Coward Cop killers in Dallas

[JaneSmith]

AGBF was pointing out that black fathers have to tell their sons a lifesaving behavior specific to their race and you replied with a remark about absent black fathers. A remark that dismisses black (or any colour) mothers. A remark that contains a lot of racist stereotypes. A remark that actually illustrates AGBF's point, that people are tasking the black victims with solving the problem of white cops profiling and targeting black people.

I can't help myself I have to post.

My point I made is a true statement to the lack of black fathers in the homes. Stereotypes go both ways as we have seen regarding cops in these two threads. While you may not have made them, they have been on full display.

I'm glad you have been posting. I enjoy PS specifically for differing points of view.


I've called no one racist or tried to silence anyone.

ETA: In response to your edit, redwood66, I have not been trying to get you to admit that, it is clear you know that racism exists.

I thank you for your acknowledgment, and no sarcasm meant. Your posts do come across as condescending to me like a parent using it as a "teaching moment" which I do not need. If that is not your intent and I hope it is not, then I apologize for my rancorous response. I take any sweeping stereotypical negative comments toward law enforcement VERY personally and that has been on display by me in these threads. And I recognize they have not been from you but from others. If my posts are helpful to even a few to see these things from a law enforcement POV then I have done my job.

It is clear to me that you are an intelligent person with a somewhat inside perspective on this matter. And I have been called condescending (and worse) on these boards before. I do actually try not to be, but the brevity required of this format often reads as such.
I understand bristling when ones own profession or allied service is cast in a bad light. But sunshine is the best disinfectant so pointing out things like racist cops and historical segregation within PD's and straight up murders of black people by white cops is necessary.
I think talking about our own misconceptions and biases is necessary.


I think it is worth pointing out that this thread is about a black man who was apparently a military vet who attended some sort of 'urban warfare tactics' public gym (I know I'm not explaining that well, apologies) who has a dislike or hatred of white people as perpetrators of violence against black people, and is not affiliated with BLM, went on a deliberate shooting rampage against white cops who were on duty for a BLM peaceful protest. That is abhorrent and I condemn it and am saddened for those directly involved, and police everywhere.


I also wonder if he considered himself a part of a well-regulated militia and justified in acting against government tyranny.

 

[kenny]

Jane, you are my favorite poster here ... by FAR!

Give em Hell.

 

[JaneSmith]

Jane, you are my favorite poster here ... by FAR!

Give em Hell.

Aw, shucks.

 

[kenny]

You just gots the big balls or the big ovaries that I'll never have.

I just feel like it's a waste of time.
I'm glad you don't.
Someone's gotta straighten the cons out.

 

[redwood66]

I just feel like it's a waste of time.

So do I

In regard to my posts that is.

Edited for clarity.

 

[JaneSmith]

I just feel like it's a waste of time.

So do I

With respect to my posts that is.

That is a shame. For both of you.

I've said before that PS is like a plaza or salon or coffee house of old, a place where people from somewhat differing backgrounds can come and talk. I like that.

 

[Matata]

I also wonder if he considered himself a part of a well-regulated militia and justified in acting against government tyranny.

Oh yesssssssss, this was brought up yesterday by a writer on a media source but I can't remember which source. Waiting for the NRA to respond to whoever wrote the piece. The irony is almost too much.

 

[redwood66]

I was attempting to lighten the mood a bit. Posting here is fun most of the time. However it is trying for me on some topics and takes everything I have to keep from getting worked up. Sometimes I fail at that.

 

[JaneSmith]

However it is trying for me on some topics and takes everything I have to keep from getting worked up. Sometimes I fail at that.

Happens to all of us.

I also wonder if he considered himself a part of a well-regulated militia and justified in acting against government tyranny.

Oh yesssssssss, this was brought up yesterday by a writer on a media source but I can't remember which source. Waiting for the NRA to respond to whoever wrote the piece. The irony is almost too much.

Irony on many levels.

But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment

 

[kenny]

I was attempting to lighten the mood a bit. Posting here is fun most of the time. However it is trying for me on some topics and takes everything I have to keep from getting worked up. Sometimes I fail at that.

Oh come on.
I do my best work when I'm worked up.

Not getting banned is the tricky part.

 

[redwood66]

I also wonder if he considered himself a part of a well-regulated militia and justified in acting against government tyranny.

