POLICE BRUTALITY

isee it on police bodycams, every day, another case of police brutality.

Busted.

 

God, do you not even know the subject of the conversation that you are having-- when you are the one, who brought it up?

Here is your statement (or enough of it), which opened the topic:

spiritgide said: ↑
That would be a lot more credible if it were true. If these 5 cops had been white, there would be mobs of angry blacks and riots everywhere, lynch mob mentality and outrages with a compliment of white sympathizers.


FYI, there are no FBI or DOJ crime statistics, which tell us-- these exact same, unprecedented actions of both the Police Chief and the State Prosecutor notwithstanding-- "if these 5 cops had been white, there would (have been) mobs of angry blacks and riots everywhere..." et cetera. What "data" is it, btw, that you believe can accurately predict the results of hypothetical sets of circumstances, despite their being unique? That's what I would call, amazing data!

 

I have seen people here defend bad cops, wont name anyone by name, I think we have all seen it

 

Me? Liberal?


LMAO!

 

I get the feeling you think police can deal with berserk violence by asking that person to "please calm down". And of course in recognition of the polite request, they will then do so....
Or you are unaware that we have any violent people except those responding to police attacks?

The thing for you to do is set an example. Get a job as a cop, if you can qualify. Go out there and show them that no matter who you come up against, you can always do your job without defending yourself- because you know that all violence is started by the cops, and if you are nice, the people you have to arrest will be too.

There are always wrongs on both sides of the fence. If you can't see both, can't understand the circumstances- you can't possibly have a legitimate perception or opinion.
I see both sides. I try to keep the perspective in accurate focus. I have no sympathy or tolerance for this kind of violence from either side.

If you weren't looking for the stories of police brutality that can be used to support what you want to believe, you might learn that often those cops are dealing with violent, brutal people who themselves have escalated the situation to a violent one. You might find other stories where the officers are the victims of unprovoked violent, brutal attacks. It's happened in my city; cops ambushed while doing paperwork in their car. Answering a faked disturbance call, being shot from the bushes as they approached a door to a vacant house. Attacks on cops happen all the time in a variety of ways.

Here's a report you missed...
Eight police officers shot in 24 hours. You don't pay attention because you have already decided they deserve it? Nine months, 252 officers shot, 50 of them killed.

CNN- https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/17/us/police-violence-ambush-attack/index.html

"Over a 24-hour period last Wednesday, several police officers from departments across the country were shot in the line of duty.
In Decatur, Illinois, two police officers were shot while making a traffic stop, and officers shot and killed the suspect, police said.
In Philadelphia, three SWAT team members were shot while executing a warrant, and officers shot and killed the subject, officials said.
And in Bristol, Connecticut, three officers were shot – two fatally – in an ambush attack while responding to a domestic disturbance report, and the surviving officer shot and killed the subject, police said.
The suspect fired over 80 rounds at police, according to a news release from the Connecticut inspector general’s office.
In all, from Monday through Friday last week, 13 police officers were shot – amid a heightened level of violence against law enforcement officers this year. From the beginning of the year through September 30, there were 252 officers shot, including 50 fatally, according to the Fraternal Order of Police, an organization representing US law enforcement officers."

 

So- you haven't watched any news for the last few years and know nothing about the patterns of behavior in these things?
So, you would be unable to predict that if you walked out in the rain, you would get wet. No, we need some kind of documented proof that that could be accurately predicted.
Unless you've been under a rock for several years now and wear blinders and ear plugs when you are awake, how could have you missed what's been happening? Never saw videos of Minneapolis and other cities where this has been repeatedly demonstrated?

Of course you haven't. Those weren't riots and arson, they were peaceful protests, no cause for concern, didn't need to look. You have been dodging the obvious for a very long time, I suspect. Come to believe your own fantasy?

 

Getting back to point, your statement quoted above, I asked you to prove who here would NOT think "bad cops are bad cops, regardless of their race" but just as I thought, you have nothing. I don't think there's a person alive who wouldn't agree that "bad cops are bad cops". You don't need the qualifier, "regardless of their race".

 

I am not posting posters names, already made that clear

 

Then, you should concede your point, "I have seen people here defend bad cops." I have seen no one here defend bad cops.

 

we're done here, I have nothing to add to what I already said

 

In the future, you might want to post proof of what you allege rather than just blowing smoke, but I do realize the latter is also your prerogative.

