Chaos in Baltimore

[Raven]

3 hours ago...
A young black male takes off running through the streets (same section of Baltimore that CNN was covering on early last week), trips and falls, drops his gun and it fires.

Fox reports a young black male was shot in the back by police, for "no reason". This woman is absolutely convinced in what she saw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVDf...ature=youtu.be


Fox already apologizing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJaDFnHmr_I

[Ryno]

Originally Posted by nol

Holy cow you're dumb.

Nice

Originally Posted by nol

Someone who believes 80% of murders are committed by black people is much more likely to support "tough on crime" policies than someone who has a more correct estimate, even when you control for everything else.

Citation needed

[Raven]

more video from the above incident, including images of the gun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRScGWVBhWc

If you do not want to watch this whole video, you SHOULD watch start at 19:22

[nol]

Originally Posted by Ryno

Nice



Citation needed

Racial Typification of Crime and Support for Public Measures

Controlling Other People's Children: Racialized Views of Delinquency and Whites' Punitive Attitudes Toward Juvenile Offenders

Empathy and Public Support for Capital Punishment

The Social Sources of Americans' Punitiveness: A Test of Three Competing Models

Racial-Ethnic Threat, Out-Group Intolerance, and Support for Punishing Criminals: A Cross-National Study

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I have no doubt that profiling happens and there are certain neighborhoods that are targeted, but the question us WHY?

I think the answer to this is Terry v. Ohio and how it's been interpreted by courts. I have a heart-to-heart about this with officers when I do law trainings with them.

Terry v. Ohio interpreted the 4th Amendment to allow officers to briefly detain someone if they have reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing (a much lower standard than probable cause). They may also frisk the suspect if they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and/or dangerous. A lot of courts combine those into one test.

The issue comes from cases that have identified all kinds of factors an officer can use to determine whether they have reasonable suspicion for a stop and frisk. Any one of these isn't necessarily enough, but all have been identified as at least contributing to a reasonable suspicion finding: character of the neighborhood, apparent gang affiliation, previous contacts with a person, erratic movements, being under the influence, loitering with no apparent purpose at strange hours, etc. Of course in our society, many of those factors are going to come up disproportionally with minority suspects. So even if we have fleets of race-blind robot police, they'd still stop and frisk and ultimately arrest minorities at a disproportionate rate, at least if they were doing what Terry v. Ohio allows them do.

Officers often rely first on their gut instincts to determine whether a situation is dangerous or if a person may be committing a crime. It's then pretty easy to work backwards from there and identify plenty of Terry v. Ohio factors to legitimize the instinct. Officially, racial prejudices can come into play there. But because of Terry v. Ohio and the the economic disparities in our society between races, you don't need racial prejudice to have disproportionate contacts with minorities. That's what makes it such a difficult issue - the racial prejudices are hidden, they can rarely be proven or disproven in any particular case, or in cases as a whole. So one side can sincerely believe that racial prejudice was the cause of something, and the other side can just as sincerely believe that it was not.

That's why its not helpful to just identify officers as racist as a group. When 99.9% of officers hear that, they assume you're talking about other officers. But the truth is we're all vulnerable to racial prejudices we usually don't even recognize. That's not something we should demonize, it's something we should acknowledge as a human thing that we can be aware of. Most of us can live our lives blissfully unaware of our prejudices and it's no big deal, and we're never really called on it (and when we are, we can dismiss it as "race-baiting" and go on with our lives.) Most of us don't have to deal with our prejudices in stressful situations with high consequences. That all allows us to believe that we're above all that and it's other people who have racial prejudices. Officers can't. They need to be much more self-reflective that the general population to do their jobs professionally.

I don't think things were better in the "good old days", they certainly weren't better for for minorities when it came to their interactions with police. I always bring up the example that the United States Supreme Court didn't even recognize that shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back was an unreasonable 4th Amendment seizure until 1984. Decades ago, people had very different expectations for police, including very different expectations about how they should deal with criminals or suspected criminals, especially in neighborhoods and communities we deemed dangerous. Some law enforcement agencies have done really well in keeping up with changing societal expectations, others have not. Likewise, some law enforcement agencies have done really well in adapting to dramatic changes in the interpretation of the 4th Amendment, and others have not. Overall, I think things are a lot better today. The outrage over various incidents is a sign of progress, of changing societal expectations of police.

