Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Test: Attitudes About An Incident
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
This is a test of your attitudes about the following incident. A (self proclaimed?) neighborhood watch person claimed in a 911 call that "hoodlums" were racing up and down the street brandishing weapons. He told the operator he was going out to "secure the neighborhood." He shot a young black man in a vehicle. The youths' side of the story is a bit different. They claim they were leaving a party. Being in possession of weed they ran, after thinking they saw a police vehicle approaching. They say they had just gotten in a car and started to drive when shots rang out and one of the youths in the car was shot dead. My own take is there are probably elements of truth on both sides. Prior to the incident I am guessing there was a side show going on, or at very least, laying a couple of scratches and maybe the odd doughnut laid down. So some noise from one or more vehicles. Brandishing weapons? Maybe, maybe not. In any case, it still seems the "neighborhood watch" guy used excessive force. Now he's charged with murder. What is your take?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...65d5778248
It seems the guy shot this kid dead and the cops arrested him for murder. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
(08-09-2016, 06:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-09-2016, 02:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]It seems the guy shot this kid dead and the cops arrested him for murder.  Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Me too.

I was hoping for responses from the likes of 58 Flat, Classic, Radind, maybe some others. Very curious how they view this in light of the alignments we are seeing in this election year.

One does not have the right to use lethal force in a situation not preventing the obvious likelihood of death, severe injury, or great bodily harm (which would include rape). Murder, of course.
(08-09-2016, 02:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]It seems the guy shot this kid dead and the cops arrested him for murder.  Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

To me as well.
My take is simple. A neighborhood watch is just that, a watch. Their role is to watch the neighborhood and then call the police if they witness or suspect a crime taking place. When they try to take on the role of law enforcement, which they are not, they can and probably will end up killing (though not necessarily murdering) noncriminal elements.
(08-14-2016, 10:27 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]My take is simple.  A neighborhood watch is just that, a watch.  Their role is to watch the neighborhood and then call the police if they witness or suspect a crime taking place. When they try to take on the role of law enforcement, which they are not, they can and probably will end up killing (though not necessarily murdering) noncriminal elements.

A plausible take.  Militia cultures can enforce the law successfully with training.  The slow steady climb in US Homicide rates started at the time funds for training the militia were eliminated at the federal level.  One can argue that an armed trained population was more effective than professionals paid by representatives of the capitalist class.  Certainly, if untrained individuals run around trying to 'enforce the law' you are going to have problems.

This would be especially true when said untrained individuals have racial hang ups.
(08-14-2016, 10:27 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]My take is simple.  A neighborhood watch is just that, a watch.  Their role is to watch the neighborhood and then call the police if they witness or suspect a crime taking place. When they try to take on the role of law enforcement, which they are not, they can and probably will end up killing (though not necessarily murdering) noncriminal elements.

Precisely. The cops are trained to use deadly force, which implies ensuring that someone who attacks a cop faces as unfair a fight as possible. Being arrested isn't that bad an experience if the cops and you behave. If you must choose between implicating yourself and being arrested, then take the arrest.

Neighborhood Watch has its value as eyes and ears of a police force stretched too thin for the level of crime, but it is not trained to use deadly force. Hear an escalating family fight? Call the cops. See a drug deal going down? Call the cops. See someone who seems not to belong in the area taking stuff out a window? Call the cops. See someone looking into cars for keys in the ignition or valuables to be taken? Call the cops. Get a whiff of a strange chemical smell? Call the cops. Hear gunfire? Call the cops. See someone driving with obvious impairment? Call the cops.
(09-09-2016, 07:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]I had a dream. This is not a speech. The dream I had was last night. I've mentioned on other threads I have Melungeon ancestors therefore according the one drop rule I'm Black. But I totally pass for White, in terms of appearance. Funny thing though, when I hang out with Blacks, I'm treated Black. Strange world we live in. I digress. About the dream ...

In this dream, me and some other Black guys are at work are watching some events on a screen - similar to BLM protests but much more serious. The scenes include BLM groups and other groups - the White Nationalist / National Bolshevik groups. There is tension all around. There are also police but vastly outnumbered by both groups. There is a sense the police will do nothing and will let the groups fight it out.

All of a sudden, right out in our own parking  lot, similar groups appear. I find myself with 3 other black guys, out in front of the building. A White guy in a sort of self created brown uniform suddenly walks up right next to us. A flat bed truck with several grey haired but still relatively vital White guys drives up and parks right next to us. The police are doing nothing, and like the scenes we saw on the screen, are vastly outnumbered.

The dream ends.

What a horrid dream! Those fascists seem to be spoiling for a fight. Whether you are seem as black (racists will are swift to detect a black person even at the no-drop level; I have been called a word that rhymes with Roy Rogers' horse on the web) or as the most horrible thin possible, a 'race traitor'... yes, white privilege deserves betrayal...

I say go toward the police, and make sure that you are not the first to throw a punch. If you are backing away and the fight finds you, then you may be arrested for your safety and the fascists will be arrested for assault and battery. Better a trip to jail than to the E/R. You may get to identify your assailants who themselves will be arrested. There are worse things to be in a court of law than a prosecution witness.
(08-09-2016, 01:01 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]This is a test of your attitudes about the following incident. A (self proclaimed?) neighborhood watch person claimed in a 911 call that "hoodlums" were racing up and down the street brandishing weapons. He told the operator he was going out to "secure the neighborhood." He shot a young black man in a vehicle. The youths' side of the story is a bit different. They claim they were leaving a party. Being in possession of weed they ran, after thinking they saw a police vehicle approaching. They say they had just gotten in a car and started to drive when shots rang out and one of the youths in the car was shot dead. My own take is there are probably elements of truth on both sides. Prior to the incident I am guessing there was a side show going on, or at very least, laying a couple of scratches and maybe the odd doughnut laid down. So some noise from one or more vehicles. Brandishing weapons? Maybe, maybe not. In any case, it still seems the "neighborhood watch" guy used excessive force. Now he's charged with murder. What is your take?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...65d5778248

My take on the story, without visiting the link, is that both sides are being entirely truthful and merely omitting details they consider irrelevant.

Also that someone waving a weapon aound is no excuse for killing them, absent their specifically aiming the weapon at you.
This isn't directly tied to the question that begins the thread, but seems as good a place to put it as is still on the first page.

There is one line that caught my attention in CNN's recent coverage of the recent shooting in Charlotte..

CNN Wrote:Authorities said three people and four police officers were injured. Videos and pictures on Twitter showed reporters and other people being attacked.

They seem to be making a distinction between police officers and people???

It's bad PR to use tear gas and other more physical crowd control methods against reporters.  It tends to slant the coverage.
(08-09-2016, 01:01 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]This is a test of your attitudes about the following incident. A (self proclaimed?) neighborhood watch person claimed in a 911 call that "hoodlums" were racing up and down the street brandishing weapons. He told the operator he was going out to "secure the neighborhood." He shot a young black man in a vehicle. The youths' side of the story is a bit different. They claim they were leaving a party. Being in possession of weed they ran, after thinking they saw a police vehicle approaching. They say they had just gotten in a car and started to drive when shots rang out and one of the youths in the car was shot dead. My own take is there are probably elements of truth on both sides. Prior to the incident I am guessing there was a side show going on, or at very least, laying a couple of scratches and maybe the odd doughnut laid down. So some noise from one or more vehicles. Brandishing weapons? Maybe, maybe not. In any case, it still seems the "neighborhood watch" guy used excessive force. Now he's charged with murder. What is your take?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...65d5778248

Oh well I may as well do this "test." But keep in mind the differences. I am an Appolonian kiwi millennial. Your GIs also were Appolonian civics so, similar society regarding culture is perceived to be calmer than previous years and the generations have likewise also pulled themselves together. Unlike Dionysian saeculums where it is a cultural mess. Anyway now I will read your message.

"This is a test of your attitudes about the following incident. A (self proclaimed?) neighborhood watch person claimed in a 911 call that "hoodlums" were racing up and down the street brandishing weapons. He told the operator he was going out to "secure the neighborhood." He shot a young black man in a vehicle. The youths' side of the story is a bit different. They claim they were leaving a party. Being in possession of weed they ran, after thinking they saw a police vehicle approaching. They say they had just gotten in a car and started to drive when shots rang out and one of the youths in the car was shot dead. My own take is there are probably elements of truth on both sides. Prior to the incident I am guessing there was a side show going on, or at very least, laying a couple of scratches and maybe the odd doughnut laid down. So some noise from one or more vehicles. Brandishing weapons? Maybe, maybe not. In any case, it still seems the "neighborhood watch" guy used excessive force. Now he's charged with murder. What is your take?"

1) Good.
2) "He told the operator he was going out to "secure the neighborhood." <errr what? That is none of your biz so let the police handle it.
3) "He shot a young black man in a vehicle." <bloody hell smdh oh btw why comment on his colour? What is it with America and always mentioning the colour of a person?
4) "Being in possession of weed they ran, after thinking they saw a police vehicle approaching." <fair enough. After all the stories I have heard of cops shooting first then asking questions later. American cops need retraining especially when i have heard one story of a cop who did not shoot first and he was fired for "endangering the lives of fellow cops." The person was suicidal. Guess when you are suicidal best thing to do is ring the cops. The other cops killed the person.
5) "They say they had just gotten in a car and started to drive when shots rang out and one of the youths in the car was shot dead." Ok so now we know that is where the stories merge.
So, my take? The person who rang the police should have bloody well just rung the police and leave the work for the police and not get involved. Either way if they had guns or not is that not an amendment right in the first place over there? In NZ those guns would not be allowed (illegal to carry around on you in the streets). But in America it is legal in some areas to carry on you and it is certainly legal to own one. So I would need more info on that. But either way that person should have just rung the police then stay put. YOU are not the cop. It is the duty of the police to maintain peace (which they do by killing people ....retrain these people please Dodgy ) So leave the police work to the police. I have no respect for those who take the law into their own hands and go round shooting people in the name of "justice." That is the job for police. We have neighbourhood watch here. It is called, people looking out for each other and ringing the cops and staying put. Not go round making a situation worse.
(08-09-2016, 06:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-09-2016, 02:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]It seems the guy shot this kid dead and the cops arrested him for murder.  Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Me too.

I was hoping for responses from the likes of 58 Flat, Classic, Radind, maybe some others. Very curious how they view this in light of the alignments we are seeing in this election year.


'58 Flat died with the old forum.   Smile

But if you have been following me on facebook you would know my answer to this: Instead of blaspheming the national anthem, these NFL players should be going to their state capitols and lobbying for tort reform that would shield police officers and police departments from lawsuits if they "knee-cap" non-firearmed suspects instead of always shooting them to kill, the fear of said lawsuits being why the cops don't knee-cap them now (this I was told by an actual police officer I befriended on a mixed-martial-arts-themed forum many years ago).  In California - presumably where Colin Kaepernick legally resides - with a Democratic governor and Democrats holding lopsided, obstruction-proof majorities in both houses of the state legislature, such tort reform would be an absolute slam dunk to pass.  And with Muslim terrorist traitor Ahmad Khan Rahami (who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, therefore an out-and-out traitor) having in fact been "knee-capped" (and he was armed with a gun!), it would be pretty hard to argue against it - unless of course white legislators are so antagonized by Kaepernick's Jane Fonda-like behavior that they would vote against it, out of pure spite (the way the gay speaker of the state assembly in Colorado has vindictively blocked the passage of Jessica's Law in that state to protest "homophobia").

Obviously if police officers are going to be obliged to "knee-cap" people whenever possible, then imagine how much pressure there would be on rent-a-cops to knee-cap as well?  That should answer your question.
(09-23-2016, 06:52 AM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-09-2016, 06:00 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-09-2016, 02:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]It seems the guy shot this kid dead and the cops arrested him for murder.  Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Me too.

I was hoping for responses from the likes of 58 Flat, Classic, Radind, maybe some others. Very curious how they view this in light of the alignments we are seeing in this election year.


'58 Flat died with the old forum.   Smile

But if you have been following me on facebook you would know my answer to this: Instead of blaspheming the national anthem, these NFL players should be going to their state capitols and lobbying for tort reform that would shield police officers and police departments from lawsuits if they "knee-cap" non-firearmed suspects instead of always shooting them to kill, the fear of said lawsuits being why the cops don't knee-cap them now (this I was told by an actual police officer I befriended on a mixed-martial-arts-themed forum many years ago).  In California - presumably where Colin Kaepernick legally resides - with a Democratic governor and Democrats holding lopsided, obstruction-proof majorities in both houses of the state legislature, such tort reform would be an absolute slam dunk to pass.  And with Muslim terrorist traitor Ahmad Khan Rahami (who is a naturalized U.S. citizen, therefore an out-and-out traitor) having in fact been "knee-capped" (and he was armed with a gun!), it would be pretty hard to argue against it - unless of course white legislators are so antagonized by Kaepernick's Jane Fonda-like behavior that they would vote against it, out of pure spite (the way the gay speaker of the state assembly in Colorado has vindictively blocked the passage of Jessica's Law in that state to protest "homophobia").

Obviously if police officers are going to be obliged to "knee-cap" people whenever possible, then imagine how much pressure there would be on rent-a-cops to knee-cap as well?  That should answer your question.
This post is akin to the old joke that if you ever accidently hit a n----r with you car, make sure you back over them before proceeding.  Is this really where you want to go with this?
If the cops could "knee-cap" Ahmad Khan Rahami, then why can't they knee-cap Ray-Ray who had a warrant out for his arrest for 11351 - possession of cocaine "with intent to distribute" (which can be less than a full level teaspoon of cocaine) - and fled on foot when the cops came to arrest him?

So I don't see what you meant by your previous post.