All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Rosa Luxemburg]

So, if a four black cops did the same thing to a white man, and he was under the same conditions that George Floyd was, would this be starting national news and protests?

You know why that question is purely hypothetical? Because white people aren't disproportionately brutalized and murdered by the police.

[aja_christopher]

"Q: And you say under oath that you have not addressed any black person as a n----r or spoken about black people as n-----s in the past ten years, Detective Fuhrman?

A: That's what I'm saying, sir."

-----

""He was a n-----r. He didn't belong. Two questions. And you are going: Where do you live? 22nd and Western. Where were you going? Well, I'm going to Fatburger. Where's Fatburger. He didn't know where Fatburger was? Get in the car."

"People there don't want n----rs in their town. People there don't want Mexicans in their town. They don't want anybody but good people in their town, and anyway you can do to get them out of there that's fine with them. We have no n-----s where I grew up."

"Dana goes, `No blood Mark.' `No problem, not even any marks, Dana.' Just body shots. Did you ever try to find a bruise on a N-----r. It is pretty tough, huh?"

"N-----r drivin' a Porsche that doesn't look like he's got a $300 suit on, you always stop him."

"No, we have to eliminate a choke hold because a bunch of n---rs down in the south end of L.A. said this is bad."

"Q: Why are you even talking to them?

A: N----r. Stop them. See who they are.

Q: You don't have any probable cause? You just want to talk to them?

A: ...probable cause. You're God."

"Leave that old station. Man, it has the smell of N-----s that have been beaten and killed in there for years."

http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Info/fuhrman.html

[Godzilla2099]

Please tell me this is sarcasm. I know the Police aren't popular right now but you believe removing the Police and Prisons, criminals are going to start behaving and the world is going to magically start getting along? All crime will end and there will be no need for Police? Here's a hint, this happened a little over a century ago in Boston. All those cute pictures in your image...the exact opposite happened.

So, if a four black cops did the same thing to a white man, and he was under the same conditions that George Floyd was, would this be starting national news and protests?

People would be upset, but not nearly the magnitude of whats happening now. No riots, it'd make the news maybe in an article or two, doubtful there will be charges to those officers, and this will be all forgotten (I'll say 48 hours tops) after Trump does something else disturbing where that dominates the headlines

And serious question, what is offensive with the phrase "All Lives Matter?" Don't they? All I read are extreme left vs extreme right? Is there anybody in the middle that's colorblind and judges a man based on his actions and not his skin color?

[Gray Lensman]

So, if a four black cops did the same thing to a white man, and he was under the same conditions that George Floyd was, would this be starting national news and protests?

As has been stated by others, there would probably not be any call for protests because the officers would have been charged early on, and would have been much more likely to be convicted as well.

Now if we had years of such events with the officers consistently getting away with it? With county DAs acting like defense attorneys in the rare event anything goes to a grand jury? I expect we wouldn't have protests, we'd have an uprising.

[Electricmastro]

You know why that question is purely hypothetical? Because white people aren't disproportionately brutalized and murdered by the police.

I’m sure there are good talks to be had in regards to the white news reporters that were attacked by the police, the police pushing down old men and leading to cracked skulls and blood loss, and the police attacking gay people and disabled people who aren’t black either, but that’s probably beside the point at this point in time. Whether it’s due to the effects of the War on Drugs leading to the police being more confrontational with black people, or other supposed immoral behaviors being projected onto black people by police, as if they’re racism is justified, point is is that the police has largely been targeting black people as if they’re threats regardless of evidence, so the conclusion I’m sure an analyzer can reasonably come to the conclusion to based on that is that improving the quality of life of black people should be a top priority, because it seems the police have collectively made it a top priority to smash black people down.

[aja_christopher]

As has been stated by others, there would probably not be any call for protests because the officers would have been charged early on, and would have been much more likely to be convicted as well.

They can easily do the research themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...Justine_Damond

They just want to distract from the issue at hand because it means addressing centuries of white supremacy and systemic oppression.

You don't need to protest the system when it already works to your advantage.

[shooshoomanjoe]

So, if a four black cops did the same thing to a white man, and he was under the same conditions that George Floyd was, would this be starting national news and protests?

The 22 year killed by cops in CA with his hands on the air and knee on the ground, the little girl peppered sprayed by cops and the 75 year old pushed by cops are white and were not ignored by Americans or the media.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Please tell me this is sarcasm. I know the Police aren't popular right now but you believe removing the Police and Prisons, criminals are going to start behaving and the world is going to magically start getting along? All crime will end and there will be no need for Police? Here's a hint, this happened a little over a century ago in Boston. All those cute pictures in your image...the exact opposite happened.

Please read up on prison abolition and restorative justice.

The police have never been popular with people that know what their role is. The police and prison industrial complex commits and causes more violence than it prevents.

And serious question, what is offensive with the phrase "All Lives Matter?" Don't they? All I read are extreme left vs extreme right? Is there anybody in the middle that's colorblind and judges a man based on his actions and not his skin color?

