Thursday, January 7, 2016

BLM Historical Perspective

Here is a strange article and some pretty good comments.  MP BLM Historical Perspective Unfortunately my comment was denied, so here it is...


"I have found that my relationship is best with the police when I:
  • do not rob a store, illegally walk down the middle of the street and then argue with the officer.
  • do not buy my teenager a realistic looking gun and then let them stand in a park near the road aiming it at things.
  • do not argue and become verbally abusive with the officer when they ask me to do something simple like get out of the car, show me your ID, etc.
  • do not physically abuse my girl friend and then argue with the paramedics and police when they come to help her.
  • do not have a long rap sheet of selling drugs, stealing, etc.
I think BLM would have much better luck gaining the support of the main stream citizens if they focused on protesting the few times when law abiding people were abused or killed.  There must be a few in this list. Instead they seem to insist on being the voice of criminals, not the voice of Black people.  Then people like me are reminded of that old saying... "Those who live by the sword are likely to die by the sword."


I do feel sorry for the mentally unstable people who are shot by officers.  However given the number of officers killed each year in the line of duty, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

30 comments:

Sean said...

You're defending the Tamir Rice shooting? SMH...

John said...

Are you disagreeing with the Grand Jury?

It was a tragedy... And the Parents, Tamir, the Dispatcher and the police officers ALL contributed to it happening.

John said...

Now here is a pointless stupid shooting where the officer totally screwed up and was punished....

John said...

Or this one where a scared rookie really screwed up.

John said...

Thank you for the learning opportunity.

SMH defined

Laurie said...

these days I have very little energy left after work so I may start using a new acronym IAWS (I agree with Sean) as his views are always so common sense and he does a good job calling you on dumb comments (like implying the Tamir Rice shooting was justified.)

I am going to take the trouble to throw in my 2 cents on this topic because I never see any one else make my argument - that many more cops who have questionable use of force should lose their jobs (like the officer who shot Tamir Rice.) I do think we should give officers some latitude to make split second decisions when they believe their own life is danger and not be charging them with homicide when the situation is not clear cut. The threat of going to prison for a long time based on how very difficult situations are handled or mishandles seems unfair to officers who risk their lives every day. So in summary I favor more cops being fired and only convicting those guilty of the most clear cut misuse of deadly force.

John said...

It is easy to "call people on dumb comments"...

The question is if one can provide better thoughts in their place. Usually I just get that is:
- dumb
- repetitive
- insensitive
- a strawman argument
- etc

And little to no alternative thoughts or detail... Maybe someday... :-)

Like this response... "You're defending the Tamir Rice shooting? SMH..." After the Grand Jury cleared the officers...

John said...

I keep thinking we are in a law abiding society, yet the BLM supporters keep asking us to go against the legal processes to support their biased views.

Just like they keep trying to demonstrate on private property which is a clear violation of the law.

Laurie said...

I don't think BLM have done any armed occupations of any govt buildings. That seems to be the tactic of the far right, who are typically given a great deal of time to peacefully end the standoff without tear gas or night sticks used on them.

Also, I share the view with BLM that the criminal justice system, including grand juries, can be racist. I just hold this view less extremely or strongly than BLM.

John said...

I never have said the crazy folks are only on the Left, the right also has their fair share of them...

John said...

And other amusing people who disagree with them...

Thank God for America !!! Where everyone can be as crazy as they want.. I love this song.

Sean said...

"Are you disagreeing with the Grand Jury?"

Yes, I am. It's the prosecutor's fault, actually. Just like in Ferguson, he decided he didn't want an indictment -- in fact, in this case, he told the Grand Jury exactly that instead of letting them reach their own conclusion. He took actions that essentially had himself serving as the defense attorney for police officers. That is not the role of the Grand Jury. A Grand Jury is supposed to determine if there is probable cause for a trial -- it is not supposed to be the trial itself.

"And the Parents, Tamir, the Dispatcher and the police officers ALL contributed to it happening."

Tamir didn't get the pellet gun from his parents. For cripes sake, at least get the facts straight before you shoot your mouth off.

Let's remember a couple of things, shall we? Ohio is an open-carry state, so an adult (which the police claim they thought Tamir was) has the right to walk around openly brandishing a weapon. Not the first time this has happened to a black man in Ohio, either.

The only way you can defend the officer's decision to shoot within two seconds of arriving on the scene is to ignore the utter incompetence of how the officer ended up in that position in the first place.

By screeching up next to Tamir, they gave themselves no time to evaluate the larger scenario. That was a move destined to provoke confrontation. And with the gun in the hand of an officer who never should have been on the force in the first place, it was a recipe for disaster.

John said...

I am indifferent to how he attained the gun. I am more interested in who allowed him to stand at the park waving it around and pointing it at people after the orange tag had fallen off.

I bought my daughters a 20 ga shotgun, that does not mean I would allow them to stand in the park pointing it at people.

WP Coverage
Boy Who Gave Gun

Please remember that I said everyone contributing to the tragedy...
- Parents for allowing him to be standing their fiddling with a realistic looking gun.
- Tamir for trying to pull the gun when the police showed up.
- Dispatcher for not telling the officers that it may be a toy.
- Officers for pulling up so close and fast.

Do you support putting all the adults involved or just the officer who shot the boy?

Laurie said...

So if the decision was up to you would you fire the officer who shot and killed the boy within 2 seconds of arriving on the scene. I expect you won't answer this question.

