Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(05-30-2020, 05:07 PM)JagJohn Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 04:39 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Way to respond in Good faith.  

Again, you say "there is mistrust between black Americans and the police."  Ok.  Is that mistrust based on perception or is it based on material fact.  I and others have pointed out that in reality, its not based on fact.  It's based on a false perception.  When a lack of trust is about false perception and not a material fact then the only way to re-establish trust is to divorce people from a false premise!  

You keep saying "well vet people better"  and then when i ask "prove this incident had anything to do with race" you say that proof or reason or the actual connection of this incident to racial injustice is IRRELEVANT?  That makes NO SENSE.  If you're vetting for something that isn't a contributing factor to an underlying problem, or in this case a lack there of, then its not going to change anything.  And when it doesn't change anything then that means that there will be another incident that occurs and the false premise is still in tact. I think that your resistance to factual analysis has less to do with your legitimate belief in its relevance and a lot more to do with your love of the underlying premise and how it serves your world view.

Ultimately, the disagreement boils down to the part in bold. You say you have 'pointed it out', but you really haven't, and there is no way you can in the face of masses of evidence to the contrary. All your cherry-picked statistics cannot point out something that is clearly not the case. I could throw hundreds of statistics at you to 'point out' the opposite... But what's the point?

In the end, when we look back on this era in many years time, you guys will be on the wrong side of history, just as those who fought against civil rights were. I'm sure that thought doesn't make you happy at all, and ultimately makes people stick their heads in the sand even more. But that's the way it is.

nor you're just trying to cover your own intellectual insecurity with false bravado.  That's okay.  I've been there before, but frankly it doesn't impress me.  I'll say again, what's the proof that this incident was based on race?  Second, what's the proof that the minority police chief is a shill to protect said racial injustice?  What about the Jewish Mayor?  What about the Black AG?  Since the state is run by democrats, what role does that party play in said injustice?  Some, none at all?

(05-30-2020, 03:08 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 02:54 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I feel bad for you, you really think "training" and "public outreach" are going to stop the intentional inflammation of the agitators in politics and media. It won't.

Don't get all up in your feelings. 

I'm fine. 

And I never said that. 

I said that reforming vetting and training is the first logical step.  (after trying the officers at fault for crimes)

Reforming something that works correctly 99.99% of the time is worthless. Reforming something that was not the cause of this incident is worthless. Fixing the bad actors, publicly and sternly, is the fix.

Funny to see liberal media buffoons and right wingers both portray outside influences as causing the riots... One says white supremacists, the other antifa.

What makes it so funny is both are trying to diminish the power of protest but doing so in their super slanted manner

(05-30-2020, 04:39 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 03:35 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Comments in red. 

You can keep just talking about something different than what I'm talking about  - and then pretending that's what I was talking about --- but it's really lame.

Way to respond in Good faith.  

Again, you say "there is mistrust between black Americans and the police."  Ok.  Is that mistrust based on perception or is it based on material fact.  I and others have pointed out that in reality, its not based on fact.  It's based on a false perception.  When a lack of trust is about false perception and not a material fact then the only way to re-establish trust is to divorce people from a false premise!  

You keep saying "well vet people better"  and then when i ask "prove this incident had anything to do with race" you say that proof or reason or the actual connection of this incident to racial injustice is IRRELEVANT?  That makes NO SENSE.  If you're vetting for something that isn't a contributing factor to an underlying problem, or in this case a lack there of, then its not going to change anything.  And when it doesn't change anything then that means that there will be another incident that occurs and the false premise is still in tact. I think that your resistance to factual analysis has less to do with your legitimate belief in its relevance and a lot more to do with your love of the underlying premise and how it serves your world view.

first bolded question:
I've already answered this over and over. Are you just skimming this thread? The people's mistrust is based in reality and in a "magnified/distorted perception"  that doesn't reflect how often these incidents really happen. Both. 
I've also already said the false premise being propagated by both social and news media is yet ANOTHER issue that will have to be tackled. I merely hadn't gotten to the point of attempting to figure out practical solutions yet as I was still trying to justify my initial suggestion to you and others. I'd love to hear anyone's ideas on that. 

Vetting isn't only about race. Of course I've laid this out already as well.  It's about identifying those officers that are in it for the adrenalin rush and get off on inflicting force. We've all known someone like this. Also identifying any other officer prone to have an issue with violence or a general imbalance/mental health issue.  Basic "temperament for the job" stuff.  
So yes, whether Chauvin or any of the other officers in this incident are racists is indeed irrelevant to whether or not you seek to improve vetting, bias training, and force/brutality training.  You seek to improve those things because that's what is required to move forward in the court of public opinion and there is simply no downside to improving those aspects of officer training.  We'll just disagree on whether it would make any difference apparently as you believe it wouldn't and I believe it would. 

I have no resistance to factual analysis. None at all. Especially if it's relevant. I've been presented with plenty today that is irrelevant to the issues I continue to raise.  I do have a resistance to head in the sand logic, moving goalposts, and inability to read and understand a counter argument.

