Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are wrong as it's going to be a citizens issue after all the lawsuits are filed. Luckily the district attorney has no influence over them..
I'm not wrong. It is an internal police issue. It can also become a civil court issue through lawsuits. That is still not a criminal issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
You don't have a problem with it and its implications or you would have addressed my point..
I did address your point. I don't like two sets of rules. It can be the case that a person doesn't like the existence of "two sets of rules" and still not see a specific case as an example of such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
We all saw the video.
Exactly. I saw it too and if you understanding chokeholds, or choking in general, the video is proof that he wasn't being choked.
All I can add is maybe you should turn on a light and not worry about the bogeyman in the closet and consider the actual threat a little more seriously.
All the slaveowners have been dead a very long time.
Oh...wow....you mean this is not the 1870's.....I thought slave owners were still alive because everything I have said thus far is predicated upon this being 1870.
Again, I am not worried about some bogeyman in the closet. What I am talking about is cause and effect as it relates to HUMAN NATURE. If you oppress people for centuries, HUMAN NATURE will create a reaction to that.....some might call it the "blame game", the "victim syndrome", the "race card"......the "bogeyman in the closet" or whatever. What it is is cause and effect. What it is is actions producing a reaction. What it is is human nature.
I think black people have a keen insight into what is racist and what is not and what the patterns are because we have lived with it for so long. We know that people of any group can be made to be complicit in the oppression of that group.
I was just listening to a radio show on XM radio where they had current and former black police officers from NYC on the show. There was a lady officer who remained anonymous who said that she went along with the obvious racism of some of the white police officers because she was dependent upon them having her back. She said that she feared speaking out against them and their even racist statement they made about blacks while in her company, because she needed them to have her back on the streets. So she said she went along just to get along. So the fact that a black person may be acting in concert with oppressive or racist policies does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the implementation of the policy is not racist.
All I can add is maybe you should turn on a light and not worry about the bogeyman in the closet and consider the actual threat a little more seriously.
All the slaveowners have been dead a very long time.
Oh...wow....you mean this is not the 1870's.....I thought slave owners were still alive because everything I have said thus far is predicted upon this being 1870.
Again, I am not worried about some bogeyman in the closet. What I am talking about is cause and effect as it related to HUMAN NATURE. If you oppress people for centuries, HUMAN NATURE will create a reaction to that.....some might call it the "blame game", the "victim syndrome", the "race card"......the "bogeyman in the closet" or whatever. What it is is cause and effect. What it is is actions producing a reaction. What it is is human nature.
I think black people have a keen insight into what is racist and what is not and what the patterns are because we have lived with it for so long. We know that people of any group can be made to be complicit in the oppression of that group.
I was just listening to a radio show on XM radio where they had black police officers from NYC on the show. There was a lady officer who remained anonymous who said that she went along with the obvious racism of some of the white police officers because she was dependent upon them having her back. She said that she feared speaking out against them and their even racist statement they made about blacks while in her company, because she needed them to have her back on the streets. So she said she went along just to get along. So the fact that a black person may be acting in concert with oppressive or racist policies does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the implementation of the policy is not racist.
I'm not wrong. It is an internal police issue. It can also become a civil court issue through lawsuits. That is still not a criminal issue.
So you admit it will be more than an internal issue but I'm wrong for pointing out its not just an internal issue. That's not even mentioning the problems associated with the protests.
Quote:
I did address your point. I don't like two sets of rules. It can be the case that a person doesn't like the existence of "two sets of rules" and still not see a specific case as an example of such.
I cited an example. You didn't address it. Why not?
Quote:
Exactly. I saw it too and if you understanding chokeholds, or choking in general, the video is proof that he wasn't being choked.
You might try watching it next time with your eyes open.
Oh...wow....you mean this is not the 1870's.....I thought slave owners were still alive because everything I have said thus far is predicated upon this being 1870.
