I suppose they never considered the criminal doesn't fear arrest as much as being beaten to death or shot, so figure they have nothing to lose by going down fighting.

I strongly suspect the same thing happens with "Three strikes and you're out" laws.

... especially those high-speed car chases and nighttime jumping-the-backyard-fences you see on TV News at 11.

I think you're right, the more to lose, the less cooperative, more combative they're likely to be.

Excellent of the police acting the way they should, as most do.
http://highoctanehumor.com/armed-bla...nsanely-viral/

But if some bad apple in their department DID murder someone, would those exemplary officers work to remove their badge?

That's the true problem. You can't prevent the occasional bad apple, but you need to get rid of them to prevent them spoiling the barrel.

I agree, the #1 problem with police is that code. But I also agree with my link's point, that not every cop is an asshole and not every cop is out to fuck with black people.

Cops are sensitive, maybe hypersensitive, to any perceived challenge to their authority because everyone they approach is an unknown. Someone with an attitude is likely to cause them to escalate quickly until they perceive to be in control again. Because of the code, everyone with half a brain is aware the cop can go as far as he wants with no consequences, so to challenge him is stupid. You can, with time and money, challenge the charges, but can never ever challenge the cop.

But that's not a point against anything that groups like Black Lives Matter are saying. Making that point, especially in the way he does, seems to be an attempt to make it seem like they ARE saying that every cop is a racist asshole (though he's coy about it... "certain social movements"), when they aren't making that claim at all. They are saying that too many of them are, and when racist asshole cops kill people, they aren't punished.

A counterexample is only a good argument against a universal rule. He seems to be trying to attribute a rule "all cops kill all black people" to BLM, so his counterexample of "I wasn't murdered" is relevant. Except the rule is a strawman, so the counterexample isn't meaningful.

Additionally, the rule that if you want to be safe, do absolutely nothing that might annoy cops might be good for your well being, but it does not reflect well on cops. It sounds like the same advice that cops give to avoid getting killed by a mugger.

A true example of exemplary policing is a cop talking down an agitated, potentially dangerous person. There are many examples of that, but this is not one of them. If not getting murdered during a traffic stop is an event to be celebrated, that is an argument that supports the "certain social movements" that he was attempting to refute.

Cops unnecessarily killing people without repercussions is not news, this has always existed for everyone. When they say black lives matter, they're saying mine doesn't, so their message is about black people and cops, of which I am neither.
It does concern the black man quoted, and evidently the message you hear and the message he hears is not the same. I don't doubt what you hear is accurate, however the message received(perceived?) by others doesn't necessarily agree. What we've got here is failure to communicate.

No they aren't. They're saying that the deaths of black people are unfairly treated as less important by societal institutions.

You're adding an "only" that isn't there.

Got to be the most wrong thing you've ever posted.

I never heard them say that. If that's what they want me to hear, then that's what they should say.
I'm not adding anything, They say black lives matter, that leaves me out.

Would you care to clarify?
How about a white lives matter campaign, don't tell me I wouldn't get a ration of shit over that politically incorrect faux pas.

Because your life, assuming you don't have a black life, and a black life are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure you're familiar with this idea.

A coin with only two sides, each is mutually exclusive. It is impossible for the coin to be heads AND tails, it can only be heads OR tails. Or, to put it like you put it, When they say HEADS matter, they're saying TAILS doesn't. That would be consistent, that would be valid. But your life and a black life aren't arranged that way. They're not mutually exclusive.

Let me put it another way.

You're implying that YOUR life matters. Therefore, you're saying all our lives don't matter.

That's exactly the same logic, the same flaw. Even *IF* you did "say" that, you'd still be wrong.

Clear now?

No, not a coin, a paper bill. We were all on the same side until they folded it. All lives do matter, they are the ones excluding the rest of us. That campaign is about blacks vs cops, and whites, yellows, reds and little green men have no dog in the hunt.
Happy Monkey said the point is... If that's the intention, the real message, then that makes it even more a black only crusade.

'Black lives matter as much as white lives do' doesn't fit as easily, or as snappily for a campaign name. But I've always thought the rest of the sentence is implied.

Black people, and young black men in particular, are at a a very particular risk of fatal police violence. White people are at a much lower risk of fatal police violence. At the same time, the culture in which this is happening has tended, in many ways, to treat the deaths of innocent young black men at the hands of police as some sort of unfortunate, but understandable, side effect of modern policing.

The media in the US and I think probably in Britain too, has a serious problem with how it reports on violence against black people. It cuts across many aspects of crime - there is much less of a media storm when a little black girl goes missing compared to the 24 hours of constant updates when a little white girl is abducted. And young black men and women victims of violence are routinely subject to a full-on character assassination in the reporting of that violence. And a lot of that comes from the police services involved. How many times have the initial police reports on these cases made the victim out to be adrug dealer, or a gang member when they had nothing to do with any of that. It is their standard defensive operating procedure, and since we have a cultural tendency to view black males as inherently more violent and threatening that message falls on receptive ears.

At the same time, most of us who experience policing as white people, whilst we may have experiences all manner of police shennanigans, we are unlikely to have experienced quite that level of permanent underlying threat. It is difficult to comprehend - surely, if we just cooperate and don't give the police officer any resistance, we'lll be ok right. Except if you're a young black man offering zero resistance, you still may get the shit kicked out of you. And if you are offering a calm explanation, you may still be treated as if you are resisting. Even if you comply, with everything, you still might find yourself on the ground with four or five officers bundled onto you being punched and tasered.

Seriously, getting angry at the Black Lives Matter people for excluding you as a white person from their message is a bit fucked up imo. The whole thing is a conversation that needs to be had. The slogan and campaign name is just that, a slogan, an easily identifiable and memorably snappy way to get across the message that it is not ok that so many young black lives are ended in this way. That it is not ok for the police to racially profile to a lethal extent. It is not ok that the law offers little or not protection for victims of lethal police violence, most of whom are black, and it is not ok that large chunks of society are in denial of the racially directed violence being perpetrated by those who police it.

And the #notallpolice argument just doesn't fly either. Any more than #notallmen is any kind of response to the problems of domestic abuse in society. Of course not all police. It's a profession and there are good and bad, competant and incompetant, dedicated and jaded in every profession. The difference between the #notallpolice defence and the #notallmen defence, however, is that all police are accountable, to a degree, for the way their profession conducts itself. Yes, they are brave men and women who risk their lives everytime they pull over a car at a traffic stop. And some of them are compassionate defenders of the publlic peace. But some of them are bullies with a badge and a gun, and some are fearful, inadequately trained incompetents with a chip on their shoulder and a headful of prejudice, reacting with lethal force to perceived rather than actual threats.

But the brave men and women who risk their lives on the traffic stops also protect and provide automatic cover for the bullies with guns. The entire organisation operates with a siege mentality and the uniform confers brotherhood to the extent of cover-up.

Have you ever listened to them? They say it on every TV interview they do.
You added the "only". You are claiming that they are saying "Only black lives matter".

The phrase "noun verbs" does not imply that "noun" is the only "noun" that "verbs".

The only way to be left out of their crusade is if you believe that black lives don't matter.