|
Post by mossie on Apr 21, 2021 16:31:31 GMT
Hopefully America is beginning to see sense, perhaps now something can be done about firearms.
|
|
|
Post by htmb on Apr 21, 2021 16:38:58 GMT
Don’t make any bets, Mossie. This country is so divided that I am not at all hopeful we can put into place any meaningful form of control anytime soon. We feel like a nation of complete opposites. I hope I’m wrong. I’m also guessing we need to institute major mental health reforms. In my opinion, poor of mental health, coupled with systemic anger, are major influences when it comes to gun violence.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 21, 2021 16:47:00 GMT
Unfortunately, Htmb is completely right, Mossie. If you dip into social media you can find the most nonsensical arguments against gun control -- Guns don't kill people, people kill people; more people are killed in automobile accidents than by guns, the 2nd amendment; need to protect my family; I eat all I kill, etc etc etc blah blah blah.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Apr 21, 2021 17:13:06 GMT
And of course guns can solve any problem -- fast.
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Apr 21, 2021 20:18:06 GMT
I saw something tonight that almost brought me to tears.
When the police were trying to detain him he said “ hey, I’m not a bad man”. Which of course he wasn’t.
So they murdered him.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 21, 2021 20:30:58 GMT
You summed up the sick tragedy, Mick.
I simply cannot watch that video and can't imagine how the witnesses to that murder will ever get over what they saw. There is an earlier video of Floyd being told to get out of his car. He has his hands on the steering wheel and is plaintively asking "What did I do?" The cops have so many guns trained on him it looks like a cartoon.
Disgusting and unforgiveable.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on May 25, 2021 16:08:53 GMT
One year since George Floyd couldn't breathe and it is still too soon to tell if anything has really changed yet in law enforcement.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on May 25, 2021 23:58:42 GMT
More and more unforgiveable outrageous transgressions by the police are coming to light. It points up that if we're finally seeing these hidden things, how many more will remain hidden forever. And god knows that that everyone should now realize how well placed Black fear of cops is.
|
|
|
Post by questa on May 26, 2021 4:18:03 GMT
Going back to the "one drop" practice...Early in colonial days the men out numbered women by 10 to one at various times. When the women were released from their prison they soon found husbands, and the churches agreed on the principle that it was better than 'living in sin'. Many marriages were between Aboriginal and European couples and the descriptions of half caste and quarter caste arose.
Aboriginal families belong to clans (not tribes)and the settlers soon became part of their partners group, with the ceremonial rituals and laws. Missionaries swarmed in and did their best to kill off these beliefs. They also kept meticulous records of births deaths and marriages.
Jump forward a couple of generations. Education has started to produce professionals in most fields. There are lots of incentives and "freebies" to make it easier to leave Country. Of course applications came from people who had grown up as White and definitions were needed.
Working with the indigenous groups it comes to this.
1)Their birth certificate had to show which "Country" they were born in and identify with.. 2)Which clan they identified with 3) Do the elders and wise women and most of the clan accept the person as a member of their group.
Doesn't matter if eyes are blue or hair is red, and skin colour can be anything.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on May 26, 2021 4:34:12 GMT
Seems like a simple DNA test would be better, but I guess it is less poetic.
