2 NYPD officers executed in response for Brown and Garner

[Jim in CT]

Spence / PaulS -

The assassin said very explicitly that this was a revenge murder - "two of yours for two of ours", something like that. He was clearly motivated by the racial aspect of the 2 cases. Problem is, in these 2 cases, there is precisely zero evidence that race was a factor. So where did this troubled young man get the idea that Brown and Garner were killed because of race? Hmm? Not from watching Sean Hannity (who is a clown, but you get my point).

Words matter. And the larger the pul[it one has, the more responsibility one has to be responsible with their words. All those signs "black lives matter", when there is no evidence to support the notion that there is a systemic pattern of racial assassinations among white police officers. James Woods nailed it, Sharpton is a "pig", and it's unfathomable that a sitting President would anoint him with such elevated status. Quite a circle of patriots Obama has surrounded himself with - Michelle (wasn't proud of my country despite being an Ivy League educated millionaire), Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Al Sharpton. Quite a crew.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence / PaulS -

The assassin said very explicitly that this was a revenge murder - "two of yours for two of ours", something like that. He was clearly motivated by the racial aspect of the 2 cases. Problem is, in these 2 cases, there is precisely zero evidence that race was a factor. So where did this troubled young man get the idea that Brown and Garner were killed because of race? Hmm? Not from watching Sean Hannity (who is a clown, but you get my point).

Good we can agree that Hannity is a clown. He's actually much less of a clown on his radio show but for some reason turns it up for TV.

This whole story isn't really about Brown and Garner. It's about a much broader perception that black men are judged and treated with a negative bias. The spotlight on recent events has just snowballed and people are demanding action.

The guy was also clearly crazy.

Words matter. And the larger the pul[it one has, the more responsibility one has to be responsible with their words. All those signs "black lives matter", when there is no evidence to support the notion that there is a systemic pattern of racial assassinations among white police officers. James Woods nailed it, Sharpton is a "pig", and it's unfathomable that a sitting President would anoint him with such elevated status. Quite a circle of patriots Obama has surrounded himself with - Michelle (wasn't proud of my country despite being an Ivy League educated millionaire), Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Al Sharpton. Quite a crew.

I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

I also think the process of oversight in these events is so heavily biased towards the police that it gives the appearance the system isn't fair. Granted, the police should be given the benefit of doubt, but the indictment process could likely be improved.

Either the system is biased against black men or people just seem to think so...either way the outrage is real. A big problem is a lack of good national data...this would be a great place to start.

And as for those "words" you keep mentioning. How about the ones claiming the Mayor is nearly complicit in this crime? How much damage are they doing?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

The guy was also clearly crazy.

As was the guy in PA a couple of weeks ago, or the couple that killed the cops in Nevada earlier this year.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Good we can agree that Hannity is a clown. He's actually much less of a clown on his radio show but for some reason turns it up for TV.

This whole story isn't really about Brown and Garner. It's about a much broader perception that black men are judged and treated with a negative bias. The spotlight on recent events has just snowballed and people are demanding action.

The guy was also clearly crazy.


I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

I also think the process of oversight in these events is so heavily biased towards the police that it gives the appearance the system isn't fair. Granted, the police should be given the benefit of doubt, but the indictment process could likely be improved.

Either the system is biased against black men or people just seem to think so...either way the outrage is real. A big problem is a lack of good national data...this would be a great place to start.

And as for those "words" you keep mentioning. How about the ones claiming the Mayor is nearly complicit in this crime? How much damage are they doing?

"Good we can agree that Hannity is a clown"

100% agreed.

"It's about a much broader perception that black men are judged and treated with a negative bias. "

I also agree that the issue is the perceived bias toward black men. But I disagree that that bias exists in a systemic way - there are racists of course, but the fact that we have a 2-term black president ought to end the myth that institutional racism exists. It does not exist. But your side will not get off that soapbox, and it's done for political capital.], and at the expense of the people you claim you're trying to help.

"The spotlight on recent events has just snowballed and people are demanding action"

Agreed 100%. But it is disgraceful that the media and the liberals tried to conect these 2 recent events to race, because there isn't a shred of evidence that race had anything to do with it. But people like Sharpton and Obama can't ever say that, because liberals, as a group, view everything through the lens of racism.

