(July 10, 2016 at 9:48 pm)Faith No More Wrote: The thing is, when you bring the so-called "black on black crime" as a response to the BLM, you are minimizing the problem that they are trying to address.  It's the same thing as saying "All Lives Matter."  No shit, black on black crime happens, and no shit, all lives do matter.  But by saying those as responses to BLM, you belittle the goals of BLM and the fact that unarmed black men are being killed at an alarming rate by police officers across this country.  You are, in fact, devaluing the point they are trying to make, which is that there has been a decades long struggle of abuse of power by the cops when it comes to black men and women and now is the time to do something about it.

Imagine you go to the ER for severe breathing problems, and when you get there, the doc says, "Well, what about your diabetes?  I see you've got some severe problems with that, so come back when you've dealt with that." Meanwhile you're left choking to death. That's what you do when you respond to the BLM with "what about the black on black crime?"

Skip to 3:45 to see Larry take down the "all lives matter" cries.

Imagine if you went to the doctor saying your heart matters, and you want him to focus on the thing that's causing 5 percent of the problem rather than 50 percent of the problem.

Being generous with the statistics there since I'm sure the police kill less than ten percent of the amount black people kill.

Also imagine starting a group against police brutality that could be one unified group for a just cause then segregating the group by focusing attention just on one set of victims based on their racial characteristics.

(July 10, 2016 at 10:25 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 10:13 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I was talking about police brutality in the US and how interactions with black people and the police.

Thena was then talking about her sons being stopped twice as anecdotal evidence of something, I don't know what. So in saying so her sons were stopped by the police and they're black and they were innocent. I've been stopped by the police and I'm white and I was innocent, more than twice.

Not to speak for Thena, but I'm pretty sure her anecdote was to illustrate how black people, no matter their other traits, are more likely to get stopped, and more often, in the US. Your anecdote has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. hers does.

Quote:I imagine men get stopped more than women also, and that because of increased interaction with the police and the increased likelyhood that a man will resist arrest or get violent with the police that police brutality is more common on men in general.
I imagine if I was a woman in the area of that stabbing or the car robbery, or walking home at night the police would have been more likely to stop and ask if I'm ok getting home rather than shout me over as a suspect.

What does this have to do with racial profiling or BLM in... the US??

Quote:Not to say that men, or black men or anyone else are never victims of police prejudice, just that I think most times it isn't police prejudice.  I don't think police hate men, I think they just know men commit way more crime so they're bound to stop them more in general

Holy crap, dude. How are you not getting this??

Quote:The anecdotal evidence swapping between me and Thena really means nothing either way, it's not evidence we're just both swapping stories of being stopped by police.

Again, not to speak for Thena: I'm pretty sure she wasn't "just" swapping stories; she was trying to get a point across that's relevant to... have you gotten it yet?... BLM and racial profiling in the US.

Her sons were stopped twice, no info given about where they were walking what the police said or anything.

How does it show black people are more likely to get stopped.

By the way I'm not saying black people aren't more likely to get stopped since I've said they are.

What my story illustrates is that the police stop you sometimes for nothing, whatever race you are or whatever country you're in.

(July 10, 2016 at 10:25 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 10:13 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I was talking about police brutality in the US and how interactions with black people and the police.

Thena was then talking about her sons being stopped twice as anecdotal evidence of something, I don't know what. So in saying so her sons were stopped by the police and they're black and they were innocent. I've been stopped by the police and I'm white and I was innocent, more than twice.

Not to speak for Thena, but I'm pretty sure her anecdote was to illustrate how black people, no matter their other traits, are more likely to get stopped, and more often, in the US. Your anecdote has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. hers does.

Quote:I imagine men get stopped more than women also, and that because of increased interaction with the police and the increased likelyhood that a man will resist arrest or get violent with the police that police brutality is more common on men in general.
I imagine if I was a woman in the area of that stabbing or the car robbery, or walking home at night the police would have been more likely to stop and ask if I'm ok getting home rather than shout me over as a suspect.

