(05-29-2020, 01:36 PM)jj82284 Wrote:

(05-29-2020, 01:03 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Incorrect on several fronts. 

1. I didn't assume jack [BLEEP]. 

2. Whether or not he was initially trained well is irrelevant because:
   a -  it didn't work - so what does "properly" mean exactly -  he acted outside of his training
   b - additional training is what I'm suggesting and it was clearly needed

3. He was trained to place his knee between the prisoner's shoulder blades - not on his neck/throat - this is straight from the Minn. P.D.  

4. The secondary point of additional (augmented)  training is about community relations which I've repeated a half dozen times now

5. The other thing I'm repeating to mostly deaf ears is vetting improvements - and this guy clearly is a poster boy for improved vetting when you see his complaint record. 

Again - what's so terrible about adding an element of training on a broad scale that seeks to prevent this kind of misstep from happening?   
Not a damn thing. 

And what's so bad about doubling down on weeding out officers unfit to wear the badge? 
Not a damn thing. 

These are just such sensible suggestions that are necessary to repair a widespread mistrust. 
Various departments have implemented such measures before to moderate temporary success within their communities -  and this is a prime time for a larger and more widespread effort.

Mistrust based on misinformation can only be rectified through correct information.  

As Thomas Sowell points out, in these instances not only is no evidence presented, none is asked for.  Its just assumed that because the officers were white (and one asian) that their actions were because of "white supremacy" etc.  That makes no sense outside the SJW echo chamber.

---

(05-29-2020, 01:15 PM)JagJohn Wrote: How in the world can you consider this a singularity?

I passed stats class?

---

(05-29-2020, 01:55 PM)JagJohn Wrote:

(05-29-2020, 01:45 PM)Last42min Wrote: You are suggesting these things occur because of racism. I am saying they occur because of corruption. You are not suggesting anything worthwhile. Your focus on race is unprovable. It is a talking point propagated by people who depend on it for their careers. Millions of blacks believe they have a high chance of dying when they are confronted by a police officer and the evidence just doesn't support it. I showed you evidence that suggests otherwise, which would mean that race is not main factor involved here. You counter with the idea that we can't know what's in a person's heart. That's not fantastic insight. It's a boogieman.You make this claim without at all questioning whether or not the narrative itself is a contributing factor in deteriorating racial relations. 

I believe police officers can be corrupt. I'm not some ideologue that thinks all cops are great people. I have had dozens of encounters with police in my life, and I can think of 5 (out of probably 50) that weren't unpleasant. Cops are [BLEEP] 90% of the time. However, when I have a bad encounter with a cop, I haven't had a lifetime of lies flung in my direction that cause me to believe the cops have it out for me due to any external factor. I rationally deduce that either a certain amount of power corrupts most people or that certain personality types are drawn to positions of power.  This is far more likely the explanation for why cops are often [BLEEP] to ALL people. Cops have too much power. The difference between your position and mine is that I KNOW police can be corrupt. I can get on board with wanting to reform how the police interact with citizens. I just don't think you get to use a boogieman (race), that actually harms the public psyche.

When was it, exactly, in the history of America, when race suddenly became a fictional 'boogieman' and not a massive influence on how society is shaped, and how people treat each other within society?