…or will it continue to gain speed?
The Ferguson Ethics Train Wreck, created by a deadly collision of a corrupt and racist local law enforcement system in Missouri, a young hoodlum, an irresponsible news media, a sinister lie, and a civil rights and racial spoils conglomerate eager to build on the societal upheaval it authored in the earlier Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck, continues to rip apart the races and and trust in the law enforcement system.
At this point, I don’t see how any police department can do its job. I don’t see why any black criminal wouldn’t fear being shot for being black; I don’t see how any white police officer can shoot his gun to defend himself without fearing he will be branded a racist killer regardless of the circumstances.
I don’t see how prosecutors can objectively decide whether of not to prosecute in such cases when there will be so much pressure to punish the police and exonerate the victim, who is almost always going to have been engaged in some unlawful conduct and usually resisting arrest. While the train wreck rolls, I don’t see how police can be proactive in preventing crimes, or why criminals, especially black criminals, won’t take full advantage of their reluctance. I don’t see how indicted police officers can get a fair trial.
What I see is all of the above getting worse, and the Federal government doing nothing to stop the train.
The narrative is set that police are racist killers determined to execute young black men, and it only gets stronger. Now local incidents of likely police misconduct, as in the police execution of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald revealed by a dashboard camera video that the administration of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel seems to have tried to cover up last year, are viewed by many as part of a damning national pattern, calling all police work and the system’s handling of fatal incidents involving blacks into question. Yesterday the same Cook County State’s Attorney, Anita Alvare, who waited over a year to charge the cop in the McDonald shooting announced that no criminal charges will be filed against the Chicago police officer who shot and killed Ronald Johnson on October 2014. The reason,she said, was that Johnson was armed with a loaded gun at the time of the shooting. Naturally, after the previous cover-up, many disbelieve her. Naturally, there are protests. As usual, there is a grieving mother insisting that her boy wasn’t carrying a gun (Mike Brown was a gentle giant; Trayvon Martin wouldn’t hurt a fly and could have been the President’s son); soon we will see pictures in the news media showing Johnson in a graduation gown or as a cute 12-year-old, making him seem a harmless victim and the shooting cop a racist monster.
Who is at fault? Everyone: that’s what makes it an Ethics Train Wreck. Everyone who is involved with, interacts with, comments on and sometimes even tries to stop such cultural catastrophes gets drawn into unethical conduct. This one, however, has a chance to do irreparable damage to the country while continuing to pick up passengers and cause chaos forever. One reason is that some politicians thinks that this particular Ethics Train Wreck “energizes the base.” The more racial division, hate and fear, the more votes in November 2016.
And if this means a few thousand people die as a result of law enforcement losing public support? Regrettable.
This week, California joined the ETW by becoming the first state to ban the use of grand juries to determine whether to indict police officers in cases of deadly force. The bill, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday, was a direct response to black community’s anger over the grand jury decision in Ferguson not to indict the Officer Darren Lewis for shooting Michael Brown, “The use of the criminal grand jury process, and the refusal to indict as occurred in Ferguson and other communities of color, has fostered an atmosphere of suspicion that threatens to compromise our justice system,” state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), who authored the bill, said in a statement.
There was not sufficient evidence to indict Brown, however, as a federal investigation later confirmed. Sen. Mitchell has offered a solution to the “problem” of integrity in the justice system: in Ferguson the news media, Al Sharpton, activists and pols were screaming for Lewis to be sacrificed, and the grand jury system blocked their agenda. This was a good thing, the right thing, but Gov. Brown signed the bill anyway. Now when an emotional public calls for prosecution—and the Black Lives Matter/ Democratic Party position is that every time a white cop kills a black suspect, it is racism and murder– and the prosecutor knows that the evidence doesn’t meet the required standard, as in Ferguson, the presentation of the case to a grand jury will no longer be an option. The officer will just be charged and led through a show trial, just as George Zimmerman was.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Loretta Lynch quietly boarded the train wreck by announcing that she regarded the threat of violence against Muslims as the greatest developing law enforcement problem. The entire local law enforcement system is unraveling in a whirl of racial suspicion being exploited for dangerous ends by both ends of the political spectrum, and she sees this as her top priority.
Take a seat, Loretta. It’s going to be a long, ugly, violent ride.
________________________
Pointer: Legal Ethics Forum
Ethics Alarms 
This is so… blatantly stupid. There is a certain percentage of police officers who abuse their position, and seeing as they are not only supposed to enforce the law, but understand it better than the average person, when they decide to contravene it, they are uniquely able to do so. And so I understand to a degree where this anger is coming from. But do something about it that actually makes a difference. Instead of rallying for a conviction in a case you aren’t sure a conviction is merited, rally for body cams so you can be damn sure what happened the next time something goes sideways.
I can’t imagine being a cop. I like myself too much. I couldn’t wake up every morning, suit up and drive around with the expectation that not only would I be dealing with criminals, but there’s a better than not chance some of them might try to hurt me. But if I was going to be a cop, with more and more false flag attacks, it seems common sense to want body cams to prove I wasn’t breaking the law. I can’t count the number of situations where people have lied to try and get out of trouble, only to have dash cam footage prove beyond any doubt that the ‘victim’ was lying. Turley just made a post about a woman who said that the cop who issued her a ticket yelled at her and pulled a gun, when the footage showed that instead of an 80 dollar ticket for driving through a stop sign, he issued her, very politely,a $30 ticket for not updating the information on her license. Wrap your head around that for a second. She tried to get him fired for daring to give her more than a stern warning. Heck. She might have tried with the stern warning.
