DescentBB

I wrote these words, elsewhere:
well, this shooting business(again). Obviously, it is just as wrong to shoot a police officer doing his job merely because he is wearing a uniform as it is to shoot a father carrying a legal handgun merely because he is wearing black skin and has a tail-light out. When is this going to become a universal condemnation of public execution? I don't see where there should be a 'white' or 'black' side, a conservative or liberal side. Everyone should be opposed to, and determined to work to prevent, all unwarranted violence. If that means cracking down on the outlier racist cop, so be it. If that means gutting and rebuilding corrupt forces when those are shown to exist, so be it. If that means leaders in ALL communities reaffirming the positive role of police in our society, so be it. Why is this SO hard?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_(2004_film)

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Jury

callmeslick wrote:I wrote these words, elsewhere:
well, this shooting business(again). Obviously, it is just as wrong to shoot a police officer doing his job merely because he is wearing a uniform as it is to shoot a father carrying a legal handgun merely because he is wearing black skin and has a tail-light out. When is this going to become a universal condemnation of public execution? I don't see where there should be a 'white' or 'black' side, a conservative or liberal side. Everyone should be opposed to, and determined to work to prevent, all unwarranted violence. If that means cracking down on the outlier racist cop, so be it. If that means gutting and rebuilding corrupt forces when those are shown to exist, so be it. If that means leaders in ALL communities reaffirming the positive role of police in our society, so be it. Why is this SO hard?

It's so hard because we humans still adhere to tribalism. What we need is an evolutionary change in human behavior and thought. Without altering that one old evolutionary social trait, we're doomed to be constantly be killing one another. Now, because we've developed far more efficient ways to do that, we can kill people in far greater numbers than ever before. An mind you, even if we took away every gun in the country, we'd still fear those who are different from us and we'd still want to kill those who are different from us even if our only weapons were fists, knives, clubs or bows and arrows, because it's coded into our DNA. What makes a difference NOW is that there are MORE of us around on the planet to hate each other and kill each other for the most inane of reasons.

tunnelcat wrote:It's so hard because we humans still adhere to tribalism. What we need is an evolutionary change in human behavior and thought. Without altering that one old evolutionary social trait, we're doomed to be constantly be killing one another. Now, because we've developed far more efficient ways to do that, we can kill people in far greater numbers than ever before. An mind you, even if we took away every gun in the country, we'd still fear those who are different from us and we'd still want to kill those who are different from us even if our only weapons were fists, knives, clubs or bows and arrows, because it's coded into our DNA. What makes a difference NOW is that there are MORE of us around on the planet to hate each other and kill each other for the most inane of reasons.

Nicely put. I always thought that the value of human life is a universal constant (just like the amount of intelligence...) The more humans there are, the less a human life is worth

Yeah, I was going back and forth with Ferno on another thread, about how things seem worse and more violent than in decades past. I initially relented, thinking that I was just older and reminiscing about the better good old days like my parents and grandparents used to do. But then I got to thinking that there are really no better olden days. The only variable is that there were just less people around when I was a kid. The difference between now and the period during my childhood is that there are far more people on the U.S. than when I was a teenager, watching the violent race riots and war protests. In 1970, the U.S. population was 179,323,175. By 2016, the current estimation is around 323,341,000 people. So just taking in the fact that there are now a lot more people around than when I was a kid, there has to be greater instances of violence just because of the near doubling in the total numbers of people living in our country, especially in our cities. Add to that the fact that there are fewer jobs to keep people happy, busy and occupied, we've got a major problem since many cities have been hit hard by job losses and are inhabited by people who are bored and desperate, which then makes our cities and suburbs a breeding ground for resentment, anger and violence.

Humans haven't changed their behaviors over the intervening eons we've been around either. We're still very close to our prehistoric evolutionary roots in our emotions, despite our larger and smarter brains in the present. Unfortunately, now that we're smarter, that only means we can come up with more varied and efficient ways to kill and to add justification that killing, because being smarter still hasn't overridden our primitive impulses and social traits. Humans will need to evolve, or face their inevitable self-extinction, because we certainly can't seem to all get along and we're still making more and more of us without thought as to how and where all these people are going to live, eat and work. If you think it's bad now........

