On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:32:50 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 4/22/2021 1:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> > I came across this article,. which offers a different view of the matter.
> >
> > https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamil-jivani-what-black-conservatives-are-saying-following-the-derek-chauvin-verdict
> >
> > The newspaper is a Canadian conservative newspaper, so some
> > caution should be observed regarding the content.
> >
> > It seemed to me that one 'nuanced' view supported by the article
> > was that yes, Derec Chauvin was a bad cop who was rightly found
> > guilty, but this is not about race.
> >
> > It is true that on occasion white people are killed by cops acting
> > badly, but it does not happen very often. Not even remotely as often
> > as it happens to blacks.
> >
> > So to claim that race doesn't matter here is disingenuous - to the
> > point of ludicrous dishonesty.
> >
> > Of course, as I've noted, race can play a part in the absence of racism.
> >
> > There is a certain level of inherent risk in encounters with police. And
> > since black people do commit crimes more often than white people -
> > it's a side-effect of being poor, not a genetic moral deficiency - innocent
> > black people will experience more of these encounters than whites.
> >
> > During the height of the Cold War, it would have been very easy for me to
> > buy into the following narrative that might be presented against the BLM
> > movement if it existed then:
> >
> > - The police are essential to the smooth functioning of an organized society;
> >
> > - The smooth functioning of the United States is essential in order to maximize
> > defense production for the sake of national security;
> >
> > - The national security of the United States is essential for preventing the entire
> > world from falling to Soviet tyranny, which would be a disaster comparable to the
> > Nazis winning World War II;
> >
> > - And therefore, while we certainly should investigate any unjust police killings
> > of black people, an organization that stirs up a fuss about possible incidents of
> > this nature, leading to riots and property damage in some cases, is rightly viewed
> > as an enemy of the future of humanity.
> >
> > While I did notice some killings spotlighted by BLM that did not seem to
> > involve police misconduct, I'm no longer prepared to say there's no urgent
> > need to address the issue, and business as usual will deal with it. It's clear
> > this is not the case.
> >
> > My gut reaction when I heard of the shooting of Daunte Wright was
> > that there was nothing to see here. Someone fleeing from arrest
> > being shot to prevent him from getting away? Well, of course!
> >
> > Then I heard that he was being arrested because he had an air
> > freshener dangling from his rear-view mirror. What?
> >
> > If that was an infraction, people are ticketed for that, not taken
> > into custody, and in most jurisdictions, it must be legal, as they're
> > quite common.
> >
> > If the arrest was for driving while black, well, then we have a case
> > of death during the commission of a crime against humanity: to wit,
> > causing the driving experience of law-abiding black drivers to be
> > different from the driving experience of law-abiding white drivers.
> >
> > However, I've now seen a news story saying that while he thought
> > that was why he was being arrested, it was actually for something
> > else. I still don't know what, though.
> >
> > A Taser doesn't feel remotely like a service revovlver, I would think,
> > but I suppose people might not notice that when focused on a crisis
> > situation.
> >
> > John Savard
> "EXCLUSIVE: Daunte Wright had a warrant out for his arrest when he was
> killed and had appeared in court for attempted aggravated robbery
> charges after 'choking and holding a woman at gunpoint for $820 in
> 2019,' court papers reveal"
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467375/Daunte-Wright-warrant-arrest-attempted-aggravated-robbery-charges.html
>
> Lynn
Well, then, if he had a warrant for his arrest, it's totally alright for any cop
with a gun to shoot him down. Whew, glad that's over with. /s

On 4/28/2021 3:39 PM, Ross Presser wrote:
> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:32:50 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 4/22/2021 1:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> I came across this article,. which offers a different view of the matter.
>>>
>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamil-jivani-what-black-conservatives-are-saying-following-the-derek-chauvin-verdict
>>>
>>> The newspaper is a Canadian conservative newspaper, so some
>>> caution should be observed regarding the content.
>>>
>>> It seemed to me that one 'nuanced' view supported by the article
>>> was that yes, Derec Chauvin was a bad cop who was rightly found
>>> guilty, but this is not about race.
>>>
>>> It is true that on occasion white people are killed by cops acting
>>> badly, but it does not happen very often. Not even remotely as often
>>> as it happens to blacks.
>>>
>>> So to claim that race doesn't matter here is disingenuous - to the
>>> point of ludicrous dishonesty.
>>>
>>> Of course, as I've noted, race can play a part in the absence of racism.
>>>
>>> There is a certain level of inherent risk in encounters with police. And
>>> since black people do commit crimes more often than white people -
>>> it's a side-effect of being poor, not a genetic moral deficiency - innocent
>>> black people will experience more of these encounters than whites.
>>>
>>> During the height of the Cold War, it would have been very easy for me to
>>> buy into the following narrative that might be presented against the BLM
>>> movement if it existed then:
>>>
>>> - The police are essential to the smooth functioning of an organized society;
>>>
>>> - The smooth functioning of the United States is essential in order to maximize
>>> defense production for the sake of national security;
>>>
>>> - The national security of the United States is essential for preventing the entire
>>> world from falling to Soviet tyranny, which would be a disaster comparable to the
>>> Nazis winning World War II;
>>>
>>> - And therefore, while we certainly should investigate any unjust police killings
>>> of black people, an organization that stirs up a fuss about possible incidents of
>>> this nature, leading to riots and property damage in some cases, is rightly viewed
>>> as an enemy of the future of humanity.
>>>
>>> While I did notice some killings spotlighted by BLM that did not seem to
>>> involve police misconduct, I'm no longer prepared to say there's no urgent
>>> need to address the issue, and business as usual will deal with it. It's clear
>>> this is not the case.
>>>
>>> My gut reaction when I heard of the shooting of Daunte Wright was
>>> that there was nothing to see here. Someone fleeing from arrest
>>> being shot to prevent him from getting away? Well, of course!
>>>
>>> Then I heard that he was being arrested because he had an air
>>> freshener dangling from his rear-view mirror. What?
>>>
>>> If that was an infraction, people are ticketed for that, not taken
>>> into custody, and in most jurisdictions, it must be legal, as they're
>>> quite common.
>>>
>>> If the arrest was for driving while black, well, then we have a case
>>> of death during the commission of a crime against humanity: to wit,
>>> causing the driving experience of law-abiding black drivers to be
>>> different from the driving experience of law-abiding white drivers.
>>>
>>> However, I've now seen a news story saying that while he thought
>>> that was why he was being arrested, it was actually for something
>>> else. I still don't know what, though.
>>>
>>> A Taser doesn't feel remotely like a service revovlver, I would think,
>>> but I suppose people might not notice that when focused on a crisis
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>> "EXCLUSIVE: Daunte Wright had a warrant out for his arrest when he was
>> killed and had appeared in court for attempted aggravated robbery
>> charges after 'choking and holding a woman at gunpoint for $820 in
>> 2019,' court papers reveal"
>>
>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467375/Daunte-Wright-warrant-arrest-attempted-aggravated-robbery-charges.html
>>
>> Lynn
> Well, then, if he had a warrant for his arrest, it's totally alright for any cop
> with a gun to shoot him down. Whew, glad that's over with. /s

