Were the officer’s actions justified? Why do black people resist arrest so often? Doesn’t it just make their already bad situation even worse?

[Jack9949]

It just makes no sense to me why black people try fleeing from arrest so often.

I’m not saying I haven’t seen white people doing the same thing, but it seems to be black people more often.

Its just a really dumb idea.

Because its likely going to end very badly for you, and if you still somehow manage to escape (which is highly unlikely) its only a matter of time before you eventually get caught and the penalties will be much stiffer

I just get so confused when I see things like Jacob Blake and Rayshard Brooks constantly happening.

Like why do so many black people mess this up all the time? 🤦‍♂️

Its like they’ll run into perfectly chill cops just doing their jobs and then they’ll still somehow f*ck up their situation even more in every possible way.

And then they turn around and demand sympathy from the rest of society. 🤦‍♂️

Things will get worse if you resist arrest not better. The more compliant you are the better your situation will be.

Why don’t people understand this?

If George Floyd just sat his ass in the Police cruiser he still would’ve had his life.

Officer was justified

Officer is a racist nazi pig that needs to be cancelled! 😡

[WhiteSteve]

I don’t know, man, I’m just not comfortable living anywhere where I’m forced to submit to laws I didn’t create myself and having complete strangers enforce them on me, and people holding my very freedom at stake if I don’t comply. Like I’m simply not going for that, that’s not what my life is going to be. Unfortunately literally everywhere will try to do that to me, so I’m left with no choice to fight it, to the death if necessary. It’s simply unnatural to allow oneself to be essentially kidnapped, so I’d never expect any human to go quietly, unless they’re so terrified and intimidated that they submit. As to why black folks do it, in my experience, I’ve witnessed police give a disproportionately hard time to the black community, particularly the men, for longer than either of us have been alive. Many black men I have known simply do not trust police to treat them the same as others, so they run from them as a known enemy.

[WhiteSteve]

*no choice BUT to fight it

[Jack9949]

When it comes to police you want to be as Beta and compliant as possible. That’s the only exception

[WhiteSteve]

I just want to live unbridled like the wild animal I, and all of us, are meant to be. I’ll take all the extra danger that comes with it, I’m not interested in third-party protection. If something doesn’t make sense to you in your soul, in your heart of hearts, how can someone be expected to go against that? And I’m given no alternative, it’s not like there’s some area where I can live this way. I just refuse to be governed in any way whatsoever, I’m a sovereign organism of earth.

[Jack9949]

Alright. But if you end up shot and killed. As long as you are willing to accept that. I am ok with it 👍

[Jack9949]

I just don’t want people doing things that get them in trouble and then demanding sympathy afterwards. Lol

[WhiteSteve]

I accept that. I’ll believe I was righteous in my death👍

[WhiteSteve]

I hear ya, I just don’t think human behavioral control is ok, even for a supposed greater good, because it’s unnatural to apply it

[Jack9949]

Right. But when it comes down to it. When I asked “were the officer’s actions justified” i meant was he acting in a manner that was acceptable to the standards placed on him?

[Jack9949]

Like as a Police officer obviously he is expected to oblige by some code of conduct. And it appears to me he did not breach that obligation.

[WhiteSteve]

I guess? But the whole base system is bullshit to me. It’s not ok to police people. It’s not ok that someone you don’t even know can run your license plate. It’s not ok to be stopped. It’s not ok to tell people they can’t sell drugs and subsequently put out a warrant for them. It’s not ok to search someone or their belongings. It’s not ok to use a taser or any sort of physical force on someone. None of this interaction is ok to me, this shouldn’t be a thing. Humans have no entitlement to safety, security, anything. All we’re entitled to is absolute and unregulated freedom, like literally every other animal on the planet, who were no better than, so the standard should be universal. Bad things will happen sometimes, that just is what it is. We can’t try to preemptively stop it just because it scares us, that’s just supposed to be the nature of life on earth. Humans just refuse to accept it because they’re frightened of the alternative, but we don’t get to dictate how the world works, it’s not our place. We don’t get to dictate our outcomes, or at least not create artificial systems to attempt to. You just have to live and die based on nature and genetic fitness for survival. Not even that I necessarily wish for this, it’s not comfortable, but it’s what feels correct to me, once we necessarily remove human emotions from the discussion. All this aforementioned stuff “in my opinion” of course, but that’s what I keep coming back to when I try to objectively analyze it.

[WhiteSteve]

So I’m just saying it’s tough for me to judge it in context, because that context is maybe the most fucked up concept I encounter in life on earth. Again, I’d love to live in some super-safe environment like anyone else, but I just don’t think it’s correct of us to create that false reality. We’re supposed to be getting eaten alive by lions and alligators and sharks like all the other animals. But again, we’re so scared of our intended uncomfortable reality that we go outside the lines to try to avoid it, which is a cute idea, but it contributes to the overall problematic result of there being about 7 billion too many humans alive on the planet at one time, and earth is superior to humanity, period, point blank, so as much as I enjoy dicking around on gag on a smartphone in a heated home, I’m probably supposed to be dead by now, or more likely never even born. Humans just don’t respect natural order, I guess that’s my gripe in a nutshell.

[Exterminatore]

@white Steve

So basically you’re a rebel. You’re not comfortable living anywhere where you’re forced to submit to laws you didn’t create? You can’t be serious. That’s literally everywhere in the world. You’re 42. This is the mentality I’d expect from a 13 year old, not a 42 year old. So basically you’re just a rebel MF who wants to do as he pleases and you think you are an exception to the rules.

