Mass protests & riots happening over murder by police officers

While he certainly has a point about race and poverty being used as a political football, about taxpayer's money being spent on administering institutions rather than the supposed recipients, and especially that it should be communities themselves that dictate in what shape change comes, he is also working from a fallacy when he espouses these "bootstrap" arguments: social mobility is a myth, propped up by an exception fallacy by citing the few examples of people who were born poor and became successful.

Bob Woodson: Democrats Blame Racism To Deflect Attention From Failures Of Cities They've Run For 50 Years

This is a problem for all Americans, and people of all nations, but African Americans have the added obstacle of having no wealth to inherit from slavery, and the colour of their skin marking them out for discrimination over poor European migrant populations.

Long-term decline in intergenerational mobility in the United States since the 1850s

Bob Woodward is also not addressing the political disenfranchisement of black communities via racial gerrymandering and "voter fraud" legislation designed to suppress ethnic minority voting.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was resolutely non-violent, but did empathise with the frustrations that led to property damage and violence. "Rioting is the language of the unheard." Over half a century ago, he was warning that patience was running thin and time was running out. The economic plight that MLK talked about has not improved.



Bob Woodson likes to say that he doesn't know what "systemic racism" means. Well, if you take an economic system that concentrates capital over generations, then you free slaves into that system without any reparations for their generations of labour, that is the root of systemic racism.

 

18:14. Bob Woodson addresses some of the comments posted with what he refers to as real history

 

You guys have only had integrated schools for 40 odd years, I'd wadger you were still in school whilst they were still seperated, (I know I was) and your claiming this doesn't have an effect on the population?

Edit - look some republicans are taking this seriously.

Mitt Romney marches in George Floyd protest 'to make sure people understand that black lives matter' - CNNPolitics

 

Okay, let's look at the real history.

The federal government essentially created a vast affirmative action federal jobs scheme following emancipation, by signing up freed slaves to the military.

Here's what happened to that:

Here’s Some History to Help Understand the Racial Wealth Gap | AFL-CIO

And agriculture:

How Did African-American Farmers Lose 90 percent of Their Land?

 

It's basically an arms race innit? Everyone has a revolver so someone who's scared of other people wants an automatic. But that means everyone gets automatics so then the scared person now wants a shotgun or an AR15. Everyone gets AR15's so now the scared person wants body armour and red dot sights and night vision. Or a sniper rifle. Then everyone has body armour or sniper rifles so the scared person wants an armoured car to sit in. And so on.
It's a constant surprise to me how accepting of endemic gun ownership Americans are.
One thing that majorly struck me is something Mitlov said years ago in one of the many debates (arguments?) we've had on gun control on MAP over the years. How normal and every day it was to see fairly average Israeli's out and about with military grade weapons on them and how America could be the same. That was a real eye opener and in many ways shut me down from debating gun ownership in the US.
It's a weapon bearing culture and that's that. When an average dude can walk around tooled up like a paramilitary soldier then the police need to be tooled up too and in many ways I'm sympathetic to that. If I was a copper in the US I'd want the best weapons I could lay my hands on.

 

I'm seeing a lot of posts on FB along the lines of...

"Blaming the legitimate protestors for the minority that are rioting and looting is like blaming the police force for the minority that are bad apples".

That comparison would be a lot more germane IMHO if the protestors had been to protestor academy, trained to be protestors, were protestors within a set command structure with accountability and a discipline process, were sanctioned by local and federal government, were protected by decades of a culture of in house silence to wrong doing, etc etc.

 

Yes but see my post on Italy. Israel despite its open carry, the rules and the hoops one must jump through to even acquire a licence are more stringent than the US. Personally I think what out of kilter is the loose definition of what a well regulated militia is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"


"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite:
And their safety and interest require that they should
promote such manufactories, as tend to render them
independent on others, for essential,
particularly for military supplies."

---George Washington
First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

A well regulated to me as a European means a chain of command were the action of individuals are the responsibility of the officer in charge and ...importantly a uniform. There seems to be some weird thinking going on. A Frank Tireur in Iraq who doesn't obey the rules of war by hiding in the crowd of civilians and not wearing a uniform can end up in Guantanamo Bay as a non combatant, but a US citizen can carry weapons under the auspice of being part of a well regulated militia but is not judged by the same standards?

To be clear:

"Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, francs-tireurs are entitled to prisoner-of-war status provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Now I get that there is some sub-clauses to this, namely that population under imminent attack does not have time to devise uniforms nor should be expected to, but if I seem to remember under the articles of war they have to work towards that effect.

