Just Sad, "Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years"

[Dominator83]

after trump's "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" tweet, posted to facebook and echoing segregationists in the '60s, facebook employees walked off the job when zuckerberg refused to act on it. he had previously said that he would draw the line at posts calling for violence

What on gods earth did that statement have to do with segregationists in the 60s? The looters were white, black, brown, etc.

Didn’t the shooting start after the looting? People were shot and killed and police were shot at and killed. Some store owners were protecting their store with guns possibly shooting at looters if they were attacked. What was so bad about that statement?

LA Riots same thing...people started looting and plenty of shooting afterwards. Roof Koreans. Looters shooting back, etc. Zero cops were around for those riots during the prime moments.

I’m trying to figure out what was so wrong with that factual statement?

Yea buddy. If I owned a small business right now, my ass would be camped out in my store, locked and loaded. Once my door or glass is broken and someone jumps in, they'd be in for a major surprise.

[SHO'NUFF]

How many people have heard of Tony Timpa? Not many. Since the media barely covered his murder, it simply never happened to most people.

just saw some divisive right wing blogger on twitter circulating the same 2 videos that you posted. "you've never heard his name because he's white"

as it turns out, the body cam footage of the arrest didn't get released until 3 years after his death. well after the cases against the officers had been dropped because it was determined they had not acted recklessly. certainly not maliciously. the officers made a number of mistakes, but it was hardly a "murder", as you call it. and he had a toxic level of cocaine in his system. stories by NYT, wapo and cnn come up on google before the dallas ft. worth coverage. usa today, the major networks, huffpost, us news, slate, daily beast, yahoo, vice, newsweek and even the guardian, independent and daily mail all covered it

I honestly can’t believe you would say that. Do me a favor and watch the video again....If you believe what you said then you must believe that 50% of cops killing innocent black people were all “number of mistakes” & “hardly a murder.”

They dug his face in the ground...
They laughed at him
Joked about killing him
Joked about him dying
Joked about where he lived

If he were black man you’d NEVER say cops made mistakes & it’s hardly a “murder”. Or would you? Tell that to his family....

[Dominator83]

How many people have heard of Tony Timpa? Not many. Since the media barely covered his murder, it simply never happened to most people.

just saw some divisive right wing blogger on twitter circulating the same 2 videos that you posted. "you've never heard his name because he's white"

as it turns out, the body cam footage of the arrest didn't get released until 3 years after his death. well after the cases against the officers had been dropped because it was determined they had not acted recklessly. certainly not maliciously. the officers made a number of mistakes, but it was hardly a "murder", as you call it. and he had a toxic level of cocaine in his system. stories by NYT, wapo and cnn come up on google before the dallas ft. worth coverage. usa today, the major networks, huffpost, us news, slate, daily beast, yahoo, vice, newsweek and even the guardian, independent and daily mail all covered it

I honestly can’t believe what you just said. Do me a favor and actually watch the video....If you believe what you said then you believe that 50% of cops killing innocent blacks people were all “number of mistakes”.


They dug his face in the ground...
They laughed at him
Joked about killing him
Joked about him dying
Joked about where he lived
If he were black man you’d NEVER say cops made mistakes. Tell that to his family....

Exactly. If he was black the entire country would know his name. There are BLM martyrs that were far worse human beings than this guy was. Yet nobody's ever heard a peep about him.

If news outlets, especially Yahoo news wanna constantly include race in the headlines every little time a white does a black wrong, then fine. But call it down the middle. When there's black on white put that in the headlines too. Be fair. News outlets like Yahoo constantly looking to stir the pot is why the racial divide in this country has gone backwards the last decade. By a lot. I know a lot of people like to blame Obama, but no. Obama was a solid guy all things considered. Its the media and their one sided reporting and half truths. Perfect example about the transgender black a page back. Make him sound like a victim but conveniently left out the whole story just to get the looters more riled up. They never let the truth get in the way of a good story or agenda.

