Ignore this at your peril: The USA is going down

Value Collector said:

So you now understand that nobody cares that he was arrested, and it was just the way the arrest was conducted that is being protested, good.

Now that you understand that, maybe next you might be able to see that race played a part either overtly or subconsciously in his treatment being much harsher than you would expect anybody to receive, especially for a non violent crime.

Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with what I understand VC. The misunderstanding from yourself began when you used the George Floyd case to break into a debate I was having with another member about why some other dark skinned guy was questioned in a video a few pages back.

I did say I'll talk about the George Floyd case when I'm ready - maybe you didn't understand that?

In any case I don't agree with you. As previously mentioned, attempting to overlay racial discrimination - overtly or otherwise - on every police case involving dark skinned people reveals a subconscious bias in itself.

If I was to apply your logic in reverse, I could just as easily suggest you have a subconscious bias against police for doing their job.

aus_trader said:

Struth !
Pretty scary stats mate...

Err... Forget Houston, Australia... we have a problem !

Click to expand...

Problem indeed, but the solution can not be to just put a quota of 3.3% prisoners of aboriginal background yet that is the brain-dead solution now seriously pushed by these "social movements", mirrored by "positive discrimination" (seriously???) from university entries to a job in a mining company headquarter.
Reverse discrimination is a fact and has a bigger negative impact than "historic meaning discrimination" as it affects by definition a bigger number of people.
Why are the masses of people so dumb to be so easily manipulated? On this matters but so many too, Has SM killed critical spirit /intelligence or just revealed the abyss?

I don't get the recovery in the markets*.
I don't see that any big issues being resolved. Trump and the US seem to be thrashing about while the baseline matters remain unresolved Covid19 the riots and future leadership. The economy is everything. It seems to be the only hope for a solution. There is a screaming momentum for fundamentals of US society to be addressed, and all I can see is Trump just thumping the table harder and harder. More and more people seem to be switching him off.
I certainly don't get why there isn't another howling protest on the loss of lives due to Covid-19 (focussed at the US), but it seems there are (were) far greater protests on 'opening up' and 'I wont be shut down'.
Maybe the market also thrashing about and taking in its last big lungful of air. I would have expected a recovery if there were some solutions to the growing number of problems, and I am yet to mention the international stuff.

*Disclosure: I don't get a lot of stuff with the market.

Earlier in this thread I mentioned that a key element to racism was nonrandom behaviour.
I also covered the student case, so will now show how that type of behaviour manifests.
In the case of police officers doing their job, racism cannot occur if an officer's actions are consistent and lawful.
When they are not, the questions to be answered relate to motivation or errors of judgement.
In the student case covered earlier the officer's actions demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that is textbook racism, so I will go over them.
The officer had observed the student sitting on his dorm's patio for several minutes beforehand and he was not doing anything suspicious. When the student got up he was clearly collecting rubbish. It is impossible for that fact to be differently interpreted. Despite this the officer chose to question the student. The officer had no reasonable grounds for his actions and his training would have told him that he was looking at potential 4th Amendment breach if he overreached. Put simply, at this point the officer's actions were deliberate, yet inexplicable. Strike 1.
The initial discussion with the student informed the officer that the student was both working and living at the premises. Without probable cause any further escalation was a 4th Amendment breach. Not satisfied with the student's response the officer asked for identification, and it was provided. It did not have an address and the officer pressed on this matter. The officer has no lawful rights at this point and as an experienced officer he would have known this. Strike 2.
After the student pointed to the address on the building, the student was asked for his "unit number" and was probably confused. The building has no unit numbers - its a dormitory. The officer refused to return the ID card to the student for inexplicable reasons. The officer also had no grounds for keeping the student's ID, especially as it was his "entry card " to his dorm. Strike 3.
The officer looked at the reverse of the card and should have seen the contact details of the university, and made a call if he had concerns about the student's ID/address. Why didn't he? He's an experienced police officer and this would have been a simple, non-confrontational resolution. Strike 4.
At this point the student offered that the officer follow him and he would "buzz" in to the building to prove his bona fides (as the officer now had his entry card and he could not open door). The officer refused this request. Why? Again, the officer chose not to take a reasonable step to inform himself, despite having already overstepped his lawful remit. Strike 5.
To believe the officer is just doing his job at this point beggars belief. With his background he cannot have made so many sequential mistakes. Furthermore, Americans learn about their Constitutional rights at school and the university student will have known at Strike 2 that he had complied with what was reasonably required.
The officer then asks for the student's date of birth, apparently to verify who he is. This is a curious and unlawful request, and it was not apparent that the officer would do anything with the information as he already had failed to act on 2 opportunities to confirm what he needed to know about the student. Strike 6.
When the student questioned why the request was made by the officer and is not satisfied, he continues to go about collecting trash. The officer calls for backup at this point despite their being no evidence of any offence or any threat to him. Why?
The officer appears unhappy with his progress and now threatens the student with obstruction which is a jailable offence. As there is no offence in train there cannot be obstruction, so the officer's actions are now clearly unlawful and constitute harassment. Strike 7.
From this point onward the situation degenerates into a farce until a white man with no documentation is immediately believed and quells the confrontation.
Although the student had a potty mouth, the officer was never threatened and the student just wanted to keep doing his job until a gun was drawn on him.