The man had a gun in his car and had escaped custody and gotten back in
the car. He had a warrant for armed robbery. Are you going to let him
drive off ?

Lynn

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:03:00 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/28/2021 3:39 PM, Ross Presser wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:32:50 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2021 1:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> I came across this article,. which offers a different view of the matter.
>>>>
>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamil-jivani-what-black-conservatives-are-saying-following-the-derek-chauvin-verdict
>>>>
>>>> The newspaper is a Canadian conservative newspaper, so some
>>>> caution should be observed regarding the content.
>>>>
>>>> It seemed to me that one 'nuanced' view supported by the article
>>>> was that yes, Derec Chauvin was a bad cop who was rightly found
>>>> guilty, but this is not about race.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that on occasion white people are killed by cops acting
>>>> badly, but it does not happen very often. Not even remotely as often
>>>> as it happens to blacks.
>>>>
>>>> So to claim that race doesn't matter here is disingenuous - to the
>>>> point of ludicrous dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, as I've noted, race can play a part in the absence of racism.
>>>>
>>>> There is a certain level of inherent risk in encounters with police. And
>>>> since black people do commit crimes more often than white people -
>>>> it's a side-effect of being poor, not a genetic moral deficiency - innocent
>>>> black people will experience more of these encounters than whites.
>>>>
>>>> During the height of the Cold War, it would have been very easy for me to
>>>> buy into the following narrative that might be presented against the BLM
>>>> movement if it existed then:
>>>>
>>>> - The police are essential to the smooth functioning of an organized society;
>>>>
>>>> - The smooth functioning of the United States is essential in order to maximize
>>>> defense production for the sake of national security;
>>>>
>>>> - The national security of the United States is essential for preventing the entire
>>>> world from falling to Soviet tyranny, which would be a disaster comparable to the
>>>> Nazis winning World War II;
>>>>
>>>> - And therefore, while we certainly should investigate any unjust police killings
>>>> of black people, an organization that stirs up a fuss about possible incidents of
>>>> this nature, leading to riots and property damage in some cases, is rightly viewed
>>>> as an enemy of the future of humanity.
>>>>
>>>> While I did notice some killings spotlighted by BLM that did not seem to
>>>> involve police misconduct, I'm no longer prepared to say there's no urgent
>>>> need to address the issue, and business as usual will deal with it. It's clear
>>>> this is not the case.
>>>>
>>>> My gut reaction when I heard of the shooting of Daunte Wright was
>>>> that there was nothing to see here. Someone fleeing from arrest
>>>> being shot to prevent him from getting away? Well, of course!
>>>>
>>>> Then I heard that he was being arrested because he had an air
>>>> freshener dangling from his rear-view mirror. What?
>>>>
>>>> If that was an infraction, people are ticketed for that, not taken
>>>> into custody, and in most jurisdictions, it must be legal, as they're
>>>> quite common.
>>>>
>>>> If the arrest was for driving while black, well, then we have a case
>>>> of death during the commission of a crime against humanity: to wit,
>>>> causing the driving experience of law-abiding black drivers to be
>>>> different from the driving experience of law-abiding white drivers.
>>>>
>>>> However, I've now seen a news story saying that while he thought
>>>> that was why he was being arrested, it was actually for something
>>>> else. I still don't know what, though.
>>>>
>>>> A Taser doesn't feel remotely like a service revovlver, I would think,
>>>> but I suppose people might not notice that when focused on a crisis
>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>> "EXCLUSIVE: Daunte Wright had a warrant out for his arrest when he was
>>> killed and had appeared in court for attempted aggravated robbery
>>> charges after 'choking and holding a woman at gunpoint for $820 in
>>> 2019,' court papers reveal"
>>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467375/Daunte-Wright-warrant-arrest-attempted-aggravated-robbery-charges.html
>>>
>>> Lynn
>> Well, then, if he had a warrant for his arrest, it's totally alright for any cop
>> with a gun to shoot him down. Whew, glad that's over with. /s
>
>The man had a gun in his car and had escaped custody and gotten back in
>the car. He had a warrant for armed robbery. Are you going to let him
>drive off ?

Yep.