---

(05-30-2020, 05:33 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 03:08 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Don't get all up in your feelings. 

I'm fine. 

And I never said that. 

I said that reforming vetting and training is the first logical step.  (after trying the officers at fault for crimes)

Reforming something that works correctly 99.99% of the time is worthless. Reforming something that was not the cause of this incident is worthless. Fixing the bad actors, publicly and sternly, is the fix.

If something is only broken "a little bit" it doesn't hurt to double down on fixing it, and here's the important part you keep ignoring,  especially when it serves to help a parallel issue infinitely more than the one that's "barely broken." 

Public perception and mistrust being the parallel issue.

My daughter just showed me a Facebook live feed from downtown. A bunch of punks have destroyed two JSO cruisers and are trying to stoke a riot. From the footage I saw, they have a good start. Here we go.

(05-30-2020, 06:53 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 04:39 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Way to respond in Good faith.  

Again, you say "there is mistrust between black Americans and the police."  Ok.  Is that mistrust based on perception or is it based on material fact.  I and others have pointed out that in reality, its not based on fact.  It's based on a false perception.  When a lack of trust is about false perception and not a material fact then the only way to re-establish trust is to divorce people from a false premise!  

You keep saying "well vet people better"  and then when i ask "prove this incident had anything to do with race" you say that proof or reason or the actual connection of this incident to racial injustice is IRRELEVANT?  That makes NO SENSE.  If you're vetting for something that isn't a contributing factor to an underlying problem, or in this case a lack there of, then its not going to change anything.  And when it doesn't change anything then that means that there will be another incident that occurs and the false premise is still in tact. I think that your resistance to factual analysis has less to do with your legitimate belief in its relevance and a lot more to do with your love of the underlying premise and how it serves your world view.

Vetting isn't only about race. Of course I've laid this out already as well.  It's about identifying those officers that are in it for the adrenalin rush and get off on inflicting force. We've all known someone like this. Also identifying any other officer prone to have an issue with violence or a general imbalance/mental health issue.  Basic "temperament for the job" stuff.  

So yes, whether Chauvin or any of the other officers in this incident are racists is indeed irrelevant to whether or not you seek to improve vetting, bias training, and force/brutality training.  You seek to improve those things because that's what is required to move forward in the court of public opinion and there is simply no downside to improving those aspects of officer training.  We'll just disagree on whether it would make any difference apparently as you believe it wouldn't and I believe it would.

Vetting only works if the law allows it. Chauvin had a bad record, yet he was still on the force. Why? Why is it so hard to fire bad cops? Why is it so hard to fire bad government employees in general? I'm guessing unions have a lot to do with it. That contract agreement needs to be changed but the establishment politicians are too dependent on unions for campaign contributions to even think of asking for this change.

As far as bias training and force/brutality training I'd be very surprised if they don't already require annual (or more frequent) training sessions for the veteran cops along with ones for new cops, especially in Leftist-controlled city like Minneapolis. All the training in the world doesn't help if the cop ignores it.

(05-30-2020, 05:27 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 05:07 PM)JagJohn Wrote: [ -> ]Ultimately, the disagreement boils down to the part in bold. You say you have 'pointed it out', but you really haven't, and there is no way you can in the face of masses of evidence to the contrary. All your cherry-picked statistics cannot point out something that is clearly not the case. I could throw hundreds of statistics at you to 'point out' the opposite... But what's the point?

In the end, when we look back on this era in many years time, you guys will be on the wrong side of history, just as those who fought against civil rights were. I'm sure that thought doesn't make you happy at all, and ultimately makes people stick their heads in the sand even more. But that's the way it is.

nor you're just trying to cover your own intellectual insecurity with false bravado.  That's okay.  I've been there before, but frankly it doesn't impress me.  I'll say again, what's the proof that this incident was based on race?  Second, what's the proof that the minority police chief is a shill to protect said racial injustice?  What about the Jewish Mayor?  What about the Black AG?  Since the state is run by democrats, what role does that party play in said injustice?  Some, none at all?

Why thank you, I wear my intellectual insecurity like a badge of pride. You should try it some time.

As Socrates once said "I know that I am intelligent because I know that I know nothing".

You don't have to try to prove it.

---

(05-30-2020, 07:23 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 06:53 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Vetting isn't only about race. Of course I've laid this out already as well.  It's about identifying those officers that are in it for the adrenalin rush and get off on inflicting force. We've all known someone like this. Also identifying any other officer prone to have an issue with violence or a general imbalance/mental health issue.  Basic "temperament for the job" stuff.  

So yes, whether Chauvin or any of the other officers in this incident are racists is indeed irrelevant to whether or not you seek to improve vetting, bias training, and force/brutality training.  You seek to improve those things because that's what is required to move forward in the court of public opinion and there is simply no downside to improving those aspects of officer training.  We'll just disagree on whether it would make any difference apparently as you believe it wouldn't and I believe it would.

Vetting only works if the law allows it. Chauvin had a bad record, yet he was still on the force. Why? Why is it so hard to fire bad cops? Why is it so hard to fire bad government employees in general? I'm guessing unions have a lot to do with it. That contract agreement needs to be changed but the establishment politicians are too dependent on unions for campaign contributions to even think of asking for this change.