If we want to talk about police brutality as a result of these events, fine. But there's no need (other than for political capital) to use these events to fan the flames of racial animosity. I can't say it any more accurately that that.

"bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot."

Again, you are too blinded by ideology to see the truth here. Please tel me which part of "the system" sets black men up to me more likely to be killed by cops. I agree blacks are disproportionately killed by cops. But it's not because cops hold blacks to a different standard, it's because blacks are, because of their culture, more likely to find themselves in the socio-economic condition that leads to crime.

That's not the fault of the Koch brothers or Sarah Palin, it's not the fault of Bush or the Tea Party. If anything, black culture has been pushed there by the liberal agenda, which tells blacks that nothing that goes wrong is ever their fault, it's always that they're victimized by whitey. Liberals have also reduced incentive to excel by making many addicted to welfare.

Can you specify which part of the "system leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men". How is "our system" causing this, exactly? Do blacks who go to college and get degrees in engineering not succeed? With afirmative action and quotas, if anything, "the system" is tilted in favor of blacks who are willing to make god decisions and work hard.

"A big problem is a lack of good national data" Wrong. The national data has to be there, they just don't share it on MSNBC because it spits in thre face of their agenda. If anyone claims to care about black lives, why begin with white cops killing black kids, when the vast majority of black kids are killed by other black kids? Why make so much fuss over something so rare? Political theater.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The guy was also clearly crazy.


I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this? I agree that blacks are disproportionately killed by cops, the numbers make that obvious. You say, with great honesty, that cops aren't just looking to kill black people. So you think there's some biased part of "the system" that leads to this. Can you specify what that is?

In my opinion, it's caused by a current black culture where (1) the nuclear family has almost gone extinct, (2) rejecting a lifestyle that encourages decidion-making that helps one to avoid poverty, and (3) embracing a lifestyle that encourages the kind of self-destructive decision-making that leads to poverty and hopelessness.

In my opinion, black culture has been lead by the hand to get to this point, by liberal policies which eliminate work ethic, a sense of responsibility, a sense of self-determination, and replacing that with addiction to welfare and victimhood. I say this because blacks who reject the typical black culture and make those good decisions, seem to to well. And whites who make th esame self-destricive decisions, do not do well.

So I don't see it as being about race. People who make the right decisions, regardless of race, do well in this country. People who make terrible decisions, regardless of race, struggle in this country. We all know what the productive decisions are, but for some reason that escapes me, the left is unwilling to tell blacks to change their values and decision-making. You'd rather give them just enough welfare to avoid death, but not nearly enough to get ahead, pat them on th ehead, and say "there, there".

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this? I agree that blacks are disproportionately killed by cops, the numbers make that obvious. You say, with great honesty, that cops aren't just looking to kill black people. So you think there's some biased part of "the system" that leads to this. Can you specify what that is?

In my opinion, it's caused by a current black culture where (1) the nuclear family has almost gone extinct, (2) rejecting a lifestyle that encourages decidion-making that helps one to avoid poverty, and (3) embracing a lifestyle that encourages the kind of self-destructive decision-making that leads to poverty and hopelessness.

In my opinion, black culture has been lead by the hand to get to this point, by liberal policies which eliminate work ethic, a sense of responsibility, a sense of self-determination, and replacing that with addiction to welfare and victimhood. I say this because blacks who reject the typical black culture and make those good decisions, seem to to well. And whites who make th esame self-destricive decisions, do not do well.

So I don't see it as being about race. People who make the right decisions, regardless of race, do well in this country. People who make terrible decisions, regardless of race, struggle in this country. We all know what the productive decisions are, but for some reason that escapes me, the left is unwilling to tell blacks to change their values and decision-making. You'd rather give them just enough welfare to avoid death, but not nearly enough to get ahead, pat them on th ehead, and say "there, there".

The "equality" arguments are not new, but they constantly require a new infusion of the old arguments or else the "perception" that things are not "fair" or "equal" becomes the "reality" which can be the fuel for transfers of power to those who wish to "fundamentally transform" a society. Here's another article from Dr. Sowell that supports what you say, and refreshes an old argument:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

"How about the ones claiming the Mayor is nearly complicit in this crime? How much damage are they doing?"