The tone of officers and officer training has changed, because of the changed interpretations of the 4th Amendment. Officers have to know more about the law today than they did decades ago, because there's so many more court-created guidelines about what they can and can't to in any given situation. I doubt lawyers were involved in training of Idaho officers in 1950, but today they have to be. This has created more structure, more policy guidelines, and it has made officers somewhat more military-like and serious. Generally, they know their every word and action is going to be poured over by lawyers and judges. For every case you hear about on the news, there's probably 10,000+ more run-of-the-mill ones that are dealt with in suppression hearings and plea negotiations. Officers are used to this.

All that is good on the whole, but its harder for officers to be that friendly, idealistic community problem-solving idea of what officers used to be. (And I don't buy that vision of old-timey officers at all. Maybe that was the experience of white people in the suburbs, but it was much, much easier for officers to bust heads and do whatever they hell they wanted in the past. Hell, the law largely allowed it.)

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Are you asking me if I would have people starve to death or be homeless? No, I dont support that. I understand the basic requirement of welfare. I admit I am at a loss on the stats. Are there people on welfare that have become institutionalized into it and refuse to leave it? I think there are. Those are the people I would want to reach and explain that raising your kids to only know government handouts is unhealthy in the long run.

I have a white sister-in-law who, along with her longtime black boyfriend, has been on welfare forever. She has no intention of working, even though she has no disabilities that would prevent her from working. They both have addiction issues, and besides, he's too busy driving with a suspended license and wrecking cars to get a job.

In a nutshell, she takes no responsibility for anything in life (including the care of her two daughters), and expects her parents to pick up the pieces whenever anything goes wrong (for instance, the boyfriend has totaled something like 5 cars in the past few years). At some point, my wife and I will probably be forced to choose between taking their two daughters into our home or seeing them go into a foster care situation. Right now, her parents have her kids, but I'm not sure they can sustain that because her mother has health issues. It will be a tough situation if they do have to move into our house, because the oldest daughter (6 years old) butts heads something fierce with our daughter (6 years old), and the younger daughter (4 years old) has a lot of developmental issues and a weight problem (she's 70 pounds already). It's hard to be around the two six-year-olds for just a few hours at a time. I can't imagine enduring it every day.

Anyhow, this situation has not given me a good feeling about welfare. I don't know what percentage of people on it are just freeloaders like my sister-in-law, but I hope the percentage is low. It sucks knowing that my tax dollars are supporting her freeloading lifestyle.

[NobodyHere]

To be fair, there are people like Ben Carson who grew up on welfare and became successful enough to speak out against that evil welfare.

[Warhammer]

Since we are on the subject of welfare, I think it is fair game to mention, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Government can provide physiological and safety needs, but fails miserably at the higher levels.

The government does not provide for love. You could even argue some of the policies work opposite of love. Esteem and self actualization work in direct conflict with welfare. I think this is a big issue with some neighborhoods. They do not produce anything. If you do not have esteem, you cannot hope to attain the highest level of the hierarchy, self actualization.

Drawing from my own experience when I was unemployed, I had to beware of sulking and falling into a pattern of laziness because I had nothing to do. I was not doing my job as a family provider. I had an established track record as a top salesman, yet I constantly struggled with my situation. I had to adhere to a daily schedule to provide structure. On top of that, I found if I did not dress appropriately for work, I did not get much done. Others that I have talked to in the same situation have had similar struggles. How much worse is it for those that have not had the same track record that I had?

Why do many of us have a mid-life crisis? That is when we come to grips with the ideal goals we set as kids meet the hard reality of life. We realize we might not make president. We might not even hit middle management. What then? What was the point of the work we put in? Some are able to adapt, some do not. Others never had the dreams to begin with. This failure of self actualization can lead to a fall in esteem and result in a dramatic change in behavior.

What's the answer? I'm not 100% sure but I would love to see milestones to get people off of welfare and become productive members of society.

[molson]

I'm not as libertarian as I used to be but I still think we shouldn't and can't rely on the government to solve all of our problems. The government is a necessary part of it, but there's also many great organizations that help people in productive and empowering ways. People dedicate their lives to this kind of thing. If you feel strongly about this stuff, donate to or volunteer with one of these organizations. Or even make a career of it. One person helping out makes more of a difference than a million just having a political opinion and expressing it. And the bonus is you don't have to wait around for Congress to do something.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Kodos

At some point, my wife and I will probably be forced to choose between taking their two daughters into our home or seeing them go into a foster care situation. Right now, her parents have her kids, but I'm not sure they can sustain that because her mother has health issues. It will be a tough situation if they do have to move into our house, because the oldest daughter (6 years old) butts heads something fierce with our daughter (6 years old), and the younger daughter (4 years old) has a lot of developmental issues and a weight problem (she's 70 pounds already). It's hard to be around the two six-year-olds for just a few hours at a time. I can't imagine enduring it every day.