I was out all day. Has the NRA came out with their defense of the guy with a concealed carry license in Minnesota yet? They been on the airwaves asking folks not to condemn the weapon that dispatched a half dozen cops in Dallas? Suggested that we need more armed folks, especially in minority neighborhoods?

Now, let's ponder the dual realities that racists operate in...........

Why should the NRA have to defend a guy who didn't shoot anyone?

Krom wrote:Why should the NRA have to defend a guy who didn't shoot anyone?

for years, they've suggested that the authorities are trampling the rights of those seeking concealed carry. Where is their outrage that a legal permit holder was executed while reaching for his paperwork? Hell, I'd have thought they'd be all over that. Why not? Like I say, that sort of inconsistency is precisely the disconnect that allows racism, whether institutional or individual to operate and feel comfortable.

callmeslick wrote:for years, they've suggested that the authorities are trampling the rights of those seeking concealed carry. Where is their outrage that a legal permit holder was executed while reaching for his paperwork? Hell, I'd have thought they'd be all over that. Why not? Like I say, that sort of inconsistency is precisely the disconnect that allows racism, whether institutional or individual to operate and feel comfortable.

Well, you got a point there. Good question.

so, on this they are suddenly circumspect? Come on, Grendel, you've seen the timing in the past......

The case has little or nothing to do with gun rights, therefore no point in the NRA to say a damn thing.

I’m under the distinct impression some cops are simply afraid of black people, hell maybe even most. I see no reason for the driver in this case (a simple tail light stop) to start telling the cop “hey I have a gun license”

In the two different worlds…

The Driver: “★■◆●, he is going to search me and find my piece”

The Cop: “wait, did he just say he had a gun” “★■◆●, what is he reaching for”

Could be a case of miscommunication getting badly out of hand, but some people have to make some kind of lame case that he was shot for being black and having a legal weapon. Like cops don’t like black people to have legal weapons, so if they have one…kill!!!!

That is about the lamest scenario I have ever heard.

Does anyone even stop to consider that this particular cop might not even be a racist?

Nahhhhh…that’s not possible, because everyone knows all of the racists join the police force so they can kill black people.

Damn…now I’m starting to sound like tc.

tunnelcat wrote:Yeah, I was going back and forth with Ferno on another thread, about how things seem worse and more violent than in decades past. I initially relented, thinking that I was just older and reminiscing about the better good old days like my parents and grandparents used to do. But then I got to thinking that there are really no better olden days. The only variable is that there were just less people around when I was a kid. The difference between now and the period during my childhood is that there are far more people on the U.S. than when I was a teenager, watching the violent race riots and war protests. In 1970, the U.S. population was 179,323,175. By 2016, the current estimation is around 323,341,000 people. So just taking in the fact that there are now a lot more people around than when I was a kid, there has to be greater instances of violence just because of the near doubling in the total numbers of people living in our country, especially in our cities. Add to that the fact that there are fewer jobs to keep people happy, busy and occupied, we've got a major problem since many cities have been hit hard by job losses and are inhabited by people who are bored and desperate, which then makes our cities and suburbs a breeding ground for resentment, anger and violence.

My point still stands. and it's backed up by the fact that violent crime has actually decreased. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... es/table-1

Spidey wrote:Could be a case of miscommunication getting badly out of hand, but some people have to make some kind of lame case that he was shot for being black and having a legal weapon. Like cops don’t like black people to have legal weapons, so if they have one…kill!!!!

It is definitely a case of miscommunication gone horribly wrong, but there really is a problem with violence against blacks by police officers. Even when considering a heightened risk of violence in the African American community spilling over into law enforcement episodes, the number of black folks being killed by cops is highly disproportionate. We can do better. I find Castile's death just as infuriating as the officers who were shot in Dallas last night. And, as much as it pains me to say it, I'm more on the side of BLM than I'm comfortable with. This is almost certainly a bias because I have close black friends who are upstanding citizens owning legal firearms. Watching Castile die in that car, all I could think about was "That could be my man and his daughter right there."

