BLM Protests Cop's Wedding

[TLK Valentine]

Again, here is your exact words....

"Except a lynch mob isn't a lynch mob unless it sets out to actually lynch someone -- or at the very least, to engage in some form of violence. Otherwise you can use that same argument on any form of public protest."

You were against my description of them as a non-violent lynch mob. Even though they clearly got together for a form of extrajudicial justice (which we agreed is a part of a lynching....otherwise its just murder).

Indeed -- violence plus "justice" for some real or imagined crime = lynch mob.

You keep repeating words without paying much attention to them. Work on that.

I then asked if you were always so uptight about the use of the word lynching....clearly not. There's no extrajudicial justice or murder here....and you're obviously ok with how it was used.

There's no murder, hence it was, as I said, a attempted lynching... again, repetition is your strong point... work on the rest.

As for "extrajudicial justice," it certainly looks from the article (which I read), that these kids certainly had some issue with the victim...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And despite making up 13.4% of the population, black people kill 36.6% of police officers.

According to the FBI, for 2017, police officers are 2.79 times as likely to be killed by black Americans than white Americans.

Does that point to a definitive trend?

Yes, that does establish a trend, and like I noted before, there are certain issues where some introspection is required, however, that doesn't downplay the impact of police misconduct.

We entrust police with more authority (and ability to use force) than we do with average citizens, therefore we should be holding them to a high standard.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'll try to address the rest of your post later once I have more time...but for now...

Then there's the larger context of what the group is trying to achieve. They want to reform the justice system for everyone? Or just for blacks? If it's for everyone...why are we just focusing on blacks?

The same could be said of any special focus group. A focus on one type of problem, doesn't necessarily mean "we don't care about other problems".

A) This could be said about literally any group. For instance, a group focused on (and for) Latino business owners doesn't necessarily mean that they don't care about challenges for other groups, it simply means that have specific challenges that are unique to their group that they'd like to collaborate on.

In that regard, BLM is absolutely right...there are challenges facing their group that most other groups simply don't have to deal with. From just a first hand narrative, I can honestly say I've never had to deal with security following me around in a mall and watching me like a hawk our of fear of me stealing something. I have black friends who haven't had the same experience. My friend Kevin said it's not out of the norm to have the same 1 or 2 mall security guards following him around the mall the entire time he's their watching him like a hawk (and he doesn't dress in the stereotypical "hood" style...he wears the same kind of stuff I do). I've never had a cop demand to search my car...he's had it happen 3 times in the last year.

Like I touched on before...it's not just shootings, it's interactions with the police in general. When these complaints are brought up, and when the political right responds with "well, as long as you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about if they want to search your car" or try to blame "rap culture", it does start to make people feel like "they don't care or think I'm as important as everyone else"

Do you actually know how BLM would like to address those issues? Where do you stand on body cams...for or against?

I'm 100% for body cams, and in fact, I have a 360 dash cam that syncs to my phone and from there uploads to the cloud in real-time and it gets turned on and starts syncing the entire time I'm ever having an encounter with an officer. I take zero chances with that sort of thing.

 

[Non sequitur]

Yes, that does establish a trend, and like I noted before, there are certain issues where some introspection is required, however, that doesn't downplay the impact of police misconduct.

We entrust police with more authority (and ability to use force) than we do with average citizens, therefore we should be holding them to a high standard.

I'm sure everybody agrees that police should be held to a higher standard. The issue is, BLM doesn't seem to acknowledge any other factors that lead to the things they protest. It's just protest, because thing involved black person. That's it.

It's black and white (no pun intended), for them.

It seems disingenuous to point out a specific issue, but close your ears to all other information and issues. I'd give them more credit if they acknowledged anything they were wrong about (which they have been).

That would show genuine interest in the truth and solving a problem, rather than their narrative.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'll try to address the rest of your post later once I have more time...but for now...


The same could be said of any special focus group. A focus on one type of problem, doesn't necessarily mean "we don't care about other problems".

