Is Jacob Blake a victim of police abuse?

[Ana the Ist]

That was for individuals, not government systems. Your point has nothing to do with determining whether there is racism in the system.

RD if we aren't talking about a specific law or policy...and we aren't talking about racist individuals (eve if they are within a system) then I don't know what "systemic racism" is...and I'm not making that up, I honestly don't know what the term means.

Sometimes people describe it as the effects of history on the present...and that's certainly a possibility it's not very good for explaining outcomes.

Sometimes it's the outcomes themselves but frankly, I think everyone can see that isn't true/doesn't make sense.

The outcomes can either be the result of racism or example of racism...but they cannot be both examples of systemic racism and caused by systemic racism.


They cannot be both the result of racist individuals and the proof of racist individualis.

Besides ,the people who jump at every opportunity to point out the lack of black Fortune 500 CEOs are the same people who ignore the fact that around 75% of NBA players are black.

What exactly is the cause of that? Merit?

No guilt is being fostered upon any individual by assuming something must be wrong in the system when the result of the system is unacceptable.

Are we just looking at outcomes then? The disparity of outcomes determines if systemic racism is the problem?

Is the NBA systemically racist?

If so, I'm curious how it got that way...because it's definitely historically racist. I don't think we'll find any racist policies or rules.

Are we saying that it's the people on those teams that are racist??

Are we saying that this disparity of outcomes doesn't count?

 

[Subduction Zone]

First off _ quoting you there _ I did look at the whole picture I saw the whole original video, I saw him wrestling / tussling with the police on the ground. I heard at the beginning of the warrant out for his arrest. I heard at the beginning domestic abuse charges against him. I heard they tasered him. And all of this in a few minutes - 3 reports say and the original video supports it.


So I saw the whole picture at the beginning - telling me to look at the whole picture.
When they saw the knife he was at his car trying to put it in.
And yes he did have his children in the car said he was taking them - he wasn't abusing them.
One thing I don't do until I know the whole story is form an opinion of guilt on domestic abuse because a lot of times women push far too hard - and if a man do so much as slap - she can have him arrested and file against him. It wasn't what some people like to call a thug.

Fact check: Jacob Blake faces assault charge, has no gun convictions

Timeline: How the Jacob Blake Shooting Unfolded

Shoot, in the back as many times as necessary until they go down is what you just said.

And I'll say this again nobody deserves to be shot four times in the back - and those three on the side didn't come from the front.

Blake also said he wouldn't pull a knife on a policeman you missed that didn't you.

Should these people have been shot down - they had knives and was actually threatening the police officers and other people.

Eugene Police: Man menacing people with knife taken into custody after 'tense situation'

Salt Lake police take man armed with 2 knives safely into custody

Man armed with knife taken into custody after incident at Emporia police headquarters

And there are many more reports!

Why would you believe Blake when he made those claims? They make no sense at all. He was arrested. If you are a black person that supposedly is worried about the police, and he has had enough run ins with them to know the drill, you do not carry a weapon. You drop it immediately. I don't think that any rational person would believe that story either. I know people that have gotten in trouble with the police. They know that you do not do what Blake did.

At first the claim was "he was unarmed". That was clearly false, but that false narrative was what set off the riots. Of course he is going to lie after the fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To each their own - and again you say shoot until the suspect is down. It depends on who you are.
And the reason the officer was not charged is they couldn't prove that he willingly violated civilian rights - accident mistakes negligent or bad judgment isn't reason enough to charge an officer.

Federal Officials Close Review of the Officer-Involved Shooting of Jacob Blake
Hope everybody in your family throughout your family's generations never run into any situation such as are similar to that, after all you spout shoot until they are down / no longer a threat / (frankly not moving not able to get up.) Have a nice day!

In close quarters it is what one has to do. Police very often are dealing with people that are on drugs. Those people are both feeling no pain and not thinking rationally. Once they start to shoot they are taught to shoot until the threat is over. White, black or green with purple polka dots, it does not matter.

I would hope that no one in my family was so stupid as to do as what Blake did. He really has no one to blame but himself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If it was your son, your brother, your husband, you would see things totally different. The man was not a hardened criminal. If anything he was a woose - domestic disturbances. May not know what woose mean!

