[Billup]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

Makes it a moot point.

I don't think it's a moot point at all. That is what involuntary manslaughter is. I'm sorry but if someone is going to pose a threat to me personally, I'll do what I have to to ensure myself. If the end up on the losing end, that should not be my fault since I didn't instigate the initial interaction.

[P1]

Originally Posted by PINeely

Jesus Christ the comments on that article.

Where do you see the comments?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by P1et

Where do you see the comments?

The comments section at the bottom of that article is now gone.

If you want to imagine what it was like, think of the surprisingly respectful tone that this online discussion has managed to maintain, mostly bereft of nasty, inflammatory personal attacks.... and then picture something completely opposite of that.

[m3ray]

Originally Posted by P1et

Where do you see the comments?

The link for the comments was removed. A lot of KKK type comments. Typical.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

You probably shouldn't use the term "racist" until you actually understand what it means. His ideas may be discriminatory or prejudicial but they aren't racist. There is no way you could infer racism from what he wrote if you're using the term properly.

People really need to stop using that word incorrectly. A big part of the problem in racial issues is that people jump to using the term "racist" far too quickly and incorrectly. It is a far more inflammatory term that what is typically appropriate.

His suggestions were racist. P1et was making the suggestion that white cops should police whites and black cops should police blacks. It was saying we should have a "separate but equal" police force based on race. That pretty much by the book, paint by the numbers racist.

P1et was suggesting it facetiously, so FwdFtl wasn't really saying he was racist. He was acknowledging his glib, openly racist suggestion.

[P1]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

The comments section at the bottom of that article is now gone.

If you want to imagine what it was like, think of the surprisingly respectful tone that this online discussion has managed to maintain, mostly bereft of nasty, inflammatory personal attacks.... and then picture something completely opposite of that.

Originally Posted by m3ray

The link for the comments was removed. A lot of KKK type comments. Typical.

That's what I was afraid of...

[UncleWede]

When the ME uses the term homicide it means one person was directly responsible for the death of another. Malice is not determined by the ME nor are any other emotional content

The rear choke has been banned by NYPD sice 1999. That officer should at a bare minimum be reprimanded by the department.

The GJ is just a bunch of regular citizens who agree to make these decisions for a period of time

[pukicabuki]

Originally Posted by Devious21

His suggestions were racist. P1et was making the suggestion that white cops should police whites and black cops should police blacks. It was saying we should have a "separate but equal" police force based on race. That pretty much by the book, paint by the numbers racist.

P1et was suggesting it facetiously, so FwdFtl wasn't really saying he was racist. He was acknowledging his glib, openly racist suggestion.

Just because something involves race doesn't automatically make it racist. For something to be truly considered racist there needs to be a component of racial superiority. I don't see, in P1et's situation, that there is such a component. There could be but there wasn't enough said to draw such a drastic conclusion. You're flawed assumption is the "separate but equal" notion. You're assuming that the white/black police forces would in fact be separate, have separate chain of commands and work in parallel of each other. That is the only way that your "separate but equal" scenario is present.

People see what they want to see. You didn't stop and think about what P1et suggesting. You immediately saw segregation, when in fact there is no segregation. Think of police officers as tools in a tool bag at the police departments disposal. Why wouldn't you use the best tool for the job? If using black officers in black neighborhoods to help quell the distrust of law enforcement helps the situation then so be it. P1et was simply suggestion we attempt to remove the racial component from policing. Racial issues are at all time high in regards to law enforcement. Putting officers in neighborhoods where the population can best relate to them and feel comfortable interacting with them isn't racist. How is attempting to remove racial tension a racist act?

People are inherently bias and prejudice. Whether or not you accept or even admit that is irrelevant. There is enough data and study available that its essentially fact. Attempting to remove/minimize this inherent bias from situations can't be viewed as a bad thing because its possibly the only way to see improvement in racial tensions. Simply blurting out "RACIST!!!" in situations that don't warrant such a term does as much harm as actual racism.

[F1Venom]

I feel so angry every time race is brought up. Racism was pretty low when the race card wasn't constantly thrown about.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

Just because something involves race doesn't automatically make it racist. For something to be truly considered racist there needs to be a component of racial superiority. I don't see, in P1et's situation, that there is such a component. There could be but there wasn't enough said to draw such a drastic conclusion. You're flawed assumption is the "separate but equal" notion. You're assuming that the white/black police forces would in fact be separate, have separate chain of commands and work in parallel of each other. That is the only way that your "separate but equal" scenario is present.

