Another unarmed black guy shot

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

generals3:

Verbatim:

Ehmmm.... ever been in the Netherlands around Xmas?
image

Not Xmas. 6 December. We celebrate Saint Nicholas in Belgium too. And my question is: what's your point? Yes his helpers are black, so what? Is it racist because they're black? they're not slaves, they're helpers. And no one knows the intentions of the one who initially brought in Black Pete in the story.

I think the issue with that picture is that the helpers are white guys in black face makeup.

generals3:

Yes and no. Technically it doesn't. But what bugs me is how you often see people talk about the white people's past relating to slavery but tend to forget that among the parties involved with slavery back than they're actually the least guilty. The Africans and Arabs were even more guilty, but you won't see anyone say "What?! You are looking to move to Africa? Where the current inhabitant's ancestors enslaved your ancestors and sold them to white people?!".

The way it's presented it sounds like the Dutch were the ones who went there, enslaved africans themselves and than sold them.

Initially, the Europeans actually did exactly that. They effectively treated a lot of the Americans they conquered like slaves too, for all that they might not technically have been slaves.

Buying them from the locals was a later development, but it's nothing like as simple as it sounds. Slaves were initially a relatively trivial by-product of war and raids. However, European industrial-level desire for slaves became a cause of war, as tribes would attempt to claim as many as possible. Similarly, tribes changed their legal codes to make captivity for slavery the penalty for many crimes. In many cases, this needed to be done for self-preservation, because to not sell slaves was to seriously disadvantage the tribe against its rivals, who could buy lots of goods - including weapons - with theirs. Europeans also engaged in divide and conquer, such that they would assist economic partner tribes that sold them slaves against ones that would not.

In other words, Europeans drove slavery to a far greater magnitude in Atlantic Africa than would have existed otherwise.

LetalisK:

mecegirl:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/racialbias.pdf

Something about the abstract struck me(it's reiterated in the study too).

ABSTRACT-The current work examined police officers'
decisions to shoot Black and White criminal suspects in a
computer simulation. Responses to the simulation revealed that upon initial exposure to the program, the of-
ficers were more likely to mistakenly shoot unarmed Black
compared with unarmed White suspects. However, after
extensive training with the program, in which the race of
the suspect was unrelated to the presence of a weapon, the
officers were able to eliminate this bias. These findings are
discussed in terms of their implications for the elimination
of racial biases and the training of police officers.

I wonder where in Florida these cops worked. Their ability to quickly correct their behavior like that is something I find quite shocking and it makes me wonder if it's less about the cops having an inherent racial bias and more about the cops either not having this type of reactive training(which wouldn't completely answer why, but seems like this is a good possibility considering they improved in all areas) and/or they reacted initially the way they did because of a racial bias imparted upon them because of where they patrol. This is something I'd want to take to a place like Billings, Montana and see what happens.

We all have racial biases. Hell, some people are even racially biased against members of their own race. And having those biases is generally a byproduct of the society we live in, not an internal failing of some sort. I think that is part of why its so hard to combat, people equate having a racial bias with being a "bad person", when the truth is that the individual has just internalized biased information about a particular race. Since that biased information is rarely accurate, it leads to incidents like this shooting. But once we realize that we have said biases it is easier to combat them, it's just a matter of realizing that it exists and checking yourself. That's probably why the training was so effective.

Agema:

generals3:

Yes and no. Technically it doesn't. But what bugs me is how you often see people talk about the white people's past relating to slavery but tend to forget that among the parties involved with slavery back than they're actually the least guilty. The Africans and Arabs were even more guilty, but you won't see anyone say "What?! You are looking to move to Africa? Where the current inhabitant's ancestors enslaved your ancestors and sold them to white people?!".

The way it's presented it sounds like the Dutch were the ones who went there, enslaved africans themselves and than sold them.

Initially, the Europeans actually did exactly that. They effectively treated a lot of the Americans they conquered like slaves too, for all that they might not technically have been slaves.

Buying them from the locals was a later development, but it's nothing like as simple as it sounds. Slaves were initially a relatively trivial by-product of war and raids. However, European industrial-level desire for slaves became a cause of war, as tribes would attempt to claim as many as possible. Similarly, tribes changed their legal codes to make captivity for slavery the penalty for many crimes. In many cases, this needed to be done for self-preservation, because to not sell slaves was to seriously disadvantage the tribe against its rivals, who could buy lots of good - including weapons - with their. Europeans also engaged in divide and conquer, such that they would assist economic partner tribes that sold them slaves against ones that would not.

