Riots in the USA - just an excuse to let off energy? (1 Viewer)

[deletedT]

Does it occur to you that the clip might have been edited to make you think that the police were attacking the man in the wheel chair?

Nice to know someone may have edited the clip to deceive me.
I'd be glad to hear your part on this too:

http://instagr.am/p/BuW-uPqljUB/

 

[AccessBlaster]

Now it's your turn. Blame Democrats or Republicans and start the whole "I don't belong to the wrong side."
Or shut me up with your country is not perfect too. (God knows how many times you've told me this. Or maybe he has lost the count too)

That's a great tactic, you effectively criticise and shutdown the rebuttal in one fell swoop. Brilliant.

 

[deletedT]

That's a great tactic, you effectively criticise and shutdown the rebuttal in one fell swoop. Brilliant.

No I'm not criticizing. I'm just telling you what I see.
And that's not a tactic. That's what I really see it here.

 

[Isaac]

@Tera
I always enjoy your posts, they make me stop and think about things. I will respond as thoughtfully as I can.

To be most productive, I determined there are a few different perspectives that warrant a response on each. Not just one.

First I will address the one of "fair arbiter". Let's say hypothetically I am standing in the shoes of a non-emotional, unattached individual, whose role it is to be impartial and evaluate the situation in that way. And I'll admit that, something about my personality I guess, this is the position that I tend to "try" to see things from more often than not. (Is that the best way to be with no emotions? Maybe not!) Standing in these shoes, I cannot and will not make a final judgment about a situation when seeing a short video clip of an obviously much more complicated and involved situation.
Call it whatever you will, too cold, too legalistic, too cautious to show emotion, whatever - but taking this stance would be absolutely, unequivocally, the only way to be a fair, impartial arbiter of the situation. Does that mean that this "fair arbiter" could never see a short video clip and KNOW that something WRONG occurred? No, I'd say that would be going too far. Our whole country saw the George Floyd video "clip" and agreed unanimously. Me included. And I've seen others. But most situations not being quite that extreme, I for one, appreciate that - in theory, at least - we have people in authority who absolutely insist on withholding judgment in most cases until all the facts are known. Our entire US justice system is based (among others) on that principle, and I think it's something most of us agree with. We don't consider it right, moral, or acceptable to make a habit of quick judgments without facts. You could almost call it a "moral code". Of course, there is no way I can speak for the whole country, so I'm making a generalization based on what I think most people are on board with. And I can confidently assert the same is true for me.
And furthermore, even speaking as this "fair, impartial objective arbiter" - as I have stated, what I saw was police officers restraining a person about as gently as they could, short of just standing there. I didn't see any serious hitting, kicking, punching, or painful manuevers. I saw 3 people engaged in an activity I can only describe as two 12-year old girls batting each others hands back and forth in a mild argument. I can tell that you see the physical activity different, somehow, and I respect that. I keep watching the video, thinking "I must be missing something truly violent that they did to him"...But continue to find none (?)

Second, I will address the perspective of overall condition of mankind vs. what our ideal ought to be, vs. what that video showed. It is here that I have forced myself to stop and think of what I can gain or improve about myself as a result of your perspective. Perhaps I HAVE gotten too callous, too "used to it", because I live in a country where disorderliness is common, and so physical engagement is inevitable and also common. Might it be good for me to take care, lest I become too de-sensitized to this ugly fact? YES - and that I freely admit. I will use your observations (the IDEALS of which I largely agree with!!) as an opportunity to examine myself in this area. Thank you for reminding us how we may have gotten too used to this type of thing being normal.

But, having exchanged a few posts now, it does seem like we disagree on the actual right or wrong of the officers. In this country, it is widely agreed that behaving in an unruly (or physically aggressive) nature toward a police officer--all else being equal, which I admit we don't really know if all else was equal in this case--is wrong. Choose to do so, and you will be physically restrained in various manners. Those are the rules we live by and expectations we widely have. Who knows whether I speak for many or few, but speaking for myself, that is my desire for the role of police officers. It is their job to restrain disorderly, unruly, or unsafe. It is an unfortunate fact of life, and theirs is an ugly job, to be sure. Ought I dream of, and strive for, a nation where this is less commonly needed? Absolutely, and maybe I will do better in this area. But restraining the unruly, disobedient or unsafe is--to my opinion--the proper role of a police officer.

