|
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 July 15 2016 05:01 Sermokala wrote:I don't know about BLM needing an MLK to be successful. The gay rights movement was pretty successful without resorting to the same tactics and protests as BLM and they never had a charismatic influential leader to it. Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:We all remember what happened to old peaceful protesting Martin, right? On July 15 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:
BLM went off the rails when they made their cause "cops are racists" instead of "cops are assholes." Frankly, this is a problem common to most of the contemporary civil rights groups. When did they stop policing in a racist way in your view? He was made a cultural martyr that will never be forgotten in america? And when they were policing in a statistically sound way the whole time?
The gay movement was incredibly coherent: marriage. They wanted the legal right to marriage. They pounded that idea into people's minds over and over and people eventually got used to it. Blm has not done this. There needs to be a single actionable item.
|
On July 15 2016 04:51 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 04:43 The Bottle wrote:On July 15 2016 04:32 Plansix wrote:I am sort of impressed at this sanitized version of King that has traveled to the modern collective. King did not support violence, but he did say he understood it and explained where it came from. He talked about riots as being the after effects of oppression and that people should see them as such. http://time.com/3838515/baltimore-riots-language-unheard-quote/…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention. And this is in response to much worse than blocking traffic. I don’t support the use of violence. But supporting and understanding are two separate things. I wasn't talking about blocking traffic or riots. I was talking about premeditated murder. Can you find a similar quote of his that addresses that? While I acknowledge that there's value in trying to understand the actions of a murderer from a purely intellectual standpoint, that's something you have to establish very firmly (and something I feel MLK did establish in the quote you gave about riots). It's very short-sighted to simply say "I understand why they did it" without any context. I can give the BLM guy the benefit of the doubt and guess he was trying to do something similar (in a very shoddy way). At best, it just shows how much worse their leadership is. I thought BLM doesn't have an actual leadership, after googling that guy's name he seems to be some random celebrity. On his site there's a bunch of music videos and no mention of BLM. Why talk about this guy's quote like he's the leader of BLM and compare him with MLK?
The problem with BLM is that is regional, with leaders in the community in each city. But on the internet and in the media, it is depicted as one massive collective. But it is nothing like that.
It is the same problem with police. Dallas police get lumped in with trash piles like Chicago and Ferguson PD.
|
Certainly having clear well-defined actionable items is a big help. Not just having a well-defined problem, but a list of steps to take to correct it. That was always one of the problems with OWS to me; they had a general complaint about wall street, but didn't have much in terms of clear specifics on what to do about it (at least not that I heard about, maybe they had poor messaging as well).
i.e. suppose you respond to the protestors and say "I surrender, what are your demands? We'll pass them into law."
|
On July 15 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 04:43 The Bottle wrote:On July 15 2016 04:32 Plansix wrote:I am sort of impressed at this sanitized version of King that has traveled to the modern collective. King did not support violence, but he did say he understood it and explained where it came from. He talked about riots as being the after effects of oppression and that people should see them as such. http://time.com/3838515/baltimore-riots-language-unheard-quote/…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention. And this is in response to much worse than blocking traffic. I don’t support the use of violence. But supporting and understanding are two separate things. I wasn't talking about blocking traffic or riots. I was talking about premeditated murder. Can you find a similar quote of his that addresses that? While I acknowledge that there's value in trying to understand the actions of a murderer from a purely intellectual standpoint, that's something you have to establish very firmly (and something I feel MLK did establish in the quote you gave about riots). It's very short-sighted to simply say "I understand why they did it" without any context. I can give the BLM guy the benefit of the doubt and guess he was trying to do something similar (in a very shoddy way). At best, it just shows how much worse their leadership is. Your post was not 100% clear you were not referencing general civil unrest. I completely agree on the subject of killing. I also think we judge the civil rights movement in hindsight and it appears much more uniform. During the rise of MLK and other leaders, the cause was just as fragmented.
