Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man

[T.Lex]

Oops, I did miss it. I would call you in specifically if this were a warning shot case.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't think convictions is the right way to look at this anyway. The things that are alleged is that black people are shot proportionally more than white people, and that this is an indication of institutional racism. Looking at encounters with police is a better level of evaluation because it's directly correlated. It's really hard to be shot by police if you never encounter them. And you typically encounter them a lot more if you engage in crime, are associated with someone who engages in crime, or live in an area where crime is high. Superficially, it looks like blacks have disproportionately more encounters than whites. As posted before, if we look at police shootings per 10K arrests, the numbers are pretty equal.

So that says that we really don't have a huge problem with racist cops. But it also shows that we have a disproportionate number of blacks that encounter police compared to whites. So that would be the thing to work on. Ending no-knock raids would end accidental shootings. Ending stop and frisk would reduce the number of encounters with police.

Thank you for pointing out the heart of the matter. This is a legitimate issue, but as you indicate, in the context of the discussion at hand, it is a non-sequitur. GPIA7R's commentary about a meme revolve around this same non-sequitur. When discussing whether black people are killed by police disproportionately more than white people are killed by police, it is germane to discuss the circumstances around which people are shot by police, because it is reasonable to conclude that those circumstances are determinative of the actiosn of police officers who kill people in those circumstances. It is not germane, however, to discuss what underlying causes lead to those circumstances, because those underlying causes are not determinative of the actions of police officers who kill people in those circumstances.

So, both GPIA7R taking issue with my lack of nuance with respect to violent crime rate for black population and T.Lex taking issue with my lack of nuance with respect to commission of, as opposed to being arrested for commission of, violent crime, are based on the same non-sequitur. When discussing police killings and alleged racial bias in such killings, where such killings occur predominantly during police interaction with the commission of violent crime, it doesn't matter, at all, what led the people involved to become involved in the commission of violent crime; rather, it only matters that said people are involved in a circumstance that is directly correlated to police killings.

That's why discussion of relative rate of commission of violent crime by black vs white offenders is germane to the discussion of alleged racial bias in rate of police killings, but discussion of the "nuance" of what leads to those relative rates of commission of violent crime by black vs white offenders is not.

 

[MCgrease08]

The autonomy of the individual is the greatest ideal that we can advocate and advance. Personal accountability. Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping.

This is a really important point that I think often gets overlooked when discussing ways to combat the idea of identity politics, protected classes and the victim-hood hierarchy. I think it's a place where we should be able to find common ground with people on the left, provided they are open to having the discussion in good faith. (Yes, I know that is a lot to ask).

The left loves to play identity politics and slice and dice people into smaller and smaller groups based on shared traits like race, sexuality, gender, etc. They claim that we need specific protections for those specific groups. If we take this to the logical conclusion, as these classifications get smaller and smaller we should ultimately end up with ... the individual.

Again, I know those that set the political narrative on the left will never let it drill down that far, but that means there is an opportunity to talk with traditional and moderate democrat voters and find common ground. We need to explain to them that protections for the individual, i.e. constitutionally protected God given rights, ultimately cover and benefit everyone.

We should also be pointing out the hypocrisy of the left wanting protections for certain groups but not others. This is something I think conservatives are doing a pretty good job of today.

The reason we're seeing the anger at play in these protests and riots, is that many feel A) "the system" doesn't apply these protections equally and B) that's why we need additional protections for certain groups. They are not wrong about part A. If we work to address that underlying issue then we won't have a need for part B.

 

[JettaKnight]

The joke. You missed it.

("Fits to a T." My username starts with "T." Its like you were bringing me into the conversation.... Never mind.)

More seriously, I don't know MN law, let alone all of the circumstances surrounding the events. I don't feel like second-guessing the local prosecution on this. It certainly seems like criminal charges are appropriate, but I have no opinion beyond that.

FIFY.

 

[Leadeye]

Remembering the 70s, cities looked to be hitting the skids in many places. So much has changed during the following 30 years with people moving back into town cores. I wonder if we will see a new exodus of people and jobs from cities going to new burbs or small towns.

