That's clearly not a summarization of what I just said but if that's your overall take on the whole situation then... sure.
I was not talking to you specifically. I've got a lot of respect for what you are contributing to this thread. Just an observation on how the discussion on the word was going.
It's not like I need to use the word! If it's offensive I will give it up as it's not worth fretting about, but I do find it silly.
I find a lot of celebrity influence on our lives incredibly silly. I suppose this is another fine example of that.
Chantel Moore, an Indigenous woman, is dead after she was shot by police in New Brunswick early Thursday morning. Police say she was holding a knife and threatened the officers.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
I find it shocking that some of you guys still can't understand why using the word Thug in this thread is a bad idea.
If you want to try to understand why it's a bad idea, watch the news and pay attention to who is using it right now. More importantly pay attention to when they haven't used it (I'll give you a hint, remember all those white guys with guns storming the state capitol).
For a fairly large portion of society "Thug" especially in our current context, is 100% a dog whistle.
I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that some of you don't know/understand that, but arguing about it is totally missing the point of what is going on right now.
When a person of color tells you why that word is offensive in this context, you explaining why you don't mean it that way, or why it shouldn't, even if you are 100% sincere and on their side, it is similar to saying "All lives matter".
Yes, it is true, but saying it is not helping, and it's missing the point entirely.
One way you can contribute in a positive way right now, is not to argue over semantics, or explain why someone shouldn't be offended, it is to listen to what they are saying, and think about the effect what your actions and words are having.
You want to call Zach Kassian a thug in a GDT, fine, go ahead, in that context you can pretty safely argue that there are no racial overtones, and yeah, that's an appropriate place to argue over whether or not it is a racially insensitive word.
Using it in a thread about BLM protests, and ongoing violence over the death of a black man, maybe not the best time or place.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Last edited by Bring_Back_Shantz; 06-04-2020 at 03:52 PM.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
I have absolutely no doubt that everyone will point out that the woman was brandishing a weapon, so deadly force was entirely justified as the right and proper response, and the officer had no other choice but to reach for his firearm.
Meanwhile, in London, where almost all cops are not issued with guns...
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
I find it shocking that some of you guys still can't understand why using the word Thug in this thread is a bad idea.
If you want to try to understand why it's a bad idea, watch the news and pay attention to who is using it right now. More importantly pay attention to when they haven't used it (I'll give you a hint, remember all those white guys with guns storming the state capitol).
For a fairly large portion of society "Thug" especially in our current context, is 100% a dog whistle.
I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that some of you don't know/understand that, but arguing about it is totally missing the point of what is going on right now.
When a person of color tells you why that word is offensive in this context, you explaining why you don't mean it that way, or why it shouldn't, even if you are 100% sincere and on their side, it is similar to saying "All lives matter".
Yes, it is true, but saying it is not helping, and it's missing the point entirely.
One way you can contribute in a positive way right now, is not to argue over semantics, or explain why someone shouldn't be offended, it is to listen to what they are saying, and think about the effect what your actions and words are having.
You want to call Zach Kassian a thug in a GDT, fine, go ahead, in that context you can pretty safely argue that there are no racial overtones, and yeah, that's an appropriate place to argue over whether or not it is a racially insensitive word.
Using it in a thread about BLM protests, and ongoing violence over the death of a black man, maybe not the best time or place.
You want to call Zach Kassian a thug in a GDT, fine, go ahead, in that context you can pretty safely argue that there are no racial overtones, and yeah, that's an appropriate place to argue over whether or not it is a racially insensitive word.
I was not talking to you specifically. I've got a lot of respect for what you are contributing to this thread. Just an observation on how the discussion on the word was going.
It's not like I need to use the word! If it's offensive I will give it up as it's not worth fretting about, but I do find it silly.
I find a lot of celebrity influence on our lives incredibly silly. I suppose this is another fine example of that.
Okay understood, I wasn't sure if you were responding directly to me.
I don't want to come across as holier than thou in this particular aspect but I never use the N word and my mother would have slapped me upside the head if she were to ever hear me say it. Her idea was that if we don't want them to call us that, then why should we say it. This is not the stance of many other black people and I get that, but just to give some perspective for people who might not know that some people just aren't a fan of the word overall.
I've only been called a thug once that I can ever remember, by a small business owner in Halifax when I was maybe 10 or 11. It was clearly delivered in a context that was intended to be racially offensive, so I remember it. If I'm in the checkout line at Superstore and hear that word, I wouldn't think anything of it or even care who said it.
Looks like the discussion is devolving to something pretty ugly now... but that's my take.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
I have absolutely no doubt that everyone will point out that the woman was brandishing a weapon, so deadly force was entirely justified as the right and proper response, and the officer had no other choice but to reach for his firearm.
