If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

Our argument was concerning something very specific: whether or not a human being would be in control of his/her limbs during a violent altercation.

Sterling was thrown to the ground and then tased... tased. Why should he be in control of his limbs if he's actively being electrocuted? Why shouldn't a police officer think about this?

Seems to me as though these cops expected an inhuman amount of self-control from a likely terrified, partially incapacitated, and physically electrocuted person.

It has nothing to do with "racebaiting" at this point - I'm just not convinced these cops acted rationally or professionally.

Tasers are often used to stun ("stun gun"), something that reduces mobility of limbs. If you're ever seen a video of a person being stunned while standing, they generally fall to the ground rigidly, they don't just spasm out of control like they were on an electric chair. I'm pretty sure he was not actively being stunned while on the ground, from what I can see of the hands of the cops. The video taken from inside the car shows that they tased him twice, and when it didn't incapacitate him, they threw him to the ground.

 

[Einherjar86]

So because their tasers didn't work, they took more drastic action, further increasing the chances of drastic action on his part. I see.

Here's my issue: throughout all of this, you're both still giving more credit to the officers, when the possibility of error and/or misjudgment falls as much on their side as it does on Sterling's. The problem I'm having lies in squaring your criticism of police brutality with your eagerness to condemn a black man's actions.

I'm sure you perceive your stance as rational and distanced, but it's no less irrational than mine or anyone else's. You're simply choosing to place the benefit of the doubt on the side of law enforcement. Which is somewhat odd, when I think you've both questioned police behavior in the past.

You may be right that blacks have a greater burden on them to act in accordance with the law; but this is a collective burden, and unfortunately it will demand sacrifice from individual blacks. In other words, even if every black person started obeying the law at this very instant, the impression (i.e. stereotype) they suffer throughout law enforcement, and the rest of society, will endure for at least a brief period. During this brief period, it's entirely plausible that individual, law-abiding blacks will suffer at the hands of overeager, presumptuous police officers.

In this situation, a law-abiding black person might fear for his life at the hands of cops taking over-determined measures to arrest and/or detain him. Is it unrealistic, or irresponsible, given this information, to fight back?

Dak, you're always promoting survival instincts. I understand the survival-value in obeying police instructions; but when you fear for your life whether or not you obey those instructions, then what is the proper survival strategy?

 

[Dak]

So because their tasers didn't work, they took more drastic action, further increasing the chances of drastic action on his part. I see.

Here's my issue: throughout all of this, you're both still giving more credit to the officers, when the possibility of error and/or misjudgment falls as much on their side as it does on Sterling's. The problem I'm having lies in squaring your criticism of police brutality with your eagerness to condemn a black man's actions.

I'm sure you perceive your stance as rational and distanced, but it's no less irrational than mine or anyone else's. You're simply choosing to place the benefit of the doubt on the side of law enforcement. Which is somewhat odd, when I think you've both questioned police behavior in the past.

You may be right that blacks have a greater burden on them to act in accordance with the law; but this is a collective burden, and unfortunately it will demand sacrifice from individual blacks. In other words, even if every black person started obeying the law at this very instant, the impression (i.e. stereotype) they suffer throughout law enforcement, and the rest of society, will endure for at least a brief period. During this brief period, it's entirely plausible that individual, law-abiding blacks will suffer at the hands of overeager, presumptuous police officers.

If Sterling were some average person, merely minding his own business, and the cops jumped him with no reason, and he was unarmed or legally armed, you'd have a case here. This isn't remotely the case.

In this situation, a law-abiding black person might fear for his life at the hands of cops taking over-determined measures to arrest and/or detain him. Is it unrealistic, or irresponsible, given this information, to fight back?

Dak, you're always promoting survival instincts. I understand the survival-value in obeying police instructions; but when you fear for your life whether or not you obey those instructions, then what is the proper survival strategy?

There's no rational survival strategy in not complying. You would obviously instinctly fight back if taken by surprise or being surprised at the escalation of physical restraint - which may be natural but the response for the officer to shoot in response to an armed resistance is also natural if we are appealing to instincts.

 

[Einherjar86]

If Sterling were some average person, merely minding his own business, and the cops jumped him with no reason, and he was unarmed or legally armed, you'd have a case here. This isn't remotely the case.

I'm not even talking about the case at hand. I'm posing a thought experiment: if all black people started obeying the law, their unfortunate stereotypes would still exist.