You know what I would like to see? A former president Obama re-engaging the black community and becoming a spokesperson African American issues. He'd be better than Sharpton, that is for sure.

I don't know the laws where the black driver resides but here in MI if you have a CCW, you are required by law to inform a police officer that you have one and if you are carrying all within 30 secs of the officer asking for your drivers license. Too bad that wasn't required where the black driver was. When I'm pulled over I have my drivers license and CPL license ready to show the P.O. when he approaches the car. The couple of times it happened there was no problems.

but, he DID inform the officer that he had a gun Woody.

Now that I read more about it:

Castile's girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, began streaming video live on Facebook immediately after the officer fired. In the stream she said Castile was stopped for a broken taillight, had notified the officer that he was licensed to carry a handgun and was reaching for his wallet at the officer's request when he was shot.

If this was the case then the police officer should be charged with murder as Castile did what the law required and was doing what the officer told him to do. As in anything else I'd like to know the officers version.

woodchip wrote:As in anything else I'd like to know the officers version.

LOL woodchip pretending he cares about "sides of an issue."

Lol, vision pretending he knows what I care about.

Ferno wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Yeah, I was going back and forth with Ferno on another thread, about how things seem worse and more violent than in decades past. I initially relented, thinking that I was just older and reminiscing about the better good old days like my parents and grandparents used to do. But then I got to thinking that there are really no better olden days. The only variable is that there were just less people around when I was a kid. The difference between now and the period during my childhood is that there are far more people on the U.S. than when I was a teenager, watching the violent race riots and war protests. In 1970, the U.S. population was 179,323,175. By 2016, the current estimation is around 323,341,000 people. So just taking in the fact that there are now a lot more people around than when I was a kid, there has to be greater instances of violence just because of the near doubling in the total numbers of people living in our country, especially in our cities. Add to that the fact that there are fewer jobs to keep people happy, busy and occupied, we've got a major problem since many cities have been hit hard by job losses and are inhabited by people who are bored and desperate, which then makes our cities and suburbs a breeding ground for resentment, anger and violence.

My point still stands. and it's backed up by the fact that violent crime has actually decreased. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... es/table-1

Any statistics before 1995, like during the 1950's or 1960's Ferno, and before semiautomatic assault weapons were so available to the general public?

callmeslick wrote:so, on this they are suddenly circumspect? Come on, Grendel, you've seen the timing in the past......

Maybe this is a better "explanation", although I know what they claim in the article will rub certain people the wrong way.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/7/12123040/ph ... yptr=yahoo

This guy certainly isn't helping the national dialog either. More tribalism at work and it's NOT helping.

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog ... =hootsuite

tunnelcat wrote:Any statistics before 1995, like during the 1950's or 1960's Ferno, and before semiautomatic assault weapons were so available to the general public?

Look. I know what you're trying to do here. You're moving the goalposts and fishing for an answer. But the answer that you're seeking will show, if you did the work yourself, that you're still wrong.

woodchip wrote:As in anything else I'd like to know the officers version.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /86894752/

Grendel, what I get from your link is the officer "reacted" to the presence of Castile's gun. Nowhere did I read the officer say that Castile was in the act of pulling his gun out. If, as his girl friend alleges, Castile informed the officer he had a CCW and that he had his weapon with him, it was the officers job to instruct Castile how to produce his license. For example, once I pulled into a diagonal parking space and the guy in the next space opened his door just at the wrong time...and I damaged the door. We called a cop, when the cop came and asked for my license I informed him that I had a cpl and my pistol on me. Cop told me to un-holster my firearm and place it in my truck (we all were standing outside our vehicles). I did and no problems occurred. So in both my case and in Castile case, a gun was present. In my case the officer handled it professionally, in Castile's case the officer handled it from a position of fear. At this point I still say the officer should be charged with 2nd or 3rd degree murder.

as rare as it may seem, I'll start my week by agreeing with Woody. If indeed those things occurred, the MN cop committed murder. I did just read that the lack of response by the NRA has caused an internal uproar within the organization.

callmeslick wrote:I did just read that the lack of response by the NRA has caused an internal uproar within the organization.

