well in the DC case last year a panel of three judges ruled that the "good cause" requirement which basically gives the D.C. Police an out to not issue licenses was unconstitutional and the city could not ask for an applicants reason for wanting a license. The city moved for en banc rehearing with the entire circuit and the circuit said no, the city's only remaining option is an appeal to the US Supreme Court, and thank god almighty for President Trump getting Gorsuich on the court!
And since the DC City attorneys office has a pretty bad track record defending themselves before the Supreme Court, if they lose that appeal then California and New York and New Jersey's laws are on the chopping block.
I had to work the night this decision was announced, but I broke open my Woodinville Whiskey Bourbon to celebrate last night.
In other news, the US media, especially ESPN, continue to try to wedge a divide between races in America. A few weeks ago ESPN and others proclaimed outrage that Michael Bennet had been treated in such a "brutal" and "racist" manner. Initial reports from LE said EXACTLY what ended up actually happening. All the outrage of the media was based on a lie (just like the Michael Brown case). ESPN has halfheartedly tried to admit the truth by keeping it quiet compared to the initial outrage. The videos are up on TMZ as well.
Bennet was the only man to run from the scene of the shooting and fit the description of the shooter (he claimed a lot of people ran and he was singled out). He was not held at gunpoint in an aggressive manner like he said. The officers did not release him AFTER he told them he played for the Seahawks (he told them he did after they released him). So basically he straight up lied about the entire encounter and the media just ran with it.
In other news, the US media, especially ESPN, continue to try to wedge a divide between races in America. A few weeks ago ESPN and others proclaimed outrage that Michael Bennet had been treated in such a "brutal" and "racist" manner. Initial reports from LE said EXACTLY what ended up actually happening. All the outrage of the media was based on a lie (just like the Michael Brown case). ESPN has halfheartedly tried to admit the truth by keeping it quiet compared to the initial outrage. The videos are up on TMZ as well.
He's used to Seattle where the city government doesn't back up their officers, he forgot in Las Vegas the police department will back their officers and in addition there's cameras on every square inch of anywhere anyone visits. Plus the Casinos are in real cozy with the cops and will happily provide any footage they ask for.
so when you try to manufacture a story about being oppressed the cops and casinos will not let that stand.
In General btw cops in Nevada as a whole don't take crap and don't give a crap what you think, I've observed this first hand both in Vegas and rural Nevada.
In other news, the US media, especially ESPN, continue to try to wedge a divide between races in America. A few weeks ago ESPN and others proclaimed outrage that Michael Bennet had been treated in such a "brutal" and "racist" manner. Initial reports from LE said EXACTLY what ended up actually happening. All the outrage of the media was based on a lie (just like the Michael Brown case). ESPN has halfheartedly tried to admit the truth by keeping it quiet compared to the initial outrage. The videos are up on TMZ as well.
He's used to Seattle where the city government doesn't back up their officers, he forgot in Las Vegas the police department will back their officers and in addition there's cameras on every square inch of anywhere anyone visits. Plus the Casinos are in real cozy with the cops and will happily provide any footage they ask for.
so when you try to manufacture a story about being oppressed the cops and casinos will not let that stand.
In General btw cops in Nevada as a whole don't take crap and don't give a crap what you think, I've observed this first hand both in Vegas and rural Nevada.
I like that they didn't come out and say their officers were innocent right away, they waited for the investigation results. They said they will reprimand the officer because his body camera wasn't on too. My problem is ESPN and the rest of the media is just ignoring this essentially, so now a lot of people still think the police were wrong and Bennet was a victim.
In other news, the US media, especially ESPN, continue to try to wedge a divide between races in America. A few weeks ago ESPN and others proclaimed outrage that Michael Bennet had been treated in such a "brutal" and "racist" manner. Initial reports from LE said EXACTLY what ended up actually happening. All the outrage of the media was based on a lie (just like the Michael Brown case). ESPN has halfheartedly tried to admit the truth by keeping it quiet compared to the initial outrage. The videos are up on TMZ as well.
He's used to Seattle where the city government doesn't back up their officers, he forgot in Las Vegas the police department will back their officers and in addition there's cameras on every square inch of anywhere anyone visits. Plus the Casinos are in real cozy with the cops and will happily provide any footage they ask for.
so when you try to manufacture a story about being oppressed the cops and casinos will not let that stand.
In General btw cops in Nevada as a whole don't take crap and don't give a crap what you think, I've observed this first hand both in Vegas and rural Nevada.