How many lives have to be completely upended before we do something so small and simple? This hits me as something everyone should want.
I have a couple of close friends that are police officers; with the levels of “support” they are getting from their superiors and the outspoken illogical squeaky wheels (BLM) getting the grease at the expense of real justice, they are looking to retire early.
I don’t disagree that body cams could be effective in some situations but body cams are just a band-aid to a catastrophic wound of complete disrespect and illogical disregard for the authority of law enforcement and body cams will do nothing whatsoever to solve that problem.
The root problem is complete disrespect and illogical disregard of the authority of law enforcement; this problem has been on a downward spiral since Obama took office; is it Obama’s fault, maybe not, but he has certainly added fuel to the fire.
I wonder how much of the community-police disconnect is because we no longer have “home grown” cops? In the evening, the police who work the crappiest neighborhoods go home to their nicer suburbs miles and miles away, they are probably as foreign to their “constituency” (and it is a constituency of sorts) as the Norman lords were to their new Anglo-Saxon subjects in 1066…
I can’t fault the individual police in this, because if they can afford a nicer neighborhood, then more power to them. But then again, I can’t fight the inkling that this has a detrimental effect on their relationship with the people on their beat.
I totally agree, Tex.
Tex,
You might have something there related to the social aspects of being a police officer, but we can’t allow that to be used as an excuse for the complete disrespect and illogical disregard for the authority of law enforcement as a whole.
No doubt it is a multifactorial issue. I make no disagreement with your assessment. I would add, I wouldn’t try to reinvigorate a “home grown” cop system with this atmosphere either.
I completely agree!
See that’s the thing… No one disagrees that body cams are a good idea, but we still don’t have them consistently, even in the largest and most violent of American cities. If we can’t even get a $20 hunk of plastic attached to the shirt of officers that we agree would be a positive step, how the hell do we do more complicated, contested things? The lack of body came highlights an inability to get things done.
We can’t even commit to gathering proper detailed statistics. Why is it that there are now dedicated webpages to crowd-sourcing information related to guns or police abuse or shootings or police shootings? Why hasn’t this data been collected, documented in a meaningful manner before?
Bodycams would be, will be, and in some places are, a good start. Another one would be special prosecutors instead of the regular ones when a cop is the accused. Regular prosecutors have a problem, they need to work with the police and the police can, if so inclined, really screw over someone who’s career is based on convictions.
Consider the Laquan McDonald coverup Jack mentioned, all those cops lied in their reports. Imagine your job relies on staying in their good graces?
Jack,
You nailed it! Well done.
IF (that’s a big IF) this downward spiral is allowed to continue, mob and vigilante justice is on the horizon, police departments will thin out because officers will not have the support of their superiors or the community, and the officers that are left are going to conveniently be too “busy” with other things to deal with “those” neighborhoods and real justice for all will spiral into the abyss. With most of the population being in the “sheep” category, the “wolves” will be fighting for territory in the streets and the sheep dogs will be forced to in-circle the sheep with a ring of opposition; civil chaos will ensue without proper law enforcement and an effective justice system. Can you imagine a cross between Mad Max and The Postman in densely populated areas, in your neighborhood?
I don’t think this is a deflection but I think the next President elect could have a profound effect on this issue and I hope it will be the opposite from Obama’s “adding fuel to the fire” effect.
Things can be turned around, but leadership MUST come from the top and I mean the office of the President of the United States. Our country cannot withstand another Obama administration under the leadership of Hillary, our country cannot withstand a wing-nut like Sanders or blow-hard narcissist like Trump. The United States needs a real leader with a real track record of genuine leadership that can push aside partisan ideology and get things done, one that can do what’s right for the Nation regardless of partisan pressure, and have the ability to apply his leadership skills, experience, and common sense on day one in office, and be Presidential in our eyes and a world leader in the eyes of the rest of the world; I personally only see one candidate in the current crop of candidates that comes close to fitting that bill and it’s not too likely that he will get the nomination, Governor Chris Christie.
The media is driving their choice of candidates to the top of the polls by nearly blacking out all the other candidates and pushing Clinton and Trump to the top? My question is WHY is the media, that’s primarily dominated by the political left, putting Trump in everyone’s face and being the driving force behind his growth in the polls? Think about it.
You want to see a really good political debate, get Clinton, Trump, and Christie on the Fox News debate stage for two full hours and take on the our most pressing issues, National Security and Foreign Policy. Have Brit Hume as the overall controlling moderator with supporting moderators Charles Krauthammer and Newt Gingrich; give everyone “equal” time to voice their opinions but give Brit switches to turn off microphones for rambling candidates that are actively dodging questions. In my opinion, it is very important in a debate about National Security and Foreign Policy to discuss what have we learned from the past and how will that hindsight knowledge will be applied to lead our country in the future. Keep the debate on track, on point, and about the future of the United States!
There, I painted a bulls eye on my forehead. 😉
Rant complete.
