Breakdown of society vs tolerating periods of social unrest

[Crazyhole]

serious question, which is better? Is it better for the government to allow short periods of social unrest like what we've seen this spring or just lock everyone down with rules and laws which leads to total upheaval later? Kind of a "let them get it out of their system for a few days" type of deal?

Personally, I think people are generally good but from time to time they get worked up to the point of needing to release their tensions. Its human nature. Is it better to just let that happen then force that pent-up tension to rise until it explodes? Indefinite order is impossible so we kind of have to choose one approach over the other.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Lots of change coming. People have wanted it for many many decades. You can't hold people down forever.

 

[Crazyhole]

Lots of change coming. People have wanted it for many many decades. You can't hold people down forever.

So let it collapse completely and start over?

 

[DAiello18]

Purge! Purge! Purge! Purge!

 

[Cubs79]

So let it collapse completely and start over?

This country has had change since the beginning. Change doesnt equate to a collapse.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Purge! Purge! Purge! Purge!

You aren't helping.

 

[AAC6800]

Well, I hope the total collapse would happen sooner than later. I want to still be young enough to have some fun!

 

[Crazyhole]

This country has had change since the beginning. Change doesnt equate to a collapse.

The one thing Marx got right was the evolution of political systems. What he didn't get right was that they come willingly. We are on the precipice of a major shift and most likely its going to be violent. So is it better to hold on to what we have and give some leniency along the way, or put the hammer down and force a massive upheaval?

Additionally, the one thing that leftists don't get when they talk about "conservatism" is that it doesn't exist, only different levels of liberalism. Change is gonna happen no matter what and nobody is trying to stop it. The only question is how do we want that change to happen?

 

[DaShuckster]

So let it collapse completely and start over?

This thread reminds me of the conservative hysterics when Obama was elected President.

 

[Cubs79]

The one thing Marx got right was the evolution of political systems. What he didn't get right was that they come willingly. We are on the precipice of a major shift and most likely its going to be violent. So is it better to hold on to what we have and give some leniency along the way, or put the hammer down and force a massive upheaval?

Additionally, the one thing that leftists don't get when they talk about "conservatism" is that it doesn't exist, only different levels of liberalism. Change is gonna happen no matter what and nobody is trying to stop it. The only question is how do we want that change to happen?

I'm just not sure exactly what you think is happening. Again, change has happened consistently since this country was founded, so I am not sure what you are seeing that makes you think this is something overly radical or different than things we have seen in the past. Plus, the change people are wanting to see is in regards to how police do their work. Wanting police to quit killing unarmed people isnt exactly a big ask, it is pretty much common sense and decency.

 

[Cubs79]

This thread reminds me of the conservative hysterics when Obama was elected President.

Yeah, I dont get it either.

 

[UCFKnight85]

This thread reminds me of the conservative hysterics when Obama was elected President.

I like how you just pretend that liberals didn’t create and sell “Not My President” shirts in mass when Bush won.

No, this all started with Saint Obama.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I'm just not sure exactly what you think is happening. Again, change has happened consistently since this country was founded, so I am not sure what you are seeing that makes you think this is something overly radical or different than things we have seen in the past. Plus, the change people are wanting to see is in regards to how police do their work. Wanting police to quit killing unarmed people isnt exactly a big ask, it is pretty much common sense and decency.

I guess it’s a good thing that police killing unarmed people is so extremely rare that it’s not even statistically relevant then huh?

 

[DAiello18]

You aren't helping.

Who said I want to help? Maybe I want to watch the world burn. #JoJurg2020

 

[Crazyhole]

I guess it’s a good thing that police killing unarmed people is so extremely rare that it’s not even statistically relevant then huh?

Its always been that way. The difference now is in the response. Between ANTIFA, the Boogaloo movement, and BLM we are reaching a tipping point. Anybody that thinks this is going to end peacefully, regardless of who the president is, is either lying to themselves or ignorant.

 

[DaShuckster]

I guess it’s a good thing that police killing unarmed people is so extremely rare that it’s not even statistically relevant then huh?

Until we started seeing cellphone videos that blew apart cop stories, we really don't know how prevalent it has been in the past.

Hell, even the police involved in that Black guy's death in Colorado were originally reviewed and cleared of any wrongdoing. We're to believe that they got rough with him because he tried to grab one of the officer's gun. Anybody who watched the video and thought that 'Steve Urkel' actually tried to do that is delusional.

 

[Cubs79]

Its always been that way. The difference now is in the response. Between ANTIFA, the Boogaloo movement, and BLM we are reaching a tipping point. Anybody that thinks this is going to end peacefully, regardless of who the president is, is either lying to themselves or ignorant.

A tipping point of what? THe protests have already died down for the most part, as every protests in the history of our country have done. At most we are looking at a 1968 type situation, but we arent even there at this point.

 

[Cubs79]

I guess it’s a good thing that police killing unarmed people is so extremely rare that it’s not even statistically relevant then huh?

I shouldnt have limited it to killings, it is about abuse and a screwed up justice system in general.

 

[Cubs79]

Until we started seeing cellphone videos that blew apart cop stories, we really don't know how prevalent it has been in the past.

Hell, even the police involved in that Black guy's death in Colorado were originally reviewed and cleared of any wrongdoing. We're to believe that they got rough with him because he tried to grab one of the officer's gun. Anybody who watched the video and thought that 'Steve Urkel' actually tried to do that is delusional.

