|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote: Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens). It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. Your kind of writing a lot without actually saying anything. I can't make heads or tails if your points, what message are you trying to convey exactly?
|
On December 25 2014 10:26 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote: Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens). It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. Your kind of writing a lot without actually saying anything. I can't make heads or tails if your points, what message are you trying to convey exactly? Is it that hard to read and think ?
User was warned for this post
|
On December 25 2014 10:24 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote: Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens). It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. You're an idiot. Happy holidays. Thank you my child. Welcome. Sorry if it was harsh, but everything you wrote was bottom of the barrel stupid. For someone who claims to be educated, the crap you often vomit on these forums should be shameful. Then maybe give me an argument as to why it's stupid. Or maybe you have none. Sure, here's a few:
"My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? "
Yeah, no one ever assumes the greedy rich guy narrative, the racist white cop narrative or the gentle giant black guy narrative.
"Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative"."
Nonsense. People talk about 'difficult upbringing' all the time. Just look at the last few cases in this thread. Mike Brown started out as an oppressed gentile giant in a rough, neighborhood full of racist white cops.
"In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude."
We don't send blacks to jail for ambiguous crimes of "bad things" and personal history is considered when sentencing / parole comes up.
Basically everything you wrote is stupid bullshit.
|
On December 25 2014 10:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 10:26 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote: Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens). It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. Your kind of writing a lot without actually saying anything. I can't make heads or tails if your points, what message are you trying to convey exactly? Is it that hard to read and think ? normally no, but with your posts its proving difficult
but hey thanks for not being rude about it, merry christmas to you too!
|
On December 25 2014 10:41 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 10:31 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:26 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote: Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens). It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. Your kind of writing a lot without actually saying anything. I can't make heads or tails if your points, what message are you trying to convey exactly? Is it that hard to read and think ? normally no, but with your posts its proving difficult but hey thanks for not being rude about it, merry christmas to you too! Being rude ? Me ? Man be a little more intelligent and read yourself.
On December 25 2014 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 10:24 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote: Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens). It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. You're an idiot. Happy holidays. Thank you my child. Welcome. Sorry if it was harsh, but everything you wrote was bottom of the barrel stupid. For someone who claims to be educated, the crap you often vomit on these forums should be shameful. Then maybe give me an argument as to why it's stupid. Or maybe you have none. Sure, here's a few: "My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? " Yeah, no one ever assumes the greedy rich guy narrative, the racist white cop narrative or the gentle giant black guy narrative. Yeah and there's racism against white people. But please, feel free to show me a case where a guy was released after killing a cops because the court took into consideration the context in which the act had been made.
"Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative"."
Nonsense. People talk about 'difficult upbringing' all the time. Just look at the last few cases in this thread. Mike Brown started out as an oppressed gentile giant in a rough, neighborhood full of racist white cops. Really ? We don't read the same forum then. Some post here oftentime clearly justify the killings "he should not have done that" (like during the Trayvon Martin case). And you do not understand much about what other write (altho I don't mind it because I'm really used to that side of you). Mike Brown was the victim and not the murderer : contextualizing for him is a way to excuse the act ("look he was robbing this grocery store - this explains that !"). I want to see you discuss the background of a serial killer, a rapist or a drug addict for a change.
"In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude."
We don't send blacks to jail for ambiguous crimes of "bad things" and personal history is considered when sentencing / parole comes up. You believe in that ? Black people in the US are not sent in jail for ambiguous crimes ?
I love it when you tell me it's stupid bullshit, especially considering all the stupidity you post. I feel like I'm in the right.
|
On December 25 2014 10:48 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 10:41 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 10:31 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:26 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote: Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens). It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. Your kind of writing a lot without actually saying anything. I can't make heads or tails if your points, what message are you trying to convey exactly? Is it that hard to read and think ? normally no, but with your posts its proving difficult but hey thanks for not being rude about it, merry christmas to you too! Being rude ? Me ? Man be a little more intelligent and read yourself. Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:24 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. You're an idiot. Happy holidays. Thank you my child. Welcome. Sorry if it was harsh, but everything you wrote was bottom of the barrel stupid. For someone who claims to be educated, the crap you often vomit on these forums should be shameful. Then maybe give me an argument as to why it's stupid. Or maybe you have none. Sure, here's a few: "My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? " Yeah, no one ever assumes the greedy rich guy narrative, the racist white cop narrative or the gentle giant black guy narrative. Yeah and there's racism against white people. But please, feel free to show me a case where a guy was released after killing a cops because the court took into consideration the context in which the act had been made. Show nested quote +"Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative"."
Nonsense. People talk about 'difficult upbringing' all the time. Just look at the last few cases in this thread. Mike Brown started out as an oppressed gentile giant in a rough, neighborhood full of racist white cops. Really ? We don't read the same forum then. Some post here oftentime clearly justify the killings "he should not have done that" (like during the Trayvon Martin case). And you do not understand much about what other write (altho I don't mind it because I'm really used to that side of you). Mike Brown was the victim and not the murderer : contextualizing for him is a way to excuse the act. I want to see you discuss the background of a serial killer or a drug addict for a change. Show nested quote +"In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude."