As far as bias training and force/brutality training I'd be very surprised if they don't already require annual (or more frequent) training sessions for the veteran cops along with ones for new cops, especially in Leftist-controlled city like Minneapolis. All the training in the world doesn't help if the cop ignores it.

It's interesting. I was talking with a buddy of mine who is on the force. He said they used to be much harder on police recruits at the academy. He said it was similar to the military, where they would try to break you under extreme amounts of stress. This helped weed out the weak and the mental cases. He believes this is one of the tools that needs to come back to properly screen candidates. I don't know if there's data to support this, but it makes sense on the surface.

(05-30-2020, 06:53 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 04:39 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Way to respond in Good faith.  

Again, you say "there is mistrust between black Americans and the police."  Ok.  Is that mistrust based on perception or is it based on material fact.  I and others have pointed out that in reality, its not based on fact.  It's based on a false perception.  When a lack of trust is about false perception and not a material fact then the only way to re-establish trust is to divorce people from a false premise!  

You keep saying "well vet people better"  and then when i ask "prove this incident had anything to do with race" you say that proof or reason or the actual connection of this incident to racial injustice is IRRELEVANT?  That makes NO SENSE.  If you're vetting for something that isn't a contributing factor to an underlying problem, or in this case a lack there of, then its not going to change anything.  And when it doesn't change anything then that means that there will be another incident that occurs and the false premise is still in tact. I think that your resistance to factual analysis has less to do with your legitimate belief in its relevance and a lot more to do with your love of the underlying premise and how it serves your world view.

first bolded question:
I've already answered this over and over. Are you just skimming this thread? The people's mistrust is based in reality and in a "magnified/distorted perception"  that doesn't reflect how often these incidents really happen. Both. 
I've also already said the false premise being propagated by both social and news media is yet ANOTHER issue that will have to be tackled. I merely hadn't gotten to the point of attempting to figure out practical solutions yet as I was still trying to justify my initial suggestion to you and others. I'd love to hear anyone's ideas on that. 

Vetting isn't only about race. Of course I've laid this out already as well.  It's about identifying those officers that are in it for the adrenalin rush and get off on inflicting force. We've all known someone like this. Also identifying any other officer prone to have an issue with violence or a general imbalance/mental health issue.  Basic "temperament for the job" stuff.  
So yes, whether Chauvin or any of the other officers in this incident are racists is indeed irrelevant to whether or not you seek to improve vetting, bias training, and force/brutality training.  You seek to improve those things because that's what is required to move forward in the court of public opinion and there is simply no downside to improving those aspects of officer training.  We'll just disagree on whether it would make any difference apparently as you believe it wouldn't and I believe it would. 

I have no resistance to factual analysis. None at all. Especially if it's relevant. I've been presented with plenty today that is irrelevant to the issues I continue to raise.  I do have a resistance to head in the sand logic, moving goalposts, and inability to read and understand a counter argument.

---

I'll say it again, your major premise is that there is an erosion of trust between the public and police officers, and that precipitates the violence that we see today.  My contention is that the erosion of trust, almost is almost ENTIRELY based on a false media premise, and the fact that our society has bought into the idea of "institutional racism". How many times do we see these stories not just leak out, but with false or misleading premises that try to make officers, home/business owners look like roaming klansmen picking random black kids out of college class.  By the time the truth comes out, the cities already been burned down.  
My point is that trust has to be based on a mutual commitment to truth and rational discourse.  So the actual statistics on use of force, bias, etc. are of the utmost importance.  Also, part of the erosion of trust is based on the secondary false premise that the black community "has no voice," or that there is "institutional racism".  I, again, contend that this is a false narrative to cover up for failed progressive leaders.  Keith Ellison is the black Attorney General of the state in question.  He could have come on the night that the video was made public and said "Hey guys, I GOT THIS!"  This behavior is unacceptable, and I will make sure that any criminal actions are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  YOUR COMMUNITY VOTED FOR ME and I am going to make sure these guys are taken care of.  Where was he.  I will give Marilyn Moseby and Stephanie Rawlins Blake credit for trying to get out in front of the Freddie Gray situation and they still burned the city down.  Black prosecutor, Black Mayor Democrat Governor, Minority police chief, half the officers involved are black, and what's the cry from the "court of public oppinion?"  Institutional racism!
Also, I understand your two points.  I just know that we've tried that before and its failed.  We implement policies to close the gap on incarceration, officer sensitivity, etc. etc. etc. and then we have a hispanic kid in south florida visited by police 40 some odd times but because he is in a certain class we don't want to put him in juvenile detention.  Then he walks into Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school and you know the rest.  Numbers matter because life keeps score.  If the reality is that the disproportionate number of Blacks that are incarcerated or interact with police is actually an honest reflection of disproportionate commission of crime then that completely changes of the calculus for the best policies to affect positive change for a community.  For instance, should that be the case and you enact policy either through legislation or through protest that cause police to pull back then you won't see a positive correlation to the removal of police presence, but a spike in crime and loss of both property and life among the community that you intend to help.  This again HAPPENED!  We call it the Ferguson affect.  The crime rates in Ferguson Baltimore etc. went up as police pulled back and the black community suffered as a result.