He's not an accessory or anything. But do you deny that his words fuel the outrage? There is absolutely no way you can connect racism to what happened to Garner, but that's all anyone talked about.

DiBlasio didn't create racial animosity, but he (and Sharpton and Obama) make it worse, by claiming it is occurring when clearly it's not. And just as importantly, it takes attention and resources away from th ereal problem, which is lifting these people out of poverty for good. Telling them that their lives don't matter to white cops is demonstrably falese and counter-productive. But it gets your base riled up, so it's OK.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Good we can agree that Hannity is a clown. He's actually much less of a clown on his radio show but for some reason turns it up for TV.

Clowns are good, no? Cowboys used to be good, until G.W. got elected. Then cowboy became bad. If clown is bad, then you're insulting Hannity. Insulting is good, no?

This whole story isn't really about Brown and Garner. It's about a much broader perception that black men are judged and treated with a negative bias. The spotlight on recent events has just snowballed and people are demanding action.

"Perception" is the key word. Demanding action on perception rather than facts is a form of putting the horse before the cart. Taken to violent extremes, it can be a form of functional psychosis. Milder forms, massive protest and shouting, is not as serious, just silly and disruptive. But they can trigger violent responses in those who are functionally psychotic. So it behooves those with civil power not to fan the flame of perception.

The guy was also clearly crazy.

The key difference which might make that relevant to the "whole story" is whether he was functionally or organically psychotic. If it was an organic, physical, a malfunction in his circuitry, then it would essentially have nothing to do with the whole story except in that he was given the trigger by words and actions around him to express his psychotic rage. If it was functional, then the cause of his mental disorder would be a misperception of his relation to society probably informed, again, by the words and actions around him. If he reacted not out of misperception, but logically from perceptions that fit the facts, then he wouldn't be crazy.

I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

If one doesn't look into the factual basis for what appears to be patterns, then one can create a nonfactual narrative which would not only lead to false conclusions, but stimulate already functionally psychotic tendencies, as well as outbursts of organic psychosis. If one only considers and responds to what"appears" to be disproportionate by raw number alone, and disregards the actual causes for the killings, then one can be led to false conclusions . . . and to silliness, social disruptions, and to more killings, psychotic or otherwise.

I also think the process of oversight in these events is so heavily biased towards the police that it gives the appearance the system isn't fair. Granted, the police should be given the benefit of doubt, but the indictment process could likely be improved.

Social processes are inherently biased toward society. It is the nature of social processes to protect and make cohesive the societal structure. Police are part of the oversight and enforcement of the social process. They are commanded by society to confront those who commit anti-social acts. That "appearance" or fact of bias cannot be eliminated. If you want to suggest how the process should be improved, that would be interesting to hear. I suspect that what's more important than process here, is not a systemic bias, but personal biases. If you can figure out how to, in short time, eliminate personal biases, go for it.

Either the system is biased against black men or people just seem to think so...either way the outrage is real. A big problem is a lack of good national data...this would be a great place to start.

"Real" outrage based on false premises is the big problem. The "system" of justice devised in this country is one of the least biased in the world. Individual misperceptions and biases which can coalesce into various group or crowd mentalities are a problem that no "system" of justice can eliminate. The system can only prosecute the justice due to those who manifest their "perceptions" by socially destructive action.

And we have massive national data which, if read correctly, could explain, at least to rational folks, what the raw numbers really mean. Piling more national data on top of the tomes of info pumped out annually by the Federal government would not only cost more money but would give even more fuel to those who choose to twist data to fit their perceptions.

And as for those "words" you keep mentioning. How about the ones claiming the Mayor is nearly complicit in this crime? How much damage are they doing?

The question is, do the words fit the facts.

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post:
I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

Reply by Jim in CT:
Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this?