We don't send blacks to jail for ambiguous crimes of "bad things" and personal history is considered when sentencing / parole comes up. You believe in that ? Black people in the US are not sent in jail for ambiguous crimes ? I love it when you tell me it's stupid bullshit, especially considering all the stupidity you post. I feel like I'm in the right. You aren't making sense. You're just saying things without justification that do not make good arguments. Sometimes cops are exonerated for shootings, sometimes not. Sometimes people are given lighter sentencing because of their rough circumstances, sometimes not. You seem to have done nothing but assemble a view based on, I don't know what. Some sort of weak literary critique?
Edit: look at this insanity -
And you do not understand much about what other write (altho I don't mind it because I'm really used to that side of you). Mike Brown was the victim and not the murderer : contextualizing for him is a way to excuse the act ("look he was robbing this grocery store - this explains that !"). I want to see you discuss the background of a serial killer, a rapist or a drug addict for a change. You'd have to be suffering from some mental disability, perhaps stupidity, to write something like this. This is really amazing stuff. Like, how does one even consider, let alone conclude, this to be in the ballpark of accurate, reasonable, or intelligent?
User was warned for this post
|
On December 25 2014 11:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 10:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:41 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 10:31 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:26 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote: Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens). It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. Your kind of writing a lot without actually saying anything. I can't make heads or tails if your points, what message are you trying to convey exactly? Is it that hard to read and think ? normally no, but with your posts its proving difficult but hey thanks for not being rude about it, merry christmas to you too! Being rude ? Me ? Man be a little more intelligent and read yourself. On December 25 2014 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:24 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. You're an idiot. Happy holidays. Thank you my child. Welcome. Sorry if it was harsh, but everything you wrote was bottom of the barrel stupid. For someone who claims to be educated, the crap you often vomit on these forums should be shameful. Then maybe give me an argument as to why it's stupid. Or maybe you have none. Sure, here's a few: "My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? " Yeah, no one ever assumes the greedy rich guy narrative, the racist white cop narrative or the gentle giant black guy narrative. Yeah and there's racism against white people. But please, feel free to show me a case where a guy was released after killing a cops because the court took into consideration the context in which the act had been made. "Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative"."
Nonsense. People talk about 'difficult upbringing' all the time. Just look at the last few cases in this thread. Mike Brown started out as an oppressed gentile giant in a rough, neighborhood full of racist white cops. Really ? We don't read the same forum then. Some post here oftentime clearly justify the killings "he should not have done that" (like during the Trayvon Martin case). And you do not understand much about what other write (altho I don't mind it because I'm really used to that side of you). Mike Brown was the victim and not the murderer : contextualizing for him is a way to excuse the act. I want to see you discuss the background of a serial killer or a drug addict for a change. "In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude."
We don't send blacks to jail for ambiguous crimes of "bad things" and personal history is considered when sentencing / parole comes up. You believe in that ? Black people in the US are not sent in jail for ambiguous crimes ? I love it when you tell me it's stupid bullshit, especially considering all the stupidity you post. I feel like I'm in the right. You aren't making sense. You're just saying things without justification that do not make good arguments. Sometimes cops are exonerated for shootings, sometimes not. Sometimes people are given lighter sentencing because of their rough circumstances, sometimes not. You seem to have done nothing but assemble a view based on, I don't know what. Some sort of weak literary critique? You are the one making no sense. It's like you don't know in which country you live in : do you know that 1 in 3 black males will go in jail in the US according to the statistics ? And you tell me that there is a balanced view ? That the court take into account the personnal history of a black criminal when they make judgement ? I like how you're always the ignorant one, but so sure of yourself with your small knowledge. Cops not exonerated for shootings ? When ?
Would be great if you stopped insulting me tho. I understand you're impotent and all, but there are other ways.
|
On December 25 2014 11:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 11:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:41 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 10:31 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:26 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. Your kind of writing a lot without actually saying anything. I can't make heads or tails if your points, what message are you trying to convey exactly? Is it that hard to read and think ? normally no, but with your posts its proving difficult but hey thanks for not being rude about it, merry christmas to you too! Being rude ? Me ? Man be a little more intelligent and read yourself. On December 25 2014 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:24 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote: [quote] Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. You're an idiot. Happy holidays. Thank you my child. Welcome. Sorry if it was harsh, but everything you wrote was bottom of the barrel stupid. For someone who claims to be educated, the crap you often vomit on these forums should be shameful. Then maybe give me an argument as to why it's stupid. Or maybe you have none. Sure, here's a few: "My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? " Yeah, no one ever assumes the greedy rich guy narrative, the racist white cop narrative or the gentle giant black guy narrative. Yeah and there's racism against white people. But please, feel free to show me a case where a guy was released after killing a cops because the court took into consideration the context in which the act had been made. "Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative"."