In other words, Europeans drove slavery to a far greater magnitude in Atlantic Africa than would have existed otherwise.

Just to add on. The specific type of slavery that the Europeans used is called chattel slavery. African's did have slavery but it was closer to indentured servitude and that type of slavery was pretty common world wide. So yeah... slavery is still slavery but it wasn't the practiced with the same magnitude, and the slaves weren't necessarily slaves for life or counted as property, just workers.

While the situation is a tragedy in itself, I think the judgement of the District attorney is the correct one, the cop should be punished as if he did the same action as a civilian. I've seen so many cases where whether the cop walked with little consequence.

Out of 12 shots 10 hit the intended target, that's much better than other situations where more bystanders are hit than the target. It's like the bullets become more accurate and deadly the more illegitimate the recipient is.

thaluikhain:

Xan Krieger:
The problem isn't that, it's how it becomes all white people vs all black people instead of crazy people vs civilized people.

One could argue that when disproportionate large number of black men are shot by white police for no good reason, there is a white vs black thing going on already.

One could do that if one was looking to provoke racial tension and associate cops with all White people(regardless of whether any White people might not like cops) and all Black people with those who are shot(regardless of whether Black women are the fatal victims of such violence in comparison to Black men).

thaluikhain:
Acknowledging the problem is not the same as creating it. Ignoring it isn't solving it.

And trying to create new problems by making and provoking a greater "us vs them" mentality also isn't solving anything.

But then again....
Isn't it horrible having to contemplate the mere possibility that this case might be part of something more complex than the simple minded conclusion "White cops kill innocent Black man!" and that this case could be part of a greater issue-like the legality of cops using lethal force, authority figures abusing their power over the public, and how such a society would reform police precincts to end any notions the Blue Wall of Silence? Yeah, wouldn't want to do something productive like that! We're all much better off just trying to provoke racial tension in as many stories as possible!

OP:So judging from your edit, am I correct understand that this isn't another type of case like what happened in Florida?

Seems to me that whenever there's a suggestion of race playing a role, people (rightly) seek out the wider context, and then (wrongly) proclaim, "Ah! Mystery solved. It wasn't a case of an innocent black guy getting shot after all. Good thing no wider questions need be asked! It was all a coincidence that this kind of thing seems to happen far less often with white people!"

Silvanus:
Seems to me that whenever there's a suggestion of race playing a role, people (rightly) seek out the wider context, and then (wrongly) proclaim, "Ah! Mystery solved. It wasn't a case of an innocent black guy getting shot after all. Good thing no wider questions need be asked! It was all a coincidence that this kind of thing seems to happen far less often with white people!"

I didn't say it was a coincidence, just that it does little good for all forms of media/communications to approach cases like the one mentioned in the OP with the same level of calm that was seen during the the 1990 LA riots. It gets old really fast when all that is done is people declaring "racism!", or "hate crime!", and then there is no deeper dialogue because the crowd has moved on to the next hot story.

There isn't going to be nearly the response to this that there was for Trayvon Martin, for two reasons that I can see (and maybe more that I don't).

1. Outrage fatigue. You can only get so many people to stay so angry for so long.

2. They charged the cop quickly without waiting for a media shitstorm first. The inaction of the police and prosecutors in the Zimmerman case was what got that ball rolling. That didn't happen in this case, the system has thus far had the appearance of working as it should. This is the same reason that pretty much every racist's "look at this black on white crime, why isn't the media Trayvoning this one up!?" Facebook posts are bullshit...in those cases the attacker has almost always been charged as soon as possible.

Helmholtz Watson:
I didn't say it was a coincidence, just that it does little good for all forms of media/communications to approach cases like the one mentioned in the OP with the same level of calm that was seen during the the 1990 LA riots. It gets old really fast when all that is done is people declaring "racism!", or "hate crime!", and then there is no deeper dialogue because the crowd has moved on to the next hot story.

In truth, I have little experience with American media/communications. I was talking about the online response I've seen; comments on news stories, and this forum.

Does it really matter what skin color the guy was? Nothing in the article said it was racially motivated.

