If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Stepping out of the Wayback Machine, is one of the reasons I'm super polite to a cop who pulls me over because they could blow my head clean off? Yes. It's also because they've got a job to do, which I appreciate them doing, and have a genuine lack of desire to give them a hard time.
Just to expound on this, and I think feel the same way: you should treat cops with respect because you treat every person who do their job correctly with respect. Especially if a police officer is courteous to you, IMHO you should reciprocate because that's just the right thing to do as a human being.
Originally Posted by subego
That said, I may feel differently if I got pulled over all the time. Likewise, my desire may not have been as genuine 25 years ago.
I think that's a good point. Or if there is a real chance that minute details may have serious ramifications.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Without the emphasis on the wallet/backpocket per se, we were taught to have our license and registration ready by the time the cop gets to your door. There's a reason they fiddle in their car after pulling you over: 1) to run your plates, and 2) gives you time.
We were taught you get pulled over, you immediately grab your license and registration, then wait hands at 10 and 2.
So teh New Black Panthers are going to have an ARMED PROTEST at the GOP convention. Great decision making. What could go wrong? Perhaps the deaths of a bunch of racist Black Panthers?
Remember the whole Henry Gates case where even Obama reacted too soon about how "stupid" the cops were, when it turned out the Gates never produced ID to prove he was breaking into his own house?
That's NOT what happened.
Read Crowley's report and stop on page two when he admits seeing Gates's Harvard photo ID. I don't care what Gates had said to him up until then, Crowley was obligated to leave. He had identified Gates. Any further investigation of Gates' right to be present in the house could have been done elsewhere. His decision to call HUPD seems disproportionate, but we could give him points for thoroughness if he had made that call from his car while keeping an eye on the house. Had a citizen refused to leave Gates' home after being told to, the cops could have made an arrest for trespass.
In the broken tail light case we havent even seen what transpired including the cop shooting Catile, all we have is Reynolds account. Is it even a real "slice" of reality or is it made to look like one?
Surely you aren't suggesting that Ms. Reynolds just decided to just make sh*t up as her boyfriend lay dying right next to her in realtime with her 4 year old daughter in the backseat?
Moreover, while we have not "seen" what transpired up until Ms. Reynolds started live-streaming we do know what precipitated the stop.
KARE11 TV in Minnesota has published what may be police dispatch audio showing that Philando Castile was stopped because the police officer who shot him thought he looked like an armed robbery suspect because of “the wide set nose.”
You can listen to the audio above or here. KARE cautions that the TV station received the audio from a viewer and has not been able to verify the dispatch audio with the St. Anthony Village Police Department.
The audio aired by the TV station starts with a male voice, purported to be the officer, saying:
“I’m going to stop a car. I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.”
“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the man in the audio adds. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose.”
Clarence Castile, Castile’s uncle, told KARE 11 the audio shows the stop was “racial profiling.” He told the TV station: “I just thought it was kind of insane to pull somebody over saying they matched a robbery suspect by having flared nostrils. It is kind of hard to see flared nostrils from a car.”
This is Philando Castile. With a so-called "wide set nose" that is quite typical for hundreds of millions of black men the world over.
But let's continue ....
Previously, Castile’s girlfriend, Lavish Reynolds, had said the couple’s car was stopped because of a broken taillight; she said the taillight wasn’t really broken. Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton repeated the taillight claim when he said, “No one should be shot and killed in Minnesota…for a taillight” and said he thought Castile’s race was a factor in his death.
After Castile was shot by a police officer (identified as Jeronimo Yanez), Reynolds streamed the immediate aftermath of the shooting on Facebook Live.
But it turns out that A) the tail-light was never broken, and B) that certainly isn't what this "officer" told dispatch was the real reason for the stop. And here's the kicker. Let's say that Mr. Castile had managed to produce his license and registration as the officer had instructed to without being shot and killed. How was that going to tie him to this supposed robbery one way or the other? Especially given that he had no criminal record whatsoever?