Nonsense. People talk about 'difficult upbringing' all the time. Just look at the last few cases in this thread. Mike Brown started out as an oppressed gentile giant in a rough, neighborhood full of racist white cops. Really ? We don't read the same forum then. Some post here oftentime clearly justify the killings "he should not have done that" (like during the Trayvon Martin case). And you do not understand much about what other write (altho I don't mind it because I'm really used to that side of you). Mike Brown was the victim and not the murderer : contextualizing for him is a way to excuse the act. I want to see you discuss the background of a serial killer or a drug addict for a change. "In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude."
We don't send blacks to jail for ambiguous crimes of "bad things" and personal history is considered when sentencing / parole comes up. You believe in that ? Black people in the US are not sent in jail for ambiguous crimes ? I love it when you tell me it's stupid bullshit, especially considering all the stupidity you post. I feel like I'm in the right. You aren't making sense. You're just saying things without justification that do not make good arguments. Sometimes cops are exonerated for shootings, sometimes not. Sometimes people are given lighter sentencing because of their rough circumstances, sometimes not. You seem to have done nothing but assemble a view based on, I don't know what. Some sort of weak literary critique? You are the one making no sense. It's like you don't know in which country you live in : do you know that 1 in 3 black males will go in jail in the US according to the statistics ? And you tell me that there is a balanced view ? That the court take into account the personnal history of a black criminal when they make judgement ? Would be great if you stopped insulting me tho. I understand you're impotent and all, but there are other ways. Yes, yes, yes.
Are you telling me that you are not aware of these things? Yet you have such a strong opinion? WTF do you base your opinions on???
|
On December 25 2014 11:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 11:18 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:41 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 10:31 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:26 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. Your kind of writing a lot without actually saying anything. I can't make heads or tails if your points, what message are you trying to convey exactly? Is it that hard to read and think ? normally no, but with your posts its proving difficult but hey thanks for not being rude about it, merry christmas to you too! Being rude ? Me ? Man be a little more intelligent and read yourself. On December 25 2014 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:24 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] He is innocent, he can go to paradise.
The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative".
In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. You're an idiot. Happy holidays. Thank you my child. Welcome. Sorry if it was harsh, but everything you wrote was bottom of the barrel stupid. For someone who claims to be educated, the crap you often vomit on these forums should be shameful. Then maybe give me an argument as to why it's stupid. Or maybe you have none. Sure, here's a few: "My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? " Yeah, no one ever assumes the greedy rich guy narrative, the racist white cop narrative or the gentle giant black guy narrative. Yeah and there's racism against white people. But please, feel free to show me a case where a guy was released after killing a cops because the court took into consideration the context in which the act had been made. "Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative"."
Nonsense. People talk about 'difficult upbringing' all the time. Just look at the last few cases in this thread. Mike Brown started out as an oppressed gentile giant in a rough, neighborhood full of racist white cops. Really ? We don't read the same forum then. Some post here oftentime clearly justify the killings "he should not have done that" (like during the Trayvon Martin case). And you do not understand much about what other write (altho I don't mind it because I'm really used to that side of you). Mike Brown was the victim and not the murderer : contextualizing for him is a way to excuse the act. I want to see you discuss the background of a serial killer or a drug addict for a change. "In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude."
We don't send blacks to jail for ambiguous crimes of "bad things" and personal history is considered when sentencing / parole comes up. You believe in that ? Black people in the US are not sent in jail for ambiguous crimes ? I love it when you tell me it's stupid bullshit, especially considering all the stupidity you post. I feel like I'm in the right. You aren't making sense. You're just saying things without justification that do not make good arguments. Sometimes cops are exonerated for shootings, sometimes not. Sometimes people are given lighter sentencing because of their rough circumstances, sometimes not. You seem to have done nothing but assemble a view based on, I don't know what. Some sort of weak literary critique? You are the one making no sense. It's like you don't know in which country you live in : do you know that 1 in 3 black males will go in jail in the US according to the statistics ? And you tell me that there is a balanced view ? That the court take into account the personnal history of a black criminal when they make judgement ? Would be great if you stopped insulting me tho. I understand you're impotent and all, but there are other ways. Yes, yes, yes. Are you telling me that you are not aware of these things? Yet you have such a strong opinion? WTF do you base your opinions on??? Hahahaha you're so good. You don't see a problem behind the fact that there are more black male in prison than in college in the US. A light in your head does not light up to connect the dot and understand that the system is heavily skewed and do not ever take into consideration the oftentime difficult personnal history of the black people it send to prison. In fact it's the opposite : your system is design to put in jail people with psychological and personnal difficulties.
