Meanwhile, in Atlanta...
-
My wife knew a nurse at work, her husband was a Portland cop.
He grabbed a rifle that he thought had a bean bag in it, but it was a shotgun. I don't remember: it was either that the rifles were all the same, but the round was painted orange if bean-bag, or, it was that the rifle had an orange band on it. Something like that. The person was injured, was black, hit the news here REAL big time.My wife could not help but have contempt for the family, as they came on the trauma floor and were rude and obnoxious, and as my wife told me, they already had an attorney and knew they would get a huge settlement. Of course, that can have nothing to do with anything, but was my wife's observation as a trauma nurse, to me.
The cop? His life turned to hell, they had two boys, under age five. He was going to go to jail, and he knew it. There were street protests against him. They had family in Canada, but he was not allowed to leave the state.
He told his wife one morning, he was going to go jogging. While he was out, he waited, and then stepped in front of an oncoming train.
I guarantee there is no cop anywhere, that wants to pull his weapon, wants to hurt anyone. Yet every cop must know that a situation can happen one day, and the world turns upside-down.
And some people call them pigs. Jesus.
@Rainman said in Meanwhile, in Atlanta...:
My wife knew a nurse at work, her husband was a Portland cop.
He grabbed a rifle that he thought had a bean bag in it, but it was a shotgun. I don't remember: it was either that the rifles were all the same, but the round was painted orange if bean-bag, or, it was that the rifle had an orange band on it. Something like that. The person was injured, was black, hit the news here REAL big time.My wife could not help but have contempt for the family, as they came on the trauma floor and were rude and obnoxious, and as my wife told me, they already had an attorney and knew they would get a huge settlement. Of course, that can have nothing to do with anything, but was my wife's observation as a trauma nurse, to me.
The cop? His life turned to hell, they had two boys, under age five. He was going to go to jail, and he knew it. There were street protests against him. They had family in Canada, but he was not allowed to leave the state.
He told his wife one morning, he was going to go jogging. While he was out, he waited, and then stepped in front of an oncoming train.
I guarantee there is no cop anywhere, that wants to pull his weapon, wants to hurt anyone. Yet every cop must know that a situation can happen one day, and the world turns upside-down.
And some people call them pigs. Jesus.
Bean bag rounds are fired in shotguns. They normally have #9 shot or ratshot (#12) in a fabric "beanbag" at a lower velocity. Standard lethal rounds in a police shotgun are 00 buck.
Both are 2 3/4" 12 gauge shells.
-
Why does Turè suggest the shooting was "lawful"? Because "officers are trained that they have the right to escalate their use of force if they believe someone is threatening to incapacitate them," the Times explains. Brooks had already taken Brosnan's Taser. If he had managed to use it effectively against Rolfe, the officer might have been thinking, Brooks also could have grabbed Rolfe's gun.
It is worth noting that Tasers, although marketed as "less than lethal," can kill people. A 2012 study by Amnesty International documented 500 cases since 2001 in which arrestees died after they were tased. The criminal charges against six Atlanta officers accused of assaulting two protesters on May 30 describe the Taser as "a deadly weapon." If Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard applies that classification consistently, it follows that Rolfe used deadly force in response to deadly force.
Why is the shooting nevertheless "awful"? To start with, it would not have happened if the cops had let Brooks walk home. Although it may be too much to expect such lenience from officers in the face of a probable DUI, that sort of thing has been known to happen when the suspect happens to be a cop.
It also seems likely that Brooks would still be alive if he had not resisted his DUI arrest. Unlike George Floyd, who was killed by a gratuitously prolonged neck restraint when he posed no threat to the officers who were arresting him, Brooks fought Rolfe and Brosnan once it became clear that he was going to jail.
A third opportunity for de-escalation came when Brooks ran away from the cops. Instead of giving chase, Turè suggests, Rolfe and Brosnan could have tracked him down later based on his car registration, or they could have called for more officers to help subdue him without using deadly force.
The second option might not have worked out very well for Brooks either. But the first option, although hard to imagine once Brooks had assaulted the two officers, surely would have been preferable given the risks and benefits involved in this particular arrest. Brooks was on foot, posing no threat to the general public, and running away, posing no threat to the officers as long as they let him do so.
