Page 9 of 22 FirstFirst ... 567891011121319 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 527

Thread: Race thread (will be moved on Monday night)

  1. #201
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Hill
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB4 View Post


    I don't even understand what you're getting at. I asked you what you understand white privilege to be. You don't need a library card to learn about it. I provided examples, which you reject as "a collections of antidotes, hypotheticals, stereotypes" and make some vague reference about Whites as a brand. You've expressed your dissent and seem to reject the idea that white people have more "advantages" in American society than black people, such as not getting charged with marijuana at the same rate as people of color despite similar usage. I don't think I can continue to engage with you despite my efforts to help you expand your thinking from all of this.
    The stating of the obvious is getting tedious. I'll throw one in: Life isn't fair.

    Everyone has advantages and disadvantages and it's not fair. If your definition of 'white privilege' is 'white people have more "advantages" in American society than black people' then we have something to work with. Whites are the majority of the population which is an advantage because products and services are meant to serve the biggest market possible. Humans (all humans) are more likely to relate to someone that looks, speaks, or acts like them( if you ever want to ingratiate yourself with someone, mimic their speech, gestures, and clothing). So if you are saying that 'white privilege' is the phenomenon that the majority of the US is white and humans have in-group bias then you are correct. I thought everyone knew this. We try to be better and not be irrational but it's not all nurture.

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoilzag View Post
    It's such an obvious answer I can't tell if you are trolling. Just because something is addressed and codified doesn't mean it erases history or impact.
    I'm assuming that you are also of the belief that these impacts are negative?

    I'll also take a leap of faith and assume that you would agree that slavery and segregation afforded white Americans many benefits.

    Can you therefor agree that the lasting negative impacts upon the black community mean that members of that community have many disadvantages that white Americans would not experience?

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,715

    Default

    Where the basketball in this discussion. ???

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoilzag View Post
    The stating of the obvious is getting tedious. I'll throw one in: Life isn't fair.

    Everyone has advantages and disadvantages and it's not fair. If your definition of 'white privilege' is 'white people have more "advantages" in American society than black people' then we have something to work with. Whites are the majority of the population which is an advantage because products and services are meant to serve the biggest market possible. Humans (all humans) are more likely to relate to someone that looks, speaks, or acts like them( if you ever want to ingratiate yourself with someone, mimic their speech, gestures, and clothing). So if you are saying that 'white privilege' is the phenomenon that the majority of the US is white and humans have in-group bias then you are correct. I thought everyone knew this. We try to be better and not be irrational but it's not all nurture.
    White privileged isn't simply the result of being the majority of the population, its being the benefactor of 400 years slavery and segregation which allowed white Americans to prosper on the backs of black Americans. It allowed white Americans to own land and businesses, to expand and grow the middle class, while black American's were not. (or if they did ended up having their businesses destroyed ie. Tulsa, or Rosewood) White privilege is in part the 400 year head start people who are white had on people who are black, it's that head start that they continue to enjoy today through the enforcement of many entities and institutions which were created during those times.

    Here is a definition I've seen though it may not necessarily be all encompassing. “Having greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] do.

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    13,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoilzag View Post
    The stating of the obvious is getting tedious. I'll throw one in: Life isn't fair.

    Everyone has advantages and disadvantages and it's not fair. If your definition of 'white privilege' is 'white people have more "advantages" in American society than black people' then we have something to work with. Whites are the majority of the population which is an advantage because products and services are meant to serve the biggest market possible. Humans (all humans) are more likely to relate to someone that looks, speaks, or acts like them( if you ever want to ingratiate yourself with someone, mimic their speech, gestures, and clothing). So if you are saying that 'white privilege' is the phenomenon that the majority of the US is white and humans have in-group bias then you are correct. I thought everyone knew this. We try to be better and not be irrational but it's not all nurture.
    Correct... life isn't fair. But systemic racism isn't about life being fair... it is about the system being designed to systemically be unfair to a segment of society. Life isn't fair when it is about luck not going your way or things not working out as you planned is a valid statement. Having a system set up to discriminate is not a vaild use of "life isn't fair". JMHO
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    13,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    Where the basketball in this discussion. ???
    Just don't read the thread. It seems many here, on both sides of the spectrum, want this to be where it is... at least for now. If it runs its course...we'll move it.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,491

    Default

    I don't think I have much more to add to this.

    https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/f...ivilege-really

    "We cannot have an enlightened democracy with one great group living in ignorance."