People see what they want to see. You didn't stop and think about what P1et suggesting. You immediately saw segregation, when in fact there is no segregation. Think of police officers as tools in a tool bag at the police departments disposal. Why wouldn't you use the best tool for the job? If using black officers in black neighborhoods to help quell the distrust of law enforcement helps the situation then so be it. P1et was simply suggestion we attempt to remove the racial component from policing. Racial issues are at all time high in regards to law enforcement. Putting officers in neighborhoods where the population can best relate to them and feel comfortable interacting with them isn't racist. How is attempting to remove racial tension a racist act?

People are inherently bias and prejudice. Whether or not you accept or even admit that is irrelevant. There is enough data and study available that its essentially fact. Attempting to remove/minimize this inherent bias from situations can't be viewed as a bad thing because its possibly the only way to see improvement in racial tensions. Simply blurting out "RACIST!!!" in situations that don't warrant such a term does as much harm as actual racism.

I absolutely did.

He said that race plays a big part in American culture and I think we all agree.

If you suggest that black officers should police black citizens, you are implying whites are inferior at doing the same task. Whether or not P1et believes it, this is clearly what some of the black community believes and which is why doing so, would alleviate their concerns. This is the race superiority/inferiority. It is directly implied.

Either these white cops are racist (as alleged) and they are inferior and cannot properly perform their function, or the people making these allegations are racist and seeing racism where none exists. Either way, racism definitely plays a part in that solution.

I understand that everything to do with race isn't racist. But some are.

What if we were talking about whites angry that black chefs in a kitchen were constantly messing up their order on purpose, and raising a big stink about it? Someone suggests we have separate kitchens. A white chef for whites and a black chef for blacks... but it's okay because they aren't separate restaurants. They both work for the same company and in the same building, so that's not separate but equal. White people just get their food cooked by white people and blacks get their food by black people in order to eliminate the racial component. Do you see the problem there?

Either you're admitting the white people are correct and the black chef's ARE racist or simply inferior (cannot properly cook food) OR the white's are being racist and you're validating their prejudice.

I understand the need to want to avoid kneejerk calls for racism but sometimes it just is. Advocating separate but equal is clearly racist.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

P1et was simply suggestion we attempt to remove the racial component from policing. Racial issues are at all time high in regards to law enforcement. Putting officers in neighborhoods where the population can best relate to them and feel comfortable interacting with them isn't racist. How is attempting to remove racial tension a racist act?

Just as talking about race does not automatically make something racist...

Doing something racist in the name of good, does not automatically make it not-racist. Look at affirmative action. How can something meant to "help people" be racist. Because it's inequality based purely on the color of one's skin in an attempt at reaching equality.

[michaelthepsycho]

Originally Posted by FwdFtl

Makes it a moot point.

Yes, yes it does. Look up all three definitions of the word moot. Neither one of them means pointless. In fact, it means the exact opposite of what most people think it means.

*Barf-in-my-mouth pet peeve of mine. I don't get why educated people use this word in such an egregiously incorrect manner.

[pukicabuki]

Originally Posted by Devious21

I absolutely did.

He said that race plays a big part in American culture and I think we all agree.

If you suggest that black officers should police black citizens, you are implying whites are inferior at doing the same task. Whether or not P1et believes it, this is clearly what some of the black community believes and which is why doing so, would alleviate their concerns. This is the race superiority/inferiority. It is directly implied.

Either these white cops are racist (as alleged) and they are inferior and cannot properly perform their function, or the people making these allegations are racist and seeing racism where none exists. Either way, racism definitely plays a part in that solution.

I understand that everything to do with race isn't racist. But some are.

What if we were talking about whites angry that black chefs in a kitchen were constantly messing up their order on purpose, and raising a big stink about it? Someone suggests we have separate kitchens. A white chef for whites and a black chef for blacks... but it's okay because they aren't separate restaurants. They both work for the same company and in the same building, so that's not separate but equal. White people just get their food cooked by white people and blacks get their food by black people in order to eliminate the racial component. Do you see the problem there?