On 4/28/2021 5:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:03:00 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/2021 3:39 PM, Ross Presser wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:32:50 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2021 1:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> I came across this article,. which offers a different view of the matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamil-jivani-what-black-conservatives-are-saying-following-the-derek-chauvin-verdict
>>>>>
>>>>> The newspaper is a Canadian conservative newspaper, so some
>>>>> caution should be observed regarding the content.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seemed to me that one 'nuanced' view supported by the article
>>>>> was that yes, Derec Chauvin was a bad cop who was rightly found
>>>>> guilty, but this is not about race.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is true that on occasion white people are killed by cops acting
>>>>> badly, but it does not happen very often. Not even remotely as often
>>>>> as it happens to blacks.
>>>>>
>>>>> So to claim that race doesn't matter here is disingenuous - to the
>>>>> point of ludicrous dishonesty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, as I've noted, race can play a part in the absence of racism.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a certain level of inherent risk in encounters with police. And
>>>>> since black people do commit crimes more often than white people -
>>>>> it's a side-effect of being poor, not a genetic moral deficiency - innocent
>>>>> black people will experience more of these encounters than whites.
>>>>>
>>>>> During the height of the Cold War, it would have been very easy for me to
>>>>> buy into the following narrative that might be presented against the BLM
>>>>> movement if it existed then:
>>>>>
>>>>> - The police are essential to the smooth functioning of an organized society;
>>>>>
>>>>> - The smooth functioning of the United States is essential in order to maximize
>>>>> defense production for the sake of national security;
>>>>>
>>>>> - The national security of the United States is essential for preventing the entire
>>>>> world from falling to Soviet tyranny, which would be a disaster comparable to the
>>>>> Nazis winning World War II;
>>>>>
>>>>> - And therefore, while we certainly should investigate any unjust police killings
>>>>> of black people, an organization that stirs up a fuss about possible incidents of
>>>>> this nature, leading to riots and property damage in some cases, is rightly viewed
>>>>> as an enemy of the future of humanity.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I did notice some killings spotlighted by BLM that did not seem to
>>>>> involve police misconduct, I'm no longer prepared to say there's no urgent
>>>>> need to address the issue, and business as usual will deal with it. It's clear
>>>>> this is not the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> My gut reaction when I heard of the shooting of Daunte Wright was
>>>>> that there was nothing to see here. Someone fleeing from arrest
>>>>> being shot to prevent him from getting away? Well, of course!
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I heard that he was being arrested because he had an air
>>>>> freshener dangling from his rear-view mirror. What?
>>>>>
>>>>> If that was an infraction, people are ticketed for that, not taken
>>>>> into custody, and in most jurisdictions, it must be legal, as they're
>>>>> quite common.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the arrest was for driving while black, well, then we have a case
>>>>> of death during the commission of a crime against humanity: to wit,
>>>>> causing the driving experience of law-abiding black drivers to be
>>>>> different from the driving experience of law-abiding white drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I've now seen a news story saying that while he thought
>>>>> that was why he was being arrested, it was actually for something
>>>>> else. I still don't know what, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> A Taser doesn't feel remotely like a service revovlver, I would think,
>>>>> but I suppose people might not notice that when focused on a crisis
>>>>> situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Savard
>>>> "EXCLUSIVE: Daunte Wright had a warrant out for his arrest when he was
>>>> killed and had appeared in court for attempted aggravated robbery
>>>> charges after 'choking and holding a woman at gunpoint for $820 in
>>>> 2019,' court papers reveal"
>>>>
>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467375/Daunte-Wright-warrant-arrest-attempted-aggravated-robbery-charges.html
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>> Well, then, if he had a warrant for his arrest, it's totally alright for any cop
>>> with a gun to shoot him down. Whew, glad that's over with. /s
>>
>> The man had a gun in his car and had escaped custody and gotten back in
>> the car. He had a warrant for armed robbery. Are you going to let him
>> drive off ?
>
> Yep.

You would be fired the next day.

Lynn

On 2021-04-28 3:03 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 4/28/2021 3:39 PM, Ross Presser wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:32:50 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2021 1:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> I came across this article,. which offers a different view of the
>>>> matter.
>>>>
>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamil-jivani-what-black-conservatives-are-saying-following-the-derek-chauvin-verdict
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The newspaper is a Canadian conservative newspaper, so some
>>>> caution should be observed regarding the content.
>>>>
>>>> It seemed to me that one 'nuanced' view supported by the article
>>>> was that yes, Derec Chauvin was a bad cop who was rightly found
>>>> guilty, but this is not about race.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that on occasion white people are killed by cops acting
>>>> badly, but it does not happen very often. Not even remotely as often
>>>> as it happens to blacks.
>>>>
>>>> So to claim that race doesn't matter here is disingenuous - to the
>>>> point of ludicrous dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, as I've noted, race can play a part in the absence of
>>>> racism.
>>>>
>>>> There is a certain level of inherent risk in encounters with police.
>>>> And
>>>> since black people do commit crimes more often than white people -
>>>> it's a side-effect of being poor, not a genetic moral deficiency -
>>>> innocent
>>>> black people will experience more of these encounters than whites.
>>>>
>>>> During the height of the Cold War, it would have been very easy for
>>>> me to
>>>> buy into the following narrative that might be presented against the
>>>> BLM
>>>> movement if it existed then:
>>>>
>>>> - The police are essential to the smooth functioning of an organized
>>>> society;
>>>>
>>>> - The smooth functioning of the United States is essential in order
>>>> to maximize
>>>> defense production for the sake of national security;
>>>>
>>>> - The national security of the United States is essential for
>>>> preventing the entire
>>>> world from falling to Soviet tyranny, which would be a disaster
>>>> comparable to the
>>>> Nazis winning World War II;
>>>>
>>>> - And therefore, while we certainly should investigate any unjust
>>>> police killings
>>>> of black people, an organization that stirs up a fuss about possible
>>>> incidents of
>>>> this nature, leading to riots and property damage in some cases, is
>>>> rightly viewed
>>>> as an enemy of the future of humanity.
>>>>
>>>> While I did notice some killings spotlighted by BLM that did not
>>>> seem to
>>>> involve police misconduct, I'm no longer prepared to say there's no
>>>> urgent
>>>> need to address the issue, and business as usual will deal with it.
>>>> It's clear
>>>> this is not the case.
>>>>
>>>> My gut reaction when I heard of the shooting of Daunte Wright was
>>>> that there was nothing to see here. Someone fleeing from arrest
>>>> being shot to prevent him from getting away? Well, of course!
>>>>
>>>> Then I heard that he was being arrested because he had an air
>>>> freshener dangling from his rear-view mirror. What?
>>>>
>>>> If that was an infraction, people are ticketed for that, not taken
>>>> into custody, and in most jurisdictions, it must be legal, as they're
>>>> quite common.
>>>>
>>>> If the arrest was for driving while black, well, then we have a case
>>>> of death during the commission of a crime against humanity: to wit,
>>>> causing the driving experience of law-abiding black drivers to be
>>>> different from the driving experience of law-abiding white drivers.
>>>>
>>>> However, I've now seen a news story saying that while he thought
>>>> that was why he was being arrested, it was actually for something
>>>> else. I still don't know what, though.
>>>>
>>>> A Taser doesn't feel remotely like a service revovlver, I would think,
>>>> but I suppose people might not notice that when focused on a crisis
>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>> "EXCLUSIVE: Daunte Wright had a warrant out for his arrest when he was
>>> killed and had appeared in court for attempted aggravated robbery
>>> charges after 'choking and holding a woman at gunpoint for $820 in
>>> 2019,' court papers reveal"
>>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467375/Daunte-Wright-warrant-arrest-attempted-aggravated-robbery-charges.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Lynn
>> Well, then, if he had a warrant for his arrest, it's totally alright
>> for any cop
>> with a gun to shoot him down. Whew, glad that's over with. /s
>
> The man had a gun in his car and had escaped custody and gotten back in
> the car.  He had a warrant for armed robbery.  Are you going to let him
> drive off ?