 

[Hookeye]

It's ironic that you pretty much summed up white privilege, in a way - you're white, therefore don't have those opinions and attitudes directed at you.



There's many parts here that I agree with, but problem is the breadth of your brush and how easy you imply it is to change.

Its not privilege, its choices.

They must be slaves to their own BS.
They'd rather continue to have problems and blame others.....victim mindset.

Identity vs integrity

They are free to choose poorly.
Again, thats on them, not me.

The template for success is well known.
Graduate HS, learn a trade or get further education....get a job, then get married and then have kids.

Even sorry arse MSN posted this months ago, some lib study's findings.

Uh, a couple generations too late LOL

 

[Hookeye]

70% illiteracy. 75% born out of wedlock.

Their problems are in how they view themselves, they think this and related are acceptable.

Demand less, get less.

To make excuses for this BS is IMHO racist.
They are not inferior, therefore they need to quit acting like it

 

[JettaKnight]

The reason we're seeing the anger at play in these protests and riots, is that many feel A) "the system" doesn't apply these protections equally and B) that's why we need additional protections for certain groups. They are not wrong about part A. If we work to address that underlying issue then we won't have a need for part B.

I agree, but I don't hear a lot of people asking for extra protection, just the same level across the board. There's a perception that it's not a level playing field, i.e. "the system doesn't apply these protections equally".


One side said the field isn't level the other side says it is.


I think we can all agree that for a long, long time the field was heavily tilted. I think we can all agree that it was tilted in the 50s. and the 60s. and even the 70s.
What we can't agree on is if it's level in the 2000's. Can so many people change the their point of view and attitudes in one generation?


The only way to address (A), is to at least acknowledge there's a valid perception of inequality. And you can't do that when you're blaming culture, or parenting, etc. Yeah, it's a bit touchy-feely, but humans at their core are irrational and touchy-feely. If the Coronavirus has thought us anything, it's that humans act in illogical ways, and simply blasting out facts doesn't work.

A lot of it is, "Stop telling me everything is OK, when it's not OK!"... and after being married for twenty years, I've heard that a lot.


The "All Lives Matter" is so dismissive because it completely invalidates the other person's feelings. Sure, it's 100% true, but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue.

 

[JettaKnight]

Its not privilege, its choices.

They must be slaves to their own BS.
They'd rather continue to have problems and blame others.....victim mindset.

Identity vs integrity

They are free to choose poorly.
Again, thats on them, not me.

At least in my case, I made choices because I had parents who instructed me wisely and had a decent income... because they had parents who instructed them wisely....

The template for success is well known.

Not so sure. My parents went to college, they understood how the system works. An immigrant, a poor black kid, etc. may not understand what's involved and may have been told by the generations of the past, "that's not for you" because college wasn't available to them...

70% illiteracy. 75% born out of wedlock.

Their problems are in how they view themselves, they think this and related are acceptable.

Demand less, get less.

To make excuses for this BS is IMHO racist.
They are not inferior, therefore they need to quit acting like it

So if good kids from good parents, and bad kids come from bad parents, then how do you break the cycle?


I'm guessing the answer isn't to stand on the outside and shout, "Quit acting inferior! That's unacceptable!"

 

[jamil]

Thank you for pointing out the heart of the matter. This is a legitimate issue, but as you indicate, in the context of the discussion at hand, it is a non-sequitur. GPIA7R's commentary about a meme revolve around this same non-sequitur. When discussing whether black people are killed by police disproportionately more than white people are killed by police, it is germane to discuss the circumstances around which people are shot by police, because it is reasonable to conclude that those circumstances are determinative of the actiosn of police officers who kill people in those circumstances. It is not germane, however, to discuss what underlying causes lead to those circumstances, because those underlying causes are not determinative of the actions of police officers who kill people in those circumstances.