Again, I watched this video numerous times. Thinking that, considering your reaction to it, I surely must not be noticing something. I may try to watch it again somehow slowing the motion just to be sure. But what I see is the video started in the MIDDLE of a "brawl" - a bunch of people racing around batting at each other's arms and hands like little girls. I then see someone fall down, I didn't see anyone push him. Then he grabs a baton and the police begin trying to restrain to him. They aren't unnecessarily mean and they seem to inflict no pain whatsoever. He keeps fighting, so they keep trying to grab his arms?

It is certainly an ugly & saddening thing to watch police having to restrain a person who is any of: 1) ill, 2) elderly, 3) juvenile, 4) wheelchair bound 5) mentally unaware.
But when it comes to "what were they supposed to do or not do", I'm not seeing any different, clear "should-have-been" here. Sorry.

Your comments about becoming insensitive to the general suffering and pain of conflict.....Your tiring of people blaming a political party for an isolated incident instead of judging it on the merits......And your sentiment about people not admitting they are wrong, if they are, are well taken and duly noted.

We must strive to come to right conclusions with impartiality. And we must weep with those who weep.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I'm not criticizing either, I admire Col and your techniques it's interesting.

 

[deletedT]

@Isaac Thanks for your reply in extent. It helped me to understand the situation of a US citizen better.
And thanks for your kind words about my posts.

In case of both clips I posted (and several more of the same type a while back), you explained you couldn't see anything wrong.
Well. Let's forget about the clips. Let's assume nothing was wrong in that video and as @Pat Hartman suggested, they were edited to manipulate my judgement and give me a wrong assumption.

The way I see it, You are one of those rare members here whose judgment is not affected by his political stand point and tries to see both sides.
So I'm eager to see how you response to these question:

Do you really think Police brutality doesn't exists?
AND
Do you really think Police brutality is not a sever problem there?

 

[Isaac]

If you really want a better video to cause well warranted indignation, I actually saw something on the news tonight that happened recently right here in the metro city where I live.
A man was shot with a bean bag gun while apparently having his hands up even though he kept moving them to point in various directions but he was clearly not a threat of any kind.

Now it might be worth noting, this gentleman had recently beat up his sister's family and their children. While he was being arrested for that crime, he attacked the police officers and actually had to be tased to be subdued. He then got out of jail on a very small bond and then failed to show up for his court date. At the time of this video, it is a special tactical police team called SWAT that appears to serve the warrant. despite his dramatic fall to the ground, this is not a real gun and he only suffered minor abrasions.
But despite all of the negative things about this man's background and the potential danger of serving the warrant, when I watch this video I had no trouble coming to the conclusion that WOW, I think the police officer who did that probably needs to be fired and prosecuted at least for a misdemeanor assault. I have no trouble coming to this conclusion, @Tera , when it seems warranted. I wanted to post this so you don't think I am always excusing the police blindly.

Mesa SWAT shoots man with multiple bean bag rounds in front of children while serving warrant

Mesa SWAT is facing scrutiny after a video posted on Facebook shows them shooting multiple bean bag rounds at a man at an apartment complex in Mesa Thursday.

www.abc15.com

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac Thanks for your reply in extent. It helped me to understand the situation of a US citizen better.
And thanks for your kind words about my posts.

In case of both clips I posted (and several more of the same type a while back), you explained you couldn't see anything wrong.
Well. Let's forget about the clips. Let's assume nothing was wrong in that video and as @Pat Hartman suggested, they were edited to manipulate my judgement and give me a wrong assumption.

The way I see it, You are one those rare members here whose judgment is not affected by his political stand point and tries to see both sides.
So I'm eager to see how you response to these question:

Do you really think Police brutality doesn't exists?
AND
Do you really think Police brutality is not a sever problem there?

