Police shoot and kill unarmed teen

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Is this true? Have his comments only be the result of questions from the media? I'll take you at your word and admit I've never considered that factor. If true, then I stand corrected about my earlier comments.

No, it isn't true. He and officials in his administration who speak and act on his behalf and who represent his values and positions have provided even more examples. But, I'll let his complete SILENCE in cases such as the white boy being shot by police, the woman murdered in SF by an illegal alien, and many other examples in which speaking out about a particular local issue was NOT in his racial political interests speak volumes in themselves...

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

There are examples of both. The Henry Gates and Trayvon Martin statements were responses to questions from reporters. The Michael Brown statement I quoted was a written statement released by the White House, which was understandable since an American city was basically burning to the ground.

After all, the first President Bush gave an address on the Rodney King case and said this about the video of King's beating by police: "What you saw and what I saw on the TV video was revolting. I felt anger. I felt pain. I thought: How can I explain this to my grandchildren?" So is he a race-baiter too?

No, because it wasn't viewed by a large segment of the population that he was exploiting this event for racial political gain. I remember the liberal media accusing him of not saying enough about this event...

That is the real issue here. Obama speaks out about these local racial issues/law enforcement issues when it supports his racial narrative and political agenda. His DOJ has been the most politicized and overtly racial DOJ in history, imo.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Also, you said that these were "All cases in which Obama made public statements that either outright indicted the police before they were charged or suggested the police should be indicted or otherwise suggested the police were already guilty before charges were ever brought." I'm still waiting for one single example of this.

Probably should have included in this statement the actions and statements by his administration.

 

[uncboy10]

No, because it wasn't viewed by a large segment of the population that he was exploiting this event for racial political gain. I remember the liberal media accusing him of not saying enough about this event...

That is the real issue here. Obama speaks out about these local racial issues/law enforcement issues when it supports his racial narrative and political agenda. His DOJ has been the most politicized and overtly racial DOJ in history, imo.

So you'd say Obama's DOJ was more racist than Nixon's? You're further off the reservation than I thought.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

So you'd say Obama's DOJ was more racist than Nixon's? You're further off the reservation than I thought.

Yes, I'd add that Obama's entire administration is more corrupt than Nixon's. The only reason he hasn't been impeached is because the media has covered his ass; whereas, the media wanted Nixon's ass.

 

[uncboy10]

Yes, I'd add that Obama's entire administration is more corrupt than Nixon's. The only reason he hasn't been impeached is because the media has covered his ass; whereas, the media wanted Nixon's ass.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

I know, the truth about your boy, 'boy, is hard to take...

 

[strummingram]

I actually knew who this kid was. He bagged our groceries at Ingle's many times. Hard to believe they shot this kid over Marijuana. A friend of mine told me that the kid's girlfriend was there and she was charged with possession. She's a witness, though. This was like 4 miles from my home! Crazy world. It amazes me they ever made that stuff illegal, and amazes me even more they still haven't, at least, decriminalized the stuff. It's absurd.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Because he was asked a question about a case that had spawned major protests across the country and that the DOJ was already investigating. It would have been ridiculous for him to refuse to comment in those circumstances. And the statement he gave was very evenhanded. He says that "it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this" so they can "get to the bottom of exactly what happened." That's the opposite of "passing judgment." Your hatred for the man just blinds you as to what he actually said. THAT's the point.

If I may::

"The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time. As Attorney General Holder has indicated, the Department of Justice is investigating the situation along with local officials, and they will continue to direct resources to the case as needed. I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding. We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. Along with our prayers, that’s what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve."

Why is it heartbreaking that a bully criminal was shot when he was out being a bully criminal? It's not all that heartbreaking to me. What's far more heartbreaking is seeing how the black community acted afterwards - completely irrational. The death threats that the cop got were heartbreaking to me. This is a guy that's just serving the public and doing his job and has to quit and relocate because of it.

And why would any of us want to "remember" Mike Brown? I'm sorry that he's dead. But taz is right to a large degree. When you put yourself in a position like that, it could end badly.

That's what Obama's message should have been and that's what any President's message should be - don't put yourself in a position to get killed. But no, I was told that I should comfort and talk with people that would just as soon smash the windows on my drugstore and loot all the merchandise. Got it. Let's not ask criminals to not be criminals. Let's ask us regular, law abiding folks to be sympathetic to the plight of criminal bullies. HIS says that Obama had to speak to it because of the rioting that took place afterwards. Bullshit. What he should have spoken to is the rioting and looting that took place. So it's not always what he says, it's what he doesn't say. His talking points should have been structured like this:

1 - This rioting has to stop. It does no good. Anyone rioting will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
2 - Don't put yourself in position to be killed by cops that feel threatened.
3 - Don't be a criminal.
4 - Help police find criminals - don't help criminals find police.
5 - I'm sorry for the Brown family's loss.

Shootings are happening more often because of one reason - cops don't feel safe. They feel that there is a bullseye on their back. And by the way some of y'all are posting, I completely understand why they feel that way. I'm disappointed to read THN11 and 71-00's posts. That's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking that instead of the assumption that criminals are criminals, society has been taught to make the assumption that cops are bad...until they prove otherwise. Criminals get the benefit of the doubt and cops don't. Think about that for a minute. That's disgusting and downright absurd. Crooked cops are the great minority of LEOs across the country. And we should respect the fact that these people lay their lives on the line (more now than ever) for a bunch of misguided and ungrateful people. Cops are good, hardworking and underappreciated people and the way the media and society in general has treated them is a travesty.

