Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

And? Those are same pictures we've already seen. All of those guys are idiots. What more do you want commented on? I've covered this in the post right above yours.

 

Mr44, I'm happy to talk about gun culture in the gun control thread at some point. But this is the US Society and Black Men thread, wherein we're discussing the disproportionate killing of black men by police. Your arguments have consistently basically fallen into the categories of "it's their fault" and/or "what do you expect the police to do?" almost outright saying that the problem is not a problem at all. Again, I say...

You responded to all that by talking about how people in America act stupidly with guns. I responded:

You didn't answer that, I notice. When I was presented with new evidence that challenged my original position, I rethought my position. You have chosen to try and change the subject. To which I say:

 

blood from a stone, friend. blood from a stone

 

Indeed.

Moving on to a news story that came across my news feed from Femi, I was reminded of Kimball_Kinnison 's earlier post about the unfair advantage police are granted in a shooting compared to civilians. Now this particular story was written in what I would consider to be the best possible light for the police officers executing the warrant. The short version of the story is that the cops were lawfully executing a search warrant (at 5:30 a.m.) for drugs and the suspect fired on them, killing one and shooting two others. He was arrested on the spot.

But, when you peel the onion a bit, you discover that this was a SWAT-style (can't be sure it was actually SWAT executing the warrant) raid in which the cop who was shot in the face was breaking in through the window of the suspect's home. The warrant was based on a single informant's testimony that he saw numerous bags of cocaine on the premises (none, were found. A glass pipe was found, suggesting he was a user, but no evidence this was a dealer). KK specifically talked about this kind of scenario and how the law is completely against you. The suspect was immediately arrested. The only charges currently against him are ones relating to him firing on police officers and killing one. Given the surprise nature of the raid and the hour of execution, I seriously doubt the guy had any idea who he was shooting at--just that he was under attack.

So...civilian in his own home, under apparent attack, discharges his firearm, likely in fear for his life, and kills a police officer executing a warrant he has no knowledge of---immediately arrested and may very well face the death penalty. Officer Wilson shoots an unarmed teenager, in full view of multiple witnesses, all of whom claim he had his arms raised in surrender--still not arrested.

Now the fact that the suspect in this case happens to be black would be irrelevant except for the fact that (where data is available) SWAT teams appear to be deployed against minorities at a disproportionately high rate. (Edit: The rest of the linked article is really worth reading as it's quite pertinent to this discussion).

 

If I could like that post 1000 times, I would.

 

This is utterly absurd that this has happened yet again, and continues to happen (based on the info presented there). I'm cautiously optimistic, given that this happened in Texas, that when this goes to a grand jury (because of course they're going to try to charge him) the grand jury may decide to not indict him, similar to how Henry McGee was not indited over a very similar case early this year.

What I'm worried this will become something more like the Cory Maye case, which took 10 years before he was, rightfully, out of jail, and that was after initially being sentenced to death. A huge part of this is that there is a big problem where police defend police, D.A.s defend the police, and the judicial system often defends both of them, as a matter of principle rather than in a search for what really happened.

 

An update on the Daniele Watts incident:

Was Django Unchained actress doing more than just kissing in public with boyfriend when arrested?

There are some rather explicit pictures around. Really messed up if true.

 

Yeah. Stuff like that seriously irritates me. First, because it unfairly maligns (as best we know) perfectly fine police officers just doing their job. But also because it serves to diminish legitimate complaints of racism when they happen. You only need one of these stories every so often (there's another one from a football game that I'll post later if I can find it again) to make every conversation about racism go absolutely nowhere.

 

Thank you for making the point I was trying to hint at since my first post.

 

Here's a local story: http://www.kirotv.com/ap/ap/washington/robbery-suspects-wife-begins-crowdfunding-page/nhQg8/

In short, paraphrasing - a man was arrested (and shot) for attempted bank robbery; his wife claims they were only trying to open an account and because of their race, they are under arrest. I know no more than the rest of you will after reading this story.

An excerpt from kirotv.com:

What got me is the comments - and I think is a symptom of the (internet vocal, anyway) societal perception - one minority person is accused of misbehavior/criminal conduct and that person's entire "group" (be it a minority, a female, whatever) gets tarred with the same brush. I saw the story at lunch (where I can't post or even access this board) and now that I'm home, I see the worst racist comments have been removed.

It seems likely that a number of folks may have flagged those comments to get them removed. That's a from me - folks calling out such b.s.

From the Tacoma News Tribunehttp://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/09/18/3386414/wife-of-accused-lakewood-bank.html :

So a bank guard opened fire - and she's claiming the POLICE racially profiled her husband and are "lying and out to destroy" her family.

You just know a fair amount of folks will call b.s. on her explanation and a fair amount will probably agree with her regarding the racial profiling - all the while basing these impressions on just this amount of information. And society gets more and fractured on how to view these stories.

Profiling, I think we all agree, needs to be called out. Does this APPEAR to be such a situation (based on the so-far published information which may change)?

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/09/18/3386414/wife-of-accused-lakewood-bank.html#storylink=cpy​

 

Eh, notice the "allegedly pulled a gun" on the guard.

Honestly, I haven't seen this on the local news, just happened to catch this on the website. Newest "tidbit" -

'Course it doesn't say WHAT he was doing - just that eyewitnesses spotted him outside the bank. I've been known to have been outside a bank as well, although not armed, wearing a wig, etc.

I'm surprised this alleged instance of racial profiling isn't high profile, at least locally. This isn't Seattle (which has had some questionable actions and had the Feds slap them over it), but still - folks do take racial profiling seriously here, often choosing sides before any real facts are established. Of course, to be fair, folks jump all over sorts of things before facts are established (or ignore said facts when it doesn't fit into their preconceptions).