An ordinary citizen who used deadly force in a situation like this would have a hard time defending his actions. But police officers are allowed to use force when they have probable cause to arrest someone, and they have no obligation to let him get away when he resists, even when the stakes are small. At the same time, the Supreme Court has said police may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless it is "necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Why does Turè suggest the shooting was "lawful"? Because "officers are trained that they have the right to escalate their use of force if they believe someone is threatening to incapacitate them," the Times explains. Brooks had already taken Brosnan's Taser. If he had managed to use it effectively against Rolfe, the officer might have been thinking, Brooks also could have grabbed Rolfe's gun.
It is worth noting that Tasers, although marketed as "less than lethal," can kill people. A 2012 study by Amnesty International documented 500 cases since 2001 in which arrestees died after they were tased. The criminal charges against six Atlanta officers accused of assaulting two protesters on May 30 describe the Taser as "a deadly weapon." If Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard applies that classification consistently, it follows that Rolfe used deadly force in response to deadly force.
Why is the shooting nevertheless "awful"? To start with, it would not have happened if the cops had let Brooks walk home. Although it may be too much to expect such lenience from officers in the face of a probable DUI, that sort of thing has been known to happen when the suspect happens to be a cop.
It also seems likely that Brooks would still be alive if he had not resisted his DUI arrest. Unlike George Floyd, who was killed by a gratuitously prolonged neck restraint when he posed no threat to the officers who were arresting him, Brooks fought Rolfe and Brosnan once it became clear that he was going to jail.
A third opportunity for de-escalation came when Brooks ran away from the cops. Instead of giving chase, Turè suggests, Rolfe and Brosnan could have tracked him down later based on his car registration, or they could have called for more officers to help subdue him without using deadly force.
The second option might not have worked out very well for Brooks either. But the first option, although hard to imagine once Brooks had assaulted the two officers, surely would have been preferable given the risks and benefits involved in this particular arrest. Brooks was on foot, posing no threat to the general public, and running away, posing no threat to the officers as long as they let him do so.
An ordinary citizen who used deadly force in a situation like this would have a hard time defending his actions. But police officers are allowed to use force when they have probable cause to arrest someone, and they have no obligation to let him get away when he resists, even when the stakes are small. At the same time, the Supreme Court has said police may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless it is "necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
@George-K said in Meanwhile, in Atlanta...:
Why does Turè suggest the shooting was "lawful"? Because "officers are trained that they have the right to escalate their use of force if they believe someone is threatening to incapacitate them," the Times explains. Brooks had already taken Brosnan's Taser. If he had managed to use it effectively against Rolfe, the officer might have been thinking, Brooks also could have grabbed Rolfe's gun.
It is worth noting that Tasers, although marketed as "less than lethal," can kill people. A 2012 study by Amnesty International documented 500 cases since 2001 in which arrestees died after they were tased. The criminal charges against six Atlanta officers accused of assaulting two protesters on May 30 describe the Taser as "a deadly weapon." If Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard applies that classification consistently, it follows that Rolfe used deadly force in response to deadly force.
Why is the shooting nevertheless "awful"? To start with, it would not have happened if the cops had let Brooks walk home. Although it may be too much to expect such lenience from officers in the face of a probable DUI, that sort of thing has been known to happen when the suspect happens to be a cop.
It also seems likely that Brooks would still be alive if he had not resisted his DUI arrest. Unlike George Floyd, who was killed by a gratuitously prolonged neck restraint when he posed no threat to the officers who were arresting him, Brooks fought Rolfe and Brosnan once it became clear that he was going to jail.
A third opportunity for de-escalation came when Brooks ran away from the cops. Instead of giving chase, Turè suggests, Rolfe and Brosnan could have tracked him down later based on his car registration, or they could have called for more officers to help subdue him without using deadly force.
The second option might not have worked out very well for Brooks either. But the first option, although hard to imagine once Brooks had assaulted the two officers, surely would have been preferable given the risks and benefits involved in this particular arrest. Brooks was on foot, posing no threat to the general public, and running away, posing no threat to the officers as long as they let him do so.
An ordinary citizen who used deadly force in a situation like this would have a hard time defending his actions. But police officers are allowed to use force when they have probable cause to arrest someone, and they have no obligation to let him get away when he resists, even when the stakes are small. At the same time, the Supreme Court has said police may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless it is "necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Sam Harris says it best. When someone encounters a cop a gun is always on the table. If that person makes a threatening move toward the officer, the officer has to assume that person will get the gun.
-
Why does Turè suggest the shooting was "lawful"? Because "officers are trained that they have the right to escalate their use of force if they believe someone is threatening to incapacitate them," the Times explains. Brooks had already taken Brosnan's Taser. If he had managed to use it effectively against Rolfe, the officer might have been thinking, Brooks also could have grabbed Rolfe's gun.