Either you're admitting the white people are correct and the black chef's ARE racist or simply inferior (cannot properly cook food) OR the white's are being racist and you're validating their prejudice.

I understand the need to want to avoid kneejerk calls for racism but sometimes it just is. Advocating separate but equal is clearly racist.

There was no implication of white officers being inferior/incapable in this situation (which would technically make it racist against the white cops as they are the inferior ones). In fact it has nothing to do with racial superiority/inferiority and everything to do with the relationism between the two entities. The black community doesn't trust the police, specifically white cops, because they can't relate to them and they feel the white cops can't relate to them. It is just as much about the black community feeling comfortable with and confident in the police force as it is with the police force trying to relate and endear itself to these communities. If the mistrust can be alleviated by assigning black officers to black communities, why wouldn't you try it? If removing white cops from black communities does nothing to stop the mistrust of law enforcement or the harsh treatment of blacks in their communities, then one could hypothesis that it wasn't a racial issue in the first place.

That was probably the worst strawman argument I've ever read. The scenario can't even be correlated to the original topic due to the staggering dissimilarities. I'm not even going to try to dissect it. Instead, I'll offer a different scenario based on your restaurant setting. There are 2 chefs, one is trained in latin cuisine (white cops) and the other is trained in french cuisine (black cops). The menu offers both types of cuisine but for some reason the latin chef (white cops) is cooking french food and the frech chef (black cops) is cooking latin. The restaurant's customers (black community) eat predominantly french food but are outraged that the food is of poor quality and often wrong. Because of this the customers (black community) don't trust the restaurant (law enforcement) to do their job properly. Would the restaurant (law enforcement) be wrong in asking the french chef (black cops) to cook the food for its customers (black community)?

Your separate but equal rhetoric is a fallacy that I don't understand why you keep pushing. No one has suggested forming separate and independent police forces/department that cater to each racial community. Instead it was suggested that police officers better represent the communities they serve to alleviate growing racial tensions.

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

There was no implication of white officers being inferior/incapable in this situation (which would technically make it racist against the white cops as they are the inferior ones). In fact it has nothing to do with racial superiority/inferiority and everything to do with the relationism between the two entities. The black community doesn't trust the police, specifically white cops, because they can't relate to them and they feel the white cops can't relate to them. It is just as much about the black community feeling comfortable with and confident in the police force as it is with the police force trying to relate and endear itself to these communities

So you don't believe black people when they say they believe white officers shot the suspects because they're black? You're basically saying you don't believe that they are telling the truth?

Maybe you aren't familiar with the claims being thrown at the officers in these cases. The black community isn't up-in-arms because they don't believe white police officers cannot "relate to their plight". They are pissed because they believe racist white police officers are targeting and killing black people.

That's why they don't trust them.

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

If the mistrust can be alleviated by assigning black officers to black communities, why wouldn't you try it? If removing white cops from black communities does nothing to stop the mistrust of law enforcement or the harsh treatment of blacks in their communities, then one could hypothesis that it wasn't a racial issue in the first place.

Again, my analogy was spot on.

The reason why not, is because you are either admitting that they are correct in their mistrust, and the white officers are in fact racist or you are singling out white officers to appease racist black citizens.

Again, What if I said -"If having only white chefs for white people would alleviate their mistrust in black chefs, wouldn't you try it?"

You're asking if the ends justify the means. "Is enacting racist policies in an attempt to comfort the community justified if it's effective?"

[Devious21]

Originally Posted by pukicabuki

That was probably the worst strawman argument I've ever read. The scenario can't even be correlated to the original topic due to the staggering dissimilarities. I'm not even going to try to dissect it. Instead, I'll offer a different scenario based on your restaurant setting. There are 2 chefs, one is trained in latin cuisine (white cops) and the other is trained in french cuisine (black cops). The menu offers both types of cuisine but for some reason the latin chef (white cops) is cooking french food and the frech chef (black cops) is cooking latin. The restaurant's customers (black community) eat predominantly french food but are outraged that the food is of poor quality and often wrong. Because of this the customers (black community) don't trust the restaurant (law enforcement) to do their job properly. Would the restaurant (law enforcement) be wrong in asking the french chef (black cops) to cook the food for its customers (black community)?

While you won't even attempt to show what's wrong with my analogy, I'll show you exactly what's wrong with yours.

