The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Barrister]

So someone named Shaun King, who does seem somehow affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement, has apparently been outed as, you guessed it, a white man pretending to be black.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/did-black-lives-matter-organiser-shaun-king-mislead-oprah-winfrey-by-pretending-to-be-biracial/

As a side note....Breitbart?

It was linked at by lots of other places, but yes, breitbart was the source of the story.

[Razgovory]

They do have a nasty reputation for dishonesty.  They were countering the whole "Black lives matter" by focusing on Black on White crime.  Well until some crazy racist shot up a church.  I wonder if they went back to it.

[Valmy]

They were countering the whole "Black lives matter" by focusing on Black on White crime.

x infinity

[derspiess]

So someone named Shaun King, who does seem somehow affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement, has apparently been outed as, you guessed it, a white man pretending to be black.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/did-black-lives-matter-organiser-shaun-king-mislead-oprah-winfrey-by-pretending-to-be-biracial/

As a side note....Breitbart?

Don Lemon took it seriously

edit: linky-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCdBikC2w74

[derspiess]

Black lives matter protesters have protested in many cases where a black suspect opened fire on a white officer and then lost the gun fight.  The implication is clear, that there are people in this movement who don't want police officers to act against certain ethnic groups under any circumstance.

Recent example: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/08/19/st-louis-police-officers-shoot-kill-suspect/

St. Louis Police Officers Shoot, Kill Suspect
August 19, 2015 1:58 PM

UPDATED 9:55 PM 8/19/2015
ST. LOUIS (AP) — St. Louis police say a black 18-year-old armed with a gun was shot and killed by two officers who were serving a search warrant at a home.

St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson says two suspects fled from the home around noon Wednesday on the city's north side before the 18-year-old turned and pointed a handgun at the officers, who shot him.

Dotson says the wounded suspect died at the scene. In a statement Wednesday night, police identified him as Mansur Ball-Bey of St. Louis. Authorities are searching for the second suspect. The statement said he is believed to be in his mid- to late teens.

Both officers, who are white, were unharmed, according to a police report.  Dotson said four guns and crack cocaine were recovered at the scene.  A man and woman who were inside the home were arrested.
[...]
The shooting that left a black suspect dead drew protests, with many of the roughly 150 people who gathered at the scene hurling obscene gestures and expletives at investigators and questioning the police use of deadly force. Some chanted "Black Lives Matter," a mantra used a year ago after the police shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in nearby Ferguson.

"Another youth down by the hands of police," Dex Dockett, 42, who lives nearby, told a reporter. "What could have been done different to de-escalate rather than escalate? They (police) come in with an us-against-them mentality. You've got to have the right kind of cops to engage in these types of neighborhoods."
Another neighborhood resident, Fred Price, skeptical about Dotson's account that the suspect pointed a gun at officers before being mortally wounded.

"They provoked the situation," Price, 33, said. "Situations like this make us want to keep the police out of the neighborhood. They're shooting first, then asking questions."

Some of those who gathered had spent the morning in downtown St. Louis, marching to mark the anniversary of the fatal police shooting of Kajieme Powell. He was fatally shot by two St. Louis officers after police said he came at them with a knife. Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce is still reviewing the case to determine whether lethal force was justified.

[Malthus]

The problem appears to be that respect for the integrity of the police is so low in this community that the police account of such situations is automatically not believed.

[Valmy]

This is an amazing article on PBS of all things.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/im-young-black-female-20-something-may-vote-presidential-election/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=newshour

On paper, I'm a progressive candidate's ideal. I'm a 23-year-old, black, queer, college-educated woman who is drowning in more than $160,000 of undergraduate student loan debt. I fervently believe in unlimited access to reproductive healthcare, despise corporate welfare, and consider climate change to be the most severe public health issue of our time.

In the American political landscape, my ideology is best packaged as leftist, and my vote is seemingly guaranteed.

But I'm also an organizer with Black Lives Matter NYC, and such an affiliation is causing more upset within the electoral establishment than excitement, enthusiasm, or certainty.