A) This could be said about literally any group. For instance, a group focused on (and for) Latino business owners doesn't necessarily mean that they don't care about challenges for other groups, it simply means that have specific challenges that are unique to their group that they'd like to collaborate on.

Yeah...but we're talking about the justice system. It's something that affects everyone...and it's not something that we could legally change "just for black people". We would have to do away with discrimination laws and write new laws for each race...which is completely antithetical to the very concept of justice.

Do you understand that?

In that regard, BLM is absolutely right...there are challenges facing their group that most other groups simply don't have to deal with. From just a first hand narrative, I can honestly say I've never had to deal with security following me around in a mall and watching me like a hawk our of fear of me stealing something. I have black friends who haven't had the same experience. My friend Kevin said it's not out of the norm to have the same 1 or 2 mall security guards following him around the mall the entire time he's their watching him like a hawk (and he doesn't dress in the stereotypical "hood" style...he wears the same kind of stuff I do). I've never had a cop demand to search my car...he's had it happen 3 times in the last year.

Like I touched on before...it's not just shootings, it's interactions with the police in general. When these complaints are brought up, and when the political right responds with "well, as long as you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about if they want to search your car" or try to blame "rap culture", it does start to make people feel like "they don't care or think I'm as important as everyone else"

You don't really want to get into personal accounts, do you?

I'm 100% for body cams, and in fact, I have a 360 dash cam that syncs to my phone and from there uploads to the cloud in real-time and it gets turned on and starts syncing the entire time I'm ever having an encounter with an officer. I take zero chances with that sort of thing.

I thought you might be....BLM 100% against body cams. It's rather odd that you're completely on opposite sides of the spectrum on that isn't it? After all, you probably see body cams as a way of insuring safety....they're the best chance of holding a dirty cop accountable, right?

It would seem as if BLM sees it another way though. Do you think that perhaps BLM has looked back at the cases they protested...cases they made an issue out of in the media...and found that far more often than not, the body cams support the cop's account of what happened than their account?

It's hard for me to imagine why they wouldn't want body cams on cops if accountability is truly something they want.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah...but we're talking about the justice system. It's something that affects everyone...and it's not something that we could legally change "just for black people". We would have to do away with discrimination laws and write new laws for each race...which is completely antithetical to the very concept of justice.

Do you understand that?

I don't think all people who back BLM are asking for different treatment...they're simply asking for the current laws to be applied equally...which, as sentencing data for non-violent drug offenses shows, isn't currently being done as a black male, my same age, is much more likely to do time for non-violent offenses than I would be.

In fact, Black people are several times more likely to be wrongfully convicted, and when rightfully convicted, nearly 3 times more likely to be given jail time (instead of fines & probation) than their white counterparts.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/7/14834454/exoneration-innocence-prison-racism

Yes, there are some that are asking for reparations and special treatment, however, I don't think that's majority.

I thought you might be....BLM 100% against body cams. It's rather odd that you're completely on opposite sides of the spectrum on that isn't it? After all, you probably see body cams as a way of insuring safety....they're the best chance of holding a dirty cop accountable, right?

It would seem as if BLM sees it another way though. Do you think that perhaps BLM has looked back at the cases they protested...cases they made an issue out of in the media...and found that far more often than not, the body cams support the cop's account of what happened than their account?

It's hard for me to imagine why they wouldn't want body cams on cops if accountability is truly something they want.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from...

Black Lives Matter’s Campaign Zero listed body cameras as number six on a list of policy solutions. The American Civil Liberties Union wrote extensively in favor body cameras, although they’ve since updated their recommendations to address issues surrounding footage release.

https://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutions/#solutionsoverview

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Zero

Campaign zero is group of policy activists from within BLM and they list Body Cameras as one of their top ten things they want.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think all people who back BLM are asking for different treatment...they're simply asking for the current laws to be applied equally...which, as sentencing data for non-violent drug offenses shows, isn't currently being done as a black male, my same age, is much more likely to do time for non-violent offenses than I would be.

And a woman your same age is less likely to do time...does that mean the entire system is sexist?

A disparity doesn't equate to racism.

