my brother is a cop in Maine.Where is that from?
That "issue" was immaterial from the beginning of the ferguson shooting. Just a cop doing his job for all the right reasons and being forces to shoot an attacker for just that reason alone. The non issue became an issue when the baiters in Tre community and the media and politicians made it the issue it wasn't. So the good guys did nothing wrong and this can't be flipped on them. But as always now it's being widely reported that we have a huge issue in this country still when I believe it's a non issue as do many others and are tired of being baited and accused. Most good tax paying Americans just want to be left alone. Don't wanna be provoked or damned. Don't wanna talk about non issues. All of this poking the bear is gonna get an end result that the pokers don't like. I'll bet money. All of this social tollerance is gonna end because people are gonna get tired of being stabbed in the back and having the hand bitten by the dog (just an illustration. I'm not calling anyone a dog).Thanks, Kut. You said this much better than I did. The main point as I see it is to address actions, not the people performing/committing them, which is a point Cathy made, too. As a cop, you don't care if the rapist is Black, White, Asian, or Martian, male, female, teen, or senior. If you catch them, you're busting them. If they resist, they're probably going to have a really bad day. I didn't say it well, but I think as long as we focus on what's being done, the fact that the perpetrators (or "alleged perpetrators", until they're convicted (which may be never)) are one or another color is immaterial. Dehumanizing people to make them easier to deal with, as you described, is IMHO, immoral.
Rep inbound.
Blessings,
Bill
I wouldn't be surprised. Certain political entities have a vested interested in keeping this thing going. Also the news media.The news people were reporting earlier today that rumors were out suggesting that further Ferguson terrorist activity will return over the weekend. Anyone heard further details on this?
Supposed ISIS call outs to assist and infiltrate the local terrorists?
my brother is a cop in Maine.
I wouldn't be surprised. Certain political entities have a vested interested in keeping this thing going. Also the news media.
i think the governor of that state should face criminal charges
Thanks, Kut. You said this much better than I did. The main point as I see it is to address actions, not the people performing/committing them, which is a point Cathy made, too. As a cop, you don't care if the rapist is Black, White, Asian, or Martian, male, female, teen, or senior. If you catch them, you're busting them. If they resist, they're probably going to have a really bad day. I didn't say it well, but I think as long as we focus on what's being done, the fact that the perpetrators (or "alleged perpetrators", until they're convicted (which may be never)) are one or another color is immaterial. Dehumanizing people to make them easier to deal with, as you described, is IMHO, immoral.
Rep inbound.
Blessings,
Bill
He should. He threw Wilson under the bus. Also Dorian Johnson should face charges for lying to the media from the start and getting all this going.
It shouldn't matter whether the marauding animal, human or non-human, knows "better" or knows that what it's doing is morally wrong". If an animal has been trained not to attack people and has simply chosen to act contrary to its training, or the animal has been trained to deliberately attack people, is a question that is neither here nor there in the moment of dealing with the marauding behavior.
I give you four scenarioes. You tell me in which one the answer to the question, "Is he aware that what he is doing is wrong." matters one whit.
1) A well socialized and treated pitbull is running pell mell, growling and \snarling, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.
2) A pitbul that has been trained to fight and has been tortured is running pell mell, growing and snarling, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.
3) A man that's well dressed and groomed is running pell mell, wielding a knife in the downward slashing manner, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.
4) A man that's dressed slovenly and shouting hateful and threatening epithets \is running pell mell, wielding a knife in the downward slashing manner, down the street after a child that's running away in terror.
Please answer 1, 2, 3, or 4, as to which one would not warrant the use of lethal force once it became apparent that the animal, human or non-human, was imminently going to close with the child, and then explain your reasoning forwhy lethal force would not be warranted and how the answer to the question,"Is he aware that what he is doing is wrong?" affects that calculus.
I'm disagree completely, and I'm actually surprised by your position on this. Using the word "animal" (or other, take your pick) is not dehumanizing anyone, nor is it attempt to do so in the usage I've seen here. The actions of the people who are committing the crimes is what is dehumanizing them. It's their choices and their behaviors that do it and they hold the responsibility for the results of their actions.
With respect to the actual words used, if "animal" is unacceptable at this point, how long before the currently acceptable words are no longer? At some point the list of unacceptable words will dwarf the words that don't cause anyone discomfort. I submit that there is no substantive difference in the words chosen, and I for one prefer to communicate as effectively as possible. I can't control if someone chooses to project their own agenda on very clear, simple speech.
As an aside, it seems that at least some are looking for racism where it doesn't necessarily exist or at least is immaterial to the issue at hand. The guy with the bullet in his head or the person burned to death in the arson don't really care about the demographics or contrived motives involved with who did it to them.
I'm disagree completely, and I'm actually surprised by your position on this. Using the word "animal" (or other, take your pick) is not dehumanizing anyone, nor is it attempt to do so in the usage I've seen here. The actions of the people who are committing the crimes is what is dehumanizing them. It's their choices and their behaviors that do it and they hold the responsibility for the results of their actions.
With respect to the actual words used, if "animal" is unacceptable at this point, how long before the currently acceptable words are no longer? At some point the list of unacceptable words will dwarf the words that don't cause anyone discomfort. I submit that there is no substantive difference in the words chosen, and I for one prefer to communicate as effectively as possible. I can't control if someone chooses to project their own agenda on very clear, simple speech.
As an aside, it seems that at least some are looking for racism where it doesn't necessarily exist or at least is immaterial to the issue at hand. The guy with the bullet in his head or the person burned to death in the arson don't really care about the demographics or contrived motives involved with who did it to them.
Thanks for your reply and the thoughts behind and within it, Joey.