I do not describe myself as a liberal or progressive — rather, I identify as a radical within the spirit of Angela Davis, Assata Shakur, Ella Baker, and Ida B. Wells. Within their black liberatory framework, their radicalism centered on examining the root causes of racism and its resulting socioeconomic ills, while denouncing patriarchy as a divisive tool of white supremacist function.

As a radical, I view the entire system of white supremacy to be both parasitic and adaptive; it's a robust machine that encroaches upon public consciousness and institutions with such savviness that its depravity is deemed the credible status quo. White supremacy is a claustrophobic daily reality that lives within complicated legislation, multilayered bureaucracy, structural oppression and individual behavior.

And no presidential contender will say this, let alone enact policies, laws, or other widespread, comprehensive measures to structurally dismantle the deadly system under which we live.

The presidential slate is underwhelming at best, and terrifying at worst. The Democrat Party candidates are problematic.

Former Governor Martin O'Malley oversaw rampant militarization of Maryland's police forces. His racial justice platform calls for body cameras, a stance I am ardently opposed to as these devices — when in the hands of the police — amount to government surveillance, a lack of transparency or accountability, and obscene profit for companies at the taxpayer's expense. This added to his current non-factor status leads to my disinterest in his candidacy.

Former Senator and First Lady Hillary Clinton represents dynastic politics, and her close ties to the neoliberal financial sector is less than commendable. She is complicit in fueling the war on drugs. In a series of unjust and anti-black schemes, she helped bolster the prison industrial complex, further corrupted the criminal justice system, and intensified cyclical poverty.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) the breakout star of the left, is most aligned with my political value system, but his recent fumbles with Black Lives Matter have caused me great pause. Senator Sanders seems ambiguous in his commitment to black lives, and his hesitancy in making racial justice the centerpiece of his campaign is a strategic error that may account for an electoral loss. His colorblind appeal to "economic reform" is significant, but police do not ask for our net worth when they shoot us dead.

Another stumbling block are his supporters, who are embedded in a white savior ethos that discounts black thought leadership as unintelligent and unworthy. I question his candidacy if these are the people he attracts.

The crowded Republican field isn't worth consideration. Given their racist, homophobic, misogynistic platforms, they hate everything about me — from my body to my bank account, because God told them so.

So as I consider my limited options, the probability of voting grows ever more dim. The decision to not vote is a heavy one; given the historical weight of black liberation in pursuit of the right to vote, I feel a racial obligation in exercising the precious freedom my ancestors fought valiantly to attain.

But I also know that voting alone does not bring about overarching black freedom. Voting does not ensure our safety, nor does it provide an immediate conduit for black social well being.

My disillusionment comes with great irony; the nation's first black president was elected twice because marginalized groups voted in record numbers. Ever since, the racist opposition has (always) been increasingly bloodthirsty in its attempt to disenfranchise black voters; using structural tactics such as gerrymandering and voter identification laws to decrease black voter turnout.

In 2013, the Supreme Court eviscerated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, ruling unconstitutional a key section that required states with established histories of anti-black voter disenfranchisement to receive federal approval before changing electoral procedures.

Those with felonious histories of incarceration are denied the right to vote in 48 states. It is no coincidence that most of these individuals are black.

The racist opposition is working hard to stop me from participating in the political system through voting. I do not want to give them the satisfaction of silencing my voice in that way. But, to vote means to uphold a system that is rotten at its core. To vote means to reinforce a white supremacist structure that actively, strategically and relentlessly exploits and exterminates black lives both domestically and globally.

Voting for an anti-black system will not save my black life. Ironically, voting just might jeopardize it.

So yeah she is the stereotypical radical nutcase who demands the whole system be smashed as being irredeemably evil to the core.

This is just baffling:

His racial justice platform calls for body cameras, a stance I am ardently opposed to as these devices — when in the hands of the police — amount to government surveillance, a lack of transparency or accountability, and obscene profit for companies at the taxpayer's expense.

Government surveillance? Because the Police looking at you is not government surveillance? Without body cameras how are we supposed to hold the police accountable? Besides if you are in fear of cops murdering you wouldn't you want the government to be watching? Besides dismantling all of society what is her plan on police reform?

Are we really going to see BLM fighting AGAINST police body cameras?

How did this get on PBS?

[Valmy]

The problem appears to be that respect for the integrity of the police is so low in this community that the police account of such situations is automatically not believed.

Yep. This is what happens Spicey when police brutality towards blacks becomes a national punchline for decades and nobody does anything about it. Not so funny now. I warned everybody what a damaging impact the militarization of the cops was for the cops doing their jobs.

[derspiess]

The problem appears to be that respect for the integrity of the police is so low in this community that the police account of such situations is automatically not believed.

That, plus the level of outrage must be maintained despite facts.

[garbon]

Government surveillance? Because the Police looking at you is not government surveillance? Without body cameras how are we supposed to hold the police accountable? Besides if you are in fear of cops murdering you wouldn't you want the government to be watching? Besides dismantling all of society what is her plan on police reform?

Are we really going to see BLM fighting AGAINST police body cameras?

How did this get on PBS?

Well I do think there is a bit of a difference from having a cop look in one's direction and a body cam that will record you.  I think body cams are a step in the right direction for the situation that we find ourselves in me - but in general I'm not a big fan of recording surveillance of my person, much like I'm not a fan of England's overuse of CCTV.

[garbon]

The problem appears to be that respect for the integrity of the police is so low in this community that the police account of such situations is automatically not believed.

That, plus the level of outrage must be maintained despite facts.

Yes because the natural state of black people is to be angry.

[derspiess]

Yes because the natural state of black people is to be angry.

Never said that.  It's just that anger is a great motivator and gives the feeling (or possibly illusion) of empowerment, inspiration, and all sorts of other things.  Hard-core members of anger-based movements will do whatever they can to keep other followers' anger at a certain level just to keep the cause moving along.  Even if that involves ignoring facts or even fabricating stories altogether.  This applies to many other things beyond BLM. 

And as much as it pains me to please Raz, the Tea Party movement isn't an entirely bad analogy.

[Malthus]

The problem appears to be that respect for the integrity of the police is so low in this community that the police account of such situations is automatically not believed.

Yep. This is what happens Spicey when police brutality towards blacks becomes a national punchline for decades and nobody does anything about it. Not so funny now. I warned everybody what a damaging impact the militarization of the cops was for the cops doing their jobs.

The basic problem I assume is that actions that would tend to increase community respect for the police are slow and incremental, and largely go unreported - basically, actions that imbed the police within the community itself - while police actions that lose community respect are very publicly visible.

In Canada, at least where I live, community respect for the police is still very much present, including in minority communities - there still exists the notion that while there may be bad apples the police are at base the 'good guys' and if you are in trouble, they are there to help you out - and not that they are the source of the trouble. It is frightening to see how that sense can be lost - almosty difficult to comprehend. It is sort of as if the fire department got a reputation for going around setting fires, just to increase their budget or something. 

[derspiess]

Since you mentioned the fire department, it appears as though those guys as well as EMTs also suffer taint from the negative police reputation in certain vibrant communities.  A firefighter ended up with a bullet-hole in his helmet when he was trying to put out a fire in Cincy a couple weeks ago.

[Valmy]

Well I do think there is a bit of a difference from having a cop look in one's direction and a body cam that will record you.  I think body cams are a step in the right direction for the situation that we find ourselves in me - but in general I'm not a big fan of recording surveillance of my person, much like I'm not a fan of England's overuse of CCTV.

I am not either. But if we are going to have government surveillance than it could not possibly be more transparent than connected to uniformed and easily identifiable government officials? Besides everybody kind of knows to get your shit together when the cops show up.

And further what is her alternative? I presume, perhaps misguidedly, that if she is being quoted on the NewsHour she is a person of some influence. The camera thing was so outrageous it was used to demonize a candidate to justify why they were problematic. Not a thoughtful comment on the possible downsides of using cameras.