White cop .

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Sep 26, 2016.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
  2. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
  3. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #3
    "Alt right propaganda. White cops are Hitler and so are you."

    Or something like that.
     
  4. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #4
    Honestly the behaviour of the police officer is more like what I encountered before I left for Scotland. I think we'd all agree that this police officer deserves respect for his actions.

    It is a pity that more people in the US fail to recognise each other as human beings and act compassionately rather than prejudging or stereotyping. *cough*
     
  5. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #5
    I'm quite sure 99% of officers act like this but they don't generate clicks and that is more important
     
  6. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #6
    I guess the only comment I can make is that I hope this was at the end of the officer's shift. Otherwise driving 100 miles off into the sunset, as thoughtful as it is, sounds a bit like leaving his post.

    Cool story.
     
  7. touchstoned macrumors regular

    touchstoned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2015
    Location:
    Hermosa Beach, CA
    #7
    You think cops need the alt right for propaganda? LOL



    Cops get all the propaganda they need from the mainstream media.

    Also, what you posted is literally the definition of pro-cop propaganda. It's not news, it's not even interesting. The only purpose it serves it to put lipstick on the pig (pun intended) of the police brutality topic. I hope you are a cop, or the family member of one... because if not, your post belies a learning disability and a lack of understanding of where your own interests lie. Cops don't GAF about you or anyone besides other cops.


    Law enforcement has massive amounts of control over all media in this country, you'd have to be brain dead to fail to see it. Notice how when a cop is accused of a crime his name will be withheld "to protect the family" or whatever BS reason, but when a pleb "citizen" gets arrested they are plastered all over the news and the cops 'leak' info non-stop. That's because the media is complicit in all of it.
     
  8. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    Wow , bent has an alter :p
     
  9. daflake macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    #9
    Again, we need to remove the us against them mentality. Kudos to this officer for doing the right thing!
     
  10. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #10
    I know the thumbs down button has been removed, but maybe we can add a "smoking crack" button? :)
     
  11. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #11
    I guess that is why every time cops kill a white dude the media suppresses the story.
    Makes sense.
     
  12. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #12
    &
    You guys are already stinging from the barbs you have yet to feel. In the imortal words of Sgt. Hulka "Lighten up, Francis".

    Careful what you wish for...
     
  13. touchstoned macrumors regular

    touchstoned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2015
    Location:
    Hermosa Beach, CA
    #13
    Uh, yes it does make sense if you understand anything about media and law enforcement along with the judicial system.


    Here is how it works:
    The media is a business. Businesses are created to make money (to pay employees) and profits (to pay investors). Who are the employees of the media? Millions of americans, from the news anchors down to the telecom IT workers who pipe that FOX News into your home. Who are the investors? Well, almost anyone who owns a mutual fund or 401k will have some small stake in the media, by virtue of its ubiquity.

    Now what does the news media generally do to make money? They advertise on their shows, an they sell the advertising time to investors. What gets people to watch the news more than anything else? Disasters. Crime. Riots. Pretty much anything bad can be peddled for higher viewership. So where do these news agencies go to find these high yield topics to cover? Who else but the people who are supposedly constantly arresting criminals and busting drug rings or stoping active shooters, cops! They go to the police to find out anything, and recently the police have become the gateway to "legitimate" information about any given breaking news. How many times have you looked at the news and heard the reporter say "we're waiting for law enforcement to confirm" or "we are withholding x until law enforcement confirm y"? I hear it nearly every time there is a shooting or attack or whatever. Meanwhile, actual information is usually available online if you know where to look. Often the police make stuff up, and it almost always turns out wrong, too. They also censor and actively manage what the media can say or can't say. They protect the identities of any cop under investigation while simultaneously leaking info about regular citizens. They even made special laws, "LEOBoR" laws, to protect them beyond normal citizens.

    Now, obviously police must have certain powers that normal citizens don't have, but in other countries those privileges come with increased responsibility and scrutiny. In japan, if a cop is caught doing the same crime as a citizen he is punished with twice the length of sentence. In the US, if a cop is caught doing something a citizen would get 10 or 20 years for, he often gets no punishment whatsoever. This is the problem we have today, we have empowered a violent group of citizens and taken away all responsibility and oversight.

    So, finally... the connection between law enforcement and the media is well established, and yes they will suppress any shooting they can. Why wouldn't they? They are literally never held responsible for suppressing this stuff. The real reason white shootings are easier to suppress is they are 1) Proportionally rarer than black shootings 2) Usually armed and often combative and 3) There is currently no equivalent movement to BLM attempting to bring notice to shootings of white people They still try to suppress the black person shootings, but BLM won't let them. Hopefully now it makes sense to you.
     
