George Floyd Death - Derek Chauvin Guilty of Murder

[Stan]

10 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Stan just a question for you?  Have you ever noticed times where you felt you were treated differently as an Asian person? Some people say white privilege doesn't exist. However amongst experts who study these things there doesn't appear to much doubt that it does.  I didn't realise so much study had been done into it.

I wouldn't be able to tell you any specific studies off-hand but I know there is a lot of attention paid to it, rightly so. Attached to that, is that a lot of companies are employing equality & diversity training and ensuring their employees have to do it so as to avoid any kind of discrimination in the workplace. Maybe they want to get ahead of the game or they are made to do it because of things that have happened, who knows.

Personally, I can't say I've been treated differently as an Asian person. Not in an employment context, anyway. Every interview I've gone for (and it's been a while), has been fairly handled and even if I didn't get it, I at least was given the feedback necessary to improve next time and understand why. Or even in sports either for clubs I've played for. Always been included and genuinely can't tell you of an experience where I've felt left out because of colour.

Funnily enough, before I read this post yesterday, my parents and I were discussing the race issues they faced when they were younger. My mum told me quite a shocking story for a job she went for.

Her and a colleague were both going for a job within the same company, to a more senior role with more responsibilities. My mum's Indian. The colleague is white. The job said holding a full, clean driver's license was an essential requirement. My mum had her interview, came out of it fairly confident and was backed by other colleagues who said she's bound to get it. They had confidence in her and her abilities. The other colleague going for the job came out of her interview quite despondent and thinking she'd mucked up her chances of it. 

Who got the job? The other colleague.

Could the other colleague drive? No.

Did the company pay for driving lessons for that other colleague. Yes. 

That to me is clear privilege and discrimination. Granted it could just be that they had differing opinions on how the interview went. It happens. I've felt like I've had shit interviews and end up getting good feedback or even better, the job. But the biggest point here was that it seems like the employer already decided to hire the white candidate even though she didn't even meet the requirements in the first place...

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Stan said:

I wouldn't be able to tell you any specific studies off-hand but I know there is a lot of attention paid to it, rightly so. Attached to that, is that a lot of companies are employing equality & diversity training and ensuring their employees have to do it so as to avoid any kind of discrimination in the workplace. Maybe they want to get ahead of the game or they are made to do it because of things that have happened, who knows.

Personally, I can't say I've been treated differently as an Asian person. Not in an employment context, anyway. Every interview I've gone for (and it's been a while), has been fairly handled and even if I didn't get it, I at least was given the feedback necessary to improve next time and understand why. Or even in sports either for clubs I've played for. Always been included and genuinely can't tell you of an experience where I've felt left out because of colour.

Funnily enough, before I read this post yesterday, my parents and I were discussing the race issues they faced when they were younger. My mum told me quite a shocking story for a job she went for.

Her and a colleague were both going for a job within the same company, to a more senior role with more responsibilities. My mum's Indian. The colleague is white. The job said holding a full, clean driver's license was an essential requirement. My mum had her interview, came out of it fairly confident and was backed by other colleagues who said she's bound to get it. They had confidence in her and her abilities. The other colleague going for the job came out of her interview quite despondent and thinking she'd mucked up her chances of it. 

Who got the job? The other colleague.

Could the other colleague drive? No.

Did the company pay for driving lessons for that other colleague. Yes. 

That to me is clear privilege and discrimination. Granted it could just be that they had differing opinions on how the interview went. It happens. I've felt like I've had shit interviews and end up getting good feedback or even better, the job. But the biggest point here was that it seems like the employer already decided to hire the white candidate even though she didn't even meet the requirements in the first place...

Wow. How long ago was that? Its hard to prove these things 100% I guess. But its likely I think that it was a racist thing. 

I was saying to my mum the other day about my work history.  Due to mental health issues I have got through a lot of jobs. My cv has a few lies on it to say the least. But yet I still get work. Now I do work hard but I'm not the best technically at what I do. I'm  not sure if a black person would get the chances I have. I think that is part of the issue. Not everyone is as willing to admit they have had opportunities and luck as much as me. I think that is the reason  why some are reluctant to admit racism  is an issue.