Even I may have reacted too soon in taking Castile's side. Turns out he's a Crips gang member who was pulled over due to being a burglary suspect.
Straight out of the "Police Apologist's Handbook for Defending the Indefensible". Smear the character of the victim. I won't even bother asking you for a credible source for this claim. I'll just appeal to your common sense. A "Crips Gang Member" who's in his mid-30s and has never been arrested for anything other than a traffic violation? No drug charges? No weapons possession charges? No assault charges? Nothing like that whatsoever. That seem likely to you?
And for those who want to see the source of this bogus claim and how it has already been thoroughly debunked just look here.
He didnt produce a government issued ID, like a license that everyone carries. What is a Harvard ID? Do law enforcement know the security features on such IDs? Do these IDs have your address? Can they be forged in windows Paint? If I want to break into someone's house is the only thing I have to do is Photoshop some ID for some organization with a name on it? How would you like it if while I was breaking into your house the cop left because I showed him an ID to my work-place with a name that may or may not be mine?
Cambridge, MA is a university town and the location of Harvard University ... the oldest university in the US and the wealthiest university in the world. If someone shows a local cop a Harvard Faculty ID you can best believe they know what it is. That being said ...
Gates had shown the officers his Harvard ID and his driver's license, both listing the address as his residence.
"While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me," Crowley wrote.
Crowley arrested and cuffed Gates on his porch for "exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior," his report said.
So again ... Prof. Gates had proven he was in his own home. Ofc. Crowley even acknowledged as much in his police report. He should have been on his way at that point. But when Prof. Gates demanded his name and badge number he never provided it. And then he decided to show Prof. Gates who was "boss" because he could. Simple as that.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
No. Im suggesting the events could be exaggerated twisted or incomplete. In the video she posted she claims he was shot 3 times. Then later 4 times. I think at 1 point 6 times. Not that it matters a whole lot, but other details that DO matter could have been fudged similarly.
Well in a court of law Ms. Reynolds live-streamed video has a very good chance of being considered an "excited utterance" which will bolster her credibility as a witness:
An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition. It is an unplanned reaction to a "startling event". It is an exception to the hearsay rule.[1] The statement must be spontaneously made by the person (the declarant) while still under the stress of excitement from the event or condition. The subject matter and content of the statement must "relate to" event or condition. The statement could be a description or explanation (as required for present sense impression), or an opinion or inference. Examples include: "Look out! We're going to crash!" or "I think he's crazy. He's shooting at us!" The basis for this hearsay exception is the belief that a statement made under the stress is likely to be trustworthy and unlikely to be premeditated falsehoods. Compared to present sense impression, excited utterance is broader in scope for permitting a longer time lapse between event and statement, and a wider range of content in the statement.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, an excited utterance is a hearsay exception, and is admissible to prove the truth of the statement itself (e.g., in the case of the first quotation above, to prove that the vehicle the declarant was riding in was, in fact, about to crash). To prove the truth of the statement means to persuade the finder of fact to believe the affirmative sense of the statement. "Truth" here does not mean truth from the subjective point of view of the declarant or from the objective point of view of a reasonably prudent person. It simply refers to the affirmative assertion of the statement.
Spontaneity of the declarant is a key to admissibility. An excited utterance does not have to be made at time of the startling event, but must be made while the declarant is still in a state of surprise or shock from the incident. The declarant's reflective powers must be stilled, meaning that, while making the statement, the declarant would not have had a chance to reflect upon the startling event, fabricate a purposefully false statement, and then say it. If the declarant is believed to have had time to reflect on the situation before making the statement, the statement would not be spontaneous and thus not an excited utterance. However, under certain circumstances, it is possible for days to have passed before the declarant fully reflects on the event, and "unstills" his or her reflective powers.
Wheres the source on this? As far as I can tell the primary source for this is a random twitter photo which isn't clear enough to tell.
In the dispatch recording cop says "I think he matches one of our suspects in a robbery bla bla" "I have a reason to pull them over", insinuating the tail light is the reason, but who knows. We haven't heard even a "slice" of the police side of the story.