Did the police know about any of that?

No.

On 2021-04-28 3:39 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 4/28/2021 5:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:03:00 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/2021 3:39 PM, Ross Presser wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:32:50 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/2021 1:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> I came across this article,. which offers a different view of the
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamil-jivani-what-black-conservatives-are-saying-following-the-derek-chauvin-verdict
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The newspaper is a Canadian conservative newspaper, so some
>>>>>> caution should be observed regarding the content.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seemed to me that one 'nuanced' view supported by the article
>>>>>> was that yes, Derec Chauvin was a bad cop who was rightly found
>>>>>> guilty, but this is not about race.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is true that on occasion white people are killed by cops acting
>>>>>> badly, but it does not happen very often. Not even remotely as often
>>>>>> as it happens to blacks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So to claim that race doesn't matter here is disingenuous - to the
>>>>>> point of ludicrous dishonesty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, as I've noted, race can play a part in the absence of
>>>>>> racism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a certain level of inherent risk in encounters with
>>>>>> police. And
>>>>>> since black people do commit crimes more often than white people -
>>>>>> it's a side-effect of being poor, not a genetic moral deficiency -
>>>>>> innocent
>>>>>> black people will experience more of these encounters than whites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During the height of the Cold War, it would have been very easy
>>>>>> for me to
>>>>>> buy into the following narrative that might be presented against
>>>>>> the BLM
>>>>>> movement if it existed then:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - The police are essential to the smooth functioning of an
>>>>>> organized society;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - The smooth functioning of the United States is essential in
>>>>>> order to maximize
>>>>>> defense production for the sake of national security;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - The national security of the United States is essential for
>>>>>> preventing the entire
>>>>>> world from falling to Soviet tyranny, which would be a disaster
>>>>>> comparable to the
>>>>>> Nazis winning World War II;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - And therefore, while we certainly should investigate any unjust
>>>>>> police killings
>>>>>> of black people, an organization that stirs up a fuss about
>>>>>> possible incidents of
>>>>>> this nature, leading to riots and property damage in some cases,
>>>>>> is rightly viewed
>>>>>> as an enemy of the future of humanity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I did notice some killings spotlighted by BLM that did not
>>>>>> seem to
>>>>>> involve police misconduct, I'm no longer prepared to say there's
>>>>>> no urgent
>>>>>> need to address the issue, and business as usual will deal with
>>>>>> it. It's clear
>>>>>> this is not the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My gut reaction when I heard of the shooting of Daunte Wright was
>>>>>> that there was nothing to see here. Someone fleeing from arrest
>>>>>> being shot to prevent him from getting away? Well, of course!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I heard that he was being arrested because he had an air
>>>>>> freshener dangling from his rear-view mirror. What?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that was an infraction, people are ticketed for that, not taken
>>>>>> into custody, and in most jurisdictions, it must be legal, as they're
>>>>>> quite common.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the arrest was for driving while black, well, then we have a case
>>>>>> of death during the commission of a crime against humanity: to wit,
>>>>>> causing the driving experience of law-abiding black drivers to be
>>>>>> different from the driving experience of law-abiding white drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I've now seen a news story saying that while he thought
>>>>>> that was why he was being arrested, it was actually for something
>>>>>> else. I still don't know what, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Taser doesn't feel remotely like a service revovlver, I would
>>>>>> think,
>>>>>> but I suppose people might not notice that when focused on a crisis
>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>> "EXCLUSIVE: Daunte Wright had a warrant out for his arrest when he was
>>>>> killed and had appeared in court for attempted aggravated robbery
>>>>> charges after 'choking and holding a woman at gunpoint for $820 in
>>>>> 2019,' court papers reveal"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467375/Daunte-Wright-warrant-arrest-attempted-aggravated-robbery-charges.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>> Well, then, if he had a warrant for his arrest, it's totally alright
>>>> for any cop
>>>> with a gun to shoot him down. Whew, glad that's over with. /s
>>>
>>> The man had a gun in his car and had escaped custody and gotten back in
>>> the car.  He had a warrant for armed robbery.  Are you going to let him
>>> drive off ?
>>
>> Yep.
>
> You would be fired the next day.