  14. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #14
    Unless we want vigilante justice or just plain anarchy, we need good law enforcement, so we need good people to want a career in law enforcement. And so it would make sense to stop stereotyping law enforcement as all this or all that or all anything. Not to mention stop stereotyping civilians for the sake of simple decency.

    It's way past time to get back to dealing with people as their behavior warrants and stop making assumptions about groups based on any individual's behavior. Take it all case by case.

    The golden rule, treating other people like you would want to be treated, is time honored because it respects individuals and tends to create harmonious relationships. It works most of the time, if you let it work. Maybe today we have to make a conscious effort to let it work: it's actually okay to go first in treating someone else the way you would like to be treated.

    Maybe start with how we talk with (or... at) each other. I'm not sure how we got to some of these impasse situations today where everyone wants to exercise free speech but no one wants to hear the other guys' supposedly off-brand speech, just want to hear the stuff they personally favor. We seem to want to be the choir preached to by a preacher we're already familiar with and have pre-approved.

    I think this has a lot to do with filtering input to personal preferences, and then feeling abraded by hearing anything different. But that's a recipe for global disaster, borrowed from the ancient era of walled city-states. Our gated communities in the USA are perhaps an interesting parallel to what goes on in social media cliques. Anyway changing up how we listen to each other may translate into better results in how we interact with each other out in the real world. Worth a try, anyway.

    I'd be really unhappy if I ended up on one of these university campuses where they sometimes recommend to kids now that you just not say anything to anyone that's not essential to your task of the moment -- to avoid conflict. !!?? I mean what the hell is that about.

    Thirty years ago the children of some of my contemporaries were college students majoring in stuff like conflict resolution. They were certainly not being taught to avoid speaking freely about issues that concerned the differing parties. Maybe we need to dig up those textbooks and find out how to do peaceful conflict resolution.

    But by now we have their children in college already, and these kids are afraid to suggest going out to eat Mexican food in case maybe the Mexican place is run by non-Mexicans who are committing cultural appropriation? Somewhere we went off the rails here, seems like.

    So bottom line I'm not necessarily surprised that we have clashes between law enforcement and civilians. There's something inherently confrontational about failure to accept that we're all different and all equal in our humanity; something messed up about my deciding that if you are not like me then you --and everyone I decide is like you-- are an object of my justifiable suspicion. And may I say even worse to decide that an effort to honor another culture is merely a demeaning dilution of it. How about taking those things one case at a time too?

    How does media fit into this? Yeah, by not editing out some of the natural tendency to go with what sells papers. Plenty of blame fits on their shoulders. But we are who give them what to work with. How about giving them something a little more off the beaten track once in awhile. You be yourself and I'll be myself and we could act like we're getting along with each other. Harmony, the new clickbait...
     
  15. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #15
    How long is your rap sheet?
     
  16. touchstoned, Sep 27, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2016

    touchstoned macrumors regular

    touchstoned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2015
    Location:
    Hermosa Beach, CA
    #16
    I don't think anybody has even come close to eliminating law enforcement, that is a straw man argument (if that's what you're implying). Also, vigilante justice is what we already have. You saw it in Dallas where 5 cops were gunned down in retaliation for two black men gunned down by cops. If the black community feels the government has basically deemed their lives worthless you will continue to see similar reprisals. Dallas wasn't the first instance of vigilantism either, you had that white guy who killed two cops in 2014, and you had Chris Dorner. So, by telling people to effectively shut up and pick up that can you are in fact endorsing vigilantism yourself. Stereotyping civilians is generally referred to as racism, and is basically the crux of the issue with Policing in America. The people you should be talking to are cops, not civilians. You have no capacity to compel a private citizen to do anything, the cops are our employees. They work for us, so we can in fact tell them what to say. We cannot do that to private citizens, unless you are actively endorsing a totalitarian state (are you?).
    Harmony sounds great but "what about my dead son or father or mother that was murdered last week by a cop who is now on paid leave in Honolulu?" Huh?


    You fail to understand the depth of their despair, which is why you fail to understand the truth. Your lack of comprehension is understandable, though. How is someone who has suffered so little supposed to understand centuries of oppression and experiments and slavery and lynching and jim crow etc etc etc.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 27, 2016 ---
    Sorry I can't tell you, I'm under audit, and I'll release that information as soon as I'm no longer under audit. Nobody else gets audited like me, it's very unfair. I'm ok with it though, I'm a very bigly guy.