See for yourself from eye-witness video on the scene with several people saying Mr. Castile had two functioning tail lights.
Gregory Ford shares new video of the aftermath of the police shooting of Philando Castile and casts doubt on police account of event
Cops say he was pulled over by Officer Jeronimo Yanez because of a busted taillight on the Oldsmobile Aurora
But Ford, 42, says he could clearly see the taillights on the car were working when he was at scene minutes later
'The rear lights were on. The car was still running and it was night-time, so you could clearly see both lights were on.'
But regardless of that ... we have this "officer's" own words on the police radio not mentioning anything whatsoever about a tail light. He said why he was pulling them over. Apparently because he thought Mr. Castile, Ms. Reynolds, and the 4 year old girl in the back seat looked like "robbery suspects". The "broken tail light" claim he made for the stop was just a pretext for him to go on his fishing expedition. Classic he "fit the description" BS.
Wow. When you are too "out there" for the New Black Panther Party ... which FTR has no ideological legitimacy per surviving members of the original Black Panther Party not to mention the black community in general ... well suffice it to that that speaks volumes!
Pics of the suspect in the armed robbery and Castille are uncanny.
oh and this...
Babu Omowale, the so-called national minister of defense for the People’s New Black Panther Party, says his group and allied organizations have their sights set on establishing “our own government in a nation within a nation.” Omowale was speaking in an interview set to air Sunday night on this reporter’s talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and News Talk 990 AM in Philadelphia.
Omowale used the interview to claim five states as belonging to the “Black Nation”: Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Remember that time when Obama turned a memorial service for murdered officers into a speech supporting BLM? Not everyone was impressed:
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Meh. The People’s New Black Panther Party is an even more obscure organization than the New Black Panther Party. And the latter might have a few hundred members nationwide at best. Both of which are the epitome of what we call a non-motherf*ckin' factor to everyone except the Fox News crowd.
When it's a few hundred in the Klan it's a "big deal", but when it's a black bona fide hate group it's a "non-motherf*ckin' factor", got that? We had to listen for months on end about Dylann Roof and white supremacy but the media never says the name Micah Johnson. Who? Exactly, to most of America he's just "Dallas cop shooter"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
When it's a few hundred in the Klan it's a "big deal", but when it's a black bona fide hate group it's a "non-motherf*ckin' factor", got that? We had to listen for months on end about Dylann Roof and white supremacy but the media never says the name Micah Johnson. Who? Exactly, to most of America he's just "Dallas cop shooter"
In feudal Europe, the safe bet is your community will at some point face the spectre of war.
As for fear, the question at hand is to whether power over the peasants exists by virtue of the peasants fearing that power. With a feudal king, the answer is no. The fundamental expression of a king's power is protecting his subjects from external threat. The king can't get to part where he overtaxes the peasants if they're all dead and his kingdom is in ruins.
It's more likely his peasants would be assimilated into another kingdom. But yes there's strategy involved, just like with getting soldiers to follow you in the 1st place if you dont have enough money. It makes no sense for him to be terrorizing the hands that feed him or letting someone else do it. But the soldiers come 1st...
The king being able to physically enforce his will upon the peasantry certainly enters the equation, but the power dynamic isn't as simple as a sword in the gut. While unequal, both sides are nonetheless entering into a contract.
Lets rewind a bit since this scenario is basically due to the fall of Rome. When Rome was first empire building it started as a single city. It was simply a matter of deciding to march its military across the lands and deliver the overwhelming force of violence to neighbors - rinse and repeat. Thats what winning battles is... Each battle is a matter of crushing the soldier caste of the neighbors; once you win that, you win the civilians, because they fear you, and thats what defines government. Rome didnt offer contracts to its rivals trying to sell them on all the services it could offer if they simply allowed Rome to take over. There wasnt a choice. It was about serving Rome, and many of the civilizations were better off before Rome entered the picture.