I understand your point about hindsight. It's possible that BLM will turn into, or make way for a movement that does make great changes. But until then, I consider it perfectly valid to criticise it in its current incarnation. As well, I would consider it just as valid to criticise any similarly fragmented movements in the MLK era. Also, keep in mind that for every successful movements like MLK's, there were also lots of failed movements, or movements that did a lot more damage than good. At this point we can't know which of those BLM will fall into, but from what I know, without actually being able to tell the future, I'm leaning towards the latter.
|
They need a spokesman definitelly. When I think of BLM movement I cant connect it to a single face. All I can think of are these two spoilt teens who did a couple of tv hostings and couldn't actually say what it is that they want. Like, if they are the ones who wrote the law, what would the law say. They were just going on and on with some random emotional stuff. The emotinal stuff is okay up to a point, it did what you wanted it to do, it got you media exposure. After that you ought to have a clear and coherent case on what your points are, which these people have failed to do.
|
On July 15 2016 05:13 NukeD wrote:
They need a spokesman deffinitelly. When I think of BLM movement I cant connect it to a single face. All I can think of are these two spoilt teens who did a couple of tv hostings and couldn't actually say what it is that they want. Like, if they are the ones who wrote the law, what would the law say. They were just going on and on with some random emotional stuff. The emotinal stuff is okay up to a point, it did what you wanted it to do, it got you media exposure. After that you ought to have a clear and coherent case on what your points are, which these people have failed to do.
This is not an accident, you all realize what happens to these leaders right? Also that people who refuse to do any understanding think BLM is just about police shooting black people isn't a failure of their messaging, it's a failure of people to comprehend that which they are complaining about.
|
On July 15 2016 05:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 05:01 Sermokala wrote:I don't know about BLM needing an MLK to be successful. The gay rights movement was pretty successful without resorting to the same tactics and protests as BLM and they never had a charismatic influential leader to it. On July 15 2016 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:We all remember what happened to old peaceful protesting Martin, right? On July 15 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:
BLM went off the rails when they made their cause "cops are racists" instead of "cops are assholes." Frankly, this is a problem common to most of the contemporary civil rights groups. When did they stop policing in a racist way in your view? He was made a cultural martyr that will never be forgotten in america? And when they were policing in a statistically sound way the whole time? The gay movement was incredibly coherent: marriage. They wanted the legal right to marriage. They pounded that idea into people's minds over and over and people eventually got used to it. Blm has not done this. There needs to be a single actionable item.
agreed with your points. they should fight for actionable changes and unify behind them. best thing for hem to focus on would be body cams. just repeatedly go after that point and it might actually get done.
|
On July 15 2016 05:11 The Bottle wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:On July 15 2016 04:43 The Bottle wrote:On July 15 2016 04:32 Plansix wrote:I am sort of impressed at this sanitized version of King that has traveled to the modern collective. King did not support violence, but he did say he understood it and explained where it came from. He talked about riots as being the after effects of oppression and that people should see them as such. http://time.com/3838515/baltimore-riots-language-unheard-quote/…I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention. And this is in response to much worse than blocking traffic. I don’t support the use of violence. But supporting and understanding are two separate things. I wasn't talking about blocking traffic or riots. I was talking about premeditated murder. Can you find a similar quote of his that addresses that? While I acknowledge that there's value in trying to understand the actions of a murderer from a purely intellectual standpoint, that's something you have to establish very firmly (and something I feel MLK did establish in the quote you gave about riots). It's very short-sighted to simply say "I understand why they did it" without any context. I can give the BLM guy the benefit of the doubt and guess he was trying to do something similar (in a very shoddy way). At best, it just shows how much worse their leadership is. Your post was not 100% clear you were not referencing general civil unrest. I completely agree on the subject of killing. I also think we judge the civil rights movement in hindsight and it appears much more uniform. During the rise of MLK and other leaders, the cause was just as fragmented. I understand your point about hindsight. It's possible that BLM will turn into, or make way for a movement that does make great changes. But until then, I consider it perfectly valid to criticise it in its current incarnation. As well, I would consider it just as valid to criticise any similarly fragmented movements in the MLK era. Also, keep in mind that for every successful movements like MLK's, there were also lots of failed movements, or movements that did a lot more damage than good. At this point we can't know which of those BLM will fall into, but from what I know, without actually being able to tell the future, I'm leaning towards the latter.