It is worth noting that Tasers, although marketed as "less than lethal," can kill people. A 2012 study by Amnesty International documented 500 cases since 2001 in which arrestees died after they were tased. The criminal charges against six Atlanta officers accused of assaulting two protesters on May 30 describe the Taser as "a deadly weapon." If Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard applies that classification consistently, it follows that Rolfe used deadly force in response to deadly force.
Why is the shooting nevertheless "awful"? To start with, it would not have happened if the cops had let Brooks walk home. Although it may be too much to expect such lenience from officers in the face of a probable DUI, that sort of thing has been known to happen when the suspect happens to be a cop.
It also seems likely that Brooks would still be alive if he had not resisted his DUI arrest. Unlike George Floyd, who was killed by a gratuitously prolonged neck restraint when he posed no threat to the officers who were arresting him, Brooks fought Rolfe and Brosnan once it became clear that he was going to jail.
A third opportunity for de-escalation came when Brooks ran away from the cops. Instead of giving chase, Turè suggests, Rolfe and Brosnan could have tracked him down later based on his car registration, or they could have called for more officers to help subdue him without using deadly force.
The second option might not have worked out very well for Brooks either. But the first option, although hard to imagine once Brooks had assaulted the two officers, surely would have been preferable given the risks and benefits involved in this particular arrest. Brooks was on foot, posing no threat to the general public, and running away, posing no threat to the officers as long as they let him do so.
An ordinary citizen who used deadly force in a situation like this would have a hard time defending his actions. But police officers are allowed to use force when they have probable cause to arrest someone, and they have no obligation to let him get away when he resists, even when the stakes are small. At the same time, the Supreme Court has said police may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless it is "necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
@George-K said in Meanwhile, in Atlanta...:
Why does Turè suggest the shooting was "lawful"? Because "officers are trained that they have the right to escalate their use of force if they believe someone is threatening to incapacitate them," the Times explains. Brooks had already taken Brosnan's Taser. If he had managed to use it effectively against Rolfe, the officer might have been thinking, Brooks also could have grabbed Rolfe's gun.
It is worth noting that Tasers, although marketed as "less than lethal," can kill people. A 2012 study by Amnesty International documented 500 cases since 2001 in which arrestees died after they were tased. The criminal charges against six Atlanta officers accused of assaulting two protesters on May 30 describe the Taser as "a deadly weapon." If Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard applies that classification consistently, it follows that Rolfe used deadly force in response to deadly force.
Why is the shooting nevertheless "awful"? To start with, it would not have happened if the cops had let Brooks walk home. Although it may be too much to expect such lenience from officers in the face of a probable DUI, that sort of thing has been known to happen when the suspect happens to be a cop.
It also seems likely that Brooks would still be alive if he had not resisted his DUI arrest. Unlike George Floyd, who was killed by a gratuitously prolonged neck restraint when he posed no threat to the officers who were arresting him, Brooks fought Rolfe and Brosnan once it became clear that he was going to jail.
A third opportunity for de-escalation came when Brooks ran away from the cops. Instead of giving chase, Turè suggests, Rolfe and Brosnan could have tracked him down later based on his car registration, or they could have called for more officers to help subdue him without using deadly force.
The second option might not have worked out very well for Brooks either. But the first option, although hard to imagine once Brooks had assaulted the two officers, surely would have been preferable given the risks and benefits involved in this particular arrest. Brooks was on foot, posing no threat to the general public, and running away, posing no threat to the officers as long as they let him do so.
An ordinary citizen who used deadly force in a situation like this would have a hard time defending his actions. But police officers are allowed to use force when they have probable cause to arrest someone, and they have no obligation to let him get away when he resists, even when the stakes are small. At the same time, the Supreme Court has said police may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless it is "necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
It is great to think our way through all the ways in which the officer could have managed the situation such that the guy doesn't die at the end. Unfortunately we have people who make up a large part of our population now that want the cop's life to be over for this. And they're convinced that that is the high-empathy, high-compassion response to this. And also, presumably, that it'll be good for society as a whole if we have an unarmed police force. (I don't see where any of these arguments lead other than to an unarmed police force.)
-
@George-K said in Meanwhile, in Atlanta...:
Why does Turè suggest the shooting was "lawful"? Because "officers are trained that they have the right to escalate their use of force if they believe someone is threatening to incapacitate them," the Times explains. Brooks had already taken Brosnan's Taser. If he had managed to use it effectively against Rolfe, the officer might have been thinking, Brooks also could have grabbed Rolfe's gun.
