Oh, the motivation might be different from the stated reason. But they stated a reason, so they were trying to create some type of solidarity with a chosen cohort.
[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black
- Thread starter Estebonrober
- Start date
- Status
Berzerker
Deity
I imagine they thought the guy knew what he was doing and they didn't want to get fired. Had they known Floyd was going to die they might have done more, but nobody was running to save Floyd. Nobody wanted to get in trouble.
H4run
Deity
Even that reason is very lame and disappointing. They quit the job to give support to the criminal who shoved the guy to the concrete? Ugh
It would be more respectful if they resign to show support to the senior citizen, or they are resign because they feel ashamed for what their coworker did. They resign to support people's protest. etc
Out of all probability, they choose to resign to support a criminal friend, they don't feel remorse, they don't feel what happened as wrong.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,270
It's like ~38x, but like El Mac pointed out, it's a truthiness sort of territory that makes you WTH when you're drunk and not catching the bait and switch from one thing to a different thing.
zxcvbob
Emperor
They did not quit the force. (unfortunately) They quit the Emergency Response Team:
https://nypost.com/2020/06/05/buffalo-emergency-response-team-quits-in-solidarity-of-cops/
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,861
Ah, I thought they (allegedly) quit in solidarity with the senior citizen. I misunderstood, @zxcvbob link told me the truth.
And when they come out?
I think that part of the training in some places must be like here (where, relevantly, we're seeing a sordid little increase of police brutality) where first they're taught to obey and ‘respect’ the veterans of the force.
The majority of the people who do the work in the NFL might be black, but how many executives are? 'tis a strange parallelism with the situation of US agriculture in the 1850s.
H4run
Deity
Sensation seeker. They want to get something without paying any price, typical police lol.
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
It sounds incorrect to me. According to the FBI, there were 48 police officers killed in the line of duty in 2019 from felonious activities. Also, according to https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ in 2019 there were approximately 264 black people killed by police. I'm sure it's pretty similar for other years as well. How anyone could arrive from that to the conclusion that a police officer is 18 times more likely to be killed by a black person than it is for a black person to be killed by a police officer, would be a mystery to me. It sounds highly unlikely. Are you sure you heard or read them correctly? Otherwise, it sounds like a false rumor.
amadeus
rad thibodeaux-xs
I’m not arguing the validity of the figures, but that would depend on the number of police vs. the number of black people in the U.S.
aelf
Ashen One
I never mentioned the word "us", and even if it's implied, the "us" doesn't necessarily have to include you. It just has to refer to an actually existing group of us.
It's certainly more valid than your "his alone", which is manifestly untrue.
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
Not so sure that's really a "good" thing. It seems to me that citizens need police to keep the riots under some degree of control, like it or not.
Good point. I stand corrected.
There were protests in Sydney today. Social distancing was definitely not being observed, though lots of people had the fig-leaf of a mask.
The protest required authorisation. The government had granted one but attempted to revoke it when it looked like the numbers were going beyond the 500 person limit on public gatherings. The protest organisers had to go to Court to seek approval for the protest, and last night the NSW Supreme Court refused to provide authorisation. This didn't make it illegal as such - it was still perfectly legal for anyone to go outside into a public gathering of less than 10 people. But it meant that there was no exemption from the usual provisions of the criminal law which protests require in order to function, such as laws about obstructing traffic.
The protest was due to commence at 3pm today and it was clear that lots of people were going to attend. The NSW Court of Appeal overturned last night's decision at 2:30pm, and so it went ahead legally and (as far as I'm aware) without incident.
I'm ambivalent about it, to be honest, because although Australia obviously has a problem with Aboriginal incarceration and treatment by police, which is worth protesting, there is not so much a rationale here for protesting about it now. Through almost three months of severe restrictions, NSW is now at a stage where there are only 1 or 2 new coronavirus cases every day. People have missed out on weddings, funerals, and all sorts of civic activities, in order to comply with these rules. That suggests that in order to disregard those rules, there should be a pretty pressing reason. I'm not sure what the marches here achieve in an immediate sense (although the NSW government's attempt to revoke permission certainly Streisand-ed the publicity). They also risk being a magnet for lots of blame.
On the other hand, it's worth noting that the NSW government is being quite inconsistent - a few hours after they attempted to ban the protest, it was announced that they'd approved a return of football crowds next week. There's also a whole lot of other activity that is now allowed, such as markets - there are pictures of crowded markets in lily white areas of Sydney being packed to the brim this morning. I certainly do not agree that those things should be allowed at this stage either, given there is still community transmission. The government approach certainly seems to place the protests on a lower rung of importance to economic activity.
The protest required authorisation. The government had granted one but attempted to revoke it when it looked like the numbers were going beyond the 500 person limit on public gatherings. The protest organisers had to go to Court to seek approval for the protest, and last night the NSW Supreme Court refused to provide authorisation. This didn't make it illegal as such - it was still perfectly legal for anyone to go outside into a public gathering of less than 10 people. But it meant that there was no exemption from the usual provisions of the criminal law which protests require in order to function, such as laws about obstructing traffic.
The protest was due to commence at 3pm today and it was clear that lots of people were going to attend. The NSW Court of Appeal overturned last night's decision at 2:30pm, and so it went ahead legally and (as far as I'm aware) without incident.
I'm ambivalent about it, to be honest, because although Australia obviously has a problem with Aboriginal incarceration and treatment by police, which is worth protesting, there is not so much a rationale here for protesting about it now. Through almost three months of severe restrictions, NSW is now at a stage where there are only 1 or 2 new coronavirus cases every day. People have missed out on weddings, funerals, and all sorts of civic activities, in order to comply with these rules. That suggests that in order to disregard those rules, there should be a pretty pressing reason. I'm not sure what the marches here achieve in an immediate sense (although the NSW government's attempt to revoke permission certainly Streisand-ed the publicity). They also risk being a magnet for lots of blame.
On the other hand, it's worth noting that the NSW government is being quite inconsistent - a few hours after they attempted to ban the protest, it was announced that they'd approved a return of football crowds next week. There's also a whole lot of other activity that is now allowed, such as markets - there are pictures of crowded markets in lily white areas of Sydney being packed to the brim this morning. I certainly do not agree that those things should be allowed at this stage either, given there is still community transmission. The government approach certainly seems to place the protests on a lower rung of importance to economic activity.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,861
There is probably a mountain of pressure from the public to allow the protests to exist. Actual riots could happen if they don't.
Gary Childress
Student for and of life
Yes. I think you are right. Still, the idea of police refusing to perform their assigned duties seems kind of scary. But I saw this OP/ED in the NY Times that I think pretty much hits the nail on the head. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/opinion/police-riots.html.
Modder_Mode
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
- Messages
- 430
Because the very thing you claim that happens to black people and other minority groups you are actively doing right here on these very forums, it's not not useful or constructive to the discussion.
But I never said that. If you want to have a rational and constructive discussion about particular topics and your arguments are based of emotive constructs its hard to have a fruitful or faithful discussion that leads anywhere.
I can't make my points?
Revealed myself?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Thoroughly.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Absolute rubbish.
About what? Whether people should have the right to live in a society and not get discriminated or abused on the basis of who or what they are?
When someone tells you who they are... listen
- Status
Similar threads
