Race relations thread

2020-06-21 05:49:51

#2576

HollisHurlbut: Member; +51|6257

uziq wrote:
none of which, again, quite equal the death penalty.

Let me clue you in here: aggravated assault, according to the Georgia Code, is pretty much the definition of deadly force. When someone aims a weapon at you and discharges it in your face, it is reasonable to respond with deadly force. Period. End of fucking story.

he took a taser off a cop and ran away.

At this point, there is no reason to take anything you say seriously. You are on a mission to condemn these cops, and that's evidenced by the fact that you ignore everything Brooks did and boil it down to "stole a taser and ran away." Which is not a sufficient description of his actions. At all. If you don't know it, you're an imbecile. If you do know it, you're arguing in bad faith. Either way, I have no reason to take you seriously.

you are really trivialising life, at the end of the day. a member of the public being shot should be treated with serious scrutiny. and unfortunately for you, there's a lot of things that don't look or play very well with your two guys. a real disregard for life, in fact. and they have an evident record of it. why does none of this catch your attention at all? you seem very keen at stressing the deceased's actions

You seem very keen on ignoring literally everything Brooks did to drive the scenario to its inevitable conclusion. He assaulted officers, then pointed a weapon at one and discharged it. Tasers look like guns, especially in the dark. And especially when the business end is pointed at you. They flash when they deploy. They make a loud pop when deployed. It is 100% reasonable to think Brooks had a gun and shot it at the officer. Even if he knew it was a taser, it's 100% reasonable to react with deadly force when someone is trying to incapacitate you and has already shown a propensity for assaulting officers, stealing their weapons, and using those weapons against the officers.

none of which in any civil society would earn summary execution.

That's not the right question. The question is whether or not the officer reasonably believed Brooks to be a threat of death or serious physical injury. When Brooks turned and discharged a weapon at the officer, he sealed his own fate. The officer's actions were reasonable.

2020-06-21 05:53:27

#2577

HollisHurlbut: Member; +51|6257

uziq wrote:
if all of this is so reasonable, why are white folks not killed as often as other races?

I don't know that they are. Please provide statistics that show, on a per-interaction basis, that white people are the least likely to be killed by police.

2020-06-21 05:57:32

#2578

uziq: Member; +497|3711

2020-06-21 06:07:56

#2579

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7031|PNW

@hollis

Good lord, I'll simplify the response.

I brought up OJ as an example of someone, with a gun, who didn't die. To contrast against someone with a stolen taser who did. That doesn't exactly extend that there is never a scenario where a cop can legitimately defend themselves or others with lethal force.

I brought up the taser not being "significant" to illustrate their use, along side other less-lethal weapons, against Americans not even involved in a crime the past few weeks. That it's a bit much to present that as a "and that's why he was shot" without expecting a few raised eyebrows.

The past half dozen or so cop encounters I've watched, the police had no chill. Immediately aggressive and escalating through spoken and body language, before making it physical. No attempt to talk down. Of course this is not representative of 100% of the police encounters, but it shouldn't be this often. Someone asks me if I've seen "that one police video today" and I have to ask which one out of a handful. Cop PR is in the toilet right now, I think with more good reason than naught.

Hunting brass before rendering aid because, you know, range training. smh

Get a hold of macbeth to see if we can get a gofundme going for your comments here. He's in charge of bf2s accounts.

2020-06-21 06:14:23

#2580

HollisHurlbut: Member; +51|6257

uziq wrote:

Not responsive to the question. On a PER INTERACTION basis, what are the figures? Also, your chart left off Americans of Asian descent.

2020-06-21 06:17:53

#2581

uziq: Member; +497|3711

so because black folks have more interactions with the police, it's explicable that they die in far higher numbers? is that what you're driving at?

maybe it's just black criminality that explains it. the poor police.

2020-06-21 06:29:56

#2582

HollisHurlbut: Member; +51|6257

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
@hollis

Good lord, I'll simplify the response.

I brought up OJ as an example of someone, with a gun, who didn't die. To contrast against someone with a stolen taser who did. That doesn't exactly extend that there is never a scenario where a cop can legitimately defend themselves or others with lethal force.

I'm sure there are any number of times a person had a gun and was taken without being killed. So what? What does that have to do with the reasonableness of reacting with deadly force when a weapon is discharged at an officer? You say it was "a stolen taser." This is true. But why do you think it's unreasonable for the officer to have reacted with deadly force? In an instant, Brooks turned back and pointed something at the officer and discharged it. Why are you expecting the officer to assume it wasn't a gun? Why are you expecting the officer to assume he is not going to be incapacitated by another discharge of a taser? In a fraction of a second. Why are you expecting him to risk his life on those assumptions? Would you?

I brought up the taser not being "significant" to illustrate their use, along side other less-lethal weapons, against Americans not even involved in a crime the past few weeks. That it's a bit much to present that as a "and that's why he was shot" without expecting a few raised eyebrows.