I like that they didn't come out and say their officers were innocent right away, they waited for the investigation results. They said they will reprimand the officer because his body camera wasn't on too. My problem is ESPN and the rest of the media is just ignoring this essentially, so now a lot of people still think the police were wrong and Bennet was a victim.
No, they denied Bennetts claims the day he made them, the sheriff was pretty quick to respond.
I was listening to this on the radio the day after Bennett took to twitter about it and Vegas Metro was already contradicting Bennetts account.
The "reprimand" will probably be verbal counseling at the most. Slap on the wrist type thing. It is perfectly understandable you might not be prioritizing toggling on the camera when responding to that kind of call
In other news, the US media, especially ESPN, continue to try to wedge a divide between races in America. A few weeks ago ESPN and others proclaimed outrage that Michael Bennet had been treated in such a "brutal" and "racist" manner. Initial reports from LE said EXACTLY what ended up actually happening. All the outrage of the media was based on a lie (just like the Michael Brown case). ESPN has halfheartedly tried to admit the truth by keeping it quiet compared to the initial outrage. The videos are up on TMZ as well.
He's used to Seattle where the city government doesn't back up their officers, he forgot in Las Vegas the police department will back their officers and in addition there's cameras on every square inch of anywhere anyone visits. Plus the Casinos are in real cozy with the cops and will happily provide any footage they ask for.
so when you try to manufacture a story about being oppressed the cops and casinos will not let that stand.
In General btw cops in Nevada as a whole don't take crap and don't give a crap what you think, I've observed this first hand both in Vegas and rural Nevada.
I like that they didn't come out and say their officers were innocent right away, they waited for the investigation results. They said they will reprimand the officer because his body camera wasn't on too. My problem is ESPN and the rest of the media is just ignoring this essentially, so now a lot of people still think the police were wrong and Bennet was a victim.
No, they denied Bennetts claims the day he made them, the sheriff was pretty quick to respond.
I was listening to this on the radio the day after Bennett took to twitter about it and Vegas Metro was already contradicting Bennetts account.
The "reprimand" will probably be verbal counseling at the most. Slap on the wrist type thing. It is perfectly understandable you might not be prioritizing toggling on the camera when responding to that kind of call
My thoughts: His lawyer is trying to claim the video supports the accusation and that further video evidence will further prove their point...I seriously doubt that. He is just trying to save face now that his story has been blown to shreds
Largest US shooting ever just occurred in Vegas. 50+ dead, 200+ injured. Sounds like it was one shooter who was a 64 year old man. Politicians will start to debate I am sure on both sides, but in the ned, these things are sad and are bound to happen, as they are very difficult to prevent.
From the video it sounded like he was spraying the audience indiscriminately. Don't know why people were hunkered down in the open, I would have tried to run for it. Crazy that he killed so many, and unfortunately I am sure you are right about the debating heading our way over this tragedy from both sides of the aisle.
Comments
The Berkely situation is entirely different, nobody criticizes the idea people at Berkely have a right to protest, it's when it's arson, and disrupting classes, and property damage that it becomes an issue.
Contrary to your assertion, I do not hate these people at all. the list of people I actually hate is single didgets long and no one in the NFL is on that list. I also (and most people I bet) do not mind paying attention to a current issue in politics. I don't want anyone who's expressing an opinion peacefully to slink away in obscurity, if I disagree I want them to be public about so I can publically criticize them and contradict their views. Again making assumptions about people's thoughts.
And as far as race, have you ever heard of whites going and complaining about flag code violations by blacks in general? yes the flag code has a lot of obscure provisions, but everyone knows about standing during the national anthem, that's a universally held and known tradition. not printing the flag on solo cups or napkins or bikini tops or holding the flag parallel to the ground, or not ilumnating it at night, are not as widely known, and I'm aware of exactly zero cases where blacks have been criticized for not following the flag code (which is not a law by the way!) when whites widely violate it. if a team of mostly white players didn't stand for the national anthem at a sports event, I am sure the same people would be criticizing it. So trying to claim disparate treatment is a false argument.