 

[uncboy10]

How about we just stop making assumptions all together?

In case you didn't know, this country operates on a system of being innocent until proven guilty. Assuming criminals are criminals? WTF did I just read....

You're dead wrong. Less police officers were killed by civilians last year than were killed by themselves in car accidents. Violence towards police is the lowest its been in over 50 years. The reason cops are abusing people's rights is because they have authority and they aren't qualified to wield it. If bad cops are so in the minority why aren't the good cops turning them in?

 

[gunslingerdick]

How about we just stop making assumptions all together?

In case you didn't know, this country operates on a system of being innocent until proven guilty. Assuming criminals are criminals? WTF did I just read....

Let me clarify - if a person has broken the law, they are more likely to break it again than someone who has not previously broken the law. They are certainly more likely to to act like a criminal than a LEO who has no history of criminal activity. You can "WTF" all you want. But logic would tell you that it's reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to a LEO when there is a run in with a criminal. You may not believe that because you watch too much CNN or read too much Think Progress. But logic always wins.

You're dead wrong. Less police officers were killed by civilians last year than were killed by themselves in car accidents. Violence towards police is the lowest its been in over 50 years. The reason cops are abusing people's rights is because they have authority and they aren't qualified to wield it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/1...s-killed-on-job-up-40-percent-over-last-year/

According to the Nationwide Law Enforcement Memorial Foundation, 63 officers have died on the job this year compared to 45 at the same time last year -- a 40 percent increase. Twenty-three of those deaths were due to firearm-related incidents, a 53 percent increase from the same time last year.

Previously, the overall number of officer fatalities had been on a steady decline since 2011.

“We’ve had some good years and right now we’re in a bad one,” said Richard Beary, vice president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. “In general, we’re seeing more violence in society and that violence in society leads to violence against police officers.”

Beary, also the Chief of Police at the University of Central Florida, told FoxNews.com that central Florida is seeing an unusually violent year with two officers killed since February.

“These officers had no idea somebody was going to kill cops and it’s a terrible situation and a tragedy,” Beary said.

If bad cops are so in the minority why aren't the good cops turning them in?

Because people with 8 second video clips on social media that clearly tell the whole story are doing it first.

 

[mikeirbyusa]

Do we know the kid didn't try and hit the cop trying to get away?

I'm one happy Dad that my son walked away from law enforcement. We honor Firemen-Servicemen and condemn the law enforcement officer for a few bad apples. jmhho

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Shootings are happening more often because of one reason - cops don't feel safe. They feel that there is a bullseye on their back. And by the way some of y'all are posting, I completely understand why they feel that way. I'm disappointed to read THN11 and 71-00's posts. That's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking that instead of the assumption that criminals are criminals, society has been taught to make the assumption that cops are bad...until they prove otherwise. Criminals get the benefit of the doubt and cops don't. Think about that for a minute. That's disgusting and downright absurd.

I absolutely agree with most of your post that I'm quoting an except from. Especially the part about how Obama's talking points should have been structured and that it's about what he doesn't talk about, not what he does talk about. However, I'm not backing down from my comments or my stance that you're referring to. There needs to be more training, more specialization, and better, more-qualified candidates applying to be cops. I don't even care that these 'incidents' (like the one in question) are few and far between.....ANY time a cop wrongly kills a civilian, it's unacceptable. It just can't happen. Now if it's a justified killing.....then absolutely! But the officers must be trained to appropriately judge all situations so that no inappropriate killings occur. Because like I said, even one is unacceptable.

I know full-well how tough of a job police officers have. I've stated that in this thread and I can't imagine personally doing that job. And I know they put their life on the line every day and that should be respected and admired. But that's just it.....they put THEIR life on the line. I have no sympathy for a police officer who kills a civilian without proper cause. I don't buy the logic that cops shoot first and ask questions later just in case the civilian was possibly violent. No. You get paid to risk your life......so risk your life. Properly identify the situation. Making an error is unacceptable to the society that you're paid to protect.

Plus, I can only go on personal experience. Cops suck. Now let me say that I'm not a dumba**. I'm not going to mouth off to a cop or do anything suspicious to make myself get in more trouble. But that's more out of fear that Officer Dingbat will charge me with some made-up BS at best or shoot me at worst. I know a lot of police officers do a great job, but I've only had a few dealings with them and most I've interacted with have been extremely rude, unprofessional, and frankly, dangerous. One broke into a neighbor's house and then arrested the guy when he tried to tell the cop to GTFO because he didn't have a warrant. One nearly pulled a gun on me in my own effing driveway because I had my hands in my pocket, then verbally berated my friend for like 5 minutes, and just in general, was an asshole for no reason. But again, I'm not a dumba** -- I took those incidents in stride and kept my mouth shut because I ain't about to get arrested for running my mouth.

TL;DR, criminals should get what's coming to them 100%, but at the same time, cops aren't angels. Yes, a lot do a great job....but too many are THIS close to flying off the handle at any time. Pay them more and the problem will correct itself naturally.

 

[Heels in Space]

If I may::

"The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time. As Attorney General Holder has indicated, the Department of Justice is investigating the situation along with local officials, and they will continue to direct resources to the case as needed. I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding. We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. Along with our prayers, that’s what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve."

