A culture of foolishness is clearly thriving in Atlanta City Council (White: 2013, office)

[Tryska]

SO here's a question for those advocating the "you should run" position.


If you get stopped by the cops, do you, yourself, intend to run and let the police give chase? Why or why not?

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Sigh, you're just being defensive.

You're kinda full of yourself.

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by Tryska

It's not justifying. It's actually acknowledging reality.

You make someone whose job requires a gun to control the peace more difficult, you are entirely liable to get shot. It is what it is. You can whine all day long that they shouldn't be shooting people, but that doesn't change the reality that they ARE shooting people, and justify shooting people because those people didn't follow orders. And the powers that be tend to be unsympathetic to the person not following orders when there is a gun pulled on them.

Ok I think we've found the source of the confusion. You appear to believe that police are allowed to shoot anyone who doesn't follow their orders, or anyone who runs away from them. There is no justification under the law for a police officer to shoot someone who is fleeing. If you can't wrap your head around that this conversation is truly pointless.

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by Tryska

SO here's a question for those advocating the "you should run" position.


If you get stopped by the cops, do you, yourself, intend to run and let the police give chase? Why or why not?

I'm honestly not sure if you're a troll, or just choosing not to read—we already established that this isn't about whether people should run, but whether they should be able to do so without being shot dead by a cop.

The cops are allowed to chase you and arrest you if they catch you. They aren't allowed to kill you for running away from them. No matter how much some people may wish it were so.

[Tryska]

I think the miscommunication is a clash between idealism and reality.

Whether police should be allowed to shoot people or are justified in shooting people is a lofty ethics conversation
Best suited to the comfy confines of a classroom somewhere.

The reality and the crisis is that the police ARE shooting people in the here and now. How does one mitigate that risk? Occam's razor, and the advice that my doctor often gives me, is quite simple: " oh, it hurts when you do that? Stop doing it."

Understanding the laws in this Country and the number of jurisdictions involved, fighting about whether cops can do this that or the other is one that won't get sorted put for years, if not decades. It has zero affect on what is happening here and now.

However, building your case in the here and now, by complying and then proving that yes, police brutality exists no matter what you do, addresses both the immediate concern by lowering shooting incidents and the longer term ethics dilemma by providing ample time and data to prove the case.

[bhammaster]

Originally Posted by Tryska

I think the miscommunication is a clash between idealism and reality.

Whether police should be allowed to shoot people or are justified in shooting people is a lofty ethics conversation
Best suited to the comfy confines of a classroom somewhere.

The reality and the crisis is that the police ARE shooting people in the here and now. How does one mitigate that risk? Occam's razor, and the advice that my doctor often gives me, is quite simple: " oh, it hurts when you do that? Stop doing it."

Understanding the laws in this Country and the number of jurisdictions involved, fighting about whether cops can do this that or the other is one that won't get sorted put for years, if not decades. It has zero affect on what is happening here and now.

However, building your case in the here and now, by complying and then proving that yes, police brutality exists no matter what you do, addresses both the immediate concern by lowering shooting incidents and the longer term ethics dilemma by providing ample time and data to prove the case.

This case has already been proven. Eric Garner did not and Oscar Grant did not run. So what now? What do you propose now?

[Tryska]

Originally Posted by bhammaster

This case has already been proven. Eric Garner did not and Oscar Grant did not run. So what now? What do you propose now?

Then you take it Baltimore PD and BART PD.

Y'all seem to think Jurisdiction doesn't matter. Per our Constitution, it very much matters.

You can't take one off cases and make the point for Federal anything. You can do it on the local jurisdiction level with each PD, but it is very difficult to make any sort of legislation on a State level or a Federal level, without getting into the sticky issues of jurisdiction and even state's rights.

Actually Keisha Lance Bottoms statement now make perfect sense. She knows it's all jurisdictional. That is nothing but politician speak for not doing anything, while talking like you mean for something to happen.

But all she did was turn the call of action on the kids getting shot, to get shot some more.

Again, you have to prove ACROSS the US, that even when young black men comply the majority of the time, they experience police brutality. Anecdotal one off cases isn't going to cut it. You need to prove it over and over again, with data, with evidence, for this to become something that nationally is part of police process.

There are attorneys that will help. There are politicians that will help. There are prosecutors and judges that will help. Hell there are cops that will help.


But you can't just take localized incidents and use that as your evidence. You have to PROVE it is a systemic issue, easily applying to black men everywhere, in every jurisdiction. (do I think that's possible? yeah. I don't deny that there is unfair treatment at all towards men of color - but again you need to prove it to the ruling elite - and that only happens when there is undeniable data).


And you can't prove that successfully if black men are behaving in such a way that they can be held culpable for the outcomes of their actions, because then, again, with the ruling elite "they brought it on themselves".

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp.

I also see no one has answered the question as to whether they would run, if stopped.

I suspect, black or white, in this forum, that answer would be no, because in your heart, you know, whether it's right or wrong, you personally increase your risk of getting shot, black, white, male, female or indifferent. If that is the case for you, why would you advocate using young black men as cannon fodder to prove your do-nothing, resolve-nothing point?

[AcidSnake]

This thread has "Appeal to Authority" fallacy written all over it.

And you are the skeptical of government "Libertarian", right? As in someone who supposedly subscribes to the notion of less-government intrusion into private lives "Libertarian"?

Wooooooow......

Stuff like this is why I put those who subscribe to the "Libertarian" ideology in the side-eye box everytime. Especially those who live in the deep-south.

This posting smells too much like "obey authority at all times". Regardless of whether or not that authority is in the right.

Regardless of the rationale of people who chose to run from the cops, it should never end in their deaths if they are not posing a threat of harm or bodily injury. At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility rests with those who represent the power of the state.

And again, aren't you a "Libertarian"? The so-called freedom loving "Libertarian"?

I think you need a "Come to Jesus" moment with yourself to reconcile this obvious contradiction. If you are intellectually honest enough with yourself and the Libertarian ideology you claim to support, that is.

Originally Posted by tikigod311

I really don't have to say any more. But I will...

This person is promoting a culture and idea that is toxic. An idea that gets people hurt, killed, or given a criminal record. What's next Ms. Bottoms? Are you going to come out with an anti-snitching platform?

The mayor needs to come out and scold her for this and re-engage the campaign to stop running from the cops. Too many (not most!) of South Atlanta's residents are stuck in a backwards, archaic culture and she just seems to want to perpetuate it. Defense of the criminal culture from the Ms. Bottoms is completely indefensible.


Atlanta review board to suspend its

[magnetar]

Originally Posted by Tryska

I think the miscommunication is a clash between idealism and reality.

Whether police should be allowed to shoot people or are justified in shooting people is a lofty ethics conversation
Best suited to the comfy confines of a classroom somewhere.

Ahhhahaha NO it is not a lofty ethics conversation it is a simple matter of law that has been decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe you didn't know about this though? This is what Councilwoman Bottoms is referring to when she mentioned a right to run.

I'm done

[Tryska]

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[SIZE=2][1][/SIZE], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Note the escape clause in bold. This is why so many cases do not wind up with the Cop being at fault. This is what needs to be resolved. And this is why I keep saying what I say, about not fleeing and collecting data, over and over and over again.


You can tilt and windmills if you want to, but don't expect different results.