Another interesting thing I noticed is how some people are very quick to attribute negative stereotypes to virtually all people of a certain  race but not positive. I had a conversation with my auntie a while back about how Indians can quite often have a strong work ethic and concentrate on academics a lot. I think this is because in India it is the only way out of poverty and it is ingrained in their culture. My auntie who is very quick to attach negative attributes to certain races said not all if them are. Which is true but she has no problem attaching a negative stereotype to them. 

 

[Cicero]

New body cam footage has been revealed. There is now the possibility these officers will be acquitted of 2nd degree murder. 

[Mpache]

Deleted

[Stan]

So a white teen with a rifle went to shoot protestors in Kenosha, killed 3 of them, and people say he went to 'maintain order' and Chief Police Officer there says he 'was involved in the use of firearms to resolve whatever conflict was in place'. 

Not usually the kind of language you hear for a shooter. I'll wait for the 'he was mentally ill' comments maybe. 

Qwhite interesting. 

 

[Beelzebub]

So he just went and shot people and got a medal for it 

[Cicero]

12 hours ago, Stan said:

So a white teen with a rifle went to shoot protestors in Kenosha, killed 3 of them, and people say he went to 'maintain order' and Chief Police Officer there says he 'was involved in the use of firearms to resolve whatever conflict was in place'. 

Not usually the kind of language you hear for a shooter. I'll wait for the 'he was mentally ill' comments maybe. 

Qwhite interesting. 

 

Reading the little twat isn't even from the area. The public also looked into  his past behavior via social media and he's a well known white supremacist from some of his activity. 

Carrying an AR, protecting businesses that aren't his and in a state and town he isn't from, whilst at the same time being supported by the local police force, only to find out days later he's been charged with murder. 

What a fucking mess. 

[Mpache]

There was an incident with Toronto Raptor's GM last year in California apparently, after they beat Golden State Warriors. Footage revealed. 

The USA has fallen from grace and it's being exposed for the mess it's become this year more than any. I'm not having that this isn't an American problem. Racism exists everywhere but the police bias doesn't.

[Cicero]

Moving it here @Eco

And I've seen all of the evidence involving the Jacob Blake shooting that's been presented so far, and nothing suggests it was racially motivated. 

 

1. The original police call was for Blake, who was trespassing and in violation of a Domestic Violence Injunction.

2. Blake had a warrant out for his arrest for Sexual Assault and Domestic violence.

3.  Officers confronted Blake who resisted with violence, was tazed, and still managing to get up and move toward the car door.

4. Blake was in possession of a Karambit Blade as he approached the vehicle where the children were located. 

5. Blake opened that vehicle attempting to enter the car with children inside with the weapon in hand. 

6. Blake was repeatedly ordered to stop by officers

7. Blake was shot. 

So where exactly in this list of events proves this shooting was racially motivated? Police incompetence maybe, given they failed to restrain him in an effective manner. 7 shots were also excessive but only the officer can explain why he fired 7 shots. His decision to fire however, is justifiable. 

The United States is a country that will forever continue to push narratives, without all or any evidence to be presented.  Police brutality is an issue but to make it as if only Black Americans see the rough end of it is completely false. You compare the police shooting rate per population, it's nearly doubled for Black Americans. You compare the crime rate per population, its also doubled for Black Americans. 

 

The real issue here isn't the false narrative that police specifically target Black Americans. That is the argument I disagree with for the BLM movement. The issue is why the crime rate is so much higher for Black Americans, which is ultimately down of being a product of their environment. And look back far enough, you find redlining the source of it.

[Eco]

27 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Moving it here @Eco

And I've seen all of the evidence involving the Jacob Blake shooting that's been presented so far, and nothing suggests it was racially motivated. 

 

1. The original police call was for Blake, who was trespassing and in violation of a Domestic Violence Injunction.

2. Blake had a warrant out for his arrest for Sexual Assault and Domestic violence.

3.  Officers confronted Blake who resisted with violence, was tazed, and still managing to get up and move toward the car door.

4. Blake was in possession of a Karambit Blade as he approached the vehicle where the children were located. 

5. Blake opened that vehicle attempting to enter the car with children inside with the weapon in hand. 

6. Blake was repeatedly ordered to stop by officers

7. Blake was shot. 

So where exactly in this list of events proves this shooting was racially motivated? Police incompetence maybe, given they failed to restrain him in an effective manner. 7 shots were also excessive but only the officer can explain why he fired 7 shots. His decision to fire however, is justifiable. 