---

(05-30-2020, 11:14 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting news from Minneapolis concerning rioters who were arrested:

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/12667...25284?s=20

I really don't have much of a dog in the in-state out of state fight but...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/minneap...d-protests

JSO officer stabbed, several hit by bricks. Cops have control of the downtown area, but there's a rumor the "protests" will move to the Town Center.

Enjoy your kangaroo court

(05-30-2020, 06:53 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 04:39 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Way to respond in Good faith.  

Again, you say "there is mistrust between black Americans and the police."  Ok.  Is that mistrust based on perception or is it based on material fact.  I and others have pointed out that in reality, its not based on fact.  It's based on a false perception.  When a lack of trust is about false perception and not a material fact then the only way to re-establish trust is to divorce people from a false premise!  

You keep saying "well vet people better"  and then when i ask "prove this incident had anything to do with race" you say that proof or reason or the actual connection of this incident to racial injustice is IRRELEVANT?  That makes NO SENSE.  If you're vetting for something that isn't a contributing factor to an underlying problem, or in this case a lack there of, then its not going to change anything.  And when it doesn't change anything then that means that there will be another incident that occurs and the false premise is still in tact. I think that your resistance to factual analysis has less to do with your legitimate belief in its relevance and a lot more to do with your love of the underlying premise and how it serves your world view.

first bolded question:
I've already answered this over and over. Are you just skimming this thread? The people's mistrust is based in reality and in a "magnified/distorted perception"  that doesn't reflect how often these incidents really happen. Both. 
I've also already said the false premise being propagated by both social and news media is yet ANOTHER issue that will have to be tackled. I merely hadn't gotten to the point of attempting to figure out practical solutions yet as I was still trying to justify my initial suggestion to you and others. I'd love to hear anyone's ideas on that. 

Vetting isn't only about race. Of course I've laid this out already as well.  It's about identifying those officers that are in it for the adrenalin rush and get off on inflicting force. We've all known someone like this. Also identifying any other officer prone to have an issue with violence or a general imbalance/mental health issue.  Basic "temperament for the job" stuff.  
So yes, whether Chauvin or any of the other officers in this incident are racists is indeed irrelevant to whether or not you seek to improve vetting, bias training, and force/brutality training.  You seek to improve those things because that's what is required to move forward in the court of public opinion and there is simply no downside to improving those aspects of officer training.  We'll just disagree on whether it would make any difference apparently as you believe it wouldn't and I believe it would. 

I have no resistance to factual analysis. None at all. Especially if it's relevant. I've been presented with plenty today that is irrelevant to the issues I continue to raise.  I do have a resistance to head in the sand logic, moving goalposts, and inability to read and understand a counter argument.

---

(05-30-2020, 05:33 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Reforming something that works correctly 99.99% of the time is worthless. Reforming something that was not the cause of this incident is worthless. Fixing the bad actors, publicly and sternly, is the fix.

If something is only broken "a little bit" it doesn't hurt to double down on fixing it, and here's the important part you keep ignoring,  especially when it serves to help a parallel issue infinitely more than the one that's "barely broken." 

Public perception and mistrust being the parallel issue.

Its not even a little bit. Its "not worth noticing unless you have some thing material benefit to gain from it" broken. Report on every single  one of the other literal millions of encounters that don't end this way and see how people feel then. Or magnify an infinitesimally small number of bad encounters and pretend  they are the norm so the sheep will think you're making some huge societal change when really you're just sitting back making a buck off of the morons. Public perception right now is that cops should be aggressively putting this nonsense down and every day this goes on makes that more true.

(05-30-2020, 08:54 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 06:53 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]first bolded question:
I've already answered this over and over. Are you just skimming this thread? The people's mistrust is based in reality and in a "magnified/distorted perception"  that doesn't reflect how often these incidents really happen. Both. 
I've also already said the false premise being propagated by both social and news media is yet ANOTHER issue that will have to be tackled. I merely hadn't gotten to the point of attempting to figure out practical solutions yet as I was still trying to justify my initial suggestion to you and others. I'd love to hear anyone's ideas on that. 

Vetting isn't only about race. Of course I've laid this out already as well.  It's about identifying those officers that are in it for the adrenalin rush and get off on inflicting force. We've all known someone like this. Also identifying any other officer prone to have an issue with violence or a general imbalance/mental health issue.  Basic "temperament for the job" stuff.  
So yes, whether Chauvin or any of the other officers in this incident are racists is indeed irrelevant to whether or not you seek to improve vetting, bias training, and force/brutality training.  You seek to improve those things because that's what is required to move forward in the court of public opinion and there is simply no downside to improving those aspects of officer training.  We'll just disagree on whether it would make any difference apparently as you believe it wouldn't and I believe it would. 