It is worth noting that Tasers, although marketed as "less than lethal," can kill people. A 2012 study by Amnesty International documented 500 cases since 2001 in which arrestees died after they were tased. The criminal charges against six Atlanta officers accused of assaulting two protesters on May 30 describe the Taser as "a deadly weapon." If Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard applies that classification consistently, it follows that Rolfe used deadly force in response to deadly force.
Why is the shooting nevertheless "awful"? To start with, it would not have happened if the cops had let Brooks walk home. Although it may be too much to expect such lenience from officers in the face of a probable DUI, that sort of thing has been known to happen when the suspect happens to be a cop.
It also seems likely that Brooks would still be alive if he had not resisted his DUI arrest. Unlike George Floyd, who was killed by a gratuitously prolonged neck restraint when he posed no threat to the officers who were arresting him, Brooks fought Rolfe and Brosnan once it became clear that he was going to jail.
A third opportunity for de-escalation came when Brooks ran away from the cops. Instead of giving chase, Turè suggests, Rolfe and Brosnan could have tracked him down later based on his car registration, or they could have called for more officers to help subdue him without using deadly force.
The second option might not have worked out very well for Brooks either. But the first option, although hard to imagine once Brooks had assaulted the two officers, surely would have been preferable given the risks and benefits involved in this particular arrest. Brooks was on foot, posing no threat to the general public, and running away, posing no threat to the officers as long as they let him do so.
An ordinary citizen who used deadly force in a situation like this would have a hard time defending his actions. But police officers are allowed to use force when they have probable cause to arrest someone, and they have no obligation to let him get away when he resists, even when the stakes are small. At the same time, the Supreme Court has said police may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless it is "necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Sam Harris says it best. When someone encounters a cop a gun is always on the table. If that person makes a threatening move toward the officer, the officer has to assume that person will get the gun.
@Loki said in Meanwhile, in Atlanta...:
@George-K said in Meanwhile, in Atlanta...:
Why does Turè suggest the shooting was "lawful"? Because "officers are trained that they have the right to escalate their use of force if they believe someone is threatening to incapacitate them," the Times explains. Brooks had already taken Brosnan's Taser. If he had managed to use it effectively against Rolfe, the officer might have been thinking, Brooks also could have grabbed Rolfe's gun.
It is worth noting that Tasers, although marketed as "less than lethal," can kill people. A 2012 study by Amnesty International documented 500 cases since 2001 in which arrestees died after they were tased. The criminal charges against six Atlanta officers accused of assaulting two protesters on May 30 describe the Taser as "a deadly weapon." If Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard applies that classification consistently, it follows that Rolfe used deadly force in response to deadly force.
Why is the shooting nevertheless "awful"? To start with, it would not have happened if the cops had let Brooks walk home. Although it may be too much to expect such lenience from officers in the face of a probable DUI, that sort of thing has been known to happen when the suspect happens to be a cop.
It also seems likely that Brooks would still be alive if he had not resisted his DUI arrest. Unlike George Floyd, who was killed by a gratuitously prolonged neck restraint when he posed no threat to the officers who were arresting him, Brooks fought Rolfe and Brosnan once it became clear that he was going to jail.
A third opportunity for de-escalation came when Brooks ran away from the cops. Instead of giving chase, Turè suggests, Rolfe and Brosnan could have tracked him down later based on his car registration, or they could have called for more officers to help subdue him without using deadly force.
The second option might not have worked out very well for Brooks either. But the first option, although hard to imagine once Brooks had assaulted the two officers, surely would have been preferable given the risks and benefits involved in this particular arrest. Brooks was on foot, posing no threat to the general public, and running away, posing no threat to the officers as long as they let him do so.
An ordinary citizen who used deadly force in a situation like this would have a hard time defending his actions. But police officers are allowed to use force when they have probable cause to arrest someone, and they have no obligation to let him get away when he resists, even when the stakes are small. At the same time, the Supreme Court has said police may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless it is "necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Sam Harris says it best. When someone encounters a cop a gun is always on the table. If that person makes a threatening move toward the officer, the officer has to assume that person will get the gun.
Exactly. I'm just finishing the podcast (been listening to it in 30 minute chunks while driving) and it's spot on.
