100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
United against racism.
|
 Racism is still with us. But it is up to us to prepare our children for what they have to meet, and, hopefully, we shall overcome. Rosa Parks I believe it is something, as an adult or parent, to teach our kids both how it SHOULD be, and how it IS. Ignorance is maybe best fought with education and exposure. The issue stopped being a seat on the bus. WE have to keep fighting ignorance so it doesn't become an issue AGAIN, or much worse. Yes. and it takes a village. I know I am a softy at heart. Without the support system of my elders and family around me, there is no telling the spoiled brats my kids could have become. But I am not the ONLY one impressing upon them, and that balance of me and their other family has been a Godsend. Respect is one of the very important lessons that too many do not have impressed upon them, or at least not the GIVING respect aspect. They know too much about everyone else owing THEM respect. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
United against racism.
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 06/18/20 11:13 AM
|
|
Racism is still with us. But it is up to us to prepare our children for what they have to meet, and, hopefully, we shall overcome. Rosa Parks I believe it is something, as an adult or parent, to teach our kids both how it SHOULD be, and how it IS. Ignorance is maybe best fought with education and exposure. The issue stopped being a seat on the bus. WE have to keep fighting ignorance so it doesn't become an issue AGAIN, or much worse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Impact of the Internet
|
|
I am reminded of something Denzel Washington said "If you don't read the paper, you are uninformed. If you do read it, you are misinformed." That is true of the internet. Too much MISINFORMATION is not the same as being better informed. Knowing more of what is wrong or untrue has less value than knowing less that is right and true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Face-Mask Hoax Being Spread
|
|
masks won't stop you from getting sick...that is the first hoax they need to debunk If you are at risk (or scared), then don't go out. You quarantine the sick, not the healthy. (Although you get an A+ in modern thinking. SUE!! SUE!!! SUE!!!!!!) Who is NOT 'at risk'? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 06/17/20 05:28 PM
|
|
I have empathy for those who are trying to survive the best they can. I do not have empathy for those who are unnecessarily violent toward others, or those who ALREADY have an ample amount for survival and still take advantage of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
|
|
I agree. We also acknowledge what it costs in a region to pay for basic living expenses like rent/mortgage, gas, electric, internet, phone, food, and whether pay in that region is enough to sustain it. And we need to acknowledge which jobs are actually open in a region and how much competition there is for those jobs. That acknowledgment, I think, would follow with the acknowledgment that it is not so simple to just 'get a job', if the purpose of working is to have basic living expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
|
|
It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away. For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes. I think it is a different cultural mentality. I think violence begets violence mostly. Less violence begets less violence, like a cycle. Treat people as a threat, and they start expecting to be seen as a threat, and making poor choices to defend themselves from that. I think also that the UK is much more whitewashed in many places than America, making it easy to see the bad apples as still 'one of us', than here in the US where there are more types of minorities that can be seen as 'them'. These are just thoughts, of course. But I find many countries that have policies that would be decried as 'socialist' here do seem to have more regard for human life and caring about the community and not just the self. Here in the US today, we have those 2 extremes: large urban areas and small rural areas. The people who live there have very different perspectives on life especially when it comes to self sufficiency. There is also much less racial conflict in small cities as there are very few minorities especially African-American. Those that are in the area tend to meld in and be part of the community. Kids all go to the same schools and have the same opportunities and teachers. When you are in the same class, have lunch together, and all support the same sports team for many years you don't recognize that many differences. There is also a much more uniform exposure to role models and people in the community. The larger the cities, the more social and racial dysfunction that exists. I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO. I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them". Making profits off of the work of others is the comparison. That is a bit more complex than merely 'self reliance' or 'caring for oneself'. Self reliance is great, but rarely the simple absolute that the cliche implies. People rely on people. No one lives in a bubble. It is when that wage is set by the masters and not by living standards.I agree though that people will always disagree on their subjective views about what people 'should' be able to do and what they 'could' do for themself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 06/16/20 05:32 PM
|
|