All it does is pin everybody against each other. Even people that are good people and just want a more peaceful world are at each other's throats. Plenty of feuds within this thread and I don't believe a single one of us on this forum is a bad guy or has bad intentions. We all want a safe crime free planet, just different views and opinions as to why it isn't anywhere near that or how to get there. Not much different from when we argue on here about who we want the Bulls to draft, hire, sign, trade, etc. We all want the Bulls to get to championship #7 and beyond. We just don't all agree on what the best route is to get there. But at the end of the day were all friends on here and have great camaraderie. Hopefully that remains.

[dougthonus]

The protests are not just about the killing. It's about the daily humiliation so many minorities have faced from police across the country. You don't think that's a common occurrence? You think it's just a media driven problem? Listen to some of the interviews that are being broadcast- there are a lot of them on the air. Reporters talking to black folks from all walks of life- some well to do, living in nice areas, some working class, living in tough areas- and they're all telling stories of unfair treatment at the hands of the police, of being treated differently than white people, of being afraid of the police and what they may do to them, and being sick and tired of it. You really think all these people are just making this stuff up? Or that it's all being fabricated by the media?

I think taking media interviews is obviously a god awful way to figure out if its a real problem for a few reasons:

1: People at this exact moment in time, whom are angry, may be motivated to exaggerate or lie because they want to support a cause they care about. The timing makes the information people are giving far less reliable.

2: The media is clearly out there searching for a specific story most of the time. They can interview 100 people and only air the one that tells the story they want to tell and are going to areas specifically to look for people to tell a story. Journalism is rarely unbiased. I doubt they have to look hard for this story right now of course.

Neither of these things mean that this is fabricated or not a real issue. Just that using anecdotal media interviews as evidence isn't scientific and is a god awful way to draw conclusions. Anecdotal stories always hit people hardest and draw the most visceral reactions, but they also lead to the least accurate conclusions.

So I do think this is a real problem. I don't think it's made up or fabricated, but I don't think we understand the magnitude of the problem, and I don't think the media helps you with that and often think the media coverage of a hot button story grossly exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.

[dougthonus]

Exactly. If he was black the entire country would know his name. There are BLM martyrs that were far worse human beings than this guy was. Yet nobody's ever heard a peep about him.

Do you really think that overall, white people are hurt more by police bias and brutality than black people? Especially over a long period of time, say the past 50 years? I'm not sure we are past the point now in this country, but there was a huge period of time not that long ago where any black on white crime was punished exponentially compared to the reverse.

Studies have showed blacks are more likely to receive harsher sentences for the same crimes, more likely to be imprisoned, and are targeted by police unfairly.

Maybe this one white dude got an unfair shake. I'm sure there are lots of white guys who've gotten an unfair shake. I'm sure our justice system isn't fair overall. However, on aggregate, as soon as we started keeping stats, we've seen that black people get a massively less fair shake than white people.

Not that anyone cares, but they've also done studies showing that good looking people are also massively favored in our justice system vs less good looking people. So it's not like bias is just black/white, bias exists in all kinds of ways.

What you can say pretty definitively is that being a white male in America is the best racial profile you can be. While I think most people in this country would want everything to be fair, I would say this isn't unusual. I'd guess being a male of the majority race in literally any country in the world is probably your idea scenario if you live there.

If news outlets, especially Yahoo news wanna constantly include race in the headlines every little time a white does a black wrong, then fine. But call it down the middle. When there's black on white put that in the headlines too.

A few things:
1: This pendulum generally swung the other way for almost the entire history of our country.

2: A huge portion of the media does cover things right down the middle and is fair.

3: Another big portion of the media is in this thing only to generate clicks, views, likes, etc, and is not trying to create balance but looking out only for their economic interest.

[Dominator83]

Exactly. If he was black the entire country would know his name. There are BLM martyrs that were far worse human beings than this guy was. Yet nobody's ever heard a peep about him.