So, there is admittedly a problem with racism. It is admitted that the Missouri police department had systematic racist policies. And it is admitted that black people in that community were upset and frustrated about that. Is it then possible or likely that the officer provoked a situation – even with a criminal – that resulted in his death? Because he was racist? Not impossible. But hard or impossible to determine.
If the Missouri police department is racist, it also follows that hundreds and even thousands of police forces, and other institutions too, are also racist. So, those black people who understand this are right in identifying racism as a systematic problem.
Yet it is wrong for Obama and as a policy choice to choose to remediate this issue? To become active in confronting it? Or to encourage social and political activism in the population?
But blacks are said to be wrong or mistaken when they say, or when they feel, that they are targeted by police, and that these instances of officers killing suspects have no racist motive?
Following the logic of the facts as they are presented here, it seems that the BLM movement is certainly in the right. That it is likely (given prevalent racism, admitted) that blacks are getting shot when they shouldn’t and that the BLM activists are correct in their stridency and their activism, though aspects of their tactics are questionable.
I understand better what is meant by ‘ethical train wreck’.
One must be able to propose a solution – even a theoretical one – to sorting it out. Who will come forward with the correct and ethical plan to sort out the ethical train wreck?
Let me get this correct; you are basing the validity of the BLM movement on an “IF” statement and a blatant assumption?
It is painfully clear that you don’t understand logic. Your entire “logical” premise is based on an assumption and completely blind arrogance that your assumption is 100% accurate. Outside the complete disrespect and illogical disregard for the authority of law enforcement as a whole, herein lies the root problem of the BLM movement.
I’m sorry Ms. Tyler, but what you are calling logic is nothing of the sort and your point of view on this subject is clouded by an immature illogical tunnel-visioned view of reality. Ms. Tyler, correlation does not equal causation and assuming that the whole is just as corrupt as the one is blatantly unethical at its best and deceitful at it’s worst. Your logic is terribly, terribly flawed.
Allow me take a wild stab in the dark; your somewhere between 13 and 22 years old and you still walk/run in the street when there’s a perfectly good sidewalk 10 steps away.
The logical fallacy she’s engaged in is called “hasty generalization”.
For your perusal, and very useful for our discussions here, Fallacy Files. You may already know that site.
I don’t have an issue with the flavor of what she asserts: that blacks have a valid gripe against racist police. But she fails to realize that the BLM movement very rarely seems to focus on actual instances of racism and seem to primarily rally around criminals who shouldn’t have been engaging in crimes who subsequently were shot by police officers in situations that so far seem to be completely justifiable. Of course there’s a couple instances that were not.
Fair points Tex.
I’m most put-off by the casual idea that a police department can be “racist.” Progressives need to cool it with their lack of understanding of what “systematic” means. Jim Crow laws were systematic racism. A police chief sending out a memo that cops should target only Black lawbreakers would be systematic racism. A cop who may have acted out of racism, if that’s the case, is a pretty clear example of an individual being racist, not an institution. People aren’t all stupid; some of us can see past the ploy of politicizing the personal for selfish, identify-politicking reasons.
You suggest, then, that ‘systematic’ requires another, a further, and a more nuanced definition. If many member of an organisation hold, consciously or unconsciously, ‘racist’ ideas or sentiments, it is probable that their sentiments will creep into their doings. It would not be as ‘systematic’ as Jim Crow but it could still be ‘systematic’ in effect.
Overall though, I find that people cannot and will not speak openly about their actual and their real views on race, an black, on Mexicans, and so forth. The reason is because a PC thoughtcontrol intercedes between what they really think and understand, and what they are allowed or what they will allow themselves to say. After all: Say the wrong thing and your life and your finances might be destroyed. Be careful therefor!
I suspect very strongly that here – among the ‘generally intelligent’ to use Joe Fowler’s description – there are those who cannot bring themselves to openly state their ‘real view’.
White people are terrified of blacks (in the context of being called on ‘white privilege’ or as being ‘racist’, etc) and black people know this. There is a very strange and really rather dark game being carried out in all this.
I just want to get to the bottom of it.
I’m most put-off by the casual idea that a police department can be “racist.” Progressives need to cool it with their lack of understanding of what “systematic” means. Jim Crow laws were systematic racism. A police chief sending out a memo that cops should target only Black lawbreakers would be systematic racism.
A memo sent out to the whole department? Like this? http://www.villagevoice.com/news/eric-adams-state-senator-testifies-police-commissioner-told-him-he-wants-to-instill-fear-into-young-blacks-and-hispanics-6666731
State Sen. Eric Adams, a retired NYPD captain, testified yesterday that Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told him that he ordered his commanders to “target young black and Hispanic men to instill fear in them that any time they leave their homes they could be targeted by police.”
It is indeed systematic racism that we are talking about here, not just the actions of a few bad apples.
And yet, apparently President Obama us unaware that these same racist police officers will be the ones to enforce the gun control laws he wants enacted, and these same racist officers decide who is on the terrorist watch list.
Imagine that.
“If the Missouri police department is racist, it also follows that hundreds and even thousands of police forces, and other institutions too, are also racist.” One racist PD (one with a majority of members who are racists, to head off any definitional issues) does NOT prove anything about any other force or institution.
Where I take issue with BLM and many police departments is their choice to lie about particular incidents. Chicago PD consistently covers up evidence of it’s own wrong doing, while BLM treats every single white cop vs black perp into a racist incident. Like almost everyone else, they also mangle statistics badly, by always comparing police interactions to the overall populace rather than to the criminal populace, and then using that to push for policing changes.
