Minneapolis PD Suffocate Unarmed Black Man Who Later Dies in Hospital

[OMG!WTF!]

Sort of a different level of outrage but the Masai Ujiri case is fairly infuriating. A typical dumb f white cop shoving a Black guy for no reason then pressing charges against the Black guy for shoving back and then claiming a fake disabling injury from the "attack" and sitting on his fat stupid ass for a year while getting paid and waiting for an even bigger law suit to set him up at the fishing hole for life. Imagine dealing with that garbage every day. You dont even have to kill anyone to earn a very similar level of hate. Stopping shooting people in the back would be a fine start. But there's a definite culture that also needs to go.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Sort of a different level of outrage but the Masai Ujiri case is fairly infuriating. A typical dumb f white cop shoving a Black guy for no reason then pressing charges against the Black guy for shoving back and then claiming a fake disabling injury from the "attack" and sitting on his fat stupid ass for a year while getting paid and waiting for an even bigger law suit to set him up at the fishing hole for life. Imagine dealing with that garbage every day. You dont even have to kill anyone to earn a very similar level of hate. Stopping shooting people in the back would be a fine start. But there's a definite culture that also needs to go.

That guy had already been charged with insurance fraud no? The cop previously?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Looch City

I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view.

The goal is that these types of death be taken seriously and for there to be consequences for the police officers involved. The demand is not to "bring it to zero", it's to bring justice to those officers and then in turn the trend of deaths will come down (and hopefully close to zero).

There certainly seems to be an effort to extend the responsibility beyond making the police officers responsible.

The logic trains is as follows: society is responsible for systemic racism, which is responsible for the plight of blacks, which is responsible for their more numerous interactions with police, which is responsible for greater police killings, which go unpunished because of systemic racism.

This logic then gets collapsed down to: Average Joe is responsible for black people getting killed by the police.

And it is upon that conclusion that looting and rioting get justified.

I have no reason to believe that if police officers were properly prosecuted for wrongful shootings that we would see a dramatic improvement in the state of social harmony in the US.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There certainly seems to be an effort to extend the responsibility beyond making the police officers responsible.

The logic trains is as follows: society is responsible for systemic racism, which is responsible for the plight of blacks, which is responsible for their more numerous interactions with police, which is responsible for greater police killings, which go unpunished because of systemic racism.

This logic then gets collapsed down to: Average Joe is responsible for black people getting killed by the police.

And it is upon that conclusion that looting and rioting get justified.

I have no reason to believe that if police officers were properly prosecuted for wrongful shootings that we would see a dramatic improvement in the state of social harmony in the US.

I would disagree that the logic is that looting and rioting are justified because the average Joe is responsible.

The logic is that peaceful means have failed to stop systemic racism over the last 150 or so years and progress has only been made through continuous protest which occasionally turn violent. So continuous protest is required. And if occasionally continuous protests erupts into rioting that is an unfortunate but acceptable consequence.

I don’t think the majority are advocating burn down And loot cities because all whites are at fault. The looting is a consequence of a large number of people being in a common space. This occurs in both celebration and protest.

I do agree that just solving the policing issues wouldn’t change racial harmony. For that you need to go through each government and private system which favours non-black people and each system that favours wealthier people and fix those too.

The police issues are a very visible symptom of a wide scale institutionalized problem.

[Looch City]

Here's what I don't understand:

#### burns down in every major protest around the entire world. Yet we don't always blame the protesters there and call it a riot every time it happens (e.g. Hong Kong, Middle East in general, soon to be Belarus?).

Why are people so stuck on labeling all protests as riots here?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There certainly seems to be an effort to extend the responsibility beyond making the police officers responsible.

The logic trains is as follows: society is responsible for systemic racism, which is responsible for the plight of blacks, which is responsible for their more numerous interactions with police, which is responsible for greater police killings, which go unpunished because of systemic racism.

This logic then gets collapsed down to: Average Joe is responsible for black people getting killed by the police.

And it is upon that conclusion that looting and rioting get justified.

I have no reason to believe that if police officers were properly prosecuted for wrongful shootings that we would see a dramatic improvement in the state of social harmony in the US.

By that logic I should be able to put 7 shots into the back of my wife when she doesn't do as she's told as locking me up will see no improvement in the state of social harmony in Canada either

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

The logic is that peaceful means have failed to stop systemic racism over the last 150 or so years and progress has only been made through continuous protest which occasionally turn violent. So continuous protest is required. And if occasionally continuous protests erupts into rioting that is an unfortunate but acceptable consequence.