    "We cannot be truly Christian people so long as we flaunt the central teachings of Jesus: brotherly love and the Golden Rule. We cannot come to full prosperity with one great group so ill-delayed that it cannot buy goods. So as we gird ourselves to defend democracy from foreign attack, let us see to it that increasingly at home we give fair play and free opportunity for all people."

    "First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’ Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.”

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    Where the basketball in this discussion. ???
    Do you think Josh Heytvelt's legal issues would have been received the same in Spokane had he been Black?

    Do you think Adam Morrison's mercurial, outlandish personality would have been viewed so positively had he been Black?

    Have you read the words of Geno Crandall? Sam Dower? Nigel Williams-Goss? Racial discrimination, bias, and prejudice are 100% related to Gonzaga basketball. And medicine. And everything else that involves human beings.

  9. #209
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Hill
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kong-Kool-Aid View Post
    I'm assuming that you are also of the belief that these impacts are negative?

    I'll also take a leap of faith and assume that you would agree that slavery and segregation afforded white Americans many benefits.

    Can you therefor agree that the lasting negative impacts upon the black community mean that members of that community have many disadvantages that white Americans would not experience?
    First off, slavery and segregation should not be grouped as if they are synonymous. Owning someone as property is so much worse that they shouldn't be mentioned together. Slavery was also abolished around 190 years ago in the US before Washington was even a state. There are still people alive the experienced segregation.

    I don't agree with the leap of faith because it frames the situation as whites taking from blacks as opposed to not treating blacks as well. Even in their ignorance, people in the 50's treated blacks as more of a second class (similar to India's caste system) than predator and pray. The christian values prevailed.

    There have been several times in recent history where the US government worked against the black communities like in FDR's new deal and even recently in the 1980's where welfare largely destroyed the traditional black family.

    Again, I've only been one person my whole life and can't mind read. Black people are not a monolithic group with all the same thoughts and struggles but I'm pretty sure that any black person from the past would trade places with some black person in the future in the US. We in the US want to continue that trend.

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    11,741

    Default

    I was in favor of eliminating the OCC in this forum, because it represented a degradation of discourse. That degradation of discourse may have started online and seeped out into the everyday world. I'm not sure. That lack of respect for an opposing viewpoint may have always been there for all I know.

    So, it is with reluctance that I post in this thread. However, as you may conclude from my writings below, I think this is an important discussion because amongst some public officials there is a lack of coherent thinking which is influening policy matters, in my opinion. If you feel the need to disagree with me, feel free. Please be respectful and realize my thoughts come from a thoughtful, well informed by research and life experience and an honest place.

    I've written a couple of short postings on social media recently that are relevant to this discussion, but aren't in direct response to any specific post in this thread, the first I wrote last week:

    I support equal justice under the law. I support a just enforcement of the law. I support maximizing our individual freedoms and governments at all levels should be dedicated to the same. I support honesty, transparency and accountability from all whose actions have an impact on public life, especially our public officials, elected or otherwise. I support the concept of personal responsibility for my actions and I support holding other individuals accountable for their actions. I oppose systemic oppression. I oppose racism in all its forms. I believe I should try and live in accordance with my beliefs. This isn't a comprehensive list of all the concepts that are important to me, but the ones I feel are most relevant to todays conversation.
    I understand I am human and won't always live up to my ideals and I understand that others often fall short as well. I believe that most individuals come about their beliefs/opinions sincerely and that they have the best intentions, even if those beliefs/opinions are contrary to my own.
    I don't know enough about the political action campaign that calls itself Black Lives Matter. For that reason, I won't put up a black banner and use the popular hashtag floating around today. I agree with the statement that black lives matter. We are all God's children and should be treated accordingly. When I have time, I'll educate myself on this movement, but until then this is the best I can do.