Better than jailed for murder.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:39:21 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/28/2021 5:13 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:03:00 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/2021 3:39 PM, Ross Presser wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:32:50 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/2021 1:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> I came across this article,. which offers a different view of the matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamil-jivani-what-black-conservatives-are-saying-following-the-derek-chauvin-verdict
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The newspaper is a Canadian conservative newspaper, so some
>>>>>> caution should be observed regarding the content.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seemed to me that one 'nuanced' view supported by the article
>>>>>> was that yes, Derec Chauvin was a bad cop who was rightly found
>>>>>> guilty, but this is not about race.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is true that on occasion white people are killed by cops acting
>>>>>> badly, but it does not happen very often. Not even remotely as often
>>>>>> as it happens to blacks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So to claim that race doesn't matter here is disingenuous - to the
>>>>>> point of ludicrous dishonesty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, as I've noted, race can play a part in the absence of racism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a certain level of inherent risk in encounters with police. And
>>>>>> since black people do commit crimes more often than white people -
>>>>>> it's a side-effect of being poor, not a genetic moral deficiency - innocent
>>>>>> black people will experience more of these encounters than whites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During the height of the Cold War, it would have been very easy for me to
>>>>>> buy into the following narrative that might be presented against the BLM
>>>>>> movement if it existed then:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - The police are essential to the smooth functioning of an organized society;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - The smooth functioning of the United States is essential in order to maximize
>>>>>> defense production for the sake of national security;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - The national security of the United States is essential for preventing the entire
>>>>>> world from falling to Soviet tyranny, which would be a disaster comparable to the
>>>>>> Nazis winning World War II;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - And therefore, while we certainly should investigate any unjust police killings
>>>>>> of black people, an organization that stirs up a fuss about possible incidents of
>>>>>> this nature, leading to riots and property damage in some cases, is rightly viewed
>>>>>> as an enemy of the future of humanity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I did notice some killings spotlighted by BLM that did not seem to
>>>>>> involve police misconduct, I'm no longer prepared to say there's no urgent
>>>>>> need to address the issue, and business as usual will deal with it. It's clear
>>>>>> this is not the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My gut reaction when I heard of the shooting of Daunte Wright was
>>>>>> that there was nothing to see here. Someone fleeing from arrest
>>>>>> being shot to prevent him from getting away? Well, of course!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I heard that he was being arrested because he had an air
>>>>>> freshener dangling from his rear-view mirror. What?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that was an infraction, people are ticketed for that, not taken
>>>>>> into custody, and in most jurisdictions, it must be legal, as they're
>>>>>> quite common.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the arrest was for driving while black, well, then we have a case
>>>>>> of death during the commission of a crime against humanity: to wit,
>>>>>> causing the driving experience of law-abiding black drivers to be
>>>>>> different from the driving experience of law-abiding white drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I've now seen a news story saying that while he thought
>>>>>> that was why he was being arrested, it was actually for something
>>>>>> else. I still don't know what, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Taser doesn't feel remotely like a service revovlver, I would think,
>>>>>> but I suppose people might not notice that when focused on a crisis
>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>> "EXCLUSIVE: Daunte Wright had a warrant out for his arrest when he was
>>>>> killed and had appeared in court for attempted aggravated robbery
>>>>> charges after 'choking and holding a woman at gunpoint for $820 in
>>>>> 2019,' court papers reveal"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467375/Daunte-Wright-warrant-arrest-attempted-aggravated-robbery-charges.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>> Well, then, if he had a warrant for his arrest, it's totally alright for any cop
>>>> with a gun to shoot him down. Whew, glad that's over with. /s
>>>
>>> The man had a gun in his car and had escaped custody and gotten back in
>>> the car. He had a warrant for armed robbery. Are you going to let him
>>> drive off ?
>>
>> Yep.
>
>You would be fired the next day.

And I care because?

I've learned my lesson about working for assholes.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:57:25 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:

> Better than jailed for murder.

But how is it murder if he was shot when trying to escape?

Isn't this why we give police guns, so that when they say "Stop, or I'll
shoot", people _stop_? I mean, how else are we going to get people
to make court appearances, if they know they're going to be convicted
and then spend years and years in jail?

Of course, come to think of it, I now remember the context for "shot while
trying to escape"... if one is shot for trying to escape, and not for not revealing
that the landings are in Normandy on June the 6th, then the Geneva Convention
is not violated.

And so perhaps people would want to hold the police of a democracy to a higher
standard than Colonel Klink and Sargeant Shultz.

In this case, it was claimed the officer reached for her Taser. Not being able to
distinguish a Taser from a revolver by touch is suspicious.

And while it is, in my opinion, reasonable to use deadly force to stop someone
accused of a robbery by violence from escaping - apparently the officer was
unaware of the previous warrant. Even using a Taser on someone *operating
a motor vehicle* is reckless, and a citation for an expired license plate can
be sent by mail.

So there certainly are very strong questions concerning this particular case.

John Savard

On 2021-04-28 4:48 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:57:25 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Better than jailed for murder.
>
> But how is it murder if he was shot when trying to escape?

You need to read the law a little more closely.

>
> Isn't this why we give police guns, so that when they say "Stop, or I'll
> shoot", people _stop_? I mean, how else are we going to get people
> to make court appearances, if they know they're going to be convicted
> and then spend years and years in jail?

It real life, police aren't allowed to shoot someone simply for fleeing.

>
> Of course, come to think of it, I now remember the context for "shot while
> trying to escape"... if one is shot for trying to escape, and not for not revealing
> that the landings are in Normandy on June the 6th, then the Geneva Convention
> is not violated.
>
> And so perhaps people would want to hold the police of a democracy to a higher
> standard than Colonel Klink and Sargeant Shultz.
>
> In this case, it was claimed the officer reached for her Taser. Not being able to
> distinguish a Taser from a revolver by touch is suspicious.
>
> And while it is, in my opinion, reasonable to use deadly force to stop someone
> accused of a robbery by violence from escaping - apparently the officer was
> unaware of the previous warrant. Even using a Taser on someone *operating
> a motor vehicle* is reckless, and a citation for an expired license plate can
> be sent by mail.