I would write it out - but for what - if you're interested you'll read it - this is why they didn't file against the officer.

Federal Officials Close Review of the Officer-Involved Shooting of Jacob Blake

But his family and friends of the only ones who truly care.

His father said his first words will why did they shoot me so many times. "And you ask why were those his first words" - the first thing Blake was told he was shot seven times - sounds like the perfect response to me.
I've seen the original video I know the story.
Police don't have to wait for you to turn around shoot you - they shoot some people whether they're walking away, running away, standing still arguing - sitting in a car. Blake was trying to lean into his car the officer had him by his T-shirt pulling him back and shooting him at the same time. Nobody deserves to be shot 7 times, 4 in the back - nobody in a situation such as that.
And 3 minutes means a lot maybe not to you.

Nah....

I genuinely don't care. It appears to be a legitimate shooting. I have no problem with the case.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That does not say that racism is inevitable. It says that racism is inevitable until there is a change in the thought processes of white people.

Surely you don't believe that?

 

[RDKirk]

That does not say that racism is inevitable. It says that racism is inevitable until there is a change in the thought processes of white people.

It has become a thing for Z-genners to publicly "out" their parents and grandparents as racists.

Seems to me that change of thought process already underway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Surely you don't believe that?

I don't believe what? Do I agree with the person that wrote that? No. but what was said about the person was worse than that.

 

[Sheila Davis]

Why would you believe Blake when he made those claims? They make no sense at all. He was arrested. If you are a black person that supposedly is worried about the police, and he has had enough run ins with them to know the drill, you do not carry a weapon. You drop it immediately. I don't think that any rational person would believe that story either. I know people that have gotten in trouble with the police. They know that you do not do what Blake did.

At first the claim was "he was unarmed". That was clearly false, but that false narrative was what set off the riots. Of course he is going to lie after the fact.

Who said I believed him - where in anything I wrote did I say I believed what he said - you just passed judgment on me. I said he said he wouldn't draw a knife on a officer.

You are calling the man a liar and don't even know whether he was or not - you don't know what his intentions were - when you directly call a person a liar you have passed judgment. Without proof!
Was he threatening the officer with a knife -NO...
You just called me irrational by saying a rational person wouldn't believe.

Well a rational person would know they don't know the mind of another - they can't say that any individual would do this that or the other, because they don't know - or know the reason why.
You wrote If you were a Black person supposedly worried about police you wouldn't - the man was not threatening the officer with a knife.
Some people will never see that and will always argue against that the point. If he had actually been threatening the officer that would be totally different and then shooting him in the back is still unwarranted. Because a person - especially a person of color - has arrested from what I have learned a handful of times of times, exonerated once they are labeled. And some black people have gotten tired of centuries of abuse and the past century abusement from law enforcement - and decisions that those Blacks make only exasperate those who want to be obeyed.
I said all I need to say write whatever you pleased - I will not read or reply again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who said I believed him - where in anything I wrote did I say I believed what he said - you just passed judgment on me. I said he said he wouldn't draw a knife on a officer.

You are calling the man a liar and don't even know whether he was or not - you don't know what his intentions were - when you directly call a person a liar you have passed judgment. Without proof!
Was he threatening the officer with a knife -NO...
You just called me irrational by saying a rational person wouldn't believe.

Well a rational person would know they don't know the mind of another - they can't say that any individual would do this that or the other, because they don't know - or know the reason why.
You wrote If you were a Black person supposedly worried about police you wouldn't - the man was not threatening the officer with a knife.
Some people will never see that and will always argue against that the point. If he had actually been threatening the officer that would be totally different and then shooting him in the back is still unwarranted. Because a person - especially a person of color - has arrested from what I have learned a handful of times of times, exonerated once they are labeled. And some black people have gotten tired of centuries of abuse and the past century abusement from law enforcement - and decisions that those Blacks make only exasperate those who want to be obeyed.
I said all I need to say write whatever you pleased - I will not read or reply again.

Calm down. One does not always need "proof". Sometimes understanding reality is enough.