I have no resistance to factual analysis. None at all. Especially if it's relevant. I've been presented with plenty today that is irrelevant to the issues I continue to raise.  I do have a resistance to head in the sand logic, moving goalposts, and inability to read and understand a counter argument.

---

If something is only broken "a little bit" it doesn't hurt to double down on fixing it, and here's the important part you keep ignoring,  especially when it serves to help a parallel issue infinitely more than the one that's "barely broken." 

Public perception and mistrust being the parallel issue.

Its not even a little bit. Its "not worth noticing unless you have some thing material benefit to gain from it" broken. Report on every single  one of the other literal millions of encounters that don't end this way and see how people feel then. Or magnify an infinitesimally small number of bad encounters and pretend  they are the norm so the sheep will think you're making some huge societal change when really you're just sitting back making a buck off of the morons. Public perception right now is that cops should be aggressively putting this nonsense down and every day this goes on makes that more true.

Yeah. It is a little bit. That's why we see evidence of wrongful death as often as we do right now. 

I shouldn't be surprised that the same set of posters who are okay with sacrificing "X" number of seniors so we can reopen Applebees during a pandemic is the same set that is fine with 'X" number of wrongful deaths equating to "we don't have to do jack [BLEEP] about this. There is no problem worth fixing."

(05-30-2020, 09:29 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 08:54 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Its not even a little bit. Its "not worth noticing unless you have some thing material benefit to gain from it" broken. Report on every single  one of the other literal millions of encounters that don't end this way and see how people feel then. Or magnify an infinitesimally small number of bad encounters and pretend  they are the norm so the sheep will think you're making some huge societal change when really you're just sitting back making a buck off of the morons. Public perception right now is that cops should be aggressively putting this nonsense down and every day this goes on makes that more true.

Yeah. It is a little bit. That's why we see evidence of wrongful death as often as we do right now. 

I shouldn't be surprised that the same set of posters who are okay with sacrificing "X" number of seniors so we can reopen Applebees during a pandemic is the same set that is fine with 'X" number of wrongful deaths equating to "we don't have to do jack [BLEEP] about this. There is no problem worth fixing."

Lolz.  You dont want to trip the light fantastic on the lockdowns with me sunshine!

(05-30-2020, 08:12 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 06:53 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]first bolded question:
I've already answered this over and over. Are you just skimming this thread? The people's mistrust is based in reality and in a "magnified/distorted perception"  that doesn't reflect how often these incidents really happen. Both. 
I've also already said the false premise being propagated by both social and news media is yet ANOTHER issue that will have to be tackled. I merely hadn't gotten to the point of attempting to figure out practical solutions yet as I was still trying to justify my initial suggestion to you and others. I'd love to hear anyone's ideas on that. 

Vetting isn't only about race. Of course I've laid this out already as well.  It's about identifying those officers that are in it for the adrenalin rush and get off on inflicting force. We've all known someone like this. Also identifying any other officer prone to have an issue with violence or a general imbalance/mental health issue.  Basic "temperament for the job" stuff.  
So yes, whether Chauvin or any of the other officers in this incident are racists is indeed irrelevant to whether or not you seek to improve vetting, bias training, and force/brutality training.  You seek to improve those things because that's what is required to move forward in the court of public opinion and there is simply no downside to improving those aspects of officer training.  We'll just disagree on whether it would make any difference apparently as you believe it wouldn't and I believe it would. 

I have no resistance to factual analysis. None at all. Especially if it's relevant. I've been presented with plenty today that is irrelevant to the issues I continue to raise.  I do have a resistance to head in the sand logic, moving goalposts, and inability to read and understand a counter argument.

---

I'll say it again, your major premise is that there is an erosion of trust between the public and police officers, and that precipitates the violence that we see today.  My contention is that the erosion of trust, almost is almost ENTIRELY based on a false media premise, and the fact that our society has bought into the idea of "institutional racism". How many times do we see these stories not just leak out, but with false or misleading premises that try to make officers, home/business owners look like roaming klansmen picking random black kids out of college class.  By the time the truth comes out, the cities already been burned down.  
My point is that trust has to be based on a mutual commitment to truth and rational discourse.  So the actual statistics on use of force, bias, etc. are of the utmost importance.  Also, part of the erosion of trust is based on the secondary false premise that the black community "has no voice," or that there is "institutional racism".  I, again, contend that this is a false narrative to cover up for failed progressive leaders.  Keith Ellison is the black Attorney General of the state in question.  He could have come on the night that the video was made public and said "Hey guys, I GOT THIS!"  This behavior is unacceptable, and I will make sure that any criminal actions are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  YOUR COMMUNITY VOTED FOR ME and I am going to make sure these guys are taken care of.  Where was he.  I will give Marilyn Moseby and Stephanie Rawlins Blake credit for trying to get out in front of the Freddie Gray situation and they still burned the city down.  Black prosecutor, Black Mayor Democrat Governor, Minority police chief, half the officers involved are black, and what's the cry from the "court of public oppinion?"  Institutional racism!
Also, I understand your two points.  I just know that we've tried that before and its failed.  We implement policies to close the gap on incarceration, officer sensitivity, etc. etc. etc. and then we have a hispanic kid in south florida visited by police 40 some odd times but because he is in a certain class we don't want to put him in juvenile detention.  Then he walks into Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school and you know the rest.  Numbers matter because life keeps score.  If the reality is that the disproportionate number of Blacks that are incarcerated or interact with police is actually an honest reflection of disproportionate commission of crime then that completely changes of the calculus for the best policies to affect positive change for a community.  For instance, should that be the case and you enact policy either through legislation or through protest that cause police to pull back then you won't see a positive correlation to the removal of police presence, but a spike in crime and loss of both property and life among the community that you intend to help.  This again HAPPENED!  We call it the Ferguson affect.  The crime rates in Ferguson Baltimore etc. went up as police pulled back and the black community suffered as a result.