I don't care about your eyebrows. Let me make this perfectly clear for you, in case the last three times weren't enough: what other people are doing a continent away has NOTHING AT ALL to do with whether or not shooting Brooks was reasonable. What is it about that fact you don't understand?

Hunting brass before rendering aid because, you know, range training. smh

I didn't say it was right, I said it was plausible. And it hasn't even been established that it happened.

Get a hold of macbeth to see if we can get a gofundme going for your comments here. He's in charge of bf2s accounts.

No. I don't care. If someone else figures it out, I'll consider it. But I'm not going to take the initiative because, like I said, I don't care.

And you probably can't afford me anyway.

2020-06-21 07:24:13

#2583

uziq: Member; +497|3711

i think any officer involved in a shooting should have thorough psychological vetting after the incident, to make sure they are not 'burnt out', that their training is adequate, that they have not grown desensitized or dehumanized in the course of their duty, etc. the previous shooting incident involving the two officers should have been occasion for a serious review of their fitness to serve on active duty.

instead, the department shushed it, covered it up, hid and evaded the proper paperwork. the judge was shocked by the flagrancy and 'chaos' of it. rather than trying to review the officers' fitness, the police force circled around their own, adopted a defensive posture. now, no surprises, those two officers are again involved in a shooting, this time a lethal one.

why were they so swiftly returned to duty? why are we talking about things like 'training scars'? a life has been taken, that's as serious as it gets.

the level of cop-killings in the US would suggest that there is a serious problem in the training of the police, or perhaps even a systemic problem in the culture and sociology of policing itself. viewing the populace as 'enemies' or 'targets', thinking about asserting 'dominance' etc, just makes the police seem like a semi-militarized occupying force. the whole business of policing seems thoroughly dehumanized; your insistence on process is a part of that. your attention to detail continually highlights the probity and reasonability of the police, and always finds the deceased in error. every alarm-bell that is raised about the police's conduct and history you conveniently explain away, or abstract away from the immediately pressing legal requirement of proving 'reasonability'. but the mental state, training, past behaviour of the police, etc. DO matter; it's about more than dissecting the actus reus and mens rea of the incident.

you have similar levels of cop-killing as a destabilized central american country. as developing nations. as ex-military dictatorships. it's not even close to other western nations of comparable stature. what is going wrong? instead you quibble and say 'hah! your chart doesn't include statistics for asian-americans, it's flawed data'. O K.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-21 07:34:13)

2020-06-21 10:45:20

#2584

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7031|PNW

That "so what" and "I don't care" paints a rather conclusive looking picture in terms of callous disregard and disconnect from the public.

What a lost cause.

2020-06-21 13:21:04

#2585

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +643|3979

How do you guys feel about police academies? I spoke to several cops and the academies are more like military style boot camps than academic institutions. I guess there needs to be a certain level of toughing up recruits but do we really need to put potential cops through that sort of repressive system instead of a system more like college?

2020-06-21 13:52:21

#2586

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,741|6996|Cinncinatti

Friend went to one and yea it was more like bootcamp in that Simpsons episode. He did get a 2 year degree before though.

2020-06-21 14:28:15

#2587

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5617|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:
How do you guys feel about police academies? I spoke to several cops and the academies are more like military style boot camps than academic institutions. I guess there needs to be a certain level of toughing up recruits but do we really need to put potential cops through that sort of repressive system instead of a system more like college?

Yes. The job is very physical.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2020-06-21 15:13:04

#2588

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +643|3979

That's not what I meant by boot camp style. I am talking more about the culture and environment. From what I understand it is a meat head locker room environment. I am not saying the thing needs to be like college but perhaps it should be more of an academic learning environment than an U.S. Army boot camp. We can't really be surprised when cops have an urban commando mindset when we use the same training system we train infantry for.

I keep making comparisons between my teacher training and certification and police stuff. It seems like police have built up a system that encourages a certain personality type while also discouraging more thoughtful people. And the results show.

2020-06-21 15:20:47

#2589

uziq: Member; +497|3711

the US police seems like the worst of both worlds. they have a para-military outlook but without any of the discipline, rigour and ultimately accountability of the military.

2020-06-21 15:48:56

#2590

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5617|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:
That's not what I meant by boot camp style. I am talking more about the culture and environment. From what I understand it is a meat head locker room environment. I am not saying the thing needs to be like college but perhaps it should be more of an academic learning environment than an U.S. Army boot camp. We can't really be surprised when cops have an urban commando mindset when we use the same training system we train infantry for.

I keep making comparisons between my teacher training and certification and police stuff. It seems like police have built up a system that encourages a certain personality type while also discouraging more thoughtful people. And the results show.