Thanks for the lecture, ResurrectedToday!
I wrote in response to this:
Jack wrote: “The Ferguson Ethics Train Wreck, created by a deadly collision of a corrupt and racist local law enforcement system in Missouri, a young hoodlum, an irresponsible news media, a sinister lie, and a civil rights and racial spoils conglomerate eager to build on the societal upheaval it authored in the earlier Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Ethics Train Wreck, continues to rip apart the races and and trust in the law enforcement system.”
And what I am trying to do is to understand better what he means to say, and what his understanding is. He describes a situation where:
1) Racism exists. “…created by a deadly collision of a corrupt and racist local law enforcement system in Missouri”.
If that is true in Missouri, it certainly exists as a possibility that similar racism exists in other department. Thus, it is not a ‘hasty generalization’, but possibly a sound generalisation. In any case, black people, including the President, understand that this is the case.
I did not say, and do not say, that my encapsulation of Jack’s points are ‘100% accurate’, and what I am trying to do is to understand better how he organises his perception. I am not including here any part of what I think and believe.
You should take yourself to task for the tone and the content of your post. I think you are projecting onto me your own issues and conduct-problems.
You have no idea at all how I view ‘respect for police’ or anything else because I have not spoken about it.
Hogwash Ms. Tyler! Hogwash!
Don’t give me any of your garbage! Your nonsense justifications for the BLM movement speak volumes as to your level of “respect” for authority.
Your words, your consequences.
And if things get more ‘painfully clear’ to you, you may end up writhing on the floor. Make sure you have your phone nearby so you can call for help!
“…but what you are calling logic is nothing of the sort and your point of view on this subject is clouded by an immature illogical tunnel-visioned view of reality. Ms. Tyler, correlation does not equal causation and assuming that the whole is just as corrupt as the one is blatantly unethical at its best and deceitful at it’s worst. Your logic is terribly, terribly flawed.”
I suggest that you will do well to examine your own ‘flaws’.
I do not understand the BLM movement enough to be able to say I understand them. In fact, like many, I react at a visceral level against them. I don’t like them. I don’t like their militancy.
I think that what you are doing is emotionally getting into a rage for your own reasons. You are free to do it. I am simply going to correct you when you do.
I am trying to understand better where Jack is coming from, and to begin to disentangle what he describes as an ‘ethical train wreck’.
If that is your objective, I would recommend reading the almost 2 dozen posts on this topic from the past several years and the follow on dialogues.
And yet we should trust these same people to decide who may or may not carry a concealed weapon.
I got tripped up at the start: “I don’t see why any black criminal wouldn’t fear being shot for being black;…”
The extrapolation to this is obvious – if a black criminal would fear being shot just for being black – and the perception is that there are certain incidents where people have been shot for being black that were otherwise innocent – then what you’re really saying is that you think any black person (criminal or not) should legitimately fear being shot by police because they’re black.
Tha ma I couldn’t figure out how to word the same hiccup I had.
“Tha ma” is autocorrect-ese for “thanks”
The underlying thought process that developed that extrapolation is the equivalent to…
“You’re traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s the signpost up ahead – your next stop, the Twilight Zone!”
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist. 😉
Seriously, in my humble opinion, such extrapolations are not supportable.
?? So… you’re saying that only black people who are also engaged in criminal activity would fear being shot for being black.
But other black people who are not engaged in criminal activity would not fear being shot for being black.
I’m trying to get there so give me a hand. Is the thought that non-criminal blacks trust law enforcement and don’t worry about prejudice so criminal blacks are actually just paranoid and deflecting their fear of being shot because they’re a criminal onto a scapegoat argument that they’d be shot because their black?
Is that the gist of what you are saying?
Is this the criminal complement to affirmative action, wherein an African American doesn’t know if they were hired due to their skill or because they were black?
Sounds right to me….but I’m hyper confused at the moment.
Nope, I’m not saying that at all; what I did say is your extrapolation is not supportable. Jack could have chosen a better worded statement that might not have sent your reasoning skills off into a tangential extrapolation.
To be very clear about this; only people who are actually engaged in criminal activity and present themselves as a direct danger to the public or direct danger to the police should fear being shot by police, all others should not fear the police. That said; criminals that actually follow instructions given them by police officers should also not fear being shot by police, it’s the criminals that choose not to follow instructions or are actively being a threat to others that SHOULD fear being shot by police.
There are some police officers that have used questionable judgement, or very poor judgement, or illegal actions in reacting to extreme situations but those few officers do NOT represent the whole or justify mass fear by any singular group of people. What is happening is fear based on assumptions, innuendo, and a complete disrespect and illogical disregard for the authority of law enforcement, it needs to stop and it will take serious leadership from the very top to reverse the current downward spiral trend.
Did I answer your questions?
There are some police officers that have used questionable judgement, or very poor judgement, or illegal actions in reacting to extreme situations but those few officers do NOT represent the whole or justify mass fear by any singular group of people.