It is improbable this instance was just about an officer doing his job. From the outset their was no apparent lawful motivation for his actions. Let's forgive that. Once it was clear no crime had occurred or was in progress, the action should have ended. It did not, so what motivated the officer to disbelieve the student, not make any calls to check information provided, or follow the student into his residence to resolve his concerns?
The litany of errors of law and common sense from the experienced officer suggests his actions must have been motivated by other factors. And every one of his actions were consistent with what we associate with racist behaviours... right to the very end where a white male without any supporting evidence was immediately believed.

The independent review of this case did not examine the "motivation" of the officer, just his actions. Racism needs to be seen in the context of what causes those actions to manifest. So when we saw George Floyd dying in front of our eyes did we all think the arresting officer was just doing his job, or was he motivated to what he did for other reasons?

Much of the above post about the officers' behaviour being textbook racism reeks of conspiracy theory and / or misinterpretation. Sorry Rob

No one here said "the officer is just doing his job" in that particular case.

And "actions were consistent with what we associate with racist behaviours" is merely an opinion push around as fact which I think is unfortunate because it's this way of thinking that leads to reverse discrimination as previously mentioned.

That's what I find sad about the whole thing. Reverse discrimination forces the police or other people to tread on eggshells simply because the person they're standing next to has different colour skin - yet expect behaviour that's unoffensive to them or supporters of their creed.

For as long as that's allowed to continue - nothing will ever change.

PZ99 said:

Much of the above post about the officers' behaviour being textbook racism reeks of conspiracy theory and / or misinterpretation. Sorry Rob

Click to expand...

The difference between your posts and mine is that mine have a basis in social science, criminology and law.
Police officers doing their jobs in accordance with the law do not need to treat anyone differently due to the colour of their skin, race, religion, gender, etc., so your idea about needing to tread on eggshells, or reverse discrimination, is just made up nonsense.
My post above makes it clear that the law was never in play when the Boulder police officer took the many actions he did. He was not a rookie cop, so what compelled him to sequentially commit so many errors in law and common policing?
The officer was not irrational, and was quite deliberate in his inappropriate actions.
There is an explanation but you will never accept it.

PZ99 said:

No one here said "the officer is just doing his job" in that particular case.

Click to expand...

That's precisely what the officer claimed he was doing, so please check the bodycam footage to confirm you have erred.

rederob said:

The difference between your posts and mine is that mine have a basis in social science, criminology and law.
Police officers doing their jobs in accordance with the law do not need to treat anyone differently due to the colour of their skin, race, religion, gender, etc., so your idea about needing to tread on eggshells, or reverse discrimination, is just made up nonsense.

Click to expand...

That is completely wrong - police officers behave according to the local conditions and beliefs.
Watch that footage of police reaction to Lauren Southern in Lakemba if you don't believe it.

Eggshells everywhere. Many other places wouldn't evoke that reaction.
Redfern is another one. So is Mt Druitt. All trouble spots.

rederob said:

My post above makes it clear that the law was never in play when the Boulder police officer took the many actions he did. He was not a rookie cop, so what compelled him to sequentially commit so many errors in law and common policing?
The officer was not irrational, and was quite deliberate in his inappropriate actions.
There is an explanation but you will never accept it.

Click to expand...

What I don't accept is your prior claim he had racial motivations. Not enough evidence.
Your opinion is not an explanation. The officer denied it was racial. You think he's lying ?

Someone else opined the behaviour might've been based on the students age instead.
I noticed you didn't challenge that one - wonder why ?

rederob said:

That's precisely what the officer claimed he was doing, so please check the bodycam footage to confirm you have erred.

Click to expand...

Of course the officer claimed he was doing his job. That is totally beside the point.
When you say "To believe the officer is just doing his job at this point" you are talking about someone believing the officer - not the officer himself. No error on my part. YOU have erred.

PZ99 said:

That is completely wrong - police officers behave according to the local conditions and beliefs.
Watch that footage of police reaction to Lauren Southern in Lakemba if you don't believe it.

Eggshells everywhere. Many other places wouldn't evoke that reaction.
Redfern is another one. So is Mt Druitt. All trouble spots.

What I don't accept is your prior claim he had racial motivations. Not enough evidence.
Your opinion is not an explanation. The officer denied it was racial. You think he's lying ?

Someone else opined the behaviour might've been based on the students age instead.
I noticed you didn't challenge that one - wonder why ?

Of course the officer claimed he was doing his job. That is totally beside the point.
When you say "To believe the officer is just doing his job at this point" you are talking about someone believing the officer - not the officer himself. No error on my part. YOU have erred.

Click to expand...

Police officers are required to uphold the law, not break it. So if the officer or anyone else believed he was doing his job, why was every action he took not in keeping with the law or policing practices? This was not a rookie cop and you keep making excuses for unlawful behaviour.

I don't have "an opinion" on the officer's actions or beliefs as they are textbook examples of how racism plays out. Maybe you need to read a bit more about how this particular "ism" manifests in society. It's a real thing and not anyone's conspiracy theory.

rederob said:

Police officers are required to uphold the law, not break it. So if the officer or anyone else believed he was doing his job, why was every action he took not in keeping with the law or policing practices? This was not a rookie cop and you keep making excuses for unlawful behaviour.

I don't have "an opinion" on the officer's actions or beliefs as they are textbook examples of how racism plays out. Maybe you need to read a bit more about how this particular "ism" manifests in society. It's a real thing and not anyone's conspiracy theory.

Click to expand...

Another error on your part. I have on multiple occasions acknowledged his unlawful behaviour.
What I don't agree with is the claim he was being racist. You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between the two descriptions. What make that hilarious is you also claim as fact that you know what's going through that officers' mind. It reduces the credibility of your conspiracy theory to anyone over the age of a college student picking up trash outside a Colorado dorm

I'll put this one up.

Say police stop you and ask to see in the boot of your car.

If you have nothing to hide do you say "sure", open the boot and be on your way, or complain about being picked on ?

I would say that most people would comply simply to not cause trouble, those who have a persecution complex might resist resulting in being forced to comply and maybe ending up in trouble and then complaining about it.

SirRumpole said:

I'll put this one up.

Say police stop you and ask to see in the boot of your car.

If you have nothing to hide do you say "sure", open the boot and be on your way, or complain about being picked on ?

I would say that most people would comply simply to not cause trouble, those who have a persecution complex might resist resulting in being forced to comply and maybe ending up in trouble and then complaining about it.

Click to expand...

I suppose it depends how often I am being stopped and why exactly I was being targeted for this search.

It's pretty easy for a white guy like me who has actually never in my 38 years of life been stopped to have my car or person searched to say "sure you can search me", its almost a novelty at that point, But at the end of the day if it was happening to me routinely while my friends of other races were never stopped I might begin to think their is a problem.

-----------

Also, some times people have personal things they don't want searched.

I know a guy who is a surf photographer, he was accused of taking photos of kids on Bondi beach, and police made him hand over his camera to search through his photos.

It turns out there was no images of kids and he was innocent, however he had his privacy invaded just because some one saw him as a single white male taking photos and assumed he must be a pedo. If this was constantly happening you could imagine he would get pissed off.

Now what if he had nude photos of his wife on the memory card, he and his wife would have their privacy invaded even though they are totally innocent.

If he resisted the police and enforced his rights to deny the police access to his memory card they and others would assume his guilt, but in reality he is the innocent victim, because he never took photos of any ones kids, yet his wife had personal photos exposed to a stranger.

Value Collector said:

I suppose it depends how often I am being stopped and why exactly I was being targeted for this search.

It's pretty easy for a white guy like me who has actually never in my 38 years of life been stopped to have my car or person searched to say "sure you can search me", its almost a novelty at that point, But at the end of the day if it was happening to me routinely while my friends of other races were never stopped I might begin to think their is a problem.

-----------

Also, some times people have personal things they don't want searched.

I know a guy who is a surf photographer, he was accused of taking photos of kids on Bondi beach, and police made him hand over his camera to search through his photos.

It turns out there was no images of kids and he was innocent, however he had his privacy invaded just because some one saw him as a single white male taking photos and assumed he must be a pedo. If this was constantly happening you could imagine he would get pissed off.

Now what if he had nude photos of his wife on the memory card, he and his wife would have their privacy invaded even though they are totally innocent.

If he resisted the police and enforced his rights to deny the police access to his memory card they and others would assume his guilt, but in reality he is the innocent victim, because he never took photos of any ones kids, yet his wife had personal photos exposed to a stranger.

Click to expand...

Ride a Harley, when the police are having issues with the bikies, that can be tiresome.
Also it isn't racial.
Another example of conditioned response would be, if we started having a lot of terrorist incidents you know suicide bombers etc, you would start and treat people who look like they come from that region with caution maybe even avoid completely, well the police are only human but they deal with life threatening demographics daily.
To expect them to not over react ocassionally is not feasable, when it happens it should and will get punished, but to irradicate it will be impossible IMO.

Value Collector said:

I know a guy who is a surf photographer, he was accused of taking photos of kids on Bondi beach, and police made him hand over his camera to search through his photos.

Click to expand...

That's police overreach in my view. People should have a right to take photos of a public place no matter who is in those places. If you are in a public place you have voluntarily given up your privacy.

If he was sticking his camera through kid's bedroom windows it would be a different matter.

sptrawler said:

Ride a Harley, when the police are having issues with the bikies, that can be tiresome.
Also it isn't racial.
.

Click to expand...

Yes it isn't racial, but it is prejudice at least you can park your bike and take off you jacket and get away from that stereotype when you want, but a black guy can't change his skin.

Prejudice comes in a lot of types, eg sexism, racism, judging people with tattoos(especially facial) etc etc.

We should all be trying to catch ourselves when we find ourselves having prejudice thoughts, unfortunately at the moment and for most of recent history Black men are being killed because of these prejudices, as I said earlier saying that we don't have prejudice or ignoring them doesn't help.

Value Collector said:

Yes it isn't racial, but it is prejudice at least you can park your bike and take off you jacket and get away from that stereotype when you want, but a black guy can't change his skin.

Prejudice comes in a lot of types, eg sexism, racism, judging people with tattoos(especially facial) etc etc.

We should all be trying to catch ourselves when we find ourselves having prejudice thoughts, unfortunately at the moment and for most of recent history Black men are being killed because of these prejudices, as I said earlier saying that we don't have prejudice or ignoring them doesn't help.

Click to expand...

I think if you look up the actual statistics, most black men, are killed by other black men. But with regard the police, black men are 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police, but that also depends on the search criteria for the stats.
It might be that police are 2 times more likely to be threatened by black men.
The whole subject is very emotively driven and as has been stated any stat can be manipulated, thereby not comparing apples with apples.
But it is a big issue and there are no simple solutions, middle eastern men are probably detained as suspect terrorists, 100 times more than blonde Scandinavian men, is that racist or prejudice? Or just a reflection of the demographics of the most probable suspect?

sptrawler said:

I think if you look up the actual statistics, most black men, are killed by other black men. But with regard the police, black men are 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police, but that also depends on the search criteria for the stats.
It might be that police are 2 times more likely to be threatened by black men.
The whole subject is very emotively driven and as has been stated any stat can be manipulated, thereby not comparing apples with apples.
But it is a big issue and there are no simple solutions, middle eastern men are probably detained as suspect terrorists, 100 times more than blonde Scandinavian men, is that racist or prejudice? Or just a reflection of the demographics of the most probable suspect?

Click to expand...

Exactly, statistics always require deeper analysis, the prima factor case almost always misleading, especially when used to make some sort of political point.

If anyone has an already done so I would advise reading Freakonomics. I have never looked at statistics the same way ever since.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics..................

half full or half empty ?

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

All old sayings, all true, unfortunately virtually every living thing is biased against any other living thing that is different.

I might add that for many years I have been amazed at the minimum hourly wage rate in the USA, I am not surprised that there are many angry people there.

sptrawler said:

I think if you look up the actual statistics, most black men, are killed by other black men. But with regard the police, black men are 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police, but that also depends on the search criteria for the stats.

Click to expand...

This is pure BS, I gave the figures: you can find them yourselves:
considering the over representation of black mlaes in crimes, black males offenders are LESS likely to be shot dead by police than white males offenders.
It is incredible that people just take as truth any BS that is PC without looking at numbers..
So here I am again going for the raw numbers

so will the do good ers and snowflakes consider these as fake news???
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

qldfrog said:

This is pure BS, I gave the figures: you can find them yourselves:
considering the over representation of black mlaes in crimes, black males offenders are LESS likely to be shot dead by police than white males offenders.

Click to expand...

I suggest you learn basic statistics.
Factoring in the low share of blacks in th US population and their higher crime rate still leaved them over twice as likely to be shot.