Do you really think that overall, white people are hurt more by police bias and brutality than black people? Especially over a long period of time, say the past 50 years? I'm not sure we are past the point now in this country, but there was a huge period of time not that long ago where any black on white crime was punished exponentially compared to the reverse.

Studies have showed blacks are more likely to receive harsher sentences for the same crimes, more likely to be imprisoned, and are targeted by police unfairly.

Maybe this one white dude got an unfair shake. I'm sure there are lots of white guys who've gotten an unfair shake. I'm sure our justice system isn't fair overall. However, on aggregate, as soon as we started keeping stats, we've seen that black people get a massively less fair shake than white people.

Not that anyone cares, but they've also done studies showing that good looking people are also massively favored in our justice system vs less good looking people. So it's not like bias is just black/white, bias exists in all kinds of ways.

What you can say pretty definitively is that being a white male in America is the best racial profile you can be. While I think most people in this country would want everything to be fair, I would say this isn't unusual. I'd guess being a male of the majority race in literally any country in the world is probably your idea scenario if you live there.

If news outlets, especially Yahoo news wanna constantly include race in the headlines every little time a white does a black wrong, then fine. But call it down the middle. When there's black on white put that in the headlines too.

A few things:
1: This pendulum generally swung the other way for almost the entire history of our country.

2: A huge portion of the media does cover things right down the middle and is fair.

3: Another big portion of the media is in this thing only to generate clicks, views, likes, etc, and is not trying to create balance but looking out only for their economic interest.

The police and black relationship is definitely worse I can definitely agree to that. I think they both make each other lives a lot harder than it needs to be. I really think they should limit the police in black neighborhoods and only have it be black police officers in those areas. White cops in black neighborhoods has been a brutal marriage that's long overdue for a divorce. White police presence has never made a black neighborhood safer or more peaceful. Limiting presence and having it be black presence would probably go a further way and building some trust between the police and the community. It's worth a shot gotta try something different.

[dougthonus]

The police and black relationship is definitely worse I can definitely agree to that. I think they both make each other lives a lot harder than it needs to be. I really think they should limit the police in black neighborhoods and only have it be black police officers in those areas. White cops in black neighborhoods has been a brutal marriage that's long overdue for a divorce. White police presence has never made a black neighborhood safer or more peaceful. Limiting presence and having it be black presence would probably go a further way and building some trust between the police and the community. It's worth a shot gotta try something different.

The downside of that is you are probably limiting police tension but increasing racial tension. Also where do you draw the line? Do only black judges / juries / prosecutors work on black cases going forward? Do you do that with companies and hiring? It may only be a small step, but you are moving towards creating a society of segregation and while that may help with this singular problem in the short term, it likely leads to vastly bigger problems in the long term.

[League Circles]

I 100% understand the desire by some people to have sort of independent, black staffed police departments in so called black neighborhoods.

I think it's a bad idea in the sense that the cons outweigh the pros. If anything, an effort should be made to have black officers as well distributed in so called black neighborhoods as resources will allow. That would achieve much of the same outcome IMO, without the inherent drawbacks and anti-American philosophy of group identity politics. I don't believe in identifying "communities" by perceived nominal dominant color of skin among the residents, regardless of how imprecisely accurate it may or may not be. If we go down that road we might as well give the whole **** thing up (society/civilization). Those who insist on grouping people vs treating them as individuals may call my neighborhood "white", ignoring the numerous, though of course minority, black resident count, the many many Hispanics, etc.

[DuckIII]

The police and black relationship is definitely worse I can definitely agree to that. I think they both make each other lives a lot harder than it needs to be. I really think they should limit the police in black neighborhoods and only have it be black police officers in those areas. White cops in black neighborhoods has been a brutal marriage that's long overdue for a divorce. White police presence has never made a black neighborhood safer or more peaceful. Limiting presence and having it be black presence would probably go a further way and building some trust between the police and the community. It's worth a shot gotta try something different.