 

[Sheila Davis]

Nah....

I genuinely don't care. It appears to be a legitimate shooting. I have no problem with the case.

I can tell in your writings you really don't care. No surprise there!
Appears to be a legitimate shooting!.... After all teams from federal justice of civil rights says that it could not be proven that the officer willfully or deliberately did something that breaks the law - that accidents, mistake, fear, negligence, poor judgment, is not reason enough to prosecute. Federal Officials Close Review of the Officer-Involved Shooting of Jacob Blake

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can tell in your writings you really don't care. No surprise there!
Appears to be a legitimate shooting!.... After all teams from federal justice of civil rights says that it could not be proven that the officer willfully or deliberately did something that breaks the law - that accidents, mistake, beer, negligence, poor judgment, is not reason enough to prosecute. Federal Officials Close Review of the Officer-Involved Shooting of Jacob Blake

Well he isn't making a claim that it was accidental or somehow a mistake.

The very idea that it was is extremely hard to prosecute because you're still arguing that his claim of self defense is wrong...not that he was wrong to defend himself but that he is essentially lying about his own perception.

You would need to prove that myself defense doesn't apply, and he is lying about the way he saw the situation.

Either one of those is extremely difficult to prove....both is a non-starter.

At the end of the day you have to make an argument that has already failed in court. You'd have to argue that for some reason, the cop should have to wait until a knife is being swung at him, and that deciding that a person reaching for a knife is about to attack the police with it is wrong.

We ask a lot of police to begin with, they aren't going to wait until bullets are flying by their heads or knives are swung at them to defend themselves.

It was an entirely reasonable conclusion to make about the threat of harm based on the circumstances. The police had gone to great lengths to avoid that conclusion.

Part of the problem with arguing about this to you is you seem too willing to blame the victim. The woman who called the police on Blake did nothing wrong. She didn't exaggerate the situation and she was right to fear for her children and herself.

Blake may be sympathetic to you, but he isn't to me. It doesn't bother me that he got shot...he seems to deserve it. It doesn't bother me that he won't likely walk again.

The fact that he is trying to manipulate the situation to his advantage causes any sympathy I have for someone like him to disappear. He doesn't seem to care about putting the police in a difficult and dangerous situation. He doesn't seem to care about victimizing his children or their mother. He only cares about himself.

He can cry a river about his struggles...I don't care.

 

[Sheila Davis]

Well he isn't making a claim that it was accidental or somehow a mistake.

The very idea that it was is extremely hard to prosecute because you're still arguing that his claim of self defense is wrong...not that he was wrong to defend himself but that he is essentially lying about his own perception.

You would need to prove that myself defense doesn't apply, and he is lying about the way he saw the situation.

Either one of those is extremely difficult to prove....both is a non-starter.

At the end of the day you have to make an argument that has already failed in court. You'd have to argue that for some reason, the cop should have to wait until a knife is being swung at him, and that deciding that a person reaching for a knife is about to attack the police with it is wrong.

We ask a lot of police to begin with, they aren't going to wait until bullets are flying by their heads or knives are swung at them to defend themselves.

It was an entirely reasonable conclusion to make about the threat of harm based on the circumstances. The police had gone to great lengths to avoid that conclusion.

Part of the problem with arguing about this to you is you seem too willing to blame the victim. The woman who called the police on Blake did nothing wrong. She didn't exaggerate the situation and she was right to fear for her children and herself.

Blake may be sympathetic to you, but he isn't to me. It doesn't bother me that he got shot...he seems to deserve it. It doesn't bother me that he won't likely walk again.

The fact that he is trying to manipulate the situation to his advantage causes any sympathy I have for someone like him to disappear. He doesn't seem to care about putting the police in a difficult and dangerous situation. He doesn't seem to care about victimizing his children or their mother. He only cares about himself.

He can cry a river about his struggles...I don't care.