At least in Chicago, LA, and NYC, at the very least, these problems do represent not isolated incidents, but are a reflection of systematic discrimination within the system. Note that in Chicago with this shooting, the police officer who did the shooting not only lied on his statements, but his fellow officers also backed up his false narrative. They also went into other establishments to hide video evidence that contradicted their lies. The supervisors of the officers had to have seen the footage as well, but let it pass. The prosecutor too, also saw the evidence well in advance, yet their was no movement until it was made public.
In Chicago there are about to hearings on their “black sites”, where mostly minority suspects are disappeared to, tortured, and withheld counsel. This, after Chicago was forced to pay millions of dollars to minority victims of coerced confessions and police torture that went on for decades.
In NYC they have police sergeants on tape instructing their squadrons to specifically target minority males. Even putting a quota on it, and penalizing officers who did not arrest enough minority males in a given cycle.
LA of course, had the infamous Rampert Scandal, where police planted evidence and coerced confessions from minority suspects.
I think there is more than enough evidence to indicate that it is not just a few bad apples, but these officers are just on the most extreme edge of a system that actively discriminates against minorities. I think knowing that you will not be afforded any protection from the very officers that your tax dollars pay for is enough to justify a mass fear by minorities in America.
deery,
Rhetorical question: You’re a human being, members of ISIS are human beings; should you be dumped into the same category as ISIS just because you are both human beings?
To blame the whole based on the few is not only illogical and unethical it’s simply immoral!
Hmmm, rhetorical question. You are a member of ISIS. Even though you yourself have never decapitated anyone, you did provide lookout for other members who did. Should you be blamed for the actions of the others? Keep in mind also that you joined ISIS voluntarily.
The actions of police forces across the country, spanning decades at this point, is not just “isolated incidents.” It has been shown, time and time again, to be systematic, from the top on down problem. How many different incidents have to happen before it becomes systematic in your mind, and not just a “few bad apples”?
deery,
You either missed my point which was “to blame the whole based on the few is not only illogical and unethical it’s simply immoral” or you completely ignored it. Based on your reply, I’m guessing it’s the latter which means that you’re more than just a little bit morally bankrupt.
Sobeit.
You missed my point. Sometimes it is very necessary to blame the whole for the actions of a few. That’s what the theory is behind conspiracy, to use just one example. Unlike the category “human”, being a police officer is something one voluntarily chooses to join. I’m sure most of the members of the Ku Klux Klan have not murdered anyone. But you can still draw certain inferences from the fact that they are a member.
My other point is that this is not just “the few.” The problem is widespread, and manifests itself I many different ways.
I hope you are not drawing parallels between being a police officer and belonging to the KKK. The are both groups that people join voluntarily, but that’s about the only thing they have in common.
I hope you are not drawing parallels between being a police officer and belonging to the KKK. The are both groups that people join voluntarily, but that’s about the only thing they have in common.
While there is some documented overlap in membership between the two organizations, I was making an analogy, nothing more in this case.
You’re exposing your moral bankruptcy.
I think a different analogy to try and catch what Deery is trying to say is that while the majority of cops in China have probably not personally beat up Falun Gong practitioners, the system they work for has given sanction to those who have. I’m not sure this analogy completely applies to 21st century American law enforcement, but I think we should be arguing with what Deery is probably trying to actually say.
Though I suppose the analogy in this case would be more “CCP officially stops the anti-Falun Gong campaign, but can’t effectively stop those local cops who still want to continue it.”
You can make arguments based on assumptions all you want, I’m not going to do that.
The point I’ve stated over and over again is “to blame the whole based on the few is not only illogical and unethical it’s simply immoral”; now Julian, you can choose to agree or disagree with that particular statement but I’m a hard man and my opinion on that will not change regardless of the topic it’s applied to.
Resurrected wrote:
“The point I’ve stated over and over again is “to blame the whole based on the few is not only illogical and unethical it’s simply immoral”; now Julian, you can choose to agree or disagree with that particular statement but I’m a hard man and my opinion on that will not change regardless of the topic it’s applied to.”
____________________
To insist that the problem or a problem can only be described by one tendentious organisation of it, as in your phrase, is ‘intellectually dishonest’. If one is really interested in getting to the truth, or as close as one can, one will have to, I think, describe the problem in different ways, and interrogate it variously.
By establishing that this issue is one where some blame the whole because of the acts of the few is actually to make a declarative statement: this is how you view the problem. But others see it in a larger, and in any case, a different context. They ask questions, therefor, that are more dialectical, and that lead to different possible answers, solutions, etc.
You may indeed be a ‘hard man’ but I’d take that to mean ‘mentally rigid’, and that is not a compliment.
I’m not sure why you are trying to argue that a hasty generalization could be considered less fallacious just because of the way someone looks at a problem. It is always fallacious, and is indicative the angle from which someone is approaching the problem is flawed as well.
RT is accurate in his assessment.
Because, Tex, I am not sure if it is – I mean at a national level – a ‘hasty generalization’. But certainly, as hasty generalization is likely to be fallacious.
I’d definitely agree that many people are making ‘hasty generalizations’, and that is not good (and part of the ‘train wreck’).
But I’d suggest that to get to the truth of the matter will require a different overall approach.
It is highly emotional, and deals with many layers of sentiment, and I do not think that all of it is ‘on the table’ nor do I see it as rational. Because it is charged and irrational, I am not sure if it can be reasoned through mathematically.
So i take it that you do not trust the police to determine who may carry a concealed weapon?
