The Politics Thread 2020

[Eddie]

13 minutes ago, maxjam said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/26/black-suspects-more-likely-to-be-shot-by-black-cop/

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-white-police-officers-minorities.html

"We found that the race of the officer doesn't matter when it comes to predicting whether black or white citizens are shot," Cesario said. "If anything, black officers are more likely to shoot black citizens, but this is because black officers are drawn from the same population that they police. So, the more black citizens in a community, the more black police officers there are."

The data show that it's not racial bias on behalf of white officers relative to black officers when it comes to fatal shootings, and that's good news. The bad news, Cesario said, are that internal policy changes, such as diversifying police forces, may not reduce shootings of minority citizens.

So systemic bias as opposed to racism, probably based upon the assumption that police officers in general make that non-police black people are more likely to be up to no good.

Thanks.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

25 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

It's a complete mess. I echo Needlesh's comment - I'm glad I live in this country and not that one. Police, racism involved or not, kill too many innocent people. Allowing members of the public to carry a concealed weapon is guaranteed to escalate those instances where police have to respond and they have no idea what's in the offender's pocket. But to kneel on a man's neck, while his partner stands on his back, while paramedics and onlookers beg them to release their hold, while the man pisses himself and dies begging for his life and his mother - is inhuman, is a disgrace and should be viewed for the barbarity it is. For the government to come out in support of that behaviour, to lack any empathy for why communities are in arms and lashing out, is equally inhuman. And the saddest part is, a big enough part of the voting public don't care enough to vote for something else. The perception is there's only one option other than Donald Trump, and the Democrats are worse than what they have right now.

Of course America isn't on the same scale as Russia, or China, or Saudi Arabia or a host of other countries. But those countries are famed for their lack of compassion towards human life, their lack of any interest in the wellbeing of its citizens. But America isn't on the same level as Europe or a multitude of comparatively safe, open democracies where you can live safe in the knowledge that the establishment isn't going to stand on your neck until you die of asphyxiation - no matter how much of a scrote you are and how bad the crime you committed is.

Its tragic - but the bigger tragedy is the lack of interest in offering an alternative.

Read the autobiography of Tricky recently . For those who don't know him.  He was formerly in the group Massive Attack and has done a variety of solo stuff over the years.  His heritage is mixed race and he basically grew up in what he calls a white ghetto in Bristol. He reckons he had no racism issues growing up there.  However his teacher told him never to put ' Knowle West as his place of residence on a job application, he would get no where'. The bloke has lived all over the world in some right shitty places. Reckons he loves Russia and the stuff in the papers is mainly hyperbole.  He had to carry a gun in LA caused by overuse of drugs and paranoia. He believes elitism and the class system is often mistaken for racism ie people being stopped going into fancy restaurants, business class and in a similar situation most  people black or white would be treated like crap based on appearance and dress. He also believes by far the most racially split and nationalistic country he lived in was France .  Well worth a read if you want a good all round view of someone whose been most places and is quite nomadic.

 

 

[maxjam]

23 minutes ago, Eddie said:

So systemic bias as opposed to racism, probably based upon the assumption that police officers in general make that non-police black people are more likely to be up to no good.

Thanks.

How you reached that conclusion from the study is beyond me.

Lets not forget that 90-95% of people shot were actively attacking a police officer or member of the public - which according to the number of people shot to death by police last year leaves approx 20 black compared to 35 white deaths that you could perhaps argue police were making judgment calls and whether shooting was a necessary act.

[King Kevin]

Not sure if it's been picked up on here but the two may have known each other .They both worked as bouncers at the same club for a time although it is not definite they came into direct contact over the period they were both there. 

[TramRam]

21 minutes ago, King Kevin said:

Not sure if it's been picked up on here but the two may have known each other .They both worked as bouncers at the same club for a time although it is not definite they came into direct contact over the period they were both there. 

More about this here, Also Chauvins record as a police officer.

https://www.boston25news.com/news/trending/minneapolis-club-owner-george-floyd-ex-cop-derek-chauvin-both-worked-security-club/TC5SDA3VBRC7XNGO74HRN4OYEQ/

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Although he wasn't arrested - only cited for breaking state law and was only handcuffed after he refused to give his name and was abusive towards the officer;

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/11/us/bart-san-francisco-man-detained-sandwich/index.html

Unfortunately the video doesn't show the officer walking past other (white) people eating, but if he did and specifically targetted the black guy then I would agree that would have been racist. 

Not sure of the need for libtard or blah-di-blah, given the delicate nature of the subject I think everyone is commenting very reasonably.

Yeah OK, fair point - but the point I'm lampooning is that there always seems to be some loophole, or angle to come back with that deflects from the issue being discussed.

Case in point - you're immediate comeback is that he wasn't technically "arrested". Just cited for breaking state law and handcuffed (and the officer uses the words "detained" in the video) - but because there is a small legal difference between these things and being "arrested" - you try an debunk the post. Like the most important thing is to get one over on me for being a "lib" who dares to empathise with a minority

I won't even go into the victim blaming ("only handcuffed because he was abusive") - we all watched the video. He wasn't being abusive - he was just standing up for himself against racist cops.