So, both GPIA7R taking issue with my lack of nuance with respect to violent crime rate for black population and T.Lex taking issue with my lack of nuance with respect to commission of, as opposed to being arrested for commission of, violent crime, are based on the same non-sequitur. When discussing police killings and alleged racial bias in such killings, where such killings occur predominantly during police interaction with the commission of violent crime, it doesn't matter, at all, what led the people involved to become involved in the commission of violent crime; rather, it only matters that said people are involved in a circumstance that is directly correlated to police killings.

That's why discussion of relative rate of commission of violent crime by black vs white offenders is germane to the discussion of alleged racial bias in rate of police killings, but discussion of the "nuance" of what leads to those relative rates of commission of violent crime by black vs white offenders is not.

I'd say yes. That's correct in this case I think. The implication is that blacks are more likely to be killed by police because police are systemically racist. Evaluating cases where police kill a black or white man, and normalizing that to encounters compares apples to apples, and proves that when given the opportunity to kill either a black or white person, police are pretty even handed at that. So yes, that makes the systemic racism thing a non-sequitur. That something became a meme doesn't make that thing true. Saying that black men are shot by cops because they're racists doesn't get at the actual cause.

 

[Hookeye]

I wonder how many cops are shot by blacks

 

[chipbennett]

The "All Lives Matter" is so dismissive because it completely invalidates the other person's feelings. Sure, it's 100% true, but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue.

I'll preface this by noting that there is an entire thread already devoted to discussion of BLM. So my discussion here will be limited.

The point that I want to make here, because I think it is relevant to the current situation, is that the moral outrage over police killing of black people under the guise of "Black Lives Matter" is largely a grift, since police killing of black people accounts for maybe 1% of all killings of black people. The vast majority - 85 - 95%, give or take, depending on the year - are black people who are killed by other black people. If people's feelings are inflamed by the 1% and not by the 95%, then those feelings are either misguided through ignorance or else intentionally manipulated/misled due to some underlying agenda. As such, I do not think that we are compelled to act in a way that must validate those feelings.

If the unnecessary killing of black people is a legitimate issue (and I agree that it is) causing legitimate pain the the black community (and I agree that it does), then why aren't the "Black Lives Matter" protesters protesting against the underlying cause(s) of the killing of the 85 - 95%? Why are the protests always and only focused on a cause of 1% of those killings? Further, why is the mere mention of this point met with such opposition by the people ostensibly protesting out of the pain caused by the unnecessary killing of black people? If pointing out this disparity invalidates feelings, so be it. Perhaps those feelings need to be invalidated by fact, so that the real issues causing the real pain can be uncovered and dealt with.

 

[Hookeye]

I dont disagree

https://www.unz.com/freed/oncoming-racial-doom-the-clash-of-cultures/

 

[jamil]

I wonder how many cops are shot by blacks

Is that relevant?

 

[HoughMade]

I dont disagree

https://www.unz.com/freed/oncoming-racial-doom-the-clash-of-cultures/

Oh boy.

[ETA]

I'll just say that my personal experience does not support the conclusions reported in that...piece.

 

[JettaKnight]

I wonder how many cops are shot by blacks

WTF that matter to this issue? Am to infer that's a mitigating circumstance in this case?

I'll preface this by noting that there is an entire thread already devoted to discussion of BLM. So my discussion here will be limited.

The point that I want to make here, because I think it is relevant to the current situation, is that the moral outrage over police killing of black people under the guise of "Black Lives Matter" is largely a grift, since police killing of black people accounts for maybe 1% of all killings of black people. The vast majority - 85 - 95%, give or take, depending on the year - are black people who are killed by other black people. If people's feelings are inflamed by the 1% and not by the 95%, then those feelings are either misguided through ignorance or else intentionally manipulated/misled due to some underlying agenda. As such, I do not think that we are compelled to act in a way that must validate those feelings.