Then you have the fall. Rome's former soldier castes are now unemployed & skilless so resort to raping and pillaging the land. The wealthy hire them for protection but also to suppress at least a small portion of the peasantry into servitude type slavery. Some of these wealthy became royalty with this ability to hire soldiers on the cheap.
But even if we forget all of that, even in your best case scenario is seems fear based to me. The whole reason your mini society has entered this "contract" with policing for protection is due to fear of the neighbor lord's soldier's raids, other bandits or internal crime. And once you have police it's the fear of them that keeps potential criminals acting out, or potential neighbor lords from attacking. If so much as 1 in 20 people starts engaging in criminal acts your government collapses, the police keep it together by forcing would be criminals to think twice. Thats all Im saying. Im not saying EVERYBODY in society needs to be ruled by fear... But that society's foundation, which may be hidden during good times, is fear based (for everybody); because the cops job is to treat everyone he meets like a criminal if he wants any chance of breaking them, or surviving the encounter in the event his suspect is a criminal.
Security and professionalism dont go together easily. An encounter with a cop isnt a business meeting or an exchange with your butler. They have to be able to intimidate someone who's potentially a hardened criminal. Once your government loses the power to instill fear in would-be-criminals, we see all the people come out of the woodwork who we thought were so peaceful now tearing society apart. Post-oil-collapse-Venezuela is a perfect example of this.
Oreo brought up Japan and other 1st world societies. I contend they are fear based as well in the same way Hunger games is... District 1& Capital dont seem very fear based due to their comfort level - which is dependent on the more fear driven districts. So even though they're different societies, they're all 1 society in the big picture. One of the solutions of 1st world nations has been to outsource to dictator run economies the slavery, poverty, exploitation that lead to crime & violence. That way they dont need the hard policing and can pretend they've figured peaceful, educated, utopia all out.
Lets rewind a bit since this scenario is basically due to the fall of Rome. When Rome was first empire building it started as a single city. It was simply a matter of deciding to march its military across the lands and deliver the overwhelming force of violence to neighbors - rinse and repeat. Thats what winning battles is... Each battle is a matter of crushing the soldier caste of the neighbors; once you win that, you win the civilians, because they fear you, and thats what defines government. Rome didnt offer contracts to its rivals trying to sell them on all the services it could offer if they simply allowed Rome to take over. There wasnt a choice. It was about serving Rome, and many of the civilizations were better off before Rome entered the picture.
This is glossing over a bit too much. Rome started as a single city yes, but it did not have professional soldiers for a long time. It used conscripted armies and skillful politicking (Divide et Impera), and it defeated ancient civilizations like the Greeks and the Carthaginians with those armies.
But eventually those constant wars led to the depletion of the middle class, in effect removing those conscripted soldiers and forcing Rome to move to professional armies. This soon caused the collapse of the Republic for an Empire, and that Empire didn't really conquer anyone, but in the gap between, a time of less than 100 years - from Gaius Marius to Caesar Augustus, basically, a period of maybe three generations - it was a little like what you describe.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
Then you have the fall. Rome's former soldier castes are now unemployed & skilless so resort to raping and pillaging the land. The wealthy hire them for protection but also to suppress at least a small portion of the peasantry into servitude type slavery. Some of these wealthy became royalty with this ability to hire soldiers on the cheap.
If you in these "soldier castes" include Germanic auxillaries, then maybe, perhaps, kinda sorta, some of them. In general the Empire collapsed because it ran out of professional soldiers. Those barbarians that eventually crushed it were not the same people who had once served in its armies - these were nomadic Turkic peoples like the Huns. In fact, what caused the Dark Ages was the continuous influx of nomadic raiders from the east, and Europe rose from them as the western areas grew strong enough between the invasions to repel invaders and eventually push that border of stability eastwards.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
But even if we forget all of that, even in your best case scenario is seems fear based to me. The whole reason your mini society has entered this "contract" with policing for protection is due to fear of the neighbor lord's soldier's raids, other bandits or internal crime. And once you have police it's the fear of them that keeps potential criminals acting out, or potential neighbor lords from attacking. If so much as 1 in 20 people starts engaging in criminal acts your government collapses, the police keep it together by forcing would be criminals to think twice. Thats all Im saying. Im not saying EVERYBODY in society needs to be ruled by fear... But that society's foundation, which may be hidden during good times, is fear based (for everybody); because the cops job is to treat everyone he meets like a criminal if he wants any chance of breaking them, or surviving the encounter in the event his suspect is a criminal.