I don't dispute that the rioters and looters are dehumanizing themselves by their behavior. They still remain human, though, morally and in the eyes of the law. (Someone could not, for example, set up a rifle on a rooftop and start picking guys off who are walking down the street, even en masse, so long as that's all they were doing. Were we speaking of, say, a pack of wolves (literally, as in Canis lupis) that restriction would not be considered, and someone shooting them might face charges for discharging a firearm in city limits, or maybe hunting out of season, but not for homicide.) That's not the problem. The problem is when people start deciding someone else is less than human and therefore, their rights don't matter as much. "Well, they're nothin' more than animals" or "Pff. They're just mopes." and in fairness and full disclosure, I've used that latter term, but while I may identify some people by that term, it does not ever change the care that I provide them if they end up on my ambulance cot or, when I worked there, my ED bed, any more than it changes my care if I know the person in that position is wealthy, influential, or powerful. This isn't about medical care, of course, but that's my example.
What it comes down to is that however they act is beyond my control. How *I* act is the only thing I can control, and if I stop respecting people's humanity, it's a failure on my part. You're spot on, as usual, that the dead person is just as dead no matter how they ended up that way, and no matter who performed/committed the act that killed them. My position is that what they did is far more important and far more addressable, than who (as in what race, socioeconomic group, gender, etc.) they are. If we're looking for terms to use for them, I made several suggestions upthread. All of them referenced the criminal activity, and all of them would be equally applicable to anyone who did those things. I suppose that "animal" vaguely matches that definition, but it's a hell of a stretch for it to do so. As my original tongue-in-cheek post indicated, animals, at least the ones I referenced (with the unspoken meaning of 4 legs, fur, and tails) don't go around destroying others' property with malice or revenge, certainly not when the property doesn't belong to whoever they would be said to be avenging. (My dog won't get mad at printcraft and come tear up your yard as a result, in other words.)
Does that make more sense?
Blessings,
Bill
Well, if that is your belief, they you would be justified in calling them animals. I will say that I believe that your opinion is in the minority.
This is a good analogy of what has been going on in Ferguson (and now around the country). There are TWO and only two people that were involved in the original incident, and those two are Brown and Wilson. Burning down shops, overturning cars, looting, etc., have NOTHING to do with either Wilson or Brown, no matter how the actors try to insist that they do. "We want JUSTICE for Mike Brown, or we will 'burn this ************ down'" makes no sense to me or any rational being. Even if their grievance is with the "system" and how they perceive the way it worked, the people whose property is being destroyed and whose lives have been threatened have nothing to do with it. These are not the actions of rational human beings. They have allowed themselves (through the "protection" of mob mentality) to devolve into something less than sane. And yes, I would group sports fans that destroy their towns when their team wins (or loses) in the same category.Thanks for your reply and the thoughts behind and within it, Joey.
I don't dispute that the rioters and looters are dehumanizing themselves by their behavior. They still remain human, though, morally and in the eyes of the law. (Someone could not, for example, set up a rifle on a rooftop and start picking guys off who are walking down the street, even en masse, so long as that's all they were doing. Were we speaking of, say, a pack of wolves (literally, as in Canis lupis) that restriction would not be considered, and someone shooting them might face charges for discharging a firearm in city limits, or maybe hunting out of season, but not for homicide.) That's not the problem. The problem is when people start deciding someone else is less than human and therefore, their rights don't matter as much. "Well, they're nothin' more than animals" or "Pff. They're just mopes." and in fairness and full disclosure, I've used that latter term, but while I may identify some people by that term, it does not ever change the care that I provide them if they end up on my ambulance cot or, when I worked there, my ED bed, any more than it changes my care if I know the person in that position is wealthy, influential, or powerful. This isn't about medical care, of course, but that's my example.
What it comes down to is that however they act is beyond my control. How *I* act is the only thing I can control, and if I stop respecting people's humanity, it's a failure on my part. You're spot on, as usual, that the dead person is just as dead no matter how they ended up that way, and no matter who performed/committed the act that killed them. My position is that what they did is far more important and far more addressable, than who (as in what race, socioeconomic group, gender, etc.) they are. If we're looking for terms to use for them, I made several suggestions upthread. All of them referenced the criminal activity, and all of them would be equally applicable to anyone who did those things. I suppose that "animal" vaguely matches that definition, but it's a hell of a stretch for it to do so. As my original tongue-in-cheek post indicated, animals, at least the ones I referenced (with the unspoken meaning of 4 legs, fur, and tails) don't go around destroying others' property with malice or revenge, certainly not when the property doesn't belong to whoever they would be said to be avenging. (My dog won't get mad at printcraft and come tear up your yard as a result, in other words.)
Does that make more sense?
Blessings,
Bill
I keep seeing people holding up signs at these protests saying, "Black Lives Matter". Well, yes they do, and they should. However, why do they only seem to matter when we have something like this happen - a white cop killing a black person? Is the loss of a black person's life any less important if it is taken by another black person? This happens far and away more often than the other, yet there is no outrage. It seems to be looked as as just the "cost of doing business" (ie the "business" of living life). I think that's the real shame and is the real issue that needs to be addressed. I know that given the things that have been coming to light about Bill Cosby may make him a bad example to bring up, but he has voiced his view on this issue often, and very eloquently. The folks like Sharpton and Jackson would be better served if they did the same, IMHO.
How about Make Your Black Life Matter.I keep seeing people holding up signs at these protests saying, "Black Lives Matter". Well, yes they do, and they should.
How about Make Your Black Life Matter.
Get an education. Contribute to your community. Follow the law. Learn some morals. Respect other people. Develop a work ethic.....