But California Attorney General Kamala Harris trusts these officers to “use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon”.
As California;’s attorney general, she is, by virtue of her position, an expert on this subject. Who are you to question an expert?
“You’re exposing your moral bankruptcy.”
Now THAT is a rhetorical statement.
::: rolls eyes :::
Ms Tyler,
I get the fact that you don’t have the intellectual fortitude to actually comprehend concepts so you just spew something out in an effort to attack, but you can’t even seem to post your comments under the appropriate sub-groupings in the thread – what’s with that?
There’s just so much for juvenile minds like yours to learn.
I’d further suggest – it is only a suggestion – that a person who comes out with silly ad hominem manoeuvres as is this one, may suffer from ‘moral bankruptcy’. It is not factual to imply lack of ‘intellectual fortitude’ (and it is a common and cliche use of cheap rhetoric) but it is also a simple lie: I have enough intellectual fortitude to get on just fine and there is nothing here, and nothing that you have written, that I do not comprehend.
A large part of what you express is expressed through underhanded use of rhetoric, and that is why I called you on it. And I call you on it again.
Finally, the ‘you are a juvenile’ line of attack is more of the same. You may not be able to see it but it is a projection. You are both childish, undisciplined, flawed in your assessments and rhetorically devious.
What I notice – here – is that one encounters people with a whole walls of obfuscating blather. You have to confront their BS in order to be able to get to the core of what is being discussed here.
Pushed, you avoid that.
This is sophistry, classically defined.
Ms. Tyler,
Your a real hoot when you are attacking others, how do you hold up when substantive content really matters.
Here is a direct challenge to you; share some of your specific viewpoints in an intellectually professional manner as to the logic, ethics and morality of the following two opposing statements.
“To blame the whole based on the few is not only illogical and unethical it’s simply immoral.”
“Sometimes it is very necessary to blame the whole for the actions of a few.”
That was not a rhetorical challenge, I actually want a reply directly from you. A detailed essay, or a full dissertation, specifically addressing each statement would be completely acceptable replies; furthermore, addressing the character of someone who might say such things would be well within the bounds of a full evaluation.
How you choose to reply, or not to reply, to this challenge will be a direct reflection of your personal character.
The choice is yours Ms Tyler.
Don’t give me ‘tasks’, Resurrected. I will simply toss them up in your face. I write what I write, and where I write it, and if you wish deal with it in those places. Toward the bottom of this post I wrote out something that included some of your quotes. Deal with that if you so choose.
You’re an “intellectual” (an I’m using that word loosely) coward. You’re kinda like those annoying little dogs that bite at your heals and then run with their tail between their legs when directly confronted. You’ve got nothing but nonsense attacks and you’ve come to an intellectual debate completely unarmed and have no relevant backup to support your rhetoric in discussions about concepts that you do not fully understand.
You’re dodging an intellectual concept that appears to be well over your head. You have NOT dealt with the concepts I mentioned above and you did not deal with those concepts below and your feeble attempt to approach the concept above is circular gibberish with absolutely no valuable intellectual content.
I would have had a bit of respect for someone that actually came out and stated that they don’t understand how to intellectually approach the concepts. You’re circling your wagons in quicksand to get away from the vultures that are circling above.
What you are writing in regards to the concepts I’ve approached is not logical and reflects the levels of maturity I mentioned before. There is a great big world out there Ms Tyler, you better grow up and prepare yourself for what lies ahead or your going to be eaten by the wolves.
Our conversation on this is done.
Have it your way, Resurrected. I wish only to suggest that you are involved in what is called ‘projection’, and quite extremely. I don’t know how to include a hyperlink but what I mean is psychological projection: the projection of one’s own unrecognized characteristics or actions onto another, in this case me.
Your entire post is a rhetorical rot, it is dripping with completely inappropriate usages. All you have done is called names. That is not argument.
Despite any characterization you wish to cobble together, my interest in this topic is upright and straightforward.
The conversation, which never actually begun, can certainly be ended though.
(PS: And I don’t mind at all that you call names, nor do I ask that you stop, I only wish to be able to tell you what I think).
Young Lady,
What part of “our conversation on this is done” did you not understand?
Yep, Alizia is a troll.
If she’s a troll, she’s the hardest working troll in captivity!
You’d have to work hard at it to risk coming here.
She is not a troll. After careful consideration, I have decided that she is a ROBOT. Her programmers are trying to see if she can pass herself off as human — it’s a very hard test really — she has to provide commentary on an ethics blog!
For now on, I’m going to read all her comments with a robot voice in my head. Now that I have accepted this reality, her comments are making far more sense to me.
Hurray for Beth.
The “I am trying to understand” refrain does sound a lot like “does not compute” in monotone. Hah.
There’s a lot of people in suits whose jobs have more lives at stake than police officers do. If police officers are required to wear body cams, I think that fairness requires that they be considered for other responsible positions, too.
Presidents? Secretaries of State? Attorneys General?
Not naming any names, but that makes sense to me.
Deery wrote:
“At least in Chicago, LA, and NYC, at the very least, these problems do represent not isolated incidents, but are a reflection of systematic discrimination within the system. Note that in Chicago with this shooting, the police officer who did the shooting not only lied on his statements, but his fellow officers also backed up his false narrative. They also went into other establishments to hide video evidence that contradicted their lies. The supervisors of the officers had to have seen the footage as well, but let it pass. The prosecutor too, also saw the evidence well in advance, yet their was no movement until it was made public.”