That being the case, how do we expect a black suspect - any black suspect - to act rationally when accosted by the police?

You might be right that the details in this case happen to be on the side of the police. I'm saying that even if black all black suspects were innocent, your argument still exonerates the police of responsibility.

There's no rational survival strategy in not complying.

There is if compliance doesn't mean jack shit.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The guy had been reported for brandishing a weapon. That's illegal and has deadly implications. What in the fuck is an officer supposed to do if not use force when he refuses to come peacefully? Keep asking politely? The piece of shit already had a record of resisting arrest, he wasn't a law-abiding citizen.

The chances of actually being killed by a cop while black is still rare. ~200 deaths a year, compared to what I'll assume are at least tens of thousands of arrests per year. If black people seriously think "Oh shit I might die here, time to defend myself with lethal force" every time they get arrested, they're stupid as fuck and causing their own misery.

EDIT: Doing some quick math, looks like 1.5 million black people are arrested every year. When you consider that many people shot by cops are actively using deadly weapons, the rate drops even more. Granted, police brutality can and will happen, and it's fucked up when a guy gets pummeled for a minute simply for fleeing, but that's what lawsuits are for. fwiw I think Indiana recently passed a law saying that private citizens have a legal right to self-defense when police officers are acting unlawfully. If a black guy shoots cops that are clearly in the wrong (whether a bad no-knock warrant, poor profiling, officer just having a bad day, whatever) and is killed as a result, I'm all for charging those cops with murder. But those cases are still relatively rare, and with advancements in technology (camera phones), it's now possible for cops to be proven as murderers and charged accordingly (like the guy in South Carolina that shot a black man in the back and then planted his taser on him).

 

[Einherjar86]

The guy had been reported for brandishing a weapon. That's illegal and has deadly implications. What in the fuck is an officer supposed to do if not use force when he refuses to come peacefully? Keep asking politely? The piece of shit already had a record of resisting arrest, he wasn't a law-abiding citizen.

If this pertained to my comment above, I'd respond. But it doesn't, so I won't.

You have a remarkable talent for repetition though. I mean, if I didn't know the guy was brandishing a weapon, boy do I know it now.

The chances of actually being killed by a cop while black is still rare. ~200 deaths a year, compared to what I'll assume are at least tens of thousands of arrests per year. If black people seriously think "Oh shit I might die here, time to defend myself with lethal force" every time they get arrested, they're stupid as fuck and causing their own misery.

Black people fearing for their lives around cops in this country is "stupid as fuck." But comments like this will help. Real contribution to society there.

Sorry guys, all I have left is sarcasm.

 

[Dak]

I'm not even talking about the case at hand. I'm posing a thought experiment: if all black people started obeying the law, their unfortunate stereotypes would still exist.

That being the case, how do we expect a black suspect - any black suspect - to act rationally when accosted by the police?

You might be right that the details in this case happen to be on the side of the police. I'm saying that even if black all black suspects were innocent, your argument still exonerates the police of responsibility.

There is if compliance doesn't mean jack shit.

I think that if starting tomorrow, every single black American were to align themselves with the laws of the land (to include various vehicle repairs, and I'm obviously not trying to argue for the virtue in all those laws), but without any sort of public front/media coverage, you'd see a handful of unfortunate situations in the next ~3 years. But this is almost akin to a thought experiment regarding everyone suddenly stopping smoking(except less likely and less deadly as well). There will be repercussions for past behaviors for some even when everyone stops at the same time and even potentially for some who never smoked.

It takes time for stereotypes to develop (and again, stereotypes are scientifically upheld moreso than anything else in the social sciences), and it would also take time for them to change. If we take the budding genetic science at face value, we have to assume that black Americans (the YBM (young black males) at a minimum) are behind a genetic 8ball when it comes to following the laws we would generally consider backed by ethical reason. This is, at a minimum, an argument against forced diversity. No liberal would even consider the maximum arguments.