Yeah, apparently their "response" is a single sentence on their website stated rather coolly as a matter of fact. That's not the type of response you would see if a white man was killed this way.

Grendel wrote:

woodchip wrote:As in anything else I'd like to know the officers version.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /86894752/

So that cop claims he reacted to the presence of a gun, not the pointing of a gun, by shooting the driver? And he said race played no part in his actions, at all. Sure.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties ... get-killed

Race probably did play a part in what transpired, but perhaps not in the context everyone is trying to portray.

Has anyone seen the studies on how the subconscious affects our judgment in such matters? A person may react differently to a black person with a gun than a white person, even when no overt racism is present. In fact the studies I have seem show that most people who consider themselves “liberal/progressive” react the same way as anybody else when in a pressure situation.

This is why I keep preaching that the race issue must be addressed as a human problem, and not a perp vs. victim issue.

I'd say I agree with most of the above, Spidey. Well put.

tunnelcat wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /86894752/

So that cop claims he reacted to the presence of a gun, not the pointing of a gun, by shooting the driver? And he said race played no part in his actions, at all. Sure.

True enough TC. His side of the story doesn't pass the smell test.

another issue that HAS to be addressed is the absolute militarization of urban police departments post 9/11. I think this protestor addressed it in a very clever, yet accurate, manner:

woodchip wrote:Grendel, what I get from your link is the officer "reacted" to the presence of Castile's gun. Nowhere did I read the officer say that Castile was in the act of pulling his gun out. If, as his girl friend alleges, Castile informed the officer he had a CCW and that he had his weapon with him, it was the officers job to instruct Castile how to produce his license. For example, once I pulled into a diagonal parking space and the guy in the next space opened his door just at the wrong time...and I damaged the door. We called a cop, when the cop came and asked for my license I informed him that I had a cpl and my pistol on me. Cop told me to un-holster my firearm and place it in my truck (we all were standing outside our vehicles). I did and no problems occurred. So in both my case and in Castile case, a gun was present. In my case the officer handled it professionally, in Castile's case the officer handled it from a position of fear. At this point I still say the officer should be charged with 2nd or 3rd degree murder.

My guess is that Castile was carrying somewhere in the 1-3 o'clock position, ie. the gun becomes visible to the cop while Castile was reaching for a wallet in the right back pocket (caveat: lots of assumptions..) Cop tells him to get ID, Castile reaches for it while telling him he's carrying and the gun becomes visible... The outcome probably would have been very different if the cop could had restrained himself for another second or two or Castile hadn't immediately reached for his wallet. I'm sure that Castile being black played a role in the cops jumpiness in the form of profiling as well as his training. If this is how it happened, I have no idea what the cop should be indicted for.

callmeslick wrote:another issue that HAS to be addressed is the absolute militarization of urban police departments post 9/11. I think this protestor addressed it in a very clever, yet accurate, manner:

I was thinking that very same thing the other day, watching TV while all these cops were carrying around military grade assault rifles and driving around on city streets riding in surplus military armored vehicles, not that I can blame them for being sniped at. But the cops do those exact same things during civilian protest rallies. Nothing like sending a message that they are in war mode, even in a civilian population. In fact, a lot of our police officers are military veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, so they're already coming into the job primed for battle. In fact, the Dallas shooter was a military vet, so what we had were essentially vets shooting vets, just like in a real war. Don't you think that training sticks with a person even after leaving the service? They're trained to kill in the military, not be officers of the peace.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties ... ice-forces

Oh, and now the Dallas police have figured out a novel way to kill a "suspect". Detonating bombs carried by a robot. I guess the militarized police have learned a thing or 2 from those Obama military drone terrorist killing operations. Wow. How long before that practice becomes commonplace in our civilian cities? I'll bet if ol' Giuliani was still mayor of New York, he'd really love the idea and would get it going in the NYC police department posthaste. Nothing like blowing up all people he considers terrorists, especially if they're black rioters or Muslims plotting and planning in one of their mosques.