[TramRam]

25 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Yeah OK, fair point - but the point I'm lampooning is that there always seems to be some loophole, or angle to come back with that deflects from the issue being discussed.

Case in point - you're immediate comeback is that he wasn't technically "arrested". Just cited for breaking state law and handcuffed (and the officer uses the words "detained" in the video) - but because there is a small legal difference between these things and being "arrested" - you try an debunk the post. Like the most important thing is to get one over on me for being a "lib" who dares to empathise with a minority

I won't even go into the victim blaming ("only handcuffed because he was abusive") - we all watched the video. He wasn't being abusive - he was just standing up for himself against racist cops.

The officer clearly states "you're resisting arrest" then comes the reply "i'm not resisting arrest" Now i'm not mystic Meg or blessed with hindsight, My guess is those Cops decided Oooops we best step back from this, And change "Arrest" too "Cited"

[Norman]

4 hours ago, maxjam said:

The white victims or the black victims?  Or both?

According to the research carried out by Michigan State University the vast majority (between 90% and 95%) of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot and 90% were armed with a weapon when they were shot.

I personally don't think anyone deserves lethal force to be used against them but if you're put in a situation that leaves you with no choice but to kill an attacker to save the victim then so be it.

I know in my job it is a human right to defend myself or other loss of life. If I can justify it, I could potentially kill someone with no repercussions apart from a nasty visit to a coroners court and a bad case of PTSD.

duck being in that position and making a justifiable decision in 2 seconds. Horrible position to be put in. Would hate to be a copper in the States. 

[maxjam]

45 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Yeah OK, fair point - but the point I'm lampooning is that there always seems to be some loophole, or angle to come back with that deflects from the issue being discussed.

Case in point - you're immediate comeback is that he wasn't technically "arrested". Just cited for breaking state law and handcuffed (and the officer uses the words "detained" in the video) - but because there is a small legal difference between these things and being "arrested" - you try an debunk the post. Like the most important thing is to get one over on me for being a "lib" who dares to empathise with a minority

I won't even go into the victim blaming ("only handcuffed because he was abusive") - we all watched the video. He wasn't being abusive - he was just standing up for himself against racist cops.

TBH I didn't watch the video (until just).  I read the article in which CNN reported he was being abusive. 

After watching the video though there is an edit between a minor confrontation and the police officer putting handcuffs on him.  Maybe it served the agenda better to cut the homophobic slurs out?  Maybe they cut them out so the video wouldn't be banned on youtube?  Maybe CNN got it wrong?  Although they don't usually shy away from pushing a narrative. 

There was also no evidence of the cop being racist in the video, that allegation comes from him ignoring white people eating food which the video doesn't show.  I'm not saying it didn't happen, its just not shown in the video.

I'll be the first to admit that I always go looking for another angle, thats because I don't trust the media - or any single source for that matter, everyone has an agenda to push.   IMO the more data you can get in from as wider viewpoints as possible, the more rounded the picture you will see.

With regards to police brutality I believe that narrowing it down to systemic oppression or racism is far to simplistic of an approach, no doubt it is a factor but only one factor of many.  IMO if you only follow the agenda pushed by the current leftist media it will only ever lead to further problems and division and the cycle will continue.

[GboroRam]

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

TBH I didn't watch the video (until just).  I read the article in which CNN reported he was being abusive. 

After watching the video though there is an edit between a minor confrontation and the police officer putting handcuffs on him.  Maybe it served the agenda better to cut the homophobic slurs out?  Maybe they cut them out so the video wouldn't be banned on youtube?  Maybe CNN got it wrong?  Although they don't usually shy away from pushing a narrative. 

There was also no evidence of the cop being racist in the video, that allegation comes from him ignoring white people eating food which the video doesn't show.  I'm not saying it didn't happen, its just not shown in the video.

I'll be the first to admit that I always go looking for another angle, thats because I don't trust the media - or any single source for that matter, everyone has an agenda to push.   IMO the more data you can get in from as wider viewpoints as possible, the more rounded the picture you will see.

With regards to police brutality I believe that narrowing it down to systemic oppression or racism is far to simplistic of an approach, no doubt it is a factor but only one factor of many.  IMO if you only follow the agenda pushed by the current leftist media it will only ever lead to further problems and division and the cycle will continue.

Which leftist media are you thinking about? The Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Express, the Sun, the Times?

[maxjam]

Just now, Norman said:

I know in my job it is a human right to defend myself or other loss of life. If I can justify it, I could potentially kill someone with no repercussions apart from a nasty visit to a coroners court and a bad case of PTSD.

Fucj being in that position and making a justifiable decision in 2 seconds. Horrible position to be put in. 

Agree entirely. 

Every day you wake up you know that potentially within a few hours you could be put in a life threatening situation that may result in you or another being killed.  Furthermore not making the correct judgement call in the spur of the moment could result in life changing consequences.

Absolutely not a job I'd want.  Respect to those that do the jobs the rest of us couldn't.

[GboroRam]

Just now, maxjam said:

Agree entirely. 