Here’s something different:

1. Police and police hierarchy treating police like any other wrongdoer. Police proudly talk about their brotherhood and defending each other from outside criticism at all times. Whether it’s corruption, crime unrelated to race, or racial injustice and intimidation, police forces around the nation “proudly” close ranks to hide truth and avoid consequences.

This is the norm, everyone knows it, its horribly unjust, and leads to many of these issues. People, both well meaning and racist trolls, say we should not judge police based on the actions of a few bad cops. But police as an institution protect, and therefore facilitate, this behavior. And people know it and are outraged.

In many professions, mine included, we are not only encouraged to report misconduct of our peers, we are ethically required to report it and if it is discovered we did not report it, we are subject to penalties ourselves. Professions like law enforcement should be expected to MORE strictly police themselves. But they do the exact opposite and to the extreme. How’s that for trying something different?

2. The outrage is not just incidents with police. These are tipping points, but it’s always there, beneath the surface. Know why? “The lame stream media blows racial issues out of proportion.” Electing a Birther President immediately following the first black president. “All lives matter.” Making videos burning Nike apparel and Kaepernick merchandise. POTUS saying there were “fine people” at a murderous neo-Nazi rally. VP Pence staging a photo op walk out at a Colts game as soon as players kneeled in a peaceful demonstration regarding police violence.

Do you think people are stupid? That these obviously racist acts and sentiments from so many, all the way to the very top of our “freedom loving” government, are clever or somehow considered to be interestingly ambiguous or constructive? Everyone knows what’s going on. Everyone knows what things mean. It’s not surprising that it’s only the ignorant mouth breathing racists who think these things fall in some kind of grey area.

[dougthonus]

In many professions, mine included, we are not only encouraged to report misconduct of our peers, we are ethically required to report it and if it is discovered we did not report it, we are subject to penalties ourselves. Professions like law enforcement should be expected to MORE strictly police themselves. But they do the exact opposite and to the extreme. How’s that for trying something different?

I agree with the problem you stated. Do you think that this is effective in your line of occupation? Whistleblowing in general doesn't seem to be effective. I think if you work within the same organization as someone else, it's extremely difficult to whistleblow and that this general mentality always exists.

Not saying it is right, but I do think it's extremely difficult to change that culture. For the past 15 years or so I've been an IT manager. I once had an employee that would sleep under his desk after I left the office everyday. I left at 3pm because I was on an early shift and he was 10-7. As it turns out, about half the office knew it, but no one would say anything, and I only found out after I filed him for lack of productivity. There are countless less egregious examples I can think of that people knew things that were going on but wouldn't say anything. Not snitching is just part of our culture in general.

[League Circles]

Here’s something different:

1. Police and police hierarchy treating police like any other wrongdoer. Police proudly talk about their brotherhood and defending each other from outside criticism at all times. Whether it’s corruption, crime unrelated to race, or racial injustice and intimidation, police forces around the nation “proudly” close ranks to hide truth and avoid consequences.

This is the norm, everyone knows it, its horribly unjust, and leads to many of these issues. People, both well meaning and racist trolls, say we should not judge police based on the actions of a few bad cops. But police as an institution protect, and therefore facilitate, this behavior. And people know it and are outraged.

In many professions, mine included, we are not only encouraged to report misconduct of our peers, we are ethically required to report it and if it is discovered we did not report it, we are subject to penalties ourselves. Professions like law enforcement should be expected to MORE strictly police themselves. But they do the exact opposite and to the extreme. How’s that for trying something different?

2. The outrage is not just incidents with police. These are tipping points, but it’s always there, beneath the surface. Know why? “The lame stream media blows racial issues out of proportion.” Electing a Birther President immediately following the first black president. “All lives matter.” Making videos burning Nike apparel and Kaepernick merchandise. POTUS saying there were “fine people” at a murderous neo-Nazi rally. VP Pence staging a photo op walk out at a Colts game as soon as players kneeled in a peaceful demonstration regarding police violence.