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on May 26, 2021 7:00:49 GMT
That's only as reliable as the database you're comparing it with, and the classification system organising it. That's where the commercial offerings are weak: how meaningful is their classification of ethnicity, indeed, what are the definitions they use? I assume it's based on a current geographical distribution, which doesn't tell you much about past heritage. On one test, I came up as 100% West European, which would be no surprise, except that I know from documentary records that about seven or eight generations ago, one of my ancestors must have been an African slave in Jamaica. My blog | My photos | My video clips | My Librivox recordings"too literate to be spam"
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 14, 2021 11:24:10 GMT
As per my point about the necessity of the police being impartial, not taking a knee, not showing favour to one side or another no matter how relevant and/or 'right' that cause is - there was an article some weeks ago about a demonstration in London where a female police officer, on duty in uniform, was shouting free Palestine with accompanying gestures. Many were critical of her actions yet it was said by the authorities that nothing would be done as it was akin to expressing an opinion as with taking a knee that many police did and were doing. My fear is black and white, if you excuse the pun. The fear that once the police do show an opinion, no matter how right or wrong, it can only lead to abuse and division. The best option is clear cut and no opinion be shown. No favouritism, no leaning to one side or the other, no show of anything other than complete and utter neutrality. The reason I bring this back up is the comments made by the new(ish) Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police. He's been brought in because the last one was crap. The relevant sections are - "He told the newspaper that the impartiality of officers could be undermined if they took actions associated to specific groups, such as taking the knee or supporting LGBT rights charity Stonewall's campaigning by wearing rainbow shoelaces." "He added that he did not believe "demonstrating that you have a commonality of view with the protesters that you're policing" was "compatible with the standards of service that people require of their police" and any arresting officer "could put themselves in a difficult place" by not being impartial." "He told the newspaper the public were "getting a little bit fed up of virtue-signalling police officers" and would "rather we just locked up burglars"." "Asked if he would take the knee in uniform, he said he "absolutely would not". "I would probably kneel before the Queen, God, and Mrs Watson (his wife), that's it." He also has comments regarding the fad of hate crime thought - ""I know it might sound... like a relatively outlandish comment but you know it is not an offence to be a misogynist [or] to be a racist," he said." Also - "....he was concerned the police could be overwhelmed by the creation of new "hate crimes" which "sought to criminalise what people think about difficult social issues, as opposed to what they do"." www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-57466204
|
|
|
Post by whatagain on Jun 14, 2021 13:05:20 GMT
This is also a good explanation as to why german, french, belgian and other cops were efficient in rounding up the Jews to be then handed to other cops or soldiers, who took no side either, then to german train machinists who took no side either until the Jews were delivered to Nazis in death camps. These guys were on what side since they only followed orders ? But we have an answer to that thanjs to Nuremberg trials. .
Taking no side when the situation is unethical is the same as taking side.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 14, 2021 13:40:25 GMT
There is a chasm of difference between being ordered to do something that you know/feel is unethical and volunteering to take a knee. Nobody has been ordered to take a knee etc, it is a voluntary action. But the German police/SS etc were following orders given. And yes, not obeying an order you feel is unethical, in effect an illegal order if the system permits that, is the right thing to do. Equating the two as being similar, one follows on from the other, e.g. just because you won't wear rainbow shoelaces means you'll have no problems rounding up six million people to kill them - is a poor conclusion.
Question - if you were arrested by a policeman wearing a "I hate Belgians. The only good Belgian is a dead Belgian" badge - not part of the uniform, just a badge he wanted to wear - he's taken a stance, taken a side - would you rather he'd remained sideless? What if the police person was deeply religious, you were gay and he/she was one of millions against gay marriage or whatever. It's be ok for him to do something or wear something that showed that and treated you differently? What about the police shouting Allahu Akbar at you. Fine enough? They've shown their allegiance so you can't complain about it because you are a Christian. What if you take a knee to support BLM but then some of the crowd you are policing have been victims of the bad side of that movement and attack you? That's ok because you took a side? What if you showed support for Labour against Conservative? Or for or against the Monarchy. In effect, how ridiculous do you want to get?
To disobey a direct but illegal, unethical or not morally right order - an order that caused harm, against the ethics of the protection of life by the police, an order that treats different people differently in order to persecute them, a genocide, is a different kettle of fish and a universe away from a voluntary showing of bias to one movement or another. You'd prefer the police take sides? That only leads to disaster. The saying of 'for good men to do nothing' bears no relation to these circumstances in my previous post. Bear in mind I live every day with the constant reminders of a more recent genocide and atrocities, on every street corner, on every street I walk where there are what are known as Bosnian Roses I step across - don't tell me it is the same as a police person being impartial in their dealing with everyone no matter creed, colour, religion or ethnicity and they should have taken a side, as you put it.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Jun 14, 2021 14:33:43 GMT
Here in the US, the police tend to be highly political insofar as the profession is extreme right-wing by default and officers who hold even mildly left-wing views like a friend of mine will be mercilessly bullied and made miserable until they leave. So you have a force that is an exquisitely political entity but that has no official, overt political stances masquerading as being neutral. Anyone who dares challenge the prevalent extreme right, racist, christian political culture will be driven out.
|
|
|
Post by whatagain on Jun 14, 2021 16:34:13 GMT
Sometimes argumenting is worthless.
Having a badge proclaiming hatred for another people is not raking a stance, it is hatred. Except of course wearing a badge saying the Dutch are worthless. Taking a stance against a homo if you are religious would be hatred too.