Agreed that criticism is important, but it needs to be targets. In this thread we still continue to talk about “police” and “BLM” on this national scale that is devoid of nuance. I don’t believe the protesters in Baton Rouge protesting the reactionary police department and should be compared to the two silly girls who crashed that Sanders speech. Just like Dallas or Boston PD should not be lumped in with the LA police department.
|
On July 15 2016 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 05:13 NukeD wrote:
They need a spokesman deffinitelly. When I think of BLM movement I cant connect it to a single face. All I can think of are these two spoilt teens who did a couple of tv hostings and couldn't actually say what it is that they want. Like, if they are the ones who wrote the law, what would the law say. They were just going on and on with some random emotional stuff. The emotinal stuff is okay up to a point, it did what you wanted it to do, it got you media exposure. After that you ought to have a clear and coherent case on what your points are, which these people have failed to do. This is not an accident, you all realize what happens to these leaders right? Also that people who refuse to do any understanding think BLM is just about police shooting black people isn't a failure of their messaging, it's a failure of people to comprehend that which they are complaining about.
The problem with your thinking is that it leads to no where and nothing getting done on the issue. You can't blame other people for not getting your message when you argue about things and expect anything to happen on the issue.
|
On July 15 2016 05:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 05:04 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2016 05:01 Sermokala wrote:I don't know about BLM needing an MLK to be successful. The gay rights movement was pretty successful without resorting to the same tactics and protests as BLM and they never had a charismatic influential leader to it. On July 15 2016 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:We all remember what happened to old peaceful protesting Martin, right? On July 15 2016 04:53 xDaunt wrote:
BLM went off the rails when they made their cause "cops are racists" instead of "cops are assholes." Frankly, this is a problem common to most of the contemporary civil rights groups. When did they stop policing in a racist way in your view? He was made a cultural martyr that will never be forgotten in america? And when they were policing in a statistically sound way the whole time? The gay movement was incredibly coherent: marriage. They wanted the legal right to marriage. They pounded that idea into people's minds over and over and people eventually got used to it. Blm has not done this. There needs to be a single actionable item. agreed with your points. they should fight for actionable changes and unify behind them. best thing for hem to focus on would be body cams. just repeatedly go after that point and it might actually get done.
And solve little to nothing as was pointed out in plansix's post a while ago. That's what was supposed to happen with dash cams, of course they just conveniently fail/are withheld indefinitely whenever they might have captured something that incriminates the officer.
Body cameras are barely a step 1. There's a long list of stuff that needs to be addressed and it's not simple enough to fit on a protest sign.
http://www.checkthepolice.org/#review
|
On July 15 2016 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 05:13 NukeD wrote:
They need a spokesman deffinitelly. When I think of BLM movement I cant connect it to a single face. All I can think of are these two spoilt teens who did a couple of tv hostings and couldn't actually say what it is that they want. Like, if they are the ones who wrote the law, what would the law say. They were just going on and on with some random emotional stuff. The emotinal stuff is okay up to a point, it did what you wanted it to do, it got you media exposure. After that you ought to have a clear and coherent case on what your points are, which these people have failed to do. Also that people who refuse to do any understanding think BLM is just about police shooting black people isn't a failure of their messaging, it's a failure of people to comprehend that which they are complaining about.
Oh please thats such an unreasonable comment.
If you fail to deliver your message in such a fashion that you deliver your violence than it is not the problem of others if they see you as a violent mob.
|
On July 15 2016 05:26 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2016 05:13 NukeD wrote:
They need a spokesman deffinitelly. When I think of BLM movement I cant connect it to a single face. All I can think of are these two spoilt teens who did a couple of tv hostings and couldn't actually say what it is that they want. Like, if they are the ones who wrote the law, what would the law say. They were just going on and on with some random emotional stuff. The emotinal stuff is okay up to a point, it did what you wanted it to do, it got you media exposure. After that you ought to have a clear and coherent case on what your points are, which these people have failed to do. Also that people who refuse to do any understanding think BLM is just about police shooting black people isn't a failure of their messaging, it's a failure of people to comprehend that which they are complaining about. Oh please thats such an unreasonable comment.