FWIW, I would give priority to your own family first. If you know there will be serious issues & conflict, you owe it to your family to be selfish and not bring your neices-in-law (?) into your family. Sorry for being heartless.

[Kodos]

I actually lean that way too.

[RainMaker]

Guardian credibility isn't great of late but if this is true, pretty big blow to one of the officers.

Officer in Freddie Gray case demanded man's arrest as part of personal dispute | US news | The Guardian

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Guardian credibility isn't great of late but if this is true, pretty big blow to one of the officers.

Officer in Freddie Gray case demanded man's arrest as part of personal dispute | US news | The Guardian

Who cares if it's true or not?

[Dutch]

2 Mississippi police officers dead after shootings, coroner says | Fox News

[NobodyHere]

What does that have to do with Baltimore?

[Dutch]

Police Arrest 33 After Barricade Situation In Edgewater « CBS Chicago

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

What does that have to do with Baltimore?

This thread isn't about Baltimore. There was some chaos there, but this is a national issue.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This thread isn't about Baltimore. There was some chaos there, but this is a national issue.

Pardon me for thinking a thread titled "Chaos in Baltimore" wasn't about Baltimore.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Pardon me for thinking a thread titled "Chaos in Baltimore" wasn't about Baltimore.

It's okay, but if you read the thread you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Dutch]

Here's one where Far-Left Democrat, Malik Zulu Shabazz forgets Alan Colmes (Moderate Democrat) was just talking about Baltimore.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/05/3173...source=FBshare

A radio interview between Alan Colmes and the former national chairman of the New Black Panther Party and current national president of Black Lawyers for Justice, Malik Zulu Shabazz, got heated Thursday.

It began with a debate about the Baltimore protests:

Shabazz: “I say those young Baltimore youth are liken to the Palestinians, battling an Israeli occupier, and that was their form of protest…”

Colmes: “So you support the bottle throwing, you support the rock throwing?”

Shabazz: “I understand it. Whether I support it or not, it’s going to happen anyway.”

Colmes: “…As a leader, you could say ‘I denounce this because people could get hurt.'”

Shabazz: “Some people might need to get hurt in self-defense–”

Colmes: “Really, like who?”

Shabazz: “If the police–the people that are attacking us–”

Colmes: “So all the…tossing of objects in Baltimore and in Ferguson were justifiable in your view?”

Shabazz: “They were all in self-defense…”

The intensity of the interview continued to ramp up, and finished with a bang:

Shabazz: I’ve got a bigger role to play, and I’m comin’ for you…I’m comin’ for you and all those like you.

People are standing up today, and you are on the phone with a black man that is not in fear of you…

I don’t come to pin the tail on the donkey, I come to pin the tail on the Honkey…You are guilty of human rights violations against black people of America and all over the world. You are guilty of a holocaust and slaughtering over two-hundred-million of our people. You are guilty of the rape of the black woman. You are guilty of the psychological abuse of our people. You are guilty of killing our BABIES, man!

You’re LUCKY I’m on this g*ddamn phone talking to you right now!”

Colmes: “He hung up.”

That's got some entertainment value, but these far-lefties are lunatics.

[cuervo72]

Well, the rich control this country. I don't really think the people do. The trick for the rich and powerful is to keep the populace appeased enough so that they go along. Or to clamp down on those who aren't. When that balance gets out of whack, people get fed up.

Cut this jive and see who's got the power to kill the most
When they run out of power, the world's gonna be a ghost
They know we're not satisfied, so we begin to holler
Makin' us a promise and throwin' a few more dollars

The powerful need to trickle a bit more down than they are.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The powerful need to trickle a bit more down than they are.

Does this include the white middle-class-and-better people in this thread, or just people who are more rich than us? There's always richer people to pass the blame to. It's always someone else's problem, no matter how much you have. Complaining is easy.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Does this include the white middle-class-and-better people in this thread, or just people who are more rich than us? There's always richer people to pass the blame to. It's always someone else's problem, no matter how much you have. Complaining is easy.

You missed the 'and powerful' part.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

You missed the 'and powerful' part.

Most of us here are more powerful than a poor black man in Baltimore. We have more power to help, certainly more power to control our own lives and make sacrifices for others. But there's always somebody more powerful. Thank god, that means we can all feel like we're good and enlightened people just through complaining. That's the beauty of politics. It can make you feel like a good person without doing anything. That's the product the political parties sell. A sense that you're a good person, and the right to blame others for all the world's problems.