    Subsequently today, I wrote this:


    Last week, when everyone was blacking our their social media pages, I wrote a post stating my interest in equal justice under the law and equal enforcement of the law, amongst other things. I wrote that I agree with the statement black lives matter, but didn’t know much about the political action group of the same name. Anyone that knows me also knows I don’t rubber stamp agreement with anything or anyone.
    Since then, I’ve studied the group, their ideology and their political goals. In this context, I am very much opposed to this political action group. Their ideology taken to its logical conclusion would be disastrous for our country and more relevantly to the black communities they purport to serve.
    They have long proposed defunding police across the country, replacing it with some nebulous and ill defined community funding. This by far is the worst idea I’ve ever heard being proposed and taken seriously in my 50 years. According to a recent Monmouth poll, a large majority of people in our country including black people are satisfied with the police. Why? It is because they serve a necessary role in all of our communities. They have a dangerous job. Are there bad cops? Absolutely! Most cops, like most people, are honorable men and women who want what is best for the communities they serve. Most live in those communities.
    The chaos that would ensue with out police is hard to imagine. In my life, I’ve been stolen from, had businesses I’ve managed shoplifted, been threatened with physical violence multiple times by strangers, physically assaulted, robbed at gun point, had two home invasions and most recently a drug fueled and insane individual trespassed on our property in the middle of the night. That has all happened with police! Imagine the amount of crime that will occur when those with bad intentions or with minds clouded by drug use know they can act with impunity?
    And yet, the city council of Minneapolis has voted to defund their police department. LA and NYC are considering similar actions. This is insane.
    I cannot support a political action group that would propose such a policy. I will not support it.


  11. #211
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zagfan24 View Post
    Do you think Josh Heytvelt's legal issues would have been received the same in Spokane had he been Black?

    Do you think Adam Morrison's mercurial, outlandish personality would have been viewed so positively had he been Black?

    Have you read the words of Geno Crandall? Sam Dower? Nigel Williams-Goss? Racial discrimination, bias, and prejudice are 100% related to Gonzaga basketball. And medicine. And everything else that involves human beings.

    It might . This "discussion" could be more properly be in the foo. LIZ says it should stay here because many people comment. All that means is that many people are commenting and the thread is interesting. Answer: usual absence of logic, they'd be just as interested if it was in the foo.

    You all have shifted from cops killing this poor man ( see the FBI data) to the concepts and arguments on systemic racism..not in basketball but throughout the society. SO now those who would rather be seeing basketball news continue to get long winded reviews on this murder.

    As for "Don't read it"" from LIZ, childish response. In this basketball board, this one issue is overshadowing every and anything basketball. Diligence with a few click or two, this could and should be elsewhere.......FOO or something akin.

    We will not solve or fix systemic racism.......... it's a dead end. Not here, not anywhere. Social issues should be elsewhere. Some here are confusing insofar as whenone of our former basketball players says something...it's a basketball related statement...only by the thinnest of threads. No.it's the content of the posts that defines where a thread should be. .not who said it.

  12. #212
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    11,741

    Default

    Abe,

    I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, as a founding member of the Foo, I protest any thread not started in the Foo, being moved to the Foo. The Foo is a sacred ground of nonsense, frivolity, and horseplay. It is not a place for a serious discussion on any topic whatsoever, except for barbecue.

    God Bless.