And if you're not even AWARE that the person is accused of that?

>
> So there certainly are very strong questions concerning this particular case.
>
> John Savard
>

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:57:25 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Better than jailed for murder.
>
>But how is it murder if he was shot when trying to escape?

Because it was. "Trying to escape" is not a capital offense anywhere
in the US, and a cop killing someone who is doing it is taking it upon
himself to apply a greater penalty than is allowed to the courts.

>Isn't this why we give police guns, so that when they say "Stop, or I'll
>shoot", people _stop_? I mean, how else are we going to get people
>to make court appearances, if they know they're going to be convicted
>and then spend years and years in jail?

No, we give police guns so that if someone is trying to kill them they
can defend themselves and if they encounter someone trying to kill
someone else they can stop that person in a timely manner. We don't
give them guns to save them the inconvenience of chasing someone and
wrestling him to the ground.

>Of course, come to think of it, I now remember the context for "shot while
>trying to escape"... if one is shot for trying to escape, and not for not revealing
>that the landings are in Normandy on June the 6th, then the Geneva Convention
>is not violated.
>
>And so perhaps people would want to hold the police of a democracy to a higher
>standard than Colonel Klink and Sargeant Shultz.

Given that Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schults were FUCKING NAZIS
(although played by people who had been the victims of Nazis) I would
_hope_ that we hold our police to a higher standard.

>In this case, it was claimed the officer reached for her Taser. Not being able to
>distinguish a Taser from a revolver by touch is suspicious.

She should be fired just for exhibiting that level of bumbling
incompetence.

>And while it is, in my opinion, reasonable to use deadly force to stop someone
>accused of a robbery by violence from escaping - apparently the officer was
>unaware of the previous warrant. Even using a Taser on someone *operating
>a motor vehicle* is reckless, and a citation for an expired license plate can
>be sent by mail.

The problem with you is that you can't concieve of being on the
receiving end of abuse of police power.

>So there certainly are very strong questions concerning this particular case.
>
>John Savard

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:03:00 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/28/2021 3:39 PM, Ross Presser wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021 at 7:32:50 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2021 1:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> I came across this article,. which offers a different view of the matter.
>>>>
>>>> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamil-jivani-what-black-conservatives-are-saying-following-the-derek-chauvin-verdict
>>>>
>>>> The newspaper is a Canadian conservative newspaper, so some
>>>> caution should be observed regarding the content.
>>>>
>>>> It seemed to me that one 'nuanced' view supported by the article
>>>> was that yes, Derec Chauvin was a bad cop who was rightly found
>>>> guilty, but this is not about race.
>>>>
>>>> It is true that on occasion white people are killed by cops acting
>>>> badly, but it does not happen very often. Not even remotely as often
>>>> as it happens to blacks.
>>>>
>>>> So to claim that race doesn't matter here is disingenuous - to the
>>>> point of ludicrous dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, as I've noted, race can play a part in the absence of racism.
>>>>
>>>> There is a certain level of inherent risk in encounters with police. And
>>>> since black people do commit crimes more often than white people -
>>>> it's a side-effect of being poor, not a genetic moral deficiency - innocent
>>>> black people will experience more of these encounters than whites.
>>>>
>>>> During the height of the Cold War, it would have been very easy for me to
>>>> buy into the following narrative that might be presented against the BLM
>>>> movement if it existed then:
>>>>
>>>> - The police are essential to the smooth functioning of an organized society;
>>>>
>>>> - The smooth functioning of the United States is essential in order to maximize
>>>> defense production for the sake of national security;
>>>>
>>>> - The national security of the United States is essential for preventing the entire
>>>> world from falling to Soviet tyranny, which would be a disaster comparable to the
>>>> Nazis winning World War II;
>>>>
>>>> - And therefore, while we certainly should investigate any unjust police killings
>>>> of black people, an organization that stirs up a fuss about possible incidents of
>>>> this nature, leading to riots and property damage in some cases, is rightly viewed
>>>> as an enemy of the future of humanity.
>>>>
>>>> While I did notice some killings spotlighted by BLM that did not seem to
>>>> involve police misconduct, I'm no longer prepared to say there's no urgent
>>>> need to address the issue, and business as usual will deal with it. It's clear
>>>> this is not the case.
>>>>
>>>> My gut reaction when I heard of the shooting of Daunte Wright was
>>>> that there was nothing to see here. Someone fleeing from arrest
>>>> being shot to prevent him from getting away? Well, of course!
>>>>
>>>> Then I heard that he was being arrested because he had an air
>>>> freshener dangling from his rear-view mirror. What?
>>>>
>>>> If that was an infraction, people are ticketed for that, not taken
>>>> into custody, and in most jurisdictions, it must be legal, as they're
>>>> quite common.
>>>>
>>>> If the arrest was for driving while black, well, then we have a case
>>>> of death during the commission of a crime against humanity: to wit,
>>>> causing the driving experience of law-abiding black drivers to be
>>>> different from the driving experience of law-abiding white drivers.
>>>>
>>>> However, I've now seen a news story saying that while he thought
>>>> that was why he was being arrested, it was actually for something
>>>> else. I still don't know what, though.
>>>>
>>>> A Taser doesn't feel remotely like a service revovlver, I would think,
>>>> but I suppose people might not notice that when focused on a crisis
>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>> "EXCLUSIVE: Daunte Wright had a warrant out for his arrest when he was
>>> killed and had appeared in court for attempted aggravated robbery
>>> charges after 'choking and holding a woman at gunpoint for $820 in
>>> 2019,' court papers reveal"
>>>
>>> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467375/Daunte-Wright-warrant-arrest-attempted-aggravated-robbery-charges.html
>>>
>>> Lynn
>> Well, then, if he had a warrant for his arrest, it's totally alright for any cop
>> with a gun to shoot him down. Whew, glad that's over with. /s
>
>The man had a gun in his car and had escaped custody and gotten back in
>the car. He had a warrant for armed robbery. Are you going to let him
>drive off ?

