Nonsense? Lol go fuck yourself

"of those who were black 85% were armed."

There are two problems with this statement. 1) police officers have a very loose definition of 'armed'. According to most police departments in America, having common and generally innocuous household items like pens, screwdrivers, and toy guns makes a police homicide victim 'armed' and therefore deserving of death. Second, this discounts the very common practice of planting guns or other weapons on the police homicide victim after they are killed. "85% were armed" is really just what the police claim, which the economist dutifuly repeats as fact without any kind of critical examination.

Tolstoy, you're not allowed to dispute the police in a police state, don't you know that?

It is hardly nonsense. Citing the Washington Post, rather than the Guardian tally is already one tip off that The Economist is going to throw a slant here. Even so, it concedes that the US justice system needs to be less racist, less violent and more effective. Since that's what BLM is aiming for, they're hardly wrong.

US police kill more people every day than UK police have killed in the last three years combined. Although drug use rates are comparable among blacks and whites, blacks are four times more likely to be arrested, and conviction rates are even more disporportionate. Black potential jurors are thrown off juries at 3 times the rate of white panelists. And on and on. There is absolutely no question that the justice system is profoundly and systemically racist. That The Economist cites the notion that soaring crime rates and drug use fueled an increase in incarceration rates ignores the fact that the "get tough on crime" approach appealed because in the white imagination it was black men who'd be imprisoned. And so they have.

Finally, BLM has gotten solid plans out of the three main Democratic candidates and meetings with them. That's a very solid record of effectiveness for such a recent movement. Clearly, no one on The Economist's editorial board has ever tried running a campaign or they'd be a lot more impressed.

So, the only people who have "pointed out" that BLM is "nonsense" are pretty much the racists and white supremacists who helped institute this foul system in the first place.

This movement is complete rubbish. Let's take a look at their "demands", number ONE:

"We will seek justice for Brown’s family by petitioning for the immediate arrest of officer Darren Wilson and the dismissal of county prosecutor Robert McCullough. Groups that are part of the local Hands Up Don’t Shoot Coalition have already called for Wilson’s swift arrest, and some BLM riders also canvassed McCullough’s neighborhood as a way of raising the public’s awareness of the case."

Hmm.... let me see... in a 300 million country with what I also admit seems to be a significant issue between minorities and majorities / pluralities they took one specific case. What case would I pick?

Hmm....

1. Well, first of all, I'd pick a case where the element of racism was present beyond a shred of doubt. In other words, where it wasn't just a matter of a white officer shooting a black person, but a white officer shooting a black person *with very strong indications if not PROOF that the officer, at some level, had racist motives.* If you call your movement "black lives matter," then certainly you'd want the poster case to be a clearly racist assault.

2. I'd pick a case where the victim did not have a criminal record and certainly did not commit a crime that same day. There shouldn't be strong elements of provocation in the victim's behavior.

3. I'd pick a case with clear *facts.* Video, photographs, indisputable evidence that the victim was - in all imaginable ways - a victim.

Then, if I'd found my case, I'd...

4. ...be careful on what I'd demand. I'd formulate demands everybody could agree on. "An investigation of the shooting." "An investigation of the police department responsible for this area." Etc..

So... let's see what happened.

1. No evidence of the police officer being a racist that I know off.
2. The victim had committed a crime *EARLIER THAT DAY* (!!!!!!!!!!)
3. From the wikipedia page on this event "Witness reports differed as to what Brown was doing with his hands when he was shot, but no credible witness said that he had his hands up in surrender."

And let's see what BLM demands:

"...We will seek justice for Brown’s family by petitioning for the immediate arrest of officer Darren Wilson and the dismissal of county prosecutor Robert McCullough."

In other words, justice for Brown, mob rule for Darren Wilson and Robert McCullough.

It would all be hilarious if it wasn't so incredibly sad.

I read the article which linked to a really good speech Obama made to the NAACP. I think Obama takes a reasonable approach to this contentious issue. As a black American who has moved beyond anger in an effort to solve the problem, his views are particularly relevant. Whatever you think of his policies, you should give this a read.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/14/remarks-president-naacp-conference

White Lives Matter too. more than black lives in fact

@James, I'm not sure if that's a joke of not. But comments like that joking or not really aren't acceptable on this site. Please avoid degrading statements about groups of people.

Thanks,
WebDip Admin

To clarify, that statement, whether a joke or not, is in very bad taste about a terribly sensitive subject. It is unwelcoming to any black members in our community.

And to anyone with any sort of regard for other human beings. ^

Can we just ban his racist ass?

I'm still trying to figure out what part of that was supposed to be funny. As a fan of dark, offensive humor, I generally try to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to jokes but that was just brazen and tactless. Shame.

wow my apologies absolutely, and Yoyoyozo it is a play on words given the title of the thread.

Ogion, calm your rope

And I wasn't trying to justify it to be clear

Im sorry James, the community has spoken into the volcano you go. Let me help you.

Terrible play of words and sentiment, Yanik

Anyways.

I feel like we've had a thousand threads leading up to replica arguments on the same ideas behind racism and police shootings, even the organization's flaws and I was reading everyone's comments and all the articles and getting bored at the repetition and senseless circles of arguments.

I should have been serious instead of my vulgar, or have muted the thread and left it alone

It is a terrible sentiment. Black people have endured centuries of beatings, torture, harrassment, violence, summary executions and terrorism in the US. What you stated is I guess is the de facto attitude in the US, which is why #blacklivesmatter even exists. Frankly, if you were to come in here flying the confederate battle flag or wearing a hood, I'd recommend banning, because it is high time that the racist fuckers among us be taken out behind the shed and given a good beating. I am sick to death of the stupid crap that the US has going on and the level of which so many white people condone it.