What makes you think that?
|
On July 15 2016 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 05:13 NukeD wrote:
They need a spokesman deffinitelly. When I think of BLM movement I cant connect it to a single face. All I can think of are these two spoilt teens who did a couple of tv hostings and couldn't actually say what it is that they want. Like, if they are the ones who wrote the law, what would the law say. They were just going on and on with some random emotional stuff. The emotinal stuff is okay up to a point, it did what you wanted it to do, it got you media exposure. After that you ought to have a clear and coherent case on what your points are, which these people have failed to do. This is not an accident, you all realize what happens to these leaders right? Also that people who refuse to do any understanding think BLM is just about police shooting black people isn't a failure of their messaging, it's a failure of people to comprehend that which they are complaining about.
Thinking of the public as failures is not productive. If a movement wants support, it needs to create support however it can. I would argue the burden falls on the people trying to inspire change to do just that, inspire. If they aren't inspiring people foreign to the movement, the movement has no hope.
So while sure, you can get mad that people don't jump on board blm. But what is that really doing? That's not how mlk or the gay rights movement worked. They found as many ways as they could to have people gravitate towards them with a coherent, relatable message. In both movements, it was very clear what was being asked for and they made solid arguments, as a unified movement.
Ultimately, a movement without unity is doomed to fail.
|
On July 15 2016 04:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It's really insulting and degrading to MLK to compare his movement to the movements of BLM. Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 04:36 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2016 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2016 04:11 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2016 01:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2016 01:15 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2016 01:08 Velr wrote:
Protests need to be "inconvenient" to non protesters, else you could also have a meeting in your home.
And yes, sadly, this also means that there are risks. There's "inconvenient" and then there's "highly damaging." Obstructing a highway is the latter. The only thing that the BLM folks are going to accomplish obstructing a highway is endangering some people and pissing everyone else off. Of course, these idiots are too stupid to see the forest for the trees when it comes to long-term strategic thinking that is not self-sabotaging. They should go hold their protests in front of city hall or police headquarters. All they really need is a forum where they can get publicity. Also, you can bet that Trump is going to score political points on these issues precisely as a consequence of the inept lawlessness of BLM. Someone as liberal as me, who is also brown and has also encountered racism, should have an easy time supporting blm. But nope, they are just such misguided, poorly organized, bitter idiots. I'm pretty sure they feel similarly about people like yourself. They think I am poorly organized? Bitter? I don't doubt they'd think I'm an idiot, but that kind of "with us or against us" mentality is what I've come to expect. Mostly the misguided and idiotic part. There was a post that said basically "Looks like the cop will probably get off because of a lack of evidence, but the real problem is this traffic"... (Not from you) While our statistical access is limited we do know that virtually every department that's been investigated was habitually violating people's constitutional rights and/or harassing them. One in particular is the Cleveland PD, the PD that's going to be guarding the RNC, conclusions announced in December 2014 of a comprehensive investigation into the CPD started in March 2013 which assessed use of force practices of the CDP. The investigation concluded that there was reasonable cause to believe that Cleveland police officers engage in a pattern or practice of unreasonable and in some cases unnecessary force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. That pattern or practice included the unnecessary and excessive use of deadly force, including shootings and head strikes with impact weapons; the unnecessary, excessive or retaliatory use of less lethal force including Tasers, chemical spray and fists; excessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis, including in cases where the officers were called exclusively for a welfare check; and the employment of poor and dangerous tactics that place officers in situations where avoidable force becomes inevitable.