It was a dumb and fatal mistake by a cop. I would be nervous too if a former football player who can probably run a 4.4 40-yard dash sprints at me full speed. Cops should have asked him to stop or slow down far in advance before firing a stun gun at him.

Desert Punk:

I think the issue with that picture is that the helpers are white guys in black face makeup.

So? As far as I'm aware, the blackface performers of America, acting out very racist stereotypes of Africans did not exist in the Netherlands.
They paint their face black, not to imitate black people, but because that is what black pete looks like.

I think.

ShipofFools:
They paint their face black, not to imitate black people, but because that is what black pete looks like.

Er...what? Surely, black Pete looks black because black Pete is black.

(You'll also note the fuzzy haired wigs and bright red lips)

thaluikhain:

ShipofFools:
They paint their face black, not to imitate black people, but because that is what black pete looks like.

Er...what? Surely, black Pete looks black because black Pete is black.

(You'll also note the fuzzy haired wigs and bright red lips)

They're supposed to be Moors, from the medieval Muslim empire. And the saint is St. Nicholas, the Greek bishop of Malta.
That is one explanation, there are more. From the English Wikipedia:

But in truth, nobody really knows.
Still, I have to ask the question: what is racist about Piet?
I mean, apart from his appearance (And this is even debatable, if you ask me) he does not reinforce any stereotype, positive or negative.
Whatever a Piet is, he is not a racist icon.

This...

image

...and the accompanying commentary by the artist might be relevant here. Mind, I can't really speak to it too much as I'm neither Dutch nor knew the tradition before I read that comic.

In the Netherlands Saint Nicholas is a separate person from Santa, and like Santa has his elves, Saint Nicholas has his Zwarte Piet (Black Pete).

Dutch people will usually claim he is just covered in sod from the chimneys, but his clean clothes makes it pretty obvious Black Pete is inspired by a caricature of black people, but it should be noted that Black Pete is not supposed to be an African. It's more like a sort of magical being that has it's looks inspired by the caricature.

- http://satwcomic.com/black-pete

Helmholtz Watson:
OP:So judging from your edit, am I correct understand that this isn't another type of case like what happened in Florida?

Editted because I incorrectly cited it as happening in Florida.

SuperUberBob:
Does it really matter what skin color the guy was? Nothing in the article said it was racially motivated.

It was a dumb and fatal mistake by a cop. I would be nervous too if a former football player who can probably run a 4.4 40-yard dash sprints at me full speed. Cops should have asked him to stop or slow down far in advance before firing a stun gun at him.

Or you know, if they thought he was an actual threat, they could have just ended it with stunning him (which they did stun him) instead of filling him with lead.

Jux:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/north-carolina-police-shooting/index.html?c=&page=1

Jumped the gun on this one[1]. My mind automatically jumped to florida, I guess NC wants to compete for who can kill the most.

I'm at a loss right now for how to express myself, so fuck it, I'm going to bed.

edit: To hell with florida anyway.

If only that were true.

[1] Going on 48 hours without sleep

American cops shoot and kill a man. To be honest, the news would've been surprising if it read "No shootings in America for 3 days in a row".

scotth266:

Kopikatsu:
And in Oklahoma, a white man was shot (in the back) and killed by three black teenagers who claimed they were 'bored'. I don't remember that story making headlines.

I'm tired of the media's bullshit.

It did make headlines, albeit not quite in the same manner as the Zimmerman case did. One of the dudes wasn't black by the way, that was an error in the early reports.

It is true that crime didn't get half the attention it should have given that the hate-crime aspect (at least for one of the criminals) was REALLY obvious, as opposed to the Zimmerman case where the hate-crime aspects were far more hazy.

Did the police initially refuse to so much as arrest the shooters? Because that's what brought the Zimmerman case to national attention.

DataSnake:

It did make headlines, albeit not quite in the same manner as the Zimmerman case did. One of the dudes wasn't black by the way, that was an error in the early reports.

It is true that crime didn't get half the attention it should have given that the hate-crime aspect (at least for one of the criminals) was REALLY obvious, as opposed to the Zimmerman case where the hate-crime aspects were far more hazy.