I disagree. Police are not soldiers. The very word "policeman" comes from the term "man of the polis=city" - ie, one of "us". Our society is based on the consent of the governed, not on fear - and part of the problem is confusing policemen with soldiers.
The difference between a modern policeman and a historical soldier lies in large part in the individual accountability. A medieval lord would normally back up his soldiers and vassals against the population no matter what, and would only back down and punish them to pacify the population - there was no sense of "right" there. A policeman has laws to follow, and should be punished when breaking them - and this is why it is so worrying when policemen go free after obvious transgressions caught on camera.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
The difference between a modern policeman and a historical soldier lies in large part in the individual accountability. A medieval lord would normally back up his soldiers and vassals against the population no matter what, and would only back down and punish them to pacify the population - there was no sense of "right" there. A policeman has laws to follow, and should be punished when breaking them - and this is why it is so worrying when policemen go free after obvious transgressions caught on camera.
And in the context of Rome, the Legions were forbidden to enter Rome as such (of course this law was eventually broken towards the end of the Roman Republic) — also because you have a distinction between police and soldiers.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
Lets rewind a bit since this scenario is basically due to the fall of Rome. When Rome was first empire building it started as a single city. It was simply a matter of deciding to march its military across the lands and deliver the overwhelming force of violence to neighbors - rinse and repeat.
I'm not sure you understand Roman history here. The Romans did not start out to build an empire. Nor was the stability of their empire based on fear, it was based on the rule of law and the strict codification of the latter.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
Thats what winning battles is... Each battle is a matter of crushing the soldier caste of the neighbors; once you win that, you win the civilians, because they fear you, and thats what defines government.
No, a military only wins an empire, but what made the Romans special was their administration which allowed them to keep an empire (looking at what Italy is today, it is hard to believe that the Romans were the administrative geniuses of their time). Their regions and vassal states flourished precisely because there was no fear: if you stick to the rules, the Roman laws as well as the treaties, you were ok (for the most part). That's good for trade which means society flourishes. In many cases it just wasn't worth it for other states to rebel.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
Then you have the fall. Rome's former soldier castes are now unemployed & skilless so resort to raping and pillaging the land. The wealthy hire them for protection but also to suppress at least a small portion of the peasantry into servitude type slavery. Some of these wealthy became royalty with this ability to hire soldiers on the cheap.
This is not how Rome fell. The core problems were the erosion of the rule of law and the outsourcing of much of the fighting to less civilized peoples on the fringes of the Roman Empire. (The precise hows and whys have been a matter of debate amongst historians since literally hundreds and hundreds of years.)
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
Oreo brought up Japan and other 1st world societies. I contend they are fear based as well in the same way Hunger games is... District 1& Capital dont seem very fear based due to their comfort level - which is dependent on the more fear driven districts.
So where exactly are District 2–12 in Germany, Canada, the US or Japan? Violence and crime are at an all time low and Western states have long abolished slavery. Plus, there are poorer countries where you also have relatively low levels of crime (Chile comes to mind).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
And in the context of Rome, the Legions were forbidden to enter Rome as such (of course this law was eventually broken towards the end of the Roman Republic) — also because you have a distinction between police and soldiers.
Rome is a fantastic historic parallel here. Not only were armies (even before the legions) not allowed inside the city - not even guards for the magistrates (lictors) were allowed to carry weapons. They carried rods with fasces (a bundle of sticks) around, but this was symbolic - back in the time of the kings the fasces decorated axes, and they still did so outside the city limits. In times of crisis, a single man could be appointed dictator for a limited time, suspending the legislative process (as anyone who has seen The Dark Knight knows) - the lictors accompanying that dictator were the only ones allowed to keep their axeheads inside the city.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Let's take a point we agree on and work from there.