Jim, I think Spence just likes the world "systemic." I don't think that most of the times he uses the word there is actually a "system" to which he is referring. Aside from the redundant nature of the phrase in this case, instead of referring to a "systemic pattern" he could have just said "pattern" as in "a pattern of racial assassinations." Or he could have dropped the word "pattern" and simply said "a system of racial assassinations." But either simplification would be more easily verifiable. If it were an actual system of assassinations, that would be something you could point to and describe. As such, it could readily be prosecuted and rooted out of existence. A system would be intentionally and specifically designed. A pattern of group behavior, however, can occur, more or less, as Spence might like to say, spontaneously. Rather than being intentionally designed, it can just "appear" to happen. So, I think, it was not necessary for Spence to insert the words "systemic" or "system" into his assertion of what there "appears" to be.

I wonder if Spence, being a social and political progressive, unconsciously speaks from the "perspective" that it is systems rather than individuals by which or by whom we must order our lives. That, ultimately, individuals are either too powerless, as in the masses, or too powerful, as in the wealthy, to rely on as the purpose for a social order. So, for a progressive, rather than system being a product of consent by sovereign individuals, it is the regulator of individuals who must act by its consent or dictate. System responsibility, rather than personal responsibility, is either the solution or the fault. So by mingling the loosely similar words into a concoction of an appearance, he manages to convey an intangible problem that cannot be laid at the feet of individual biases, but must be inherent in some "systemic" malfunction

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post:
I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

Reply by Jim in CT:
Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this?

Jim, I think Spence just likes the world "systemic." I don't think that most of the times he uses the word there is actually a "system" to which he is referring. Aside from the redundant nature of the phrase in this case, instead of referring to a "systemic pattern" he could have just said "pattern" as in "a pattern of racial assassinations." Or he could have dropped the word "pattern" and simply said "a system of racial assassinations." But either simplification would be more easily verifiable. If it were an actual system of assassinations, that would be something you could point to and describe. As such, it could readily be prosecuted and rooted out of existence. A system would be intentionally and specifically designed. A pattern of group behavior, however, can occur, more or less, as Spence might like to say, spontaneously. Rather than being intentionally designed, it can just "appear" to happen. So, I think, it was not necessary for Spence to insert the words "systemic" or "system" into his assertion of what there "appears" to be.

I wonder if Spence, being a social and political progressive, unconsciously speaks from the "perspective" that it is systems rather than individuals by which or by whom we must order our lives. That, ultimately, individuals are either too powerless, as in the masses, or too powerful, as in the wealthy, to rely on as the purpose for a social order. So, for a progressive, rather than system being a product of consent by sovereign individuals, it is the regulator of individuals who must act by its consent or dictate. System responsibility, rather than personal responsibility, is either the solution or the fault. So by mingling the loosely similar words into a concoction of an appearance, he manages to convey an intangible problem that cannot be laid at the feet of individual biases, but must be inherent in some "systemic" malfunction

As usual, awesome points. But I'd love to know what he means by "patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. " I asked him a few times to expand on that, and he didn't, which is likely more revealing than anything he coud have posted. His silence on the topic is deafening.

This is getting to the point where recently, riots are breaking out were there seems to be evidence in one case that the deceased pointed a gun at the cop, and most recently, a man was actually firing a gun into a crowd, was killed by a cop, and the crowd, instead of thaking the cop, turned on him because he was wite and the dead criminal was black. Pure genius on the part o fthe cowd that th ecop was trying to protect.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

As usual, awesome points. But I'd love to know what he means by "patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. " I asked him a few times to expand on that, and he didn't, which is likely more revealing than anything he coud have posted. His silence on the topic is deafening.

His silence merely adds to the mystique of nebulous patterns within unnamed systems. It is the "seemingly" plausible assertion that something actually exists, even if there is no rational concrete evidence for it. It is exactly the kind of rhetoric demagogues use to influence the masses to threaten the social order for a change, which upon examination, is more destructive to society than the supposed "problem" it purports to solve.

This is getting to the point where recently, riots are breaking out were there seems to be evidence in one case that the deceased pointed a gun at the cop, and most recently, a man was actually firing a gun into a crowd, was killed by a cop, and the crowd, instead of thaking the cop, turned on him because he was wite and the dead criminal was black. Pure genius on the part o fthe cowd that th ecop was trying to protect.

I know that those who consider themselves "liberal" (whatever they mean by that) poo-poo the notion that the "left" resorts to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals techniques . . . but if it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a . . .