Every day you wake up you know that potentially within a few hours you could be put in a life threatening situation that may result in you or another being killed.  Furthermore not making the correct judgement call in the spur of the moment could result in life changing consequences.

Absolutely not a job I'd want.  Respect to those that do the jobs the rest of us couldn't.

Completely agree.

But it doesn't justify the kinds of, well, I can only describe it as murder, that we've witnessed on US streets.

[Norman]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

Which leftist media are you thinking about? The Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Express, the Sun, the Times?

Maybe he is on about American press. It is far more opinionated and divisive over there. I wouldnt know what to watch or who to trust. Probably none of them. 

[Norman]

2 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Completely agree.

But it doesn't justify the kinds of, well, I can only describe it as murder, that we've witnessed on US streets.

And nobody is using it to justify that. 

[maxjam]

15 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Which leftist media are you thinking about? The Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Express, the Sun, the Times?

I'm talking about American media so CNN, MSNBC, etc that have regularly pushed the far left agenda and play down Antifa's involvement.

Even Biden's staff are 'funding' Antifa;

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-biden-bail-idUSKBN2360SZ

despite being thought of as domestic terrorists for years by various government agencies;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/antifa-domestic-terrorists-us-security-agencies-homeland-security-fbi-a7927881.html

If Trump actually gets to designate Antifa as a terrorist group that puts leftist media and the Democrats in a very difficult situation - either admit they are and treat them accordingly or... we're one step closer to civil war.

[maxjam]

17 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

But it doesn't justify the kinds of, well, I can only describe it as murder, that we've witnessed on US streets.

Again I'd agree but thankfully George Floyd incidents are a rarity and the cop is looking at spending the rest of his life behind bars. 

IMO if the media reported such incidents in America with the same approach the UK media takes with grooming gangs for example that would go a long way to not seeing cities being torn apart by angry mobs

[Stive Pesley]

33 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I'll be the first to admit that I always go looking for another angle, thats because I don't trust the media - or any single source for that matter, everyone has an agenda to push.   IMO the more data you can get in from as wider viewpoints as possible, the more rounded the picture you will see.

Again -fair enough, but it does always come across as you looking for "more data" until it backs up your confirmation bias.

20 minutes ago, maxjam said:

If Trump actually gets to designate Antifa as a terrorist group that puts leftist media and the Democrats in a very difficult situation - either admit they are and treat them accordingly or... we're one step closer to civil war

Trump is such a moron he doesn't even realise that there is no US process for designating domestic terrorist organisations, only foreign ones. And to do so would open a whole can of first amendment worms.

That's before you even get into the fact that Antifa isn't a formal organisation.

Nor have they killed anyone

I'd have thought your critical thinking would have led you to conclude that there is a real danger that in trying to proscribe anti-fascist protest, you soon won't be able to protest anything at all

[Norman]

2 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Again -fair enough, but it does always come across as you looking for "more data" until it backs up your confirmation bias.

So why haven't you got confirmation bias? You look for data and post images etc from places I assume on exist on really boring political Twitter threads. 

But I'd have to look at the data to confirm my bias there.

[GboroRam]

1 hour ago, Norman said:

And nobody is using it to justify that. 

When I view the footage, my first thought isn't "Respect to those that do the jobs the rest of us couldn't". 

My first thought is, he was no threat. Why are you doing this? 

I fully accept the danger of being a police officer in the US. But the risk of walking in a dangerous area, or stopping a vehicle when you don't know if the driver is armed or not, is very different to the risk from a man who literally cannot move enough to breathe. 

Full sympathy for every officer who has to do the former, and yes, respect - it's a job I wouldn't want to do. But it is not what's under discussion here - and the dangerous elements of the job do not justify that kind of behaviour. 

[maxjam]

6 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Again -fair enough, but it does always come across as you looking for "more data" until it backs up your confirmation bias.

You're welcome to your opinion but I'd disagree with it.  My politics are a bit left and a bit right, I'd like to think I try and gather as much info as possible then make my mind up not work back from my existing opinion.

 

18 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Trump is such a moron he doesn't even realise that there is no US process for designating domestic terrorist organisations, only foreign ones. And to do so would open a whole can of first amendment worms.

I think the Republicans are going to try, where there's a will there's a way;

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/31/trump-antifa-terrorist-organization-legal-292785

 

8 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

That's before you even get into the fact that Antifa isn't a formal organisation.

Nor have they killed anyone

I'd have thought your critical thinking would have led you to conclude that there is a real danger that in trying to proscribe anti-fascist protest, you soon won't be able to protest anything at all

Antifa is a nasty organisation of cells that promotes anarchy.  Given your objection to anything remotely far-right I'm surprised that you haev any time what-so-ever for them.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nypds-terrorism-chief-says-unnamed-groups-planned-protest-violence-in-advance/2440722/

You won't find an awful lot of negative stuff about them in the usual places, as mentioned previously CNN etc have been lets say 'lightly reporting' their actions for a while.  Cross the threshold into more right leaning media and you may form a different opinion.  Alternatively you could watch some independent media such as Tim Pool on youtube, he's got a couple of channels on youtube and has done some very good stuff on Antifa.