The United States is a country that will forever continue to push narratives, without all or any evidence to be presented.  Police brutality is an issue but to make it as if only Black Americans see the rough end of it is completely false. You compare the police shooting rate per population, it's nearly doubled for Black Americans. You compare the crime rate per population, its also doubled for Black Americans. 

 

The real issue here isn't the false narrative that police specifically target Black Americans. That is the argument I disagree with for the BLM movement. The issue is why the crime rate is so much higher for Black Americans, which is ultimately down of being a product of their environment. And look back far enough, you find redlining the source of it.

And I was to preface this by saying I surely don't have all the issues as white male from a middle class family. 

But from my understanding of the entire situation (BLM), is that this country has a terrible history with race relations, and while we have made certain strides, we still are a country where the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. So using that logic, the playing field for a white individual is not the same as a black individual, and that is not right nor fair. What's the answer? I have no earthly idea, but I think we are talking about it more and more and so I hope these conversations lead to actions that ultimately help level the playing field. 

For the NBA and MLS sitting out, yes, I get it that it was just one game and ultimately what led them to continue playing was nothing monumental. However, these two sports here are played with mostly people of the minority, so if they choose to sit out, boycott, or whatever, in protest of the mistreatment of minorities, then I'm all for it. They were blessed with this platform, and if that's how they want to use it, and it doesn't hurt me or anyone else, then go for it I say. Now, if the a team came out and said that if their players continued to boycott would then find their contracts terminated, I would have no real issue with it either, but don't think they would have reached that point. However, it goes without saying that if a team ever came out and said that, it would be faced with a massive amount of blacklash and terrible PR, so maybe that's one reason teams don't threaten such action even though they wish they could. 

Okay, now onto the Blake shooting. obviously no where in those steps is their blatant racism. However, I would wager to guess that steps would have taken different it if were a white guy that was in possession of the knife. And while I don't research a ton outside of what I hear on the news, but their aren't stories of white guys getting chocked out on the streets by cops for 9 minutes, white girls getting shot in their own home while asleep and then left to die, and no white guys are being shot 7 times in the back in front of their kids when only in possession of a knife. I don't believe it's all 100% inherent racism, but I certainly believe a root cause is systematic racism. These officers aren't wearing white  hats with red crosses, but they are raised with learning that blacks commit more crimes and are thugs. This is the common belief in America that I think is really the heart of the problem. 

I certainly don't understand the issue completely because I don't spend my waking hours learning more about it and nor am I a minority, and I surely don't have the answers, but what these protests, kneeling, and BLM marches are doing is bringing up the conversation of race and police brutality, two things that have plagued this nation for decades, and I think that conversations are a first step to real change. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 27/08/2020 at 12:19, Mpache said:

There was an incident with Toronto Raptor's GM last year in California apparently, after they beat Golden State Warriors. Footage revealed. 

The USA has fallen from grace and it's being exposed for the mess it's become this year more than any. I'm not having that this isn't an American problem. Racism exists everywhere but the police bias doesn't.

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/7048298/policing-in-canada-colonialism-anti-black-racism/amp/

[Carnivore Chris]

 

US police are vile pigs.

It's not even really about race all this though, as black coppers are equally as bad. It's all about police being scum. It's part of their training and what they are taught. The USA is rotten. The video above is how you're treat if you have mental health problems. They put a bag over your head and suffocate you to death.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

I'm not going to post the video because I thought it was pretty graphic, but there was another police shooting in Philadelphia last night.

This time the guy wasn't unarmed, he had a knife. And in the video the police are at first keeping their distance and exercising restraint as they try to talk him into putting the knife down. But then all of a sudden both officers unload their guns into him - which would have been understandable if he was showing he was an imminent deadly threat to anyone. But the threat he posed to them at that distance did not really necessitate shooting him. Especially so many times.

When you compare this response to an armed black guy, with a knife, compared to how police treated the Kenosha Wisconsin far-right shooter, or the guy in Colorado who shot up a theatre during a batman movie... it does make it difficult to reconcile why black Americans are met with such extreme use of deadly force if they pose any sort of threat with any sort of weapon. Whereas white criminals with deadly weapons in the US can literally shoot people and be treated with an incredible amount of restraint. 

[Cicero]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'm not going to post the video because I thought it was pretty graphic, but there was another police shooting in Philadelphia last night.