Just imagine how this whole thread looks to a truly disenfranchised American minority individual. Privileged white people proclaiming to other privileged white people how racially enlightened they are. To them, we are part of the powerful. We're not on their side, not really.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Most of us here are more powerful than a poor black man in Baltimore. We have more power to help, certainly more power to control our own lives and make sacrifices for others. But there's always somebody more powerful. Thank god, that means we can all feel like we're good and enlightened people just through complaining. That's the beauty of politics. It can make you feel like a good person without doing anything. That's the product the political parties sell. A sense that you're a good person and the right to blame others for all the world's problems.

Are we, or is that part of the illusion that cuervo was pointing to?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Are we, or is that part of the illusion that cuervo was pointing to?

Or is that just what we tell ourselves to avoid doing anything? To pretend that those of us with disposable incomes, multiple vehicles, property, etc. are just as powerless as poor minorities? I wonder if those poor people would see it that way.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Or is that just what we tell ourselves to avoid doing anything, to avoid pretending we're not part of this too? To pretend that those of us with disposable incomes, multiple vehicles, property, etc. are just as powerless as poor minorities? I wonder if those poor people would see it that way.

Being more comfortable is not equal to being more powerful.

[molson]

What kind of power are you talking about? I'm guessing the poorest people are more concerned about caring for their children, and gaining the freedom that financial comfort provides, rather than say, who's running for Congress next year. There's that phrase, "white people problems." Edit: To group the plight of the American white man with that of poor blacks in the U.S. is order to make white people feel better is just fun to read.

[cartman]

I'm going with cuervo's, which is political and policy-making power.

[molson]

So where does the cutoff start to where the rich and powerful are supposed to "trickle down"? It's always just going to be someone more rich and powerful than ourselves. There's always someone more rich and powerful.

My point is when cuervo says, "the rich and powerful control the country", to the the perspective of a disenfranchised minority, that's us. They don't see us as a part of them, our privileges are part of the problem. They'd love for us to "trickle down" to them. From our perspective, the problem is "wall street bankers" or something. But those guys are real people with jobs too, and they certainly see others as the real bad guys. At some point everyone along the chain needs to see themselves as part of this, and we can all do better.

[cuervo72]

We're the ones who are still being given enough to be mollified. As long as we have enough, we're ok with the status quo - better to not upset the apple cart and screw things up for ourselves. And, if we're lucky enough we may even ascend to their level (you know, that one in several million chance).

I think that typically, as long as we're around as that buffer and there are enough of us, those with the real clout are safe. Heck, we'll even do their bidding for them (while cops wield the power, it's not necessarily theirs, is it?). They're ok as long as we are content with our lot and don't empathize with those worse off than we are.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

We're the ones who are still being given enough to be mollified. As long as we have enough, we're ok with the status quo - better to not upset the apple cart and screw things up for ourselves. And, if we're lucky enough we may even ascend to their level (you know, that one in several million chance).

I think that typically, as long as we're around as that buffer and there are enough of us, those with the real clout are safe. Heck, we'll even do their bidding for them (while cops wield the power, it's not necessarily theirs, is it?). They're ok as long as we are content with our lot and don't empathize with those worse off than we are.

You don't think the rich and powerful control both sides? It's more amusing to me when some people rise up against the 1% or think the Ferguson protests were people "taking it to the streets".

George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action - Washington Times

[cuervo72]

I absolutely think the rich and powerful control both sides. The more they pit the 99% against each other, the better off they are.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I absolutely think the rich and powerful control both sides. The more they pit the 99% against each other, the better off they are.

I think we probably need a discussion about the end game to get a sense of what you are driving at. There will always be a 1%...

[Edward64]

FWIW - I think the 1% is too low of a threshold. Depending on what you read and when, its probably anywhere between $350-$450K to get into the club. I certainly don't think there is a cabal of 1% in the US.

Now if you're talking about the Koch brothers and Soros, I can believe they want to control but don't think it pitting the 1% vs 99%, its more like Dems vs Reps or Jews vs Hostile-to-Jews etc.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW - I think the 1% is too low of a threshold. Depending on what you read and when, its probably anywhere between $350-$450K to get into the club. I certainly don't think there is a cabal of 1% in the US.

Now if you're talking about the Koch brothers and Soros, I can believe they want to control but don't think it pitting the 1% vs 99%, its more like Dems vs Reps or Jews vs Hostile-to-Jews etc.

I think this adds to the confusion of what we all want.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think we probably need a discussion about the end game to get a sense of what you are driving at. There will always be a 1%...

Yeah, there will always be a 1%. But it seems like that 1% isn't going to yield anything they don't have to (give us all the stuffs!). What could force them to spread the wealth? Well, the 99% could either take some by action (demonstration, striking, rioting) or by legislation (taxation, regulation, trustbusting). Either one would take a pretty concerted effort and agreement to organize effectively though. If we're busy bickering though - R vs D, white vs black, etc - there's less of a threat of that happening.