One of the memorable things I saw in the WWII Museum in Warsaw was a letter sent by the British and the Americans to the Polish resistance commending them on their efforts and that they would try to provide them with weapons and supplies for their efforts, but there was a caveat that they should abide by the rules of war and wear uniform or be identifiable as a combatant. So what do the polish do?




They create armbands for their resistance militia do?. In the Middle of WWII. Under occupation. They don't complain. They don't argue. They just do it. (These incidentally are prideful Heirlooms for many Polish families. )

Now here is where it get weird. When they do wear a uniform and are identifiable they are termed as "Private Armies" which in many states is a big no-no (presumably because they have no sanctioned chain of command? The buck stops with no-one because bearing arms is an individual right. And confusing the public as to who actually have powers of enforcement? )

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap...hibiting-Private-Armies-at-Public-Rallies.pdf


I think in the past when fighting against the British it was common sense for the Minuteman to leap out of his abode and join the regular army without worrying about a uniform and a chain of command as part of a Militia. He had an excuses. Communication lines were long and Logistics were limited.

Its now 2020. You can Organise via Whatsapp and Amazon can deliver you insignia the next day.

 

But a person could read that..and I'm sure they do...as saying that the right to bear arms is necessary in forming a well regulated militia.
Much in the same way that the key to forming effective archers in medieval Britain was making the general populace practice archery. Like a feeder system of sorts.
Personally I'd see a well regulated militia having some sort of structure and commitment. People with "normal" jobs that commit to regular training and skill upkeep each year, certain stipulations on joining, fitness requirements, etc. A bit like the territorial army in the UK.
If owning a gun was dependent on being part of a well regulated militia with fitness requirements there'd be much less gun ownership in the US!

 

Precisely. And if it becomes your responsibility as an militia officer to keep a watch on who is "fit to bear arms" (while maintaining in theory that all citizens have the right to bear arms), you start to weed out the problematic individuals quite early.You preserve the visibility and legality to bear arms with a uniform. You maintain its safety and integrity by making officers accountable for the actions of the militia. Organisation implies Hierarchy.

EDIT: By the way archers were answerable to the superiors. Where I lived the local Liege at one time was bound to provide with nine lancers and seventeen archers, with the yeomanry answerable to their Knight or Serjeant/Man at arms. Its cool that you can still see sandstone stonework with marks of archery practice.

 

This is a separate issue to how police use those weapons.

Levels of civilians killed by police does not correlate with levels of violent crime by city.

Lots of good statistics here, as there is no complete federal database on killings by police, it has to be crowdsourced: Mapping Police Violence

 

Interesting article and video about how black people in the US do not enjoy the same freedoms as white people to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms (seeing as you guys got into the 2nd Amendment):

Do Black Citizens Have a Right to Bear Arms? - CityLab

 

I just want to clarify that my defensive firearm of choice is a snubnose revolver, I don't own an AR or other tactical rifle, I rarely carry (it mostly lives in a quick-access safe), and when I do carry, I carry concealed. You just made me sound like one of those guys who marches into government buildings with a rifle and a Gadsden flag.

 

Speaking of Obama and law enforcement, here is his Task Force Report on 21st Century Policing. There's a LOT of good stuff in here. And when you look at modern police forces that do their job right, they tend to follow this model (the Sheriff from Flint, and southern Oregon law enforcement). And those that don't, like Buffalo PD or Minneapolis PD, they're not remotely in line with these principles.

Some departments need to hit the reset button with culture and training to become 21st century law enforcement. That might involve removing top brass in some circumstances. But I don't think taking away SWAT gear or issuing different uniforms will help.

https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf

 

Those 2 cops who pushed over the old man and walked past as his head was pouring blood over the street? Just got released without bail to applause from a crowd.

Apologies, I can't find the original video, but it is at 2.45 here:


I think prosecutors should take their union's Nuremberg defence at face value and prosecute their superiors.

 

That can't be real. Please tell me that's not real.

 

Sigh. It's 100% real. Just like when he quoted a segregationist and threatening protesters with dogs. I just can't even put it into words anymore. My arms are just gesticulating.

 

Apologies. Wasn't my intention. Think it was the juxtaposition of one point (the arms race to get the best weapons between the general population and the police) with another point (how bizarrely (to many people) every-day weapon ownage and usage is in the US).
I know you're one of the good guys in the gun debate but your "open gun ownership and carrying can be normal...just look at Israel" rebuttal was very illuminating to me as to how entrenched guns are in the American psyche.

 

After he has to step down, (let's hope that happens eh) if he ever gets prosecuted for God knows what (emoluments at least) do you think he'll claim insanity, and if so do you think that since he's obviously got dementia on top of perhaps several competing mental disorders, it would be the right call.

Of course if that were true the republicans would of removed him, unless the republicans care more about winning short politics then they do about the nation's wellbeing/strength.