______________________
Jack wrote, describing an ethical train wreck (that includes various other elements):
“The Ferguson Ethics Train Wreck, created by a deadly collision of a corrupt and racist local law enforcement system in Missouri…”
______________________
But ResurrectedToday wrote:
“To be very clear about this; only people who are actually engaged in criminal activity and present themselves as a direct danger to the public or direct danger to the police should fear being shot by police, all others should not fear the police. That said; criminals that actually follow instructions given them by police officers should also not fear being shot by police, it’s the criminals that choose not to follow instructions or are actively being a threat to others that SHOULD fear being shot by police.
“There are some police officers that have used questionable judgement, or very poor judgement, or illegal actions in reacting to extreme situations but those few officers do NOT represent the whole or justify mass fear by any singular group of people. What is happening is fear based on assumptions, innuendo, and a complete disrespect and illogical disregard for the authority of law enforcement, it needs to stop and it will take serious leadership from the very top to reverse the current downward spiral trend.”
_______________________
One gathers from this that black reaction is, across the board, as false reaction. Only black criminals have reason to fear the police, and especially black criminals who do not obey police orders.
So, ‘the deadly collision of a corrupt and racist law enforcement system’-aspect is not in fact related, at least not directly, to the shooting of black criminals. It is not really related to this issue.
And that leaves ONLY black criminality. Black criminality is the origin of this problem. But, for political reasons, the ‘civil rights and racial spoils conglomerate’ and other interest groups and sectors, are capitalizing on these events in pursuit of other objectives. Obama and his establishment, and his various appointees, and other mostly black officials, etc., are engaging in a cynical and underhanded game to gain power (?), gain concession from government (?), and to cow a white public unsure of its own relationship to black and black culture and also perhaps guilt-stricken.
The way to deal with the ‘ethical train wreck’ is to simply lift it up, toss it off, and refuse to accept the false terms of the BLM movement (and anyone who describes things in those terms).
Is this right?
Do you really think this is going to work? Not your framed “solution”, but getting any of the generally intelligent people here to take the bait that you imagine you have craftily dangled?
How’s your rhetoric class going?
It is possible, at least according to my understanding, that ‘the people here’ may come from disordered orientations. There is nothing ‘crafty’ in what I have presented, and is is not rhetorical because I am making no rhetorical statement. I think I have uncovered a basic implication, especially of ResurrectedToday’s general thrust.
It is not that I agree or disagree, I just want to clarify what is really being said, and what really is meant.
Clarify these things for me, if you’d be so kind (but only if you can honestly say “I am one of the ‘generally intelligent’ persons”).
Also, Joe Fowler, you make it sound that this is all a game, and that one has debate strategies and such. I suggest that this might imply that you are attracted to and perhaps more involved in sophistry than in ‘genuine dialectic’. Just a passing thought through an overheated mind …
😉
Alizia Tyler, “you make it sound” that you get paid by the word, with a bonus for qualifiers. ” I suggest that this might imply that you are attracted to and perhaps more involved in” wasting peoples time, and diverting the conversation than in engaging with the topic or comments made about it. Please write a 500 word essay for me on “sophistry” and how blog trolls misuse the word.
Sure, at $5.00 a word paid in advance. 😉
I feel a banning coming. It will be a difficult one for Jack to be sure, but it is coming.
“I don’t see why any black criminal wouldn’t fear being shot for being black;”
Jack – did you mean “would” instead of “wouldn’t”?
“I don’t see why any black criminal wouldn’t fear being shot for being black”
No, that’s what I meant. At this point, I think every black criminal assumes that being black puts them at risk. Every one in their culture tells them so. Ta-Nehisi Coates tells his son that.
You scared me! That would have been a bad sentence to get backwards!
Doesn’t everyone in the culture not also tell criminals that they put themselves at risk?
I think this is where the semantic confusion derives.
Maybe it’s that complete disconnect that some parents have with their children? It seems that so many have just accepted the fact that their kid is a criminal but it’s someone else’s fault when their little baby gets shot dead as a result of their choice to conduct criminal activity? Why not be a responsible parent up front and put a stop to the criminal activity and involve the “children” in non-criminal activities that might help them turn into responsible adults?
Just sayin’…
Thanks – Do you think that fear is limited to criminals? What about suspects? What about drivers pulled over for traffic infractions? (I guess that makes them criminals….no? “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”)
I guess my question is – what value does “criminals” add to your statement as a qualifier?
Resurrected writes:
“Maybe it’s that complete disconnect that some parents have with their children? It seems that so many have just accepted the fact that their kid is a criminal but it’s someone else’s fault when their little baby gets shot dead as a result of their choice to conduct criminal activity? Why not be a responsible parent up front and put a stop to the criminal activity and involve the “children” in non-criminal activities that might help them turn into responsible adults?”
________________
There seem to be various classes:
1) A police officer who murders a fleeing suspect.
2) Actual criminals, involved in actual criminal activity, who are confronted and who get shot and killed.
3) Border-line youth, youths in tough areas, and youths in tough areas who are engaging in risky activities (the kid in the park flailing the toy gun).