Taking a knee when the gesture shows you don't support people kneeling 8 min on the neck of somebody is the thing to do. It is a rejection of sadism, racism, nazism whatever. Doing nothing is implicitly admitting the situation as it is and doing nothing to change it. Like the cop who takes a Jew out of a gouse. He has no hatred, he just hasn't got the balls to do what is just, what saves lives.
Today coppers in the US kill too easily blacks. Taking the knee is a symbol of showing respect for the blacks and rejection of the existing system that allows, if not encourage such treatments of a minority.
But nobody forces you to take the knee. I know i would, i see you would not. Maybe you find the system ok, maybe you don't see the need to change it and the potential one has to change it. By taking a stance.
But doing nothing and saying it has no relation to saving life is quite easy. But where do you draw the line ? How far would you obey ? How many people see that doing nothing is actually allowing situation to remain as it is.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 14, 2021 17:55:51 GMT
I would like to see a list of the countries of the world where the police are considered to be impartial. If there were even 10 countries on that list, I would be very surprised.
The police are necessary, and I will not even say a "necessary evil" because we need them because of so many other people who are evil. But too many of the wrong people are attracted to the police. Most countries know this and are dismayed but have not found a way to attract the right people, mostly because 1) they want to pay the police as little as possible, 2) they want training to be as short as possible, 3) there are so many criminals in action that time is of the essence and 4) -- the worst of all -- public opinion wants brutal and efficient police even if they get so many things wrong and are willing to close their eyes on most wrongdoings by the police.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jun 14, 2021 17:55:53 GMT
The Nazis, allies and associated neutral police murdered far more than six million people. That is the estimate for murdered Jews. They also exterminated Romani people to the same degree and also not only political opponents and people deemed worthless. They murdered several million Slavs.
There was a report not long ago about a Soviet Jewish veteran who was among the first to enter Auschwitz. Poor guy. Not only was most of his family murdered by Nazis; his (professional) father somehow fell afoul of Stalin earlier on and was shipped to a Gulag north of the Arctic Circle. And died there after a decade of unbearable suffering and cold.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 14, 2021 19:40:02 GMT
No matter it seems a very great leap from taking a knee or not to remaining impartial when genocide occurs - you seem to be making a very grave assumption that the reason the police in Nazi Germany did nothing was because they were apathetic/remaining impartial rather than they were indoctrinated or fearful for their life (and that of their families) should they object. How many didn't do something just because they wanted to remain neutral - well, tell me then, how many? Considering the other reasons, that they agreed with the genocide or were fearful, the impartial ones would be in the very, very small minority. To think otherwise is naïve and ascribing the wrong motivations to them. If you knew that publicly standing up meant the internment of your wife and family as a consequence of your actions, would you still do it? That is what was happening to those that did and as a historian, you know that. Is it any surprise the proportion that weren't indoctrinated, who objected, were frozen in place and did nothing.
You have absolutely no idea what they were feeling and the pressures upon them to conform. They were living through reprisals every day no doubt. To you it is obvious that you stand up and be counted. Good luck in those circumstances with that and it's not only you who will suffer. To think otherwise is again naïve.
You want the police to express their allegiances, their opinions, their favouritism, preference, leaning, one sidedness, viewpoint, slant and so on - then as you say and as I first mentioned before, where do you draw the line? What if you disagree with them? What if your position is opposed to theirs? Showing they are taking a side, no matter good or bad, is wrong for them. Yes, standing aside when genocide occurs is also wrong, but that is far, far, far removed from what the Chief Constable was saying and I'm rather surprised you've taken that great pole vault of extrapolation. It must have been deliberate. Would I take a knee out of uniform? Yes. In uniform? No.
With the original incident when the death occurred where this all came from, should the police standing by watching have done something? Sure, they should have. To not do so goes against their ethic of the protection of life and they should be prosecuted for it. It doesn't matter it was another police officer doing it, they should have done something to stop him. That goes without question. But should some random police officer in the UK take a knee to virtual signal his good character or the moral correctness of his position on a particular issue? No. At a football match when the players take a knee, do the police also? Should they? What about the stewards and the crowd? Are they also wrong then in not doing so? Do you fear they will stand aside and do nothing because doing nothing is bad and akin to being a fascist or whatever? You seem to also think that showing impartiality automatically means not doing the right thing should the circumstances necessitate it. Again ascribing the wrong motivations en masse. Not taking a knee = bad person who won't do anything. Wrong. Utterly wrong and a far too simplistic reading of the whole issue.
|
|
|
Post by whatagain on Jun 15, 2021 10:22:03 GMT
I am simplistic. And you are stubborn and so sure of being right that you just dismiss other opinions. Let us conclude by saying that opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one and we don't necessarily like the smell of others. I had spent months before reading one of your posts, i willrevert to that sound strategy. Hope you woll be doing the same with mine, we just don't get along, never will. Have a good day, i am sure you are a good person in the flesh.