Why is it heartbreaking that a bully criminal was shot when he was out being a bully criminal? It's not all that heartbreaking to me. What's far more heartbreaking is seeing how the black community acted afterwards - completely irrational. The death threats that the cop got were heartbreaking to me. This is a guy that's just serving the public and doing his job and has to quit and relocate because of it.

And why would any of us want to "remember" Mike Brown? I'm sorry that he's dead. But taz is right to a large degree. When you put yourself in a position like that, it could end badly.

That's what Obama's message should have been and that's what any President's message should be - don't put yourself in a position to get killed. But no, I was told that I should comfort and talk with people that would just as soon smash the windows on my drugstore and loot all the merchandise. Got it. Let's not ask criminals to not be criminals. Let's ask us regular, law abiding folks to be sympathetic to the plight of criminal bullies. HIS says that Obama had to speak to it because of the rioting that took place afterwards. Bullshit. What he should have spoken to is the rioting and looting that took place. So it's not always what he says, it's what he doesn't say. His talking points should have been structured like this:

1 - This rioting has to stop. It does no good. Anyone rioting will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
2 - Don't put yourself in position to be killed by cops that feel threatened.
3 - Don't be a criminal.
4 - Help police find criminals - don't help criminals find police.
5 - I'm sorry for the Brown family's loss.

Shootings are happening more often because of one reason - cops don't feel safe. They feel that there is a bullseye on their back. And by the way some of y'all are posting, I completely understand why they feel that way. I'm disappointed to read THN11 and 71-00's posts. That's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking that instead of the assumption that criminals are criminals, society has been taught to make the assumption that cops are bad...until they prove otherwise. Criminals get the benefit of the doubt and cops don't. Think about that for a minute. That's disgusting and downright absurd. Crooked cops are the great minority of LEOs across the country. And we should respect the fact that these people lay their lives on the line (more now than ever) for a bunch of misguided and ungrateful people. Cops are good, hardworking and underappreciated people and the way the media and society in general has treated them is a travesty.

I'm not going to try to respond to all of this (I just don't have the time, unfortunately), but I want to clarify one thing about your criticisms of the president. The statement I quoted was released three days after the shooting, when there was very little physical evidence available and a widespread belief that Brown was shot while running away. My point was simply that Obama didn't accuse the officer, which is what Nuk said he always does. He simply said it was tragic that a young man was dead, and he urged calm.

Obama released another statement when the grand jury's decision was announced. I'm sure you'll find things to criticize in this one too, but it contains much stronger condemnation of the looting, etc. He urges restraint by the community and the police and says that understanding and resolution of the real issues at play won't be achieved by violence and destruction of property.

Any thoughts on why Obama is a race-baiter for commenting on a police brutality case that resulted in riots, while GHWB is not when he does the exact same thing?

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

In March of 2015, two police officers were shot in Ferguson, Missouri after months of race-baiting from President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, the White House’s favorite race-baiter Al Sharpton, and their compliant media allies.

One of the officers was shot in the face, the other in the shoulder. Neither was from Ferguson; one was from the St. Louis County Police Department and another was from the Webster Groves Police Department. As St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said, “These police officers were standing there and they were shot, just because they were police officers. I have said all along that we cannot sustain this forever without problems.”

The shootings followed nearly a year of protest and rage springing from the Ferguson black community in the wake of the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson. The media, particularly Sharpton, jumped to portray Brown, a bully and strong-arm robber who tried to take Wilson’s gun off of him and punched him in the face, as a “gentle giant.” They jumped to portray Wilson as a racist white officer acting out The Birth of a Nation. The media and government officials both pushed the absolute lie that Brown had his hands up and told Wilson not to shoot, prompting protests around the country with celebrities holding up their hands in the now-infamous “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” signal. Ferguson exploded into riots, with local stores burned down and police officers attacked.

President Obama sent White House aides to Brown’s funeral. Holder went to Ferguson himself. After months of investigation, the grand jury found that Brown’s shooting was entirely justified; months after that, the Department of Justice acknowledged that the grand jury was correct.

But Holder then issued a second DOJ report stating that the Ferguson police department was wildly and institutionally racist. The evidence: radically elevated rates of traffic stops without concomitant evidence of elevated traffic crime, admittedly because the city had jacked up its traffic enforcement to raise revenue; blacks were disproportionately arrested, which also happens to be true across America thanks to higher rates of criminal activity among blacks on a proportional basis by every available measure; and “several” members of the 72-person Ferguson Police Department sent or received racist emails (the DOJ neglected to mention just how many officers were involved, but two officers quit and a court clerk was fired).

As a result, the police chief, Thomas Jackson, stepped down last night. Protesters saw an opportunity, and someone in the crowd shot cops.

Are we supposed to be surprised by this chain of events? We’ve seen it already in New York City, where two cops were shot “execution-style” after the Mayor of New York, Bill De Blasio, suggested that the death of Eric Garner was just more evidence that black people, including his son, should fear the police. Naturally, the media sided with De Blasio when NYPD officers literally turned their backs on him. Back in December, Seattle police arrested Jaleel Tariq Abdul-Jabbaar for threatening to murder Darren Wilson. I wrote back in September that former White House green czar Van Jones had told me that blacks “jump[ed] to conclusions” because for blacks, police were the equivalent of “Nazis or Hamas” for Jews. If you truly believe that the cops are Nazis or Hamas, you have a moral obligation to kill them.