I've stated more than once that I'm more in contact with black American elements than possibly anyone on this board. I live on a street primarily black, and a neighborhood that is a primarily a mix of low income blacks and college students (mostly white). I have recently had two black children coming over to play with my kids/hang out. The younger one (6) has already tried stealing stuff from my kids. The older one (12) has mostly been talking to my wife and I about how frustrated he is with his biological dad (stereotypical black deadbeat dad) and how his younger brother is taking after him, and how his mom still fronts the deadbeat guy money, while his stepdad works his ass off etc, and how he's trying to be like his stepdad etc. The kid is managing a veritable zoo of various pet animals + having to watch his younger brother as the mother works an hour away and the stepfather works a state away. I know it sounds so neatly anecdotal but "it is what it is". There's a genetic component, and it wouldn't take too much for the older brother to eventually get caught up in some trouble or hurt due to the genetics at play in the father or brother. I would be asking why the mother spread her legs to such a degenerate/still helps him on top of it but thank god for feminism.

I think the biggest mistakes that people removed from the sort of Sterling situations make is putting their generally law abiding, non-aggressive, relatively intelligent selves into his shoes and then becoming horrified. The dude was a large, aggressive, repeatedly illegally armed/illegally behaving dangerous menace.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So because their tasers didn't work, they took more drastic action, further increasing the chances of drastic action on his part. I see.

What does "drastic action" mean? How is using physical force to restrain and arrest a man with a gun accused of brandishing "drastic action"?

Black people fearing for their lives around cops in this country is "stupid as fuck." But comments like this will help. Real contribution to society there.

Yeah, they're stupid as fuck. The odds are roughly 1 in 10000 of being shot by a cop while being arrested if you're black. If a 1 in 10000 risk is sufficient for you to believe that it merits deadly force, then do you therefore believe that a cop's chances of being shot by a struggling armed suspect are even lower in order to believe they weren't justified in shooting Alton?

You like to masturbate a lot over theories and alternatives but you seem to have an aversion to numbers and application.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I have an aversion to narrow interpretations of numbers.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Great counter-argument bro. If the rate at which blacks are shot during arrests isn't relevant in your view to blacks feeling a need to shoot cops out of fear and self-defense, then what do you propose are the relevant factors?

 

[Funerary_Doom]

I can agree with that, he was a piece of shit. He probably would be considered a "thug" if he was more "street" in appearance, which is what people basically mean when they say "thug" and that's why wealthier middle-upper class black criminals aren't called "thugs" I guess. Unless anybody has examples to the contrary.

If we deem Zimmerman to be a threat though, are we racist?

That term just rubs me the wrong way. I've never heard nonblack people being referred to as thugs before, and I've heard blacks who don't even fit the bill being referred to as thugs. It has a double meaning, tbh, and since it's the internet I cannot differentiate how it is being used through intonation/voice so my mind automatically just jumps to conclusions because why else would you call a older black male selling cds a thug? It's an assumption, and one that is quite degrading when used the wrong way. It's like code for the n word. I doubt Sterling was a thug in a gang. He was just some dude trying to make money off bootleg cds. Why aren't the Chinese that sell you the same thing considered thugs then?

Also, Zimmerman is a threat because he murdered someone, got away with it, and continues to stir up trouble/throw salt in the wound. Has nothing to do with his race but with his actions.

@Dak
The selling of the gun is a prime example that Zimmerman is not right in his head. I realize the law is very specific in terms of what is considered murder. However, the fact that he is making money off that child's death is weird and has me questioning his mental state overall.

@HamburgerBoy
It seems to me that you've already made up your mind what kind of person Travyon Martin was, so there's no use arguing with you. Getting into a fight with someone and then suddenly someone is dead (due to the other person breaking the law as well) should warrant accountability. I don't understand why you think Zimmerman had the right to kill him, but Martin had no right to defend himself when he saw he was being followed and probably taunted.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Zimmerman did not break the law by following him. He trespassed on no property, and did not even get close enough to speak to Martin. If you're referring to the 911 responders telling him to stay in his car, that isn't any kind of legal order, it's just a suggestion. It wasn't a fight afaik; the fact that Martin initiated it is unquestionable based on his girlfriend's testimony, therefore meaning it wasn't a matter of defense, and iirc he had no bruises or any kind of injury other than the single gunshot wound in his chest (at point blank). Even if Zimmerman cat-called him and said "Yeah, go on home boy" it wouldn't justify hitting him, and by all records, there was no intentional taunting that went down. Martin returned to his house, was upset simply that he had been watched at all, and then said he was going to teach Zimmerman a lesson. Believe it or not, part of being a neighborhood watchman is that you watch people. I guess every security guard in a store deserves a sucker punch if they watch or follow people a bit too much? I don't deny that Zimmerman at the very least had a few screws come loose over the course of the trial based on what he has done since then, but even crazies have a right to self-defense.