-
Why does Turè suggest the shooting was "lawful"? Because "officers are trained that they have the right to escalate their use of force if they believe someone is threatening to incapacitate them," the Times explains. Brooks had already taken Brosnan's Taser. If he had managed to use it effectively against Rolfe, the officer might have been thinking, Brooks also could have grabbed Rolfe's gun.
It is worth noting that Tasers, although marketed as "less than lethal," can kill people. A 2012 study by Amnesty International documented 500 cases since 2001 in which arrestees died after they were tased. The criminal charges against six Atlanta officers accused of assaulting two protesters on May 30 describe the Taser as "a deadly weapon." If Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard applies that classification consistently, it follows that Rolfe used deadly force in response to deadly force.
Why is the shooting nevertheless "awful"? To start with, it would not have happened if the cops had let Brooks walk home. Although it may be too much to expect such lenience from officers in the face of a probable DUI, that sort of thing has been known to happen when the suspect happens to be a cop.
It also seems likely that Brooks would still be alive if he had not resisted his DUI arrest. Unlike George Floyd, who was killed by a gratuitously prolonged neck restraint when he posed no threat to the officers who were arresting him, Brooks fought Rolfe and Brosnan once it became clear that he was going to jail.
A third opportunity for de-escalation came when Brooks ran away from the cops. Instead of giving chase, Turè suggests, Rolfe and Brosnan could have tracked him down later based on his car registration, or they could have called for more officers to help subdue him without using deadly force.
The second option might not have worked out very well for Brooks either. But the first option, although hard to imagine once Brooks had assaulted the two officers, surely would have been preferable given the risks and benefits involved in this particular arrest. Brooks was on foot, posing no threat to the general public, and running away, posing no threat to the officers as long as they let him do so.
An ordinary citizen who used deadly force in a situation like this would have a hard time defending his actions. But police officers are allowed to use force when they have probable cause to arrest someone, and they have no obligation to let him get away when he resists, even when the stakes are small. At the same time, the Supreme Court has said police may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless it is "necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
@George-K said in Meanwhile, in Atlanta...:
Why does Turè suggest the shooting was "lawful"? Because "officers are trained that they have the right to escalate their use of force if they believe someone is threatening to incapacitate them," the Times explains. Brooks had already taken Brosnan's Taser. If he had managed to use it effectively against Rolfe, the officer might have been thinking, Brooks also could have grabbed Rolfe's gun.
It is worth noting that Tasers, although marketed as "less than lethal," can kill people. A 2012 study by Amnesty International documented 500 cases since 2001 in which arrestees died after they were tased. The criminal charges against six Atlanta officers accused of assaulting two protesters on May 30 describe the Taser as "a deadly weapon." If Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard applies that classification consistently, it follows that Rolfe used deadly force in response to deadly force.
Why is the shooting nevertheless "awful"? To start with, it would not have happened if the cops had let Brooks walk home. Although it may be too much to expect such lenience from officers in the face of a probable DUI, that sort of thing has been known to happen when the suspect happens to be a cop.
It also seems likely that Brooks would still be alive if he had not resisted his DUI arrest. Unlike George Floyd, who was killed by a gratuitously prolonged neck restraint when he posed no threat to the officers who were arresting him, Brooks fought Rolfe and Brosnan once it became clear that he was going to jail.
A third opportunity for de-escalation came when Brooks ran away from the cops. Instead of giving chase, Turè suggests, Rolfe and Brosnan could have tracked him down later based on his car registration, or they could have called for more officers to help subdue him without using deadly force.
The second option might not have worked out very well for Brooks either. But the first option, although hard to imagine once Brooks had assaulted the two officers, surely would have been preferable given the risks and benefits involved in this particular arrest. Brooks was on foot, posing no threat to the general public, and running away, posing no threat to the officers as long as they let him do so.
An ordinary citizen who used deadly force in a situation like this would have a hard time defending his actions. But police officers are allowed to use force when they have probable cause to arrest someone, and they have no obligation to let him get away when he resists, even when the stakes are small. At the same time, the Supreme Court has said police may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless it is "necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Wrong on a couple of counts.
-
Twenty years ago, cops might let somebody walk home. They don't do that now. In fact, they don't do a ton of discretionary things they used to do. Blame the lawyers. Nowadays, it's arrest them and let the judge sort it out. The judge has a lot of discretion, the cop has very little...Maybe on a simple traffic stop for speeding or a broken tailight, not DUI.
-
There was no way the cops were going to let this guy run off into the night after fighting them, and especially not after he took an officer's weapon. If he had bolted when the cruiser pulled into the parking lot, it might have been a short fruitless chase, then impound the car, but not after a tussle.