In addition you cannot punish police officers as individuals for what occurs across the entire society, each incident must be reviewed in isolation, and out of all the cases that BLM supports have pointed to, only two that I'm aware were wrong, and of those two, only one involved a white police officer, the other was a latino. I'm sorry, I simply don't view it as racism if a black criminal who just committed a strong arm robbery of a shop clerk of color and attempted to murder a police officer and grab his gun gets shot. if that's your viewpoint (as black lives matter seemingly endorses on their website) I'm not exactly sure what discussion there is to be had, from either a personal or public policy perspective, and when you discuss these cases with BLM supporters you quickly find out facts don't really matter to that side. they'll outright deny facts of a case that are not in any serious dispute.
years ago I was arguing with someone over the Martin/Zimmerman case and she outright wouldn't believe that Martin assaulted George Zimmerman and had him grounded and was pummeling him, Martin had cuts to his face and back of scalp, fully consistent with that type of assault, his back was wet from the grass and the only injuries on Martin (other then the fatal gunshot wound) were bruises on his knuckles (against consistent with throwing punches) her response was outright denial of what was documented evidence, and you want me to lobby lawmakers based on that argument?
@emnofseattle
Re: research, I'm not going to get into it with you because I suspect that you know what I'm referring to and you're just waiting to nit-pick and parse my point. It's not a criminal code violation...it's been defunded for the last 20 years, attempts to change that have been shot down, anything even remotely close to it results in lawsuits filed by the NRA. So, no not a criminal code violation - but effectively illegal when all tempts are shut down by lawsuit/threat of law suit. I'm keep forgetting that we have a resident nit-picker and will be more exact with my choice of words in the future.
Re: flag, I didn't say that you hated the people, I said that you hated what they were doing. Also, I meant the collective 'you' not you personally - just as I didn't mean me personally in the above paragraph when I said that 'we' keep falling for it...I obviously didn't mean myself as I'm pointing it out - not falling for it. In both cases I was broadly painting each side with a wide brush, thinking it was a casual conversation and not something that would be technically dismantled.
Everything else is addressed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADPDGIuXl98
Statistics, not anecdotes, are how you identify systemic problems and then measure the efficaciousness of remedies. Systemic problems are defined as much by when you choose not to do something as when you choose to do something.
If you look at the criminal justice stats in this country and are not convinced that there is an issue, then we simply live on different planets and have no basis for discussion. Rates of being pulled over, cited, arrested, length of sentence for the same crimes, death penalty rates, crack vs cocaine penalties, etc., show that there is a problem.
If you say that, for example, drug use among the African American community is higher, that's self-referential as you're looking at law enforcement stats to support the assertion whereas surveys and polls show that the illegal drug usage is essentially equal (it's just that members of that community get cited and arrested more).
Like in NYC under stop and frisk. Significant spike in offenses among minorities, which of course makes sense when >90% of those frisked were minorities. The white folks carrying weed and unregistered handguns simply weren't checked and so they never got caught.
Regardless, what I referenced was statistics on violent crime, which are very relevant to police use of force. Force gets used on violent people who refuse to comply with lawful commands. Force does not get used on people who do comply and are non violent. and violence and not race is the root. The reason crack gets punished more severely then cocaine is not because of some conspiracy to lock black people up in prison, it's because when that law was passed we had entire urban areas in free fall decay and nightly shootings over the crack trade. Many black legislators voted yes for that very law, and black federal prosecutors had no problems bringing those charges, and juries in areas comprised mainly of people of color had no problems convicting under that law. And a white person possessing crack is equally liable for that penalty. It's actually interesting since many of these laws had widespread support amongst the black community, black churches in New York overwhelmingly lobbied for the passage of New York's Rockefeller laws on drug possession, and it was the same deal in Chicago. These were not laws created by The KKK to imprison only blacks, blacks were involved heavily in the legislative process and were widely supportive because law abiding blacks are overwhelmingly the victims of black criminals. In addition the majority of blacks live in urban areas where police and courts have resources to bring charges and political will to bring many charges, many whites live in rural areas where drug possessors might be let go with a ticket if the jail is full that night. These are all documented causes, it's not racism on the part of the justice system that results in disproportionate arrests, at least not the majority of them.
As far as stop and frisk goes, if I were benevolent dictator the crimes that those frisks look for wouldn't exist and thus it would be a moot issue, but strangely enough I don't see liberals widely railing to end all laws against gun and drug possession, in fact in Oregon they actually passed a law (in the democratic legislature) that decriminalized drug possession FOR THOSE WITH NO CRIMINAL HISTORY and since blacks are so discriminated against and arrested so disproportionately blacks can be arrested but whites who are less likely to have any criminal history basically have consular immunity against drug possession laws!