Police departments purposely don't hire people that are too smart. Smart people get bored easily and are more likely to become corrupt. They want cops that are at roughly the same intelligence level as the criminals they chase. This is all by design. Trying to turn police academies into academic teacher's colleges, which are designed for women, is laughable. Most of them study criminal justice for at least two years before taking the test. That's the best that could be expected.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2020-06-21 15:59:25

#2591

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +643|3979

How is a smart person more likely to be corrupt? More likely to question policy and the mission? Sure. But stealing and taking bribes? No. And I don't think police departments try to hire dumb people on purpose. I think the culture and hiring practices around the entire institution just encourages the applying and hiring of meat heads.

And teacher colleges I guess are more suited to women and men who deal well with people. But between police and teachers, only one institution is having their competency and fundamental role in society questioned and it isn't the teachers.

2020-06-21 16:02:38

#2592

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +643|3979

I needed a 4 year degree to even begin the process and certification to become a teacher which in the end requires a master's degree worth of work. Why is it acceptable that I have to go through all of that to talk to kids about World War 1 meanwhile people with the power of life and death on their hips can best be expected to get an associate's degree in a bull shit field like criminal justice?

2020-06-21 16:56:17

#2593

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,741|6996|Cinncinatti

Skip both and become school security

2020-06-21 17:05:32

#2594

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5617|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:
How is a smart person more likely to be corrupt? More likely to question policy and the mission? Sure. But stealing and taking bribes? No. And I don't think police departments try to hire dumb people on purpose. I think the culture and hiring practices around the entire institution just encourages the applying and hiring of meat heads.

And teacher colleges I guess are more suited to women and men who deal well with people. But between police and teachers, only one institution is having their competency and fundamental role in society questioned and it isn't the teachers.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go … 3fid=95836

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2020-06-21 17:07:13

#2595

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5617|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:
I needed a 4 year degree to even begin the process and certification to become a teacher which in the end requires a master's degree worth of work. Why is it acceptable that I have to go through all of that to talk to kids about World War 1 meanwhile people with the power of life and death on their hips can best be expected to get an associate's degree in a bull shit field like criminal justice?

Ask your union. Those requirements are barriers to entry designed to keep the number of qualified teachers down so wages can keep going up.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2020-06-21 17:11:25

#2596

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +643|3979

Jay wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
How is a smart person more likely to be corrupt? More likely to question policy and the mission? Sure. But stealing and taking bribes? No. And I don't think police departments try to hire dumb people on purpose. I think the culture and hiring practices around the entire institution just encourages the applying and hiring of meat heads.

And teacher colleges I guess are more suited to women and men who deal well with people. But between police and teachers, only one institution is having their competency and fundamental role in society questioned and it isn't the teachers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go … 3fid=95836

I have heard the case before. The article says nothing about corruption.

2020-06-21 17:58:00

#2597

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5617|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:
Jay wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
How is a smart person more likely to be corrupt? More likely to question policy and the mission? Sure. But stealing and taking bribes? No. And I don't think police departments try to hire dumb people on purpose. I think the culture and hiring practices around the entire institution just encourages the applying and hiring of meat heads.

And teacher colleges I guess are more suited to women and men who deal well with people. But between police and teachers, only one institution is having their competency and fundamental role in society questioned and it isn't the teachers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go … 3fid=95836
I have heard the case before. The article says nothing about corruption.

I read it somewhere along the way, shrug. 99.9% of being a cop is being able to handle mindless tedium.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2020-06-21 19:23:58

#2598

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7031|PNW

SuperJail Warden wrote:
How do you guys feel about police academies? I spoke to several cops and the academies are more like military style boot camps than academic institutions. I guess there needs to be a certain level of toughing up recruits but do we really need to put potential cops through that sort of repressive system instead of a system more like college?

Years ago my dad passed down an anecdote about one of his college friends leaving because the culture there gave him the heebie jeebies.

If the 1984 film of the same name, I think it was one of the better cop movies made.

2020-06-21 21:21:23

#2599

HollisHurlbut: Member; +51|6257

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That "so what" and "I don't care" paints a rather conclusive looking picture in terms of callous disregard and disconnect from the public.

What a lost cause.

Oh, please. The "so what" is in response to your constant attempts to inject irrelevant points. The "I don't care" simply refers to my level of giving-a-shit about being some kind of official BF2S use-of-force commentator.

You're really stretching here.

2020-06-22 01:09:56

#2600

Larssen: Member; +99|2147

Jay wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
I needed a 4 year degree to even begin the process and certification to become a teacher which in the end requires a master's degree worth of work. Why is it acceptable that I have to go through all of that to talk to kids about World War 1 meanwhile people with the power of life and death on their hips can best be expected to get an associate's degree in a bull shit field like criminal justice?
Ask your union. Those requirements are barriers to entry designed to keep the number of qualified teachers down so wages can keep going up.

Educated teachers is a barrier to entry what

BF2S Forums Race relations thread

uziq wrote:

uziq wrote:

uziq wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Board footer