Great questions both. I can say without hesitation that I do believe police brutality exist. I also believe that any instance of police brutality is a terrible and scary incident of someone totally in charge and with authority of abusing another person. I think it's extremely serious and I think it should be rooted out wherever it is found. I take it as a very serious problem.
now I want to add something to that though. I don't mean to sound like a cold-hearted mathematical statistician, but remember what I mentioned about, unfortunately, people behaving in an unruly or violent manner being a very common thing in this country. Literally it happens hundreds of times in every city of any significant size every single day. It's that common! So if you take the total population of all the situations that police have to intervene, and then you take the instances where I truly believe there was totally wrong police brutality, the problem if stated as a proportion to the whole is fairly small.
but I can also put on my other hat, so to speak, and agree that any time it happens I think it's an extremely serious thing that needs to be dealt with immediately and taken very seriously. I have mentioned in other threads that I think it's a serious problem that needs to be dealt with just as is.

I will add to that that for those of us in this country, unfortunately!, This issue of police brutality has been inaccurately cast as an issue of race. That is the big point at which I take a certain side of the argument, versus another side. And I can't escape doing that because that is how the discussion is being framed here currently in almost every scenario of discussion. The actual statistics show that blacks suffer police brutality a little bit more often than whites, but then again there is, obviously, absolutely no way to collect data on the behavior of a person at the time that they elicited that response from a police officer. there are plenty of people who would say given what we see with crime and violence, it is quite likely if not almost certain that the behavior of a certain demographic is actually worse than another when confronted by police. it is not at all unreasonable to assume that if there is one demographic who causes most crime, then that same demographic could be supposed to be more likely to be violent when confronted by a police officer too! I don't think one can escape the logic in that. some people have a sense of defiance almost built into their personalities, while others not quite as much. It is just a difference in humans we're all different. This may sound like a hard mean thing to say, but also, if it's true, it makes it completely useless to cast the issue as a racial one. Unless we are just talking about one group looking to do self improvement which is something totally different.

But I absolutely think that people in power physically abusing other people is absolutely horrifying and I think that we should attack the issue as just exactly that and try our hardest to solve it.

I think the reason that you tend to run into so many resistant opinions when it comes to police brutality discussions, it's not because people actually don't think it exists and it's not because people don't think it's wrong. It's because in this country right now, there are some who are demanding that it be framed as an issue of racial Justice. That is an issue on which our opinions legitimately differ, between Americans.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Isaac]

I guess I just try hard never to take a quick mob reaction to anything. I'll even be so bold as to use the George Floyd video as an example. I will tell you that the guy who had his knee on George floyds neck, as well as the guy who was kind of guarding the cops from the growing crowd and just looking at everything, I think both of those individuals should be confined to a jail cell for a very long time.

However, trying always to be fair, I take a very, very different viewpoint of the third officer involved who was a brand new officer only a few days on the job, who tried to suggest multiple times whether or not they were hurting George. And he was repeatedly overruled by the authority of his commanding officer. I think putting that guy in jail for a long time would probably be incredibly unfair! So it's very important to look at everything fairly.

 

[deletedT]

@Isaac Many thanks for your sincere and direct answer to my questions and staying away of trying to explain your points based on political parties.

Just to clear it again, By police brutality I didn't mean against blacks. I've seen a lot of clips on Instagram/Tweeter when the suspect was white.
You answered all my questions and cleared all other questions I had and didn't ask.

You may not believe me, but everybody here (News, TV programs, people I know, etc) is praying for your people and country to find a solution out of current situation and having a peaceful life.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@Isaac- my problem with that analysis is simple. You omitted one facet of the situation.

The man, by not surrendering immediately, endangered the children. He had a history of violence, and in fact it was why he got arrested the first time in this sequence of events. Those initial charges included assaulting the children, in fact assault and battery. They were in danger just by being near him.

The police did not switch to lethal rounds because they didn't want to endanger the children any more than needed. The kids had to see it because that man didn't give the police a choice. HE chose the point of the encounter. The police can't let him run away from a judge's bench warrant, particularly when he is standing there in front of them and close to the children he has previously assaulted. The judge said "Bring him in" and that is what they did.

The law MUST be obeyed or it is useless. The whole point of incarceration is that violent, abusive people have to be taken off the streets unless/until they learn to control themselves. The police are not there to judge him. They are there to take him before a judge - who WILL judge him. He will have the chance for legal advice if needed. By refusing to cooperate with the law, he is short-circuiting his own due process.

