Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

I hope the GOP fields as many candidates as possible. A fractured republican party is, in my mind, ideal. The only downside is I really do not think that the wife of the man who signed in the housing deregulation should be president. In fact, the only democrat I'd vote for now is Liz Warren.

[RedKing]

I for one think that the focus on 'police v. black' is a great tool to address general police brutality. From what I understand of the American psyche (Keep in mind I'm a filthy Eurotrash socialist here), police shooting criminals isn't exactly frowned upon.

By pointing out that Black Americans are killed out of proportion, it highlight that the killings are not justified (Otherwise, you'd expect equal-opportunity murder), that the killing are a problem, and not just criminals getting shot.

The solutions offered (more training, body camera, better oversight...) are in any way race-neutral (because everyone knows that "abolish racism in PD" is not a feasable policy goal.) so everyone benefit from the focus on police v. blacks.

Unfortunately, what happens in the minds of many is this:

1. Cops shoot criminals. That's part of their job (it's *not* their job, but the general population still thinks in terms of the Wild West sheriff in a lot of ways).
2. Cops are shooting lots more black people.
3. Ergo, black people must be predominantly criminals.

And if you're already tending towards racist attitudes to begin with, this line of reasoning is self-reinforcing. And a big part of why some people try so very hard to blame the person killed by police.





As regards the election, I'm grudgingly resigned to the fact that Hillary is going to win the nomination, barring an unexpected health issue. I'll still vote for Sanders if he hasn't dropped out by the time the primaries get to NC (we're one of the last to vote). Or maybe I'll vote in the GOP primary and cast my vote for Adolf McCrazypants, just to wreak havoc.

[Reelya]

You'll get more leverage by pointing out cases where cops taser or shoot kids or burn babies with flash grenades, or shoot cripples in their own home for refusing to come out of the bathroom or somesuch. Basically point out how nothing happens to the cops in any of these situations where you can't conceivably label the victim a potential criminal.

[Frumple]

You'd think, but media manages anyway.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[nenjin]

You'll get more leverage by pointing out cases where cops taser or shoot kids or burn babies with flash grenades, or shoot cripples in their own home for refusing to come out of the bathroom or somesuch. Basically point out how nothing happens to the cops in any of these situations where you can't conceivably label the victim a potential criminal.

The problem I have with this is it's an easy out for people; oh sure, cop does horrible things to a child, that's horrible. But cops do horrible things to a homeless man with schizophrenia, or a black man guilty of some misdemeanors? Well, now it's time to equivocate.

The country needs to start taking the things cops do against even criminals more seriously, instead of just paying attention to the instances where they're not challenged in their views. I'm really sick of the knee jerk "They deserved it" attitudes that surface when police beat and/or kill an older black male.

Black people should just stay out of the police violence issue entirely. It's for their own good; they're just too easy to stereotype.

That's kind of an example of what I'm talking about. Thinking about a black person (and let's go with your stereotypical black person) as they relate to the interaction they had with law enforcement, it's simply easier to wish they didn't get involved, and deal with an issue that is more clear cut. Yet it's exactly that kind of hesitation in wanting to take a side when a cop, for example, kicks the shit out of a weed dealer so bad he's in the hospital. Part of you wants to go "Yeah they were a criminal" and dismiss it because it's easier than saying "Even criminals have rights."

[GreatJustice]

Examples do not indicate indicate trends.  There are mountains of statistics regarding how much more likely minorities are to be subject to police violence.

I wonder if that's actually the case in states where minorities either aren't also the most impoverished in an area or aren't very common. I suspect police are more likely to overstep their boundaries when they think the victim is incapable of bringing abuses to the attention of someone in authority. Thus, in a lot of states where minorities are also the least influential, the police may be more willing to go after them (since they see a black person and think "impoverished" while they see a white person and think "potentially influential"), but in, say, rural Appalachia where the poorest tend to be white, those people are abused just as frequently as minorities are (but without any significant coverage). I wonder if any studies consider this possibility.

I posit that this is because there is simply more conflict to be had here.  White people get coverage and protest when they're wronged by police as well.  But it doesn't get as loud or last as long, because the backlash is less controversial.  When it happens to a black person, the offending officer can literally get rich off the support he'll receive for his actions, and the public scrutiny over whether or not the victim can be blamed in any way, shape, or form gives the media content that can be sensationalized to feed coverage for a much longer and more intense period.

I wonder about that. How much coverage did Kelly Thomas, James Boyd and Luis Rodriguez get that wasn't local? Anyhow, generally the perpetrators only get support after the case is publicized, and only then if there is some amount of ambiguity as to whether they were justified (as was the case with the Brown shooting). That doesn't change that they get off regardless of the race of their victim. Anyhow, Garner got plenty of coverage and there was very little that could be used to blame him for his death.

[Lord Shonus]

Update: the six officers have been formally charged, with the driver of the police van facing 60 years (30 on charges of murder, 10 each on manslaughter, assault, and vehicular manslaughter), and the remaining officers each face 10 for assault (presumably, the evidence suggests that his injuries were the result of the "rough ride" rather than any beating the other five might have given him. According to the news reports I've seen, more charges have been filed, but I've yet to see specifics on that. Warrants have been issued.

