Here's the reason that happens. We, as a society, choose to live in communities because we can't be self sufficient on an island. We need you to do your work. We need law enforcement to do their work. We need doctors and nurses to do their work. We need teachers to do their work. We need farmers to do their work. We need judges to do their work. All of us are contributing *something* to the communities in which we live and work. And, unless a person makes the concerted effort to actually think about how ALL the people that make our society function, most are oblivious. It hits them square in the face when they see you doing what you do so they can have indoor plumbing. Until that moment, they took it for granted. I'm not trying to hold myself as an authority on human psychology or model for all decency. The only reason that I'm able to recognize these things (whether I see you do it or not) is that I didn't have loving parents. I had very abusive parents that not only hurt me but allowed others to hurt me. I don't take anybody for granted EVER. I don't get angry easily but it actually ticks me off when I see somebody being a jerk to one or both of their parents. I would give *anything" in this world, except my children, to have had at least one parent that gave a damn about me. So, I was thanking my grocery store clerk BEFORE the shelter-in place. I was thanking my mailman BEFORE the shelter-in-place. I don't need a crisis to appreciate other people. I appreciate other people anyway, even the ones that hate me because they are a reminder for me to never, ever become like them. Thanks for clarifying that. I understand your intent now. Your premise is incorrect here, MP. In your job, you are not required to wear a weapon (I'm assuming. I don't know what you do but I'm glad you do it. LOL). You did not sign on to do anything that requires you to stand up against the really bad people and try to protect the good people as much as possible. Your job is <whatever you do> and unless you tell me otherwise, I'm going to assume you aren't facing criminals every day in the sewers. Why would you have a gun or taser in your hypothetical? LOL So, you can't compare your job (making it so people's indoor plumbing works) to her job (serving and protecting her community). Again, I absolutely agree with you that she had no malicious intent. I have no reason to believe that she's racist. She could be. Many racists are closeted these days, but I don't have that impression from her. But, if we want to make her the exception, it simply can't be because... her victim was black and she is white. she is a female and he was a male. they both had hard days and were stressed out. she's a vegetarian (I made that up. I don't know) and he's a carnivore (I made that up too she's an atheist and he's a Christian. she's (however tall she is) and he is (however tall he was). NONE of that is applicable to our criminal justice system. ==================SHE KILLED SOMEBODY================== Full stop. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...age-of-justice-part-2.596049/#post-1073188784
I appreciate how much thought you're putting into this case and how much effort you're putting in to try to explain your reasoning to me. So you don't think she shot him because he was black, but rather because she made a mistake as she claims. Maybe its my fault, but I still dont understand what you mean by "she had no reason to believe that she wouldn't have the backing of her co-workers, supervisors or union representatives. She was born with white privilege and that usually makes most "things" go away." It sounds like you're saying her white privledge had nothing to do with the actual shooting but rather became a factor after she pulled the trigger? If so, why is it important?