Do you think people are stupid? That these obviously racist acts and sentiments from so many, all the way to the very top of our “freedom loving” government, are clever or somehow considered to be interestingly ambiguous or constructive? Everyone knows what’s going on. Everyone knows what things mean. It’s not surprising that it’s only the ignorant mouth breathing racists who think these things fall in some kind of grey area.

Excellent post. I basically agree with every word. Just wanted to add two notes/qualifiers:

Unfortunately, Trump, who I have always despised (and FWIW the only "Republican" I've ever voted for for POTUS was Ron Paul who sort of doesn't count especially cause he wasn't running as a repub), is, IMO, dead right on the lame stream media manipulating the public on countless issues, including police brutality against blacks and including him. Unfortunately for him, he happens to be among the very worst offenders of the real problem he identifies (widespread manipulation of the public - he mostly uses Twitter in his efforts to lead the lame stream media).

Second, as a person you know many/most/all of the types of actions you mention to be racist, and I agree, and they are extremely disappointing and distasteful in a racist way at a minimum, and outright hostile in many cases. That said, as an attorney, I'm sure you can see that in most of these cases, there is ostensible "reasonable doubt" regarding the charge of racism. The racists are very good and careful at using coded language to say and do racist things in a way that a strict reductionist analytical mindset may find reasonable doubt. So they position themselves to appeal to racists, with the ostensibly, nominal reasonable doubt prepared to defend against critics.

It's annoying as hell and rampant, BUT, my opinion is that there is SO MUCH OTHER more transparent and indisputable stuff to criticize and work against, primarily policy but also other words, tweets, imagery, etc, that it's strategically prudent for the left and the media to frankly ignore the theoretical gray area stuff. I think it will help win a few more hearts and minds from the "right", which is what's needed to unseat Trump.

[League Circles]

Here’s something different:

1. Police and police hierarchy treating police like any other wrongdoer. Police proudly talk about their brotherhood and defending each other from outside criticism at all times. Whether it’s corruption, crime unrelated to race, or racial injustice and intimidation, police forces around the nation “proudly” close ranks to hide truth and avoid consequences.

This is the norm, everyone knows it, its horribly unjust, and leads to many of these issues. People, both well meaning and racist trolls, say we should not judge police based on the actions of a few bad cops. But police as an institution protect, and therefore facilitate, this behavior. And people know it and are outraged.

In many professions, mine included, we are not only encouraged to report misconduct of our peers, we are ethically required to report it and if it is discovered we did not report it, we are subject to penalties ourselves. Professions like law enforcement should be expected to MORE strictly police themselves. But they do the exact opposite and to the extreme. How’s that for trying something different?

2. The outrage is not just incidents with police. These are tipping points, but it’s always there, beneath the surface. Know why? “The lame stream media blows racial issues out of proportion.” Electing a Birther President immediately following the first black president. “All lives matter.” Making videos burning Nike apparel and Kaepernick merchandise. POTUS saying there were “fine people” at a murderous neo-Nazi rally. VP Pence staging a photo op walk out at a Colts game as soon as players kneeled in a peaceful demonstration regarding police violence.

Do you think people are stupid? That these obviously racist acts and sentiments from so many, all the way to the very top of our “freedom loving” government, are clever or somehow considered to be interestingly ambiguous or constructive? Everyone knows what’s going on. Everyone knows what things mean. It’s not surprising that it’s only the ignorant mouth breathing racists who think these things fall in some kind of grey area.

Excellent post. I basically agree with every word. Just wanted to add two notes/qualifiers:

Unfortunately, Trump, who I have always despised (and FWIW the only "Republican" I've ever voted for for POTUS was Ron Paul who sort of doesn't count especially cause he wasn't running as a repub), is, IMO, dead right on the lame stream media manipulating the public on countless issues, including police brutality against blacks and including him. Unfortunately for him, he happens to be among the very worst offenders of the real problem he identifies (widespread manipulation of the public - he mostly uses Twitter in his efforts to lead the lame stream media).