Oh yesssssssss, this was brought up yesterday by a writer on a media source but I can't remember which source. Waiting for the NRA to respond to whoever wrote the piece. The irony is almost too much.

Irony on many levels.

But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment

I am worn out and can't take this one up today. Someone else please? And maybe in another thread - not this one?

 

[redwood66]

I was attempting to lighten the mood a bit. Posting here is fun most of the time. However it is trying for me on some topics and takes everything I have to keep from getting worked up. Sometimes I fail at that.

Oh come on.
I do my best work when I'm worked up.

Not getting banned is the tricky part.

Yes you do.

 

[JaneSmith]

I also wonder if he considered himself a part of a well-regulated militia and justified in acting against government tyranny.

Oh yesssssssss, this was brought up yesterday by a writer on a media source but I can't remember which source. Waiting for the NRA to respond to whoever wrote the piece. The irony is almost too much.

Irony on many levels.

But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment

I am worn out and can't take this one up today. Someone else please? And maybe in another thread - not this one?

Even if you disagree with the racist origins of the 2A, my original comment is certainly pertanent to this thread.

 

[kenny]

I was attempting to lighten the mood a bit. Posting here is fun most of the time. However it is trying for me on some topics and takes everything I have to keep from getting worked up. Sometimes I fail at that.

Oh come on.
I do my best work when I'm worked up.

Not getting banned is the tricky part.

Yes you do.

OH NOES! Redwood and I agree on something.

 

[redwood66]

Noted JaneSmith. I just can't participate in that discussion today. Maybe later.

 

[redwood66]

I was attempting to lighten the mood a bit. Posting here is fun most of the time. However it is trying for me on some topics and takes everything I have to keep from getting worked up. Sometimes I fail at that.

Oh come on.
I do my best work when I'm worked up.

Not getting banned is the tricky part.

Yes you do.

OH NOES! Redwood and I agree on something.

 

[AGBF]

I take any sweeping stereotypical negative comments toward law enforcement VERY personally and that has been on display by me in these threads. And I recognize they have not been from you but from others. If my posts are helpful to even a few to see these things from a law enforcement POV then I have done my job.

Just as you do not like to be condescended to, neither do I.

This is the second time you have said that you "take negative comments about law enforcement personnel very personally"; once you said it directly to me. I, also, do not need a lecture or an education. If I make a comment about law enforcement which you construe as "negative", then you can refute it logically here on the forum. What rankles with me is the notion that if you, "take something personally" I am supposed to quake in my boots. You may have been in law enforcement, but your opinion carries no more weight here than that of anyone else. No one has to fear your wrath. If you "take something personally", we do not have to run and hide. Just come talk it out.

AGBF

This confuses me and we have had good interactions before. I am not sure how you have come to this conclusion? I am not trying to make anyone quake in their boots or make people run and hide. Is it a tone you are hearing because none of what you say was my intent. Nor does my opinion carry any more weight but it is different than most here.

Hi, redwood-

I generally do very well with our interactions, if not on the first go-round, then by the time we have talked out a problem.

I believe that what was different here was that you used the phrase that in certain circumstances you "take something personally". When I hear that or I hear someone say, "Now I am getting angry", or "OK, this makes it personal", I feel that the person is trying to convey that the discussion is about to enter a plane where that person's power is about to become a factor in the discussion and its outcome. In other words, I take the person's words as an attempt to bully, to raise the discussion from the plane on which it was (the rational) to another level where the ire of the person getting angry has to be factored in.

If you read the above paragraph you will see that I was quite careful to say in each sentence, "I believe" and "I hear" and "I feel". I did that consciously because, quite honestly, I do not know whether others feel as I do or whether I am alone in feeling pushed by these phrases. I was (and still am) married to a man who used to say, "Now I am getting angry" to me when we argued, as if that was my cue to retire from the lists. So perhaps this is just my issue and not anyone else's. But that is what was bothering me.

Deb

 

[redwood66]

Deb, therein lies the problem with internet and forum conversations. My use of "taking comments personally" was to explain the reason or tone for all my vigorous comments that I made throughout these threads previously.

Thank you for explaining your perspective of my comments, because I truly was confused at what seemed to be an attack by you on what I thought was an innocuous explanation of my previous comments.

 

[AnnaH]

However it is trying for me on some topics and takes everything I have to keep from getting worked up. Sometimes I fail at that.

Happens to all of us.

I also wonder if he considered himself a part of a well-regulated militia and justified in acting against government tyranny.

Oh yesssssssss, this was brought up yesterday by a writer on a media source but I can't remember which source. Waiting for the NRA to respond to whoever wrote the piece. The irony is almost too much.

Irony on many levels.

But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424962/2nd-amendment-southern-slavery-atlantic-essay-response

This is one of many articles and books disagreeing with the idea that the second amendment was really about protecting the institution of slavery. Interesting that Frederik Douglas advised fugitives from slavery to arm themselves for protection. Good advice.

I'm certainly no historian or constitutional expert, but there is substantial evidence that the founders considered the right to bear arms as an individual right.

As stated, I'm not the one to debate this. Just making the point that that particular idea is controversial.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am not a basher of the president by any means, because I show respect to whomever is in that office (although I am not sure I can say that after November). I will just say that Obama could have been a MUCH stronger leader in healing racial division. He could have taken the example of Martin Luther King, and he really did not. All we hear when there is a shooting is that we need better gun control. No, we need people to respect and care for one another. Period. We need a Dr. King today.

Anyway, Redwood, I needed to come back and say that you are absolutely right that we need to wait until all the facts come in. While I do not feel someone should be killed at a traffic stop unless they really pull a weapon or are wanted for a violent crime and are threatening or trying to flee, it is important to understand all the information. I have read more today and this guy has been pulled and convicted many, many times. So you can read things into that, too, from multiple views. Lots we do not know and may never know. I do believe blacks have a much tougher time in the judicial system in general, though. I don't think anyone can argue that. (On the other hand, I find it really distasteful that multiple family members of his have set up go-fund-me accounts to take advantage of this situation.)

I just want to say I admire the good law enforcement officers like you. You had the most dangerous and one of the least appreciated jobs. I want you to know that I appreciate the protection that good officers provide daily. I realize there is a small percentage of bad ones just like there is a percentage of bad teachers, which was my field. Getting a bad doctor can be life threatening, too. I had a friend who at age 40 died of cancer because her doctor kept giving her meds for pain and never bothered to do an MRI to see what was going on.

And yes, racism is a two way street.

I think that Obama has had to walk a fine line between standing up for black people and not appearing to heavily invested in a 'special interest group'. He's in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.

I don't think your bad doctor example flies here. That doctor was either lazy or incompetent or both, but didn't deliberately keep giving pain meds and withholding an MRI req because of the colour of her skin.

I'm terribly sorry that happened to your friend.

Thank you, it was terribly tragic. I think you did not get my point, though. My point was not about racism. My point was that there are bad cops, doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc. whose actions or inaction can have profoundly negative results for others (including death). Therefore, we should not condemn any entire group because of the actions of incompetence, racism, malpractice, etc. of the few. I don't think anyone here is doing that, but there are those in society who are very negative towards law enforcement. The killer in Dallas shot police randomly. He didn't just shoot police who are racist.

 

[AGBF]

diamondseeker-

Black people don't simply "have a harder time in the judicial system", the only small concession you will allow them. They have a harder time staying alive if they encounter the police. It is only since the advent of cell phones with videos that they are starting to be able to prove to white people that which they have always known to be true.

And when you said that "this guy has been pulled and convicted many, many times" you were not referring to Philando Castile who was licensed to carry a weapon and was shot while reaching for his license and registration. The NRA has finally, with some prodding, come out with a statement in his defense. (At least it has said that his shooting raises grave questions or something of that nature; one cannot hope for too much.)

"The Daily News" is a newspaper for the working class New Yorker. It ran a great feature on how Philando Castile was a law abiding citizen; how he was raised to comply with the police (as Redwood advises everyone to do); how he did so; and how he was shot in cold blood while exercising his Second Amendment right. Do you think racism was a two way street here? I think Philando Castile was already behaving as if he lived in a police state.

Here is an excerpt from the article in "The Daily News".

"Philando Castile followed mom’s advice to ‘comply’ with police and still died, sending fear into parents teaching their kids how to behave around cops

Before her son was shot dead by a police officer, Valerie Castile tried to drill into his head a stark lesson — one repeated in homes with black children across America.

'I always told him, "Whatever you do, when you get stopped by the police: comply. comply, comply, comply,"' Castile said Thursday. 'Comply — that’s the key thing in order to try to survive being stopped by the police.'

Philando Castile, 32, apparently did what his mother taught him — but it failed to save his life.

The Minnesota man — whose fiancée said he was carrying a legal gun — was shot at point-blank range during a traffic stop Wednesday night as he followed an officer’s command to take out his driver’s license.

'My son was a law-abiding citizen and he did nothing wrong,' Valerie Castile told CNN. 'I think he was just black in the wrong place.'

The conversation that Valerie Castile initiated with her son — known informally among parents as 'the talk' — is gaining a new urgency in light of a recent spate of ugly police shootings.

'For black parents, it’s pretty much standardized,' said Marq Claxton, director of the Black Law Enforcement Alliance.

'It is as much of a conversation as you’d give warnings about hanging with the wrong type of people or the dangers of drugs.'

'White people don’t give it to their children because there’s not a necessity for it,' Claxton added. 'There’s no expectation that their kids will have a deadly or dangerous encounter with the good ol’ police.'"

AGBF

 

[redwood66]

It has come out he may not have been licensed to carry a weapon.

 

[AGBF]

It has come out he may not have been licensed to carry a weapon.

The NRA will be happy if that proves to be true. They truly hated defending a black man.

 

[redwood66]

It has come out he may not have been licensed to carry a weapon.

The NRA will be happy if that proves to be true. They truly hated defending a black man.

 

[Calliecake]

However it is trying for me on some topics and takes everything I have to keep from getting worked up. Sometimes I fail at that.

Happens to all of us.

I also wonder if he considered himself a part of a well-regulated militia and justified in acting against government tyranny.

Oh yesssssssss, this was brought up yesterday by a writer on a media source but I can't remember which source. Waiting for the NRA to respond to whoever wrote the piece. The irony is almost too much.

Irony on many levels.

But what the founders really had in mind, according to some constitutional-law scholars, was the musket in the hands of a slave owner. That is, these scholars believe the founders enshrined the right to bear arms in the Constitution in part to enforce tyranny, not fight it.

Last week at an American Constitution Society briefing on the Heller case, NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison’s original writings, Bogus explained the South’s obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. “The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population,” Bogus writes. “Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats.” He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424962/2nd-amendment-southern-slavery-atlantic-essay-response

This is one of many articles and books disagreeing with the idea that the second amendment was really about protecting the institution of slavery. Interesting that Frederik Douglas advised fugitives from slavery to arm themselves for protection. Good advice.

I'm certainly no historian or constitutional expert, but there is substantial evidence that the founders considered the right to bear arms as an individual right.

As stated, I'm not the one to debate this. Just making the point that that particular idea is controversial.

I seriously doubt if our founders were alive today they would think that should include assualt rifles.

 

[Matata]

MInnesota Star Tribune claims to have proof he had a permit.

Red, you mentioned earlier that you heard the dispatch audio tapes and it put a new spin on the cops' action. Is this the one you heard? http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-dispatch-audio-philando-castile/

 

[redwood66]

No I listened to it from the local TV station that received it themselves.

Edit - Since it came from Kare11 then it is probably the same one. Why?

 

[Matata]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-silence-and-violence-of-the-n-r-a

 

[Matata]

No I listened to it from the local TV station that received it themselves.

Edit - Since it came from Kare11 then it is probably the same one. Why?

Because you used it as evidence of why we shouldn't jump to conclusions until all the facts were known alleging that the tape contained info that helped justify the cops' actions which was why I was discouraged to hear one of the cops say he pulled them over because the driver resembled the alleged robber because of his "wide nose". I'm hoping there was more to it than that given the disposition for wide noses among the black race.

 

[redwood66]

No I listened to it from the local TV station that received it themselves.

Edit - Since it came from Kare11 then it is probably the same one. Why?

Because you used it as evidence of why we shouldn't jump to conclusions until all the facts were known alleging that the tape contained info that helped justify the cops' actions which was why I was discouraged to hear one of the cops say he pulled them over because the driver resembled the alleged robber because of his "wide nose". I'm hoping there was more to it than that given the disposition for wide noses among the black race.

I used it because it did not fit the girlfriend's comments about being pulled over for a tail light and speaking to the possible mindset of the cop for stopping him.