    I'm sure you'll understand ;)
     
  17. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #17
    I'm talking to both "sides" of some things that should not have sides to begin with. Law enforcement is surely one of them. Yes, we pay for law enforcement so they are accountable to us.

    Do we ask too much of law enforcement officlas sometimes? I think so. For instance, we insist on a cop being sure he's dealing with armed resistance, and then he's dead because he figured a kid had a toy gun. Or it went the other way and the kid is dead because the cop figured the kid had a real gun only it wasn't. Or out of nowhere some civilian decides to take out a random cop in retaliation for real or perceived failure of law enforcement --somewhere, sometime-- to have treated some other civilian with all due respect. It's not every occupation where you are literally asked to put your life on the line every morning. LEO are accountable to us but they are not superhuman and we cannot be making superhuman demands of them either.

    Does law enforcement mistreat civilians sometimes? Without doubt. Are they punished? Not always. Are there extenuating circumstances? Yes, sometimes. It's not right to assume all cops are rogue, any more than it's right to assume anyone on the street is a criminal.

    Either someone does or does not treat another human being as having a life protected by our Constitutional guarantees. To the extent a person fails to do that, regardless whether civilian or law enforcement, that person fails to meet the ideals we profess in our Consitutional protection of each other.

    Does that failure confer upon any person some special right, in turn, to retaliate in kind? No. But, that's sometimes what happens. And it appears to be contagious, with animosity building and stereotyping increasing with every iteration of things gone wrong.

    What is supposed to happen is that the violator of our Constitutional protections of each other has to face the justice system, before which we are presumed both equal and innocent until proven guilty.

    That's where your post came in above, in the sense of interactions and expectations that have evolved over the years, how cops may get treated diffferently in the media and by the justice system, and how people of color may get treated differently than Caucasians in media accounts of crimes and in how the justice system treats them.

    I don't know how to unravel that. What I do know is that it's wrong for cops to assume anything about a civilian based on stereotyping and it's wrong for civilians to assume a law enforcement official is a bad apple bent on trashing the civil rights of citizens. The only way to make that stop happening is for people to decide they are willing to go first: not assume the worst about each other. Meet in the middle. I realize that can be extremely difficult, if not unlikely, when it's possible that both parties are armed and wary of each other's intentions.

    It comes down to community policing. The cop on the beat who knows parents sitting on the stoops, who in turn know which kids are just rowdy and which kids are heading towards "gone bad". So it comes down also to parental policing. It may not take a village to raise a child, but villages do raise children nonetheless (and for good or bad).

    Children are not born wielding guns in the commission of crimes against property, each other or law enforcement officials. Something happens between cradle and first arraignment. It's us, looking the other way, asking too much or not enough of both parents and children, of cops and of each other in primarily (but not exclusively) urban settings. So it still comes down to individual behavior and how that affects everyone else around the individual.

    We're good at blaming in America these days. Not so great at looking in the mirror and asking how I can make a positive difference. Not "we". I, as an individual. Even if my family or I've been wronged, I'm responsible for my own behavior. I can try to make a situation better, or I can just lash out at whoever's handy. Either way, there can be unforeseen consequences. I might decide to join a protest movement. To me, a protest could seem positive, even if it is illegal, which it might or might not be. To others, my protest might seem like a threat. If I don't intend violence then I have to make an effort to stick to nonviolent behavior. That was, after all, the point of our earlier civil rights marches, to remain non violent but to persist until inequitable laws were undone.

    It's shameful that parents of color can have to sit down and decide whether to have "the talk" with their children about how to behave when confronted by a law enforcement official. It's shameful that cops don't all empathize with the by now clearly justifiable fear of those parents. It's shameful that not all parents seem to give a damn. It's shameful that plenty of us seem to forget no one chooses to live in an urban slum surrounded by risk of death by gunfire. And yeah, it's shameful that a lot of us only think about that when politicians start talking about either law and order or how to fix up urban slums when re-election time rolls around.

    How to undo all that shamefulness? Be the first to be forthright about it, be the first to say to neighbor or fellow cop that it's not a bad idea to stand in the shoes of the other guy before making a snap judgment about who that guy is and what he's about.

    The same thing goes for the absurdities of both the abuse of and constraints on "free speech" in our university campus life today. We need to drop the agendas and the transmit-only mode and the deliberate provocations, and try listening to each other. There's no way to get an education if we think we know everything already. Start by questioning where we learned what we've been spouting. Maybe whoever that was doesn't know everything either. Doesn't matter if it's news media, parents, peers, no one has a handle on everything, least of all us when we've been sent up to university to get that vaunted education. The very fact we're in school suggests we have something to learn.
     

Share This Page