---

You start with putting words in my mouth (again) - make one very noble statement about rational discourse  (italics) - but you seem incapable of that unfortunately  --   then you go on to a bunch of causation fail, rhetoric, you even promote a racial bias in policing (bolded).  Hot take! 

So yeah - we're worlds apart.  Enjoy your fantasy microcosm.

---

(05-30-2020, 09:33 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 09:29 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah. It is a little bit. That's why we see evidence of wrongful death as often as we do right now. 

I shouldn't be surprised that the same set of posters who are okay with sacrificing "X" number of seniors so we can reopen Applebees during a pandemic is the same set that is fine with 'X" number of wrongful deaths equating to "we don't have to do jack [BLEEP] about this. There is no problem worth fixing."

Lolz.  You dont want to trip the light fantastic on the lockdowns with me sunshine!

I hope you get your meds sorted out.

(05-30-2020, 09:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-30-2020, 08:12 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]I'll say it again, your major premise is that there is an erosion of trust between the public and police officers, and that precipitates the violence that we see today.  My contention is that the erosion of trust, almost is almost ENTIRELY based on a false media premise, and the fact that our society has bought into the idea of "institutional racism". How many times do we see these stories not just leak out, but with false or misleading premises that try to make officers, home/business owners look like roaming klansmen picking random black kids out of college class.  By the time the truth comes out, the cities already been burned down.  
My point is that trust has to be based on a mutual commitment to truth and rational discourse.  So the actual statistics on use of force, bias, etc. are of the utmost importance.  Also, part of the erosion of trust is based on the secondary false premise that the black community "has no voice," or that there is "institutional racism".  I, again, contend that this is a false narrative to cover up for failed progressive leaders.  Keith Ellison is the black Attorney General of the state in question.  He could have come on the night that the video was made public and said "Hey guys, I GOT THIS!"  This behavior is unacceptable, and I will make sure that any criminal actions are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  YOUR COMMUNITY VOTED FOR ME and I am going to make sure these guys are taken care of.  Where was he.  I will give Marilyn Moseby and Stephanie Rawlins Blake credit for trying to get out in front of the Freddie Gray situation and they still burned the city down.  Black prosecutor, Black Mayor Democrat Governor, Minority police chief, half the officers involved are black, and what's the cry from the "court of public oppinion?"  Institutional racism!
Also, I understand your two points.  I just know that we've tried that before and its failed.  We implement policies to close the gap on incarceration, officer sensitivity, etc. etc. etc. and then we have a hispanic kid in south florida visited by police 40 some odd times but because he is in a certain class we don't want to put him in juvenile detention.  Then he walks into Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school and you know the rest.  Numbers matter because life keeps score.  If the reality is that the disproportionate number of Blacks that are incarcerated or interact with police is actually an honest reflection of disproportionate commission of crime then that completely changes of the calculus for the best policies to affect positive change for a community.  For instance, should that be the case and you enact policy either through legislation or through protest that cause police to pull back then you won't see a positive correlation to the removal of police presence, but a spike in crime and loss of both property and life among the community that you intend to help.  This again HAPPENED!  We call it the Ferguson affect.  The crime rates in Ferguson Baltimore etc. went up as police pulled back and the black community suffered as a result.

---

You start with putting words in my mouth (again)  - make one very noble statement about rational discourse  (italics) - but you seem incapable of that unfortunately  --   then you go on to a bunch of causation fail, rhetoric, you even promote a racial bias in policing (bolded).  Hot take! 

So yeah - we're worlds apart.  Enjoy your fantasy microcosm.

---

(05-30-2020, 09:33 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Lolz.  You dont want to trip the light fantastic on the lockdowns with me sunshine!

I hope you get your meds sorted out.

I didnt promote a racial bias.  I pointed out that statistical over or under representation isnt evidence of racial bias.  I'll say it again.  Are ALL defensive back coaches in the league racist?

Just so I am clear, we are through social distancing now that the democrats have found their next talkikg point?

(05-30-2020, 08:41 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]JSO officer stabbed, several hit by bricks.  Cops have control of the downtown area, but there's a rumor the "protests" will move to the Town Center.

Uh oh, you know why. They are looking to get free tvs and stuff.

