You came across to me as a little too outraged over a police officer carrying his firearm off duty. Most departments require their officers to carry their firearm off duty, usually concealed though. I don’t think there is anything wrong with a police officer carrying his firearm off duty at a school, grocery store, etc.
I don't want a gun inside the school that I pay for my 2 yr old daughter to attend. There's absolutely zero need for him to bring it inside the school. Leave it in the car. Accidents happen. My child could be affected by an accident so that concerns me. You're cool with guns being around your child? Cool. I'm not.
What if an officer is dispatched there? Does the officer have to lock it in a box at the front? What if you go out to eat and there is an officer inside with a gun? Edit: was he doing something with the gun that made you feel an accident could happen? Like did he have it out of the holster showing it to people or twirling it on his finger
He's on duty and was called for a reason. I'm ok with that. Sometimes its necessary. A meet and greet with teachers at 7pm on a Thursday night? No, it's not necessary. I'd prefer he not be allowed to bring a gun onto the school grounds in an off duty capacity. Nothing you say will change my mind so dont waste your time.
He was picking kids up and carrying them on his hip, the same hip he had a gun holstered on. Even without that, I dont want a gun around my child. Period. There's no need for him to have it. It's a fucking meet and greet with teachers. I pay good money for my child to go there and therefore I have the right to voice my opinion to the owner.
Because the way I viewed it the cop chokeslamming the black guy immediately rolled up there aggressive and just grabbed him by the throat. Seemed like he was looking to do something violent as soon as he got to the scene The cop shooting the other guy through his window seemed like a tragic accident bc it was night, he likely couldn’t see much, apparently saw someone brandish a gun and got frightened and fired. I’m not excusing what he did or trying to make light of it. It just seemed, to me, that he didn’t drive there with the desire to harm someone(unlike the chokeslamming cop.) None of that means the cop shouldn’t be punished, nor that I’m absolving him of his wrongdoing. Just that it didn’t seem that he went there under the intention to harm.
normal people view those incidents and say: wow, those are both kinda fucked up, cops should not be choke slamming people and damn sure shouldn't be shooting people in their own homes When you view everything with a racial filter, you are more outraged at cops choke slamming a black guy than cops shooting a white guy in his house. And, the typical caveat: if you disagree, you are racist, alt-white, etc. These are strange times.
No, you’re alt-right because you push all their talking points, not because we disagree. Btw, this whole “you called me a racist because we disagree” is another alt-right staple. Perhaps you may want to change your playbook.
What's amazing is that I am not even aware of what is alt-right and what is not, the way you are. the alt-right think race-baiting is bullshit and calling people who don't agree with your racist views the "real" racists?? Ok, fine, we agree.
What? Can you translate this? If what you’re saying is that you’re pushing racist talking points then we’re definitely in agreement, so I’m glad that has been settled.
What I'm saying is I don't know what talking points the alt-right is pushing, because I don't look at that information. I'm not aware of what they say or do, the way you apparently are. So is one of the alt-right's talking points that race-baiting is bullshit? If so, I agree with them on that. I doubt that's really one of their talking points, but if you say it is, then so be it. Is another talking point that it's complete bullshit to call people who don't agree with your racist views the "real" racists, like you do?? Ok, I agree with them on that too. Again, I don't think that's really an alt-right talking point, but you are the expert here, not me, so I'll default to your expertise on this one.
When I do what, illustrate to you that you treat these situations differently based on the race of the victim? That you view everything through a racist lens? In the first example, I think you thought the woman was actually black, and you responded something like: she's lucky she got tazed and not shot! Had those 2 stories been about black people being abused by the cops, you would have seen them differently. it would have confirmed your bias, it would have played into the narrative you push. See, fucking cops abusing black people again, it just keeps happening!! oh wait, these were white people? hmmm well what bout all the black people who cops abuse, huh??
No, you’re not and I’m seriously worried, you really need some counseling for whatever the hell is going on with you.
ha! ok. Well what is going on with me is that I am not a fan of seeing everything through a racist lens. I am not a fan of being fed narratives that are not accurate, and people like you eating it up and regurgitating it. Then, being called alt-right when I point that out. I don't think it was you, but someone posted that the cops in the video where the black guy gets choke slammed were obviously racist. I maintain that absent any evidence of racism, beyond the color of their skin, that's a silly, and ultimately racist, assertions. Assigning racist motives with the only evidence being skin color is what racists do. So when a white cop tazes an old white woman, that's not racism. Had the same exact interaction occurred, but the old woman were black, it would have then been racist. Right?
I grasp it. But at the same time I also grasp that cops shot a white guy in his house for no good reason. And shoot unarmed white guys. And choke slam white guys. etc. Do you grasp that? Not as a hypothetical, but as fact. This hypothetical "if she were black it would have been different because racism" is just your opinion and a guess, and not based in fact. attributing cops shooting a black person to racism, with no evidence of racism other than skin colors, is incorrect, and racist.
Sure, I get it. I remember a New Mexico cop emptying his clip on a black woman and her van full of kids in the exact same scenario (refusing to sign a ticket and running). I just find it peculiar when someone is 100% sure of how a hypothetical scenario would play out.
If she were black, she probably would have been shot, not tazed. That's the part you can't grasp. Better?
You left off the funniest part of that post, where he assumes that I believed the woman was black and that’s why I reacted the way I did, he’s clearly a serious person who wants to have an honest discussion.
the problem is that you are only exposed to the small percentages of times when the black person is shot, and not the huge percentage of time when they are not. That's not to say ANY unjust shootings is acceptable. So in your mind, you see a video and it's like omg here we go again, it's like every time a cop pulls a black woman over he has to shoot her! when in reality, MOST, like massively huge percentages of the time cops are not shooting black people they pull over. Which, awesome, that's what's supposed to happen, it's not a celebration, it's just pointing out that you are not personally witnessing all of the times that the black woman does not get shot. Which skews your perception. So the statistics, the facts, say that if she were a black woman, she very probably would NOT have been shot.
A black person is 3x more likely to be shot by cops than a white person. 30% of blacks shot by cops were unarmed. 20% of whites shot were unarmed. Why is that?
so you are arguing 2 different things here: 1) A black woman who comes into contact with police will probably be shot. That's demonstrably false. You think it's true though, because you don't see ANY of the "good" interactions, and you see ALL of the negative interactions, and it skews your perception of reality. 2) There is a disparity in the number of black people shot by police vs. whites. "In any given county... the more violent crimes that were committed, let's say by white citizens, the more it is predicted that a white citizen would be shot by the police," Cesario said. "If there are more crimes being committed by black citizens, that predicted a black citizen getting shot." the data showed that blacks were perhaps shot more often relative to their population "not because police officers are biased... it has to do with whom they are coming into contact with." "It's an exposure question that is due to differences in violent crimes," he said.
I'm convinced cops shouldn't be allowed to carry guns https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-killed-apparent-stray-bullet-064805121.html (Reuters) - A woman in Arlington, Texas, was killed on Thursday after apparently being hit by a stray bullet when a police officer opened fire on a dog running at him, officials said. The officer and other emergency personnel had been sent to investigate a report that a woman had passed out in a grassy area, Arlington police said in a statement. The officer found the woman lying on the grass with a dog nearby. When he called out to her to check on her condition, the dog began running toward him and barking, police said in the statement. The officer pulled out his firearm and shot at the dog and the woman yelled out. Paramedics then transported her to hospital, where she was pronounced dead. "Preliminary information leads investigators to believe the woman was struck by gunfire from the officer," the police statement said. The shooting in the city of about 400,000 people was captured on the officer's body camera, and that footage will be part of the investigation. A representative for the city could not be reached for comment late on Thursday.
Yet I'm supposed to be cool with an off-duty cop bringing a gun into a pre-school for a meet and greet with teachers on a Thursday night.
There's no one in the world that is more scared than a cop. Better hope one of those pre-schoolers don't knock a stool over or something.
There seem to be conflicting statistics on that. Have you looked into the MSU study? Where do they get it wrong, if their data indicates the opposite of this data? What about #1 from above? You still think a black woman "probably" have been shot if she refused to sign for a ticket?
They concluded that the POLICE OFFICER's race doesn't play a role. At no point do they say the VICTIM's race doesn't play a role. You come up with excuse after excuse as to why it can't be racism. It's gross to watch you do it, honestly. I will not waste the rest of my day with you bc it's pointless. You have your mind made up that it's not racism so you'll believe what you want and disregard what doesn't fit your narrative.
That study found both, according to the article. "We found no relation between the race of the police officer and the race of the person shot "In any given county... the more violent crimes that were committed, let's say by white citizens, the more it is predicted that a white citizen would be shot by the police," Cesario said. "If there are more crimes being committed by black citizens, that predicted a black citizen getting shot." What you are calling excuses are facts. Reasons that explain things that you are blanketly calling racism. To be clear, it *could* also be racism in some cases. And, to repeat, claiming racism without evidence of racism beyond skin color is racism. It's not one or the other though. It's not always racism or always not racism. Claiming either of those is silly. I haven't made up my mind, I'm just evaluating the situation. When a white cops shoots a black person, it could be racism. But if my only evidence is the color of their skin, I don't have enough information to say it's racism. My default position is not that everything is racist unless proven otherwise.