 

EVIL PEOPLE CAN HAVE OTHER REASONS TO BEAT SOMEONE TO DEATH THAN RACISM, BELIEVE IT OR NOT: Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) was slammed online late this week over a tweet that suggested that the five black police officers who are accused of being involved in the murder of Tyre Nichols were motivated by “anti-blackness.”

'Jones responded to Nichols’ death by tweeting, “If you think the Memphis police officers had to be white in order to exhibit anti-Blackness, you need to take that AP African American Studies course [Florida Republican Governor] Ron DeSantis just banned.”'



'Proving the point of why the course was rejected…' The Free People of the Free State of FL quite reasonably object to the political indoctrination of HS kids 'to believe 5 Black police officers abusing their power and needlessly beating a man is evidence of anti-Blackness.'

This hate-monger and race-baiter just made a 'great argument against the CRT course masquerading as AP African American history” in order to indoctrinate HS kids into their political doctrine of revenge.

“If you blame white supremacy for black on black crime, you’ve probably taken way too many of those kinds of courses.”

The 'AP African American Studies from the College Board' was rejected by the Free State of 'Florida because it contained' illegal 'leftist activism.' Per State law, they will not supply leftist activist posing as education, to the public school students of FL.

'The Florida Department of Education recently informed the College Board that the course’s content is “inexplicably contrary to Florida law and significantly lacks educational value,” adding that the state would reconsider the course should the organization make the material “lawful” and “historically accurate.”'

The course authors are now revising the content bring it into compliance with FL law, adding educational value, and ensuring that what will be resubmitted is historically accurate.

'“They’re advocating things like abolishing prisons. Now that’s a radical political position You’re free to take that in your own life, I don’t think very many people think that would actually work, but how is that being taught as fact?” Well, it won't in FL public schools. Now of course, parents that wish to indoctrinate their children in this racist filth are more than free to purchase the course online and give it to their children.

 

You are presenting a false analogy. I have already explained, in detail, to you, why the reaction to this event is different from the others (indicating that I do realize what normally happens, so try to pay better attention to those clues): because the institutional reaction was so starkly different, from what we, also, normally see.

IOW, if these four black officers, had NOT been fired, and had NOT been indicted, then we WOULD be seeing the normal reaction, to the normal aggravating factor, of the system appearing to protect overly aggressive cops (even if those cops were black). This is the experience-denying thesis, you are espousing: that even if authorities had not treated this incident any differently, the reaction would still be the unusual one, we are seeing. But it is insane (according to Einstein) to expect a different result, from doing the same thing. This Police Chief & Prosecutor did something different, producing a different reaction. Cause and effect. It is as straightforwardly understandable, as that.


Trying to make this all about race, leaves you being the one, who is all wet.

 

You do realize, I would hope- that the people trying to make everything about race ARE black, and working hard to keep racism alive?
Missed that? Black scholars haven't. Even 100 years ago, men like Booker T Washington pointed that out, Thomas Sowell, an outstanding black spokesman of today says the same thing. .

I don't have any argument that the authorities didn't act properly; they did the right thing. However, the evidence immediately available was about as damning and clear as it can get, thus they could act immediately and decisively with confidence. When the evidence is not so clear, actions aren't so fast- and that is as it should be, but that's when people start thinking mob demands dictate justice.

That aspect of it was never my point. Thinking the public reaction would be the same if the cops were white, despite the immediate charges being filed, disregards that the event would be seen as the absolute proof that police, particularly white police, are the embodiment of systemic racism and that white supremacy is the biggest problem and the cause for all the black violence, and demands that police be restrained or eliminated everywhere. It would be justification for a multitude of special demands. Obviously you don't have the vision to see that, but it's damn sure not hard.

 

How the event would be viewed differently, if the cops' race, only, had been different, is nothing but your own speculation. And it is hard to see how, by putting all the emphasis on this, in your prediction (which has no precedent to rely on-- in which authorities reacted in the same swift, and decisive manner), it is not you, who is making this about race, and not about police violence.

Sorry, not all of us have the aplomb to believe we can know the future, especially when the circumstances are unprecedented. The only difference in our views, is that I believe the different public reaction is a result of the different institutional action. You are saying that it is, instead, due to the cops' skin color. That is what is easy, for anyone, to see.