(05-29-2020, 06:00 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-29-2020, 04:47 PM)JagJohn Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for answering! Finally someone with a pair.

I guess your argument is that after the civil rights movement America essentially became a place that was "legally equal", and therefore racial injustice ceased to be a problem. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm sure we have all seen, heard, learnt, (experienced in some cases) enough about the civil rights era to agree that there were many people in America who held strongly racist attitudes, and fought against civil rights. I imagine we can all agree on this, but I've overestimated people before, so, again, let me know if I'm wrong.

So the obvious question remains: what happened to those (many) people who held racist beliefs at that time? Did they suddenly stop being racist because the argument for civil rights won? Were they suddenly convinced that they had been wrong all along? Did they stop sharing their ideas, teaching their children, treating people differently, at that moment in time?

No.  I'm not going to deny that there are in fact still people that hold racist beliefs.  However, I would estimate that the percentage is VERY small.  I know people around my age (mid 50's) that have learned that racist ideas were wrong.  Their elders (parents, relatives, etc.) might not have.  I know that my great aunt used to call black people "coloreds" until the day that she died.  There was no changing a 90 year old woman's mind about that.

I would guess that most people age 60 or less don't believe or look at race/color the way that they did pre-1970 or so.

As far as "racial injustice", I don't think that it's a real "problem" today.  Everyone has the same opportunity to achieve (or not) whatever they want to achieve.  A poor black kid growing up poor in a ghetto has the ability to become an award winning neurosurgeon. - Ben Carson

A black woman who grew up in Birmingham, Alabama when segregation was still a thing became Secretary of State. - Condoleezza Rice.

A poor black man grew up to become the CEO of a major food chain. - Herman Cain

People need to get rid of the whole "victim" deal, especially with regards to race.

Since I answered your question why not answer what I have been asking?  Regarding this whole case, why did the officers take the suspect down to the ground and why were they restraining him the way that they were (as shown in the publicly released videos/pictures)?  Why is that part left out of any video clips or pictures?

I would put money on it that the reason they did that wasn't because of his race or skin color.  There had to be a reason.

And before anyone says that I'm justifying or condoning the actions that the officers took, I am not.  I'm just questioning why they did what they did and what led up to it.  That part hasn't been presented yet in the court of public opinion.

Your take is nave at best, disingenuous at worst, and in very little sense acquainted with reality.

You seem to think that since the passage of various civil rights legislation, racism in its various permutations has disappeared.  That is complete nonsense.

There have been laws on the books prohibiting any number of things from the beginning of time.  Every single state has laws against murder.  Have those laws stopped all murder?  No.
There have been laws against speeding since the automobile.  Does that stop people from exceeding the speed limits?  Anyone who drives can tell you that is a definite no.

Those laws, along with myriad others, carry  reasonably well known, well expected set of sanctions associated with them.  If you speed, you get a ticket, fine, points on your insurance and possible suspension/revocation of your license in more extreme instances.

Murder carries prison time, and possibly the death penalty.

Can anyone NOT a lawyer explain the specific penalties associated with the various Civil rights laws without looking them up or without engaging in hyperbole? 

Yet despite this, you think "racial injustice," however you defined it, somehow magically stopped witht he passage of the passage of Civil Rights era laws (many of which were weakened by conservative congressmen/justices)?

I am not going to waste my time showing all of the ways race based discrimination persists to this day.  Not only would it take years to research all of the case law and post an analysis here, most of you on the right would disregard it anyway (see Confederate motivations).

However I will offer you this article as a small example of how "racial injustice" persists in sentencing.

http://projects.heraldtribune.com/bias/sentencing/

Your premise is troubling on any number of levels.  It presumes that because it can't readily be proven on a message board without the benefit of discovery, cross examination, etc., it didn't happen.  If a sign on a business says there are job openings, I respond to the sign and make a face to inquiry, and the clerk lies, denying there are job openings available based solely or even partially on my race, without employing testers to confirm that or filing a suit compelling discovery, I've no way to prove that here.   More to the point, your attitude assigns almost a "Simon says" or "Mother may I" standard to proving racial discrimination. The KKK could burn a cross in my yard, but because it didn't expressly state "[BLEEP] go away," standing alone, it still does not prove racist intent.  It also seemingly presumes, since tied to the passing of the Civil Rights legislation, that because discriminatory actions did not materially affect a right protected by law, it has no adverse effect on the recipient.  I assure you that is far from the truth.

But accepting, at face value your ludicrous assertion that most racism ended circa 1970 with the passage of the Civil Rights laws, it doesn't address the lingering effect that pre 1970 discrimination has. A key to wealth accumulation is the acquisition of real property. With redlining, the ability of African Americans to have access to loans to start businesses and acquire houses was constrained. Furthermore, to the extent African Americans could obtain mortgages, their options were limited to areas with suppressed property values. That limited generational wealth. Furthermore the fact that it took a series of comprehensive federal legislation and Supreme Court decisions (Not traditional notions of common human decency or Christian values) to eliminate racism from the country speaks volumes.