Cops always have a dangerous job. But purposeful ambushes of cops during protests do not occur in a political vacuum. Here are the worst, completely fact-free critiques of the Ferguson Police Department – critiques that helped stoke the fires of an anti-police war that will end with more attacks on police:

President Barack Obama: In September 2014, Barack Obama went before the world at the United Nations and used Ferguson as a comparison point for Islamic terrorism and racism:

I realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within its own borders. This is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri — where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So, yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.

In November, Al Sharpton reported that Obama told him to “stay[] on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating.” In December, Obama stated in response to protests over supposed police racism that such racism was “deeply rooted in our society, it’s deeply rooted in our history” and that there was “deep unfairness” in law enforcement. He added:

Just days ago, Obama said that bias in the Ferguson Police Department wasn’t isolated and called for “collective action and mobilization” against police.

Attorney General Eric Holder: Holder’s DOJ has targeted “biased policing” and “implicit bias” – in other words, Holder believes that anytime more blacks are arrested than whites, the source is police racism. When the DOJ targeted the Seattle Police Department, for example, their letter stated that officers were engaging in “discriminatory practices subconsciously.” Crime skyrocketed in Seattle as a result of the consent decree with the police. In November, Holder equated Michael Brown, a thug who attacked a police officer, with Emmett Till.

Just days ago, Holder excused riots in Ferguson by referencing his ridiculous report on the Ferguson Police Department:

Seen in this context, amid a highly toxic environment, defined by mistrust and resentment, stoked by years of bad feelings and spurred by illegal and misguided practices, it is not difficult to imagine how a single tragic incident set off the city of Ferguson like a powder keg.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Obama released another statement when the grand jury's decision was announced. I'm sure you'll find things to criticize in this one too,...

Yes, yes I have.

THE PRESIDENT: As you know, a few moments ago, the grand jury deliberating the death of Michael Brown issued its decision. It’s an outcome that, either way, was going to be subject of intense disagreement not only in Ferguson, but across America. So I want to just say a few words suggesting how we might move forward.

"subject of intense disagreement"? Why would he even acknowledge what an angry mob thought of the decision in spite of the evidence that proved the angry mob is wrong? If my son went and robbed a bank and it was all on camera, would I have a right to be pissed about them convicting my son? Would my angry feelings be spoken to? Would I have a leg to stand on?

First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make. There are Americans who agree with it, and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction. But I join Michael’s parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully. Let me repeat Michael’s father’s words: “Hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son’s death to be in vain. I want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the St. Louis region better for everyone.” Michael Brown’s parents have lost more than anyone. We should be honoring their wishes.

"Need to accept"? I interpret that to mean - "well, I don't really agree either but we're kind of stuck here with this pesky rule of law thing." Then he goes on to comment again that there are Americans that are deeply disappointed about it. So what? There are probably New England Patriot fans that are disappointed that Aaron Hernandez was arrested for killing a couple of people. Are we to sympathize with them too? And then he goes on to quote Brown's father when he says "this could lead to incredible change". I'm sorry, but what kind of change is he referring to? Does he hope that other bully criminals will change their behavior and not put themselves in harms way by breaking the law? If that's what he was talking about, I wish he had been more explicit. But I tend to believe that he was again throwing a shot at police officers - angling the change needed as "those dirty cops better change the way they do things".

I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur. Understand, our police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. They’ve got a tough job to do to maintain public safety and hold accountable those who break the law. As they do their jobs in the coming days, they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of people who may use the grand jury’s decision as an excuse for violence -- distinguish them from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact.

Here's where it gets good. Appeal to police officers to show restraint in dealing with peaceful protest? Seriously? He's scolding the police before he scolds the community for acting like animals? No. The police need to work with the community? Why would the statement not be - "the community needs to work with police"? A handful...yeah, right. And "vast majority that just want their voices to be heard on how communities and law enforcement interact" - clearly another shot at police - as if they're continuously doing things wrong that lead to this. Again, the message should be aimed at those breaking the law and disrespecting police.

Finally, we need to recognize that the situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation. The fact is, in too many parts of this country, a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color. Some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country. And this is tragic, because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates. The good news is we know there are things we can do to help. And I’ve instructed Attorney General Holder to work with cities across the country to help build better relations between communities and law enforcement.

A deep distrust exist because criminals don't like to be called out for their criminal behavior. I don't have any distrust of police. I just asked my staff member - nope, not her either. You know why I don't have a distrust for police? Because I'm a law abiding citizen that shows them the respect they deserve. I was even respectful when I had a cop give me a speeding ticket this past weekend. And while I'm on it, he was nice as shit about it. A black cop, by the way. I broke the law. I took my ticket and thanked the guy for doing his job.

That means working with law enforcement officials to make sure their ranks are representative of the communities they serve. We know that makes a difference. It means working to train officials so that law enforcement conducts itself in a way that is fair to everybody. It means enlisting the community actively on what should be everybody’s goal, and that is to prevent crime.

Translation - we need more black cops in black neighborhoods. I mean, who cares that there aren't that many applying and who cares if they're not the best candidates - hire them goddammit!

And there are good people on all sides of this debate, as well as in both Republican and Democratic parties, that are interested not only in lifting up best practices -- because we know that there are communities who have been able to deal with this in an effective way -- but also who are interested in working with this administration and local and state officials to start tackling much-needed criminal justice reform.

Blah, blah, blah, empty political speak, blah, blah, blah.

So those should be the lessons that we draw from these tragic events. We need to recognize that this is not just an issue for Ferguson, this is an issue for America. We have made enormous progress in race relations over the course of the past several decades. I've witnessed that in my own life. And to deny that progress I think is to deny America’s capacity for change.


But what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren't just making these problems up. Separating that from this particular decision, there are issues in which the law too often feels as if it is being applied in discriminatory fashion. I don't think that's the norm. I don't think that's true for the majority of communities or the vast majority of law enforcement officials. But these are real issues. And we have to lift them up and not deny them or try to tamp them down. What we need to do is to understand them and figure out how do we make more progress. And that can be done.

"We've made enormous progress in racial relations." Who said anything about race? Oh yeah, that's right. He did. I thought this was a story of a criminal attempting to hurt/kill a cop. That one party was black and one was white didn't mean anything to me until he steered the conversation that way and until a bunch of blacks that are unhappy with their station in life saw this opportunity to get some sympathy thrown their way on the back of a dead criminal.

That won't be done by throwing bottles. That won't be done by smashing car windows. That won't be done by using this as an excuse to vandalize property. And it certainly won't be done by hurting anybody. So, to those in Ferguson, there are ways of channeling your concerns constructively and there are ways of channeling your concerns destructively. Michael Brown’s parents understand what it means to be constructive. The vast majority of peaceful protesters, they understand it as well.

Those of you who are watching tonight understand that there’s never an excuse for violence, particularly when there are a lot of people in goodwill out there who are willing to work on these issues.

Way to go!! Finally, after several subtle jabs at police, you're now speaking to the rioting and looting that ruined the lives of the people in that community. He's a hell of a President, that Obama. He knows timing better than anyone.

The message to the violent rioters and looters should have been the first things out of his mouth. But he had to do some placating and inciting first or he'd lose his street cred.

Look, I'm not saying that every police shooting has been justified. But my points are this - (1) it should not be angry mobs that decide when a police shooting is suspect. And the President commenting in the manner that he has only gives angry mobs credence. Secondly (2) have you ever known a political figure to be so ingrained in racial discussions? It's crazy how often he brings up the racial divide...which in turn only creates more racial divide. As I stated last week, I used to think he was just an idiot. But I see it as more sinister now. He loves this. He wants this.

 

[gunslingerdick]

 

[UNC71-00]

If I may::


Shootings are happening more often because of one reason - cops don't feel safe. They feel that there is a bullseye on their back. And by the way some of y'all are posting, I completely understand why they feel that way. I'm disappointed to read THN11 and 71-00's posts. That's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking that instead of the assumption that criminals are criminals, society has been taught to make the assumption that cops are bad...until they prove otherwise. Criminals get the benefit of the doubt and cops don't. Think about that for a minute. That's disgusting and downright absurd. Crooked cops are the great minority of LEOs across the country. And we should respect the fact that these people lay their lives on the line (more now than ever) for a bunch of misguided and ungrateful people. Cops are good, hardworking and underappreciated people and the way the media and society in general has treated them is a travesty.

My assumption that cops are bad comes entirely from personal experience. And if crooked cops are in the great minority, then I have the worst luck in the world.

Cops by and large are on a power trip. They also feel like the public lacks respect for their jobs. In short, they have cinder blocks instead of chips on their shoulders. I assume a cop is a dick unless he proves otherwise. That being said, I go full Eddie Haskell whenever I have to deal with one and give him absolutely no lip and cooperate fully. Because I know they are dicks and they have guns and batons and will f me up if I give them the slightest reason.

Also, I get why a lot of these guys are angry. They arrest people committing crimes and then have to watch as the lawyers plea bargain it down to nothing. But their anger contributes to them being dicks. If someone gets shot by a cop and that person was doing something to deserve it (like trying to punch the cop or not immediately dropping the gun, etc), then that to me is a classic Darwin example. If someone gets shot in the back by a cop while running, then I want to see the cop stripped naked, smeared with pate and fed to pit bulls. On TV.

 

[Heels in Space]

Yes, yes I have.

Even though we disagree a lot, I usually respect your opinions. But here, to be honest, you come off as someone just trying to win an argument rather than looking at an issue with an open mind. You interpret every passage of the president's speech in the most cynical terms possible, and even when he says exactly what you think he should be saying, you criticize him for when he said it?! Jesus, man.

It's obvious that you can't identify with someone who has reason to distrust police even when they've done nothing wrong. It's also clear that the parts of Obama's speech that got you so worked up were meant for those people. You may disagree with the tone (or order?!) of his speech, but nowhere does he "incite" racial discord or indicate that the cop was at fault like Nuk' was saying.

So one more time. Here is what President Bush said about Rodney King. How is this different at all from what Obama said? Why is he giving any credence to rioters? Rodney King was a criminal who led police on a high-speed chase. Why doesn't the president just say that if you don't run from police you won't get beat up? Is he just an idiot or is he sinister?

Now let's talk about the beating of Rodney King, because beyond the urgent need to restore order is the second issue, the question of justice: Whether Rodney King's Federal civil rights were violated. What you saw and what I saw on the TV video was revolting. I felt anger. I felt pain. I thought: How can I explain this to my grandchildren?

Civil rights leaders and just plain citizens fearful of and sometimes victimized by police brutality were deeply hurt. And I know good and decent policemen who were equally appalled.

I spoke this morning to many leaders of the civil rights community. And they saw the video, as we all did. For 14 months they waited patiently, hopefully. They waited for the system to work. And when the verdict came in, they felt betrayed. Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I, and so was Barbara, and so were my kids.

But the verdict Wednesday was not the end of the process. The Department of Justice had started its own investigation immediately after the Rodney King incident and was monitoring the State investigation and trial. And so let me tell you what actions we are taking on the Federal level to ensure that justice is served.

Within one hour of the verdict, I directed the Justice Department to move into high gear on its own independent criminal investigation into the case. And next, on Thursday, five Federal prosecutors were on their way to Los Angeles. Our Justice Department has consistently demonstrated its ability to investigate fully a matter like this.

 

[UNC71-00]

Even though we disagree a lot, I usually respect your opinions. But here, to be honest, you come off as someone just trying to win an argument rather than looking at an issue with an open mind. You interpret every passage of the president's speech in the most cynical terms possible, and even when he says exactly what you think he should be saying, you criticize him for when he said it?! Jesus, man.

It's obvious that you can't identify with someone who has reason to distrust police even when they've done nothing wrong. It's also clear that the parts of Obama's speech that got you so worked up were meant for those people. You may disagree with the tone (or order?!) of his speech, but nowhere does he "incite" racial discord or indicate that the cop was at fault like Nuk' was saying.

So one more time. Here is what President Bush said about Rodney King. How is this different at all from what Obama said? Why is he giving any credence to rioters? Rodney King was a criminal who led police on a high-speed chase. Why doesn't the president just say that if you don't run from police you won't get beat up? Is he just an idiot or is he sinister?

Now let's talk about the beating of Rodney King, because beyond the urgent need to restore order is the second issue, the question of justice: Whether Rodney King's Federal civil rights were violated. What you saw and what I saw on the TV video was revolting. I felt anger. I felt pain. I thought: How can I explain this to my grandchildren?

Civil rights leaders and just plain citizens fearful of and sometimes victimized by police brutality were deeply hurt. And I know good and decent policemen who were equally appalled.

I spoke this morning to many leaders of the civil rights community. And they saw the video, as we all did. For 14 months they waited patiently, hopefully. They waited for the system to work. And when the verdict came in, they felt betrayed. Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I, and so was Barbara, and so were my kids.

But the verdict Wednesday was not the end of the process. The Department of Justice had started its own investigation immediately after the Rodney King incident and was monitoring the State investigation and trial. And so let me tell you what actions we are taking on the Federal level to ensure that justice is served.

Within one hour of the verdict, I directed the Justice Department to move into high gear on its own independent criminal investigation into the case. And next, on Thursday, five Federal prosecutors were on their way to Los Angeles. Our Justice Department has consistently demonstrated its ability to investigate fully a matter like this.

Comparing the Rodney King case to Michael Brown is reaching out so far that Elastigirl probably couldn't get there. Everyone felt that way after they saw Rodney King. Furthermore, King did not try to punch the crap out of a cop and take his gun, then proceed to bull rush him.

Obama incites racial tensions with his comments and actions. To claim otherwise comes off as someone trying to win arguments rather than looking at an issue with an open mind.

 

[Nuk'EM Heels]

Where is Obama's presser for the white boy? Where is the Attorney General? Where is Al Sharpton?

 

[Heels in Space]

Comparing the Rodney King case to Michael Brown is reaching out so far that Elastigirl probably couldn't get there. Everyone felt that way after they saw Rodney King. Furthermore, King did not try to punch the crap out of a cop and take his gun, then proceed to bull rush him.

Obama incites racial tensions with his comments and actions. To claim otherwise comes off as someone trying to win arguments rather than looking at an issue with an open mind.

I'm not saying the cases are the same. I'm saying it's perfectly appropriate for a president to comment on a case of alleged police brutality when huge protests result. The cases are incredibly similar in that regard. And even though people keep saying that Obama incites racial tensions, no one seems to be able to point to even one actual statement where he supposedly does this.

 

[UNC71-00]

I'm not saying the cases are the same. I'm saying it's perfectly appropriate for a president to comment on a case of alleged police brutality when huge protests result. The cases are incredibly similar in that regard. And even though people keep saying that Obama incites racial tensions, no one seems to be able to point to even one actual statement where he supposedly does this.

You already dismissed Henry Gates as a poor choice of words. As well as Treyvon. And this absolutely heightens tensions.

Here's what his Attorney General said. I can't find how Obama responded though- do you remember?

In his first major speech since being confirmed, the nation's first black attorney general told an overflow crowd celebrating Black History Month at the Justice Department the nation remains "voluntarily socially segregated."

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder declared.

 

[Heels in Space]

You already dismissed Henry Gates as a poor choice of words. As well as Treyvon. And this absolutely heightens tensions.

Here's what his Attorney General said. I can't find how Obama responded though- do you remember?

In his first major speech since being confirmed, the nation's first black attorney general told an overflow crowd celebrating Black History Month at the Justice Department the nation remains "voluntarily socially segregated."

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards," Holder declared.

I don't think I said that Obama used a poor choice of words re Trayvon. I thought the statement I quoted was very fair and evenhanded. Did you have a problem with part of it? Which part?

Since no one can point to actual race-baiting that Obama supposedly engages in, now the discussion has turned to Holder (and Al Sharpton?!). Obviously, Sharpton is a fool, but I'll admit I don't really know enough about Holder's speeches to have an informed opinion. However, after reading the speech you just quoted, it's clear that he's saying we are a nation of cowards because we are afraid to have frank and open conversations about race. He's encouraging people to engage with each other in order to come to greater understanding of the lives of people of other races. If that's race-baiting, then you and I have different definitions of the term.

 

[UNC71-00]

Race Baiting:

"In things racial we have always been and continue to be a nation of cowards"

Not Race Baiting:

" we need to be courageous when dealing with matters of race"

If you don't understand the drastic differences, then you negotiate less as part of your daily activities than I assumed. One comment is phrased to put the listener on the defensive and one is designed to inspire positive and constructive actions moving forward.

 

[UNC71-00]

Another Obama comment on race in Trayvon:

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws," he said. "And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case."

African-Americans feel the context of the Martin killing is little known or denied, "and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different," Obama said.

 

[UNC71-00]

So tell me again how Obama responded to Holder's comments?

 

[Heels in Space]

Race Baiting:

"In things racial we have always been and continue to be a nation of cowards"

Not Race Baiting:

" we need to be courageous when dealing with matters of race"

If you don't understand the drastic differences, then you negotiate less as part of your daily activities than I assumed. One comment is phrased to put the listener on the defensive and one is designed to inspire positive and constructive actions moving forward.

Did you even read the rest of the speech? You can read it here. Sure, the "coward" line was meant to grab people's attention. In the very same paragraph, though, he says that "if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us." Sounds a lot like your "not race-baiting" example doesn't it? Please read the whole speech and then tell me if you think he was baiting the audience with racial issues or whether he was trying to speak honestly and openly about race in this country.

Another Obama comment on race in Trayvon:

The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws," he said. "And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case."

African-Americans feel the context of the Martin killing is little known or denied, "and that all contributes, I think, to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different," Obama said.

This pretty much proves Holder's point. If a black leader speaks openly and honestly about racial issues facing the country, they are called a race-baiter. Notice that Obama did not say that he thought the result would be different if it was a white teen. He's talking about the experience of the African American community and trying to explain why some in that community view this case through the lens that they do. And he acknowledges that blacks commit more crimes and are more likely to be incarcerated, but he also says that these facts cannot be viewed completely separately from other issues that impact the black community. Again, I don't know if you read the whole speech, but you can here if you're interested.

So tell me again how Obama responded to Holder's comments?

I have no idea. But why would he? Holder was giving a speech at an event honoring Black History Month, and he chose to speak about the ways in which our society still voluntarily segregates itself and how we need to engage with each other more to get past this. Is this really something you think Obama needed to apologize for?

It's important to remember what race-baiting actually means. The dictionary defines it as "the unfair use of statements about race to try to influence the actions or attitudes of a particular group of people." I saw a classic example the other day when a friend posted an article on Facebook about welfare in Maine, but the picture was of a dozen black people. There are virtually no black people in Maine, but the picture reinforced racial stereotypes in a completely unfair way. That is race-baiting. A presidential candidate telling an audience that Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists is race-baiting. It's deliberately using generalizations to prey on people's fears about people that are different from them. Speaking thoughtfully and honestly about race in America is not race baiting, even if some people don't want to have that conversation.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Did you even read the rest of the speech? You can read it here. Sure, the "coward" line was meant to grab people's attention. In the very same paragraph, though, he says that "if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us." Sounds a lot like your "not race-baiting" example doesn't it? Please read the whole speech and then tell me if you think he was baiting the audience with racial issues or whether he was trying to speak honestly and openly about race in this country.


This pretty much proves Holder's point. If a black leader speaks openly and honestly about racial issues facing the country, they are called a race-baiter. Notice that Obama did not say that he thought the result would be different if it was a white teen. He's talking about the experience of the African American community and trying to explain why some in that community view this case through the lens that they do. And he acknowledges that blacks commit more crimes and are more likely to be incarcerated, but he also says that these facts cannot be viewed completely separately from other issues that impact the black community. Again, I don't know if you read the whole speech, but you can here if you're interested.


I have no idea. But why would he? Holder was giving a speech at an event honoring Black History Month, and he chose to speak about the ways in which our society still voluntarily segregates itself and how we need to engage with each other more to get past this. Is this really something you think Obama needed to apologize for?

It's important to remember what race-baiting actually means. The dictionary defines it as "the unfair use of statements about race to try to influence the actions or attitudes of a particular group of people." I saw a classic example the other day when a friend posted an article on Facebook about welfare in Maine, but the picture was of a dozen black people. There are virtually no black people in Maine, but the picture reinforced racial stereotypes in a completely unfair way. That is race-baiting. A presidential candidate telling an audience that Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists is race-baiting. It's deliberately using generalizations to prey on people's fears about people that are different from them. Speaking thoughtfully and honestly about race in America is not race baiting, even if some people don't want to have that conversation.

Jesuuus...you are the master of liberal spin. I swear to goodness, your post above should go in the liberal spin Hall of Fame. And you accused me of coming off as "just wanting to win an argument". After reading this last post of yours, I'm literally lol-ing at that comment. I think your statement was cowardice (I don't really mean that - I was just trying to get your attention).

 

[Heels in Space]

Jesuuus...you are the master of liberal spin. I swear to goodness, your post above should go in the liberal spin Hall of Fame. And you accused me of coming off as "just wanting to win an argument". After reading this last post of yours, I'm literally lol-ing at that comment. I think your statement was cowardice (I don't really mean that - I was just trying to get your attention).

Not spin at all. I'm just asking that he look at the point of the entire speech rather than focusing on one or two soundbites out of context. 71-00's post made it seem like he pulled those soundbites off some page after an "Obama race-baiter" Google search instead of actually reading the speeches.

Do you really think Holder's speech about how people should talk to each other more about race is race-baiting?