You too are putting words in my mouth that I did not use or even indicate. My initial statements were concerning the officer shooting him in the back four times and 3 times in the side _ anything other than that is response to your statements, which I posted reports on - I never said whether I believe or disbelieve - I never defended anyone's actions - and I never call a person a liar, I can't read a person's mind ONLY GOD CAN - now you have a night. I will not read or respond to you again either. Like you - Frankly I don't care what you say.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You too are putting words in my mouth that I did not use or even indicate. My initial statements were concerning the officer shooting him in the back four times and 3 times in the side _ anything other than that is response to your statements, which I posted reports on - I never said whether I believe or disbelieve - I never defended anyone's actions - and I never call a person a liar, I can't read a person's mind ONLY GOD CAN - now you have a night. I will not read or respond to you again either. Like you - Frankly I don't care what you say.

I don't have put words in your mouth...

Here's you victim blaming....

And yes he did have his children in the car said he was taking them - he wasn't abusing them.
One thing I don't do until I know the whole story is form an opinion of guilt on domestic abuse because a lot of times women push far too hard - and if a man do so much as slap - she can have him arrested and file against him. It wasn't what some people like to call a thug.

Again, this is you trying really hard to do some victim blaming. The victim had a restraining order against Blake already in place since the previous July and a felony sexual assault warrant for Blake had already been issued before the police ever showed up.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/jacob-blake-sexual-assault.amp

To say he wasn't putting the children in danger or that perhaps his victim was exaggerating the nature of his abuse in frankly, pretty disgusting.

She had every right to call the police. Blake was a repeated offender who was in violation of a court issued restraining order.

She had every right to assume the children were in danger. It doesn't matter if they are his children or not, he cannot see them without violating the restraining order.

This guy appears to be the scum of the earth and I cannot imagine any good reason to defend him. I'm willing to entertain the possibility that the police were wrong in shooting him...but you lost any real credibility once you started blaming his victims.

 

[durangodawood]

Is there any country beside Germany that has fully owned up to their past atrocities?

My point wasnt to make the USA out as a pariah among nations. But just that its not so easy to dismiss people who say the country was founded with racism at its core to a significant degree.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My point wasnt to make the USA out as a pariah among nations.

It comes off that way sometimes.

But just that its not so easy to dismiss people who say the country was founded with racism at its core to a significant degree.

Do you think that people who make that claim can defend it?

I mean if we were to debate the idea...how do you think it would go?

Do you know how many times "race" is mentioned or defined even vaguely in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution?

 

[durangodawood]

...Do you think that people who make that claim can defend it?

I think I defended it. I dont really know what evidence other people would bring to bear. I'm not immersed in "woke" world. I'm just assessing the basic claim.

I mean if we were to debate the idea...how so you think it would go?...

You can see my arguments right here in this thread. Of course I think they would win. But who knows, maybe youd bring some insight I hadnt considered.

Do you know how many times "race" is mentioned or defined even vaguely in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution?

Did you read earlier in the thread how I dealt with founding documents vs actual policies/practices?

 

[RDKirk]

My point wasnt to make the USA out as a pariah among nations. But just that its not so easy to dismiss people who say the country was founded with racism at its core to a significant degree.

For sure, the nation had racism at its core when it was founded. And so? That does not mean that 8-year-old Chad become an oppressor in 2034.

 

[durangodawood]

For sure, the nation had racism at its core when it was founded. And so? That does not mean that 8-year-old Chad become an oppressor in 2034.

People who vigorously resist the notion obviously think there's some very consequential about it. They would like to believe that we re-started as a blank slate socially once on-paper legal equality was achieved. But I dont think the past goes away that easily.

 

[RDKirk]

People who vigorously resist the notion obviously think there's some very consequential about it. They would like to believe that we re-started as a blank slate socially once on-paper legal equality was achieved. But I dont think the past goes away that easily.

The problem today is not the racism of 250 or 300 years ago. The problem today is the racism of today, such that it is. Harkening back to 200 years ago is good for history, but not for shaping today's public policy.

 

[durangodawood]

The problem today is not the racism of 250 or 300 years ago. The problem today is the racism of today, such that it is. Harkening back to 200 years ago is good for history, but not for shaping today's public policy.

I disagree. The racism of earlier days has a lot to do with the conditions people find themselves in today. Why, for instance, a black family on average will have much less wealth than a white family.