.

Your logic is flawed. Let me demonstrate:

"The logic is that peaceful means have failed to stop systemic CRIME over the last 150 or so years and progress has only been made through continuous POLICING which occasionally turn violent. So continuous POLICING is required. And if occasionally continuous POLICING erupts into INNOCENTS BEING SHOT that is an unfortunate but acceptable consequence."

Either the ends justify the means, or they do not.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Your logic is flawed. Let me demonstrate:

"The logic is that peaceful means have failed to stop systemic CRIME over the last 150 or so years and progress has only been made through continuous POLICING which occasionally turn violent. So continuous POLICING is required. And if occasionally continuous POLICING erupts into INNOCENTS BEING SHOT that is an unfortunate but acceptable consequence."

Either the ends justify the means, or they do not.

Can you restate your thesis here. I’m not sure what your argument is.

Instead of peaceful means I should have said working within the system to enact political change without protest.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There certainly seems to be an effort to extend the responsibility beyond making the police officers responsible.

The logic trains is as follows: society is responsible for systemic racism, which is responsible for the plight of blacks, which is responsible for their more numerous interactions with police, which is responsible for greater police killings, which go unpunished because of systemic racism.

This logic then gets collapsed down to: Average Joe is responsible for black people getting killed by the police.

And it is upon that conclusion that looting and rioting get justified.

I have no reason to believe that if police officers were properly prosecuted for wrongful shootings that we would see a dramatic improvement in the state of social harmony in the US.

What could you possibly understand about social harmony in the US?

Just two weeks ago you thought the idea that someone might say “black lives don’t matter” so foreign that you needed it googled for you for evidence.

You’ve also shown, repeatedly, that you don’t understand context or nuance, and purposely mischaracterise situations and others (riots are because they blame average joe for racism! Black lives matter is just designed to sneakily silence critics!), and basically have a fundamental misunderstanding of everything you talk about.

In what world should anyone believe you know anything about social harmony in the US? Where are you from, anyway?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can you restate your thesis here. I’m not sure what your argument is.

Instead of peaceful means I should have said working within the system to enact political change without protest.

Fair request.

You indicated that a certain level of violence against innocent people or their property (ie rioting and looting) is justified because sometimes that is the cost of progress.

If that is true, then you have a difficult position claiming that a certain amount of violence against innocents is not justified to eliminate crime.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Fair request.

You indicated that a certain level of violence against innocent people or their property (ie rioting and looting) is justified because sometimes that is the cost of progress.

If that is true, then you have a difficult position claiming that a certain amount of violence against innocents is not justified to eliminate crime.

Troll-a-lol

Property can be replaced. It only takes money. the "violence against innocents" you are talking about is murdering people, and once someone is dead, they're dead.

Truly a despicable take.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Fair request.

You indicated that a certain level of violence against innocent people or their property (ie rioting and looting) is justified because sometimes that is the cost of progress.

If that is true, then you have a difficult position claiming that a certain amount of violence against innocents is not justified to eliminate crime.

The major issue with your contention is it’s false premise that if you accept 1 of something undesirable that you then must intern accept every instance of that undesirable thing.

Just a few of the differences

1) The organizers of the police force are responsible for the training and behaviour and discipline of their members. The loose “organizers” if there are any so not have any control over who shows up to a protest. Therefore there is a direct line of accountability between the state authorization of force and dead innocent people in the case of police that just doesn’t exist for the property damage in protest

2) Dead innocent people is NOT a natural consequence of policing. Though this point might be debatable in certainly isn’t a natural consequence at the rate of current US policing. Whereas large public gatherings of angry or happy people on occasion turn into riots. If your argument is that innocent people dying and being shot in the back is a natural consequence of policing then maybe we need to have a conversation about the role police should play in society.

So I don’t accept your false premise that if I am for one activity which may have a predictable consequence of property damage by individuals I must condone all instances where an activity may lead to law breaking by an individual.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Your logic is flawed. Let me demonstrate:

"The logic is that peaceful means have failed to stop systemic CRIME over the last 150 or so years and progress has only been made through continuous POLICING which occasionally turn violent. So continuous POLICING is required. And if occasionally continuous POLICING erupts into INNOCENTS BEING SHOT that is an unfortunate but acceptable consequence."