[SirQuiamus]

Baltimore

In 1980, 58-year old John Wheatfall broke his neck and became paralyzed during a ride to Baltimore's Southwestern District. Wheatfall was seated on a bench with his hands cuffed behind his back, when he was thrown to the floor and hit his head against the wall. Baltimore police vans did not have seatbelts at the time. The officer driving stated he had swerved to avoid an oncoming car, and an investigation did not find evidence of negligence. Wheatfall sued for $3 million, and was awarded $20,000 for his injury.[1]

In 2004, Jeffrey Alston was awarded $39 million after becoming paralyzed from the neck down as a result of a ride in a Baltimore police van.[1][2][7]

In 2005, Dondi Johnson Sr., a plumber, was arrested in Baltimore for public urination. Apparently uninjured at the time of his arrest, Johnson emerged from the police van paralyzed with a broken neck, and died two weeks later from pneumonia resulting from his injuries. Johnson stated he had been thrown face-first into the interior of the van during a sharp turn. His family sued the Baltimore police and were awarded $7.4 million, which was reduced to $219,000 under a cap imposed by Maryland state law.[1][7]

In 2012, Christine Abbott, a 27-year-old assistant librarian at Johns Hopkins University, was arrested at a party she was hosting at her home in Baltimore's Hampden neighborhood. She was handcuffed and put into a police van. Abbott later sued the officers in federal court, describing her ride as "like a roller coaster", and accusing the officers of braking short and taking "wide, fast turns" which slammed her into the walls. Police acknowledged that Abbot was not buckled in during her ride.[1][2][7]

The "rough ride" practice has been suggested as a factor in the 2015 death of Freddie Gray.[1][7] Gray was arrested on April 12, and was conscious and able to speak before being placed into a police van.[1] Following a 30 minute ride, Gray was comatose and not breathing.[1] He was treated at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center of the University of Maryland Hospital, where his spinal cord was found to be 80% severed, an injury typical of a serious car accident.[1][7] Gray died a week after his arrest.[1] Medical experts say Gray may have sustained a neck injury during his arrest which could have been exacerbated accidentally during his transport.[1][7] Police acknowledged that Gray was not buckled in, contrary to departmental policy.[1][2][7]

FUCK.

[Reelya]

Considering the practice has cost the city of Baltimore over $40 million in compensation, this is basically the cops completely thinking they're above the law and that the city funds are monopoly money that they can blow for some evil lulz.

So it's about time they were held accountable. It's not just racism, it's costing all taxpayers massively to turn a blind eye.

We need VanCam for all police vans. Stamp this stupid nasty stuff out. The cameras will be a good investment if they prevent another multi-million dollar compensation payout.

[mainiac]

Black people should just stay out of the police violence issue entirely. It's for their own good; they're just too easy to stereotype. The only way to really make progress is to make this issue into white people talking to white people about white people.

So the answer to systematic racism is to shut up and wait?  Y'know I think they tried that approach already.

[Frumple]

but in, say, rural Appalachia where the poorest tend to be white, those people are abused just as frequently as minorities are (but without any significant coverage). I wonder if any studies consider this possibility.

I can pretty much tell you, having lived in areas like that my whole life that, no, the police don't come down on poor whites like they do on poor minorities, even when the minorities are basically nonexistent in an area. Not even remotely. Instead you see things like those poor whites getting away entirely with things like drug trafficking and pedophilia while the cops and much of the local and state legal system pointedly look in the other direction, while poor blacks get the shit beat out of them for being in the wrong place doing absolutely nothing illegal -- I've seen blacks dragged bodily out of their vehicles for no reason whatsoever, while whites drunk, belligerent, and violent get treated with kid gloves and warnings at most.

Won't say it's not possible it's different in other areas of the country, but for the southeastern panhandle area -- just slightly south of the Appalachia region -- yeah, no. Here, there's not even a systematic abuse excuse, it's outright goddamn racism mixed with good-ol'-boy bullshit.

[Owlbread]

Don't make me do a drive-by opinion on Scottish/UK politics, lol.

Drive-by opinions are great, they bump threads and keep them on the front page and stimulate interesting debate. Go for it.

Also, a fun fact that can be associated with Appalachia/racism discussions - the insult "cracker" may come from the Scots (and also Gaelic/Irish word) "craic", meaning good conversation/humour/banter, or in Elizabethan England bad/loud conversation. Just the other day I texted a good friend of mine discussing the previous night's gaming session with the message "Ken min it wis guid craic, eh?" - "Indeed man, it was good fun, wasn't it?"

Evidently African Americans either used the word themselves (many were Gaelic speakers or were familiar with Scots due to their attendance at Scottish churches, thanks to all those Scottish slave owners) and applied it to white Southerners, or heard them repeatedly saying the word "craic" (as Ulster Scots, Scots and Irishmen often do) and called them that as a result.

Hillbilly is also suggested to have Scottish or Ulster-Scots roots - either in the expression "Billy boy", a follower of King William (now meaning hardline Rangers FC Fan) or a "Billy" (a gentleman) who lives in the hills. Similarly "redneck" in a Scottish/Northern Irish context historically referred to the Cameronians, followers of an extreme religious sect who wore red neckscarves for identification. Many fled to America in the early 1700s.

[SirQuiamus]

Black people should just stay out of the police violence issue entirely. It's for their own good; they're just too easy to stereotype. The only way to really make progress is to make this issue into white people talking to white people about white people.

So the answer to systematic racism is to shut up and wait?  Y'know I think they tried that approach already.

I'm detecting a [sarcasm] tag in Penguin's post.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The difference between Appalachia and inter-city black communities is that the entirety of the local power structure in Appalachia is controlled by the same poor people who commit all the crimes. Everybody is all very buddy buddy and have universal disrespect for laws other than their own. There are virtually no non-white people in these areas.

Inter-city black communities, on the other hand, are intermingling with white communities and the police are kept to the federal line.