|
On December 25 2014 11:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 11:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 11:18 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:41 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 10:31 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:26 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote: [quote] Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. Your kind of writing a lot without actually saying anything. I can't make heads or tails if your points, what message are you trying to convey exactly? Is it that hard to read and think ? normally no, but with your posts its proving difficult but hey thanks for not being rude about it, merry christmas to you too! Being rude ? Me ? Man be a little more intelligent and read yourself. On December 25 2014 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:24 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] You're an idiot. Happy holidays. Thank you my child. Welcome. Sorry if it was harsh, but everything you wrote was bottom of the barrel stupid. For someone who claims to be educated, the crap you often vomit on these forums should be shameful. Then maybe give me an argument as to why it's stupid. Or maybe you have none. Sure, here's a few: "My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? " Yeah, no one ever assumes the greedy rich guy narrative, the racist white cop narrative or the gentle giant black guy narrative. Yeah and there's racism against white people. But please, feel free to show me a case where a guy was released after killing a cops because the court took into consideration the context in which the act had been made. "Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative"."
Nonsense. People talk about 'difficult upbringing' all the time. Just look at the last few cases in this thread. Mike Brown started out as an oppressed gentile giant in a rough, neighborhood full of racist white cops. Really ? We don't read the same forum then. Some post here oftentime clearly justify the killings "he should not have done that" (like during the Trayvon Martin case). And you do not understand much about what other write (altho I don't mind it because I'm really used to that side of you). Mike Brown was the victim and not the murderer : contextualizing for him is a way to excuse the act. I want to see you discuss the background of a serial killer or a drug addict for a change. "In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude."
We don't send blacks to jail for ambiguous crimes of "bad things" and personal history is considered when sentencing / parole comes up. You believe in that ? Black people in the US are not sent in jail for ambiguous crimes ? I love it when you tell me it's stupid bullshit, especially considering all the stupidity you post. I feel like I'm in the right. You aren't making sense. You're just saying things without justification that do not make good arguments. Sometimes cops are exonerated for shootings, sometimes not. Sometimes people are given lighter sentencing because of their rough circumstances, sometimes not. You seem to have done nothing but assemble a view based on, I don't know what. Some sort of weak literary critique? You are the one making no sense. It's like you don't know in which country you live in : do you know that 1 in 3 black males will go in jail in the US according to the statistics ? And you tell me that there is a balanced view ? That the court take into account the personnal history of a black criminal when they make judgement ? Would be great if you stopped insulting me tho. I understand you're impotent and all, but there are other ways. Yes, yes, yes. Are you telling me that you are not aware of these things? Yet you have such a strong opinion? WTF do you base your opinions on??? Hahahaha you're so good. You don't see a problem behind the fact that there are more black male in prison than in college in the US. A light in your head does not light up to connect the dot and understand that the system is heavily skewed and do not ever take into consideration the oftentime difficult personnal history of the black people it send to prison. Of course that's a problem. Where did I say it wasn't?
Edit: oh, I didn't 'connect the dots' based off of WhiteDog's stellar analytical device of closing one's eyes and imagining the reason.
|
On December 25 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 11:28 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 11:18 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:41 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 10:31 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:26 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] He is innocent, he can go to paradise.
The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative".
In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. Your kind of writing a lot without actually saying anything. I can't make heads or tails if your points, what message are you trying to convey exactly? Is it that hard to read and think ? normally no, but with your posts its proving difficult but hey thanks for not being rude about it, merry christmas to you too! Being rude ? Me ? Man be a little more intelligent and read yourself. On December 25 2014 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:24 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] Thank you my child. Welcome. Sorry if it was harsh, but everything you wrote was bottom of the barrel stupid. For someone who claims to be educated, the crap you often vomit on these forums should be shameful. Then maybe give me an argument as to why it's stupid. Or maybe you have none. Sure, here's a few: "My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? " Yeah, no one ever assumes the greedy rich guy narrative, the racist white cop narrative or the gentle giant black guy narrative. Yeah and there's racism against white people. But please, feel free to show me a case where a guy was released after killing a cops because the court took into consideration the context in which the act had been made. "Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative"."
Nonsense. People talk about 'difficult upbringing' all the time. Just look at the last few cases in this thread. Mike Brown started out as an oppressed gentile giant in a rough, neighborhood full of racist white cops. Really ? We don't read the same forum then. Some post here oftentime clearly justify the killings "he should not have done that" (like during the Trayvon Martin case). And you do not understand much about what other write (altho I don't mind it because I'm really used to that side of you). Mike Brown was the victim and not the murderer : contextualizing for him is a way to excuse the act. I want to see you discuss the background of a serial killer or a drug addict for a change. "In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude."