Second, as a person you know many/most/all of the types of actions you mention to be racist, and I agree, and they are extremely disappointing and distasteful in a racist way at a minimum, and outright hostile in many cases. That said, as an attorney, I'm sure you can see that in most of these cases, there is ostensible "reasonable doubt" regarding the charge of racism. The racists are very good and careful at using coded language to say and do racist things in a way that a strict reductionist analytical mindset may find reasonable doubt. So they position themselves to appeal to racists, with the ostensibly, nominal reasonable doubt prepared to defend against critics.

It's annoying as hell and rampant, BUT, my opinion is that there is SO MUCH OTHER more transparent and indisputable stuff to criticize and work against, primarily policy but also other words, tweets, imagery, etc, that it's strategically prudent for the left and the media to frankly ignore the theoretical gray area stuff. I think it will help win a few more hearts and minds from the "right", which is what's needed to unseat Trump.

[Dresden]

The protests are not just about the killing. It's about the daily humiliation so many minorities have faced from police across the country. You don't think that's a common occurrence? You think it's just a media driven problem? Listen to some of the interviews that are being broadcast- there are a lot of them on the air. Reporters talking to black folks from all walks of life- some well to do, living in nice areas, some working class, living in tough areas- and they're all telling stories of unfair treatment at the hands of the police, of being treated differently than white people, of being afraid of the police and what they may do to them, and being sick and tired of it. You really think all these people are just making this stuff up? Or that it's all being fabricated by the media?

I think taking media interviews is obviously a god awful way to figure out if its a real problem for a few reasons:

1: People at this exact moment in time, whom are angry, may be motivated to exaggerate or lie because they want to support a cause they care about. The timing makes the information people are giving far less reliable.

2: The media is clearly out there searching for a specific story most of the time. They can interview 100 people and only air the one that tells the story they want to tell and are going to areas specifically to look for people to tell a story. Journalism is rarely unbiased. I doubt they have to look hard for this story right now of course.

Neither of these things mean that this is fabricated or not a real issue. Just that using anecdotal media interviews as evidence isn't scientific and is a god awful way to draw conclusions. Anecdotal stories always hit people hardest and draw the most visceral reactions, but they also lead to the least accurate conclusions.

So I do think this is a real problem. I don't think it's made up or fabricated, but I don't think we understand the magnitude of the problem, and I don't think the media helps you with that and often think the media coverage of a hot button story grossly exaggerates the magnitude of the problem.

If that's your reasoning, then what you are saying is it's not important to listen to people in the aggrieved group. It's not important to have them tell their stories, because we aren't going to learn anything about the problem by listening to them. When people like Michael Jordan and Michelle Obama say their hearts are broken and they are tired of the way things are, that's doesn't help you to know there is a problem? When there are hearing on police discrimination in your local municipality and the public is invited, you don't think it's worth hearing those voices tell about their experiences because they aren't going to help you know if there is a problem or not? You are dead wrong about that, if that's what you believe.

[SalmonsSuperfan]

after trump's "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" tweet, posted to facebook and echoing segregationists in the '60s, facebook employees walked off the job when zuckerberg refused to act on it. he had previously said that he would draw the line at posts calling for violence

What on gods earth did that statement have to do with segregationists in the 60s? The looters were white, black, brown, etc.

Didn’t the shooting start after the looting? People were shot and killed and police were shot at and killed. Some store owners were protecting their store with guns possibly shooting at looters if they were attacked. What was so bad about that statement?

LA Riots same thing...people started looting and plenty of shooting afterwards. Roof Koreans. Looters shooting back, etc. Zero cops were around for those riots during the prime moments.

I’m trying to figure out what was so wrong with that factual statement?

