Another man dies in police custody after disturbing video

  • Thread starter Thread starter Boatswain2PA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Regular_Atheist said:
“Solving racism” isn’t a case of changing “hearts and minds” on one specific issue.
Click to expand...
It’s much easier to make concrete progress on specific issues. Look at the success Mothers Against Drunk Driving has had in transforming the way DUIs are treated in this country. A large part of that is because they focus on one specific issue and work with people from across the political spectrum as long as they’re on board with the one issue.

Contrast that with BLM. People pretend they’re a group focused on stopping excessive force by police, which is a fine goal, but if you look at their stated objectives it’s just boilerplate Marxist wish list stuff on every issue under the sun. That’s fine, they have every right to their views, but it makes it harder for people who might be inclined to agree on the police reform issue to be fellow travelers on the rest of it.
 
That naughty BLM, not agreeing with white folks’ economic remedies.
 
The problem is I have yet to hear a way to “fix” that. It all sounds good on message boards, but how does fix it? And as soon as you pose a solution, the problem is going to be other people have their own solutions, and we end up stale mated.
 
I don’t think it’s all that radical to insist on better training, removal of problematic officers from active duty, and reforming a judicial system so it doesn’t give police a free pass for variations of “it’s a tough job”.
 
If they actually cared about saving black lives, shouldn’t they take an approach that helps them do that? As RTG said, they can promote whatever they want, but that can also have the effect of neutering their message and success. That was a critique I always had about Kapernick. His message may have been altruistic, but his delivery wasn’t well received. Now people can whine and complain that some folks don’t get it, or whatever, but in the end, Kapernick’s delivery, which HE was in control of, didn’t work. IF he had cared about trying to save black lives, he would have found another method or platform. Instead, he dug in defiantly like a child refusing to be told what to do, and it became much more political and ineffective than it needed to.

Once an issue begins to splinter into one political party or ideology versus another, hope for success generally plummets, ergo, his MADD example.
 
Nor do I and support those ideas, but I didn’t see where you said this earlier. Sorry if I missed it.
 
And yet, despite being not all that radical, the police still carry a get out of jail free card. Nothing changes, because the wider community just doesn’t care. That’s the racism at the heart of America. Nobody wants African Americans terrorized by masked cross burning hooligans, and yet they don’t care enough of black lives to make any kind of meaningful stand.

So cities burn.
 
niceatheist said:
That naughty BLM, not agreeing with white folks’ economic remedies.
Click to expand...
Don’t be disingenuous. BLM is obviously entitled to have an economic agenda, and nothing i said would be interpreted that way by someone reading in good faith.

It’s just if you have a super broad agenda on a hundred issues, it dilutes your effectiveness on what is ostensibly your main focus: excessive police use of force on unarmed people. There are lots of civil libertarian groups (probably largely made up of the dreaded white people) who are also concerned with the militarization of the police, and could make common cause with a group like BLM, but aren’t going to feel comfortable signing on to the rest of the agenda.
 
niceatheist said:
I don’t think it’s all that radical to insist on better training, removal of problematic officers from active duty, and reforming a judicial system so it doesn’t give police a free pass for variations of “it’s a tough job”.
Click to expand...
It’s not. These are all fine goals that you could build a broad consensus on if you don’t alienate potential allies by insisting they sign on to the rest of an incredibly broad agenda.

I’m not making an argument about the substance of any of these ideas. I’m just making the argument that advocacy groups are most effective when they keep their focus narrow and look for potential allies, even if those potential allies would be opponents in a different context.
 
Last edited:
Surely advocacy groups can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. I’ve worked with groups who I don’t agree with their entire mandate.
 
True. I suspect to that because cities burn and not suburbia, even their violence doesn’t have much impact. I live 30 minutes from the Freddie Gray riots, but it is like a completely different world even that close. No one would have known what was going on not that far away from my community.

Practically speaking, why should I care if some folks want to destroy their own community? Now I do care - I find the whole thing sad, counterproductive, and immoral. But I am not sure minorities burning, looting and destroying the property of other minorities a) makes any sense and b) accomplishes much.
 
niceatheist said:
Surely advocacy groups can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. I’ve worked with groups who I don’t agree with their entire mandate.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is common on the left these days. Lots of purity tests and manifestos that touch on every issue under the sun.

And for context, I’m completely sympathetic to the cause of police reform. I’m arguing about tactics here.
 
If a literal volcano were to erupt outside of the city of Minneapolis today, then that would be the lead story and the immediate concern of most of the citizens of the area. The death of Floyd George would then take a back seat to the destruction imminent by the volcano. So the question would be, why would those seeking change want a volcano?
 
Still, there is no need to be stupid. One does not jump off a bridge because nothing else works. One does not amputate a limb because nothing else works. And if the choice is to cause a major distraction from the injustice by perpetrating this sort of scene, then there is no just complaint about focus being shifted to that very distraction. Now protesters in Oakland have shot two men, one of which has been killed. So we have a new distraction. I am afraid that with the arrest of Floyd George’s killer, that the initial issue will take a distant backseat to this newest murder.

Justifying this sort of behavior “because nothing else works” is a cop out and assumes the lowest common denominator of that community.
 
Last edited:
What is your barometer for “nothing seems to work?” Bodycams are used by most precincts I am familiar with. These incidents are still a relatively small number comparatively.

If the expectation is to eliminate any racist attitude anywhere, and remove the ability of cops to sin, that is a fool’s errand.

I’d love to see an end to all abortions everywhere, but I fight for incremental progress, knowing this will need to continue long after I die.

Also, the notion that if a particular issue vexxes some portion of the citizenry long enough, that they can take matters into their own hands is a scary one and will come back to bite them eventually.
 
No, it assumes the lowest common denominator in America, that the system is constructed to let cops off the hook. What you’re seeing is anger and despair at the pointlessness of the justice system, a system that goes out of its way to protect the police from their own actions. People have no reason to trust the handwringing of governors
 
niceatheist said:
No, it assumes the lowest common denominator in America, that the system is constructed to let cops off the hook.
Click to expand...
He has been arrested.

Facts should matter. His fate is in the hand of a jury, not governors.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
Still, there is no need to be stupid. One does not jump off a bridge because nothing else works. One does not amputate a limb because nothing else works. And if the choice is to cause a major distraction from the injustice by perpetrating this sort of scene, then there is no just complaint about focus being shifted to that very distraction.

Justifying this sort of behavior “because nothing else works” is a cop out and assumes the lowest common denominator of that community.
Click to expand...
I mean, people who are traumatized don’t always have the most rational reactions. People (and by extension communities) can lash out in ways that are understandable, even if they don’t make sense strictly speaking.

That said, I do think it’s a mistake to idealize the rioters. I’m sure some people are throwing rocks at cops because they genuinely feel it’s the only way they can effectively express outrage. I’m also sure some people are rampaging through Target because they’re amoral opportunists.
 
Yes, he was arrested. The three other cops, who stood by and allowed a man to be killed, are still free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top