We don't send blacks to jail for ambiguous crimes of "bad things" and personal history is considered when sentencing / parole comes up. You believe in that ? Black people in the US are not sent in jail for ambiguous crimes ? I love it when you tell me it's stupid bullshit, especially considering all the stupidity you post. I feel like I'm in the right. You aren't making sense. You're just saying things without justification that do not make good arguments. Sometimes cops are exonerated for shootings, sometimes not. Sometimes people are given lighter sentencing because of their rough circumstances, sometimes not. You seem to have done nothing but assemble a view based on, I don't know what. Some sort of weak literary critique? You are the one making no sense. It's like you don't know in which country you live in : do you know that 1 in 3 black males will go in jail in the US according to the statistics ? And you tell me that there is a balanced view ? That the court take into account the personnal history of a black criminal when they make judgement ? Would be great if you stopped insulting me tho. I understand you're impotent and all, but there are other ways. Yes, yes, yes. Are you telling me that you are not aware of these things? Yet you have such a strong opinion? WTF do you base your opinions on??? Hahahaha you're so good. You don't see a problem behind the fact that there are more black male in prison than in college in the US. A light in your head does not light up to connect the dot and understand that the system is heavily skewed and do not ever take into consideration the oftentime difficult personnal history of the black people it send to prison. Of course that's a problem. Where did I say it wasn't? Edit: oh, I didn't 'connect the dots' based off of WhiteDog's stellar analytical device of closing one's eyes and imagining the reason. I'm used to talk with people with brain. Next time you post I'll detail everything word by word, I'll try to define the word context for you, and all those things. Sorry.
|
JonnyBNoHo I just want to add that you really are not making any sense at all.
Despite my disagreement with WhiteDog over his previous socialist leanings, he is making remarkably strong and coherent posts in the recent discussion.
|
Whitedog I need to see some verification for
"There are more black males in prison than in college" And "1 in 3 black males will end up in jail"
I could be wrong but neither of those seems correct.
The bit about "the system is designed to put those with difficulties in jail" is crap
|
On December 25 2014 11:40 Aveng3r wrote: Whitedog I need to see some verification for
"There are more black males in prison than in college" And "1 in 3 black males will end up in jail"
I could be wrong but neither of those seems correct.
The bit about "the system is designed to put those with difficulties in jail" is crap
Several studies have concluded that overall, more black males are in prison than are enrolled in colleges and universities. In 2000 there were 791,600 black men in prison and 603,032 enrolled in college versus 1980, when there were 143,000 black men in prison and 463,700 enrolled in college.
A black male born in 1991 has a 29% chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life. Nearly one in three African American males aged 20–29 are under some form of criminal justice supervision whether imprisoned, jailed, on parole or probation.
African-American men comprise a mere 6% of the American population, but according to the Department of Justice, they make up nearly half of the 2 million inmates in U.S. jails or prisons. These men are largely imprisoned for non-violent offenses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males
The bit about "the system is designed to put those with difficulties in jail" is crap That's your point of view. In France 80 % of the detained have psychological trouble. Here's some document on the US situation :
THE largest mental health center in America is a huge compound here in Chicago, with thousands of people suffering from manias, psychoses and other disorders, all surrounded by high fences and barbed wire.
Just one thing: It’s a jail. The only way to get treatment is to be arrested.
Psychiatric disorders are the only kind of sickness that we as a society regularly respond to not with sympathy but with handcuffs and incarceration. And as more humane and cost-effective ways of treating mental illness have been cut back, we increasingly resort to the law-enforcement toolbox: jails and prisons.
More than half of prisoners in the United States have a mental health problem, according to a 2006 Justice Department study. Among female inmates, almost three-quarters have a mental disorder.
In the jail here, some prisoners sit on their beds all day long, lost in their delusions, oblivious to their surroundings, hearing voices, sometimes talking back to them. The first person to say that this system is barbaric is their jailer.
“It’s criminalizing mental illness,” the Cook County sheriff, Thomas Dart, told me as he showed me the jail, on a day when 60 percent of the jail’s intake reported that they had been diagnosed with mental illness. Dart says the system is abhorrent and senseless, as well as an astronomically expensive way to treat mental illness — but that he has no choice but to accept schizophrenic, bipolar, depressive and psychotic prisoners delivered by local police forces. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/inside-a-mental-hospital-called-jail.html?_r=0
Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem, including 705,600 inmates in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons, and 479,900 in local jails.These estimates represented 56% of State prisoners, 45% of Federal prisoners, and 64% of jail inmates. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf
|
Okay, thanks. I am surprised by those numbers.
|
On December 25 2014 11:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 11:28 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 11:18 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:41 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 10:31 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:26 Aveng3r wrote: [quote] Your kind of writing a lot without actually saying anything. I can't make heads or tails if your points, what message are you trying to convey exactly? Is it that hard to read and think ? normally no, but with your posts its proving difficult but hey thanks for not being rude about it, merry christmas to you too! Being rude ? Me ? Man be a little more intelligent and read yourself. On December 25 2014 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:24 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Welcome. Sorry if it was harsh, but everything you wrote was bottom of the barrel stupid. For someone who claims to be educated, the crap you often vomit on these forums should be shameful. Then maybe give me an argument as to why it's stupid. Or maybe you have none. Sure, here's a few: "My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? " Yeah, no one ever assumes the greedy rich guy narrative, the racist white cop narrative or the gentle giant black guy narrative. Yeah and there's racism against white people. But please, feel free to show me a case where a guy was released after killing a cops because the court took into consideration the context in which the act had been made. "Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative"."