It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away. For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes. I think it is a different cultural mentality. I think violence begets violence mostly. Less violence begets less violence, like a cycle. Treat people as a threat, and they start expecting to be seen as a threat, and making poor choices to defend themselves from that. I think also that the UK is much more whitewashed in many places than America, making it easy to see the bad apples as still 'one of us', than here in the US where there are more types of minorities that can be seen as 'them'. These are just thoughts, of course. But I find many countries that have policies that would be decried as 'socialist' here do seem to have more regard for human life and caring about the community and not just the self. Here in the US today, we have those 2 extremes: large urban areas and small rural areas. The people who live there have very different perspectives on life especially when it comes to self sufficiency. There is also much less racial conflict in small cities as there are very few minorities especially African-American. Those that are in the area tend to meld in and be part of the community. Kids all go to the same schools and have the same opportunities and teachers. When you are in the same class, have lunch together, and all support the same sports team for many years you don't recognize that many differences. There is also a much more uniform exposure to role models and people in the community. The larger the cities, the more social and racial dysfunction that exists. I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO. I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them". Making profits off of the work of others is the comparison. That is a bit more complex than merely 'self reliance' or 'caring for oneself'. Self reliance is great, but rarely the simple absolute that the cliche implies. People rely on people. No one lives in a bubble. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
|
|
It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away. For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes. I think it is a different cultural mentality. I think violence begets violence mostly. Less violence begets less violence, like a cycle. Treat people as a threat, and they start expecting to be seen as a threat, and making poor choices to defend themselves from that. I think also that the UK is much more whitewashed in many places than America, making it easy to see the bad apples as still 'one of us', than here in the US where there are more types of minorities that can be seen as 'them'. These are just thoughts, of course. But I find many countries that have policies that would be decried as 'socialist' here do seem to have more regard for human life and caring about the community and not just the self. Here in the US today, we have those 2 extremes: large urban areas and small rural areas. The people who live there have very different perspectives on life especially when it comes to self sufficiency. There is also much less racial conflict in small cities as there are very few minorities especially African-American. Those that are in the area tend to meld in and be part of the community. Kids all go to the same schools and have the same opportunities and teachers. When you are in the same class, have lunch together, and all support the same sports team for many years you don't recognize that many differences. There is also a much more uniform exposure to role models and people in the community. The larger the cities, the more social and racial dysfunction that exists. I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO. I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
|
|
It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away. For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes. I think it is a different cultural mentality. I think violence begets violence mostly. Less violence begets less violence, like a cycle. Treat people as a threat, and they start expecting to be seen as a threat, and making poor choices to defend themselves from that. I think also that the UK is much more whitewashed in many places than America, making it easy to see the bad apples as still 'one of us', than here in the US where there are more types of minorities that can be seen as 'them'. These are just thoughts, of course. But I find many countries that have policies that would be decried as 'socialist' here do seem to have more regard for human life and caring about the community and not just the self. Here in the US today, we have those 2 extremes: large urban areas and small rural areas. The people who live there have very different perspectives on life especially when it comes to self sufficiency. There is also much less racial conflict in small cities as there are very few minorities especially African-American. Those that are in the area tend to meld in and be part of the community. Kids all go to the same schools and have the same opportunities and teachers. When you are in the same class, have lunch together, and all support the same sports team for many years you don't recognize that many differences. There is also a much more uniform exposure to role models and people in the community. The larger the cities, the more social and racial dysfunction that exists. I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO. I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
|
|
It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away. For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes. I think it is a different cultural mentality. I think violence begets violence mostly. Less violence begets less violence, like a cycle. Treat people as a threat, and they start expecting to be seen as a threat, and making poor choices to defend themselves from that. I think also that the UK is much more whitewashed in many places than America, making it easy to see the bad apples as still 'one of us', than here in the US where there are more types of minorities that can be seen as 'them'. These are just thoughts, of course. But I find many countries that have policies that would be decried as 'socialist' here do seem to have more regard for human life and caring about the community and not just the self. Here in the US today, we have those 2 extremes: large urban areas and small rural areas. The people who live there have very different perspectives on life especially when it comes to self sufficiency. There is also much less racial conflict in small cities as there are very few minorities especially African-American. Those that are in the area tend to meld in and be part of the community. Kids all go to the same schools and have the same opportunities and teachers. When you are in the same class, have lunch together, and all support the same sports team for many years you don't recognize that many differences. There is also a much more uniform exposure to role models and people in the community. The larger the cities, the more social and racial dysfunction that exists. I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO. I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