In fact, Black people are several times more likely to be wrongfully convicted, and when rightfully convicted, nearly 3 times more likely to be given jail time (instead of fines & probation) than their white counterparts.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/7/14834454/exoneration-innocence-prison-racism

Yes, there are some that are asking for reparations and special treatment, however, I don't think that's majority.

I'm sorry, I don't consider Vox a valid source. They're one of the most biased and deliberately leftist sources on the internet.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from...

Black Lives Matter’s Campaign Zero listed body cameras as number six on a list of policy solutions. The American Civil Liberties Union wrote extensively in favor body cameras, although they’ve since updated their recommendations to address issues surrounding footage release.

https://www.joincampaignzero.org/solutions/#solutionsoverview

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_Zero

Campaign zero is group of policy activists from within BLM and they list Body Cameras as one of their top ten things they want.

Well, if you look at Campaign Zero's list...you'll notice it came out in 2015. If you look at the list itself, you'll notice that what they really want is for body cams to be used against police....but to have the citizens protected from them.

"Police officers would be required to wear body cams and have dashboard cams. all police interactions would be recorded unless the suspect requests to remain anonymous. Additionally citizens have the right to have footage released to the public and saved for a minimum of 2 years. If footage is requested through a FOIA and the police denies it, they must defend themselves before a court. Footage that hasn't been requested must be deleted after 6 months, and footage may not be used by officers for reports or statements and may not be used for facial recognition."

It's not hard to imagine why this, and a lot of other suggestions on that list weren't taken seriously. But anyway, you asked where I got the idea that BLM doesn't want body cams from....and it's obvious that you haven't read the list of "demands" BLM has made, even though I provided a link to it, and even though I directed you right to that post...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...ack-lives-matter-heres-full-james-barrett?amp

This is the official list..."campaign zero" is a list put out by activists "associated with BLM". This is the list that BLM signed off on itself...and its 2016...so it's fair to say it supersedes your list. It says...

"An end to the mass surveillance of Black communities, and the end to the use of technologies that criminalize and target our communities (including IMSI catchers, drones, body cameras, and predictive policing software)."

So, I think it's fair to point out that you don't really understand what BLM stands for or what you're supporting. As for your earlier statement about "I don't think all people supporting BLM want different treatment....", can we now admit that's a load of garbage?

It may be that a lot of BLM supporters, like yourself, don't have the slightest clue what they're supporting....but that's the fault of their own ignorance. I'm certain you would never accept an excuse that flimsy from some alt-right or neo nazi supporter....would you? "Duh...I didn't realize they supported the creation of a pure white state! I just joined cuz I'm against Mexicans taking my job!"

Read the list this time, don't just skip over it....take a look at what you're actually defending for once.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Indeed -- violence plus "justice" for some real or imagined crime = lynch mob.

You keep repeating words without paying much attention to them. Work on that.

No...I paid attention. Violence isn't a lynching...a man getting dragged out of hia home and being given a purple nurple isn't a lynching. The word lynch is synonymous with "execute"....so anything short of execution isn't a lynching.

Feel free to actually look the word up before you criticize someone next time.

There's no murder, hence it was, as I said, a attempted lynching... again, repetition is your strong point... work on the rest.

Only if they actually intended to kill him...which doesn't seem the case.

As for "extrajudicial justice," it certainly looks from the article (which I read), that these kids certainly had some issue with the victim...

You're saying that he committed a crime against those boys and they were getting "justice" for it?

To say they had "some issue" with him doesn't even come close to a lynching. Any person who ever assaulted another person probably had "some issue" with them lol. Any murderer who ever killed someone probably had "some issue" with them lol.

"Some issue" doesn't even remotely qualify this as an attempted lynching.

Anything else?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No...I paid attention. Violence isn't a lynching...a man getting dragged out of hia home and being given a purple nurple isn't a lynching. The word lynch is synonymous with "execute"....so anything short of execution isn't a lynching.

Feel free to actually look the word up before you criticize someone next time.

You mean like the word "attempted"?

You remember -- attempted lynching?