Either the ends justify the means, or they do not.

2 to 3 fatal shootings a day isn't occasional which is the issue, occasional would be Canada, a shooting every 13 days, still too many but occasional, the UK averages 2 a year.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

The major issue with your contention is it’s false premise that if you accept 1 of something undesirable that you then must intern accept every instance of that undesirable thing.

Just a few of the differences

1) The organizers of the police force are responsible for the training and behaviour and discipline of their members. The loose “organizers” if there are any so not have any control over who shows up to a protest. Therefore there is a direct line of accountability between the state authorization of force and dead innocent people in the case of police that just doesn’t exist for the property damage in protest

2) Dead innocent people is NOT a natural consequence of policing. Though this point might be debatable in certainly isn’t a natural consequence at the rate of current US policing. Whereas large public gatherings of angry or happy people on occasion turn into riots. If your argument is that innocent people dying and being shot in the back is a natural consequence of policing then maybe we need to have a conversation about the role police should play in society.

So I don’t accept your false premise that if I am for one activity which may have a predictable consequence of property damage by individuals I must condone all instances where an activity may lead to law breaking by an individual.

I don't think you or I condone anything at all (at least I don't read into your statements that you condone either).

You do, however, seem to indicate that we need to sometimes accept negative outcomes if the greater good is to be served. Rioters regularly target innocent people for direct harm even aside from property damage. It's okay to condemn both forms of injustice - it doesn't weaken your case against police brutality to do so. It's why we outlaw vigilantism regardless of it's rationale.

It's also a bizarre form of old-timey religious scapegoating to suggest that targeting a third party for the sins of the police is justified to create action. It just isn't productive.

We have handed our governments a monopoly on using violence (outside of self defence). This is one of the necessary principles that ensures that democratic societies can survive. But that power is also handed to people who we know are imperfect and subject to make mistakes. That's why even the aggressive prosecution of police for murder in appropriate cases won't eliminate the problem. Deterrents can't eliminate mistakes, by definition. They can reduce them,yes. Is it possible to eliminate human error in policing, when it is impossible to eliminate it in any other human activity?

Unless you can figure out how to run a society without handing the state a monopoly on violence, then we are going to be left with some level discontent about the unavoidable consequence of imperfect human judgement.

[GGG]

Where do you see people suggesting the targeting a 3rd party for the sins of police is justified. It is an unfortunate consequence of large numbers of people gathering in groups. It’s not reasonable to draw the same through line from rioter to protester to supporter of protests as it is to draw from Murdering police officer -> to police force.

The police force is responsible for the behaviour of its officers. A protestor or a supporter of protest is not responsible for the rioter that chooses to vandalize property. No one (except the vandal themselves) is targeting the property. You seem to not see this difference of responsibility.

I do agree that if you give Police the power to use force. There will be occasion where an innocent person could be harmed. However we can have the discussion on what is a reasonable amount of harm when we get any ware near that point. Right now I don’t see the value in discussing it when people are getting shot in the back.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by GGG

....Where do you see people suggesting the targeting a 3rd party for the sins of police is justified. ....

Originally Posted by GGG

... And if occasionally continuous protests erupts into rioting that is an unfortunate but acceptable consequence...

I presume you consider "justified" to be equivalent to "acceptable". Don't forget, it's the same institution that people want to deploy to arrest and convict cops for wrongful killings that is undermined when innocents are victimized by rioting. Cops doing nothing in the face of rioting is also a miscarriage of justice.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I presume you consider "justified" to be equivalent to "acceptable". Don't forget, it's the same institution that people want to deploy to arrest and convict cops for wrongful killings that is undermined when innocents are victimized by rioting. Cops doing nothing in the face of rioting is also a miscarriage of justice.

No, they were intentionally used differently

Justified - having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

Acceptable - able to be tolerated or allowed.

Justified implies legitimacy, acceptable does not.

You also appear to be changing arguments none of your above statements address your thesis which I understand to be If one tolerates rioting one must also tolerate police shooting people in the back.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't know if it was posted, but it is being reported that the victim in the recent Kenosha video will be paralyzed from the waist down if he even recovers.

[OMG!WTF!]

Paralyzed and missing a colon, half his stomach and kidney.

[Thor]

He should have just obeyed the officer **sarcasm**

Reading the comments on that video are infuriating.