We are totally on the same page about it only taking 1 in 20 people to bring society crashing down. I call this society's "big secret". The whole thing is far more delicate than most want to admit.
However this seems to lead me to the opposite conclusion from what's being argued. There's no way you can scare everyone away from being the 1 in 20. The vast majority has to not want to be that in the first place.
If we didn't naturally want to do that, you wouldn't have been able to take a breeding stock of about 5,000, and turn it into 7 billion and growing.
What's happening in Venezuela is exactly what used to happen to a king who blew it. Once the king could no longer feed the peasants, the peasants start eating the king. The cause is the king stumbling over his side of the agreement.
I don't buy the issue is Venezuelan enforcers are somehow less scary then they were six months ago.
(
Last edited by subego; Jul 14, 2016 at 12:44 PM.
)
A mere technicality at this point. He'll live ~5 minutes in GP, if that. SC doesn't store inmates indefinitely in solitary anymore, eventually (likely after the trial) he'll be vulnerable and the state will release themselves of the burden of caring for him for 60 years.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Yep, that's really it (fortunately). There are numerous Klan fanboys, but the actual KKK is very small and difficult to join (due to their extreme paranoia over federal infiltration), usually requiring that you be a legacy and/or perform an act that's so heinous no agent of the gov't would ever do it. There's far more fear surrounding that group than substance.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
This is an odd technicality to ask the press to consider in terms of whether they use his name, no?
I mean, there's still a whole trial they're going to report on.
This was a situation that began from the onset. The media loves mass killers, they're good for advertising revenue, their names produce $. However, that changes when the murderer is Left wing, then they focus on the social "struggles" that purportedly set the homicidal maniac off while purposely avoiding their name (see Obama's speech at the Dallas funeral). It's all about maintaining The Narrative: Right-wing extremists are reported as predators and evidence of systemic hatred and oppression, while Left-wing killers are victims of that system.
The canary in the coal mine was when "experts" started claiming that certain ethnicities can't be racist (yeah, seriously), alleging that to be racist you must first have social power and privilege. In one fell swoop this exonerates all minority bad actors, making them out to be righteous.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
This was a situation that began from the onset. The media loves mass killers, they're good for advertising revenue, their names produce $. However, that changes when the murderer is Left wing, then they focus on the social "struggles" that purportedly set the homicidal maniac off while purposely avoiding their name (see Obama's speech at the Dallas funeral). It's all about maintaining The Narrative: Right-wing extremists are reported as predators and evidence of systemic hatred and oppression, while Left-wing killers are victims of that system.
The canary in the coal mine was when "experts" started claiming that certain ethnicities can't be racist (yeah, seriously), alleging that to be racist you must first have social power and privilege. In one fell swoop this exonerates all minority bad actors, making them out to be righteous.
I don't really disagree in an overall sense, I'm only arguing whether a person is alive or not is a non-trivial variable in the incidence rate of their name being mentioned.
Similarly, Jackson's name is getting reported. I'm seeing it. [Edit: Johnson. Went to high school with a Micah Jackson]
All that said, if you factored out Roof being alive, and checked the incidence rate of being named over an equivalent period of time would there be more mentions of Roof?
That's certainly how I'd bet.
(
Last edited by subego; Jul 14, 2016 at 01:52 PM.
)
Also, somehow Roof avoided the infamous "3-name status" most mass-murderers get pinned with, but I suppose Dylan Storm Roof doesn't roll off the tongue very well.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Yep, that's really it (fortunately). There are numerous Klan fanboys, but the actual KKK is very small and difficult to join (due to their extreme paranoia over federal infiltration), usually requiring that you be a legacy and/or perform an act that's so heinous no agent of the gov't would ever do it. There's far more fear surrounding that group than substance.
Well the nation's most prestigious organization that tracks hate groups would disagree with your assertion that KKK membership is in the "hundreds".