The investigation also found that this pattern of excessive force has eroded public confidence in the police. Source BLM needs an mlk. This 100%
People like you, of your political inclination and with your ideas talked differently about MLK at the time. Maybe in 40 years hardline conservatives will talk highly of BLM, who knows 
|
On July 15 2016 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 05:26 NukeD wrote:On July 15 2016 05:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2016 05:13 NukeD wrote:
They need a spokesman deffinitelly. When I think of BLM movement I cant connect it to a single face. All I can think of are these two spoilt teens who did a couple of tv hostings and couldn't actually say what it is that they want. Like, if they are the ones who wrote the law, what would the law say. They were just going on and on with some random emotional stuff. The emotinal stuff is okay up to a point, it did what you wanted it to do, it got you media exposure. After that you ought to have a clear and coherent case on what your points are, which these people have failed to do. Also that people who refuse to do any understanding think BLM is just about police shooting black people isn't a failure of their messaging, it's a failure of people to comprehend that which they are complaining about. Oh please thats such an unreasonable comment. What makes you think that?
I answered in an edit of my previous post. Kinda.
|
Are the people criticizing BLM for not having specific objectives familiar with Campaign Zero?
www.joincampaignzero.org
They have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
|
On July 15 2016 05:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 04:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It's really insulting and degrading to MLK to compare his movement to the movements of BLM. On July 15 2016 04:36 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2016 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2016 04:11 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2016 01:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2016 01:15 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2016 01:08 Velr wrote:
Protests need to be "inconvenient" to non protesters, else you could also have a meeting in your home.
And yes, sadly, this also means that there are risks. There's "inconvenient" and then there's "highly damaging." Obstructing a highway is the latter. The only thing that the BLM folks are going to accomplish obstructing a highway is endangering some people and pissing everyone else off. Of course, these idiots are too stupid to see the forest for the trees when it comes to long-term strategic thinking that is not self-sabotaging. They should go hold their protests in front of city hall or police headquarters. All they really need is a forum where they can get publicity. Also, you can bet that Trump is going to score political points on these issues precisely as a consequence of the inept lawlessness of BLM. Someone as liberal as me, who is also brown and has also encountered racism, should have an easy time supporting blm. But nope, they are just such misguided, poorly organized, bitter idiots. I'm pretty sure they feel similarly about people like yourself. They think I am poorly organized? Bitter? I don't doubt they'd think I'm an idiot, but that kind of "with us or against us" mentality is what I've come to expect. Mostly the misguided and idiotic part. There was a post that said basically "Looks like the cop will probably get off because of a lack of evidence, but the real problem is this traffic"... (Not from you) While our statistical access is limited we do know that virtually every department that's been investigated was habitually violating people's constitutional rights and/or harassing them. One in particular is the Cleveland PD, the PD that's going to be guarding the RNC, conclusions announced in December 2014 of a comprehensive investigation into the CPD started in March 2013 which assessed use of force practices of the CDP. The investigation concluded that there was reasonable cause to believe that Cleveland police officers engage in a pattern or practice of unreasonable and in some cases unnecessary force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. That pattern or practice included the unnecessary and excessive use of deadly force, including shootings and head strikes with impact weapons; the unnecessary, excessive or retaliatory use of less lethal force including Tasers, chemical spray and fists; excessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis, including in cases where the officers were called exclusively for a welfare check; and the employment of poor and dangerous tactics that place officers in situations where avoidable force becomes inevitable.
The investigation also found that this pattern of excessive force has eroded public confidence in the police. Source BLM needs an mlk. This 100% People like you, of your political inclination and with your ideas talked differently about MLK at the time. Maybe in 40 years hardline conservatives will talk highly of BLM, who knows
One member will rise out, become a leader and accomplish great things. And then history will round the hard edges down, their image made softer, kinder and less angry so avoid upsetting the people of that era.
|
On July 15 2016 05:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 04:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote:It's really insulting and degrading to MLK to compare his movement to the movements of BLM. On July 15 2016 04:36 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2016 04:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2016 04:11 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2016 04:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 15 2016 01:48 Mohdoo wrote:On July 15 2016 01:15 xDaunt wrote:On July 15 2016 01:08 Velr wrote:
Protests need to be "inconvenient" to non protesters, else you could also have a meeting in your home.