  13. #213
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by former1dog View Post
    I was in favor of eliminating the OCC in this forum, because it represented a degradation of discourse. That degradation of discourse may have started online and seeped out into the everyday world. I'm not sure. That lack of respect for an opposing viewpoint may have always been there for all I know.

    So, it is with reluctance that I post in this thread. However, as you may conclude from my writings below, I think this is an important discussion because amongst some public officials there is a lack of coherent thinking which is influening policy matters, in my opinion. If you feel the need to disagree with me, feel free. Please be respectful and realize my thoughts come from a thoughtful, well informed by research and life experience and an honest place.

    I've written a couple of short postings on social media recently that are relevant to this discussion, but aren't in direct response to any specific post in this thread, the first I wrote last week:

    I support equal justice under the law. I support a just enforcement of the law. I support maximizing our individual freedoms and governments at all levels should be dedicated to the same. I support honesty, transparency and accountability from all whose actions have an impact on public life, especially our public officials, elected or otherwise. I support the concept of personal responsibility for my actions and I support holding other individuals accountable for their actions. I oppose systemic oppression. I oppose racism in all its forms. I believe I should try and live in accordance with my beliefs. This isn't a comprehensive list of all the concepts that are important to me, but the ones I feel are most relevant to todays conversation.
    I understand I am human and won't always live up to my ideals and I understand that others often fall short as well. I believe that most individuals come about their beliefs/opinions sincerely and that they have the best intentions, even if those beliefs/opinions are contrary to my own.
    I don't know enough about the political action campaign that calls itself Black Lives Matter. For that reason, I won't put up a black banner and use the popular hashtag floating around today. I agree with the statement that black lives matter. We are all God's children and should be treated accordingly. When I have time, I'll educate myself on this movement, but until then this is the best I can do.

    Subsequently today, I wrote this:


    Last week, when everyone was blacking our their social media pages, I wrote a post stating my interest in equal justice under the law and equal enforcement of the law, amongst other things. I wrote that I agree with the statement black lives matter, but didn’t know much about the political action group of the same name. Anyone that knows me also knows I don’t rubber stamp agreement with anything or anyone.
    Since then, I’ve studied the group, their ideology and their political goals. In this context, I am very much opposed to this political action group. Their ideology taken to its logical conclusion would be disastrous for our country and more relevantly to the black communities they purport to serve.
    They have long proposed defunding police across the country, replacing it with some nebulous and ill defined community funding. This by far is the worst idea I’ve ever heard being proposed and taken seriously in my 50 years. According to a recent Monmouth poll, a large majority of people in our country including black people are satisfied with the police. Why? It is because they serve a necessary role in all of our communities. They have a dangerous job. Are there bad cops? Absolutely! Most cops, like most people, are honorable men and women who want what is best for the communities they serve. Most live in those communities.
    The chaos that would ensue with out police is hard to imagine. In my life, I’ve been stolen from, had businesses I’ve managed shoplifted, been threatened with physical violence multiple times by strangers, physically assaulted, robbed at gun point, had two home invasions and most recently a drug fueled and insane individual trespassed on our property in the middle of the night. That has all happened with police! Imagine the amount of crime that will occur when those with bad intentions or with minds clouded by drug use know they can act with impunity?
    And yet, the city council of Minneapolis has voted to defund their police department. LA and NYC are considering similar actions. This is insane.
    I cannot support a political action group that would propose such a policy. I will not support it.

    Be not afraid. “Defunding the police” is not as scary (or even as radical) as it sounds, and engaging on this topic is necessary if we are going to achieve the kind of public safety we need. During my 25 years dedicated to police reform, including in places such as Ferguson, Mo., New Orleans and Chicago, it has become clear to me that “reform” is not enough. Making sure that police follow the rule of law is not enough. Even changing the laws is not enough.

    To fix policing, we must first recognize how much we have come to over-rely on law enforcement. We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse. We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill. We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue.