You’re the kind of person that get blasted by the police who I literally have no sympathy for. Fight to the death. How childish. This is not the way the world works. You don’t get to make up your own rules and do as you please.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@Exterminatore: You conservatives are pathetic. White Steve is basically saying he wants to be free as possible and not a controlled puppet to authority.

The founding fathers of the U. S. A. understood what power can do to people and you fools desire to bend the knee and give away your freedoms so easily. 🤦‍♂️

[Exterminatore]

@hispanic

Sorry. Don’t agree. Steve sounds like a rebel who wants to do as he pleases and thinks laws don’t and shouldn’t apply to him because he doesn’t consent to laws made by others.

That’s straight retarded. Not going to argue with you about this.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

@Exterminatore: Not every law should be obeyed.

Rebels change and make history. The founding fathers of the U. S. A. were rebels. Without them the U. S. A. wouldn't been formed if they just obeyed whatever what was going on in Europe.

Submmisive cucks stay abused and under a system even if its unfair and evil til death.

[Jack9949]

@Hispanic-Cool-Guy well in this case. The lady was just being borderline retarted. There was no added benefit to her actions. Whereas if I were in say North Korea and I escaped Police, well at least I’m not about to get sentenced to hard labor for 30 years

[WhiteSteve]

@Exterminatore Well, I’m unsure if you read everything I had to say, your response reads like you didn’t, or you’re hyper-focused on the “within the context of society” aspect rather than the “within the context of nature” aspect.

So, first... when I was 13, I probably felt more like you think I should. I’ve arrived at where I am after decades of critical thought and analysis of life around me, which you’re certainly free to disagree with, but following the law is something I’m much more likely to do if I DON’T do a lot of thinking. And I’d say I’m probably more of a “questioner” than a “rebel.” A rebel flouts rules for the sake of flouting rules, and that’s not me, necessarily, although as I previously explained, I don’t think any human has authority to create or impose rules on others, ultimately. A “questioner”, which is more consider myself, I can maybe entertain a rule as guideline, BUT... it has to make sense to me. I don’t allow others to create my standards, that’s all. Would you let me create your standards for you? I’m guessing that’s a hard no.

[WhiteSteve]

@Exterminatore But like... speed limits, traffic rules... I don’t believe we’re meant to have automobiles in the eyes of nature, that’s a selfish human misstep, but we do, so I obey traffic rules to a T, because I’ve done a little research, plus mostly common sense tells me that it’s not in my best interests to crash my car, plus I don’t wish to hurt anyone else, so I’m down to agree to those rules. Those make sense to me. And I’m free to choose if I wish to be a car owner/operator if I don’t like those rules. And not for nothing, I see these middle aged white guys with high-and-tight haircuts in huge pickup trucks, often with blue lives matter decals or some other telltale pro-law & order decoration EVERYDAY on the highway driving WELL over the speed limit, bullying people out of their way, and they’re never the ones I see pulled over, by the way. So they’re cherry-picking their own rules to obey or ignore. Like they’re running up my ass when I’m in the fast lane trying to pass an 18-wheeler, at the maximum allowed speed of 65 mph, which means no one should be going faster than that in ANY lane, and they’re flashing their lights and making hand gestures and giving me the stink-eye when I finally get around the truck because they feel like going 90, essentially just because they’re impatient or poorly manage their time and are late. So these guys are rebels too, if I’m a rebel for my thoughts.

[WhiteSteve]

@Exterminatore I gotta cut myself off here, gotta get on my way for the day, happy to say more later, but I’m just saying in essence, the human society we have today doesn’t make sense to me because I see no other animal who lives this way, and I don’t believe humans to be superior than other organisms or exempted from rules of natural life, so society as we know it today isn’t in bounds, and that makes it real hard for me to truly honor anything meant to sustain that. So it’s not that I think I’M an exception to the rules, as much as I think humans AREN’T an exception to the rules of earth, so I guess I’m here enjoying some incorrect comforts because I’d be foolish to be the ONE guy who wanders off into the woods to live the correct way, but I just can’t be all-in on everything, because I know the truth is that it’s all completely artificial.

[Exterminatore]

@WhiteSteve

I did read your response and appreciate it though I don’t agree. I think you’re playing word games with the difference between a rebel and a questioner. I also have to question your sanity if you think humans aren’t superior to other forms of life in this planet.

I think the bottom line for you is you want to do as you damn well please and want to invent all kinds of philosophical arguments as to why you and like minded people ought to be able to do so. You can hold that philosophy as much as you like it won’t change the fact that someone will make you obey the laws of the land wherever you go. Nobody likes being told what to do, myself included but without laws and rules you have anarchy which descends into might is right and I don’t think you’d want to live in that kind of world would you?