Nonsense. People talk about 'difficult upbringing' all the time. Just look at the last few cases in this thread. Mike Brown started out as an oppressed gentile giant in a rough, neighborhood full of racist white cops. Really ? We don't read the same forum then. Some post here oftentime clearly justify the killings "he should not have done that" (like during the Trayvon Martin case). And you do not understand much about what other write (altho I don't mind it because I'm really used to that side of you). Mike Brown was the victim and not the murderer : contextualizing for him is a way to excuse the act. I want to see you discuss the background of a serial killer or a drug addict for a change. "In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude."
We don't send blacks to jail for ambiguous crimes of "bad things" and personal history is considered when sentencing / parole comes up. You believe in that ? Black people in the US are not sent in jail for ambiguous crimes ? I love it when you tell me it's stupid bullshit, especially considering all the stupidity you post. I feel like I'm in the right. You aren't making sense. You're just saying things without justification that do not make good arguments. Sometimes cops are exonerated for shootings, sometimes not. Sometimes people are given lighter sentencing because of their rough circumstances, sometimes not. You seem to have done nothing but assemble a view based on, I don't know what. Some sort of weak literary critique? You are the one making no sense. It's like you don't know in which country you live in : do you know that 1 in 3 black males will go in jail in the US according to the statistics ? And you tell me that there is a balanced view ? That the court take into account the personnal history of a black criminal when they make judgement ? Would be great if you stopped insulting me tho. I understand you're impotent and all, but there are other ways. Yes, yes, yes. Are you telling me that you are not aware of these things? Yet you have such a strong opinion? WTF do you base your opinions on??? Hahahaha you're so good. You don't see a problem behind the fact that there are more black male in prison than in college in the US. A light in your head does not light up to connect the dot and understand that the system is heavily skewed and do not ever take into consideration the oftentime difficult personnal history of the black people it send to prison. Of course that's a problem. Where did I say it wasn't? Edit: oh, I didn't 'connect the dots' based off of WhiteDog's stellar analytical device of closing one's eyes and imagining the reason. I'm used to talk with people with brain. Next time you post I'll detail everything word by word, I'll try to define the word context for you, and all those things. Sorry. But I didn't say that it wasn't a problem. I argued with your opinion of the causes and implications.
I don't have time to get into great detail, but citing examples of white cops being cast in a poor light or blacks cast in a good light in mainstream media isn't hard. So your proposition that cops are portrayed as angels and blacks as criminals isn't accurate. Just look at Treyvon Martin and Mike Brown - both had a very positive initial image in the media that tarnished with time.
Lots of factors go into sentencing and people circumstances do get brought up. That doesn't give people a get out of jail free card, however so people in high crime communities still have more people winding up in jail. As to why more blacks wind up in jail, that's a complex issue and just arguing that there's an implicit policy to just lock up blacks is a very shallow interpretation of reality.
As for police exonerations, yes they're frequent, but cops can and do go to jail for their on-duty actions.
|
|
On December 25 2014 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 11:33 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 11:28 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 11:18 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:41 Aveng3r wrote:On December 25 2014 10:31 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] Is it that hard to read and think ? normally no, but with your posts its proving difficult but hey thanks for not being rude about it, merry christmas to you too! Being rude ? Me ? Man be a little more intelligent and read yourself. On December 25 2014 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:24 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] Then maybe give me an argument as to why it's stupid. Or maybe you have none. Sure, here's a few: "My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? " Yeah, no one ever assumes the greedy rich guy narrative, the racist white cop narrative or the gentle giant black guy narrative. Yeah and there's racism against white people. But please, feel free to show me a case where a guy was released after killing a cops because the court took into consideration the context in which the act had been made. "Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative"."
Nonsense. People talk about 'difficult upbringing' all the time. Just look at the last few cases in this thread. Mike Brown started out as an oppressed gentile giant in a rough, neighborhood full of racist white cops. Really ? We don't read the same forum then. Some post here oftentime clearly justify the killings "he should not have done that" (like during the Trayvon Martin case). And you do not understand much about what other write (altho I don't mind it because I'm really used to that side of you). Mike Brown was the victim and not the murderer : contextualizing for him is a way to excuse the act. I want to see you discuss the background of a serial killer or a drug addict for a change. "In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude."