    Police themselves often complain about having to “do too much,” including handling social problems for which they are ill-equipped. Some have been vocal about the need to decriminalize social problems and take police out of the equation. It is clear that we must reimagine the role they play in public safety.

    Defunding and abolition probably mean something different from what you are thinking. For most proponents, “defunding the police” does not mean zeroing out budgets for public safety, and police abolition does not mean that police will disappear overnight — or perhaps ever. Defunding the police means shrinking the scope of police responsibilities and shifting most of what government does to keep us safe to entities that are better equipped to meet that need. It means investing more in mental-health care and housing, and expanding the use of community mediation and violence interruption programs.

    Police abolition means reducing, with the vision of eventually eliminating, our reliance on policing to secure our public safety. It means recognizing that criminalizing addiction and poverty, making 10 million arrests per year and mass incarceration have not provided the public safety we want and never will. The “abolition” language is important because it reminds us that policing has been the primary vehicle for using violence to perpetuate the unjustified white control over the bodies and lives of black people that has been with us since slavery. That aspect of policing must be literally abolished.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-really-means/
    --

  14. #214
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    13,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    It might . This "discussion" could be more properly be in the foo. LIZ says it should stay here because many people comment. All that means is that many people are commenting and the thread is interesting. Answer: usual absence of logic, they'd be just as interested if it was in the foo.

    You all have shifted from cops killing this poor man ( see the FBI data) to the concepts and arguments on systemic racism..not in basketball but throughout the society. SO now those who would rather be seeing basketball news continue to get long winded reviews on this murder.

    As for "Don't read it"" from LIZ, childish response. In this basketball board, this one issue is overshadowing every and anything basketball. Diligence with a few click or two, this could and should be elsewhere.......FOO or something akin.

    We will not solve or fix systemic racism.......... it's a dead end. Not here, not anywhere. Social issues should be elsewhere. Some here are confusing insofar as whenone of our former basketball players says something...it's a basketball related statement...only by the thinnest of threads. No.it's the content of the posts that defines where a thread should be. .not who said it.
    Not trying to be childish at all. It is a simple solution to the issue. Just reminding you that, like others, DO have the option to not click on the thread. It will be moved eventually, but as I said, people on both sides have expressed an interest in it staying where it is for the time being. Let it run it's course and it will go away. It is the off-season and it is an important topic. Let the leash out a bit on this one. If it gets too snippy we'll move it. For the record, I think you have offered great insight in the thread as well.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  15. #215
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    13,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by former1dog View Post
    Abe,

    I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, as a founding member of the Foo, I protest any thread not started in the Foo, being moved to the Foo. The Foo is a sacred ground of nonsense, frivolity, and horseplay. It is not a place for a serious discussion on any topic whatsoever, except for barbecue.

    God Bless.

    LOL... yeah.. what he said. No Foo for this thread. When it does get moved... it won't be there.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  16. #216
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Hill
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kong-Kool-Aid View Post
    White privileged isn't simply the result of being the majority of the population, its being the benefactor of 400 years slavery and segregation which allowed white Americans to prosper on the backs of black Americans. It allowed white Americans to own land and businesses, to expand and grow the middle class, while black American's were not. (or if they did ended up having their businesses destroyed ie. Tulsa, or Rosewood) White privilege is in part the 400 year head start people who are white had on people who are black, it's that head start that they continue to enjoy today through the enforcement of many entities and institutions which were created during those times.

    Here is a definition I've seen though it may not necessarily be all encompassing. “Having greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] do.
    The US was a burning hulk after the civil war with very little wealth. I'd say more of a 150 year head start than a 400 year.

    I hear what you are saying but the next step is this line of reasoning seems to be "therefore, what you have is ill gotten gains" and I don't agree with that. I haven't stolen or cheated to get the few things I have and I reject that I can be considered immoral just because of my ethnicity.

    As far as the "greater access to power and resources" I've read Marx and this just sounds like replacing Bourgeoisie with White. There will always be class struggle.