What does this have to do with racial profiling or BLM in... the US??

Quote:Not to say that men, or black men or anyone else are never victims of police prejudice, just that I think most times it isn't police prejudice.  I don't think police hate men, I think they just know men commit way more crime so they're bound to stop them more in general

Holy crap, dude. How are you not getting this??

Quote:The anecdotal evidence swapping between me and Thena really means nothing either way, it's not evidence we're just both swapping stories of being stopped by police.

Again, not to speak for Thena: I'm pretty sure she wasn't "just" swapping stories; she was trying to get a point across that's relevant to... have you gotten it yet?... BLM and racial profiling in the US.

The point I made about men being stopped more has to do with racial profiling. I am getting this, I understand the topic.

What I'm saying is I'm sure the police stop more black people relative to the size of the black population because there's more crimes involving black people, there's going to be some general prejudice aswell, plus the fact that statistically it seems black people are more violent towards police as they make up a lot of the cop killers.

The same goes for men, they commit more crime than women, they're stopped more than women, they resist arrest more than women and they're more violent than woman.

I was drawing a similarity between the two situations.

People protesting in the name of Black Lives Matter have a right to speak and peacefully assemble without censorship by the authorities, just like anybody else in the US.
Violence is of course unacceptable and any person behaving violently should be arrested and charged.

(July 10, 2016 at 10:13 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 9:23 pm)The_Empress Wrote: If I'm not mistaken, you're in the UK. We're talking very specifically about racial profiling here in the US. You would cringe at how silly you sound if you spent any significant time at all here.

I was talking about police brutality in the US and how interactions with black people and the police.

Thena was then talking about her sons being stopped twice as anecdotal evidence of something, I don't know what. So in saying so her sons were stopped by the police and they're black and they were innocent. I've been stopped by the police and I'm white and I was innocent, more than twice.
I imagine men get stopped more than women also, and that because of increased interaction with the police and the increased likelyhood that a man will resist arrest or get violent with the police that police brutality is more common on men in general.
I imagine if I was a woman in the area of that stabbing or the car robbery, or walking home at night the police would have been more likely to stop and ask if I'm ok getting home rather than shout me over as a suspect.

Not to say that men, or black men or anyone else are never victims of police prejudice, just that I think most times it isn't police prejudice.  I don't think police hate men, I think they just know men commit way more crime so they're bound to stop them more in general

The anecdotal evidence swapping between me and Thena really means nothing either way, it's not evidence we're just both swapping stories of being stopped by police.

You're full of it, paulpablo.

I relayed the stories about my sons as a response to your claim that blacks are beaten and killed by police, because they have more direct involvement with law enforcement due to "gangbanging" and constant criminal behavior; They were provided as an examples of racial profiling. I don't need to provide "evidence" that racial profiling exists. It's a well-known, well-documented fact.

Stops that occur as a result of racial profiling, account for a significant number of the interactions between police and black males in the US. As it is in fact, generally defined as the act of stopping/questioning individuals for no reason other than race/ethnicity, I thought I'd do well to point out the stupidity in your "Blacks wouldn't get brutalized by cops, if they'd just quit the gangbanging" premise. That's all.

Don't try to tie my earlier response in with that gobbledygook you posted above.

(July 10, 2016 at 11:18 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 10:13 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I was talking about police brutality in the US and how interactions with black people and the police.

Thena was then talking about her sons being stopped twice as anecdotal evidence of something, I don't know what. So in saying so her sons were stopped by the police and they're black and they were innocent. I've been stopped by the police and I'm white and I was innocent, more than twice.
I imagine men get stopped more than women also, and that because of increased interaction with the police and the increased likelyhood that a man will resist arrest or get violent with the police that police brutality is more common on men in general.
I imagine if I was a woman in the area of that stabbing or the car robbery, or walking home at night the police would have been more likely to stop and ask if I'm ok getting home rather than shout me over as a suspect.