|
|
It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away. For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes. I think it is a different cultural mentality. I think violence begets violence mostly. Less violence begets less violence, like a cycle. Treat people as a threat, and they start expecting to be seen as a threat, and making poor choices to defend themselves from that. I think also that the UK is much more whitewashed in many places than America, making it easy to see the bad apples as still 'one of us', than here in the US where there are more types of minorities that can be seen as 'them'. These are just thoughts, of course. But I find many countries that have policies that would be decried as 'socialist' here do seem to have more regard for human life and caring about the community and not just the self. Here in the US today, we have those 2 extremes: large urban areas and small rural areas. The people who live there have very different perspectives on life especially when it comes to self sufficiency. There is also much less racial conflict in small cities as there are very few minorities especially African-American. Those that are in the area tend to meld in and be part of the community. Kids all go to the same schools and have the same opportunities and teachers. When you are in the same class, have lunch together, and all support the same sports team for many years you don't recognize that many differences. There is also a much more uniform exposure to role models and people in the community. The larger the cities, the more social and racial dysfunction that exists. I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO. I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
|
|
It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away. For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes. I think it is a different cultural mentality. I think violence begets violence mostly. Less violence begets less violence, like a cycle. Treat people as a threat, and they start expecting to be seen as a threat, and making poor choices to defend themselves from that. I think also that the UK is much more whitewashed in many places than America, making it easy to see the bad apples as still 'one of us', than here in the US where there are more types of minorities that can be seen as 'them'. These are just thoughts, of course. But I find many countries that have policies that would be decried as 'socialist' here do seem to have more regard for human life and caring about the community and not just the self. Here in the US today, we have those 2 extremes: large urban areas and small rural areas. The people who live there have very different perspectives on life especially when it comes to self sufficiency. There is also much less racial conflict in small cities as there are very few minorities especially African-American. Those that are in the area tend to meld in and be part of the community. Kids all go to the same schools and have the same opportunities and teachers. When you are in the same class, have lunch together, and all support the same sports team for many years you don't recognize that many differences. There is also a much more uniform exposure to role models and people in the community. The larger the cities, the more social and racial dysfunction that exists. I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO. I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
|
|
It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away. For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes. I think it is a different cultural mentality. I think violence begets violence mostly. Less violence begets less violence, like a cycle. Treat people as a threat, and they start expecting to be seen as a threat, and making poor choices to defend themselves from that. I think also that the UK is much more whitewashed in many places than America, making it easy to see the bad apples as still 'one of us', than here in the US where there are more types of minorities that can be seen as 'them'. These are just thoughts, of course. But I find many countries that have policies that would be decried as 'socialist' here do seem to have more regard for human life and caring about the community and not just the self. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
United against racism.
|
|
nice thread. I have heard horror stories about palestine and israel. I feel for them both. Thanks, yes it is terrible to live under occupation while the world turns a blind eye to the horrors committed upon them by their occupiers..  Funny how the world hates the USA because it tries to step in on issues like this. Perhaps the eye is blind because its been poked too many times? This thread is not about hating on America, or their policies on Palestine but rather a place to voice solidarity with those suffering from racism from any quarter..   I remember telling people kneeling was not about hating America. People sometimes can only see the symbolism they believe in though. Not saying that is happening here at all. I just feel many things are oversimplified as either loving or hating America, instead of looking at the details on a case by case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back in the 1960’s an experiment was performed on primates .. a group of monkeys were given food if they pulled a chain that delivered an electric shock to a companion monkey . One monkey starved for 12 days .. he would not pull the chain . ..empathy Is an awareness and understanding ... it can challenge /change social behaviour/interaction and influence how we perceive, respond and react . When it comes to successful conflict resolution and connectedness . .. .I believe empathy makes a powerful contribution... .., our global reaction to disasters is just one example . Without empathy that would not happen  They did similar experiments here on humans, to see how much pain they would be willing to inflict upon others just because they were told to, or for money, through shocking them. When us vs them elevates to seeing 'them' as less than human, it becomes dangerous. When the inability to feel for what happens to anyone but us becomes common, I think that we are further digging mankind's own hole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