    There will always be "It's not what you know, but who you know". I don't like it, but it's true.
    We are on this earth to live, not to avoid death.

  17. #217
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Hill
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LongIslandZagFan View Post
    Not trying to be childish at all. It is a simple solution to the issue. Just reminding you that, like others, DO have the option to not click on the thread. It will be moved eventually, but as I said, people on both sides have expressed an interest in it staying where it is for the time being. Let it run it's course and it will go away. It is the off-season and it is an important topic. Let the leash out a bit on this one. If it gets too snippy we'll move it. For the record, I think you have offered great insight in the thread as well.
    I think it has been a release valve for the opinionated people that visit the board. There's a vacuum on basketball news and people made visiting the board as part of their daily routine so at least there's something to read/respond to.

  18. #218
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    13,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoilzag View Post
    I think it has been a release valve for the opinionated people that visit the board. There's a vacuum on basketball news and people made visiting the board as part of their daily routine so at least there's something to read/respond to.

    We may not agree on the subject at hand... but definitely agree with this. I am pleased that by and large the discussion has been polite (not always but nothing egregious either).
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

  19. #219
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    7,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tinfoilzag View Post
    First off, slavery and segregation should not be grouped as if they are synonymous. Owning someone as property is so much worse that they shouldn't be mentioned together. Slavery was also abolished around 190 years ago in the US before Washington was even a state. There are still people alive the experienced segregation.

    I don't agree with the leap of faith because it frames the situation as whites taking from blacks as opposed to not treating blacks as well. Even in their ignorance, people in the 50's treated blacks as more of a second class (similar to India's caste system) than predator and pray. The christian values prevailed.

    There have been several times in recent history where the US government worked against the black communities like in FDR's new deal and even recently in the 1980's where welfare largely destroyed the traditional black family.

    Again, I've only been one person my whole life and can't mind read. Black people are not a monolithic group with all the same thoughts and struggles but I'm pretty sure that any black person from the past would trade places with some black person in the future in the US. We in the US want to continue that trend.
    I posted a link above that describes how the inequitable enforcement of 'the law' enabled many white men to use black convicts for almost free labor, especially in the south. Still slavery, just a different means of getting to it.
    It's not funny.

  20. #220
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lacrosse, Washington
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bballbeachbum View Post
    hey hoop, the DA was clear what he thinks should have happened, and charged the two officers based on that. The DA presser I linked, or even the shorter edited version, his interpretation of the event is different from yours, maybe I'm wrong on that, but what do you think of what the DA said about this and how the law, per the DA, says these officers should have acted?
    Got buried sorry

    First he is a political position and has to make some decisions based upon the optics of his constituents. That is reality in life.

    Second, element of INTENT is going to be very very difficult to prove along with the element of an unlawful touching (told to depart, approached and APPEARS(though very hard to see in the media release) to grab or attempt to grab an officers hand or arm.......The third element is clearly present and that is what he rested his belief in charging on. Age of victim and age of suspect. US Supreme Court has been clear time and time again (*right wrong or needs to change is different discussion) that use of force is an objective reasonableness standard that is based upon a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion or force used, utilizing a reasonable police officer point of view....... a change from the past standards and reliance of the 14th ammendment and malicious intent and even more unusual foundational view of the eight ammendmanent of cruel and unusual punishment...........so with the next issue below would a reasonable officer conclude that the extension of the riot baton in a push manner and the extension of the right hand in a push manner combined with multiple commands to depart was reasonable and the outcome was predictable (*concussion and critical condition)

    Third, the tactics deployed are taught and trained AFTER being vetted at the state level, through the state criminal justice training apparatus, thus approved at the State Attorney General level as being an authorized tactic. So if you have a state AG approving/authorizing, state training agency training it, local DA having full knowledge of the options as it pertains to tactics, a City Mayor knowing full well what the action plan and tactics are going to be in place and a Chief of Police and his/her command staff providing direct training, authorization and guidance .......do you think the officer would have reasonable belief the tactic deployed is authorized and not excessive
    Now we can have a discussion about tactics but isn’t it odd that the same DA has not charged any officers/command staff when they deployed pepper spray or other tactics since after all he said”It is simple, arrest him”........food for thought