If the guy is going to skip on bail so that a bench warrant is needed, he should EXPECT negative consequences. White people know that, or at least THIS white person knows it. I would bet dollars to donuts that this man would be incensed if someone disrespected him. But then does he not understand that to disrespect a judge is equally bad?

The officer who used non-lethal rounds should be commended for being a good shot and not hitting the kids. I'll bet it scared them. But there was also a lesson to be learned that disobeying law officers who are doing their jobs is probably not going to end well. If all he got was some bruises or brush-burns, he's lucky. How many bruises did he give those kids in the initial incident?

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac- my problem with that analysis is simple. You omitted one facet of the situation.

The man, by not surrendering immediately, endangered the children. He had a history of violence, and in fact it was why he got arrested the first time in this sequence of events. Those initial charges included assaulting the children, in fact assault and battery. They were in danger just by being near him.

The police did not switch to lethal rounds because they didn't want to endanger the children any more than needed. The kids had to see it because that man didn't give the police a choice. HE chose the point of the encounter. The police can't let him run away from a judge's bench warrant, particularly when he is standing there in front of them and close to the children he has previously assaulted. The judge said "Bring him in" and that is what they did.

The law MUST be obeyed or it is useless. The whole point of incarceration is that violent, abusive people have to be taken off the streets unless/until they learn to control themselves. The police are not there to judge him. They are there to take him before a judge - who WILL judge him. He will have the chance for legal advice if needed. By refusing to cooperate with the law, he is short-circuiting his own due process.

If the guy is going to skip on bail so that a bench warrant is needed, he should EXPECT negative consequences. White people know that, or at least THIS white person knows it. I would bet dollars to donuts that this man would be incensed if someone disrespected him. But then does he not understand that to disrespect a judge is equally bad?

The officer who used non-lethal rounds should be commended for being a good shot and not hitting the kids. I'll bet it scared them. But there was also a lesson to be learned that disobeying law officers who are doing their jobs is probably not going to end well. If all he got was some bruises or brush-burns, he's lucky. How many bruises did he give those kids in the initial incident?

well Doc, I mean I do see your point. And all of those things as I think you probably know, they definitely came to my mind as well. those are the things I tend to think of when I decide whether I should feel sorry for someone who got hurt when confronted by police for doing something wrong.
I was just trying very hard to see the other side if there was any. And in order to be super impartial, I was trying to only focus on the point in time at which he got shot.

so despite all the things this man may have done leading up to that time, and despite the fact that during the first few seconds he turned his back to them and gave things to his wife and was disobedient, yet, at the end he turned around with both his hands up and left them there and then he was shot multiple times even after he was down. So if I am to look at that, it's hard for me to see the police officer being in the right specifically at the moment when he chose to fire.

overall I'll admit I don't have too much sympathy for him, but still, I was focusing only on the point in time at which the officer chose to fire. And at that point in time, he seemed like he was standing still facing them with his hands up being compliant...

 

[deletedT]

@The_Doc_Man
You're mixing two problems here. I don't know the story of the man, never seen the video.
But the way I see it, Police Job is to arrest. Not to judge and give a life penalty, because of resisting for being arrested.
You're trying to justify him being shot for being a child abuser.

Being a child abuser is something, kill him if he resist is something else.

Think it this way. A serial killer who has murdered 10 people stands in front of a judge, and is sentenced to 300 years.
But a shop lifter who resists to be arrested, is shot (sentenced to death penalty without having a fair trial)
Is it fair?

The problem is being a child abuser and it makes you angry and leads you to the conclusion there's no problem to kill him. It's done to save the kids.
What is a child abuser penalty in US? 10 years? 20 years? for sure not a death penalty.

Again I don't know the story. But I think Police should not have the permission to kill a suspect.
Any suspect has the right to be trialed, to have a lawyer. And only a judge is allowed to give the final judgement. Not any policeman in the street.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You're mixing two problems here.
...
You're trying to justify him being shot for being a child abuser.

Tera, we have to maintain perspective. It is very rare in the real world to find a pure problem.

