Current Affairs George Floyd and Minneapolis Unrest

[RaleighBlue]

This isn't a refutation of anything I said. You can repeatedly claim "I'm using your words against you" but that doesn't make your conclusion follow from the premise you're providing.

I'm not even arguing you politically. I realize THAT is an utter waste of time.

I'm explaining to you that words have commonly accepted definitions. You performed an argumentitive technique that maps to one of these words perfectly. That word is "strawman". I feel like I can explain definitions of words to my children. Shall I get google to tell it to you like I do them when they don't believe me?


Here:
Strawman:
a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted


Almost like saying a socialist thinks the government is a solution for all ills. Which is an obivously absurd position to take or defend. It's saying socialism == autocratic empire. And lets be fair, we can pretty easily dismiss anyone that believes in an autocratic empire.

It's definitional, not my opinion.

 

[Pettifogger]

Shouldn't happen at all.

Other western countries don't have a track record of their police killing black Americans or using more force based in colour of skin.

Sure, in a vacuum, you're correct. But other western countries don't have our violent crime problem either. In my experiences in Europe, there is a reasonable expectation for law enforcement that pulling over a car won't end in being shot at. That expectation isn't as reasonable here.

 

[Pettifogger]

Once again, the definition simply doesn't apply.

I didn't invent that Prev was a socialist to refute the invention.

If I'm in your shoes, I'd argue "well, you invented him as an opponent to discredit him", but even that's not really true.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Sure, in a vacuum, you're correct. But other western countries don't have our violent crime problem either. In my experiences in Europe, there is a reasonable expectation for law enforcement that pulling over a car won't end in being shot at. That expectation isn't as reasonable here.

Sure it could happen, but cops aren't getting shot at often enough for them to treat every interaction like they're going against adversaries. The balance is off.

 

[Pettifogger]

Always problematic.

The stat that always seems to be presented is the deaths per million. Of which black deaths are disproportionately higher.

Yeah, but as mentioned, it's not like I'm cherrypicking that measure to serve my ends. "Unarmed black men" is a frequent measure used by BLM.

 

[Alan Whittle]

Oh, I was quite specific. You just clouded the issue by adding in a couple of just suppose issues. No one is getting tripped over the semantics here.
“We’re” not using “deserved” or “justified”. You are.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[Kenshin]

Sure, in a vacuum, you're correct. But other western countries don't have our violent crime problem either. In my experiences in Europe, there is a reasonable expectation for law enforcement that pulling over a car won't end in being shot at. That expectation isn't as reasonable here.

I get your point and can't argue with that. If Americans are carrying guns everywhere they go then absolutely that risk factor increases.

But away from guns , there isn't much of an increase in crime in America compared to anywhere else. People are people , you get crime everywhere you go. More people you have then higher that rate will be but I wouldn't say it's worse. That would suggest Americans are deep rooted for evil , which is as silly a thought as reading it.

You can't argue there isn't a difference in the way skin colour and police actions differ. Decades it's been going on for to be fair.

There isn't a magic fix for that. Yes you can pump money into social welfare for them but some people don't want to get the legit job and own their house and live the American dream. There is certainly a culture within America within black communities that a protest , Instagram post or riot will ever get rid of. However that isn't fixed , not for a long time if at all.

So you have to focus on the initial issue , police treatment and deal with that.

 

[Pettifogger]

Sure it could happen, but cops aren't getting shot at often enough for them to treat every interaction like they're going against adversaries. The balance is off.

I think this is true, and I think it's particularly true outside of major cities. Obviously it's not true with Floyd (MPS), but plenty of the "bad shoots" we've seen involve suburban cops or others who probably don't have the built up "edginess" I'm referring to. Now I say that as someone who isn't a cop, and I don't know what an honest level of apprehension is/should be for those folks in areas I don't think of as violent.

But I don't think that reality invalidates the other reality - that some police (like my examples in Atlanta) ARE probably used to seeing the results of violence in their communities, and their apprehension can't be ignored when talking about how to eliminate police brutality.

 

[Kenshin]

He died at the scene. My wife pointed out on the video that they didn't even use correct measures when the ambulance came like they were saving a man's life. They knew he was dead at the scene hence the lack of urgency afterwards.

It's murder.

Covering up the truth is not going to help anyone in America right now. Again they are completely missing the point of the anger and making it worse.

 

[Pettifogger]

Agree with you on magic fix.

But while I know I'm in the extreme minority re: guns on this board, I think America has fundamental violence issues that aren't simply the result of having guns around. For this conversation I'll accept the idea that guns lead to higher violence, but I don't think that comes close to bridging the gap.

 

[TheBigIguana]

I think this is true, and I think it's particularly true outside of major cities. Obviously it's not true with Floyd (MPS), but plenty of the "bad shoots" we've seen involve suburban cops or others who probably don't have the built up "edginess" I'm referring to. Now I say that as someone who isn't a cop, and I don't know what an honest level of apprehension is/should be for those folks in areas I don't think of as violent.

But I don't think that reality invalidates the other reality - that some police (like my examples in Atlanta) ARE probably used to seeing the results of violence in their communities, and their apprehension can't be ignored when talking about how to eliminate police brutality.

The problem is that a lot of the inner city cops have taken on the mentality of warriors going out every day to fight an enemy. The brutality stems from that attitude and while the citizens maybe are a bit hostile, it is far more a problem of the police going over the top to take on the enemy that they're supposed to be serving. The whole mentality is a mess and that has to change. It's a police problem.

 

[LinekersLegs]

 

[DrEFC]

Who was the the first person to do the autopsy

 

[fabricsince1985]

I'd rather take my information from the direct official source, rather than biased news outlets with an agenda.

Stats from: U.S. Department of Justice

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Of course the U.S Department of Justice can't be biased now can it?

Roughly 5 years ago, a white person called in a supposed threat of a black person pointing a gun at fellow shoppers in a Walmart store. Two police officers turned up and claimed they told him to disarm before shooting him.

The only problem being with all of this, is that neither the supposed threat seen by the caller or the actions of the officers was correct (cctv contradicted their version of events). That doesn't even recognise that you're legally allowed to openly carry a weapon with or without a license (bizarre as that may be) or that the actual gun he had picked up was from the store itself. Oh and nothing happened to the police officers in question.

I'd have serious concerns about how crime is recorded.

So, I'd take any data from DoJ with a pinch of salt if I was you.