The cops that killed Breonna Taylor in her own home havent even been arrested, and that happened on March 13th.

 

[sk8knight]

The cops that killed Breonna Taylor in her own home havent even been arrested, and that happened on March 13th.

What crime do you want them arrested for?

 

[UCFKnight85]

I shouldnt have limited it to killings, it is about abuse and a screwed up justice system in general.

Ok good then we agree that the narrative that cops are blowing away unarmed black people on the reg is a lie and a lie being used to grow the protests and the mobs.

 

[DaShuckster]

Ok good then we agree that the narrative that cops are blowing away unarmed black people on the reg is a lie and a lie being used to grow the protests and the mobs.

How many videotaped deaths-by-cop (or cop wannabes) does it take before 'the lie' becomes real?

 

[Crazyhole]

How many videotaped deaths-by-cop (or cop wannabes) does it take before 'the lie' becomes real?

The news reports on every single one of them. 300 million+ police interactions per year. If it was as bad as it is portrayed, the ones you see on the news wouldn't be newsworthy.

 

[UCFKnight85]

How many videotaped deaths-by-cop (or cop wannabes) does it take before 'the lie' becomes real?

Those people who collect data for a living already answered this. The answer is 9. A total of 9 unarmed black people were killed by police in 2019 and not unanimously by white cops.

So out of 350M or so interactions with the public annually, 9 of those resulted in an unarmed black person being killed by the police.

So what is being claimed in the streets as being rampant actually occurs .000003% of the time annually.

 

[Crazyhole]

Those people who collect data for a living already answered this. The answer is 9. A total of 9 unarmed black people were killed by police in 2019 and not unanimously by white cops.

So out of 350M or so interactions with the public annually, 9 of those resulted in an unarmed black person being killed by the police.

So what is being claimed in the streets as being rampant actually occurs .000003% of the time annually.

3 times per 100 million.

 

[DaShuckster]

Those people who collect data for a living already answered this.

And I've already answered this: The people who collect data for a living are using numbers that are questionable at best.

Without videotape, the cases we've been talking about wouldn't have even been reported. They would have been listed as medical emergencies that occurred during an arrest.

'No harm, no foul.'

 

[UCFKnight85]

And I've already answered this: The people who collect data for a living are using numbers that are questionable at best.

Without videotape, the cases we've been talking about wouldn't have even been reported. They would have been listed as medical emergencies that occurred during an arrest.

'No harm, no foul.'

I see. So your response to actual FBI statistics is conspiracy and just inventing things that fit your narrative. You get to set the rules and all fact to the contrary is just racist liars skewing the numbers. That’s very convenient for you.

 

[DaShuckster]

I see. So your response to actual FBI statistics is conspiracy and just inventing things that fit your narrative. You get to set the rules and all fact to the contrary is just racist liars skewing the numbers. That’s very convenient for you.

It's very convenient for your argument that the police provide the numbers that the FBI uses for their reports.

Do you really believe that we'd know about George Floyd in Minneapolis or Elijah McClain in Colorado or Eric Garner in NY if not for incriminating cell phone videos? All three of these cases wouldn't be in your vaunted FBI statistics because they weren't 'killed by police,' they died of unfortunate medical emergencies that just happened to occur while they were being arrested.

And would the McDaniels be in jail right now in Georgia if their lynching of a Black jogger hadn't been caught on tape? Hell, before the video surfaced, the Police not only said 'no harm, no foul,' they informed the victim's mother that he died during the commission of a robbery for crying out loud!!!

Remind me who is doing the 'inventing' here?

 

[sk8knight]

Those people who collect data for a living already answered this. The answer is 9. A total of 9 unarmed black people were killed by police in 2019 and not unanimously by white cops.

So out of 350M or so interactions with the public annually, 9 of those resulted in an unarmed black person being killed by the police.

So what is being claimed in the streets as being rampant actually occurs .000003% of the time annually.

The WaPo database that those numbers came from now shows 13 in 2019. But at least a few of those were killed when driving a vehicle at officers, so not truly unarmed. Regardless, the topic will shift to overall police abuse, something that is much harder to quantify and depends on far more variables. The Fryer study, for instance, categorized and touching by the police office as a use of force incident, even if it was not forceful or intentional.

A common situation is that people who become very emotional will often get close to officers and the officer will raise a hand and take one or more steps back. You would rightfully call this an officer safety action and maybe even de-escalation, but if the officer touches the emotional person at all it is recorded as a use of force. Now, I don’t know how it is all over the country, but I know a few local officers that will tell you this situation occurs far more frequently with black people than any other people with whom they interact.

So the Fryer study, while finding no bias in deadly force incident still listed a disparity in non-deadly use of force. But their controls didn’t take into account situations like this nor did they take into account situations where use of force was a good thing, such as steering people out of a dangerous street or gently separating arguing people. The report just notes that use of force was applied to blacks more often without context.

And I don’t think there are any studies that examine the disparate behavior of different races towards police officers in interactions.

Police can get better. But don’t forget that the public narrative is mainly one-sided against them.

 

[DaShuckster]

Police can get better. But don’t forget that the public narrative is mainly one-sided against them.

Yes, police can get better -- and just a reminder that the public's concerns are based on videotaped police interactions with victims.

Before cell phone videos, the narrative was completely one-sided--against the victims. Every single one of the cases I outlined above would have been open-and-shut cases with a pat on the back to the officers involved if not for videotape that allowed the whole world to see what actually happened.