    Finally, he is going to have a hard time explaining that just a mere 2 months ago he declined to charge a manslaughter charge against several individuals in a hazing death with his exact statements being. “I could find no intent as it pertains to their actions and the outcome”. Yet without even interviewing the suspects, he was somehow able to infer intent through their actions and desired outcome......tough one for me to view

    Those are several factors as it pertains to the law and use of force in context with this specific incident

    Again discussion of utilizing this tactic can occur and I provided options for consideration but each have potential for negative outcomes in a volatile evolving, changing situation.......
    Basketball...The Toy Department of Life

    Don't mess wth happy...Coach Few

  21. #221
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,618

    Default

    Good points made by all. The fact that this has gone 9 pages without blowing up should give us all hope for the rest of society. I like this from John Oliver. Some good points made, no fingers pointed based on politics, since both parties have failed us on this issue. One story to share that pertains to this discussion: My future son in law is African American. He described a time when he was driving in Post Falls and was pulled over. The officers proceeded to inspect/search the vehicle only to tell him the reason the pulled him over was to let him know his tabs were expiring in 3 months. He was scared and his takeaway from that was he was grateful his Mom was a passenger in the car or what else would have happened. I am law enforcement, have many friends who are cops. Bottom line is things need to change.


  22. #222
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    sierra foothills
    Posts
    13,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoopaholic View Post
    Got buried sorry

    First he is a political position and has to make some decisions based upon the optics of his constituents. That is reality in life.

    Second, element of INTENT is going to be very very difficult to prove along with the element of an unlawful touching (told to depart, approached and APPEARS(though very hard to see in the media release) to grab or attempt to grab an officers hand or arm.......The third element is clearly present and that is what he rested his belief in charging on. Age of victim and age of suspect. US Supreme Court has been clear time and time again (*right wrong or needs to change is different discussion) that use of force is an objective reasonableness standard that is based upon a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion or force used, utilizing a reasonable police officer point of view....... a change from the past standards and reliance of the 14th ammendment and malicious intent and even more unusual foundational view of the eight ammendmanent of cruel and unusual punishment...........so with the next issue below would a reasonable officer conclude that the extension of the riot baton in a push manner and the extension of the right hand in a push manner combined with multiple commands to depart was reasonable and the outcome was predictable (*concussion and critical condition)

    Third, the tactics deployed are taught and trained AFTER being vetted at the state level, through the state criminal justice training apparatus, thus approved at the State Attorney General level as being an authorized tactic. So if you have a state AG approving/authorizing, state training agency training it, local DA having full knowledge of the options as it pertains to tactics, a City Mayor knowing full well what the action plan and tactics are going to be in place and a Chief of Police and his/her command staff providing direct training, authorization and guidance .......do you think the officer would have reasonable belief the tactic deployed is authorized and not excessive
    Now we can have a discussion about tactics but isn’t it odd that the same DA has not charged any officers/command staff when they deployed pepper spray or other tactics since after all he said”It is simple, arrest him”........food for thought

    Finally, he is going to have a hard time explaining that just a mere 2 months ago he declined to charge a manslaughter charge against several individuals in a hazing death with his exact statements being. “I could find no intent as it pertains to their actions and the outcome”. Yet without even interviewing the suspects, he was somehow able to infer intent through their actions and desired outcome......tough one for me to view

    Those are several factors as it pertains to the law and use of force in context with this specific incident

    Again discussion of utilizing this tactic can occur and I provided options for consideration but each have potential for negative outcomes in a volatile evolving, changing situation.......
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

    This will be interesting to follow. He is currently prosecuting 6 other law enforcement officials before this happened he said, so if it's political for optics, he's already made this optic apparent. He's also prosecuting 39 rioters currently I believe he said. I don't know if that is optics too, but he's busy...in the middle of all of this I believe he said.