I haven't owned a car since 1982. And that was in Germany.

I haven't driven since 1983.

But I suspect that cars still run on rubber tires, and that those
tires can still be deflated by bullets.

You don't have to shoot someone to keep the car from leaving. You can
just shoot the car instead.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:48:58 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>In this case, it was claimed the officer reached for her Taser. Not being able to
>distinguish a Taser from a revolver by touch is suspicious.

And Pat Robertson agrees with you.

Or did last week. Today, who can say?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:39:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> The problem with you is that you can't concieve of being on the
> receiving end of abuse of police power.

I'm opposed to the abuse of police power.

John Savard

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 16:50:24 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:39:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> The problem with you is that you can't concieve of being on the
>> receiving end of abuse of police power.
>
>I'm opposed to the abuse of police power.

No, John, you aren't. You just see yourself as a Nazi instead of a
Jew.

On 2021-04-29 4:50 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:39:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> The problem with you is that you can't concieve of being on the
>> receiving end of abuse of police power.
>
> I'm opposed to the abuse of police power.

But you want to end it by removing all restrictions on it, so that
nothing is "abuse".

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 7:05:08 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-04-29 4:50 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:39:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> >> The problem with you is that you can't concieve of being on the
> >> receiving end of abuse of police power.

> > I'm opposed to the abuse of police power.

> But you want to end it by removing all restrictions on it, so that
> nothing is "abuse".

Oh, dear me, no.

Shooting people dead for anything other than legitimate law enforcement purposes
would still be murder - and a lot of other abuses would be dealt with rather more harshly
than at present.

I think everyone should be so terrified of the consequences of criminal activity
that crime hardly ever happens. This includes police officers.

John Savard

On 2021-04-29 11:00 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 7:05:08 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-04-29 4:50 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:39:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>>> The problem with you is that you can't concieve of being on the
>>>> receiving end of abuse of police power.
>
>>> I'm opposed to the abuse of police power.
>
>> But you want to end it by removing all restrictions on it, so that
>> nothing is "abuse".
>
> Oh, dear me, no.
>
> Shooting people dead for anything other than legitimate law enforcement purposes
> would still be murder - and a lot of other abuses would be dealt with rather more harshly
> than at present.

But you think that suspicion that a person fleeing MIGHT harm someone in
the future is a "legitimate" reason to kill them, do you?

>
> I think everyone should be so terrified of the consequences of criminal activity
> that crime hardly ever happens. This includes police officers.

You are living your life in a fantasy world.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 23:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 7:05:08 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-04-29 4:50 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:39:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> >> The problem with you is that you can't concieve of being on the
>> >> receiving end of abuse of police power.
>
>> > I'm opposed to the abuse of police power.
>
>> But you want to end it by removing all restrictions on it, so that
>> nothing is "abuse".
>
>Oh, dear me, no.
>
>Shooting people dead for anything other than legitimate law enforcement purposes
>would still be murder - and a lot of other abuses would be dealt with rather more harshly
>than at present.

Well that's what we have now, "shooting people for anything other than
legitimate law enforcement purposes" is murder. The trouble is that
"legitimate law enforcement purposes" includes "existing while black".

>I think everyone should be so terrified of the consequences of criminal activity
>that crime hardly ever happens. This includes police officers.

I think that last time that actually worked was in Wallachia in the
late 1400s. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:27:27 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Well that's what we have now, "shooting people for anything other than
> legitimate law enforcement purposes" is murder. The trouble is that
> "legitimate law enforcement purposes" includes "existing while black".

That's not what we have now, because the second set of quotation marks
around "legitimate law enforcement purposes" would be quoting someone
else instead of me. Shooting someone just for being black is, of course,
not shooting him for a genuinely legitimate law-enforcement purpose.

I certainly do not believe that the individual police officer should get to define
what is a legitimate law-enforcement action.

John Savard

On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 23:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 7:05:08 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-04-29 4:50 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:39:09 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> >> The problem with you is that you can't concieve of being on the
>> >> receiving end of abuse of police power.
>
>> > I'm opposed to the abuse of police power.
>
>> But you want to end it by removing all restrictions on it, so that
>> nothing is "abuse".
>
>Oh, dear me, no.
>
>Shooting people dead for anything other than legitimate law enforcement purposes
>would still be murder - and a lot of other abuses would be dealt with rather more harshly
>than at present.
>
>I think everyone should be so terrified of the consequences of criminal activity
>that crime hardly ever happens. This includes police officers.

Ah. Deterrence.

It's been some time since I checked.

IIRC, actual studies have shown that it -- doesn't work.

The reason is that most people committing crimes are /not/ in a mental
state conducive to considering possible consequences.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 03:38:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:27:27 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Well that's what we have now, "shooting people for anything other than
>> legitimate law enforcement purposes" is murder. The trouble is that
>> "legitimate law enforcement purposes" includes "existing while black".
>
>That's not what we have now, because the second set of quotation marks
>around "legitimate law enforcement purposes" would be quoting someone
>else instead of me. Shooting someone just for being black is, of course,
>not shooting him for a genuinely legitimate law-enforcement purpose.

That is little consolation when the cops decided that shooting you is
a "legitimate law-enforcement purpose" and the people who are supposed
to be keeping the cops honest agree with them.

>I certainly do not believe that the individual police officer should get to define
>what is a legitimate law-enforcement action.

That ship has sailed. Right now we are trying to keep it from hitting
the iceberg.

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:32:15 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> The reason is that most people committing crimes are /not/ in a mental
> state conducive to considering possible consequences.

If that's because the crime in question is a crime of passion, it's true that
not much can be done.

But if it's because one is dealing with a naturally impulsive individual,
then we can still reduce crime. Deter those who can be deterred; institutionalize
those who suffer from impulsiveness and cannot.