 

[Funerary_Doom]

First off, the neighborhood watch isn't suppose to follow people. You can't compare being in a store to being outside on public property.

I'm not claiming Martin to be innocent in his actions either. However, just because Zimmerman didnt have obvious wounds doesnt mean he did not provoke an altercation. The fact of the matter is, nobody saw it happen and what happened isnt even worth arguing over because it's impossible to know what happened.

So, if Martin was of age and had a fire arm as well and the reverse ended up happening would he be within his rights? Literally, Zimmerman pursued him because of what he felt. Could Martin shoot him, because he felt threatened? If there's some ambiguity, then there's something not right about that stand your ground law in particular. It sends the message that if someone is armed, and in a situation with someone else who is not armed then the armed person has the right to use their fire arms in whatever way they see fit, and that simply doesn't seem right.

Pretty sure I'm not adding anything to this so I'll just go about my way.

 

[CiG]

That term just rubs me the wrong way. I've never heard nonblack people being referred to as thugs before, and I've heard blacks who don't even fit the bill being referred to as thugs. It has a double meaning, tbh, and since it's the internet I cannot differentiate how it is being used through intonation/voice so my mind automatically just jumps to conclusions because why else would you call a older black male selling cds a thug? It's an assumption, and one that is quite degrading when used the wrong way. It's like code for the n word. I doubt Sterling was a thug in a gang. He was just some dude trying to make money off bootleg cds. Why aren't the Chinese that sell you the same thing considered thugs then?

I thought the whole reason police even had an interaction with him was because someone called 911 complaining that Sterling had threatened him/her with a gun, which it turned out he did actually have on his person? Maybe I'm confused.

I have a problem with just calling every black person that has a run-in with the law a "thug" and I actually agree that in a way it is a gutless version of calling someone a n***er, but there is also a place for the word and a threatening bootlegger with a criminal history and "goldfronts" in his mouth who probably called himself a thug or celebrated thug culture through entertainment with a gun he had illegally is possibly it.

The man shot in his car who was legally armed was not a thug in my opinion, Sterling though? Very debatable.

To the race part, sure thug is more commonly used for blacks but blacks also commonly sag their pants, wear teeth jewellery, glorify "gangsta" culture, so on and so forth. But I have actually seen people call white delinquent types thugs, seen it a lot with Hispanics abd Latinos too. Hell, seen it with Asian gang types.

It's mostly about how someone carries themselves and acts in my opinion, but I guess that's besides the point about it being used as a PC version of n***er.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

First off, the neighborhood watch isn't suppose to follow people. You can't compare being in a store to being outside on public property.

I'm not claiming Martin to be innocent in his actions either. However, just because Zimmerman didnt have obvious wounds doesnt mean he did not provoke an altercation. The fact of the matter is, nobody saw it happen and what happened isnt even worth arguing over because it's impossible to know what happened.

So, if Martin was of age and had a fire arm as well and the reverse ended up happening would he be within his rights? Literally, Zimmerman pursued him because of what he felt. Could Martin shoot him, because he felt threatened? If there's some ambiguity, then there's something not right about that stand your ground law in particular. It sends the message that if someone is armed, and in a situation with someone else who is not armed then the armed person has the right to use their fire arms in whatever way they see fit, and that simply doesn't seem right.

Pretty sure I'm not adding anything to this so I'll just go about my way.

Why can't neighborhood watch follow people? I think he was doing it voluntarily anyways.

Martin never mentioned an altercation in his call to his girlfriend. He just said he was being followed and wanted to teach Zimmerman a lesson. Neighbors only called 911 once they heard Zimmerman screaming for help. There isn't 100% perfect evidence for one case or the other, but the evidence in general leans towards Martin instigating the entire conflict.

Simply being followed is not sufficient to demonstrate fear for your life, unless maybe it's an active chase (e.g. if a woman was literally running from a big silent dude chasing her, I don't think people would complain about her shooting in self-defense). Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman for around 30 seconds and had hit him multiple times. Castle Doctrine laws will result in some people being shot unjustly and the shooter getting away with it, but that can happen with anything. The alternative is that people shooting in self-defense are now assumed guilty of homicide unless they can prove they had no other choice.

