|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 11, 2015 19:20:32 GMT 1
I'm finding this a fascinating question, in all sorts of ways. In particular, the surprisingly clear way that the media - I mean the British media, especially, but of course also the American (though this has been nowhere near as serious or blatant) - has without the slightest effort at impartial objectivity taken up the clearly one-sided perspective of the "protesters'" in reporting the story. I've had to dig quite hard to read or hear any contrasting - by which I mean measured, objective, rather than equally but oppositely distorted - reporting: I've found none on British TV at all*, and only one story in the British press that could remotely be descrbed as such. Of course, this is my especial interest - but the subject itself is also fascinating, I think.
I have a feeling that this distortion has now become so intense that the bubble it represents is going to burst, within a year or two at most. PC's special pleading for "victimised" minorities might be coming to an end.
* For once, C4 has been markedly more guilty than the BBC, which I suppose must be counted as some sort of improvement.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 14, 2015 18:28:17 GMT 1
Bloody hell! After two days on the road I was thirsting to get back to enter a thrashing fray on this one! I thought I'd thrown an irresistable bait into the shark pool. But no, the self-righteous sharks are curiously dormant, studiously ignoring this poor little defenceless dolphin. What's going on? I must be right - the times they are a'changin.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 28, 2015 16:20:40 GMT 1
As you have dismissed all the broadcast news as one-sided, either there is only one side to the news, or you have privileged access to the other side.
If the latter, please let us have the benefit of your personal, unbiassed and objective experience and knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 28, 2015 19:53:37 GMT 1
As you have dismissed all the broadcast news as one-sided, either there is only one side to the news, or you have privileged access to the other side. Not privileged, no. Unless you mean I'm someone who's willing to try to access facts and evaluate them? When I was a journalist, this used to be part of the job description. Alright. You have a very complicated situation, that's the first given. Yes? There are no simple answers. You have a police force - like any police force in the world, it's made of people of a certain range of types. A large part of that range are young not-too-bright men, full of swagger and pride at defending what they have learnt is worth defending. They have a probable excess of average aggression. That's a given. Yes? Secondly, you have a situation where there is a concentrated segment of society who feel aggrieved, alienated, economically underprivileged, and relatively detached from societal norms. Yes? Call them Blacks, Muslims, Hippies, Greens, Scientologists, whatever. Thirdly, you have this self-identified group of alienated people committing a large proportion of crime relative to the wider society, which the police self-identify as its defenders. In this case, they do so with extreme violence - the police are under intense threat, at all times, even when they're conducting daily routine taks like policing traffic violations, so the "extreme" needs to be tramslated as "judicious".. The result mathematically is that a high proportion of that alienated population will be met with a higher than usual "heavy" response, from the police charged with ensuring that the law and order as laid down by the wider society carries. It's inevitable, right? It doesn't mean the police are necessarily prejudiced against this or that alienated group (black police shoot as many black offenders as white police do) - if that group are conducting "crime" as defined by the wider society they will inevitably be focussed on, given that the police have, like all human beings, a survival instinct.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 28, 2015 22:58:58 GMT 1
...(black police shoot as many black offenders as white police do)... But those shot are not always offenders. Isn't that the point?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 29, 2015 12:15:58 GMT 1
You have a very complicated situation, that's the first given. So let's be scientific and simplify the situation. Several unarmed people (UPs) have been shot by police officers. Let's divide the population into "white" and "other". What proportion of UPs are white, and how does this compare with the distribution of the entire population? If there is a significant difference, the question "why" has some legitimacy. If not, it isn't worth asking. And as a completely facetious aside, all the US presidents who have been hit by bullets have been white. Therefore the USA is deeply racist, but not in the way that most people imagine.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 29, 2015 22:38:35 GMT 1
...(black police shoot as many black offenders as white police do)... But those shot are not always offenders. Isn't that the point? Nope. As far as I'm aware. Even in the most egregious of the recent examples. Edit: Oh, there was the young guy allegedly wandering home confronted by a security guard. Who knows what happened there? Do you? I don't. A tragedy, no doubt. But was the shooter guilty? Not my job to decide, and nor is it the "black community" who immediately decided that it was a significator of racial discrimination on the part of the entire judicial system. What that community needs to ask itself and act upon is: why are our young black men being disproportionately assumed to be a dangerous threat, and therefore losing their lives in such a seemingly haphazard manner? Does it have anything to do with the fact that most crime is committed by those men? That even those who are not criminal have adopted a culture that seemingly worships such criminal behaviour? That they wander about at night dressed like gangstas, for example? That, for the Ferguson instance, they throw their weight around in a grocery store and take what they want through force? That the police are so used to confronting armed black youths that a child waving about a replica pistol is quite justifiably assessed as a dangerous criminal, whereas here (still, I hope) he might be judged to be a kid playing in the park? What I'm saying is, (what Obama said, sort of as a sotto voce aside) - the black community needs to take responsibility for this, and change their ways.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 29, 2015 22:49:05 GMT 1
You have a very complicated situation, that's the first given. So let's be scientific and simplify the situation. Several unarmed people (UPs) have been shot by police officers. Let's divide the population into "white" and "other". What proportion of UPs are white, and how does this compare with the distribution of the entire population? Well, if you look you'll find a wide range of statistics proffered - I've read from three-to-one to twenty-seven-to-one. Yes, of course. But this is my objection. No news report I've read has asked that question. Every news report I've...heard, at least...has merely assumed the differential, whatever it is claimed to be, must be down to racial discrimination. No news report has pointed out that over 70% of violent crime in the US is committed by young black men, for example - and that therefore the police encountering young black men would naturally be expected to adopt a different stance to the one they would adopt if they were confronting, say, an old lady. Forget that awkward little fact. Instead, let's mention the fact that there's a disproportionate number of uoung black men in US prisons. But let's not mention the fact that the majority of violent crimes are committed by that demographic, or that most of them are incarcerated for drug crimes, a culturally pertinent practice if ever there was one. Yes, completely facetious, I agree. You mean that poor white people have a disproportionately hopeless task of getting into college because of positive discrimination policies? Yes, no one would disagree with that. Very few people would disagree, nowadays, that those same positive discrimination policies have led to black people having a harder than average time at college, because they lack the educational preparation to keep up with their peers, and consequently end up feeling stupid, falling behind, and disproportionately dropping out.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 30, 2015 0:43:44 GMT 1
It is indeed remarkable that, at least in the eyes of the courts, less than 10% of the population commits 70% of violent crime, but being unarmed is not a violent crime. So it seems from your figures that the US police take an unreasonably presumptive attitude towards unarmed black people.
