The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-21-2016, 07:14 AM   #1
glatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
"before attacking an officer" implies that eventually they do attack an officer. It's a poor choice of words. They should have said "without" attacking an officer. I was confused by that too. Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.
glatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2016, 10:20 AM   #2
henry quirk
maskless: yesterday, today, tomorrow
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,162
"Many want to cast blame"

Yep, no matter the issue, there are plenty of folks lookin' to spread blame far and wide, ropin' in as many folks as possible, never mind that most of those slathered with blame are blameless.

An anecdote some of you can appreciate...


When I worked for Stennis way back when, every one had ready and open access to the net...some dumbass took advantage and made a habit of enjoying porn sites...Stennis management, in it's profound wisdom, severely restricted all net access and did not fire the dumbass.


Slather that blame, spread the consequence, every one guilty till proven innocent.

More sensibly: can the dumbass and leave every one else alone; punish the cops who abuse their lent power and leave the rest alone; punish jackasses who shoot up malls, schools, whatnot, and leave the rest alone.

Each one innocent till proven guilty.

Institutional and unconscious bias is horse manure.

If Joe does crap hold Joe responsible, not Sam.

Toss 'we' and 'them' and (re)install 'I' and 'you' and 'him' and 'her'.
henry quirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2016, 10:55 AM   #3
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt View Post
Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.
First, the Economist study is about all cops. We are not discussing all cops. We are discussing a minority who are a problem. How large is that minority? No statistics provided. The Economist study does not address that issue.

Second, UT's Hummelstown video demonstrates a problem. (And the victim was white.) Some cops have an adversarial attitude. We know people with more power (ie guns) are easily corrupted by that power - are quicker to make conclusions from their emotions rather then based in facts. A problem that the NRA does not want discussed. And yet that is the issue.

People with guns must be trained to become and remain more responsible. To act logical; not emotional. Apparently some venues still have a Mayor Daley or Mayor Rizzo attitude. Which then implies biases are imposed fastest on those one does not like.

How many cops have this attitude? How many venues spend more time in making friends of all citizens rather than let or encourage cops regard all as suspects? Unfortunately no quantitative statistics exist. Neighborhood policing was an example of how to avert a bad mindset.

Plenty of examples exist including Harvard Professor Gates confrontation with Sgt Crowley. And UT's Hummelstown video. Blacks have long complained about this double standard. Philando Castile's killing on livestream video in MN demonstrates that this problem clearly exists. As an excited cop yells at others after he shot Philando for no apparent reason (other than fear and emotion).

The Economist notes a completely different scenario. "Black lives matter" stems from other police confrontations where an officer was the only aggressor. As demonstrated by a reporter who followed Newark police for most of a year. Confrontation because those cops treated every person as a potential perp rather than a citizen to protect. How many officers have that attitude? The Economist study would say if it addressed that problem. Meanwhile, top cops in Newark disbanned that police unit after the reporter's video demonstrated that problem.

How many cops are trained in or have this bad attitude? We don't know. Statistics do not exist. We know the problem exists since complaints exist in all states. Including intentional profiling of blacks by NJ State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike as encouraged by top department management. We do not even know how many of those complaints are justified. We only know that a flurry of videos now demonstrate a problem is widespread. And probably has existed long before Professor Gates was arrested because he broke into his own house.

A situation escalated due to emotions by both men. Ironic that both men had a history of teaching for better inter-racial relations. And that both Gates and Sgt Crowley are distant cousins. But facts were irrelevant during the confrontation. Emotions and assumptions based in misinformation dominated that confrontation. In other situations, a guy with more power jumped to conclusions, in some cases, because power is a corrupting influence. Gun used when no threat justified that action. How often? No statistics exist.

UT's Hummelstown video is a damning example. Any reply cannot ignore a problem demonstrated by that video. How widespread is the problem? The Economist study does not address that issue. How many departments train their officers to not be confrontational to everyone. No facts exist. Economist does not ask. It was not the subject of their study.

How large is a minority of officers who jump to conclusions as 'wanna be' cop Zimmerman did by shooting Martin for no reason. Another example of a problem created when someone has too much power (ie a gun) and insufficient training (or mindset) to think logically. "He looks different. So he must be evil." A problem made worse when top management encouraged it as in the case in Newark and by State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike.

There are many adults who react like children - as demonstrated in that damning Hummelstown video.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2016, 01:36 PM   #4
Spexxvet
Makes some feel uncomfortable
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt View Post
"before attacking an officer" implies that eventually they do attack an officer. It's a poor choice of words. They should have said "without" attacking an officer. I was confused by that too. Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.
"Without" would imply that he never was going to attack the officer. We all know he was planning on it, but got shot before he could carry out his evil plan.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce
Spexxvet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2016, 06:24 PM   #5
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
We all know he was planning on it, but got shot before he could carry out his evil plan.
Harvard professor shots cop who is a family member. Interesting. I never saw that headline.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.