This time the guy wasn't unarmed, he had a knife. And in the video the police are at first keeping their distance and exercising restraint as they try to talk him into putting the knife down. But then all of a sudden both officers unload their guns into him - which would have been understandable if he was showing he was an imminent deadly threat to anyone. But the threat he posed to them at that distance did not really necessitate shooting him. Especially so many times.

When you compare this response to an armed black guy, with a knife, compared to how police treated the Kenosha Wisconsin far-right shooter, or the guy in Colorado who shot up a theatre during a batman movie... it does make it difficult to reconcile why black Americans are met with such extreme use of deadly force if they pose any sort of threat with any sort of weapon. Whereas white criminals with deadly weapons in the US can literally shoot people and be treated with an incredible amount of restraint. 

Huh? He was charging towards them with a knife and wouldn't stop after several attempts of tell him to drop it?

The real issue here are why police in the states aren't trained to 'shoot to wound'. 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Huh? He was charging towards them with a knife and wouldn't stop after several attempts of tell him to drop it?

He didn't charge at them? Police in the UK handle dickheads with knives all the time, so there's no real excuse why deadly force was used. If Merseyside Police can manage, all of these big US cities with police forces that get significantly more funding than them should be able to as well.

[Cicero]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He didn't charge at them? Police in the UK handle dickheads with knives all the time, so there's no real excuse why deadly force was used. If Merseyside Police can manage, all of these big US cities with police forces that get significantly more funding than them should be able to as well.

He did. He cornered the red vehicle and attempted to charge which initiated the police to fire. In this particular instance, how would of this been resolved without deadly force? 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Cicero said:

He did. He cornered the red vehicle and attempted to charge which initiated the police to fire. In this particular instance, how would of this been resolved without deadly force? 

 

probably like this

*edit* ironically, this gave me an add for a gun holster before I started the video

[Cicero]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

probably like this

*edit* ironically, this gave me an add for a gun holster before I started the video

There's always the risk with tasers as they often don't work and especially against those who are under the influence on something, which definitely appeared to be the case here. 

I understand why deadly force was used here but I cannot understand why police, in this day in age, are not trained to shoot to wound. 

[Bluewolf]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He didn't charge at them? Police in the UK handle dickheads with knives all the time, so there's no real excuse why deadly force was used.

Part of the problem as I see it is the training period a lot of these officers have which is only 6 months before they can carry a badge and a gun, they are then paired up with a more experienced officer while their education continues... If a gun is going to be the first thing you can reach for in any arrest then it's bound to be problematic.. Also if your more experienced partner is the equivalent of 'Dirty Harry' then it probably sets an even poorer example.. Over here officers have to have 2 years of training at basic level before it can even be considered that they can touch firearms.. even then they would have to join a specialist firearms squad to do so.. I appreciate that it's a different world where firearms are concerned but in knife situations stunning the individual should be the first tactic.. 

I did read a comment a while back where someone commented that it took them over 6 years to be qualified in Law and Justice and only 6 months for the Police to be able to dispense it which probably sums up a lot of the problems right there.. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

Just now, Cicero said:

There's always the risk with tasers as they often don't work and especially against those who are under the influence on something, which definitely appeared to be the case here. 

I understand why deadly force was used here but I cannot understand why police, in this day in age, are not trained to shoot to wound. 

I mean, I'm no expert - I've never shot a gun... but I know people who were in the Royal Army and what they've said is when you point a gun at someone you're signaling that you're ready to kill them.

I know @CaaC (John) was in the military and while that may have been a very long time ago... I'm pretty sure they had guns and he's been trained to use one. So maybe he can confirm that most people who are trained to use guns are trained that they're killing weapons, first and foremost.

I think training to "shoot to wound" goes against a lot of what is engrained in people who are trained to use guns have learned. I'd imagine the risk of tasing somebody is significantly lower than the risk of unloading pistols into them - I think guns should be an absolute last resort.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Bluewolf said:

Part of the problem as I see it is the training period a lot of these officers have which is only 6 months before they can carry a badge and a gun, they are then paired up with a more experienced officer while their education continues... If a gun is going to be the first thing you can reach for in any arrest then it's bound to be problematic.. Also if your more experienced partner is the equivalent of 'Dirty Harry' then it probably sets an even poorer example.. Over here officers have to have 2 years of training at basic level before it can even be considered that they can touch firearms.. even then they would have to join a specialist firearms squad to do so.. I appreciate that it's a different world where firearms are concerned but in knife situations stunning the individual should be the first tactic.. 