Yea buddy. If I owned a small business right now, my ass would be camped out in my store, locked and loaded. Once my door or glass is broken and someone jumps in, they'd be in for a major surprise.

or buy some **** insurance

stuff like this really exposes the flaws in the market and the market-derived way of thinking of people like you: that 'things' are more important than people. and that you fantasize about killing people who take things. it's kind of sick actually.

this whole thread is a disaster -- the first couple posts are literally about sending the military to black neighborhoods in chicago and sending even more people to prison for longer. really disappointed in realgm f=10

[Red8911]

after trump's "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" tweet, posted to facebook and echoing segregationists in the '60s, facebook employees walked off the job when zuckerberg refused to act on it. he had previously said that he would draw the line at posts calling for violence

What on gods earth did that statement have to do with segregationists in the 60s? The looters were white, black, brown, etc.

Didn’t the shooting start after the looting? People were shot and killed and police were shot at and killed. Some store owners were protecting their store with guns possibly shooting at looters if they were attacked. What was so bad about that statement?

LA Riots same thing...people started looting and plenty of shooting afterwards. Roof Koreans. Looters shooting back, etc. Zero cops were around for those riots during the prime moments.

I’m trying to figure out what was so wrong with that factual statement?

Yea buddy. If I owned a small business right now, my ass would be camped out in my store, locked and loaded. Once my door or glass is broken and someone jumps in, they'd be in for a major surprise.

Exactly and if they break in you have the right to shoot them. Many business owners who don’t own a gun or don’t want to wait there over night are just paying to install plywood to cover the store.

[League Circles]

What on gods earth did that statement have to do with segregationists in the 60s? The looters were white, black, brown, etc.

Didn’t the shooting start after the looting? People were shot and killed and police were shot at and killed. Some store owners were protecting their store with guns possibly shooting at looters if they were attacked. What was so bad about that statement?

LA Riots same thing...people started looting and plenty of shooting afterwards. Roof Koreans. Looters shooting back, etc. Zero cops were around for those riots during the prime moments.

I’m trying to figure out what was so wrong with that factual statement?

Yea buddy. If I owned a small business right now, my ass would be camped out in my store, locked and loaded. Once my door or glass is broken and someone jumps in, they'd be in for a major surprise.

or buy some **** insurance

stuff like this really exposes the flaws in the market and the market-derived way of thinking of people like you: that 'things' are more important than people. and that you fantasize about killing people who take things. it's kind of sick actually.

this whole thread is a disaster -- the first couple posts are literally about sending the military to black neighborhoods in chicago and sending even more people to prison for longer. really disappointed in realgm f=10

There has been a ton of positive thought in this thread as well. You should really drop the group perspective. You should never be disappointed or proud of a group. We learned that over hundreds and thousands of years.

[Red8911]

What on gods earth did that statement have to do with segregationists in the 60s? The looters were white, black, brown, etc.

Didn’t the shooting start after the looting? People were shot and killed and police were shot at and killed. Some store owners were protecting their store with guns possibly shooting at looters if they were attacked. What was so bad about that statement?

LA Riots same thing...people started looting and plenty of shooting afterwards. Roof Koreans. Looters shooting back, etc. Zero cops were around for those riots during the prime moments.

I’m trying to figure out what was so wrong with that factual statement?

Yea buddy. If I owned a small business right now, my ass would be camped out in my store, locked and loaded. Once my door or glass is broken and someone jumps in, they'd be in for a major surprise.

or buy some **** insurance

stuff like this really exposes the flaws in the market and the market-derived way of thinking of people like you: that 'things' are more important than people. and that you fantasize about killing people who take things. it's kind of sick actually.

this whole thread is a disaster -- the first couple posts are literally about sending the military to black neighborhoods in chicago and sending even more people to prison for longer. really disappointed in realgm f=10

These looters have been breaking doors/storefronts glass to get in then they start breaking everything inside and then they steal whatever they can. If this store has expensive stuff inside which insurance is going to cover that?

Also the store owner with the gun is protecting himself and the store, why is he the bad guy? The looters are the ones committing the crimes. Let’s not forget most of these guys are not even protesters and do not care about this movement, they are just criminals that are taking advantage of the situation. Don’t blame the owners though for protecting their property with a gun if they choose to.