If the unnecessary killing of black people is a legitimate issue (and I agree that it is) causing legitimate pain the the black community (and I agree that it does), then why aren't the "Black Lives Matter" protesters protesting against the underlying cause(s) of the killing of the 85 - 95%? Why are the protests always and only focused on a cause of 1% of those killings? Further, why is the mere mention of this point met with such opposition by the people ostensibly protesting out of the pain caused by the unnecessary killing of black people? If pointing out this disparity invalidates feelings, so be it. Perhaps those feelings need to be invalidated by fact, so that the real issues causing the real pain can be uncovered and dealt with.

I will totally agree that's illogically, irrational, an IMHO, stupidly wrong to get worked up about this when there's so many people being shot needlessly by thugs.

And I will agree that I don't have to validate someones feelings, especially if I just want to stand on the other side of the street, or stay up in my vanilla village suburb.


But then again, I keep thinking about my .sig...

 

[T.Lex]

I dont disagree

https://www.unz.com/freed/oncoming-racial-doom-the-clash-of-cultures/

I made it about 4 paragraphs in. That essay is horrible. The couple interesting points to which I'm sympathetic (e.g., the counter-intuitive erasure of Confederate symbology effectively whitewashes the Civil War), were completely drowned by the racist parts.

Duly noted your position on it.

 

[jamil]

Is this still happening in a widespread manner? I can tell you it isn’t in my area.

It was under Conrad at Louisville Metro. I'm not sure how widespread but the complaints make it appear to have been pretty much. I don't know if they've ended that within the last couple of years though. I'd like to see it banned. I'd like to see no-knock raids banned.

 

[jamil]

I agree, but I don't hear a lot of people asking for extra protection, just the same level across the board. There's a perception that it's not a level playing field, i.e. "the system doesn't apply these protections equally".


One side said the field isn't level the other side says it is.


I think we can all agree that for a long, long time the field was heavily tilted. I think we can all agree that it was tilted in the 50s. and the 60s. and even the 70s.
What we can't agree on is if it's level in the 2000's. Can so many people change the their point of view and attitudes in one generation?


The only way to address (A), is to at least acknowledge there's a valid perception of inequality. And you can't do that when you're blaming culture, or parenting, etc. Yeah, it's a bit touchy-feely, but humans at their core are irrational and touchy-feely. If the Coronavirus has thought us anything, it's that humans act in illogical ways, and simply blasting out facts doesn't work.

A lot of it is, "Stop telling me everything is OK, when it's not OK!"... and after being married for twenty years, I've heard that a lot.


The "All Lives Matter" is so dismissive because it completely invalidates the other person's feelings. Sure, it's 100% true, but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue.

About "All Lives Matter". First, about "Black Lives Matter", I think it's colloquially implied that it's "Black Lives Matter *too*". It's not saying that only black lives matter. But the language is awkward, because when you say something like that with that specificity it typically implies it's exclusive, other wise you'd say "all".

And "All lives matter" may hurt some feelings, and that because it's pretty insensitive to say to people who feel like they're being treated as if their life doesn't matter, we probably shouldn't say it that way to those people. You probably shouldn't go down to the protests and proclaim all lives matter because it's not going to help anyone come to any different conclusions. It'll just **** them off. But. I don't think the sentiment is intended to invalidate feelings, though it's being interpreted that way. It's a statement of inclusion. It's saying, of course your life matters, ALL lives matter.

Or hell. Maybe it pisses them off because "all lives matter" implies that Trump's life also matters, which causes them to lose their ****.

 

[JCSR]

Oh boy.

[ETA]

I'll just say that my personal experience does not support the conclusions reported in that...piece.

Not my experience as well. But I do see a lot of truth in this paragraph.
" Cities have been the heart of the intellectual and artistic in all civilizations, as for example Athens, Rome, Florence, Vienna, New York. By contrast, blacks have destroyed city after American city after American city. Trenton, Camden, Newark, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Flint, St. Louis, New Orleans, Milwaukee. At one time in all of these one could live, walk at will, send one’s children to the schools. Now, no. Violence, crime, racial attacks,and illiteracy drive the civilized to remote suburbs. This is not my culture and I see no reason to apologize for it."