On a related but different topic, I'm intrigued by the number of Americans who have a gun "for self defence". I wonder if you have any handle on the statistics of perpetrators actually killed by civilians in self defence? I can see that a police officer attending an affray would indeed go in with a weapon at the ready, but if I were about, say, to rob someone I would be inclined to shoot him before he reached for his gun: I suspect the effectiveness of civilian selfdefence is very low.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 30, 2015 1:16:22 GMT 1
It is indeed remarkable that, at least in the eyes of the courts, less than 10% of the population commits 70% of violent crime, but being unarmed is not a violent crime. These black kids are not being shot because they're unarmed! They're being shot because the police are afraid they are armed. Mostly, I'd venture. I am of course not denying there is a "racist"element involved - probably, even amongst the black officers doing exactly the same thing as the whites. The "racism" comes in the identification of a suspect with whatever class they might be fitted into - mostly that's economic, I would suggest, but again there's a large overlap with race. It's human nature, and you simply can't eradicate it - because it's an essential part of being a good cop. Or a good anything, come to that. It's part of being a good thinker - recognising categories. and reacting accordingly. No, not as far as I can see. On the contrary, it would seem from "my" figures quite the contrary. Statistically, one would expect a far higher proportion of unarmed black people being shot by the police. Because the "presumption" is entirely reasonable, from the established statistics. Look - you're an American copper, imagine. You have to respond to an unspecified incident involving a breach of the peace. You turn up to the address - it's a Hell's Angels clubhouse. say, to avoid the race question. You go on with a certain expectation, right? It may get violent. You may get your head kicked in, and that's if things don't go too badly, yes?A reasonable expectation? You go in with your weapon ready, if you've got any sense. On the other hand, you might get to turn up at an old people's home. Maybe some argument about the apple crumble. You go in with a different "presumption". Yes? This is just basic human nature. Yeah? I'd have one, for sure. I do have one, in fact. I will defend my family, simple as - I don't really care about the past/circumstances/psycholical state/ whatever of the person/people who have attempted to assault/rape/kill/whatever them. I'll kill them, if need be. That's the way it is, and I'll take whatever consequences descend upon me. Frankly - I don't care. I think you'll find most libertarians don't care. It's not the issue. It is for lefties - that's why it's such a head-banging concrete go-no-further collision in the States. Fundamentally different value systems - and they'll never meet.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 30, 2015 8:18:47 GMT 1
Yeah? I'd have one, for sure. I do have one, in fact. I will defend my family, simple as - I don't really care about the past/circumstances/psycholical state/ whatever of the person/people who have attempted to assault/rape/kill/whatever them. I'll kill them, if need be. That's the way it is, and I'll take whatever consequences descend upon me. So you carry it, loaded and in a fast-draw holster, at all times? Or do your rapists and murderers phone ahead for an appointment?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 30, 2015 11:51:48 GMT 1
...the police [in the US] are so used to confronting armed black youths that a child waving about a replica pistol is quite justifiably assessed as a dangerous criminal, whereas here (still, I hope) he might be judged to be a kid playing in the park? Given your views expressed on this thread, I am not clear why you would hope such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 30, 2015 15:35:49 GMT 1
...the police [in the US] are so used to confronting armed black youths that a child waving about a replica pistol is quite justifiably assessed as a dangerous criminal, whereas here (still, I hope) he might be judged to be a kid playing in the park? Given your views expressed on this thread, I am not clear why you would hope such a thing. Good, because as we've discovered many times, the things you are clear about are invariably 100% wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Aug 30, 2015 16:24:28 GMT 1
Yeah? I'd have one, for sure. I do have one, in fact. I will defend my family, simple as - I don't really care about the past/circumstances/psycholical state/ whatever of the person/people who have attempted to assault/rape/kill/whatever them. I'll kill them, if need be. That's the way it is, and I'll take whatever consequences descend upon me. So you carry it, loaded and in a fast-draw holster, at all times? Or do your rapists and murderers phone ahead for an appointment? Ah, the comfortably cushioned bien-pensant middle classes. Never been assaulted, and smugly assume they never will be. A liberal is a republican who's never been mugged.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 31, 2015 11:30:21 GMT 1
|
|