[WhiteSteve]

@Exterminatore Nah, man, no word games, I’m working off of an established personality concept. In some ways, I do fit the rebel profile, but I’m really more of a questioner. According to this concept, a questioner meets inner expectations but not outer expectations, a rebel doesn’t meet either. I’m very personally disciplined, but I don’t owe discipline to anyone else, I only do it when it makes sense to me. As for my sanity, lmao, and human superiority, I think humans apparently can do some impressive things, but I don’t see that as an invitation for our species to “do as we damn please” and do all of those things at the direct or indirect expense of the rest of the planet. That’s a very biblical attitude, like “god made earth —> god made humans —> everything else god made was for human sustenance, or to sustain what sustains humans”, I just don’t see enough evidence to believe that, personally. Or even if we keep it secular, I’m not going to fellate humanity for building airplanes when a bird can just naturally fly on its own, or for devising scuba gear when fish just breathe underwater, standard. Fish don’t get the bends if they come up too fast, so advantage: fish, as I see it.

I’d concede that I wish to do as I please and that probably inspired the initial thought process that led me here, but it’s not just a “come up with the desired conclusion and work my way backwards kind of thing”, I just started looking deeper at how we live and how we never question our own ways, often in the name of tradition. And it occurs to me we pass down these traditions and values, mostly through our own families (and we’re taught that it’s disrespectful or “bad” to challenge them), but somebody could’ve just had the wrong idea way back when, so I think it’s important to not just take what we’re taught from before the age of reason as “the way” without giving it a full analysis.

[WhiteSteve]

@Exterminatore Regarding law & order, I think too many of us are very lazy thinkers, and we’re way too quick to brand people and their behavior “criminal”, with no interest in addressing WHY some probably neutrally-born person has been forced into survival mode and has resorted to desperate measures (in the case of black folks, this relates to Nixon advisor’s quote I posted before), which I believe is the reason most criminal behavior occurs, not because someone is “bad” or criminally insane.

As for “descent” into anarchy, every other organism lives that way, so why would nature call for any different with us humans? And nature calls for the “might makes right” thing, whether we like it or don’t. Whatever humans “want” doesn’t matter a good goddamn, it’s about living how nature says we have to. Antelopes don’t want to be eaten by lions, but that’s their life, and that needs to be accepted. That’s where this whole problem comes from, humans, incorrectly in my opinion, feel this absolute entitlement to dictate their outcomes, but that’s just our own selfish wish, which to me, is as futile and fundamentally wrong as you probably think it is for me to believe I can live truly free. Real life is meant to be brutal and scary for all of us. We aren’t supposed to circumvent that. I obviously don’t want Ghenghis Khan to come through and bash my brains in with a club and rape my girlfriend, but I have no entitlement to positive outcomes, if that’s what he’s capable of and my genetic fitness doesn’t allow me to prevent it, then that’s just tough luck for me and for her. It’d be nice to live protected, but I don’t see anything in nature that jives with that.

[Soremain]

I know we had a long debate about this already and I don't wanna recreate that, but I can't help but to see big contradictions and even hypocrisies in your view. I agree completely that no one should police other humans and we should be free in that sense. But then you also say "Ghenghis Khan to come through and bash my brains in with a club and rape my girlfriend, but I have no entitlement to positive outcomes, if that’s what he’s capable of" but isn't that the same violation of freedom you are accusing this human created system is violating? And with a club? What happened to the fists only (because animals can't use clubs either) rule? :D So if instead of this officer using taser and a gun (the woman used gun too) you'd see no problem if he just bashed her skull in with a club, took her bag and walked home because that's what he's genetically capable of doing? :D

So where is the objectivity? If there is no objective right or wrong, then you can't really blame for the current human condition if it's all subjective. Now combine that with your "I've no entitlement to positive outcomes" and you have no sane case here.

And about the inconsistency between animals and humans. You can also argue that every organism uses their full capacity to survive and do whatever they want. If we'd hold back using our intelligence to survive from lion attacks, we'd still be the only organism to do that. No other organism just accept their death without doing everything in their power to defeat their aggressor, just because it would be "unfair". So looking for consistency doesn't work at all, it's going to be inconsistent either way.

[WhiteSteve]

@Soremain you should be a lawyer, man, you always have excellent counterpoints haha. So yeah, we don’t need to rehash it all. With the Ghenghis Khan club, I’m more just illustrating a mightier person winning the confrontation. I guess he could just gouge out my eyes and snap my neck if the analogy works better that way. I just threw the club in offhandedly, but I guess I still see it as medium-fair in that the club could have existed already as probably a tree bough with favorable shaping. Any weapon that comes with blueprints and requires metallurgy feels like we created something that should naturally exist. So I don’t know how that all fits in or what the true parameters should be in terms of maximizing capabilities, it just feels like we’ve come to a point where the balance has been badly thrown off to where the rest of nature doesn’t have a chance and only remains in existence because of human benevolence, and that just feels “off” to me.

And I guess my bottom line for myself personally is: whether I’m right as rain or dead wrong in all of this, at the end of the day, if I don’t want to do something, I’m simply not going to do it, and that’s that.

[WhiteSteve]

@Soremain *feels like we created something that shouldn’t exist

[Soremain]

Haha you say that because I talked like a lawyer by saying "you have no sane case here", I felt like a lawyer too I have to admit lol. Sure I could be a lawyer, but I wouldn't defend human made law or anyone's personal benefits, but objective moral law, as I understand it, which leads nicely to my point.

Your views seems only to be focusing in the methods and not in the intentions and actions/results, which just seems way less relevant don't you think? Like if someone murders you, why does it matter if he did it with raw superior physical power (bare handed), with a gun or with a cyanide capsule, if in all of those cases he did it "because he could" and the outcome is the same. So if there is inherently objective right and wrong human behavior, wouldn't it be about the result of the action, rather than the method of the action?

[Soremain]

Also by the way did you check the natural law seminar I linked to you? Because you talked exactly the same information for the most part. I highly recommend checking it out. It does say a lot of the same stuff, but it also forces you to either disagree, possibly discredit some of the information or change/upgrade your view. I can't prove why it'd be objectively true information, but for me it just fully resonated right away and confirmed my own strong intuitions of right and wrong and objective morality. All I can say is that your view is much closer to that understanding than what most people's view is, especially a few who disagreed with you here.

[007kingifrit]

@WhiteSteve then delete this website and get out in the woods where you belong

[Soremain]

Actually let me give you TLDR, because it's very long video, almost 9 hours and goes very in depth but it's very simple concept really. The natural law / moral law / karmic law is a law that governs the consequences of human behavior. The more collective morality decreases, the more collective freedom decreases and slavery / tyranny / policing increases. And moral action is an action that does not cause harm or limit other sentient beings freedom. In other words treat other sentient beings like they are yourself.

So that's where you go wrong is when you say it's okay to kill and rape someone if you are physically capable of doing so without the use of any human created tools. And if we just didn't create those tools, we'd be free and not have this kind of society with human created laws and people policing each other. No, we have this lack of freedom because of collective lack of morality. You can't say that it's wrong to create tools to help you if someone tries to kill and rape your family. To say that the tool maker is the one violating Nature's will is just ridiculous claim and you can't find sane arguments to back up that claim.

Also what do you think about musical instruments? With your logic we have musical instruments and play music against God's / Nature's will and as a passionate musician myself, I have hard time with that claim :D Well actually not because it's so blatantly obviously faulty claim.

Again I have no problem if what you are saying is your own personal fantasy, but you are not speaking of it as such. You are speaking of it as an objective truth, and in that case I feel almost moral obligation to defend objective truth and kill all opposing claims :D Plus I enjoy high quality debating, it's my second favorite thing to do pants on after guitar playing :P

[WhiteSteve]

@Soremain sorry man, been on the fly the last couple days and was waiting til I had time to give a thoughtful response. Only could skim the TL;DR for now but I’ll come back to it. Thanks man! Always an interesting conversation with you👊

[WhiteSteve]

@007kingifrit that’s a low-hanging fruit answer for short-necked giraffes. This isn’t about me personally, it’s about what I believe is correct for all of us. So if we all agree to it, I couldn’t be more “in.” But until everyone else comes around, I’d just be a crazy asshole who walked off into the woods. This is all with Earth’s natural order in mind, and not prioritizing human wants and needs, because earth doesn’t belong exclusively to humans. It has nothing to do with my personal desires, it’s just what I feel is naturally correct, whether it benefits human society or not. Basically, human society doesn’t dictate the world, or it shouldn’t, anyway.

[WhiteSteve]

@007kingifrit So the parts that do deal with my personal desires, I guess I’m more explaining why I feel this inherent rejection of unnatural, human order, and using my own feelings as an example, since our own feelings are the only ones we can truly offer as evidence.

[Soremain]

Also your opinions stems from the rightful notion and the fact that we humans are a problem to the rest of the planet. Your solution would work to prevent that. Your intuition is absolutely right. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should. You are absolutely right, there is ONE thing we are not supposed to do, even if we have the capability to do so, or we go wrong and become immoral creatures become burden to the planet and after that we can do whatever we want.

So now God asks us: Well humans, it's time to decide what one thing you promise not to do or engage in. Your idea is: Technology. My idea is: Violence (Taking away someone's freedom without them violating yours)
With your idea: No nuclear bombs, but no musical instruments either.
With my (not originally mine of course) idea: No nuclear bombs, but musical instruments.

See, if we just acted morally we'd not be burden to the rest of the nature, but we'd live in harmony with it And where the sense of morality really comes from is from the fact that our consciousness is not limited to our body, but is one singular unlimited consciousness in which, by which and out of which every beings subjective experience is experienced and made out of. With that understanding it's impossible to act immorally, because you do harm to your own creation experienced only by you.

[Soremain]

And you said the lack of freedom is the problem. That it's better to live freely and dangerously than safely and in control of authority. I agree, but don't you think the reason we don't have that freedom is because we are violating freedom? (karma/common sense) And not because we are increasing safety by the use of technology. Taking away the safety we get the worst solution, no freedom, no safety. I mean if someone bigger dude can just rape you all day and do whatever he wants to you, how is that having more freedom than police searching your bags and putting you in jail if you have drugs?

Actually I really believe your "solution" is going to be the punishment for humanity if we don't follow my suggestion. I bet GAI will figure this out in no time and blow up all technology including itself.

[Soremain]

Sorry, AGI, Artificial general intelligence..

[Soremain]

I don't mean to rush you, but just wanted to remind in case you forgot about this convo ^^ Of course no worries if you are too busy, it's a lot of text heh.

[WhiteSteve]

@Soremain bro, I’m glad you came back on this, I lost the convo in the shuffle, haha. Tied up most of the day but I’ve got a fresh bookmark on it now, I’ll try to get into it this weekend👍

[WhiteSteve]

@Soremain ok, sorry for the hold-up... so I feel you on most of that. I guess where we might diverge is I don’t really know where I stand on theism. I guess I’d currently call myself a “doubtful agnostic”, at least in terms of anything humans have envisioned for religion. Like most of the religions I know of push the idea that Earth exists only to serve humans, and everything else exists to either sustain us or sustain that which does. I have a hard time buying that idea, and that’s the principle I think most humans operate off of, because that’s easy to embrace as it puts us as the first and only priority, if my feeling is correct. I’d need pretty hard and indisputable evidence to change that, pretty much a physical and direct manifestation unto to me of the deity itself, and nothing short of that. So until I see that, I’d need to know where the objective morals come from, as much as I’d probably agree with most of it in principle. I absolutely have to see to believe, and I place the burden of indisputable proof is on the supposed deity, or whatever other supernatural force. But I guess that’s the major roadblock for me, I’m just waiting on that physical manifestation, and once I get that, I’d be on board. Otherwise, I’m pretty comfortable with the idea of the existence of the universe and all that’s in it being explained with “it just ‘is’.”

The other thing I just wanted to clear up, I don’t think it’s “ok” to rape and kill and all that in the sense of decency, I guess I just accept those things as normal perils of life, however indecent. And that just ties back into “if there’s no proven deity, who or what mandates these morals?”

For music... humans have found a way to create rudimentary drums, flutes, etc, and they probably fashioned something resembling a string instrument. But I’d miss Pink Floyd and Smashing Pumpkins, for sure😝

[Soremain]

I'm not talking about religion at all. I agree it's wrong and egoistic to think everything is created for humans and that's not what've been saying at all, I've been saying we are equal parts of the planet. Just because we create tools to protect ourselves from being eaten by wild animals doesn't mean we are playing god, we are not even part of their natural diet. I use the word god or god's will more metaphorically, like you used nature's will. But that's not even so relevant for now.

If morality means anything, it means "actions we should or shouldn't partake in, even if we are capable of doing so". Or in other words actions that would go "against nature's will". So with that definition you are saying it's immoral to create technology and not cool to rape or murder someone. Also you say unless you physically see the commander of objective morality, you don't believe in such a thing. Well then how you believe that creating technology is immoral (again work with the definition I mentioned, at least for now). Did "Nature physically manifest in front of you and told, making electric guitar is against my will". Of course not :D

But you worked your way to that conclusion observing nature. You concluded that because not other animals are making technology, we shouldn't either. But it's very obviously faulty argument because not other animals can, so you cannot use that as a comparison. And your counterargument to that was "just because we can, doesn't mean we should". Yes true, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't either, it just means both possibilities are open, so that's not valid counterargument. So you have logical error in your reasoning and no deity has told you it's objectively wrong/immoral/against nature's will to create tools. So that's why I asked earlier where is the objectivity?

[Soremain]

So if in your opinion rape and murder are not decent, but still something that naturally happens but you can't really complain because it's part of nature's will, then so is making technology. If you claim otherwise, you've made a logical error to arrive to that conclusion.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Because you have a culture of criminality within the black community and a culture of hatred of law enforcement. A lot of this is pushed by the entirely provably false narrative of racist cops (completely untrue and in fact not only are most victims of police shootings white, but of the minorities shot, most of the officers who did the shooting where black or hispanic themselves). This creates a feed back loop as the media (who doesn't care about anyone, the more blood and death and destruction and fear the more money they make so they love this) claims cops are out to get blacks, blacks commit crimes that result in more police interactions (over half of all violent crimes, robberies and murders are commited by blacks) which results in more altercations, which then causes the media to claim this racist narrative even more which then breeds greater distrust in the black community resulting in them being more criminaly inclined and more likely to resist arrest (statistically proven), resulting in more shootings etc. etc. etc.

Its a self fullfilling prophecy and its partially self inflicted and partialy because of the sociopathic media that feeds of of the violence (as the saying goes, "If it bleeds, it leads").

[Exterminatore]

Exactly right.

[Jack9949]

@hellionthesagereborn I gotta be honest with you. I have yet to see a completely compliant black person still getting in trouble with Police

[Starrk]

Blacks do not commit over half of violent crimes. I think you're mixing up your numbers. ucr.fbi.gov/.../table-43

@jack9949
Rodney King
Philando Castile
Tamir Rice
Atatiana Jefferson
Bothman Jean
Charles Kinsey

There are many incidences of this happening. And it's not just black people. Compliant white people have been killed by police as well. This is what happens when you have a police force that's trained in the academy from day one to fear every civilian.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Starrk There you go trying to be misleading again.

Murder: total: 6,474. Black offenders: 4,078. Percentage: 62%

Now yes, if we factor in all crime, I suppose you are correct, 13% of the population is not responsible for 50% of all crimes, only about 43% of it, so I apologize for mispeaking, I meant to say they are responsible for over half of all murders, manslaughter, robberies. Again, my mistake, you definitley showed me, 39 million blacks exist in america and are responsible for 51% of murders and over half of all robberies, manslaughters, and the 220 million whites in this country are responsible for only 45% of all murders, manslaughters etc. Wow, what a relief, you definitley disproved my point entirely by pointing out that I was off a statistical point or two, definitley showed that the real monsters are white people and the victims are all black people who never commit any crimes, or hardley any. Definitley was a well argued remark on your part, I should have stated manslaughter instead of violent crimes, and you destroyed my argument of the insanely disproportionate number of crimes commited by blacks compared to ALL OTHER GROUPS (by providing a source that showed the insanely disproportionate number of crimes commited by blacks compared to ALL OTHER GROUPS). Well done.

[Starrk]

> Accuses me of being misleading.
> Proceeds to mislead with inaccurate stats and a false narrative.

"Murder: total: 6,474. Black offenders: 4,078. Percentage: 62%"

Um, this is wrong. The total number of murders for that year, according to my link is 7,964. So that 62% figure is wrong. The actual percentage is 51%.

"Now yes, if we factor in all crime, I suppose you are correct, 13% of the population is not responsible for 50% of all crimes, only about 43% of it"

If you were to factor in ALL crimes, then Black Americans accounted for 26.6% of that share, per the FBI. I have no idea where you're getting 43% from. Are you just making up numbers at this point?

Also, stop with the red herring. You made an error, so what? Learn to take the "L" and move the hell on. All this whining you're doing to save face is not needed.

[Jack9949]

@Starrk I mean you still proved his point again lol. Black people disproportionately commit crime for whatever reason

[Starrk]

@jack9949. That wasn't his original argument, nor was it the one I was attempting to disprove. That was the argument he immediately veered to after his "misleading" statements were proven to be that, in an attempt to save face.

Also, I'm not trying to disprove the fact that Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. That was never my stance. Quite frankly, when looking at the socioeconomics and the environment that Black Americans are more likely to live in when compared to other groups, it doesn't come as a huge surprise that they would account for more shares of crime than their population would suggest.

Now if a group that was more likely to be economically well off were committing a disproportionate amount of crime, then that would be a surprising story you can write about.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Starrk I stated 51. I apologize that I did not correct the first line but as the second one shows, "39 million blacks exist in america and are responsible for 51% of murders and over half of all robberies, manslaughters, and the 220 million whites in this country are responsible for only 45% of all murders, manslaughters etc. " So again, you are intentionally misleading. You see any error you can find, even if its corrected, and you pounce on that and use that to justify your claims that everything stated is false. This is intentionally misleading and you are lying because you know (if you read my statement) that I stated the actual percentages later (I had a typo and yet you see that as evidence because for you the only thing that matters is finding a flaw so you can deny everything even as you openly admit that my argument was correct (that blacks are responsible for an insanely disproportionate number of violent crimes). So I'm going to give you one warning, I'm done playing this stupid game with you, this isn't the first time you have pulled this shit, stop lying, stop intentionally misrepresenting things, stop trying to find that one tiny flaw that doesn't disprove the argument made, and start acting like a rational adult.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@Starrk Also I have admited to being wrong, I always have, your the one who cannot. Your an ideolog, A worthless man who cannot handle the idea that he is wrong. You have proved my argument again and again and again, and yet still even as you prove my point you try to deny it. Your pathetic and you know it, stop. Start acting like a decent human being.

[ILikePlants]

While I agree, there's also been plenty of times where they've complied and it's still resulted a beating or killing

[Jack9949]

Right. But in those cases had they not complied, they still would’ve been worse off

[ILikePlants]

Sure?

[Jack9949]

Well I mean yeah. Like I’m not saying its never happened before but I can’t think of a single instance right now where complete compliance has still led to trouble

[hellionthesagereborn]

When?

[Exterminatore]

@ᗰIᑎᑕᕼᗩᑎ like plants

Name one. Just one case where a person fully complied with police commands and were beaten or killed regardless.

[Jack9949]

@Exterminatore Exactly. I’m saying it must’ve happened at least once in the history of millions of arrests, but I can’t think of a single one.

[ILikePlants]

qz.com/.../

[ILikePlants]

there's one

[Jack9949]

I couldn’t even open the video lmao

[ILikePlants]

Not a video, its an article

[Jack9949]

Then that means nothing. They can say whatever they want. I’ve seen all sorts of “journalists” fabricate the details of George Floyd before the body cam was released

[ILikePlants]

Before I have the rhetoric that I'm anti police thrown at me I'm not.

99% of cops are good cops and it's the 1% that put American police in a bad light

[ILikePlants]

Google Philando Castile and read the news articles for yourself.

As for George Floyd, there were 4 cops on the scene, the knee on the back of the neck is used for temporary control for restraining a guy for a short length of time, not a prolonged period

[Jack9949]

All I’m saying is. That source isn’t really much use. Again I’m saying it must’ve happened but that’s not a way of proving it undoubtedly did

[ILikePlants]

Only 2 videos are the womans recording and the squad car footage

[ILikePlants]

I agree with not complying makes things worse but there should be a limit to worse, running or resisting arrest doesn't warrant a gun being used especially with most cops carrying a taser

[Jack9949]

The taser didn’t fcking work.

[ILikePlants]

In what case?

[Exterminatore]

@Ilikeplants

Ok. I’m gonna look into that case. You may be correct and have in fact named one case, which I do appreciate you supplying evidence for to back up your claims.

All I’m gonna say is it seems a bit suspicious that’s all there is to this.

[hellionthesagereborn]

So the hispanic cop was racist and violent and went out looking to kill a black man? It had nothing to do with him thinking the guy was reaching for a gun in any way shape or form? It was just a cop who wanted to murder some one? No nuance what so ever? Also how was he complying if he kept doing what he was doing despite the officers statements? Not saying it was justified or not, only that which we know about the case shows what your saying is not correct.

So again, where was an incident where the officer was actively killing/beating a person who was entirely compliant (because your example doesn't show that)?

[ILikePlants]

Did you hear the part where the cop asked to see some form of ID?

[hellionthesagereborn]

As for your 1% statistic, based upon the data we have available, on average (ignoring the current state of events), their are 56300 police interactions a year, out of those.002% end in a fatality, out of those only 4% are questionable as to whether or not they are justified. Out of those 60%(give or take) are whites who are shot and killed by the police, out of the remaining 40% most of those officers (like in your one example for instance (which doesn't actually show what your claiming (do I think it was a justified shooting? No, not based upon what we know, but he was not compliant based upon video evidence (he wasn't aggressive either, not saying that, but he was continuing to move when he was told not to and the police have less then one second to react if some one pulls a gun on them so its vital that people obey the officer in these situations))), are minority officers shooting other minorities (they are less likely to hesitate to shoot because they don't have to worry about being called racist and being lynched for their actions).

[ILikePlants]

Haven't said anything about race, and again he asked the guy for ID he reached for it and got shot

[hellionthesagereborn]

In the George Floyd case, he had resisted arrest multiple times and they had actually been overly kind to him (they could have legally tasered him and maced him when he refused to get out of his car when he made multiple excuses as to why he wouldn't. They then could have done the same when he kicked his way out of the police vehicle screaming how he was clausterphobic and he couldn't breath in said car and demanded they lay him out in the street (which they did). Chauven was trained to use his knee on the neck to restrain Floyd (a known violent criminal) and they had called an ambulance because of his erratic behavior. So again, you cannot claim their was compliance because if you watch the full video you will see he was anything but (he resisted arrest multiple times and by all accounts he was trying to buy time to hide evidence (which is why he ended up downing a mix of drugs which resulted in his death (phentonal overdose and high levels of meth where found in his system).

[ILikePlants]

Not denying what you're saying but was he cuffed and on the ground

[hellionthesagereborn]

As for resisting arrest doesn't warrant a gun, that is just wrong. If a violent man runs from a crime and you do not stop him, he is free to do as he wishes. Your basically telling police that their only choices are to die and not defend themselves or to allow a criminal who has decided they don't want to be arrested to effectively walk away, and then when that criminal goes and murders some one or rapes some one (as has happened many times) you will then turn around and blame the police. You have created a catch 22 where their is literally nothing an officer can do that won't make you decide that they are the bad guy and the criminal is the victim. Its an insane premise, at that point why bother with police at all, you might as well have anarchy as you are effectively telling officers that they are not allowed to enforce the law.

[Jack9949]

@hellionthesagereborn I agree. Its happened so many times with people that ran from Police. And then people will say “don’t shoot someone who’s running away” and yet they’ll turn around and blame a cop if anything bad happens after. Gotta be consistent

[hellionthesagereborn]

Doesn't matter. Again, he was told to stop he didn't stop. I'm not saying the shooting was justified, but that is a far cry different then claiming the just went out looking to kill some one, that they just did it to do it (which is an insane premise). You said that people who comply get killed all the time which while statistically is completely incorrect (56,300 police interactions and only.002% end in a fatality and out of those only 4% are considered questaionable), your source showed that he was not comply, that he was not following directions. This is also, even if I was to agree that this cop just ignored a completely compliant individual (I think the officer should be fired because he over reacted but again, he was not listening to the officer when he told him to stop)), that is one incident out of again, 56,300 so again, you would have to provide some kind of evidence to support the claim that all these cops are just going out of their way to murder people who have done nothing wrong (and that is the claim being made, you cannot state that people where being compliant and then state the police killed them anyway and not be making that claim). So again, where is the evidence?

[hellionthesagereborn]

Also you are misrepresenting the situation. He told him to stop because the guy was reaching into his glove box which could have had a gun for all the officer knows, the man didn't listen and continued to reach and the officer stated multiple times in the video to stop which the man did not do. So again, that is the exact opposite of complying, that is he didn't comply.

[007kingifrit]

there really aren't "plenty" of those times, they are super rare. its just the rareness of them means they get a lot of attention and the media makes them SEEM like a trend when they aren't

if you want i have many studies saved about racism and the police but the general jist is black people are vastly underrepresented in police use of lethal force once you adjust for their violent crime rate

[OlderAndWiser]

Like actors and actresses typecast as victims.

[exitseven]

Obama started the whole "have no respect for cops and the military" thing. I would never mouth off to the cops. Common sense tells me that if the cops were ever going to give me a break it will be if I do what they say and go "Yes Sir, No sir". If you mouth off to them they just get mad. Their job is tough enough as it is without having to deal with some punk kid. I know hundreds of cops because I sold police equipment for over 10 years. 99% of them are good guys,. And if you shoot at cops they will shoot back and if you steal a cop's taser and shoot it at him he will shoot you too.
If you jump on the hood of the cruiser you might get shot too.

[Jack9949]

Exactly. People are dumb

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

In this case the cop was completely justified.

This is when a cop can and should use their guns once a suspect has posed a serious bodily threat, not because some petty stuff like running away and shooting someone in the back.

To the second part of your question about resisting? People don't like just to surrender.

It's against human nature to just allow someone to take your freedom away and put you in handcuffs where you have zero chance of defending yourself if some prick decides to abuse you.

Docile weak sheep like to obey, the strong will always resist and put up a fight, but resistance must be rightly justified which in this case wasn't since she was driving a car belonging to some dude with warrants against him.