We don't send blacks to jail for ambiguous crimes of "bad things" and personal history is considered when sentencing / parole comes up. You believe in that ? Black people in the US are not sent in jail for ambiguous crimes ? I love it when you tell me it's stupid bullshit, especially considering all the stupidity you post. I feel like I'm in the right. You aren't making sense. You're just saying things without justification that do not make good arguments. Sometimes cops are exonerated for shootings, sometimes not. Sometimes people are given lighter sentencing because of their rough circumstances, sometimes not. You seem to have done nothing but assemble a view based on, I don't know what. Some sort of weak literary critique? You are the one making no sense. It's like you don't know in which country you live in : do you know that 1 in 3 black males will go in jail in the US according to the statistics ? And you tell me that there is a balanced view ? That the court take into account the personnal history of a black criminal when they make judgement ? Would be great if you stopped insulting me tho. I understand you're impotent and all, but there are other ways. Yes, yes, yes. Are you telling me that you are not aware of these things? Yet you have such a strong opinion? WTF do you base your opinions on??? Hahahaha you're so good. You don't see a problem behind the fact that there are more black male in prison than in college in the US. A light in your head does not light up to connect the dot and understand that the system is heavily skewed and do not ever take into consideration the oftentime difficult personnal history of the black people it send to prison. Of course that's a problem. Where did I say it wasn't? Edit: oh, I didn't 'connect the dots' based off of WhiteDog's stellar analytical device of closing one's eyes and imagining the reason. I'm used to talk with people with brain. Next time you post I'll detail everything word by word, I'll try to define the word context for you, and all those things. Sorry. But I didn't say that it wasn't a problem. I argued with your opinion of the causes and implications. I don't have time to get into great detail, but citing examples of white cops being cast in a poor light or blacks cast in a good light in mainstream media isn't hard. So your proposition that cops are portrayed as angels and blacks as criminals isn't accurate. Just look at Treyvon Martin and Mike Brown - both had a very positive initial image in the media that tarnished with time. Exemples =/= statistics. You're the one quoting exemple (pretty funny if you think about it, but it's not the first time you're not logic). Treyvon and Mike are not exemples that contradict my point : they were only victim. In any other crime, you barely ever talk about the victim and focus on the agressor. But here, the discussion was not on the cop (are they a good or bad cops ? what do we know about their on duty history ? What kind of behavior do they have ? Drink alcohol ? Drugs ?) but about the victim (can we not find any evidences that those victim are not merely victims ?).
Lots of factors go into sentencing and people circumstances do get brought up. That doesn't give people a get out of jail free card, however so people in high crime communities still have more people winding up in jail. As to why more blacks wind up in jail, that's a complex issue and just arguing that there's an implicit policy to just lock up blacks is a very shallow interpretation of reality. The community with highest crime are also the community with the most difficult situations. So if the circumstances were actually truthfully brought up, there would be no reason to explain this huge discrepancy in the sentencing (or the evolution of sentencing over time - why more black people in % now than before ?). It's not a complex issue at all, but you're complexifying the matter, as you always try to do.
As for police exonerations, yes they're frequent, but cops can and do go to jail for their on-duty actions. It's pretty rare. Sure you will give me exemple, but as you said citing exemple isn't hard. Policemen going into prison for killing a suspect during service is especially rare, most of the time a policeman is sent in prison it is for completly different situations (corruption or unlawlful activities outside of duty). It is especially rare if you put it into perspective with the number of black people that are shot by the police.
Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI.
On average, there were 96 such incidents among at least 400 police killings each year that were reported to the FBI by local police. The numbers appear to show that the shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., last Saturday was not an isolated event in American policing.
The reports show that 18% of the blacks killed during those seven years were under age 21, compared to 8.7% of whites. The victim in Ferguson was 18-year-old Michael Brown. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/police-killings-data/14060357/
|
Whitedoge was responding to oneofthem's silly demands for "a balanced narrative." When you bring a thesis and a half-baked synthesis together you get a grotesque quarter-synthesis. It's silly to say that an antithesis is too one-sided when you are trying to approach a dialectical solution. If it were actually true that the poor cops of this country were now oppressed peoples you might have a point. It's bourgeois, ostensibly "rational", arguments like this that maintain the status quo.
|
On December 25 2014 12:32 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 11:33 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 11:28 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 11:18 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 11:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 10:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:41 Aveng3r wrote: [quote] normally no, but with your posts its proving difficult
but hey thanks for not being rude about it, merry christmas to you too! Being rude ? Me ? Man be a little more intelligent and read yourself. On December 25 2014 10:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Sure, here's a few:
"My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? "
Yeah, no one ever assumes the greedy rich guy narrative, the racist white cop narrative or the gentle giant black guy narrative. Yeah and there's racism against white people. But please, feel free to show me a case where a guy was released after killing a cops because the court took into consideration the context in which the act had been made. "Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative"."
Nonsense. People talk about 'difficult upbringing' all the time. Just look at the last few cases in this thread. Mike Brown started out as an oppressed gentile giant in a rough, neighborhood full of racist white cops. Really ? We don't read the same forum then. Some post here oftentime clearly justify the killings "he should not have done that" (like during the Trayvon Martin case). And you do not understand much about what other write (altho I don't mind it because I'm really used to that side of you). Mike Brown was the victim and not the murderer : contextualizing for him is a way to excuse the act. I want to see you discuss the background of a serial killer or a drug addict for a change. "In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude."