Not to say that men, or black men or anyone else are never victims of police prejudice, just that I think most times it isn't police prejudice.  I don't think police hate men, I think they just know men commit way more crime so they're bound to stop them more in general

The anecdotal evidence swapping between me and Thena really means nothing either way, it's not evidence we're just both swapping stories of being stopped by police.

You're full of it, paulpablo.

I relayed the stories about my sons as a response to your claim that blacks are beaten and killed by police, because they have more direct involvement with law enforcement due to "gangbanging" and constant criminal behavior; They were provided as an examples of racial profiling. I don't need to provide "evidence" that racial profiling exists. It's a well-known, well-documented fact.

Stops that occur as a result of racial profiling, account for a significant number of the interactions between police and black males in the US. As it is in fact, generally defined as the act of stopping/questioning individuals for no reason other than race/ethnicity, I thought I'd do well to point out the stupidity in your "Blacks wouldn't get brutalized by cops, if they'd just quit the gangbanging" premise. That's all.

Don't try to tie my earlier response in with that gobbledygook you posted above.

If you don't need proof of what you're trying to claim then don't use anecdotal proof when it means nothing.

I never claimed that black people are beaten and killed by police because they have more contact with law enforcement and so on.

What I claimed is that the percentages of black people involved in police brutality would match up with their population size if no police prejudice was involved, but also for a completely equal representation in that aspect it would also mean black people and white people would have to commit equal amounts of crime, resist arrest in equal amounts and be just as violent against the police as white people.

Since they aren't, a disproportionate amount of cop killers are black for example, it can't just be completely put down to the police being racially prejudice because not all races are equally causing as much disturbance with the law and police.

Not just simply that black people are being killed by police because they commit crime, there's probably lots of factors, but lots of factors beyond racial discrimination.

(July 10, 2016 at 11:31 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 11:18 pm)Thena323 Wrote: You're full of it, paulpablo.

I relayed the stories about my sons as a response to your claim that blacks are beaten and killed by police, because they have more direct involvement with law enforcement due to "gangbanging" and constant criminal behavior; They were provided as an examples of racial profiling. I don't need to provide "evidence" that racial profiling exists. It's a well-known, well-documented fact.

Stops that occur as a result of racial profiling, account for a significant number of the interactions between police and black males in the US. As it is in fact, generally defined as the act of stopping/questioning individuals for no reason other than race/ethnicity, I thought I'd do well to point out the stupidity in your "Blacks wouldn't get brutalized by cops, if they'd just quit the gangbanging" premise. That's all.

Don't try to tie my earlier response in with that gobbledygook you posted above.

If you don't need proof of what you're trying to claim then don't use anecdotal proof when it means nothing.

I never claimed that black people are beaten and killed by police because they have more contact with law enforcement and so on.

What I claimed is that the percentages of black people involved in police brutality would match up with their population size if no police prejudice was involved, but also for a completely equal representation in that aspect it would also mean black people and white people would have to commit equal amounts of crime, resist arrest in equal amounts and be just as violent against the police as white people.

Since they aren't, a disproportionate amount of cop killers are black for example, it can't just be completely put down to the police being racially prejudice because not all races are equally causing as much disturbance with the law and police.

Not just simply that black people are being killed by police because they commit crime, but they commit a disproportionate amount of crime, therefore can expect more attention from the police.

I did a double post or something there,

(July 10, 2016 at 7:18 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 6:29 pm)paulpablo Wrote: To an extent I am saying they should get it together definitely.  Mostly towards young black males in America though, I said that in my previous posts that when you see men who are nearly at their mid 20s I definitely think it would be a good idea to stop going around with coloured rags on their head, forming gangs, getting gold teeth and shooting each other dead.

I'm really quite tired of pretending that you're not dreadfully ignorant and a massive bigot.

Now, I don't blame you.
This is what happens when you learn about black people from cop shows on TV.

If you were convinced a while back that I am a massive bigot why did you begin to pretend I wasn't?