[dougthonus]

If that's your reasoning, then what you are saying is it's not important to listen to people in the aggrieved group. It's not important to have them tell their stories, because we aren't going to learn anything about the problem by listening to them. When people like Michael Jordan and Michelle Obama say their hearts are broken and they are tired of the way things are, that's doesn't help you to know there is a problem? When there are hearing on police discrimination in your local municipality and the public is invited, you don't think it's worth hearing those voices tell about their experiences because they aren't going to help you know if there is a problem or not? You are dead wrong about that, if that's what you believe.

Nothing I said is even remotely related to anything you wrote. Nothing you inferred about my opinion is accurate, and quite honestly, I don't know how you jumped to anything you wrote based on what I said.

To try and simplify it more:
Anecdotal evidence isn't a reliable method for determining the size, scope, cause, or solutions to a problem. Data backed studies are more useful in doing all of those things. We should rely on the second and not the first.

Some side things to remember as well:
This problem hasn't fundamentally changed in the last two weeks because of one incident and a bunch of media coverage, just the amount of focus it has at this moment has changed. The rationale behavior of what is best for the country hasn't changed because public focus has changed.

None of this means it doesn't exist, isn't important, or shouldn't be looked at. It just means my opinion on any of those topics doesn't count media interviews as an important data point. I would qualify myself as generally ignorant on the issue, it's prevalence, and solutions, but I do think there is something here that needs to be fixed.

As I've noted in previous posts, I believe the growing wealth imbalance between rich and poor as well as wealth/power divides down racial lines are the root causes of many of these problems, and I would focus my efforts there first.

[Bluewaterheaven]

What on gods earth did that statement have to do with segregationists in the 60s? The looters were white, black, brown, etc.

Didn’t the shooting start after the looting? People were shot and killed and police were shot at and killed. Some store owners were protecting their store with guns possibly shooting at looters if they were attacked. What was so bad about that statement?

LA Riots same thing...people started looting and plenty of shooting afterwards. Roof Koreans. Looters shooting back, etc. Zero cops were around for those riots during the prime moments.

I’m trying to figure out what was so wrong with that factual statement?

Yea buddy. If I owned a small business right now, my ass would be camped out in my store, locked and loaded. Once my door or glass is broken and someone jumps in, they'd be in for a major surprise.

or buy some **** insurance

stuff like this really exposes the flaws in the market and the market-derived way of thinking of people like you: that 'things' are more important than people. and that you fantasize about killing people who take things. it's kind of sick actually.

this whole thread is a disaster -- the first couple posts are literally about sending the military to black neighborhoods in chicago and sending even more people to prison for longer. really disappointed in realgm f=10

I really hate the insurance argument. Just like COVID showed, when a business needs to take a while to open back up, it got a strong chance of closing. Yah insurance will pay to rebuild, but it isn’t going to cover debt payments, rent, etc. and all the people who worked there? They are **** out of luck too.

[2018C3]

Concerning Chicago and the stats I can find, The racial makeup of Chicago's Police department is approximately 50% White. 25% Hispanic, and 21% African American.

The Demographics of the city in the last census were 45.3% White, 31.7% Hispanic, 32% black, 5% Asian, and 3% other.

White officers are slightly over represented by about 5 percent , and Hispanic and Black Officers are each under represented by about 6 and 11 percent.

I was expecting to see the numbers even more lopsided, but regardless work still needs to be done to fix thees numbers and more minorities need to be brought into police work.

I have a friend now who about 25 years ago wanted to become a officer like his father and brother. but before he could enter training said he got busted with some weed in his car and this prevented him from pursuing that career. If this story is true this may possibly have also played some sort of role in the percentages we see today. He is now a forest ranger instead.

In my last job I was supporting a banks IT system with direct access to sensitive information via a 2nd party consulting company. The background checks were very particular, and all the employees had to have spotless records, a single conviction on record no matter how far back prevented anyone on the team to work on this account. There were a few good people I worked with from past other accounts that could not be placed do to a previous run in.