Makes some sense that you were just trying to be snarky, James, but it was incredibly tone deaf. I will calm it when we don't have incredibly racist institutions and it is socially acceptable to offer support for that. In the meantime, I'm going to leave no doubt just how reprehensible such attitudes are. I'm not going to be polite about it anymore, here or anywhere else.

redhouse, since when is being a criminal and/or (allegedly) committing a crime that day a forfeiture of the right not to be lethally assaulted? Criminals have rights too. This sort of callous, racist (given that white people are charged with felonies a lot less) disregard appalls me.

Yes, the court case was muddled, yes, there were other examples the movement could have used, but that's exactly the thing, they have. It's a social movement, with as yet no clear leaders - certainly politicians are reacting to it on both sides, and civil rights groups support it, but there is no leader to it. So, it's not using one single example, and in as much as it has a single aim, it is to get cops to stop murdering black people so much.

I am amazed that people trust police forces that have clearly betrayed that trust by lying and use of excessive force, time and again. In the recent riots in Ferguson, the police used chemical weapons that they had quite obviously had prepared for this specific eventuality. They knew that there would be demonstrations. The only things they made sure of was that this time, they would tell people they would be gassed before gassing them. The police believes it is in a state of open war with the citizens, and act accordingly. That makes them an occupying army, not a police force.

Does the right of a person to live depend on the color of their skin? Doesn't that seem a bit absurd?

Well as the thread opener I would accept JY's apology to the extent that it's about ruining harmonious debate, although it would be good if JY asks the mods if the comment could be removed from the site. It should not be here and certainly not in my thread.

Time to move away from JY and other racist sentiments and have a rational discussion on BLM.

Who has something new? I thought Tolstoy's points were pretty good, also some other points I read. I'm firmly anti the BLM-movement. I'm firmly pro the BLM sentiment in the broadest sense: that western countries should always debate how to treat those that have less means of defending themselves from harm.

@phil

"redhouse, since when is being a criminal and/or (allegedly) committing a crime that day a forfeiture of the right not to be lethally assaulted?"

It most certainly isn't. And what happened that day, should never have happened. And even if the robbery had already happened, then the (vaguely related) shooting shouldn't have happened.

But in this case, there is no proof that there was a "lethal assault" as I understand it. The shooting seemed part of a struggle. And again, the "racist element": I believe you if you say there is a strong element of racism in America's criminal justice system, it's just that in this particular case I don't see it. Which makes me thing this movement is very eye-for-an-eye. A modern day Martin-Luther-King-club it is certainly not.

Well, okay, in that case, what alternative do you see to the BLM movement that would actually achieve something positive? Achieving it through political action, pressuring politicians is a thing they are already doing, but it has limited effect, because politicians have little means or will to control the police, particularly those that depend on their votes. Passive resistance is hard in this situation, because there is nothing the victims can do or refuse to do effectively. A sit-in protest in front of the police garage would be effective - at preventing the police from maintaining order, which is not a thing anyone wants. Active resistance is rioting, and it gets them a negative picture in the media. Doing nothing at all preserves the status quo.

I'll answer that, but I feel I'm already too present and will let some other people talk.

I think that sometimes you Americans would benefit from looking at communities outside your own country.

From my POV you really ought not to focus on race here. Your justice system is injustice in so many ways that it's hard to tell you were to start making it right.

For starters, there is the way your policemen arrest citizens, then there is how they interrogate arrested citizens, then there's your whole juridical system - I don't even wanna start on this - not to mention your how threat people who have been judged guilty.

As soon as a policeman thinks a person might be guilty he is treated inhumane.

I do think that the Brown case is a somewhat unfortunate poster case for the movement, but I think one should distinguish between having an unfortunate poster case and being a nonsense movement. Fortunately, the movement has been able to get attention despite the bad facts of that case, and to focus on other, more obvious cases of unjustified police brutality.

Part of me thinks it's a little bit unfortunate that this has happened in such a way as to occlude the fact that police brutality is a problem in general, and not at all just against black people; but it seems to be necessary to highlight what is a worse problem for that community, so overall I'm glad that it is getting all this focus. The biggest challenge, I think, will be to see if the results can be positive change and not just ineffective and inarticulate anger (which is not always aimed at the right targets).

There should not be a community in this country that feels they cannot trust police not to kill or abuse them. While there is, we must work to change that.

@semck (and per my response to semck, I respond to phil)

"I think one should distinguish (...) nonsense movement."
-I disagree. I'm a busy man. No good poster, no good movement. Sorry.

"Fortunately, the movement (...) police brutality"
-They really haven't. The CNN cameras focused on obvious cases of unjustified police brutality. BLM is getting in the way shifting focus to cases where the justification of such brutality is a colossal question mark.

"There should not be a community (...) to change that."
I disagree. I'm a white person with nothing to fear and I sometimes (*gasp*) get stopped by a police officer when driving. My first response (*gasp*) is fear. Fear for having overlooked a sign. Fear for my name popping up in a computer for some bill I forgot to pay. Etc.

This is the healthy reflex when someone with the law and the gun on his side pulls you over or arrests you.

I say this with all due respect and this may be overly European or white of me to say, but the hostility one often sees in America toward law enforcement officers is much more shocking to me than what we've seen so far in terms of the reverse.