If you read carefully what I wrote in my post there, I wasn't talking about all black people, I was talking about the gang members in the link I provided.  They are all wearing coloured rags, and they are stereotypical black gangsters that are copied to an extent by television shows.

They were bloods and crips unifying in a black lives matter protest, I was pointing out how it would be better for black lives if the members of the bloods and crips stopped going around wearing coloured rags all together and shooting each other up rather than being proud of getting together for one day ironically for the sake of black lives matter.

(July 10, 2016 at 11:31 pm)paulpablo Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 11:18 pm)Thena323 Wrote:

---

You're full of it, paulpablo.

I relayed the stories about my sons as a response to your claim that blacks are beaten and killed by police, because they have more direct involvement with law enforcement due to "gangbanging" and constant criminal behavior; They were provided as an examples of racial profiling. I don't need to provide "evidence" that racial profiling exists. It's a well-known, well-documented fact.

Stops that occur as a result of racial profiling, account for a significant number of the interactions between police and black males in the US. As it is in fact, generally defined as the act of stopping/questioning individuals for no reason other than race/ethnicity, I thought I'd do well to point out the stupidity in your "Blacks wouldn't get brutalized by cops, if they'd just quit the gangbanging" premise. That's all.

Don't try to tie my earlier response in with that gobbledygook you posted above.

---

If you don't need proof of what you're trying to claim then don't use anecdotal proof when it means nothing.

I never claimed that black people are beaten and killed by police because they have more contact with law enforcement and so on.

What I claimed is that the percentages of black people involved in police brutality would match up with their population size if no police prejudice was involved, but also for a completely equal representation in that aspect it would also mean black people and white people would have to commit equal amounts of crime, resist arrest in equal amounts and be just as violent against the police as white people.

Since they aren't, a disproportionate amount of cop killers are black for example, it can't just be completely put down to the police being racially prejudice because not all races are equally causing as much disturbance with the law and police.

Not just simply that black people are being killed by police because they commit crime, there's probably lots of factors, but lots of factors beyond racial discrimination.

Do try and focus. 
The issue isn't about lawful shootings, or how much crime black Americans commit, paulpablo.

It's about the unlawful shooting of unarmed individuals and excessive force. 
Why is that so difficult for you to process?

Why should the incarceration and/or arrest rates of any other blacks in America have any bearing on the individual decision to stop a person who's done nothing suspicious, or to shoot an unarmed and/or innocent person? The fact that you're not even able to make a distinction between the two matters comes depressingly close to reflecting the crux of the problem. 

You'd probably make an excellent cop.

(July 10, 2016 at 11:31 pm)Opaulpablo Wrote: Not just simply that black people are being killed by police because they commit crime, there's probably lots of factors, but lots of factors beyond racial discrimination.

*emphasis mine*

Let me tell you about some of those factors.

It is a known fact that the US government was pushing drugs into predominantly black neighborhoods via the CIA to fund the central american contras after congress had cut funding.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involv...rafficking

Quote:The involvement of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in cocaine trafficking in Central America during the Reagan Administration as part of the Contra war in Nicaragua has been the subject of several official and journalistic investigations since the mid-1980s. In 1986, the Reagan Administration acknowledged that funds from cocaine smuggling helped fund the Contra rebels, but stated that it was not authorized by the US government or resistance leaders.[1] The Kerry Committee found that "the Contra drug links included[,]" amongst other connections, " .... Payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."

Keep in mind all the while this is going on during "the just say no" campaign against drugs by Nancy Reagan...

It's all about cause and effect.

So what do you think will happen to a neighborhood that get's flooded with drugs by the government and at the same time this very same government is waging a war on drugs?

Don't you think you'd see higher crime rates in those neighborhoods? Higher incarceration rates?

After reviewing the above information, do you still not believe that BLM has a legitimate beef?

And by the way the guy in the YouTube video (Mike Rupert) is an example of a "good cop", one that exposes corruption, not covers it up.

I believe there is a documentary about him if I remember correctly.