 

[TarHeelNation11]

I don't want my president discussing race one way or another. I want him to lower my damn taxes. K, thx.

 

[Heels in Space]

I don't want my president discussing race one way or another.

This is what I think GSD and 71-00 want too. If that's the case, we can just agree to disagree. My point from the beginning was just that, when Obama does discuss race, he doesn't do it in an inflammatory way, and the people who are upset by it or think it's divisive are upset not by what he said but by the fact that he said anything at all.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I don't want my president discussing race one way or another. I want him to lower my damn taxes. K, thx.

QFT.

Someone tell me (hopefully HIS), what is the purpose of racial discussions? Why do we need to have open and honest conversations about race? What is the desired outcome from such open and honest discussions?

 

[Heels in Space]

QFT.

Someone tell me (hopefully HIS), what is the purpose of racial discussions? Why do we need to have open and honest conversations about race? What is the desired outcome from such open and honest discussions?

To create better understanding among people of different backgrounds and cultures? If there were no racial problems in this country, then it wouldn't be necessary, but that is obviously not the reality.

 

[gunslingerdick]

To create better understanding among people of different backgrounds and cultures?

The laugher is that you and others of your ilk think that's actually possible. I agree that there are racial problems. But the difference between you and me is that I'm able to see that pushing such an agenda on people that have no desire to "better understand different backgrounds and cultures" will only worsen things. The proof is in the pudding. Our racial divide is worse today than at any point since desegregation. It's because there are people that simply don't care to have a better understanding. And you cannot legislate thought and feelings. All that these discussions do is create animosity with those that aren't open to such discussions. They dig their heels in further and the racial tension worsens. And then those that never wanted to have these discussions are vilified because they've dug their heels in when, frankly, the discussions pushed them to that point. Do you seriously not see that?

 

[Heels in Space]

The laugher is that you and others of your ilk think that's actually possible. I agree that there are racial problems. But the difference between you and me is that I'm able to see that pushing such an agenda on people that have no desire to "better understand different backgrounds and cultures" will only worsen things. The proof is in the pudding. Our racial divide is worse today than at any point since desegregation. It's because there are people that simply don't care to have a better understanding. And you cannot legislate thought and feelings. All that these discussions do is create animosity with those that aren't open to such discussions. They dig their heels in further and the racial tension worsens. And then those that never wanted to have these discussions are vilified because they've dug their heels in when, frankly, the discussions pushed them to that point. Do you seriously not see that?

No one is talking about legislating anything. These are just speeches in which political leaders give their views about what they think will help the country. You're free to disregard, as I do all the time when politicians say things I disagree with.

If I understand your point, it's that because some people don't want to understand other cultures, no one should ever advocate the understanding of other cultures? Or just the president shouldn't? I'm not trying to be glib; I really just don't get this. You're saying that racial tension is more the fault of people who advocate greater understanding between races than those who deliberately refuse to understand people of different races? I could not disagree more.

 

[gunslingerdick]

You're saying that racial tension is more the fault of people who advocate greater understanding between races than those who deliberately refuse to understand people of different races?

That's exactly what I'm saying and especially when it's presented in a way that slants the discussion towards one race being largely responsible for the divide. I believe this to be truth because I believe those forcing this agenda exaggerate the current status of racial divide and they are unwilling to look at other factors as to why one race is in a better spot than another race.

 

[UNC71-00]

No one is talking about legislating anything. These are just speeches in which political leaders give their views about what they think will help the country. You're free to disregard, as I do all the time when politicians say things I disagree with.

If I understand your point, it's that because some people don't want to understand other cultures, no one should ever advocate the understanding of other cultures? Or just the president shouldn't? I'm not trying to be glib; I really just don't get this. You're saying that racial tension is more the fault of people who advocate greater understanding between races than those who deliberately refuse to understand people of different races? I could not disagree more.

No one is talking about legislating anything because we already have racial preferences in place for minorities, extended punishment for "hate crimes", etc. What's left to legislate? And in some ways, these policies have helped a great deal. But guess what, racism still exists and always will. Instead of talking about it, he should be marginalizing it.

My point is that Obama had a golden opportunity to move race relations forward. Instead he has chosen to make things worse with almost every scenario. I already showed how Holder put people on the defensive- I can do it for Obama too if you like- just name the incident.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Let me toss two stories at you re: "better understanding people of different cultures and backgrounds."

1). My company uses temporary labor in the warehouse when we get real busy and have to pack out a bunch of jobs at once. Two temp workers (black females) were slowww and couldn't keep up with the line, plus kept coming back late from break time. So our operations manager (who is white) dismissed them and told them to go home. They both freaked out and started calling the operations manager racist and kept saying he was only dismissing them because they were black.

2). I personally know of mixed race people who have been called [paraphrasing] "an abomination" to their face at church or just out on the street by white people.

GSD is right. Lots of people are not interested in changing their world views.....so stop trying. Let it be.

 

[Heels in Space]

That's exactly what I'm saying and especially when it's presented in a way that slants the discussion towards one race being largely responsible for the divide. I believe this to be truth because I believe those forcing this agenda exaggerate the current status of racial divide and they are unwilling to look at other factors as to why one race is in a better spot than another race.

How could they exaggerate the status of the racial divide if, like you said, it's worse than it's been in 50 years? And people's unwillingness to look at factors affecting race relations is exactly why people need to be able to talk about race without losing their minds. This goes for both sides of the conversation.