[molson]

We're back to the Occupy Wall Street rhetoric now? That there's a specific level of income at which evil kicks in, and the rest of us are morally untouchable? America rejected line of thinking, but not before OWS set more productive battles back years by negative association.

[Dutch]

OWS operated from a broad brush standpoint and isn't much better than any other extremist groups. I think the reverse is the bottom 1%...I definately want to help them. Its the top 25% and the bottom 25% where things get a little more complicated. Do I want to help or hinder there? Well, the unfortunate answer is, "It depends".

[cuervo72]

I think there's no specific level of income - not even income, of assets - where having more does you no good. Are the Koch brothers going to be any worse off with a billion less? I seriously doubt it. Why wouldn't they want to give it up? No idea. Guess they just wouldn't want to. Why did Rockefeller want all the oil? I dunno. Because he could?

Obviously not everybody is going to have all the nice things. But can't more people have decent things, without really harming those at the tippy-top? I think so. Question is, how would we get there?

Things like the minimum wage. I think workers at the very bottom could stand to make a little bit more. Realistically, I know that if implemented, a raise for McDonald's workers is more likely to come out of my pocket in the form of pricier hamburgers rather than whomever is on the profit end of things. Why? Because those running McD's can get away with it. Is that evil? No, it's human nature. Nobody is going to give up anything that they can get if they aren't forced to.

It seems like few are on board with the rich throwing in a few extra dollars as opposed to making the poor fight for their few more pennies. Work harder.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

America rejected line of thinking, but not before OWS set more productive battles back years by negative association.

?

I'll agree nothing much has happened, but the discussion on income inequality seems much more visible now. Even GOP candidates are discussing inequality.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Obviously not everybody is going to have all the nice things. But can't more people have decent things, without really harming those at the tippy-top? I think so. Question is, how would we get there?

Nobody knows the optimum level, but getting capitol in the hands of those that spend can benefit the wealthy. Too much capitol in too few hands leads to greater stagnation.

[cuervo72]

I mean, I guess I don't get why some think that the 99% has to fight over the same 50% of resources (or whatever it is) while deeming the portion that the 1% has as off limits. Why? I doubt the 1% thinks "our" 50% is untouchable. Why not do all you can to grab some of what they have back? It's not like it's theirs by birthright.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nobody knows the optimum level, but getting capitol in the hands of those that spend can benefit the wealthy. Too much capitol in too few hands leads to greater stagnation.

This is why I no longer flinch at hearing tales of sweet 16 parties that cost $1M, or other "wasteful" displays of wealth. Screw that - circulate that money, bitches. Don't sit there gobbling it up like a miser. You're good at making it - spend it and it'll come back.

Trickle-down economics fails when the wealth doesn't trickle down.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

?

I'll agree nothing much has happened, but the discussion on income inequality seems much more visible now. Even GOP candidates are discussing inequality.

I think it's died down a lot, it used to be one of the bigger topics here.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

Are we, or is that part of the illusion that cuervo was pointing to?

FWIW, I think its an illusion. I am biased, having served in the military, but Ive met a lot of black folks from shitholes like that and they succeed at life. The problem for this dialogue is that they don't go back and what we see on our TVs are the ones that cant or wont leave. Same with poor white shitholes. If you can, you leave. That's skews the message, at least a little.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well, the rich control this country. I don't really think the people do. The trick for the rich and powerful is to keep the populace appeased enough so that they go along. Or to clamp down on those who aren't. When that balance gets out of whack, people get fed up.

Cut this jive and see who's got the power to kill the most
When they run out of power, the world's gonna be a ghost
They know we're not satisfied, so we begin to holler
Makin' us a promise and throwin' a few more dollars

The powerful need to trickle a bit more down than they are.

Poor people vote counts the same as a rich person vote. Lot more poor people too.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Poor people vote counts the same as a rich person vote. Lot more poor people too.

I think he is referring to what happens after the vote when you have to cow tow to special interest and those that fill the coffers.

[AENeuman]

I think it comes down to state and particularly local policies and law.

The poor are heavily influence by the whims of local law/politics. Most others are not. I now have to pay 5 cents for a grocery bag, but that's about it.

How the city provides housing, cops, hospitals and schools does not directly effect me. I earn enough money so that I don't need to rely on those city services.

In essences Hamilton was right, Jefferson was wrong.

[Dutch]

Can you give the cliff notes on Hamilton/Jefferson.