Meanwhile, in London, where almost all cops are not issued with guns...
It makes you wonder if, because they dont have guns, they have to be more creative and resourceful.
Just pulling a gun to resolve a situation is lazy and the fact that the gun is always just right there is an inherent escalator.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Just pulling a gun to resolve a situation is lazy and the fact that the gun is always just right there is an inherent escalator.
And excuse (sometimes justified, sometimes not). The whole "I had to use extreme force cause he reached for my gun" has occurred numerous times in these killings. Probably most prevalent in the Michael Brown case.
It makes you wonder if, because they dont have guns, they have to be more creative and resourceful.
Just pulling a gun to resolve a situation is lazy and the fact that the gun is always just right there is an inherent escalator.
A related question. Do all cops everywhere learn martial arts? And if not, should they? Is there a basic training of some form of fighting? Training in a martial art like judo might disarm people.
Or are tasers and guns the only solution in North America?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
I can’t possibly be the only one here who had zero idea that was a thing until this thread? Maybe I’m just that far out of touch, but I’d have had said thug and thought absolutely nothing of it being racial until this moment.
It’s a tangent, but it’s impossible to keep up in these things. I just had no idea there was a racial connotation at all.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
As shown in that UK video above, riot shields can offer a significant level of defense and demobilization to non-firearm confrontations. Do officers carry these as standard in their vehicles?
It makes you wonder if, because they dont have guns, they have to be more creative and resourceful.
Just pulling a gun to resolve a situation is lazy and the fact that the gun is always just right there is an inherent escalator.
Better conflict resolution is so important for police. But the reality is that it isn't possible to go that route in the States where everybody owns 1.3 guns.
The Kelowna cops likely didn't need to throw a punch. But they're not trained that way. They're trained to neutralize the threat. Same result just much more risk.
She had no history of violent or abusive behavior. Had never been in trouble. It's hard to imagine that this situation could not have been deescalated simply by the officer stepping back and giving her room. Was she guilty of threatening an officer, or guilty of holding a knife while in her own home?
Of all of the moments for a policeman to shoot a native woman five times, while responding to a call where she was the one being checked on to make sure that she was safe.
What an ugly, ugly thing.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
She had no history of violent or abusive behavior. Had never been in trouble. It's hard to imagine that this situation could not have been deescalated simply by the officer stepping back and giving her room. Was she guilty of threatening an officer, or guilty of holding a knife while in her own home?
Of all of the moments for a policeman to shoot a native woman five times, while responding to a call where she was the one being checked on to make sure that she was safe.
What an ugly, ugly thing.
I despise racism towards our Indigenous population, like more than most people in Canada (it stews in me quite often) , but a couple things. First of all, never assume the number of shots means anything. Once an officer decides to use his gun it isn't uncommon for a few shots to be fired very quickly. The media and arm chair investigators often use the number of shots to act like the officer killed the person with one and fired more for good measure.
Second, the fact that an officer was called to check on her welfare doesn't mean that he was an aggressor, as is the only conclusion I can draw from your sentence about why he was there. If she had a knife and was threatening than anything could have been going down during the fatal encounter.
She had no history of violent or abusive behavior. Had never been in trouble. It's hard to imagine that this situation could not have been deescalated simply by the officer stepping back and giving her room. Was she guilty of threatening an officer, or guilty of holding a knife while in her own home?
If you're ill-prepared against a knife-attacker (i.e. already are close enough to an assailant), there's no such thing as stepping back once you're charged at. It's life or death decision making, not half measures hoping for the best.
This just emphasizes the need for body cams. The investigation would clearly show the officer story is accurate, that she opened the door and immediately charged at him with a knife, or something else fishy happened and the cop is lying. Once again the only police who would argue against body-cams will be the ones who would be in the position that the latter happens.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
She had no history of violent or abusive behavior. Had never been in trouble. It's hard to imagine that this situation could not have been deescalated simply by the officer stepping back and giving her room. Was she guilty of threatening an officer, or guilty of holding a knife while in her own home?
Of all of the moments for a policeman to shoot a native woman five times, while responding to a call where she was the one being checked on to make sure that she was safe.
What an ugly, ugly thing.
There is apparently no video evidence to exonerate him, but...
Quote:
“At first the officer went on scene, and all of a sudden the person just exited the apartment with a knife and was attacking the officer,” Edmundston Police Force Insp. Steve Robinson told CBC News on Thursday. “He had no choice but to defend himself.”
Do we have any reason to believe that this is not true, aside from her being native? I'm assuming we're on the same page in thinking that shooting is the correct course of action if somebody is approaching law enforcement with a knife in a threatening manner.
The mantra of "it's just a knife, why shoot" has been disproven a gazillion times over so that's not even an argument to be made here.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