 

[Einherjar86]

Great counter-argument bro. If the rate at which blacks are shot during arrests isn't relevant in your view to blacks feeling a need to shoot cops out of fear and self-defense, then what do you propose are the relevant factors?

Cops may also fear for their lives around black suspects. The difference is that cops occupy a position of authoritative control and presumed justification.

I am not trying to paint any of the suspects we've been discussing as saints, but I am trying to understand their anxiety around law enforcement - what you've referred to as their "stupid as fuck" mentality.

I've already admitted that cops try to do an impossible job; but that doesn't mean we should assume from the outset that they act justifiably in every situation. I like to remain skeptical. I'm the Wittgenstein to your Russell, baby (but that's giving both of us too much credit ).

Also, we put black suspects in an equally impossible position. They may very well commit violence toward police, but they also are forced into a position where, statistically (since you love numbers), they suffer in greater degree at the hands of the law. Now, I am also admitting that this may be entirely justified! In other words, black suspects convicted of crimes may be deservedly convicted; but I'm suggesting that the fear of being treated unjustifiably or undeservedly may also contribute to the level of crime that we can observe between blacks and police.

When the tension is ratcheted, violence is bound to happen. It's on police as much as it is on suspects.

 

[CiG]

Everybody tends to feel anxious around police, but what is required to go from anxious to attack?

 

[Dak]

but they also are forced into a position where, statistically (since you love numbers), they suffer in greater degree at the hands of the law.
............
It's on police as much as it is on suspects.

This is standard agency-denying language. No one uses this sort of language to describe white male behaviors, criminal or otherwise.

 

[Einherjar86]

Everybody tends to feel anxious around police, but what is required to go from anxious to attack?

I'm sure that would depend; but my point in saying this is that others here have said that black people shouldn't test the waters. They should work harder to reflect an image of the law-abiding citizen, since they may (percentage-wise) be more prone to targeting. It follows from this that blacks should also work to exhibit less anxiety around police officers, since appearing anxious can be interpreted as probably cause.

All of these suggestions do nothing to actually solve the issue, in fact they only circulate the problem.

This is standard agency-denying language. No one uses this sort of language to describe white male behaviors, criminal or otherwise.

I'm not denying anyone agency. You always consider agency and social conditions to be mutually exclusive. They're not, and you would do well to learn that.

I can will myself to not throw up all I want, but if I've consumed food with e. coli then no amount of agency will help me. There actually are historical circumstances, social circumstances, that are so systematically complex we cannot vanquish their effects entirely.

That is what I'm suggesting. Your criticism of agency-denying is misguided.

 

[Dak]

I'm sure that would depend; but my point in saying this is that others here have said that black people shouldn't test the waters. They should work harder to reflect an image of the law-abiding citizen, since they may (percentage-wise) be more prone to targeting. It follows from this that blacks should also work to exhibit less anxiety around police officers, since appearing anxious can be interpreted as probably cause.

All of these suggestions do nothing to actually solve the issue, in fact they only circulate the problem.

What is the issue/problem? That blacks are often anxious around the police?

Saying "prone to targeting" comes off sounding, again, like they are so many herd of deer just doing their thing and then bam, Bambi Killers strike. Law enforcement are paid to enforce the law. YBMs are prone to breaking the law, particularly in violent ways (relative to other populations), thus attracting law enforcement and creating situations which are more likely to be violent in nature. If we set a standard that a suspect has to kill or nearly kill a cop to determine lethal intent, you're going to get 100% SWATified police departments (already moving in that direction as it is). The final solution of BLM et al is for everyone to be anxious around the cops. Kind of like communist equality was to make everyone starve.

I'm not denying anyone agency. You always consider agency and social conditions to be mutually exclusive. They're not, and you would do well to learn that.

I can will myself to not throw up all I want, but if I've consumed food with e. coli then no amount of agency will help me. There actually are historical circumstances, social circumstances, that are so systematically complex we cannot vanquish their effects entirely.

I can understand this. If one has consumed an education of victimhood ideology, no amount of agency (or aid) will help them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/opinion/sunday/the-real-victims-of-victimhood.html

the organizations and people who ascend in a victimhood culture are very different. Some set themselves up as saviors; others focus on a common enemy. In all cases, they treat people less as individuals and more as aggrieved masses.

I could post a near infinite amount of psych literature on the benefits of "self efficacy" or "internal locus of control".