As to open carry, etc., I suspect KK would know, but since I've never seen anyone except police with weapons, I'd assume we are not open carry. I have no inclination to look it up, though.

 

You're in Washington State? OC is fully legal without a permit. Only 6 states prohibit Open Carry completely, with another 14 requiring a permit. The remaining 30 allow anyone who can legally possess a handgun to carry it openly.

Note: some of the "permit required" states (like Maryland and New Jersey) make it almost impossible to get a permit, and some of the "no open carry" states are otherwise considered to be gun friendly (like Texas and Florida).

 

Kind of surprised Texas isn't open carry TBH.

 

This is probably better for the gun control thread, but as it was brought up in the initial post of this thread, I'll answer it here.

That's actually why the group Open Carry Texas (the source of the picture of two white men carrying rifles in the first post) openly carries rifles. It's a political statement about the Jim Crow-era prohibition on openly carrying handguns in Texas. (The idea was to require a permit, and then only allow the "right" people to get a permit, part of the blatantly racist history behind gun control.) Legally, they can't carry a handgun openly, but they can carry a rifle or shotgun, so that's what they do to try and get the law changed (among other things).

Similarly, in Florida OC is only legal if you are on your way to or from certain defined activities, such as hunting or fishing. As a result, some activists will hold open carry fishing days, where they host a big picnic and get people to open carry while following the law to the letter.

 

Interesting. I learned something today.

And holdovers of the Jim Crow era laws are absolutely relevant to this thread, IMO.

 

I'd be hard-pressed to argue with an on-scene assessment that a guy wearing a fake beard in a bank, in and of itself, wasn't suspicious. I honestly don't know what went down in that story that resulted in shots being fired, but based on what I read of the article, it looks liek they were planning to rob the bank.

 

Relating to the overuse and abuse of SWAT-style raids, we get a court ruling out of the 11th Circuit: Berry v. Leslie (2014)

In short, the SWAT team was used to conduct an administrative raid on barber shops to check for licensing compliance. The specific barber shops chosen for the SWAT-style tactics were selected because the police also wanted to search for drugs and potential informants (i.e. people they catch with drugs and cut a deal with). The warrantless search was ruled unconstitutional because of several factors, not least of which being that inspectors had visited the barber shop two days prior and already verified the licensing was up to date and compliant.

This is exactly the sort of SWAT abuse that I was talking about earlier. Instead of getting a warrant based on specific information (as required by the 4th Amendment), the SWAT team was used to "support" a regulatory inspection in what can only be described as a massive fishing expedition. Even though the search was ultimately ruled unconstitutional, that ruling only came 4 years after the fact. That's 4 years after a raid that never should have happened in the first place.

The more law enforcement organizations that have SWAT-style teams, the more they will be used. In some cases (as in this one), that use will come at the expense of the civil rights of those people targeted. And that's not even starting on the cases where the police target the wrong house and the target dares to legally defend their home against attack.

 

I'm curious if you read the post I made above--especially the part about the racial dispartities in SWAT employment, KK. I suspect I know how you feel about the subject, but I'd be interested in your thoughts anyway.

 

Really, my view on that is much like my earlier expressed views on body cameras and use of force. If using body cameras can reduce the use of force by up to 80%, and police disproportionately use force against blacks more often (regardless of the reason), then it seems a no-brainer to me that requiring body cameras would save a significant number of blacks from being killed or injured through police force.

There are numerous reasons (some legitimate, and some not) why minorities get more attention of all types from law enforcement. We can't fix all those reasons any time soon. But we can reduce the use of the most extreme tactics so as to reduce the danger to everyone involved.

The police are as human as the rest of us. I can fully understand the desire to do whatever it takes to get home safely at night. That's why I carry a gun myself, for example. However, a large part of what makes them the "good guys" is that we (i.e. the People) have set limits for them that they aren't supposed to cross. Yes, that can make it harder for them to do their jobs, but they knew that those limits were there going into the job. If we allow them to go beyond those limits, then there is nothing to really separate the police from the criminals that they fight. The police become just another gang, except they wear the colors we gave them.

The police are as human as the rest of us. Part of that is that they make mistakes, just like the rest of us. The difference is that when they make mistakes, people wind up getting hurt or killed. Again, that's why we set those same limits that they aren't supposed to cross, and it's why they need to be held accountable when they do cross them.

That "whatever it takes" attitude is wrong. It's wrong when it results in calling out a full SWAT raid to serve a warrant on an optometrist suspected of being a bookie. It's wrong when the default is overwhelming force without considering other options (such as how the ATF had the opportunity to capture David Koresh while he was unarmed and in town, rather than creating a massive armed standoff). It's wrong when the police throw a flash-bang grenade into a toddler's crib and then blame the parents for placing the child in harm's way.

 

A few updates:

The officers who shot John Crawford have been cleared of all wrongdoing by the grand jury. Ronald Ritchie (the 911 caller who later admitted to exaggerating on the call) will also not face charges. The case will still be reviewed by the US DoJ, but there will be no state-level charges.

Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania State Police have essentially suspended the Fourth Amendment in parts of the Poconos. One lawyer is looking to help residents fight back.

Finally, from a friend's Facebook feed I saw this story, showing how the DC Police Chief has worked extremely hard to avoid keeping the public informed about numerous important issues, and has threatened or intimidated officers who didn't cooperate.

 

That's great. This incident has gotten a lot of coverage locally and we get regular newspaper stories about people who can't go back to their houses, but I hadn't seen anything about that lawyer.

 

And, an additional update on John Crawford: The surveillance camera footage has now been released showing when the police arrived and shot Crawford.

I would embed it here, but it does show the actual shooting, so I will leave it up to you if you want to follow the link.