Did the police initially refuse to so much as arrest the shooters? Because that's what brought the Zimmerman case to national attention.[/quote]

You don't typically arrest a person who hasn't committed a crime... and shooting someone in self defense is not a crime, nor is carrying a firearm when you're licensed to do so.

The police who arrived at the scene determined that it was an act of self defense and did not arrest Zimmerman. Public outcry is why Zimmerman was arrested, and to be honest that's quite sad. I thought we were through with witch hunts?

Zimmerman would still have gone to trial over the shooting, arrested or not. The fact that a bunch of crying idiots who WEREN'T THERE and simply believed the media spin on the story were able to force the police into arresting someone... that's fucking scary, and it should bother you.

SuperUberBob:
Does it really matter what skin color the guy was? Nothing in the article said it was racially motivated.

It was a dumb and fatal mistake by a cop. I would be nervous too if a former football player who can probably run a 4.4 40-yard dash sprints at me full speed. Cops should have asked him to stop or slow down far in advance before firing a stun gun at him.

Race can still be a factor in such situations even when the person with the gun doesn't consciously go, "Hey, this person is black. I don't like black people. I'm going to shoot them," or whatever.

The issue is that much of the (white) American public still holds the stereotype, often subconsciously, that black men are more dangerous/violent/criminal that people of other "races." This skewed perception leads to people making assumptions that black men who approach them/are out at night/congregate in groups are untrustworthy or outright threatening more quickly that they might otherwise. Thus, we are left with high number of situations where white people use excessive or lethal force against black people in what is perceived as self-defense, regardless of whether the person was actually attempting to harm them or anyone else.

Batou667:

Kopikatsu:
And in Oklahoma, a white man was shot (in the back) and killed by three black teenagers who claimed they were 'bored'. I don't remember that story making headlines.

I'm tired of the media's bullshit.

Yeah, exactly. "Black man gets shot" in itself is depressingly un-newsworthy, unless followed up with "gunman be a cracker, yo", and as you point out, black-on-white crime is suppressed due to a misguided sense of racial sensitivity. Everyone is aware of media bias but this blatent race-baiting is verging on being inflammatory. If there's (another) race riot as a result of this, I'd like to see the media forced to pay a share of the damages incurred.

You both do realize don't you that the thing that drives this story into the media is not the fact that the shooter is white, but the fact that the shooter is a police officer. As in, the very people we depend on to protect us in a crisis panicked and executed a man who went to them for aid. That's not just interesting from a ratings-grab perspective, that's legitimately newsworthy. People need to know if our law enforcement officers are incompetent, poorly trained, or biased. It's not "media bias" or "race-baiting", hell, the story we were linked to doesn't even mention the race of the officers who did the shooting. You assumed that. So that means what's really on display is not the bias of the media, but the bias of you.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:
You both do realize don't you that the thing that drives this story into the media is not the fact that the shooter is white, but the fact that the shooter is a police officer. As in, the very people we depend on to protect us in a crisis panicked and executed a man who went to them for aid. That's not just interesting from a ratings-grab perspective, that's legitimately newsworthy. People need to know if our law enforcement officers are incompetent, poorly trained, or biased. It's not "media bias" or "race-baiting", hell, the story we were linked to doesn't even mention the race of the officers who did the shooting. You assumed that. So that means what's really on display is not the bias of the media, but the bias of you.

Yeah, yeah, fair point. If I was part of a demographic that was repeatedly failed by law enforcement to the point of it being an observable bias, I'd feel excluded and angry too. The exact details of what happened are open to debate and hindsight, and the officer in question did hand himself in and get charged with voluntary manslaughter, so this can't accurately be called a police cover-up.

Anyway, the OP phrased this as a race issue rather than a police brutality issue, so that's the angle I and some other posters approached it from. And, being relatively soon post-Trayvon, it's natural that there was always going to be an overreading of the racial element (and there was; skim the comments on the CNN story).

Also, unless the story has progressed, is it really necessary to pull me up on a 3 week old post?

Batou667:
Anyway, the OP phrased this as a race issue rather than a police brutality issue, so that's the angle I and some other posters approached it from.

That would be a great excuse, were it not for the fact that Jux isn't part of the media.

Also, unless the story has progressed, is it really necessary to pull me up on a 3 week old post?

That would be a great excuse, were it not for my face being really damn red.

Yeah, sorry about that. I don't usually read post dates.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked