Black Privilige
Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 6 months ago to Culture
The ability to lie and claim anything against white people.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I don't care what any evidence or commenter says. There can be absolutely no excuse for a trained and armed police officer to take such an encounter, two teens walking in the street, beyond verbal contact and to the use of deadly force.
They're saying there's evidence that the *suspects* escalated the encounter. I don't know what to believe, but when things like this happen, they happen fast.
I think you're saying he had already committed a crime so he's the type who might have committed another crime in attacking the officer. I agree.
If he didn't attack the officer (I suspect he did), his past crimes have no bearing on this new possible crime of murdering him.
I apologize that I can't find, in my long reading list for the day, the excellent account of the action between the two men which lists the individual items with which the police officer was "armed" and why he did not use them. Poor Planning, of course - if you're wearing your baton at your side, you can't access it; you can't pepper spray the other person without hitting yourself as well, etc. If you know what the police carry, though, you can figure this one out yourself.
The article also carefully examined the wounds of the black man and explained how each one was [probably] received. For example, if you have powder residue on your thumb, it means that your thumb was near the muzzle of the gun - the question is why? Sticking your finger in the muzzle so as to cause a catastrophic misfire, injuring both parties? Probably not. Pushing the officer away from you? Possibly. Trying to get control of the gun? Possibly.
Message? stick to the real point, don't drag every situation to your point.
The militarization of police includes the attitude of 'Us against them' and 'Whatever happens I'm going home at the end of my shift' and that IS the point of this encounter. That is simply someone I do not want out on the streets with personal combat training, deadly weapons, and a license to kill encountering one of my sons, or me.
My interest in this discussion is that of the individual rights of a citizen of whatever color and of whatever activity history in the non-voluntary interaction with government and government employees--particularly those employees trained and armed to inflict death.
In an objectivist society, we agree that we need government to provide retributive (not pro-active) force to correct and enforce violations of our individual and natural rights. We supposedly select and train people in those positions to handle those necessary interactions in manners and with means appropriate to the situation and information available at that point in time and in such a manner as to provide for and protect the individual rights of the citizen.
We go so far as to provide and require training and education in verbal and psychological techniques for such inter-actions; personal combat and restraint training designed to be appropriate for the situation such as judo and joint locks and physical conditioning; non-lethal weapons and training in their use such as batons, pepper sprays, tasers, and even everyday items as flashlights, keys, clipboards, etc. We lay out in training and education that the least must be accomplished before the worst. We fully intend that such inter-actions not be escalated to a point inappropriate to the supposed infraction or reaction of the citizen. The onus in such inter-actions and the results supposedly rests on the government actor--not the citizen. That's the reasoning behind the Bill of Rights and the requirement of 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' and 'Better That 10 Guilty Men Go Free Than One Innocent Man Be Punished'.
I could go on like this for pages and then begin listing those inter-actions that have gone so terribly bad for citizens ad infinitum, in just the last 10 years. To what point, if even those self proclaimed believers in the primacy of individual and natural rights excuse the result that a teenage boy whose only acknowledged infraction for police inter-action to that policemen's knowledge was walking in the street, winds up dead. None of us know what happened that night that led to the final result, or the intervening acts of either party, and I seriously doubt that we ever will.
But I'll proffer that in any such interaction between a citizen and a government actor that results in even the slightest violation, or even hint of such, of an individual or natural right of the citizen, that the government actor, at a minimum be removed from that job and prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. Until we as a society place such extreme limits on government and government employees, we will all cringe and feel nervous or even afraid when we receive a letter from the IRS, see a cop at our door, or the blue lights come on behind us. That is not what I define as a land of liberty. That is tyranny and pure luck that we haven't met in such an encounter, YET.
But when you let Barney Fife take the bullet out of his pocket, that's what you get.
We just don't know yet who escalated to physical combat or who was being defensive. I doubt that we'll ever know or that if the cop was the escalator, that he suffers any repercussions. I don't think continuing to be a cop in Ferguson is in his future and his next activity will be to file for PTSD disability.
I'm not abdicating cop shootings either...I'm not 'for' them, but if a big thug is coming back at ANYONE who's face they just broke, then I say use force to stop his force. You don't think he was capable of killing the cop barehanded? (Or the store owner he shoved into a snack rack?) Should the cop just wait for him to bash his head ALL the way in? The cop is a human being too, who has a right to defend his life.... shooting should be a last resort, and who says this wasn't? After all, if this brute can bust a man's eye socket what else is he capable of? A rational person doesn't hesitate or wait to find out.
I'll repeat, we don't know what happened that led to the physical confrontation between the officer and Brown and then to the cop shooting him to death. Nor does the black community of Ferguson.
And this post began as "The ability to lie and claim anything against white people" and I maintain that the problems brought to the front in Ferguson are much, much deeper and more widespread than black privilege. Part of that problem is the assumptions and suppositions being made by a lot of us that have absolutely no factual basis for our beliefs in that incident.
But I find it hard to accept that anyone who believes in the power and primacy of individual and natural rights of man over the state and government, when faced with the death of an unarmed citizen, whether he's a big, ugly, mean acting black man or a homeless, helpless, schizophrenic white man on the street doesn't find questions to be asked and answered in the incident.
But equating to hatchet man get's is nowhere.
I’m sorry, but if you knock me in my head, scratch my face repeatedly, and fight for my gun, then take off running when the gun fires, I am not going to trust if you if you start heading back towards me, hands up or not. It could have been a rouse to get close enough to go for the gun again. Michael should have froze.
Zen has me in a tither!
Self defense is self defense regardless of skin color or uniform. If someone busts your skull and then comes back at you...I don't think it's to give you a hug. This is not rocket science.
This is Black Privilege. The ability to slander and accuse devoid of evidence, and be treated as saints by the press and politicians.
Sorry about the 'hatchet man', it should have said hatchet guy.
And again, Brown was evidently high at the time. That does not lend itself to reasoned thinking.
And they are being vilified by those who don't like them telling the truth.
A) Brown then turned and came back again thinking the only way to stop the officer from shooting him was to get the gun.
B) Brown turned to surrender with arms up, but the officer kept firing and in getting hit with bullets and trying to turn and dodge more bullets, that Brown's arms came down and accounted for the bullet wound on inside of arm.
C) Brown turned and before he could do anything he was struck with at least one bullet and it enraged him making him come back at the cop who continued to fire.
This scenario is as much supposition as is any others at this point, but Michael Bolden (?), the forensic medical examiner guru accepted that all of these are possible from the bullet wound evidence on the body.
There is blame on Brown in this scenario for continuing the struggle, but there is also blame on the officer for initiating the physical confrontation-definitely outside of his training. No one would recommend that a cop swing a car door into a subject or reach through a car window to grab the subject or initiate any of that with his seat belt still fastened. Nor would any training or protocol call for such an escalation in response to a rude, smart-ass reaction from a citizen.
We'll never know.
Up until that came out, I had made no decision on what had happened and who was the cause of the altercation and its results. After this came out, it was clear that the officer was exonerated.
You don't seem to want to accept that testimony.
The officer was attacked. He has a right to defend himself. Seems, if anything, that his rights were being violated.
I wonder if people are responding to the over-militarization. Even if the facts back the police in this case, people are angry at the militarized police they deal with and are wrongly taking it out on the police in this one case.
The proof that this is racially charged is that just days earlier a white thug was shot dead by a minority cop. Nobody is interested in that story.