So if you're advocating for complete repeal against drug and gun possession laws I fully agree with you, arrests will stop being disproportionate, they will be equal across all groups at zero
http://www.wnyc.org/story/312823-black-leaders-once-championed-strict-drug-laws-they-now-seek-dismantle/
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/02/why_many_black_politicians_backed_the_1994_crime_bill_championed_by_the.html
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.594.4468&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Regardless I don't think the consequences of these laws were unintended, if you pass a law that
Makes it a crime to possess a drug known as crack and mandates severe penalties, your intent is obviously to sentence people under that law. If the base of people violating it skew towards a certain demographic, that demo will be impacted more. That's the predictable result.
I'm all for finding common ground to get things done, but what's being done has to be something that works. If the thing people want is "police reform" and then to support that people are saying "I mean look at the arrests being conducted under these laws" that's an invalid argument, the conclusion does not follow the premise.
In addition I view it as an unsound argument to claim that disprotionate arrests largely stem from racism on the part of police officers, while ignoring the violent crime and traffic death disparities which served to make a competing argument
And part of finding a solution is to identify what the problem even is. When it comes to issues of disproportionate arrests or uses of force there is like six different claims being made as to what constitutes the problem, so if no one can even clearly identify what the actual problem that needs to be addressed is and then propose workable legislation to address it, where is the solution? like I said, I'm not willing to throw the cops under the bus especially since most people's complaints really stem back to the criminal code and the vehicle code which is the domain of legislators.
You can study gun violence all you want, you can even get public funding for it, you simply cannot conduct advocacy for new legislation with public dollars. That's very common sense.
The problem is, the CDC was paying for studies specifically intended to advocate for gun control because presidents Bush and Clinton wanted justification for gun bans.
If I stipulate that every law enforcement action taken on minorities is entirely legitimate (I don't, but for the sake of argument...), then the broad population vs arrest/conviction/sentencing/prison population/death penalty stats inform that law enforcement does not take equivalent legitamate legal action in many more cases involving the majority population.
I don't know if you've met people, but
I have and a lot of them (myself included) have biases. If you don't think that those biases are involved in law enforcement, then we simply have no basis for further discussion.
Mind you this is not a slam against law enforcement. I admire the vast majority of folks who take on such a challenging and under appreciated career, but they're human and we need some checks and balances that protect against human biases. It's really unhealthy to pretend that they don't exist.
It's not that folks are crazy nazi white supresimisits in law enforcement (I'm sure there are a few, but that's not the real issue), it's the unconscious bias that all humans have that we need to erect policies/training/systems/monitoring against that is the problem in desperate need of a solution.
I do get where you are coming from. I used to be an ideological libertarian also. It's just that the world does not conform to ideological purity and so you have to make messy compromises.
Sorry, I hate long posts like this and now I've done it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/wtop.com/dc/2017/09/dc-appeals-court-wont-revisit-ruling-blocking-gun-law/amp/
What this means:
In the majority of states (including my lovely home state of Washington, which was the first state in the country to pass this law) there are laws allowing someone to get a license to carry a firearm subject only to objective criteria, the issuing authority (normally the police department) MUST by law issue the license to any qualified applicant.
Some states and the District of Columbia have a law that says the opposite, the Police can deny a license (after collecting a non refundable fee) for any reason they want, and they don't have to justify not issuing a license.
Well in the DC case last year a panel of three judges ruled that the "good cause" requirement which basically gives the D.C. Police an out to not issue licenses was unconstitutional and the city could not ask for an applicants reason for wanting a license. The city moved for en banc rehearing with the entire circuit and the circuit said no, the city's only remaining option is an appeal to the US Supreme Court, and thank god almighty for President Trump getting Gorsuich on the court!
And since the DC City attorneys office has a pretty bad track record defending themselves before the Supreme Court, if they lose that appeal then California and New York and New Jersey's laws are on the chopping block.
I had to work the night this decision was announced, but I broke open my Woodinville Whiskey Bourbon to celebrate last night.
so when you try to manufacture a story about being oppressed the cops and casinos will not let that stand.
In General btw cops in Nevada as a whole don't take crap and don't give a crap what you think, I've observed this first hand both in Vegas and rural Nevada.
I was listening to this on the radio the day after Bennett took to twitter about it and Vegas Metro was already contradicting Bennetts account.
The "reprimand" will probably be verbal counseling at the most. Slap on the wrist type thing. It is perfectly understandable you might not be prioritizing toggling on the camera when responding to that kind of call
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/can-democracy-survive-tribalism.html