Since the 1970s the Klan has been greatly weakened by internal conflicts, court cases, a seemingly endless series of splits and government infiltration. While some factions have preserved an openly racist and militant approach, others have tried to enter the mainstream, cloaking their racism as mere "civil rights for whites." Today, the Center estimates that there are between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members, split among dozens of different - and often warring - organizations that use the Klan name.
The "dozens of organizations that use the Klan name" is key (though the SPLC is itself extremely suspect, ex. it took quite a bit of pressure to get them to formally recognize the Nation of Islam as a hate group and they still ignore many of the numerous Black Panther incarnations).
Anyone can use a name, but the "OG" Klan is tiny, much like how the actual mafia is so small and tight-knit (due to that paranoia I mentioned earlier). However, also like the Sicilians, just because they're small doesn't mean they aren't very dangerous and shouldn't be taken seriously.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Rome is a fantastic historic parallel here. Not only were armies (even before the legions) not allowed inside the city - not even guards for the magistrates (lictors) were allowed to carry weapons.
Agreed. And not only that, they had a delicate balance between immunity while you are holding many of the public offices (literally making you “untouchable”) but as soon as you left office, you could be attacked with … lawsuits The Romans tried — and for the longest period succeeded — in making political rivalries non-bloody (well, at least domestically, fighting in wars for prestige was an important piece of your application for higher office).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Since this is all supposed to relate back to policing, I feel obligated to point out police as such didn't exist until about 200 years ago.
My understanding is in Rome it was expressly because everyone knew Roman society had no mechanism by which to stop them from becoming government sanctioned thugs.
Without the emphasis on the wallet/backpocket per se, we were taught to have our license and registration ready by the time the cop gets to your door. There's a reason they fiddle in their car after pulling you over: 1) to run your plates, and 2) gives you time.
We were taught you get pulled over, you immediately grab your license and registration, then wait hands at 10 and 2.
This is not a good idea. The cop is also watching you, and if he sees you fiddling around and reaching for shit, he's going to approach your car a hell of a lot more jumpy.
My practice is
1) turn car off
2) put all my windows all the way down (provided the weather allows it
3)Wait for the cop to ask, then just say "it's in my [glove box, pocket, whatever], do you want me to reach for it?"
Normally the cops appreciate this, as these actions visibly show you're cooperating and their mood will relax a whole lot. YMMV, but i've gotten a couple warnings over tickets doing these things.
This is not a good idea. The cop is also watching you, and if he sees you fiddling around and reaching for shit, he's going to approach your car a hell of a lot more jumpy.
My practice is
1) turn car off
2) put all my windows all the way down (provided the weather allows it
3)Wait for the cop to ask, then just say "it's in my [glove box, pocket, whatever], do you want me to reach for it?"
Normally the cops appreciate this, as these actions visibly show you're cooperating and their mood will relax a whole lot. YMMV, but i've gotten a couple warnings over tickets doing these things.
We were talking about it in another thread, but this is my reasoning behind not getting my registration and POI from my glove compartment, even though I have a knife in there and am forced to mention it.
It seems like mentioning the knife would put a cop less on edge than reaching for something when it wasn't in full view or discussed.
Modifying what Cap'n Tightpants suggested, I'm thinking the best practice is all three papers in a bundle (the Cap'n suggested getting a spare DL for this purpose). Wait for the request, and then explain what needs to be done to retrieve it.
I'm leaning towards in the visor, so your hands can be in the fullest view possible.
We were talking about it in another thread, but this is my reasoning behind not getting my registration and POI from my glove compartment, even though I have a knife in there and am forced to mention it.
It seems like mentioning the knife would put a cop less on edge than reaching for something when it wasn't in full view or discussed.
Modifying what Cap'n Tightpants suggested, I'm thinking the best practice is all three papers in a bundle (the Cap'n suggested getting a spare DL for this purpose). Wait for the request, and then explain what needs to be done to retrieve it.
I'm leaning towards in the visor, so your hands can be in the fullest view possible.