You're welcome. Thanks for the discussion. Try to stop thinking about this case for a moment, please. I'm going to try to explain it using different examples because it will be easier for your brain to differentiate and process the concept. It's a technique I used when tutoring students and helps me bridge the gap on where they get stuck. 1. CAPITOL RIOT We all saw what happened at our Capitol on January 6, 2021. We saw tens of thousands of people beat police officers, scale walls, break windows and doors and breach the building. Trump supporters, not only the ones involved in that, want to minimize the riot as a way to justify it. They usually use a comparison to BLM, Antifi and other riots around the country but that doesn't matter. Irrespective of any other political protest or riot in the history of our country, the Capitol rioters should be judged solely on what they did that day. Senator Lee made a statement on camera that he was not afraid of the rioters but he would have been if they were BLM. This is an excellent example of the mindset of people that use their internal biases to either excuse (the Capitol rioters) or justify a harsher judgment toward others (BLM). ------------------- Further, soon after the riot, a white supremist blogger released details of the officer that shot Ashli Babbitt when she disobeyed his order. His position was a battle cry to get other racists to find the cop. He eventually did a interview and explained that he and his family had to go into hiding because of death threats. Posters all of the net were very upset that she was killed and some grew more angry when they learned the cop was black. To them, there is no reason that he should have shot her. However, the posting history of the same people that call for his termination and/or arrests usually have taken the opposite position when the officer is white and his/her victim is black. Basically, the formula is, our society is skewed toward white people and away from everyone else. And, in this, it's very easy to see that all the discussions that racism doesn't exist any more are outrageously false. In many ways it's worse now because they've had to become more covert. 2. FIRST LADIES (one isn't a "lady" though) The above formula also applies to partisanship. Trump supporters have completely overlooked the fact that Melania Trump was a lesbian porn model before she married him. She has never cared about our country or our people but she is held up as some kind of goddess because she's beautiful. She ripped out Jackie O's rose garden and wore a jacket with "I don't really care, do you?" on the back of it. She never ingratiated herself to us and made it quite clear that sentiment is exactly who she is. ------------------- On the other hand, Michelle was very positive and engaging. She was called "Michael" and ugly and useless and a token, etc.. She and Obama are very well educated and have been successful because of it but they are always minimized just because of the color of their skin (and their being Democrats). All of his success was glossed over and bigots referred to him as "a community organizer". Then, they had a fit because Jill has the title "doctor". I don't really understand why so many people didn't know that the title "doctor" is the correct designation for her level of education unrelated to practicing medicine but that's a another ball of wax. lol Soon after Biden was elected, she put several hearts on the White House lawn to let us know that she cared about us. It was a sweet gesture, but, she was lambasted for it. She wore a skirt with fishnet stockings when she was out and people had a fit. It was said she looked like a hooker and was too old to wear that outfit and other horrible things. Does that make sense? The FLOTUS that actually was a call girl, lesbian doing actual porn is "okay" and somebody wearing fishnet stockings is "not okay"? Seriously? But, this is a good example of how people *process* the world around them. We see the world through our eyes and the people most like us are deemed "favorable" and the ones least like us are not. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Your question... Yes and no. Yes, I believe that she genuinely made a mistake in shooting him. No, I do not believe that she made that mistake irrespective of him being black. No, I do not believe that she made that mistake irrespective of him being male. The reason that I'm differentiating that is because of what I explained above. Her internal biases would lean toward herself (white female) and away from him (black male). This means that her "perception of threat" was probably higher in this situation versus the same scenario with a white person or female or both. Again, look at Senator Lee's comments on the riot. He publicly stated that he felt so risk of harm because the Capitol rioters were white. Ask yourself, why would ANYBODY not perceive a threat when a mob of people are beating the hell out of cops? Criminal behavior is criminal behavior and this mindset is exactly why race relations in this country is a very heated issue. It should be. * Nobody should get away with killing someone else because of the color of their skin and the color of their victim's skin * Nobody should get away with committing crimes solely because of the color of their skin * Nobody should receive harsher sentencing or higher fines or longer paroles solely because of the color of their skin. And, the end-all-be-all poster child for EXACTLY that is Trump. He has broken so many laws and caused damage that will set our country back years, if not decades. His supporters argue that he hasn't been arrested because he's "innocent" and all that is made up (again, whitewashing). He is not innocent. He's been crooked his entire life. He doesn't usually pay his bills but he makes sure he has equally slimy attorneys to have his back. He even disavowed his own supporters involved in the riot and turned his back on them. They were acting on his behalf! How any of them can be okay with that is just bizarre to me. I apologize that this wasn't clear. I'll