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 15, 2021 19:39:04 GMT
And you are stubborn and so sure of being right that you just dismiss other opinions. Which unfortunately seems something you do in dismissing mine yet you fail miserably to see that that is what you do. The phrase fitting to that is, "the pot calling the kettle black." I've been a little busy sorting out some plans for travel and not been able to come back to this but I'll try and be brief - You want the police to show overtly that that align themselves with a 'good' movement. Yet with the example of BLM, what started out as good, with good intentions, has for a long time shown their dark and radical side. To overtly align yourself with them shows your tacit approval of their unsavoury actions. I want the police to remain impartial and not do that, that's all this breaks down to. I want nothing more than that. You have what you want, the virtue signalling of the police for all manner of so called good movements. I hope that continues to go well for you and you never regret holding that view, because by then, it will be too late.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 16, 2021 3:28:32 GMT
I have been reading this discussion with interest and it is obviously a topic that sparks high feelings. Without fanning the flames, I will say that, looking at it logically, I completely understand Mark's stance that the police should demonstrate strict neutrality. Inevitably I will look at it from my own experience. Obviously that experience includes the cops where I live, widely considered to be corrupt and inept, thus dismissable in the context of the argument on this page. But as a citizen of the US and knowing myself to be American down to my bones, I judge the police by how they are in the US, i.e., they're part of a police culture that is bullying, intimidating, and which leads to their being laws unto themselves. Of course I agree with Whatagain's statement that, Taking no side when the situation is unethical is the same as taking side.The policemen who did nothing to stop Derek Chavin abnegated their responsibilities as humans and as trained policemen when they did nothing. This points up how dangerous going along with the "way we do things" is. But the thuggish elements in police departments need to be rooted out and taking a knee or other gestures won't get that done. I don't understand how the opinions of the new police chief of Manchester have any more validity than any of the opinions held by members of this forum. In fact, he seems like someone too eager to air his personal opinions to the press. The only thing I took from his comments was the phrase "virtue signaling". That may indeed be what some police are doing in some contexts and it probably should be considered incorrect when they are in uniform. Mark asks, At a football match when the players take a knee, do the police also? Should they? What about the stewards and the crowd?The players are using the platform ceded to them by their celebrity status to make a statement -- a statement that in my opinion needs to be made. But to answer Mark's question, no -- the police should not join in because they're present in an official capacity. But when you consider some of the live action videos we've seen in the recent past, such as cops laughingly shooting rubber bullets at fleeing students at a peaceful demonstration in Austin, it becomes quite understandable that police present at demonstrations might more be signaling that they're not the enemy, rather than self-consciously trying to demonstrate that they're on the "right side". Fumobici's comment pretty well covers the wariness with which the police are viewed in the US. As an average White American, I would still be tense about police presence at any peaceful demonstration in the US. So yeah, depending on how things played out, I can absolutely understand why a cop might need to signal to the public that he/she wasn't there to hurt them. So in brief, I think police neutrality is what we should hope for. Where I disagree with Mark is in this statement: the example of BLM, what started out as good, with good intentions, has for a long time shown their dark and radical side. Mmmmmm. BLM exists to keep before the public too many things that have been looked away from for far too long. The canards against the movement are consistently proven to be false. www.npr.org/2021/05/25/999841030/black-lives-matter-fights-disinformation-to-keep-the-movement-strong
|
|
|
Post by onlyMark on Jun 16, 2021 6:46:26 GMT
There are three subjects here, police impartiality, police standing by/aside and police brutality/corruption. I completely agree and had experiences of the brutality and corruption side and within any force there are those that are like that, in every country. Less in some, more in another. Do I personally trust the police in the US? Not really yet even though I did live there I had little experience of them and go by news reports. Do I trust the UK police? Certainly but less and less as time goes on. Does every police officer have an opinion? Of course, but I'd prefer whilst on duty in uniform they keep it to themselves and act with impartiality to everyone and every cause or movement.