Considering it's been only 50 years since the passage of those laws (using your 1970 estimate), and this country will be 244 years old as of July 4, the overwhelming portion of this country's history shows comprehensive racial animus against POC.  If anything, racist antipathy is the default-if rebuttable- presumption.

Have things improved over the years? Absolutely. Has racism been completely eradicated from this country? Absolutely NOT.

(05-30-2020, 10:44 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-29-2020, 06:00 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]No.  I'm not going to deny that there are in fact still people that hold racist beliefs.  However, I would estimate that the percentage is VERY small.  I know people around my age (mid 50's) that have learned that racist ideas were wrong.  Their elders (parents, relatives, etc.) might not have.  I know that my great aunt used to call black people "coloreds" until the day that she died.  There was no changing a 90 year old woman's mind about that.

I would guess that most people age 60 or less don't believe or look at race/color the way that they did pre-1970 or so.

As far as "racial injustice", I don't think that it's a real "problem" today.  Everyone has the same opportunity to achieve (or not) whatever they want to achieve.  A poor black kid growing up poor in a ghetto has the ability to become an award winning neurosurgeon. - Ben Carson

A black woman who grew up in Birmingham, Alabama when segregation was still a thing became Secretary of State. - Condoleezza Rice.

A poor black man grew up to become the CEO of a major food chain. - Herman Cain

People need to get rid of the whole "victim" deal, especially with regards to race.

Since I answered your question why not answer what I have been asking?  Regarding this whole case, why did the officers take the suspect down to the ground and why were they restraining him the way that they were (as shown in the publicly released videos/pictures)?  Why is that part left out of any video clips or pictures?

I would put money on it that the reason they did that wasn't because of his race or skin color.  There had to be a reason.

And before anyone says that I'm justifying or condoning the actions that the officers took, I am not.  I'm just questioning why they did what they did and what led up to it.  That part hasn't been presented yet in the court of public opinion.

Your take is nave at best, disingenuous at worst, and in very little sense acquainted with reality.

You seem to think that since the passage of various civil rights legislation, racism in its various permutations has disappeared.  That is complete nonsense.

There have been laws on the books prohibiting any number of things from the beginning of time.  Every single state has laws against murder.  Have those laws stopped all murder?  No.
There have been laws against speeding since the automobile.  Does that stop people from exceeding the speed limits?  Anyone who drives can tell you that is a definite no.

Those laws, along with myriad others, carry  reasonably well known, well expected set of sanctions associated with them.  If you speed, you get a ticket, fine, points on your insurance and possible suspension/revocation of your license in more extreme instances.

Murder carries prison time, and possibly the death penalty.

Can anyone NOT a lawyer explain the specific penalties associated with the various Civil rights laws without looking them up or without engaging in hyperbole? 

Yet despite this, you think "racial injustice," however you defined it, somehow magically stopped witht he passage of the passage of Civil Rights era laws (many of which were weakened by conservative congressmen/justices)?

I am not going to waste my time showing all of the ways race based discrimination persists to this day.  Not only would it take years to research all of the case law and post an analysis here, most of you on the right would disregard it anyway (see Confederate motivations).

However I will offer you this article as a small example of how "racial injustice" persists in sentencing.

http://projects.heraldtribune.com/bias/sentencing/

Your premise is troubling on any number of levels.  It presumes that because it can't readily be proven on a message board without the benefit of discovery, cross examination, etc., it didn't happen.  If a sign on a business says there are job openings, I respond to the sign and make a face to inquiry, and the clerk lies, denying there are job openings available based solely or even partially on my race, without employing testers to confirm that or filing a suit compelling discovery, I've no way to prove that here.   More to the point, your attitude assigns almost a "Simon says" or "Mother may I" standard to proving racial discrimination.  The KKK could burn a cross in my yard, but because it didn't expressly state "[BLEEP] go away," standing alone, it still does not prove racist intent.  It also seemingly presumes, since tied to the passing of the Civil Rights legislation, that because discriminatory actions did not materially affect a right protected by law, it has no adverse effect on the recipient.  I assure you that is far from the truth.

But accepting, at face value your ludicrous assertion that most racism ended circa 1970 with the passage of the Civil Rights laws, the fact that it took a series of comprehensive federal legislation and Supreme Court decisions (Not traditional notions of common human decency or Christian values) to eliminate racism from the country speaks volumes.

Considering it's been only 50 years since the passage of those laws (using your 1970 estimate), and this country will be 244 years old as of July 4, the overwhelming portion of this country's history shows comprehensive racial animus against POC.  If anything, racist antipathy is the default-if rebuttable- presumption.  

Have things improved over the years?  Absilutely.  Has racism been completely eradicated from this country?  Absolutely NOT.

I may as well stop posting on here. Bullseye, as always, has absolutely nailed it, much better than I ever could. NYC also continues to make concrete, realistic points, that continually get ignored.

The tide is slowly but surely turning. America, slowly but surely, is in the process of coming to terms with it's real history and how that history still effects how society is shaped. I hope this can be a turning point for honest reflection. I'm fully aware so many of you will continue to deny what is clear as day.