It's a reactionary slogan.

We say Black Lives Matter because black lives are specifically treated as having less worth, police specifically brutalize black people because they are black. Saying All Lives Matter only serves to shift attention away from the group most affected.

[Kirby101]

And serious question, what is offensive with the phrase "All Lives Matter?" Don't they? All I read are extreme left vs extreme right? Is there anybody in the middle that's colorblind and judges a man based on his actions and not his skin color?

Mainly because it is the response of bigots who want to ignore what BLM is protesting.

[mathew101281]

And if you get rid of cops how are you going to deal with violent crime? This is just as extreme as the stuff it's protesting against. Do you have any idea what a city without law enforcement would look like?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

And if you get rid of cops how are you going to deal with violent crime? This is just as extreme as the stuff it's protesting against. Do you have any idea what a city without law enforcement would look like?

How can you even ask something like this when over the course of the protests, it is the the police that is responsible for almost all the of the violent crime?

Law enforcement is an abject failure. The police commit more violence than your average person, even in their personal lives.

Research suggests that family violence is two to four times higher in the law-enforcement community than in the general population. So where's the public outrage?

[InformationGeek]

Oh WBE! Here you go! Another crazy for the list! Meet Rep. Dave Williams of Colorado. Here's him spreading a conspiracy theory of saying Democrats are planning to kill Republicans.

Apparently, this flyer was found outside the CO Capitol during the “peaceful” protests.

Obviously, this is unacceptable to say the least.

Encouraging violence & calling for the murder of Republicans is disgusting.

Here's him part of a lawsuit against a red flag gun law.

A Denver District Court judge dismissed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging how Colorado’s controversial red flag gun law was passed.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, along with Colorado House Republicans Minority Leader Patrick Neville of Castle Rock, Rep. Lori Saine of Firestone and Rep. Dave Williams of Colorado Springs, sued Gov. Jared Polis over House Bill 19-1177. They alleged it shouldn’t have passed last year because it violated the Colorado Constitution’s “reading requirement” when Williams’ and Saine’s requests to have it read at length were denied or not considered.

The constitution calls for bills to be read at length unless “dispensed with upon unanimous consent of the members present.”

The red flag law took effect Jan. 1 and allows judges to temporarily remove firearms from people who are believed to be at high risk of harming themselves or others. Supporters say it will decrease shootings and suicides, but opponents have called it an unconstitutional infringement on their Second Amendment rights.

The Republicans asserted that House Democrats used unconstitutional and illegal tactics to push the bill forward, which Democrats have disputed.

Here's him calling Democrats Anti-Christians and him defending homophobia.

A Colorado Springs Republican lawmaker is standing behind his radio comment that his House Democratic colleagues are “anti-Christian,” saying they attack “family values.”

State Rep. Dave Williams (R-CO Springs) made the comment on conservative KNUS radio Feb. 15 during a discussion about a legislative hearing.

Williams, who’s the El Paso County Republican Party’s official liaison to the Trump Campaign, said, during a hearing on bills that were voted down by Democrats, he’d sat through “13 hours of the radical left, you know, talking about how good people of faith are terrible people.”

“I mean, what they engage in is, they’re anti-Christian,” Williams told KNUS’ Randy Corporon. “At the end of the day, Democrats are anti-Christian and, you know, they want to try and besmirch good people of faith like Jack Phillips [who refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple], and that was their whole goal that day that we heard those bills.”

Williams was referring narrowly to Democrats in the Colorado House of Representatives, not everyone who is part of the Democratic Party.

“I stand by the statement,” Williams told the Colorado Times Recorder when asked about the comment on Friday. “I was referencing the House Democrats, who I believe are radical. They were trying to spin the narrative that day about Jack Phillips and Christian families.”

Here's Dave regarding vaccinations.

After Tuesday’s vaccine-oriented rally in front of the Colorado State Capitol, a few parents and some of their school-age children filled a committee room in the ornate building’s basement for a town-hall meeting, organized by state Rep. Dave Williams (R-Colorado Springs), to discuss his proposed legislation, called the Vaccine Consumer Protection bill.

“If families believe that [vaccination is] a benefit to them, then so be it – take it on yourself,” Williams said, summarizing his bill, which has yet to be released. “But if there are parents and families that know of vaccine injuries that have occurred and they don’t want to have that risk, then that’s fine, too.”

Williams said the proposed legislation would require health care providers to give information about vaccines to patients when requested and report adverse vaccine-related events.

He added that the bill would outlaw government discrimination against those on delayed vaccine schedules or those who outright refuse vaccination.

And here is alongside Republican of the Day regular, Stephen Humpery, with pushing some anti-LGBT laws.

But a slate of legislation being championed by a handful of hard-right conservatives in the Colorado House, including one bill that would seek to end same-sex marriage in the state and bar same-sex couples from adopting children, is creating alarm.

“To see the most aggressive slate of anti-LGBTQ bills that we’ve seen at least in the past 10 years is a bit surprising,” said Ramos, who leads One Colorado.

None of the bills will advance in the Democratic-led General Assembly, and if anything, the measures are sowing an ideological divide within the Republican Party. They’re also opening an avenue of attack for Democrats, who are using the legislation to angle for votes in November. Progressive lawmakers and groups are planning a rally on Thursday to blast the measures and support the LGBTQ community.

“This slate of hateful, bigoted anti-LGBTQ bills show exactly what the GOP would do if they had a majority: use their power to attack trans youth, loving couples hoping to adopt, and children,” read a tweet this week from the House Democrat caucus, which is led by House Speaker KC Becker of Boulder.

The measures are primarily being run and sponsored by three lawmakers: Republican Reps. Shane Sandridge of Colorado Springs, Dave Williams of Colorado Springs and Steve Humphrey of Severance. The lawmakers defended the legislation.

He is perfect for you to cover WBE!

[Gray Lensman]

And if you get rid of cops how are you going to deal with violent crime? This is just as extreme as the stuff it's protesting against. Do you have any idea what a city without law enforcement would look like?

That might depend on the city. In some places it really looks like they need to burn the police department to the ground and start over with a 100% new one. In others they might not need to do anything at all other than review some policies to make sure the department stays a good one. Or something in between.

[aja_christopher]

That might depend on the city. In some places it really looks like they need to burn the police department to the ground and start over with a 100% new one. In others they might not need to do anything at all other than review some policies to make sure the department stays a good one. Or something in between.

If only someone had thought to address these issues on a city by city basis.

-----
"In light of recent events that have exposed rifts in the relationships between local police and the communities they protect and serve, on December 18, 2014, President Barack Obama signed an executive order establishing the Task Force on 21st Century Policing. The President charged the task force with identifying best practices and offering recommendations on how policing practices can promote effective crime reduction while building public trust.

The task force recommendations, each with action items, are organized around six main topic areas or “pillars:” Building Trust and Legitimacy, Policy and Oversight, Technology and Social Media, Community Policing and Crime Reduction, Officer Training and Education, and Officer Safety and Wellness. (From the Executive Summary)"



"How the Trump Administration Undid Obama’s Response to Ferguson"

The Obama-era reforms could not have stopped George Floyd’s death, but dismantling them sent a clear message to the police.

"For the second straight week, peaceful daytime protests in response to the murder of George Floyd have given way to widespread, violent police suppression and sporadic looting by nightfall. Even in the past five years, the United States has seen similar uprisings against police brutality and similar state-sanctioned violence against protesters. But many have commented that this time feels somehow different. With millions out of work, hundreds of thousands hungry, more than 100,000 dead because of the unchecked COVID-19 pandemic, and a president who douses the violence in tear gas, there are some obvious explanations for why 2020 is different from 2015, or 2014, or 1992, or 1968.

Racism and police violence existed long before Donald Trump became president, but he’s further emboldened police forces across the country. In addition to aligning himself rhetorically with police who commit brutality, Trump methodically dismantled the already limited federal checks on abusive police departments in the years before the Floyd uprising. If it feels like police officers across the country are acting with virtually total impunity, it’s because they have been granted that impunity by federal officials.

There are three key ways that Trump’s Department of Justice has eroded or outright dismantled checks on abusive police departments in the past 3½ years: First, it has all but ended the Barack Obama–era practice of placing police departments that violate constitutional rights under court-supervised consent decrees. These court-monitored settlements have, according to experts, offered some deterrent to police chiefs who do not want to see their departments placed under federal supervision.

Second, it ended a voluntary federal-state collaborative reform program, over the opposition of police chiefs — including Republicans — who embraced the initiative.

Finally, it reversed limits on a program that has provided billions of dollars of military-grade vehicles and weapons — such as grenade launchers and bayonets — to local police departments. These reforms were either introduced or escalated in response to the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 and the subsequent heavily armed police crackdown on Black Lives Matter protests. As soon as he took office, Trump has undone them one by one.

“The political leadership of the Justice Department targeted the most effective parts of the police reform program and essentially prohibited them,” said Chiraag Bains, the director of legal strategies for Demos and a former Civil Rights Division attorney who co-wrote the Ferguson report. “I think you can see just how severe the absence of Justice Department oversight and intervention has been in the moment we’re in right now..."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ng-reform.html

[Dalak]

That might depend on the city. In some places it really looks like they need to burn the police department to the ground and start over with a 100% new one. In others they might not need to do anything at all other than review some policies to make sure the department stays a good one. Or something in between.

This is pretty much how I feel, since if we're going to have Laws there needs to be a system in place to Enforce them. Many Laws need work just like the Enforcement wing does, but that doesn't mean that the concept of Law Enforcement is itself wrong and needs to be abolished.