And yes, sadly, this also means that there are risks. There's "inconvenient" and then there's "highly damaging." Obstructing a highway is the latter. The only thing that the BLM folks are going to accomplish obstructing a highway is endangering some people and pissing everyone else off. Of course, these idiots are too stupid to see the forest for the trees when it comes to long-term strategic thinking that is not self-sabotaging. They should go hold their protests in front of city hall or police headquarters. All they really need is a forum where they can get publicity. Also, you can bet that Trump is going to score political points on these issues precisely as a consequence of the inept lawlessness of BLM. Someone as liberal as me, who is also brown and has also encountered racism, should have an easy time supporting blm. But nope, they are just such misguided, poorly organized, bitter idiots. I'm pretty sure they feel similarly about people like yourself. They think I am poorly organized? Bitter? I don't doubt they'd think I'm an idiot, but that kind of "with us or against us" mentality is what I've come to expect. Mostly the misguided and idiotic part. There was a post that said basically "Looks like the cop will probably get off because of a lack of evidence, but the real problem is this traffic"... (Not from you) While our statistical access is limited we do know that virtually every department that's been investigated was habitually violating people's constitutional rights and/or harassing them. One in particular is the Cleveland PD, the PD that's going to be guarding the RNC, conclusions announced in December 2014 of a comprehensive investigation into the CPD started in March 2013 which assessed use of force practices of the CDP. The investigation concluded that there was reasonable cause to believe that Cleveland police officers engage in a pattern or practice of unreasonable and in some cases unnecessary force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. That pattern or practice included the unnecessary and excessive use of deadly force, including shootings and head strikes with impact weapons; the unnecessary, excessive or retaliatory use of less lethal force including Tasers, chemical spray and fists; excessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis, including in cases where the officers were called exclusively for a welfare check; and the employment of poor and dangerous tactics that place officers in situations where avoidable force becomes inevitable.
The investigation also found that this pattern of excessive force has eroded public confidence in the police. Source BLM needs an mlk. This 100% People like you, of your political inclination and with your ideas talked differently about MLK at the time. Maybe in 40 years hardline conservatives will talk highly of BLM, who knows
Literally implying I would have been racist who would have talked badly about MLK had I lived in his time, and implying I would have fought against his message, all because I disagree with you on your opinions of the presidential candidates
10/10 keep up the good posting Bill love ya buddy
BLM is not the modern equivalent of the civil rights movement under MLK
|
On July 15 2016 05:35 Mercy13 wrote:Are the people criticizing BLM for not having specific objectives familiar with Campaign Zero? www.joincampaignzero.orgThey have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence.
No they are not, they may have browsed very briefly but their comments suggest they didn't engage with the material.
Thinking of the public as failures is not productive.
If you say so, doesn't mean it's not true though.
That BLM exists at all is a failure of society to address this stuff when we were talking about decades ago. So talking about failures of their messaging is like criticizing fire fighters for not properly fighting a fire you started.
They may not be fighting it perfectly but the discussion about how they are fighting the fire is missing the context of why they are fighting it in the first place.
|
On July 15 2016 05:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2016 05:35 Mercy13 wrote:Are the people criticizing BLM for not having specific objectives familiar with Campaign Zero? www.joincampaignzero.orgThey have a really great website, which I believe was put together by BLM activists. It includes detailed policy objectives in 10 different categories related to police violence. No they are not, they may have browsed very briefly but their comments suggest they didn't engage with the material. If you say so, doesn't mean it's not true though. That BLM exists at all is a failure of society to address this stuff when we were talking about decades ago. So talking about failures of their messaging is like criticizing fire fighters for not properly fighting a fire you started. They may not be fighting it perfectly but the discussion about how they are fighting the fire is missing the context of why they are fighting it in the first place.
Stop saying 'we' if you weren't around decades ago to talk about this stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