 

People react to what they think they see- measured by the mentality that dominates their thinking. IF they all reacted according to the incident, with rational judgment it would be predictable- but they all use different yardsticks, and most are looking for ways to use what happens to support what they want to believe. You're doing it right now.

 

That's a lot of words, to say just that you disagree with me.

Oh, you do also try to suggest that you think you are more intelligent than I am, but that is the kind of mistaken idea, that I would expect of a person, whose thinking was dominated by a certain "mentality."



BTW: your reply did not refute, or even answer, any of my points, which is kind of the object, when debating (fyi).

 

As Elon Musk recently said- "It's easy to fool people, but virtually impossible to convince them they have been fooled."

I've dedicated lot of time over the last 40 years to teach people how to use their minds better; give them the tools. Critical thinking, Root cause analysis, Orders of magnitude, Priority sequencing- just how to use those tools in their heads effectively. Not to agree with others, but to be able to think effectively, understand and communicate logically.

Some can learn..... But most want any new idea to fit neatly into the load of crap they have already bought. They want to argue- (not discuss, that is something entirely different) but always use their existing faulted tools as the yardstick; never questioning them. That insures they will not gain or grow in the ability to understand and solve problems of any kind. These tools don't tell people what to think- they teach us how to think. You can't drag these people to understanding these things with a team of horses. You can lead them to knowledge- but you cannot make them think. It's not the conclusion that matters- it's the inability to find their way to it that leaves them forever in conflicts they can't resolve. The perspective, or view from the position they are usually in.... when they lack the tools.

Yes, you are probably brilliant. Me on the other hand have never been perfect. I'm old now, so not as mentally quick as I used to be, and I only had a mid 99th percentile IQ in the first place.
So why would you think I think I'm more intelligent than you? Certainly, your ability to argue nonsense is far beyond mine, I don't even try to compete on that level.

 

What we need to look at is blacks being criminals, giving police crap, and running away. Once we solve that, there won't be much police brutality left.

 

So your "argument," to rebut mine, is that you claim your own personal brilliance, & therefore entitlement to deference, in your speculations, over hypothetical situations? As someone else, who has tested-- more than once-- to be in the top 1% of intelligence, that doesn't impress me, particularly, as an intelligently made argument.

I have put forth numerous, actual arguments. I am not going to waste the effort to put forth more, to someone who has not even addressed my earlier, logical points, and whose idea of his own argument, is nothing but braggadocio, combined with what sounds like a bruised ego, in the puerile pretense that I had, like you are now doing, relied on any claims of my own brilliance, to defend my case.


Are you sure, that you had not only tested to be in the top 99th percentile, of intelligence?



Here is the preponderance of the rest of your post's meaningless boasts & proclamations. I recommend, if you wish to impress people with your intelligent arguments, you learn what it means, to make an argument. None of what is below, qualifies as that:

 

High IQ is both a gift and a curse, causes many problems because it does separate you from the plane most people relate to. Vastly more important is the ability to grasp situations and develop solutions; make good things happen. IF you don't understand the knowledge you think you have, you can't do that. There are a lot of intelligent fools making stupid choices right now. I've been making things happen- all my life, and never took help from anybody. I've been sharing, contributing, inventing, most of my life. I don't just talk the talk- I walk the walk, and I don't need to impress people. That usually creates friction with those who cannot. They make your kind of arguments too. Arguments are stupid. Discussions are people working to gain understanding and develop solutions, those who argue think it's some kind of pissing match.
Everybody thinks they are smart. . And of course- therefore don't learn. That's how we got in the mess we're in- too many in that position.

 

well put.

People like you get exasperated at others inability to practice critical thinking, introspection, venture deep into opposing views and see the validity. It's rare. People are fed propaganda, are brainwashed and then filter out anything that doesn't fit what the want to believe in.

It's extremely hard. I always tell people this process of opening the mind and exploration of objective analysis is very hard and starts with one simple step. Simply listen to both sides. Watch FOX and CNN even if one of them is hard to muster initially. Slowly but surely your mind will start to open up, like a child's mind as it starts to perceive realities. Before you know it, you are seeing the validity of the other side and then soon thereafter, you learn to control your biases and see what you were blind to at first. This is only the first step, it takes a lot more as the journey progresses into expanding horizons, paradigm shifts and eventually there is more fine tuned perception of reality. Reality though is never the same for everyone, we live in a world of different realities.