|
|
It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away. For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes. I have personally not heard of such lawsuits being waged or won either. People, in the end, get held responsible for their own crimes. The answer is not death to avoid lawsuits that would try to argue differently, especially not one that would argue they should kill a person rather than let them run away and 'possibly' cause a car accident or commit some other crime. AS long as they make reasonable effort to DETAIN, (not kill) there is no liability. In the Atlanta case, why didn't they just issue a citation and a summons; take his drivers license, take his car keys, and then let him go wherever he wanted to? Probably not what the law allows them to do. That seems like a difference between intentionally letting someone go and perform something that is a threat to others, and losing someone who is only 'possibly' going to perform something. Big difference. I am sure the law has plenty of discretion on what a cop 'can' do. When they have no obligation to protect, that gives them plenty of discretion. Some people get warnings and others citations. Some pros get taken in and some get used as informants. Discretion is a mainstay of the entire justice system, making social and racial implicit bias even more dangerous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 06/15/20 07:32 PM
|
|
Sorry but empathy is an emotion that is a waste of time and solves no problem. To solve a problem it is necessary to clearly define the problem and then identify the underlying causes for that problem. Only then can you seek plausible solutions to those causes. I will say I have spent more time attempting to understand the racial issues in America. I find it very difficult to find honest information devoid of people's personal agendas. There seem to be many facets of racism that are challenging to understand and impossible when facts and honest communication are impossible to find. I keep hoping that positive solutions will be found but until we get past where we are today, I do not see it as possible. I guess giving some prayers are the best we currently have! Prayers are good. I feel empathy is very powerful. It makes a huge difference, for instance, if a cop or judge can see a kid before them that makes them think of their own. It makes a difference in maybe how quickly they dismiss them or their consequences, or how quickly they assume the worst. Empathy is maybe the difference in how we can revere cops but be unforgiving of poor citizens. Maybe we can see our self in that cops position, whereas we could NEVER see our selves in the position of those making poor or dumb choices. I think Empathy is the spark upon which action often is set off. Too often, if it is not 'my' problem, it is not 'a' problem and not something that the observer feels any need to act upon or do anything about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 06/15/20 07:03 PM
|
|
It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away. For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes. My compassion even falls for poor choices and stupidity, when it comes to death. I have not been free from poor choices or stupid things myself. And I did not and should not expect the death penalty for it. IMHO. When it comes to poor choices and poverty, that is not a call I have the ego to make for strangers. For me, if the effort is being made, help is the human way to respond, especially if it involves children who don't get the choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Police brutality ...
|
|
It seems that the new rule for the police is never shoot anyone who isn't an immediate mortal danger to you or someone in the immediate vicinity. What the criminal did in the past or may do in the future is not relevant. Now we need legislation to protect the police from liability when they let someone who resists arrest run away. For instance the Friday night death in Atlanta. The police could have just given him a summons for DUI and let him go. Had he stumbled into the street and gotten killed by a car, the police would be sued. Had he went home angry and beat up his wife, the police would have been sued. Had he hijacked a car and then killed someone on the road, the police would have been responsible. Why did he resist arrest when it became obvious they were going to take him in and book him? Was there an arrest warrant out for him? Was he not who he claimed to be? It seems that most black men that have been killed by police were either fighting with the officers or running away. What were they trying to hide? Normal people do not resist arrest for most crimes. I have personally not heard of such lawsuits being waged or won either. People, in the end, get held responsible for their own crimes. The answer is not death to avoid lawsuits that would try to argue differently, especially not one that would argue they should kill a person rather than let them run away and 'possibly' cause a car accident or commit some other crime. AS long as they make reasonable effort to DETAIN, (not kill) there is no liability. In the Atlanta case, why didn't they just issue a citation and a summons; take his drivers license, take his car keys, and then let him go wherever he wanted to? Probably not what the law allows them to do. That seems like a difference between intentionally letting someone go and perform something that is a threat to others, and losing someone who is only 'possibly' going to perform something. Big difference. I am sure the law has plenty of discretion on what a cop 'can' do. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