Feel free to actually look the word up before you criticize someone next time.

Only if they actually intended to kill him...which doesn't seem the case.

Found a new straw to grasp at, I see. Suppose the intent was simply to scare or injure him, and he had ended up dead -- no harm, no foul, no lynch?

We'd call it an accidental lynching. Feel free to look that one up, too.

You're saying that he committed a crime against those boys and they were getting "justice" for it?

I'm saying that if they were punishing him for some real or imagined offense -- remember that word? I used that one, too -- then they would see it as some sort of justice.

Why not ask them what they were thinking?

"Some issue" doesn't even remotely qualify this as an attempted lynching.

Anything else?

Yes. Before we go down this rabbit trail any further, let's not forget what put this bee in your bonnet in the first place -- your defense of the term "less violent version of a lynch mob," which you used back in post #65. -- a term somewhat similar to "drier water," or "a more square circle."

Of course, since we've already agreed that violence is an essential component of a lynching, and that BLM's protest, while insufferably rude, was not violent at all, your analogy, while emotional, doesn't really apply at all -- a term somewhat similar to "drier water," or "a more square circle."



Now you're left splitting hairs, saying that putting a rope around an 8-year old's neck and dangling him from a tree wasn't a lynching in order to defend a peaceful protest you want us to believe was one.

Anything else, you ask? Yeah... you might want to let it go.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You mean like the word "attempted"?

You remember -- attempted lynching?

Feel free to actually look the word up before you criticize someone next time.

And without the extrajudicial justice, it's not even that.

Found a new straw to grasp at,

Says the "attempted lynching" guy.

I see. Suppose the intent was simply to scare or injure him, and he had ended up dead -- no harm, no foul, no lynch?

A lynching involves intent...can't imagine how it would fit the definition without it.

We'd call it an accidental lynching. Feel free to look that one up, too.

Lol no need. The very definition of lynch means it can't possibly be accidental. Good one though.

I'm saying that if they were punishing him for some real or imagined offense -- remember that word? I used that one, too -- then they would see it as some sort of justice.

The only thing imagined here are the fictional motives you're ascribing to the accused.

Why not ask them what they were thinking?

Don't need to...there's nothing here to suggest a lynching.

Yes. Before we go down this rabbit trail any further, let's not forget what put this bee in your bonnet in the first place -- your defense of the term "less violent version of a lynch mob," which you used back in post #65.

Actually, I agreed it wasn't a lynching. I just wondered if you were always so technical with the term...or a hypocrite.

I've got my answer.

-- a term somewhat similar to "drier water," or "a more square circle."

Or "accident lynching" lol.

Of course, since we've already agreed that violence is an essential component of a lynching,

We agreed to no such thing.

and that BLM's protest, while insufferably rude, was not violent at all, your analogy, while emotional, doesn't really apply at all -- a term somewhat similar to "drier water," or "a more square circle."

Well, my analogy is half correct...as an unruly mob did set out for extrajudicial justice.

Now you're left splitting hairs, saying that putting a rope around an 8-year old's neck and dangling him from a tree wasn't a lynching in order to defend a peaceful protest you want us to believe was one.

Anything else, you ask? Yeah... you might want to let it go.

Why? This is fun.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And without the extrajudicial justice, it's not even that.

So tell me there was no extrajudicial justice. Tell me what those boys were thinking when they got the rope.

Well, my analogy is half correct...as an unruly mob did set out for extrajudicial justice.

In your mind, then, every unruly mob is a less violent lynching. Interesting.

You would have been very popular back in the day... among the right sort of people, of course.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So tell me there was no extrajudicial justice. Tell me what those boys were thinking when they got the rope.

By all accounts...the boy put his own head in the rope.

In your mind, then, every unruly mob is a less violent lynching. Interesting.

Of course not, just an unruly mob looking to enact some form of "justice" against someone they believe is guilty of a crime.

I told you not to forget about that part....yet it keeps slipping from your fingers.

 

[TLK Valentine]

By all accounts...the boy put his own head in the rope.

Did he kick the table out from under himself as well?