Again, I am not worried about some bogeyman in the closet. What I am talking about is cause and effect as it relates to HUMAN NATURE. If you oppress people for centuries, HUMAN NATURE will create a reaction to that.....some might call it the "blame game", the "victim syndrome", the "race card"......the "bogeyman in the closet" or whatever. What it is is cause and effect. What it is is actions producing a reaction. What it is is human nature.
I noted where I agree that this happens. It happens though because the government.
Quote:
I think black people have a keen insight into what is racist and what is not and what the patterns are because we have lived with it for so long. We know that people of any group can be made to be complicit in the oppression of that group.
I note that stop and frisk is clearly a racist policy and I despise it but it is a policy created by both blacks and whites.
Quote:
I was just listening to a radio show on XM radio where they had current and former black police officers from NYC on the show. There was a lady officer who remained anonymous who said that she went along with the obvious racism of some of the white police officers because she was dependent upon them having her back. She said that she feared speaking out against them and their even racist statement they made about blacks while in her company, because she needed them to have her back on the streets. So she said she went along just to get along. So the fact that a black person may be acting in concert with oppressive or racist policies does not, in and of itself, demonstrate that the implementation of the policy is not racist.
As long as you make excuses nothing changes. What do you do when its a black officer stopping you?
I noted where I agree that this happens. It happens though because the government.
I note that stop and frisk is clearly a racist policy and I despise it but it is a policy created by both blacks and whites.
As long as you make excuses nothing changes. What do you do when its a black officer stopping you?
The same thing they do in Jamaica. Look....black people as a group have NEVER blamed ALL white people. Why you are so hell bent on this ideal that blacks are not sophisticated enough to talk about racism without condemning ALL white people is YOUR personal problem.
So you admit it will be more than an internal issue but I'm wrong for pointing out its not just an internal issue. That's not even mentioning the problems associated with the protests..
Let me try to be clear. The use of a chokehold is not against the law, thus not a criminal issue. A chokehold can be against policy, making it an internal policy point. It may then be brought to civil court for a claim of damages. That does not make it a criminal issue, but a case of civil responsibility. I'm not sure how you would stretch it to make them responsible for the protests if that's what you mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I cited an example. You didn't address it. Why not?.
I did address it, but you seem to have not understood. I'm not sure what you're looking for, perhaps you could state your question again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
You might try watching it next time with your eyes open.
My eyes were open, but it was my ears that told me he wasn't being choked.
The same thing they do in Jamaica. Look....black people as a group have NEVER blamed ALL white people. Why you are so hell bent on this ideal that blacks are not sophisticated enough to talk about racism without condemning ALL white people is YOUR personal problem.
Right....its the system and the system knows no color, just more control over everyone.
Let me try to be clear. The use of a chokehold is not against the law, thus not a criminal issue. A chokehold can be against policy, making it an internal policy point. It may then be brought to civil court for a claim of damages. That does not make it a criminal issue, but a case of civil responsibility. I'm not sure how you would stretch it to make them responsible for the protests if that's what you mean.
No chokehold, no death, no protests.
Quote:
I did address it, but you seem to have not understood. I'm not sure what you're looking for, perhaps you could state your question again.
How do you justify allowing those who broke the laws on Wall Street go Scott free but go across town and arrest someone for selling single cigarettes?
Quote:
My eyes were open, but it was my ears that told me he wasn't being choked.
Thats been covered many times. Just because he didn't completely throttle him doesn't mean he wasn't being choked.
How do you justify allowing those who broke the laws on Wall Street go Scott free but go across town and arrest someone for selling single cigarettes?.
Apparently, you didn't read what I said or didn't understand it. I never justified any such thing. Secondly, those are different law enforcement agencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Thats been covered many times. Just because he didn't completely throttle him doesn't mean he wasn't being choked.
Choked means you aren't able to breathe because your airway is restricted. Someone in that position, particularly to the point of being fatal, is not able to repeatedly speak in complete sentences. That's why a person choking on food puts their hands up to their neck as a signal, they can't say, "I have steak stuck in my throat."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