    Re. intent, to many observers it looks like Gugino is returning the helmet so we'll see what is believed as a threat from q man approaching a mass of officers. The DA said they should have cuffed him, not shove him with the baton, so we'll see.

    Re. tactics, I have a question on that too; were the officers following orders, and if so, are others to be charged too? If not following orders, then only they are charged? From your writing I perceive you are saying they are following normal tactics and orders. That is some food for thought for me.

    Also, as a former Chief of Police, you understand that the DA's office is not the only political player in this equation.

    I appreciate our civil tone with each other.

  23. #223
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vandalzag View Post
    Good points made by all. The fact that this has gone 9 pages without blowing up should give us all hope for the rest of society. I like this from John Oliver. Some good points made, no fingers pointed based on politics, since both parties have failed us on this issue. One story to share that pertains to this discussion: My future son in law is African American. He described a time when he was driving in Post Falls and was pulled over. The officers proceeded to inspect/search the vehicle only to tell him the reason the pulled him over was to let him know his tabs were expiring in 3 months. He was scared and his takeaway from that was he was grateful his Mom was a passenger in the car or what else would have happened. I am law enforcement, have many friends who are cops. Bottom line is things need to change.

    Happened to me too. No reason to stop me. Gave me a ticket for 65 in a 60. But they tore my car APART AND WEREN'T NICE ABOUT IT. gave me a ticket and drove off. some cops are simpleton aholes .

  24. #224
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Irving, TX
    Posts
    9,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    Happened to me too. No reason to stop me. Gave me a ticket for 65 in a 60. But they tore my car APART AND WEREN'T NICE ABOUT IT. gave me a ticket and drove off. some cops are simpleton aholes .
    That's not unique to the good old USA. It must have been nearly 40 years ago when I was driving back from a weekend in Holland. Stayed in Amsterdam, visited Madurodam and the Keukenhof. At the German border, I was ordered out of my car, because the Polizei didn't like the answers to his questions. In his mind, there was no way in Hades that a 25 YO soldier could afford a brand new Volvo. He spent an hour looking for drugs, and did a number on my Bose sound system.

    He was really angry when he said it was ok to leave. What you said, Abe. I've had much better treatment in Texas, getting away with warnings twice, though I was ticketed in El Paso and Arlington. Both cops were surprised when I greeted them with, "yeah, you got me officer."

    And who doesn't get nervous when they see a cop following you? That's just part of the human experience, though I will say it doesn't compare to being pulled over for "driving while black."

  25. #225
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    On an island that is long
    Posts
    13,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDABE80 View Post
    Happened to me too. No reason to stop me. Gave me a ticket for 65 in a 60. But they tore my car APART AND WEREN'T NICE ABOUT IT. gave me a ticket and drove off. some cops are simpleton aholes .
    Definitely are some that are like that. I've been pulled over by one of those aholes myself.

    Considering the power they have to destroy someone's life, or in your case your car, perhaps the qualifications to be a cop need to be a bit higher than they are now. I know plenty of cops who are great people... some a very good friends of mine. I have also met, at a party about 10 years ago, a NYC highway patrol guy who bragged to me about wearing an SS pin on his uniform... he thought it was funny... I was horrified.

    Not sure I am pro-defunding or abolishing... but I do think perhaps restructuring and more civilian oversight is needed.
    "And Morrison? He did what All-Americans do. He shot daggers in the daylight and stole a win." - Steve Kelley (Seattle Times)

    "Gonzaga is a special place, with special people!" - Dan Dickau #21

    Foo me once shame on you, Foo me twice shame on me.

    2012 Foostrodamus - Foothsayer of Death

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •