Graphic video released of police killing another black man in cold blood

[Getting Traded]

I think the recent incidents show that there is no doubt that there is an element in law enforcement which racially profiles people. This has been going on for years. These killings just smack us in the face with this blatant but sad truth, and should make us reflect on what kind of society we have and how we can change that.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

And also if you're stupid enough to wave a gun or anything that looks like a gun around in public, expect to be treated as a threat


The kid was a moron

Likewise, if a woman is stupid enough to dress in tight, revealing clothes, or anything that makes her looks like a tramp in public, she should expect to be treated like a tramp.

Yep. He got exactly what he deserved

 

[Getting Traded]

And also if you're stupid enough to wave a gun or anything that looks like a gun around in public, expect to be treated as a threat

The kid was a moron

Tell that to the NRA

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

What I am questioning is the motives so many are trying to assign to the police. There is a big difference between making a mistake and being a murderous evil racist pig bent on killing every black person they can get away with.

Who, perhaps beyond HH, is calling the police murderous, evil racist pigs bent on killing black people?

Is it not legitimate to ask whether police and policing tactics demonstrate a bias against black people and if this is an example of it?

Is it not further legitimate to ask whether the police tactic of shoot first and ask questions later is appropriate in this and other cases?

Is it not also legitimate to ask whether the shoot first tactic is perhaps more prone to be employed with the perp is black?

More broadly, is it not legitimate to ask whether the police doctrine of overwhelming and/or deadly force is appropriate to be employed so frequently or when risk is perceived, as opposed to other possible policing tactics/doctrines?

By creating this straw-man argument, you're avoiding dealing with the obvious questions that this tragic event, and many more like it, raises.

 

[Stoked]

Who, perhaps beyond HH, is calling the police murderous, evil racist pigs bent on killing black people?

Is it not legitimate to ask whether police and policing tactics demonstrate a bias against black people and if this is an example of it?

Is it not further legitimate to ask whether the police tactic of shoot first and ask questions later is appropriate in this and other cases?

Is it not also legitimate to ask whether the shoot first tactic is perhaps more prone to be employed with the perp is black?

More broadly, is it not legitimate to ask whether the police doctrine of overwhelming and/or deadly force is appropriate to be employed so frequently or when risk is perceived, as opposed to other possible policing tactics/doctrines?

By creating this straw-man argument, you're avoiding dealing with the obvious questions that this tragic event, and many more like it, raises.

By dismissing his comments you yourself are avoiding dealing with some of the very questions that these types of occurances raise.

You have good points about questioning and reviewing policy doctrine and procedure, I agree. But so does Log about the narrative displayed by HH being regularly used in society. In my mind one is no less important than the other.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

By dismissing his comments you yourself are avoiding dealing with some of the very questions that these types of occurances raise.

You have good points about questioning and reviewing policy doctrine and procedure, I agree. But so does Log about the narrative displayed by HH being regularly used in society. In my mind one is no less important than the other.

I'm dismissing his comments because it uses a stawman argument to dismiss concerns expressed here and elsewhere about police bias and policing tactics. By describing opposing arguments in an extreme and caricaturized manner, he is seeking to dismiss the arguments as invalid.

For a similar reason, I also reject extreme portrayals of police.

As a general rule, I don't see any responsibility to take seriously arguments that rely on extreme caricatures and that are not being offered in a good faith manner to advance debate.

 

[Stoked]

I'm dismissing his comments because it uses a stawman argument to dismiss concerns expressed here and elsewhere about police bias and policing tactics. By describing opposing arguments in an extreme and caricaturized manner, he is seeking to dismiss the concerns as invalid.

For a similar reason, I also reject extreme portrayals of police.

As a general rule, I don't see any responsibility to take seriously arguments that rely on extreme caricatures and that are not being offered in a good faith manner to advance debate.

Unfortunately I do not think it is an extreme ciricature. I think it is much more common than people are willing to admit.
That's fine but by you dismissing his comments you are doing the very thing you are claiming he is doing. Someone somewhere has to admit that there are some valid arguments and claims on the other side.

So let it be me.

Yes those mad about this shooting have a point that police procedures/policies, equipment, training...needs to be updated and reviewed to address the concerns of the public. That mistakes, tragic ones, are being made and it is leading to the loss of life. This should be supported by the police supporting side to help protect the police, and citizens, from future tragic events.

Also,

Yes those critiquing those verbally attacking the police have a point that it is getting out of hand. Some of the things said and verbage used are disgusting. No we do not need injured cops, their families and friends. No we do not need to attack the police. That should be roundly, loudly and frequently rejected and denounced at all levels of those on their side.

I only choose 1 argument from each side and it is not totally inclusive. But you know what...really not that hard to do.

 

[Getting Traded]

I'm dismissing his comments because it uses a stawman argument to dismiss concerns expressed here and elsewhere about police bias and policing tactics. By describing opposing arguments in an extreme and caricaturized manner, he is seeking to dismiss the arguments as invalid.

For a similar reason, I also reject extreme portrayals of police.

As a general rule, I don't see any responsibility to take seriously arguments that rely on extreme caricatures and that are not being offered in a good faith manner to advance debate.

Well, I agree about the extreme characterizations, the woe is me because I am black, but in instances of law enforcement there is definite bias and racial profiling going on. A lot of police have a redneck mentality. It goes with the roots of their upbringing that led them into law enforcement in the first place. They tend not to be tolerant people. This is a problem in our society, even more so if you're black

 

[TroutBum]

Likewise, if a woman is stupid enough to dress in tight, revealing clothes, or anything that makes her looks like a tramp in public, she should expect to be treated like a tramp.

Yep. He got exactly what he deserved

Except that's not what he said. Other than that, solid post.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Except that's not what he said. Other than that, solid post.

No sh** Sherlock. And herein lies the difference between explicit and implied.

I used an analogy to demonstrate the fallacy of the implication of his statement.

I thought you were down with using analogies, even lousy ones, although my analogy isn't a lousy one.

Other than your failure to understand common debating/argumentation tactics, solid post.

 

[TroutBum]

No sh** Sherlock. And herein lies the difference between explicit and implied.

Other than confusing these two concepts, solid post.

Riiiight.

Other than every word you typed, solid post.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm dismissing his comments because it uses a stawman argument to dismiss concerns expressed here and elsewhere about police bias and policing tactics. By describing opposing arguments in an extreme and caricaturized manner, he is seeking to dismiss the arguments as invalid.

For a similar reason, I also reject extreme portrayals of police.
er
As a general rule, I don't see any responsibility to take seriously arguments that rely on extreme caricatures and that are not being offered in a good faith manner to advance debate.

It is possible to address other points of a topic without summarily dismissing any points at all. I never dismissed anything. I just chose to focus on a point that I felt wasn't being adequately addressed.