-
-
When I was young, I was let off the hook a few times by cops. That included "you're drunk, go home, drive carefully."
But no one is even mentioning that i.e., the cop for a brief moment is cop, judge, and jury. It's all or nothing, or so it seems, and it's all about cops killing blacks disproportionately, but the data says otherwise, so, it must be thought that if cop would not arrest blacks, the prisons would be emptier, and blacks could thrive in society.
In other words, things will change, but will remain the same.
Cops are the scapegoat. It's not going to work, it's going to make things worse.
-
The only people on the BLM side of the issue who wish that guy had gone peacefully with the officer are his loved ones. Everybody else is happy to have another martyr for the cause. You can tell because anybody who was genuinely interested in minimizing these sorts of deaths would be picking the low hanging fruit of reminding people to obey officers and you know, not punch them and taze them and stuff. But of course the expectation that people should follow rules is just another privileged white person thing. We can't go around suggesting that an historically oppressed people follow cops' orders. That would be whitesplaining.
Education is extremely important.
-
The only people on the BLM side of the issue who wish that guy had gone peacefully with the officer are his loved ones. Everybody else is happy to have another martyr for the cause. You can tell because anybody who was genuinely interested in minimizing these sorts of deaths would be picking the low hanging fruit of reminding people to obey officers and you know, not punch them and taze them and stuff. But of course the expectation that people should follow rules is just another privileged white person thing. We can't go around suggesting that an historically oppressed people follow cops' orders. That would be whitesplaining.
@Horace said in Meanwhile, in Atlanta...:
The only people on the BLM side of the issue who wish that guy had gone peacefully with the officer are his loved ones. Everybody else is happy to have another martyr for the cause. You can tell because anybody who was genuinely interested in minimizing these sorts of deaths would be picking the low hanging fruit of reminding people to obey officers and you know, not punch them and taze them and stuff. But of course the expectation that people should follow rules is just another privileged white person thing. We can't go around suggesting that an historically oppressed people follow cops' orders. That would be whitesplaining.
Yes, "whitesplaining" is the cop-out. Not the issues in the black family, lack of a father (doesn't matter because males...), and other uncomplimentary facts which should be ignored.
BTW - Horace had a great post earlier in this thread, as often times he has a unique and thoughtful perspective. I would have clicked the "like" button, if there was one.
-
The only people on the BLM side of the issue who wish that guy had gone peacefully with the officer are his loved ones. Everybody else is happy to have another martyr for the cause. You can tell because anybody who was genuinely interested in minimizing these sorts of deaths would be picking the low hanging fruit of reminding people to obey officers and you know, not punch them and taze them and stuff. But of course the expectation that people should follow rules is just another privileged white person thing. We can't go around suggesting that an historically oppressed people follow cops' orders. That would be whitesplaining.
@Horace said in Meanwhile, in Atlanta...:
The only people on the BLM side of the issue who wish that guy had gone peacefully with the officer are his loved ones. Everybody else is happy to have another martyr for the cause. You can tell because anybody who was genuinely interested in minimizing these sorts of deaths would be picking the low hanging fruit of reminding people to obey officers and you know, not punch them and taze them and stuff. But of course the expectation that people should follow rules is just another privileged white person thing. We can't go around suggesting that an historically oppressed people follow cops' orders. That would be whitesplaining.
Damn skippy...
-
The mayor and DA have overreached, and there is a very real chance this will backfire.
1st, I would love to meet the jury that would convict this former officer. I don’t see that happening. I do see him having a hell of a case against them, however.
Unfortunately, his life has been destroyed, and it’s going to be a very long time till he and his family have any peace.
The Brad
-
Yes, the ridiculous nature of this attack on the police should be obvious to everyone.
But all of a sudden you can't say anything bad about blm.
Somebody has to defend the police.
I assume it will be left to Mr. Trump to set things right.
Lucky for us, I think he up to the job.
-
The mayor and DA have overreached, and there is a very real chance this will backfire.
1st, I would love to meet the jury that would convict this former officer. I don’t see that happening. I do see him having a hell of a case against them, however.
Unfortunately, his life has been destroyed, and it’s going to be a very long time till he and his family have any peace.
@LuFins-Dad said in Meanwhile, in Atlanta...:
1st, I would love to meet the jury that would convict this former officer. I don’t see that happening. I do see him having a hell of a case against them, however.
It All comes down to jury selection.