In the case of the man in the video who got shot with a beanbag shotgun, he didn't die. He got a few bruises. Didn't even get a penetrating wound. He got taken back to jail on the bench warrant because he DIDN'T show up when he should have. He will live to get some type of justice and the officer will be able to sleep at night because he DIDN'T kill someone that day. You focus on the word "shot" and fail to consider that it was with a non-lethal round. He didn't get shot and killed. He didn't get shot and crippled. He didn't get shot and bleed all over the place. He got shot and bruised, a condition that would allow him to walk under his own power in minutes.

You ask a hypothetical question about a shoplifter being shot. Your question is in a vacuum because we don't know details in your wide-open question. And we have a relevant saying in the USA, "the devil is in the details." Was the resisting shoplifter armed with a knife, bat, metal bar, or gun? Was he wearing a bomb vest? Was he threatening others? There is no absolute answer here because we don't know the whole story. I'm not a moral absolutist but I think it is safe to say that in any police situation involving violence, lethal force must be the last resort and only used to protect the rest of the public. But to protect the rest of the pubic, we sadly need that final option when nothing else works.

I will be among the first to say that George Floyd was the victim of an abusive officer. That should never have happened. I am not the only one who saw wrong in that. (Obviously.) But where I'm going with that is the district attorney saw enough wrong in it to press charges against the officers. And if they get tried and convicted, then at least some level of justice will be done. Perhaps not enough for some people, but due process will have occurred for the officers and part of their punishment WILL be because of the civil rights violation of depriving Mr. Floyd of HIS right of due process. (The other part will of course be for his death.)

If a person resists arrest, normally a good officer can handle that without resorting to a gun, but inherently in that resistance, there is implied violence on the part of the perpetrator. In a case where the officer is NOT just a bad officer, at what point of violent resistance does the officer have to decide to escalate? Are we to say, "Well, it is acceptable for a person to resist so violently that we just let him go."? We actually do that in many police jurisdictions when the perpetrator gets in a high-powered car and speeds off. Many officers will break off the chase and hope for an air unit to track the person because of the danger of high-speed pursuits in urban areas.

The danger, the really slippery slope, is that if violent resistance is going to get you off the hook, you have just turned that situation into a mirror of the Central American street gangs from which all those refugees are fleeing to the USA. In those countries, it is the rule of the gun, not of law. You just can't go that way and still claim to be a country of law. So that means that officers MUST be able to use force to obtain compliance. And if the officer puts out the "Officer needs assistance" call, you will hear sirens coming from every direction.

If there is a violent confrontation that results in a struggle for a gun, is the officer justified in using that gun if he momentarily regains control? Does he not have the expectation that the person would try to get it again? And can the officer fear for his own life to the point of needing to defend himself with the same level of force he expected from the person in question?

Perhaps a part of it is the Japanese cultural sense of order. Speaking theoretically, in a truly orderly society, nobody would disobey an officer. Nobody would miss a court date. Nobody would try to evade justice. Nobody would try to escape their punishment. Is that really an accurate description of your culture? Because our USA culture isn't so orderly. We are a disorganized hot mess on a good day because we have so many folks thrown together in our "Great American Melting Pot" society. And on a bad day, that pot boils over.

This probably sounds like I am a bat-crap crazy American who favors police violence. I don't. I understand it and recognize that there is a need for it. I regret that our society is not more civilized and orderly than it happens to be. But it is a side effect of a permissive society. People of a more philosophical nature will recognize the need to impose order. The problem comes when dealing with people who are less philosophical and more predatory in nature. There, you run into the ultimate conundrum. No society can be totally free. That situation of total freedom becomes "survival of the fittest" and the "law of the jungle." You need limits on freedom so that you CAN progress and improve without fear of your surroundings.

We speak of the duality of freedom. For every privilege there is a responsibility (to not abuse the privilege). For every right there is an obligation (to recognize the rights of others around you.) The BLM movement is highlighting an imbalance in that duality, and that is good. In their anger they will probably try to take it too far and that is bad.

 

[deletedT]

@The_Doc_Man
Well explained. Your #251 post shocked me, mostly because I didn't expect it from a man of logic like you.
But your post above gave me a better image of your circumstances. Sorry for judging too soon and not looking for what you really meant.

 

[Isaac]

@Isaac Many thanks for your sincere and direct answer to my questions and staying away of trying to explain your points based on political parties.