John Savard

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:03:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 03:38:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:27:27 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> >> Well that's what we have now, "shooting people for anything other than
> >> legitimate law enforcement purposes" is murder. The trouble is that
> >> "legitimate law enforcement purposes" includes "existing while black".

> >That's not what we have now, because the second set of quotation marks
> >around "legitimate law enforcement purposes" would be quoting someone
> >else instead of me. Shooting someone just for being black is, of course,
> >not shooting him for a genuinely legitimate law-enforcement purpose.

> That is little consolation when the cops decided that shooting you is
> a "legitimate law-enforcement purpose" and the people who are supposed
> to be keeping the cops honest agree with them.

> >I certainly do not believe that the individual police officer should get to define
> >what is a legitimate law-enforcement action.

> That ship has sailed. Right now we are trying to keep it from hitting
> the iceberg.

You and I seem to both agree on what should be fixed, even if I think that
less has to be done to fix the problem. Basically, I think that the deaths of
innocent black people are largely caused by fear - and that this fear is,
unfortunately, based on reality.

Because of that, I think we still need to be "tough on crime" even as we act
to stop the police from being the problem. If we have cops who can't be
trusted with the power we need, get new cops.

John Savard

On Sat, 1 May 2021 08:52:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:03:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 03:38:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:27:27 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> >> Well that's what we have now, "shooting people for anything other than
>> >> legitimate law enforcement purposes" is murder. The trouble is that
>> >> "legitimate law enforcement purposes" includes "existing while black".
>
>> >That's not what we have now, because the second set of quotation marks
>> >around "legitimate law enforcement purposes" would be quoting someone
>> >else instead of me. Shooting someone just for being black is, of course,
>> >not shooting him for a genuinely legitimate law-enforcement purpose.
>
>> That is little consolation when the cops decided that shooting you is
>> a "legitimate law-enforcement purpose" and the people who are supposed
>> to be keeping the cops honest agree with them.
>
>> >I certainly do not believe that the individual police officer should get to define
>> >what is a legitimate law-enforcement action.
>
>> That ship has sailed. Right now we are trying to keep it from hitting
>> the iceberg.
>
>You and I seem to both agree on what should be fixed, even if I think that
>less has to be done to fix the problem. Basically, I think that the deaths of
>innocent black people are largely caused by fear - and that this fear is,
>unfortunately, based on reality.

What reality? That policing isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous
jobs? That police are 3 times more likely to die of COVID 19 than to
be murdered? That in normal years the number one killer of cops is
heart attacks?

Sorry, but if police are killing people due to "fear" we need to
replace them with police who are not cowards.

>Because of that, I think we still need to be "tough on crime" even as we act
>to stop the police from being the problem. If we have cops who can't be
>trusted with the power we need, get new cops.

The US is "tougher on crime" than any country that is normally
considered to be a "police state". Whatever we're doing killing
people or locking them up isn't working.
>
>John Savard

On 5/1/2021 11:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 5:03:01 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 03:38:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 2:27:27 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>>> Well that's what we have now, "shooting people for anything other than
>>>> legitimate law enforcement purposes" is murder. The trouble is that
>>>> "legitimate law enforcement purposes" includes "existing while black".
>
>>> That's not what we have now, because the second set of quotation marks
>>> around "legitimate law enforcement purposes" would be quoting someone
>>> else instead of me. Shooting someone just for being black is, of course,
>>> not shooting him for a genuinely legitimate law-enforcement purpose.
>
>> That is little consolation when the cops decided that shooting you is
>> a "legitimate law-enforcement purpose" and the people who are supposed
>> to be keeping the cops honest agree with them.
>
>>> I certainly do not believe that the individual police officer should get to define
>>> what is a legitimate law-enforcement action.
>
>> That ship has sailed. Right now we are trying to keep it from hitting
>> the iceberg.
>
> You and I seem to both agree on what should be fixed, even if I think that
> less has to be done to fix the problem. Basically, I think that the deaths of
> innocent black people are largely caused by fear - and that this fear is,
> unfortunately, based on reality.

And why are blacks over represented in violent crimes
and arrests?

It's called systemic racism. For instance the assumption
black males are all violent thugs and should be treated
as such as a matter of routine. When the officer pointed
a gun 6 inches from George Floyds head at first contact
I didn't see any fear in the officer, I saw racism.

Race and crime in the United States
From Wiki

Academic research indicates that the over-representation of some racial
minorities in the criminal justice system can in part be explained by
socioeconomic factors, such as poverty, exposure to poor neighborhoods,
poor access to public education, poor access to early childhood
education, and exposure to harmful chemicals (such as lead) and
pollution.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

Racial housing segregation has also been linked to racial disparities in
crime rates, as blacks have historically and to the present been
prevented from moving into prosperous low-crime areas through actions of
the government (such as redlining) and private actors.[12][13][14]

Research also indicates that there is extensive racial and ethnic
discrimination by police and the judicial system.[15][16][17][18][19] A
substantial academic literature has compared police searches (showing
that contraband is found at higher rates in whites who are stopped),
bail decisions (showing that whites with the same bail decision as
blacks commit more pre-trial violations), and sentencing (showing that
blacks are more harshly sentenced by juries and judges than whites when
the underlying facts and circumstances of the cases are similar),
providing valid causal inferences of racial
discrimination.[20][21][22][23] Studies have documented patterns of
racial discrimination, as well as patterns of police brutality and
disregard for the constitutional rights of African-Americans, by police
departments in various American cities, including Los Angeles, New York,
Chicago and Philadelphia.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Hispanics%20and%20non%2DHispanic%20whites,were%20black%20and%2018.4%25%20Hispanic.

>
> Because of that, I think we still need to be "tough on crime" even as we act
> to stop the police from being the problem. If we have cops who can't be
> trusted with the power we need, get new cops.
>
> John Savard
>

--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1