We don't send blacks to jail for ambiguous crimes of "bad things" and personal history is considered when sentencing / parole comes up. You believe in that ? Black people in the US are not sent in jail for ambiguous crimes ? I love it when you tell me it's stupid bullshit, especially considering all the stupidity you post. I feel like I'm in the right. You aren't making sense. You're just saying things without justification that do not make good arguments. Sometimes cops are exonerated for shootings, sometimes not. Sometimes people are given lighter sentencing because of their rough circumstances, sometimes not. You seem to have done nothing but assemble a view based on, I don't know what. Some sort of weak literary critique? You are the one making no sense. It's like you don't know in which country you live in : do you know that 1 in 3 black males will go in jail in the US according to the statistics ? And you tell me that there is a balanced view ? That the court take into account the personnal history of a black criminal when they make judgement ? Would be great if you stopped insulting me tho. I understand you're impotent and all, but there are other ways. Yes, yes, yes. Are you telling me that you are not aware of these things? Yet you have such a strong opinion? WTF do you base your opinions on??? Hahahaha you're so good. You don't see a problem behind the fact that there are more black male in prison than in college in the US. A light in your head does not light up to connect the dot and understand that the system is heavily skewed and do not ever take into consideration the oftentime difficult personnal history of the black people it send to prison. Of course that's a problem. Where did I say it wasn't? Edit: oh, I didn't 'connect the dots' based off of WhiteDog's stellar analytical device of closing one's eyes and imagining the reason. I'm used to talk with people with brain. Next time you post I'll detail everything word by word, I'll try to define the word context for you, and all those things. Sorry. But I didn't say that it wasn't a problem. I argued with your opinion of the causes and implications. I don't have time to get into great detail, but citing examples of white cops being cast in a poor light or blacks cast in a good light in mainstream media isn't hard. So your proposition that cops are portrayed as angels and blacks as criminals isn't accurate. Just look at Treyvon Martin and Mike Brown - both had a very positive initial image in the media that tarnished with time. Exemples =/= statistics. You're the one quoting exemple (pretty funny if you think about it, but it's not the first time you're not logic). Treyvon and Mike are not exemples that contradict my point : they were only victim. In any other crime, you barely ever talk about the victim and focus on the agressor. But here, the discussion was not on the cop (are they a good or bad cops ? what do we know about their on duty history ? What kind of behavior do they have ? Drink alcohol ? Drugs ?) but about the victim (can we not find any evidences that those victim are not merely victims ?). You didn't cite statistics that backed up your argument, but I did offer examples to refute it. Examples > nothing.
As for why the discussion was about the victim - there was a police officer involved. Police officers are allowed to use force. Therefore, the discussion is not "did he use force or not", as in "did he or she commit murder" but rather "was the force used legal or not". As for the character of the cop - it was brought up.
Show nested quote +Lots of factors go into sentencing and people circumstances do get brought up. That doesn't give people a get out of jail free card, however so people in high crime communities still have more people winding up in jail. As to why more blacks wind up in jail, that's a complex issue and just arguing that there's an implicit policy to just lock up blacks is a very shallow interpretation of reality. The community with highest crime are also the community with the most difficult situations. So if the circumstances were actually truthfully brought up, there would be no reason to explain this huge discrepancy in the sentencing (or the evolution of sentencing over time - why more black people in % now than before ?). It's not a complex issue at all, but you're complexifying the matter, as you always try to do. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. A community with a high crime rate will have more people in jail. Whether sentencing takes into account circumstances will not, and should not, change that dynamic. Same goes with changes over time - more crime, more in jail. So I'm not sure what your point is here.
Show nested quote +As for police exonerations, yes they're frequent, but cops can and do go to jail for their on-duty actions. It's pretty rare. Sure you will give me exemple, but as you said citing exemple isn't hard. Policemen going into prison for killing a suspect during service is especially rare, most of the time a policeman is sent in prison it is for completly different situations (corruption or unlawlful activities outside of duty). It is especially rare if you put it into perspective with the number of black people that are shot by the police. Show nested quote + Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI.
On average, there were 96 such incidents among at least 400 police killings each year that were reported to the FBI by local police. The numbers appear to show that the shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., last Saturday was not an isolated event in American policing.
The reports show that 18% of the blacks killed during those seven years were under age 21, compared to 8.7% of whites. The victim in Ferguson was 18-year-old Michael Brown. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/police-killings-data/14060357/ That's not a meaningful point. Police rarely going to jail for shootings is not by itself proof that the system isn't working right. If zero police went to jail for shootings, and none should have, than everything's fine. If a lot of police are exonerated, but shouldn't be, then you have a problem. Just showing that blacks are shot, and police are frequently exonerated doesn't prove that one bit.
|
|
|
|