4) A driver who gets stopped for a minor issue and who gets shot by a jumpy police officer.
Your example (“To blame the whole based on the few is not only illogical and unethical it’s simply immoral’) applies to number one.
I can’t find much sympathy myself for a store robber like Mike Brown in example two. So I don’t think your phrase applies there (though some hold that it does). In that instance, as far as I was able to tell, no one could have a legitimate grievance. It was a justifiable killing. (Yet I do have the sense that it could have been avoided by the officer backing down and calling in more police. Whether that is a recommended course, I am uncertain. It would be in Europe though and many other places).
Yet the other examples are cases that require a different analytical lens. While the youths do seem to have been borderline youths, or ‘juvenile delinquents’, it does seem questionable (morally) that they end up getting killed. The university cop who shot the driver with the expired plate is a case in point.
Therefore, it is not ‘moral bankruptcy’ to ask questions about the motives of those who killed them). It is as a result of having some moral funds in one’s account.
It would be in my view a mistake and also as you say ‘morally wrong’ to accuse the entire police establishment in the US of racism because Mike Brown got shot. I don’t have much sympathy myself, and when I see and understand what police are up against every day and the dangers they face (and the risk to their lives), I am certainly inclined to offer the benefit of the doubt. I’d even go so far as to say that even if some police act too rashly (when another approach might defuse a given situation), that in an overall numbers game the benefit of police rashness is greater than some lives lost as a result of it. But that is just me.
But it does not seem wrong, to me anyway, to question the other instances, as in three and four.
Stalker Tyler SOP; Stalk down your target, ignore what they said, and spout out a baited comment that’s way out in left field compared to what you are replying to. That’s appears to be typical for you.
Why don’t you dangle your slimy little stalkers bait in front of someone else’s nose, I’m not biting little girl.
Now, stop annoying the real adults around here and go play in the street; your normal 10 steps away from the perfectly good sidewalk will do.
Only two things are going to quell this madness. First: You need some public officials with enough iron in their spine to stand up to these rioting freaks-from-the-streets instead of pandering to them for their votes. Second: You need to make it unprofitable for rent-a-mobs in general. Enforcing the laws strictly is one way. Stripping looters and rioters of their welfare benefits is another.
“Stripping looters and rioters of their welfare benefits is another.”
Shooting rioters and looters works also.
Yep. Unfortunately, it gets you branded as the bad guy in the press, the courts and the halls of the legislature. After all, these are just poor people being deprived of their legitimate aspirations, right? If those aspirations include breaking into stores and procuring what they’ve been denied- like video games, stereos and cash registers- why should those evil cops and store owners be able to shoot them? They’re not REALLY bad…
Actually, and I think this is more truthful: The madness will not end, the madness will increase. There is coming over us, generally speaking, an ever-increasing tide of what you call *madness* which seems to rise up from the irrational side of people.
It seems to me an honest and forthright statement that what is coming to the fore, and what is really being expressed, and yet what is being expressed is being expressed indirectly, and is not fully stated, and cannot be fully stated, is a desire and a need for retribution. The will to get retribution. The will to see retribution acted out. Obviously, this all extends out of racial conflict, out of historical reality, out of social memory, but more than that – if I am seeing rightly – out of perceived historical wounds: There is hardly a rational way for white America to offer retribution or reparations (I mean this at a cosmic level) for the subjugation of black Africans in the Americas. One must take into account – I think – the inexpressible will of the oppressed to get even with those that oppressed them, wounded them. “Stolen from Africa, brought to America, fighting on arrival, fighting for survival”. (Bob Marley)
It also seems to me that the Vision of ‘racial equality’ – I was thinking of King’s speech and the entire romantic/idealistic sentiment which drips out of it – is fundamentally a lie. Our idealisms are nice, our idealisms are nice stories perhaps for our children, but I begin to wonder if they are at all realistic. Time and again they fall to pieces, and then even more wounding is left trailing behind. Now, I don’t invent this ‘truth’ (if it is a truth and I am frankly not sure), I am only trying to organize my perceptions and to attempt to express them rationally, but retribution is, and must be, at the core an act of violence. Yet it will erupt, in one way or another, or in a hundred and a thousand different ways.
White America seems genuinely offended. It has made perhaps the most astounding attempt to rectify the core issues ever made in any unequal society at any time in all of history. But this is not enough. This is I think where the irrational element, a visceral element fundamental to humans (and yet which always disturbs them and thwarts them) comes into play: The tables must be turned. ‘Justice’ means turning the tables. I don’t think it can be expressed like that – outrightly – and yet I think that this is what is being said, and this is also what is heard.
What stvplln writes, therefor, appears to me as nearly absurd. An iron spine means an iron fist. The application of an iron fist will call forth that much more of the unconscious or irrational force – I’d suggest ‘will to power’) – that everyone is observing being enacted before their eyes.
I think that one could go on speaking in honest terms (or, to be fair, and in regard to what I write, in terms that I believe are honest, yet I am not sure, and how could I be sure?) about these events and about everything that is going on around us. A rising tide of madness, the upsurge of the irrational, the sense of things careening out of control or things on the verge of explosion. I have the sense, though, that the act of ‘being honest’ and of ‘stating openly’, or attempting to clarify, is in itself a cause of upset. Opinions differ, and these are highly contentious issues. Some of the most contentious.