Nobody has anything to say about Jamar Clark? (Minneapolis: legal, bus)

[Steve Bowen]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

This is one topic where I kind of miss a moderator like Golf Gal or whatever her name was. She would have quickly recognized this thread for what it is, race trolling rubbish, and would have shut it down.

I disagree. I think this is a legitimate thread topic, posted without the kind of slanted, inflammatory preamble that typically denotes a troll post. And I'm glad it wasn't shut down, as this ended up being as reasonable of a discussion as is probably possible on City-Data, given the polarizing topic.

If you don't want to read a thread about this subject, don't read it. There's no reason to preclude such a discussion by shutting the thread down. I think you're more interested in censoring opinions that you disagree with, or subjects that make you uncomfortable than preventing trolling, as this forum is filled with pointless threads much worse than this one.

[LeaveWI]

I wasn't there, so I can't judge. I wonder though, if it was me that was shot by the cop, how many protests would there be?? Doesn;t MY life matter too?? I guess living in OZ the past 3 years has insulated me from america's racism and double standards

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by fmedges

You have to look at the definition of lethal force. If you believe that your life or someone else's in in danger than you need to respond with lethal force. Anything less wouldn't warrant using lethal force. It's an all or nothing. Can you imagine someone only being dangerous for a leg wound or an arm wound. As for this case. If Jamar did go for an officers gun than of course it is a use deadly force type of situation. If you were to believe the protestors side of things you would have to assume that these police officers wanted to get caught. Handcuffing and then shooting someone in the street or whatever the story has morphed into now would be foolish from their stand point. Why not take him away and if they really wanted to do him harm, do it then. Why would you possibly do it in the middle of a neighborhood? For the people claiming that nobody deserves to be shot in the head at close range I would say that the situation dictates what happens. If someone was attacking myself or my family with what I assumed deadly force than I honestly don't care if they get shot 10 feet or one inch from whatever part of the body that would stop their actions. Distances close very quickly in altercations. I can tell you that I have been stopped by police before and I have had a firearm on me and I didn't have any type or problem. I spent sometime in the back of a police car as a high-schooler and again as a mis-identified person walking across a mall parking lot one day. I was never in danger or being shot, because I complied with the officers. You cannot discount someones history and say well that doesn't matter in this case. Nobody would want a convicted child molester living next to a school bus pick up. You could say well their past doesn't matter, but I would argue that it does. I would argue that all lives matter, not just black ones, but honestly if you are doing criminal activities and bad things happen to you than maybe your life choices weren't all that great.

Wasn't he shot in the back of the head though? It's very hard to justify using "lethal force" when the assailant isn't even facing you (and is handcuffed?!). I think that's the primary issue with this particular police shooting that people are up in arms about -- including me, if it's true. That all being said, it is VERY hard to dispute the facts of this tragedy because NOBODY here has all of the facts, and until we do all we can do is speculate.

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by LeaveWI

I wasn't there, so I can't judge. I wonder though, if it was me that was shot by the cop, how many protests would there be?? Doesn;t MY life matter too?? I guess living in OZ the past 3 years has insulated me from america's racism and double standards

I would hope this would be a major issue, no matter who the victim was. I honestly think it would be, too.

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus

Wasn't he shot in the back of the head though? It's very hard to justify using "lethal force" when the assailant isn't even facing you (and is handcuffed?!). I think that's the primary issue with this particular police shooting that people are up in arms about -- including me, if it's true. That all being said, it is VERY hard to dispute the facts of this tragedy because NOBODY here has all of the facts, and until we do all we can do is speculate.

Who specifically is saying he was shot in the back of the head, or that he was handcuffed? Are there any credible sources or did we just hear a rumor and accept it as true? Remember "Hand's up, don't shoot"?

The internet is amazing at perpetuating unfounded rumors. The story goes that the cops handcuffed this guy, laid him on his stomach and executed him, on camera, in front of several EMS workers, the guy's girlfriend and another eye witness? I'll bet you anything that's not what happened.

[Mason3000]

Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus

I would hope this would be a major issue, no matter who the victim was. I honestly think it would be, too.

No chance. There have been plenty of unarmed White men shot & killed by police over the past year, including several where Black cops killed unarmed Whites. The fact that you haven't heard about these cases, that tells you all you need to know about the agenda.

[Steve Bowen]

Originally Posted by Mason3000

No chance. There have been plenty of unarmed White men shot & killed by police over the past year, including several where Black cops killed unarmed Whites. The fact that you haven't heard about these cases, that tells you all you need to know about the agenda.

Can you supply any links about these shootings? I'd like to know more.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Steve Bowen

Can you supply any links about these shootings? I'd like to know more.

Here's one from page one of a Google search. Since you were unable to locate it on your own, I doubt that you would really "like to know more," but I'm attaching the link anyway.
Why isn't the media covering the killing of an unarmed white youth by a black police officer?
To me, the bigger question is why the selective outrage over these few incidents where police are the ones doing the killing? 440 people killed in Chicago this year, mostly black victim by black perpetrators. One half of all unborn black babies in New York City are aborted, a true case of genocide. Where is the outrage for these injustices?

[Stanton1433]

Originally Posted by MidwestRedux

BLM is a joke. They're a bunch of whiny narcissists that couldn't articulate the point of their existence if George Soros paid them to.

I would love to support a group that truly valued the lives of any vulnerable population. BLM does nothing of the sort. Never mind that they disregard black lives that are lost in fires and to gang wars. If they really cared about black lives, they would tell young black men to not fight with the police.

Again, we don't have any of the facts in this particular case and neither does BLM. Does anyone remember the witness accounts in the Michael Brown case? That's pretty much where this all started.

What's more disturbing than the group's existence is the eagerness of people to embrace it...

Amen

[Indentured Servant]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Here's one from page one of a Google search. Since you were unable to locate it on your own, I doubt that you would really "like to know more," but I'm attaching the link anyway.
Why isn't the media covering the killing of an unarmed white youth by a black police officer?
To me, the bigger question is why the selective outrage over these few incidents where police are the ones doing the killing? 440 people killed in Chicago this year, mostly black victim by black perpetrators. One half of all unborn black babies in New York City are aborted, a true case of genocide. Where is the outrage for these injustices?

For well over 300 years, whites have been the primary source of black socioeconomic dysfunction in America, relative to whites, less one assumes black racial inferiority is the primary source. Hence, assuming the former, what makes whites feel this is no longer true today, given the pattern that whites only accept their wrongs when they are past tense? In other words, whites can and have seen past generations of whites as being “wrong” in what they did, but those doing the wrong did not think they were wrong in real-time. Hence, it will take two future generations of whites before whites can and will see whites of today….for who and what they really are. Not until 2065 will the attitudes and beliefs of today’s whites finally become recognized in the way that blacks of today see and recognize them. The reason that black and whites don't see things the same is because blacks are dealing in real-time while white are on delayed time.

Example: MLK Jr was hated by whites when he was alive.....but today is respected and quoted by whites, while those alive today who continue the work of MLK JR are despised and hated by whites of today and given disparaging labels.

In short: Blacks see and FEEL your wrong REAL TIME and after the fact (its legacy) while white recognition of wrongs is on DELAY (for at least two generations....so that they will have to assume no responsible or make any changes).

Disclaimer: “whites” is a general reference. What is true for the whole is not necessarily true of its parts and what is true of the parts are not necessarily true for the whole. Fallacy of division and composition is not at play.