Just to clear it again, By police brutality I didn't mean against blacks. I've seen a lot of clips on Instagram/Tweeter when the suspect was white.
You answered all my questions and cleared all other questions I had and didn't ask.

You may not believe me, but everybody here (News, TV programs, people I know, etc) is praying for your people and country to find a solution out of current situation and having a peaceful life.

Thanks, Tera. I heartily agree. And I knew you weren't referring to the racial aspect of it. I just added it in. I truly wish we in the US could come to an agreement to move forward on the issue without being forced to agree to a premise foundation of race issues mixed in - it would be nice if we could just solve the problem as is, and I hope we get better on this issue.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@Tera - yes, I was a bit brief on #251, because I was focused on the specific question. But your comments made me realize that part of this might be a "cultural divide" issue. I respect you too much to let you misunderstand my comments. I must admit that sometimes I can be a bit terse and leave some things unsaid that probably should have been said. The reverse is also true for me. I'm not necessarily a callous person, but "on the mind, on the lips" is sometimes accurate for me.

@Isaac - There is no audio track on that video. We can't hear whether the police were giving commands that he was ignoring. We can't hear whether he was verbally responding, ignoring, or abusing the officers. You said "and then he was shot multiple times even after he was down." Absolutely true, but being down doesn't mean being compliant with the orders of the police. We would need a bit more analysis and a bit more information to understand that situation fully. With subsequent information, my opinion might well change, but from that video plus the facts written by the reporter, we cannot know how compliant he was.

 

[AccessBlaster]

It's easy it you come from a homogeneous society, that has a group mentality. Japan is 98.1% Japanese, zero diversity.

If our county consisted of Idaho we would have very little issues either.

You have has 15 million years to become more diverse but choose not to. USA on the other hand has been running this social experiment for less than 300 hundred years. We are not perfect. No one is.

 

[Steve R.]

It's easy it you come from a homogeneous society, that has a group mentality. Japan is 98.1% Japanese, zero diversity.

If our county consisted of Idaho we would have very little issues either.

You have has 15 million years to become more diverse but choose not to. USA on the other hand has been running this social experiment for less than 300 hundred years. We are not perfect. No one is.

The concept of "diversity" sounds great. Everyone having harmonious relationships without prejudice. A utopian society. No one in their rational mind could ever possibly be against it.

Regretfully, the very naked brutal reality is quite different. The civil rights movement, as one example of many, where the utopian ideals of the that movement have metastasized to become "cancerous". Martin Luther King made the very eloquent universal appeal (paraphrased) "I look forward to the day that people will be judged not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character." Today, instead promoting integration without to regard to the color of one's skin, we are seeing the re-emergence of segregation based on the color of one's skin. (Black only graduation ceremonies as one example of counter diversity.) Unbelievably, by those who still seem think they are working towards civil rights.

Diversity today has morphed into "identity politics". "Because of my oppressed minority status, I'm entitled ... Society owes me ...." To paraphrase Orwell, "we are all equal, but some are more equal than others." Another term that has been used recognizing the eventual demise of "diversity" is "Balkanization". Diversity, as a concept mandated by forced government action, is failing.

 

[Isaac]

@Tera - yes, I was a bit brief on #251, because I was focused on the specific question. But your comments made me realize that part of this might be a "cultural divide" issue. I respect you too much to let you misunderstand my comments. I must admit that sometimes I can be a bit terse and leave some things unsaid that probably should have been said. The reverse is also true for me. I'm not necessarily a callous person, but "on the mind, on the lips" is sometimes accurate for me.

@Isaac - There is no audio track on that video. We can't hear whether the police were giving commands that he was ignoring. We can't hear whether he was verbally responding, ignoring, or abusing the officers. You said "and then he was shot multiple times even after he was down." Absolutely true, but being down doesn't mean being compliant with the orders of the police. We would need a bit more analysis and a bit more information to understand that situation fully. With subsequent information, my opinion might well change, but from that video plus the facts written by the reporter, we cannot know how compliant he was.

well I will respectfully disagree with you on that. I actually heard an audio track fairly clearly although I'll admit I couldn't make out every word that the police officer was saying by any means. I guess you have a point, I can't hear for sure whether the police officers had told him to get down on the ground or not. I thought they just told him to raise his hands.