John said...

When have I not answered a question?

Probably not unless this was on top of other errors in judgement. The Dispatcher and the Officers definitely need counseling, training, etc. Do you think they are not suffering at this time?

Laurie said...

There are actually many times when you ignore qustions. Here is a recent example:

What would you do with the large number of significantly disruptive students, for instance? I believe that this is an aspect of the ongoing story about St. Paul schools, and pretty much schools everywhere (public schools that is.) At my school disruptive students are a very big problem.

btw, you added a long, interesting comment to the education thread which I intend to respond to later.

John said...

I would go back to suspending and expelling them, even if they are mostly minorities, poor, etc.

You are a fan of promoting the concept that racism is rampant and that arrest, incarceration, suspensions, expulsions, etc should be more similar across income levels, communities, races, etc. The reality is that the reason many people are poor is the same reason they get in trouble...

To get ahead one must know how to get along, work hard, communicate well, be pragmatic and stay out of trouble. If one's Parents and community don't model and teach this it is likely to be hard for the children to do this.

Remember the story I tell of the little darling who threatened to slit another ~4th graders throat... When the rightly concerned Parents of the threatened child confronted the Principal, he said that his hands were tied because the threatening girl was a minority student and the District had a new policy that they needed to not expel or suspend them... (ie working to improve the "inequality statistics") The Parents then moved out of that school, which propagated the problem... (ie good Parents/Students leave, poor Parents/Students stay and the school/community gets worse)

Sean said...

"Do you support putting all the adults involved or just the officer who shot the boy?"

The office who shot the boy is the one who committed the crime. The others bear some amount of the moral blame for it, but their actions were not criminal.

John said...

Rule of law disagrees with you...

Laurie said...

I believe your solution of suspending and expelling large numbers of disruptive students is know as the school to prison pipeline. You won't be surprised that my solution requires funding more behavior specialist positions in the schools, which I think is much more cost effective in the long run than continuing to keep students on the path to prison.

John said...

Unfortunately I don't think more money in the schools will help, it has been tried for generations. I think the Parents need to be held accountable for their children / their behavior.

Along with those suspensions and expulsions should come social workers and police. As discussed many times, the problem is at home and needs to be fixed there.

Laurie said...

Have I mentioned that I have taught in public schools for 25 years and my experience tells me a combination of more behavior specialists, counselors or social workers, spec ed teachers and general ed teachers (for smaller class sizes) is the solution.

What is your claim to expertise how on to manage / support disruptive students?

btw, I am licensed to teach students with emotional and behavior disorders, and that is mostly what I have done over my career (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the year.) For 10 years I taught the toughest secondary students (who were not in JDC)

John said...

I am a tax payer who cringes whenever I hear the words...

"we can fix it if you just give us more money... just trust us..."

Especially after decades of giving more money with little in the way of significant improvement. More money is NOT the answer...

As a pointy headed boss would say. "You don't need to work harder or more, you need to work smarter."

Promoting more single parent households through government spending and then trying to fix the problems created by these households with more government spending is somewhat like a dog chasing his tail... And the tax payers lose while the bureaucracy and problem grow.

Laurie said...

putting these kids on the path to prison will cost you more as a taxpayer

John said...

I have no problem spending more as long as it yields measurable results.

Tax payers are paying more for government programs and unfortunately the poor / under educated / criminal are still with us, and the core problem of single parent households is at an all time high.

It seems more money and bureaucrats is not the answer.

Laurie said...

I have never thought of myself, or teachers in general, as a bureaucrat.

Let me tell you about a couple of third grade students at my school. Both were the worst of the students completely tearing up thir third grade class which was completely out of control at my school. The teacher in the class is new and does not have the skills to manage her very difficult group, which was also out of control as second graders. Both students were assessed and qualified for special ed. The girl spends nearly all day with me and is really very sweet. She is now spending most of her day learning (compared to 0 before.) The other student has a para with him all day and is also doing much better. The addition of a para is new, and my first impression is this is also going to result in his being on task most of the day rather than disrupting the class.

Certainly not all disruptive students are going to need these very high cost services. Many could have their needs met with much lower cost interventions, such as a little intervention from a behavior specialist, counselor or social worker.

John said...

"a little intervention from a behavior specialist, counselor or social worker."

I agree that they do need help, but not from the school / Teachers. Let's hold social services personnel accountable for doing their job.

Since the Teachers Unions are so integral in the Public Education system I think most of their members can be named bureaucrats. (ie a person who is one of the people who run a government or big company and who does everything according to the rules of that government or company : a person who is part of a bureaucracy)

Anonymous said...

Can you think of a business where the employees are not integral? So are all employees bureaucrats?

--Hiram

John said...

I don't think most employees have collective bargaining and very strong political influence where they have a strong say in the policies, processes, methods, etc within their industry and company...

The Teacher's Union wants power within our Public Education system. With great power comes great responsibility and accountability...

So I would say that most employees are not bureaucrats. Just those in very strong Unions... Kind of like how the UAW helped to nearly kill the Big 3 with high costs and low quality. At least that only affected cars/owners, not unlucky young children.

jerrye92002 said...

Here's a reaffirmation:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/15/a-way-for-lawmakers-to-show-they-believe-black-lives-matter/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRovvqTPZKXonjHpfsX56uwpW6OxlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ASMdlNq%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm