+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? (/thread-260.html)
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Warren Dew - 10-06-2016
(10-06-2016, 01:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Warren Dew, to think that arming citizens is the way to protect the people from the state and its police is foolish nonsense.
As Bob Butler 54 pointed out, shooting back at Waco and Ruby Ridge caused the federal government to back off. There's every evidence that the cop killings in Manhattan and Dallas are causing local police to back off nationwide. When there are millions of citizens with guns, it only takes a couple using them for the government to get the message.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Odin - 10-07-2016
(10-06-2016, 09:06 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Considering Clinton's totalitarian tendencies, the idea that the western left is less fond of totalitarianism than the western right seems absurd.
Her what?
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Odin - 10-07-2016
(10-06-2016, 09:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: How is Hillary Clinton "totalitarian?" Don't you think that's a rather absurd exaggeration?
Warren appears to have jumped on the Alt-Right Orwellian Bullshit Bandwagon.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Anthony '58 - 10-07-2016
Quote:I'm also seeing long memories of quite dead spirals of violence being raised. Yes, there was the beginning of a spiral of violence during the awakening years around 1968. The left lost MLK, and the two Kennedys. On the flip side there were a lot of demonstrations and riots. The Blue Awakening was quite dead by the Fall of Saigon, Watergate and Tapestry. The awakening spirals are but a memory.
Except that the awakening spirals have woven their way into America's tapestry - a fact that Colin Kaepernick has graphically reminded us of.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Bob Butler 54 - 10-07-2016
(10-07-2016, 08:23 AM)Anthony Wrote:Quote:I'm also seeing long memories of quite dead spirals of violence being raised. Yes, there was the beginning of a spiral of violence during the awakening years around 1968. The left lost MLK, and the two Kennedys. On the flip side there were a lot of demonstrations and riots. The Blue Awakening was quite dead by the Fall of Saigon, Watergate and Tapestry. The awakening spirals are but a memory.
Except that the awakening spirals have woven their way into America's tapestry - a fact that Colin Kaepernick has graphically reminded us of.
Over on the 'cuck' thread, I described the recent frequent use of the word in certain circles as reflecting a belief that white males have a special place in the world, and that white males who aren't firm in maintaining this place are being weak and effeminate. The meme proposes that political correctness has gone too far in weakening the superior place of white males. This is of course the race problem, long woven into the American tapestry, a major theme that underlies a lot of tension and conflict. It periodically surfaces into all out violence. The US Civil War is the obvious example. The civil rights movement of the awakening is another. Today's Black Lives Matter movement is a third. Obviously, the three are not equal in the amount of violence involved.
The race problem isn't apt to go away. Trump is one or a long line of politicians who have exploited the fears and desires of those who think themselves better than other folk. Blacks are hardly the only group to have been oppressed. They're just the most familiar and blatant. While the problem is persistent and seemingly eternal, progress has been made. 'Cuck' is not an insult directed at a minority, but at folk who are perceived of as not being racist enough. It isn't considered polite anymore to insult minorities, so they are insulting those who in their opinion should be pushing harder against minorities. There is an extra degree of indirection involved.
Is this progress? Kinda sorta, in my opinion. It isn't the destruction of the formal institution of slavery, which followed the Civil War. It isn't the restoration of the federal government's ability to protect the Rights of the People, which Thurgood Marshall fought for in the mid 20th Century. It isn't the dissolution of blatant in your face segregation that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s. As the more major and blatant aspects of the race problem are subdued, the ones that are left are less drastic.
But an unequal justice system is drastic enough. The problems being pushed by Black Lives Matter are real.
Opposition to racism is quite arguably cyclical. Race problems in the United States flare and ease. The major flares I mentioned above occurred in crises and awakenings, as one might expect.
But I for one don't see a continuity of violence between the 1960s and today. There was a long time where the violence was submerged in the criminal. There was poverty, crime, drugs and lopsided law enforcement which were worse in urban black environments than elsewhere. It was tolerated, though, or ignored. (Well, the War on Drugs was fought the full length of an overlong unravelling. Not the same.) Racism isn't apt to be tolerated and ignored forever in a country with strong ideals of equality. Spirals of rhetoric and violence will rise from time to time, and periods with crisis and awakening moods would be prime.
Anyway, when I'm wearing my 'objectively measure the intensity of the spiral of violence' hat, the Civil War, the awakening civil rights movement and Black Lives Matter movement are three quite separate and distinct periods of conflict.
When I'm looking at the problem of race in general, yes, everything is part of a long difficult history.
Of which Colin Kapernick is apt to be a small footnote, especially when compared to John Brown or MLK.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Warren Dew - 10-07-2016
(10-07-2016, 08:20 AM)Odin Wrote:(10-06-2016, 09:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: How is Hillary Clinton "totalitarian?" Don't you think that's a rather absurd exaggeration?
Warren appears to have jumped on the Alt-Right Orwellian Bullshit Bandwagon.
I answered that question already on another thread - it might have been from someone other than Eric - but Clinton's "joking" about droning Assange and then her emails showing that she actually investigated how to get someone on the drone list was one example.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Eric the Green - 10-07-2016
(10-06-2016, 07:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(10-06-2016, 01:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Warren Dew, to think that arming citizens is the way to protect the people from the state and its police is foolish nonsense.
As Bob Butler 54 pointed out, shooting back at Waco and Ruby Ridge caused the federal government to back off. There's every evidence that the cop killings in Manhattan and Dallas are causing local police to back off nationwide. When there are millions of citizens with guns, it only takes a couple using them for the government to get the message.
I agree that the government backed off after Waco and Ruby Ridge, as they should have. But that's why they backed off-- because they should have. The gun nuts had no chance against the government, as was the case. The government was trying to disarm the Waco nuts, by force, simply because they were armed. That is the wrong approach, as I have said. As long as there is a large contingent of Americans who fanatically want arms, they can't be outlawed by force without bloodbaths that are not worth the price. That does not mean that citizens armed with guns can stop or defeat the government. The government will win, as it did.
The cops are backing off because of the "Ferguson Effect," according to every report we have all heard. That was not a few mad terrorists with guns shooting police, as happened in Dallas. That was the people rising up and demonstrating. The Dallas terrorist has inspired no-one.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Warren Dew - 10-07-2016
(10-07-2016, 11:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(10-06-2016, 07:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(10-06-2016, 01:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Warren Dew, to think that arming citizens is the way to protect the people from the state and its police is foolish nonsense.
As Bob Butler 54 pointed out, shooting back at Waco and Ruby Ridge caused the federal government to back off. There's every evidence that the cop killings in Manhattan and Dallas are causing local police to back off nationwide. When there are millions of citizens with guns, it only takes a couple using them for the government to get the message.
I agree that the government backed off after Waco and Ruby Ridge, as they should have. But that's why they backed off-- because they should have. The gun nuts had no chance against the government, as was the case. The government was trying to disarm the Waco nuts, by force, simply because they were armed. That is the wrong approach, as I have said. As long as there is a large contingent of Americans who fanatically want arms, they can't be outlawed by force without bloodbaths that are not worth the price. That does not mean that citizens armed with guns can stop or defeat the government. The government will win, as it did.
As long as the government backs off as it should, it doesn't really matter if the government wins the immediate battle. The big picture is still that the government is deterred from becoming more despotic.
Quote:The cops are backing off because of the "Ferguson Effect," according to every report we have all heard. That was not a few mad terrorists with guns shooting police, as happened in Dallas. That was the people rising up and demonstrating. The Dallas terrorist has inspired no-one.
The executions of officers Ramos and Liu in New York probably had more of an effect than the Dallas assassinations, but we'll just have to agree to disagree if you think police are more worried about riots than they are about being shot and killed.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Eric the Green - 10-07-2016
(10-07-2016, 01:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:I don't quite see that. More despotic in your view means that the government would not have deliberately attacked a group that was stockpiling weapons, but not attacking anyone themselves. But individual ownership of guns does not protect against police who shoot unarmed civilians or otherwise violate our rights. Those who shoot at police are severely dealt with, and usually killed. Those killed are usually shot because a policeman thought (s)he had a weapon and might be firing it at them.(10-07-2016, 11:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(10-06-2016, 07:49 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(10-06-2016, 01:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Warren Dew, to think that arming citizens is the way to protect the people from the state and its police is foolish nonsense.
As Bob Butler 54 pointed out, shooting back at Waco and Ruby Ridge caused the federal government to back off. There's every evidence that the cop killings in Manhattan and Dallas are causing local police to back off nationwide. When there are millions of citizens with guns, it only takes a couple using them for the government to get the message.
I agree that the government backed off after Waco and Ruby Ridge, as they should have. But that's why they backed off-- because they should have. The gun nuts had no chance against the government, as was the case. The government was trying to disarm the Waco nuts, by force, simply because they were armed. That is the wrong approach, as I have said. As long as there is a large contingent of Americans who fanatically want arms, they can't be outlawed by force without bloodbaths that are not worth the price. That does not mean that citizens armed with guns can stop or defeat the government. The government will win, as it did.
As long as the government backs off as it should, it doesn't really matter if the government wins the immediate battle. The big picture is still that the government is deterred from becoming more despotic.
Quote:Quote:The cops are backing off because of the "Ferguson Effect," according to every report we have all heard. That was not a few mad terrorists with guns shooting police, as happened in Dallas. That was the people rising up and demonstrating. The Dallas terrorist has inspired no-one.
The executions of officers Ramos and Liu in New York probably had more of an effect than the Dallas assassinations, but we'll just have to agree to disagree if you think police are more worried about riots than they are about being shot and killed.
The "worry" is not the point. Police do not respond to being shot at by backing off. They protect their own quite fiercely. The fact is that the Ferguson Effect is what is causing more caution among police. Whether being killed is more worrisome or not, that is just the fact. That is what is cited.
Dallas "assassinations'? There's only one I know about. And I am not even that familiar with the New York case. It is not cited in many reports about police responses, as far as I can tell.
I'm more concerned that even with a progressive NY mayor, the Eric Garner case and the case of the man who filmed it is the most gross injustice I have heard of.
A story just published today is an example of how the "Ferguson Effect" and not the Dallas or NY police killings are cited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/07/ferguson-effect-savagely-beaten-cop-didnt-draw-gun-for-fear-of-media-uproar-says-chicago-police-chief/?tid=pm_national_pop_b
A Chicago police officer who was savagely beaten at a car accident scene this week did not draw her gun on her attacker — even though she feared for her life — because she was afraid of the media attention that would come if she shot him, the city’s police chief said Thursday.
Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie Johnson said the officer, a 17-year veteran of the force, knew she should shoot the attacker but hesitated because “she didn’t want her family or the department to go through the scrutiny the next day on the national news,” the Chicago Tribune reported.
Johnson’s remarks, which came at an awards ceremony for police and firefighters, underscore a point law enforcement officers and some political leaders have pressed repeatedly as crime has risen in Chicago and other major cities: that police are reluctant to use force or act aggressively because they worry about negative media attention that will follow.
The issue has become known as the Ferguson effect, named after the St. Louis suburb where a police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in August 2014. The shooting set off protests and riots that summer and eventually gave way to a fevered national debate over race and policing. Many law enforcement officers have said that the intense focus on policing in the time since has put them on the defensive and hindered their work.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Mikebert - 10-07-2016
Bob Butler Wrote:Similarly, Waco, Ruby Ridge and OKC reflected a right wing v government spiral. Clinton 42 changed the rules of engagement, reducing the level of force to be used by the FBI, BATF and similar federal law enforcement agencies. OKC turned everybody off on the use of force for political gains. The picture of the fireman carrying the baby's corpse is of note. That spiral too is way dormant. Rural 'militias' are still armed. They still talk the talk. The rhetoric is still there. Still, the actual violence is just about nil. You might count the ranchers that took over the wild life preserve, but law enforcement continued to use Clinton 42's slow non violent approach to containing potential violence. They didn't use tanks or burn children.
This is what I consider this as the textbook example of a failed spiral, indicating a non-social moment turning.
Quote:The hot spiral of violence is racist cops against black people.
I can’t see this as a spiral since cops have always killed black people in circumstances that would be career-ending for the cop if it had been a white person killed. What makes now different is that cell phone cameras have produced proof that makes some white people acknowledge this fact. I doubt there has been any increase in police violence against innocent black people, I’d suspect it’s the opposite.
Quote:I've been not quite expecting but waiting for Trump supporters wearing brown shirt style pseudo military uniforms marching near Trump rallies. Trump knows better, I think.
Really? This is a silly view. Brown shirts would only work for liberals, who are not likely to support Trump. Baseball caps make tons more sense because this is pretty much what real “Muricans” wear.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Bob Butler 54 - 10-07-2016
(10-07-2016, 02:13 PM)Mikebert Wrote:Bob Butler Wrote:The hot spiral of violence is racist cops against black people.
I can’t see this as a spiral since cops have always killed black people in circumstances that would be career-ending for the cop if it had been a white person killed. What makes now different is that cell phone cameras have produced proof that makes some white people acknowledge this fact. I doubt there has been any increase in police violence against innocent black people, I’d suspect it’s the opposite.
A valid comment. Might I propose that spirals of rhetoric go with spirals of violence. In terms of violence alone, you might very well be correct. In terms of violence paired with social awareness, rhetoric, media coverage and the possibility of change, less so. A decade or more ago, a lot of black people died and it wasn't considered news worthy. Today we have, cell phone videos, social medias, main stream media sensing a story that will improve ratings or generate hits, an increased culture of protest, etc... The overall intensity seems increased even if the absolute amount of blood shed has not.
I am also getting a feeling that the traditional Blue Wall of Silence is being fought with activist propaganda which is no more truthful. In the old days, before surveillance and cell phone cameras, the cops could and often did plant evidence and lie blatantly to the public. I'm getting the sense that neighborhood minorities are often spreading less than truthful versions of events that similarly paint the cops in a bad light. Sometimes the video footage does back the cop's version of events, sometimes not. The best evidence doesn't always matter in the court of popular opinion as the first accusations often stick in spite of further investigation showing bias, self interest and lies... which have been known to go in both directions.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Warren Dew - 10-07-2016
(10-07-2016, 02:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Dallas "assassinations'? There's only one I know about. And I am not even that familiar with the New York case. It is not cited in many reports about police responses, as far as I can tell.
I'm more concerned that even with a progressive NY mayor, the Eric Garner case and the case of the man who filmed it is the most gross injustice I have heard of.
A story just published today is an example of how the "Ferguson Effect" and not the Dallas or NY police killings are cited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/07/ferguson-effect-savagely-beaten-cop-didnt-draw-gun-for-fear-of-media-uproar-says-chicago-police-chief/?tid=pm_national_pop_b
Of course leftist sources like the Washington Post are going to be out of touch with what the police are actually thinking. If you wanted to know about the facts, you can always search Wikipedia for the New York policemen Ramos and Liu that were executed in revenge for the Garner incident. Believe me, the police community are intimately familiar with the incident. That's what's actually causing the "Ferguson effect".
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Warren Dew - 10-07-2016
(10-07-2016, 02:13 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I can’t see this as a spiral since cops have always killed black people in circumstances that would be career-ending for the cop if it had been a white person killed.
Actually police always killed white people in similar circumstances, too. It's just that the police killings of whites are not what's popular to report these days, so when the police shot and killed an unarmed white woman for driving off from a traffic stop, or shot and killed an unarmed white man for lying under his car at a gas station, it isn't reported in national media.
The fact that it has always happened hardly prevents it from being a social moment, though. The institutionalized racism against blacks that was protested in the Civil Rights movement had also always happened.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Eric the Green - 10-08-2016
(10-07-2016, 09:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(10-07-2016, 02:04 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Dallas "assassinations'? There's only one I know about. And I am not even that familiar with the New York case. It is not cited in many reports about police responses, as far as I can tell.
I'm more concerned that even with a progressive NY mayor, the Eric Garner case and the case of the man who filmed it is the most gross injustice I have heard of.
A story just published today is an example of how the "Ferguson Effect" and not the Dallas or NY police killings are cited:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/07/ferguson-effect-savagely-beaten-cop-didnt-draw-gun-for-fear-of-media-uproar-says-chicago-police-chief/?tid=pm_national_pop_b
Of course leftist sources like the Washington Post are going to be out of touch with what the police are actually thinking. If you wanted to know about the facts, you can always search Wikipedia for the New York policemen Ramos and Liu that were executed in revenge for the Garner incident. Believe me, the police community are intimately familiar with the incident. That's what's actually causing the "Ferguson effect".
No, I would never subscribe to the idea that the Washington Post is "leftist." As I said, there are few leftists in America. The Nation magazine might be described as leftist, and probably Mother Jones Magazine. But the Post? Only right-wingers describe it as leftist. Just how far to the right ARE you? Besides, that article is just a sample; all the news media reports are that the Ferguson Effect exists, and they don't mention the NY cops.
The Garner incident and the treatment of his friend remains one of the most outrageous examples of police and justice system misconduct ever. It was not surprising that some nut took revenge over it. But it's not the way to go.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Eric the Green - 10-08-2016
(10-07-2016, 02:13 PM)Mikebert Wrote: I can’t see this as a spiral since cops have always killed black people in circumstances that would be career-ending for the cop if it had been a white person killed. What makes now different is that cell phone cameras have produced proof that makes some white people acknowledge this fact. I doubt there has been any increase in police violence against innocent black people, I’d suspect it’s the opposite.
I suspect that the spiral is real, and there's been more cops killing unarmed black people now than before, and that blacks are killed far more often than whites by cops. And that, cops get off for doing it more than if they kill whites. Racism, discrimination and racial profiling exist, big time. But, grounds for further study.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Odin - 10-08-2016
(10-07-2016, 09:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Of course leftist sources like the Washington Post
You are out of touch with reality if you think WaPo is "leftist", it's the gold standard of the centrist neo-liberal rag.
If you want something that is actually Leftist, read The Jacobin.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Mikebert - 10-09-2016
(10-07-2016, 09:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually police always killed white people in similar circumstances, too. It's just that the police killings of whites are not what's popular to report these days, so when the police shot and killed an unarmed white woman for driving off from a traffic stop, or shot and killed an unarmed white man for lying under his car at a gas station, it isn't reported in national media.
All such events would be reported by local media, and suspicious ones often end up in the national media.
Here's an unarmed white guy killed by police, who was called out by BLM. It became a national story. But if you read the account it looks like suicide by cop.
Here's another white guy killed by cops, also covered in national news as well as local. This appears to be a big deal in Lansing.
Here's another one. Video here. This one did not seem to have been picked up by the national news, although a blog has a story on it.
You word think conservative outlets would pick up stories like this (if only as a counter narrative to BLM), but they tend to dismiss them.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Warren Dew - 10-09-2016
(10-09-2016, 07:20 AM)Mikebert Wrote:(10-07-2016, 09:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually police always killed white people in similar circumstances, too. It's just that the police killings of whites are not what's popular to report these days, so when the police shot and killed an unarmed white woman for driving off from a traffic stop, or shot and killed an unarmed white man for lying under his car at a gas station, it isn't reported in national media.
All such events would be reported by local media, and suspicious ones often end up in the national media.
Here's an unarmed white guy killed by police, who was called out by BLM. It became a national story. But if you read the account it looks like suicide by cop.
Despite being a much more egregious case, Noble never became a front page national story. He's not a household word the way Brown and Garner are. You had to resort to twitter to find references.
You also seem to trust the word of a BLM twitterer regarding whether he was a case of "suicide by cop" - not the best source. Even the released body cam footage shows Noble making no sudden moves and walking slowly at all times. He obeyed some police instructions, such as the one to quit walking away, and not others, such as the one to lie down; as in all these cases, it's not clear how much of the police instructions were actually clear to him. He even tries to raise his hands as ordered after he is shot and on the ground, but gets shot again for his troubles.
If failing to perfectly obey police orders is "suicide by cop", then physically struggling against police the way Garner did is much more clearly suicide by cop, and no one thinks the police were blameless in that case. Meanwhile, Michael Brown actually tried to wrestle a gun away from a policeman, then when he failed ran away for a bit and turned back and charged the policeman again before being shot. That's the only one that objectively meets the definition of suicide by cop.
And despite the fact that police shoot twice as many whites as blacks, far fewer of those cases are currently making national headlines. Experiments and statistical evidence shows that police are far more likely to shoot whites than blacks in similar circumstances, because they can get away with it without a major outcry in the press.
Quote:You word think conservative outlets would pick up stories like this (if only as a counter narrative to BLM), but they tend to dismiss them.
The fact that you'd even have to go to "conservative outlets" to find stories like this kind of proves the double standard, and that even those stories blame the victim just reinforces that proof.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Warren Dew - 10-10-2016
(10-10-2016, 11:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(10-07-2016, 10:50 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(10-07-2016, 08:20 AM)Odin Wrote:(10-06-2016, 09:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: How is Hillary Clinton "totalitarian?" Don't you think that's a rather absurd exaggeration?
Warren appears to have jumped on the Alt-Right Orwellian Bullshit Bandwagon.
I answered that question already on another thread - it might have been from someone other than Eric - but Clinton's "joking" about droning Assange and then her emails showing that she actually investigated how to get someone on the drone list was one example.
Assange may be a Aussie but he's still an Anti-Western fiend. Same deal with Snowden. American born but anti-Western spirit.
Because the west is all about the elites spying on their own people to keep them in line? And here I thought that was what I was fighting against, not for, in the Cold War.
RE: De Facto Civil War Between Police and the Public? - Mikebert - 10-10-2016
(10-09-2016, 12:54 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:I did not get the idea of suicide by cop from the twitter comment. I had read about Noble before cuz it seem like such an egregious case. I concluded that a good case could be made that the cop was justified because it was suicide by cop, so it was not the clear-cut example I was seeking. Later when I was composing my response to you I did another search of unarmed white men killed by cops, and Noble was one of those that popped up. I had forgotten his name, but when I looked into it I realized it was the case I was familiar with. I recalled from my earlier investigation that he had showed up somewhere in BLM stuff so I searched for that and got the twitter. Then I noticed the comment mentioning it was suicide by cop, which was what I had looked like to me before. The other two I mentioned are cleaner I think. Neither Garner and certainly not Brown are clean cases. I am thinking more of the guy in the store with the BB gun or the kid with the toy gun as cleaner cases(10-09-2016, 07:20 AM)Mikebert Wrote:(10-07-2016, 09:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually police always killed white people in similar circumstances, too. It's just that the police killings of whites are not what's popular to report these days, so when the police shot and killed an unarmed white woman for driving off from a traffic stop, or shot and killed an unarmed white man for lying under his car at a gas station, it isn't reported in national media.
All such events would be reported by local media, and suspicious ones often end up in the national media.
Here's an unarmed white guy killed by police, who was called out by BLM. It became a national story. But if you read the account it looks like suicide by cop.
Despite being a much more egregious case, Noble never became a front page national story. He's not a household word the way Brown and Garner are. You had to resort to twitter to find references.
You also seem to trust the word of a BLM twitterer regarding whether he was a case of "suicide by cop" - not the best source. Even the released body cam footage shows Noble making no sudden moves and walking slowly at all times. He obeyed some police instructions, such as the one to quit walking away, and not others, such as the one to lie down; as in all these cases, it's not clear how much of the police instructions were actually clear to him. He even tries to raise his hands as ordered after he is shot and on the ground, but gets shot again for his troubles.
If failing to perfectly obey police orders is "suicide by cop", then physically struggling against police the way Garner did is much more clearly suicide by cop, and no one thinks the police were blameless in that case. Meanwhile, Michael Brown actually tried to wrestle a gun away from a policeman, then when he failed ran away for a bit and turned back and charged the policeman again before being shot. That's the only one that objectively meets the definition of suicide by cop.
And despite the fact that police shoot twice as many whites as blacks, far fewer of those cases are currently making national headlines. Experiments and statistical evidence shows that police are far more likely to shoot whites than blacks in similar circumstances, because they can get away with it without a major outcry in the press.
Quote:You word think conservative outlets would pick up stories like this (if only as a counter narrative to BLM), but they tend to dismiss them.
The fact that you'd even have to go to "conservative outlets" to find stories like this kind of proves the double standard, and that even those stories blame the victim just reinforces that proof.
I did not get anything of these stories from conservative media--that was my point. The reason that black folks getting killed by cops is a major story is that black folks are making an issue out of it. Surely you are aware of the demonstrations. It appears that white folks don't care about their kids getting killed by cops. So the national news doesn't pick up their stories. There seems to be no interest.
As for the statement that whites are more likely to be killed than blacks under similar conditions, this is true. But the conditions considered is once force has been initiated. But before this there is escalation. An example of escalation is the kid who was pulled over from flashing his light at the cop with the bright headlights. The cop knew his headlights were defective. When the kid didn't have his wallet he could have just let him off with a warning. When I was 19 I was out with some friends. The driver's car had a busted headlight and we got pulled over for it. My friend did not have his license, and the cop ended up writing a citation to get the headlight fixed and he let us off.
Cops have choices to escalate or not to escalate. Back in 1978 in Milwaukee they did not escalate. Four decades later in Lansing they did. Studies also show that cops are more likely to escalate with blacks than whites. So although once escalation begins whites are more likely to get killed, when you factor in the greater probability of escalation with blacks, blacks end up statistically more likely to be killed by cops than whites.