There is a separate subject of police standing by and doing nothing, and that and the brutality/corruption side are not what the focus of my point is though part of the whole picture even if a digression. Should police stand by when an obvious wrong is being done? Of course not. Even if/when it goes against their own belief. The police cannot pick and choose who they defend. They should protect all life no matter who they are or their beliefs, colour creed or whatever. That is what the police should do. Reality is obviously somewhat different, but they should. Are there corrupt, thuggish and violent police? Of course, with different proportions in every country. Should the police display a badge or rainbow shoe laces or take a knee or anything at all that shows their support for any movement be it gay rights, anti-racist movements, even PETA regarding animal cruelty, political stances like freeing Palestine etc etc? Absolutely not.
Regarding the news link, I don't believe everything I read about BLM as there is misinformation in every strata of life but it raises some good points, though I still have doubts - but BLM was used just as an example of a 'good' cause regarding the whole issue of displaying impartiality. Even showing support for Gandhi or Mother Teresa should the need arise is fraught with pitfalls when you read their history. Which illustrates my point better than anything that it is best for the police not to show support or sympathy for anyone, any movement or any cause.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 16, 2021 16:09:11 GMT
Excellent summation and explanation ~ thanks, Mark.
|
|
|
Post by questa on Jun 17, 2021 1:22:30 GMT
Mark is my go-to person when I want anything explained clearly and with well chosen words. I was living with a family where the Dad was Station Sergeant. A minor protest arose over tree felling. I wanted to attend the "demo" but was told that that would compromise the policeman's neutrality as the neighbourhood saw me as part of the family of the officer. I knew he was on the same side as I was but neither of us could attend let alone have a vote....Democracy?
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 17, 2021 5:13:53 GMT
While it is always fascinating to see our resident alpha male hold his coterie of fans in his thrall, one must note that he is just expounding his personal philosophy and not proposing any solutions to the situation. It all looks very "café du commerce" (the French expression for opiniated bar discussions) to me.
Let's keep in mind that police chiefs and sheriffs and judges are elected in the United States, so this would totally preclude neutrality in any case. Can you imagine any of them running on a platform of "I will be totally impartial" when voters want to hear about sending the people they don't like to prison for as long as possible?
|
|
|
Post by questa on Jun 17, 2021 6:48:49 GMT
While it is always fascinating to see our resident alpha male hold his coterie of fans in his thrall, "Coterie of fans in his thrall"...surely you jest, Sir Settle down there! our pond is large enough to hold several alphas, and small enough to give small fish illusions of grandeur[quote author=" kerouac2" source="/post/368426/thread" timestamp="1623906833" ]that he is just expounding his personal philosophy and not proposing any solutions to the situation. It all looks very " café du commerce" (the French expression for opiniated bar discussions) to me.[/quote] Isn't that the whole point of bar discussions. Heaven forfend if one actually solved one of the world's troubles. Opiniated discussions either run out of steam, or mine host throws the participants out at 4am Let's keep in mind that police chiefs and sheriffs and judges are elected in the United States, so this would totally preclude neutrality in any case. Can you imagine any of them running on a platform of "I will be totally impartial" when voters want to hear about sending the people they don't like to prison for as long as possible? And we all know how successful, democratic, unbiased, educated, wise, compassionate, multi-racial, gender equal and in it for the good of all people this practice is working out, don't we?
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 17, 2021 9:23:29 GMT
I will believe in impartial police when women are no longer afraid to file charges for rape.
|
|
|
Post by questa on Jun 17, 2021 14:22:37 GMT
Or men...they get raped too, and not only by other men.
|
|
|
Post by kerouac2 on Jun 17, 2021 15:26:54 GMT
Yes, and even fewer men ever dare to file charges than women. Too much impartial snickering. Meanwhile, over the years, I have known 4 women who told me they were raped at one time or another, and this was before the current definition of sexual assault. This was a time when rape was full penetration. A bus station, a deserted street... I remember some of the details but not all of them. You generally get to hear these stories when both parties are nearing the end of a night of imbibing and the horrible anecdotes get told. In any case, none of these women went to the police because they felt that they would not receive any help. And this was also the time when women felt guilty for having "attracted" the person one way or another.
|
|