Eh, once I get a chance to talk to them and ask to reach, they seem relaxed even as you're opening your stuff up. My insurance is on my phone and ID stays in the wallet. To me it's mostly about setting their tone before even saying a word, so that by the time the words start flowing no one's on edge.
In every jurisdiction I've ever been in, you can't have more than 1 ID. It's illegal to keep (pretty sure to keep them from ending up in minors hands, doubt any cop would trouble an old fart much about that). But you'd have to tell the DMV you lost your old one, which I'm sure is a crime of some sort.
"The police were responding Sunday to a shooting in Baton Rouge, La., that left at least three officers dead and seven others wounded", Kip Holden, the mayor-president of East Baton Rouge Parish, said.
Mr. Holden said reports of an active shooter in the vicinity of the Hammond Aire Plaza on Airline Highway came in around 9 a.m.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm listening to the LA state police on the police scanner app. I herad one officer say they have video of two shooters. Let's see if it magically become the "lone wolf'.
Cops are now being set up for ambush. It looks like Alex Jones prediction of martial law being declared may finally come true.
(
Last edited by Chongo; Jul 17, 2016 at 01:04 PM.
)
It's what Farrakhan and Assata Shakur have been calling for, come to fruition, a war against the police.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Why is it that we in the States have to have a "safe" way to reach for our identification to reduce the likelihood of getting shot? This seems strange to most Europeans. Hands on the wheel, or already have ID out at all times, and ask to reach for your wallet. Is this what they mean by "American Exceptionalism"?
Why is it that we in the States have to have a "safe" way to reach for our identification to reduce the likelihood of getting shot? This seems strange to most Europeans. Hands on the wheel, or already have ID out at all times, and ask to reach for your wallet. Is this what they mean by "American Exceptionalism"?
I can't tell for sure that you're kidding.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Another officer acquitted in the Freddie grey cases. I didn't realize it's the same judge every time. No wonder the defense keeps opting for trial by judge.
Question, if the officers aren't responsible for grays death who is? Act of God?
Another officer acquitted in the Freddie grey cases. I didn't realize it's the same judge every time. No wonder the defense keeps opting for trial by judge.
Question, if the officers aren't responsible for grays death who is? Act of God?
Clearly as far as this judge is concerned Freddie Gray broke his own neck.
Since this is all supposed to relate back to policing, I feel obligated to point out police as such didn't exist until about 200 years ago.
My understanding is in Rome it was expressly because everyone knew Roman society had no mechanism by which to stop them from becoming government sanctioned thugs.
Early on those lictors that I mentioned - personal guards of the magistrates - were the closest thing to it. Later there was the urban cohort, created by Augustus, which was a step towards a regular police force at the very least. By this point the republican ideals had been diluted, there were praetorian guards running around armed anyway, and so the urban cohorts used swords as needed.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
I should have specified Republican Rome. The concern over government thugs was who would control them. Once power was consolidated in a single individual, the concern no longer mattered.
What do you mean by "all-out"? You mean that finally both sides are participating? Instead of just one side killing the other again and again with no excuse better than "my bad?" With no accountability?
**** the police. And **** the system that can't hold them accountable. Yes, not-killing people is a hard job. Yes, you have to do it. EVERY single time. You miss one day and accidentally kill someone, you need to be found guilty. If the system can't deliver on this, then the system has NO right to complain when someone else decides to try to do it for them.
The idiot lone sniper is not going to do a better job at justice than the system is going to do. But the system better get its goddamn house in order before it deserves any sympathy. Eye-for-an-eye, and dead-cop-for-every-dead-civilian, is not justice. But if police can't manage to realize they don't have a license to kill (anymore), and if police can't manage to police their own, then that's what we will have to have until they open their eyes.
I don't want anyone on either side to die. But if only one side is allowed to kill the other with impunity, with no punishment and society apologizing for them, then the moral hazard is just too great.
The Romans tried — and for the longest period succeeded — in making political rivalries non-bloody (well, at least domestically, fighting in wars for prestige was an important piece of your application for higher office).
I have a bad feeling this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
Top