try again. Anecdote: Decades ago, I was a store buying items for my new house and the cashier was slamming down the items the customer in front of me, a black woman, was purchasing. He was being unnecessarily hostile toward her and almost broke some of her items. She asked him if there was a problem and she said something I can't recall and used the "n" word. She asked to speak to the manager and he came over and she told him what happened. He asked the cashier if he said that and he admitted it. The manager asked him to apologize to the customer and he shouted "I ain't apologizing to a "n'!". The manager shrugged and said "there is nothing else I can do." and walked away. I had roughly $2,000 worth of merchandise to purchase that day but I wasn't okay with that. I took my items and tickets (for the big items that are stored in the back of the store) to the manager and told him why I was leaving. Do you believe that a non-white, non-male cashier could have had his/her manager respond that way? Do you believe that specific cashier would consider himself to be racist? Do you believe that every other customer in that store that witnessed that (minus 1 = me) completely ignored it? [They did] Do you believe that, if questioned, the white witnesses would have *minimized* the cashier's actions? Do you believe that, if questioned, the non-white witnesses would have *exaggerated* the cashier's actions? ------------------- Anecdote: I was in Blockbuster when a black person walked in to return some videotapes (yeah, it was a while ago. lol). The white cashier took the tapes from the drop box and literally pulled them apart, ripping out the film and breaking the cases. The customer had gone to pick out more movies and returned to the cashier telling him that he had fines for damaged returns. He was confused at first and then saw the irreparable tapes on the counter. He asked for a manager but there was not one there that evening. He left after telling the cashier that he would be calling the Corporate office. The cashier snapped back "Go ahead, "n". They ain't taking your word over mine!" He was still employed there when I returned for more movies so I called Corporate myself and was told that incident was investigated and it was determined that the cashier was in the right (they basically accepted the customer did that to the tapes). I closed my account that day. Do you believe that a non-white, non-male cashier could have kept their job after that? [There were cameras in the stores] Do you believe that specific cashier would consider himself to be racist? I've been an advocate all my life so I know how often these types of incidents happen. +++++++++++++++++++++++ I believe Potter honestly and sincerely did not *plan* to kill him. There are cops and paramedics that set up non-whites to die but I don't believe she fits in that category. I don't even believe she was fully "connected" to her brain as I explained in the previous post. During the adrenaline release in "fight or flight" we aren't processing anything other than survival. Nevertheless, when she reconnected to her brain and consciously and contentiously knew she killed a person, there were probably a million things running through her head. Killing someone, except for the most evil, demented souls, takes something away from us. Brandy (the singer) Caitlyn Jenner Laura Bush Matthew Broderick Tom Cruise Venus Williams It's impossible to be the cause of someone's death and it doesn't have a huge psychological effect. This is why during the time when executions were conducted by a firing squad, all the officers were given orders to shoot simultaneously. One of them had a live round so there was no way to know WHO killed the convicted person. This was solely to protect them from the mental anguish that comes from knowing one's actions or inactions led to someone else's death. Therefore, using our biased (and still very racist) society, with all the double-standards that center around the "value" of another human being based on their skin color, it naturally flows that she would fully expect her co-workers' and supervisors' support on top of the support that she would automatically receive because cops protect the "Blue Brotherhood". This does NOT mean that she thought she would be "scot-free", JUST that she would find more empathy, understanding and justification for the killing (because of what he did for it to reach that point) which is conveniently overlooked for Babbitt (who also didn't obey a direct order from an officer). They flip the switch and the black person is at fault in that scenario as well. Rittenhouse is considered a hero and has all kinds of support, legal, financial and otherwise. Would a black or brown person have received the same level of concern and support if they had done what he pre-planned and did? Doubtful.
Tens of thousands rioted that day? Complete steaming pile of horse dung. And people don't take leftist complaining about it very seriously because they didn't seem to have much to say when riots went on all summer long where you actually HAD tens of thousands of rioters.... If not hundreds of thousands Nationwide and hundreds and possibly thousands of riots
It's red herring to get people to talk about race so they don't talk about the event. I commend you for not taking the bait
you aren't expressing why what he said wasn't true. You're just offering a platitude that has no specific relevance to the case we're talking about. This isn't about all police officers this is about one police officer.
That probably made her even more angry that she had no real legitimate excuse to leave you. Sometimes when people are looking for a reason to hate you and they can't find anything to justify hating you for, it just makes them more angry and hateful.
She was attempting to enforce the law. But she made a big and serious accidental mistake. (Of course, isn't that what Derek Chauvin did too? and he was sentenced to 22 years) Apparently when the suspect is resisting and out of control and an officer accidentally kills a black man, it's a "murder".