I did read a comment a while back where someone commented that it took them over 6 years to be qualified in Law and Justice and only 6 months for the Police to be able to dispense it which probably sums up a lot of the problems right there.. 

The amount of training required in the US to be patrolling on the streets as a cop, compared to the UK... and honestly, I imagine most places... is pretty fucking jarring tbh. Then you have to consider all of the officers in America are carrying guns, which makes it a bit weird.

I 100% think US police need to be held to a higher standard.

[Cicero]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I mean, I'm no expert - I've never shot a gun... but I know people who were in the Royal Army and what they've said is when you point a gun at someone you're signaling that you're ready to kill them.

I know @CaaC (John) was in the military and while that may have been a very long time ago... I'm pretty sure they had guns and he's been trained to use one. So maybe he can confirm that most people who are trained to use guns are trained that they're killing weapons, first and foremost.

I think training to "shoot to wound" goes against a lot of what is engrained in people who are trained to use guns have learned. I'd imagine the risk of tasing somebody is significantly lower than the risk of unloading pistols into them - I think guns should be an absolute last resort.

Police are only trained to shoot to kill. Not to injure or maim. Which in my opinion lies the problem. Training. A gun is only to be used in a life threatening situation. 

SWAT and Military are trained to take these injury shots. I cannot understand how its not in the realm of possibility to effectively train police officers to do the same. 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

12 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Police are only trained to shoot to kill. Not to injure or maim. Which in my opinion lies the problem. Training. A gun is only to be used in a life threatening situation. 

SWAT and Military are trained to take these injury shots. I cannot understand how its not in the realm of possibility to effectively train police officers to do the same. 

 

I guess it goes towards what @Bluewolf was saying about the lack of training & the need for more training.

[Bluewolf]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The amount of training required in the US to be patrolling on the streets as a cop, compared to the UK... and honestly, I imagine most places... is pretty fucking jarring tbh. Then you have to consider all of the officers in America are carrying guns, which makes it a bit weird.

I 100% think US police need to be held to a higher standard.

There is so much of an undercurrent that nobody really sees as well that I think is part of the overall problem,  I mean how many of these more experienced officers have probably seen the absolute worst things where drugs/child abuse/murders etc are involved as an everyday part and parcel of their lives, how many criminals ( and I am talking about the worst ones here ) are back on the streets in hardly anytime due to the court system and the way it operates??  How many of them will just continue to re-offend over and over again??  As a hardened and experienced officer with a great many years under his belt he may find times where he just thinks it's better to shoot first and ask questions later.. Nobody knows how a job like that can affect you mentally through the years and I am not saying that it's common place but if you give Law Enforcement a gun and the ability to dispense ( what that particular officer ) might see as justice almost instantly then that is bound to be abused /overused at times.. 

Over here you would only ever see officers with guns at the airport perhaps or in armed response situations but in America it's common place, I will admit that the last time I was at the airport and saw officers patrolling around with guns it's a bit unnerving knowing that shots could be fired if something kicked off for any reason while I have a family in tow the danger they represent is very very real and that's when they are in the hands of people trained to use them properly.. I could never live or even visit the states where someone could just pull a gun on you while robbing a local store or for overtaking them on the motorway.. It's just insane for me

[Burning Gold]

17 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Police are only trained to shoot to kill. Not to injure or maim. Which in my opinion lies the problem. Training. A gun is only to be used in a life threatening situation. 

SWAT and Military are trained to take these injury shots. I cannot understand how its not in the realm of possibility to effectively train police officers to do the same. 

 

I think I've posted something similar on here before, but there are a few problems with "shoot to wound". What are you aiming for? Probably legs. Legs are quite a bit smaller than your torso and they're probably moving quickly, which makes it a much harder shot. No guarantee they incapacitate your target either so you'll fire off a few shots. It'd take far too long to fire, wait and assess how that's gone, then fire again, wait, etc. Legs also have some pretty big arteries, so your target may well bleed out anyway (especially if hit multiple times). There's also the issue of missing and hitting someone/something else. Guns are not something to be fucked around with, basically.

If you train officers to shoot to wound instead of only using their firearms as a last resort, you'll get a lot more shootings, and I think you'll get a lot more deaths. And a lot more officers getting off on qualified immunity.