[Jack9949]

Running away is a reason to shoot somebody. Its important to detain somebody because you have to assume the worst possible outcome.

Otherwise its important to recognize the fights that you cannot win. Things will only get worse if you don’t comply. There’s no getting a better outcome

[Jahizamy]

It's fairly easy to understand why someone would run if you use common sense.

If they have nothing to hide they would sit their ass down. If they have some warrant or would be put under arrest then it might be best to run because whether they run or not they are going to jail, I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

I get it, you're putting them in your shoes but I think a better approach would be to put yourself in their shoes. They don't have anything to lose by running.

And running doesn't justify shooting or killing, that's murder. Which is far more illegal than running.

[Jack9949]

When people run that’s essentially an invitation to get shot. Lol.

[Jack9949]

But either way, you’ll still have to live under constant stress even if you do escape

[Jahizamy]

They already live under constant stress if what they are doing is deemed illegal, running from cops doesn't change that.

And no, running isn't an invitation to get shot. Getting shot for running should result in attempted murder by the officer.

[Jack9949]

I disagree. The person fleeing the scene is likely to cause more danger to those around them

[Jahizamy]

Running on two feet is now a danger to society? Not the one opening fire? Give me a break buddy

[Jack9949]

They could have a weapon on them. Its important to detain them.

[Jahizamy]

That's the key word, could.

Your mother could also be a secret spy for a foreign intelligence, does that mean we detain and question her?

Just because they could have a weapon doesn't mean it's a license to shoot.

You just have engraved biases that you need to question because I know you're smarter than this, your biases make you throw logic out the window.

[Jack9949]

Wrong. If someone had a gun and then started shooting people with it. Everyone in town would blame the Cop for having not detained the guy.

[Meldrum]

You need only look at the case of George Floyd to understand why black folks are hesitant when confronted by white police officers. Yes, the best path when confronted by a police officer is to capitulate. That said, when you're being detained turns into a physical altercation, do not fight back. Let them put cuffs on you. They are NOT a judge or jury. They're the first in a long line of legal actions that can be taken.

[Jack9949]

Absolutely man. Even for the people that are truly innocent, they have their date in court.

[Pete671]

yes perfectly said, if Officers are wrong/illegal it will all come out in the wash,

[Jack9949]

@Pete671 Exactly. I’m not saying officers never make mistakes. But please do your part as a citizen and lets keep everyone safe.

[Anonymous]

It usually is better if people do not resist arrest. However, it is clear, that black people statistically are more likely to be arrested for behavior that if often overlooked with white people, and it's fact that black people are more likely to spend time in jail for the same crime that a white person is less likely to go to jail for, and it's also fact, that a black person, on average, is sentenced to a longer prison term that is a white person, for the same crime. Those, and other factors, are part of the reason black people tend to resist arrest, because they know they are less likely to get fair treatment than is a white person.

[Exterminatore]

I agree fully. Of course the narrative is always how a white cop killed a black person in a racially motivated killing regardless of what the circumstances are.

[Jack9949]

Circumstances always matter. Its wrong to assume a motive

[anylolone]

Oh, white people resist all the time and get killed for it all the time.
It just doesn't become news.

They resist less often than blacks and less harshly, but with so many people there's bound to be a bad bunch.

[Rangers]

Completely justified, I would've shot as soon as her hand went behind the center console in a clear drawing motion

[Celtero]

Anyone that believes in the BLM narrative is a lost cause.

[007kingifrit]

nobody is a lost cause. they're just uninformed, probably spending too long on social media. they can be reached, and fixed

[Celtero]

@007kingifrit No, because the issue is they're too stupid to begin with.

[007kingifrit]

you don't know that, you just want it to be true so you don't have to do the hard work of reaching and fixing them. you're being a coward, and lazy

[Celtero]

@007kingifrit I've tried bud, the problem is they live in a world where their beliefs have to be dictated to them. It would be more effective for me to hack their TV and put on a fake program where I tell them how to think than try to use facts and reason.

[Anonymous]

Totally agree, they just think they have a better chance fleeing than dealing with the police I guess but it does make it worse every time

[Jack9949]

It ALWAYS makes it worse lol

[Waldoe]

I have never had a Good interaction with a police officer, they all seem to have a chip on their shoulders... Power Crazed in a way... sorry but it's true, AVOID COPS, even if you think you need one, think twice

[Juxtapose]

It seems like you are the type of dude to argue for compliance even if there is a boot on your neck.

[Jack9949]

Wtf?

[Juxtapose]

If a cop has a boot on your neck, are you just going to lie there and take it?

[Jack9949]

Umm no?

[Jack9949]

I’d roll over

[Juxtapose]

You have a right to defend yourself. It doesn't matter if they are cop or not, if you are being assaulted for no good reason, stand up for yourself.

[Jack9949]

Obviously yeah. But that lady wasn’t being assaulted

[Juxtapose]

Well I never mentioned the lady, I was looking through your replies on here and I kind of got the impression that you're a bootlicker.

[Jack9949]

Im an independent thinker

[ManHater]

Might be because black people are stupid?

[Jack9949]

I hate to say this but it does appear that way. For a good number of them

[Andres77]

She's right where she needs to be.

[Sabretooth]

blacks don't trust them.

[Mylife411]

Few cops are justified. Most are sadists

[007kingifrit]

not true at all