Of course not, just an unruly mob looking to enact some form of "justice" against someone they believe is guilty of a crime.

I told you not to forget about that part....yet it keeps slipping from your fingers.

I'm assuming that they kicked the table for a reason.

But by all means, continue to insist that an eight-year old hanging from a tree isn't a lynching because there's no extrajudicial justice (as far as you know), but a BLM protest at a wedding is one (because, you know.... reasons).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did he kick the table out from under himself as well?

Maybe, depends on who's account you believe.

I'm assuming that they kicked the table for a reason.

Because you easily buy into any leftist narrative about racism?

But by all means, continue to insist that an eight-year old hanging from a tree isn't a lynching because there's no extrajudicial justice (as far as you know),

Or as far as you know....and that's a pretty wild leap to male considering these boys never met before that day.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Or as far as you know....and that's a pretty wild leap to male considering these boys never met before that day.

Still, they weren't a lynch mob, but BLM were -- nice reality you got there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Still, they weren't a lynch mob, but BLM were -- nice reality you got there.

One analogy is more appropriate than the other.

And it's the same reality you have.

 

[TLK Valentine]

One analogy is more appropriate than the other.

You only used one, and by even your standards, it doesn't fit.

And it's the same reality you have.

just more whimsical, I see.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And a woman your same age is less likely to do time...does that mean the entire system is sexist?

A disparity doesn't equate to racism.

Yes, it does...the fact that women are less likely to do time for the exact same things is a problem.

I'm sorry, I don't consider Vox a valid source. They're one of the most biased and deliberately leftist sources on the internet.

Attacking the source isn't a valid rebuttal...

"Bias" and "Accuracy" are different metrics. One can be biased and still present factual information. In this case, Vox is using third party data.

Well, if you look at Campaign Zero's list...you'll notice it came out in 2015. If you look at the list itself, you'll notice that what they really want is for body cams to be used against police....but to have the citizens protected from them.

"Police officers would be required to wear body cams and have dashboard cams. all police interactions would be recorded unless the suspect requests to remain anonymous. Additionally citizens have the right to have footage released to the public and saved for a minimum of 2 years. If footage is requested through a FOIA and the police denies it, they must defend themselves before a court. Footage that hasn't been requested must be deleted after 6 months, and footage may not be used by officers for reports or statements and may not be used for facial recognition."

You're moving the goalposts...

Of course they want cams to be used against the police...that's why I have a camera in my car for police interactions. They're the one's in a position of power, and thus, they're the ones who can abuse a position of power.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, it does...the fact that women are less likely to do time for the exact same things is a problem.

I was talking about the disparity of women in jail being so disproportionately lower than their percentage of the population. If we're going to address anything, that should come before sentencing.

Attacking the source isn't a valid rebuttal...

"Bias" and "Accuracy" are different metrics. One can be biased and still present factual information. In this case, Vox is using third party data.

Ok, so before I read the article, tell me one thing...

They didn't lump all nonviolent drug offenses into one category, did they? Most drug offenses are nonviolent...from simple possession, to distribution, to trafficking and so on. They carry wildly different sentences as well...I mean, 5 white guys caught with a gram of marijuana each won't get as much time as 1 black man caught distributing crack....even if it's everyone's very first offense.

That's not what your source is doing with these stats is it? Because that would be deliberately spreading misinformation to push a narrative.

You're moving the goalposts...

Of course they want cams to be used against the police...that's why I have a camera in my car for police interactions. They're the one's in a position of power, and thus, they're the ones who can abuse a position of power.

Not moving the goalposts at all. I quoted BLM....you quoted "activists associated with BLM". I don't know if that means they showed up for a march or what.

Regardless, justice is justice and accountability is accountability. If body cams disprove hundreds or thousands of accusations against police for every one they prove...that is accountability. The public doesn't benefit from good cops being sidelined by investigations that could've been solved had a citizen not requested the cam be turned off.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You only used one, and by even your standards, it doesn't fit.

Which I acknowledged...do you need me to start quoting myself now?

just more whimsical, I see.

More accurate I'd say.