In your scenario, white and black chefs happen to be specialists in different fields (types of cuisine) and they are being chosen for their specialty. You're equating this to white and black culture. The reason your analogy doesn't work is because in reality, the police aren't being chosen for their specialty. They are being chosen for their skin color. Your analogy doesn't match the argument you that just came before it.

The difference is, while the chefs are being chosen for their specialty and just HAPPEN to be white or black, you're proposing to have officers patrol different communities BASED ON THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN and NOT based on their expertise (or specialty) of dealing with either culture. I'm sure there are plenty of white cops that do their job extremely well in the black communities.

You are making the assumption that white officers specialize in dealing with white people and black officers specialize in dealing with black people. Or in other words, white officers are inferior or incapable of dealing with black people and vice versa.

• Your "ends justify the means argument" tries to argue that Black citizens would be more comfortable not dealing with white officers. (Either because white officers are involved in these incidents because they are legitimately racist or the blacks claiming so are racist themselves).
  
• Your chef analogy tries to make the case that all black officers specialize in dealing with black citizens better than white officers. (white officers are inferior at dealing with blacks)

If you have a legitimate issue with any part of my analogy, I challenge you to address it. It's possible we don't see eye to eye somewhere and that's why you don't see my analogy as being accurate.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Devious21

So you don't believe black people when they say they believe white officers shot the suspects because they're black? You're basically saying you don't believe that they are telling the truth?

Maybe you aren't familiar with the claims being thrown at the officers in these cases. The black community isn't up-in-arms because they don't believe white police officers cannot "relate to their plight". They are pissed because they believe racist white police officers are targeting and killing black people.

That's why they don't trust them.

There is a large faction that thinks that any time a white officer shoots a black perp it is always motivated by racism. There is absolutely zero evidence that Officer Wilson has a racist bone in his body but people, even in this thread, have hinted that he was looking for an excuse to blast a black man. It's reprehensible to make that connection. There are times in the line of duty when discharging your weapon is necessary either for self defense or for the safety of others. When that occurs between a white officer and a black perp, it is automatically racially motivated, which I believe is the crux of the issue that P1et was addressing.

I've never seen the term "white cop" so much in my life as I have in the last three months. It's race baiting by the media who has a vested interest in the unrest that ensues. They know what buttons they're pushing and have a raging hard on for the unrest that occurs as a result. CNN alone had three or four reporters live on the scene to capture all of the ratings gold they had created.

[KingOfJericho]

I know it's from the Post but a good read nonetheless:

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/eric-ga...ing-to-resist/

[Billup]

Originally Posted by michaelthepsycho

Yes, yes it does. Look up all three definitions of the word moot. Neither one of them means pointless. In fact, it means the exact opposite of what most people think it means.

*Barf-in-my-mouth pet peeve of mine. I don't get why educated people use this word in such an egregiously incorrect manner.

I had to look it up, because I've been using it improperly as well. lol


Thanks for making me take two seconds to educate myself.

[Billup]

Here is our media hard at work;

[Sara]

I cant believe that. He should have been indicted. The fucking man said he couldnt breathe!! We all know when you cant breathe you will die. I have no sympathy for Michael Brown but I do for Eric Garner.

[KingOfJericho]

Originally Posted by Sara504

I cant believe that. He should have been indicted. The fucking man said he couldnt breathe!! We all know when you cant breathe you will die. I have no sympathy for Michael Brown but I do for Eric Garner.

Air moving across your larynx and vocal cords is how speach occurs. You can't say "I can't breathe" out loud and multiple times if you can't breathe.

Additionally, every perp being taken in says that same thing so the cops will go easier on them.

[Sara]

Originally Posted by KingOfJericho

Air moving across your larynx and vocal cords is how speach occurs. You can't say "I can't breathe" out loud and multiple times if you can't breathe.

Additionally, every perp being taken in says that same thing so the cops will go easier on them.

Its obvious the air that was moving into his body wasnt enough to sustain his life thus why he was crying out he couldnt breathe. AND the office was using an illegal move to restrain him. He should have been sentenced.


***Ive been choked in play fights as a kid with my siblings and its extremely hard to breathe and you feel as if you are going to pass out while being in a choke hold. You can still use whatever energy you have to call out for help but its very limited and time sensitive. The officer was given that warning multiple times yet still continued to use an illegal move resulting in the death of a human. Murder.