BLAME

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5594
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: BLAME

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Kayla wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Like I said, sick. And you have control over a child.
do you have some magical way to tell a toy gun from a real one

a lot of toys guns look real unless you look really close or they have at least some brightly colored parts

my daughter knows that a toy gun can be mistaken for a real one with all the consequences
But did he? Touched?? At least uneducated??

Let's kill all the dumb ones...

...It'll be their fault...

..Yeah, we can 'blame' them...

...NOT!

The disparity in money between us all is definitely the culprit, as Seagull mentioned. I just listened to a track the other day titled "Make Us All Aware," and if in fact we were, this sort of thing, would in 'fact,' go bye-bye, as you have just said, knowledge is in fact power.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: BLAME

Post by Arising_uk »

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Evolution, HUH???
I think she's talking about the Darwin Awards.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9703
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: BLAME

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Arising_uk wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Evolution, HUH???
I think she's talking about the Darwin Awards.
I thought that too. Just keep giving them children toy guns, then shoot them when they play with them. It's the parents who should be taken out of the gene pool.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5594
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: BLAME

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Evolution, HUH???
I think she's talking about the Darwin Awards.
I thought that too. Just keep giving them children toy guns, then shoot them when they play with them. It's the parents who should be taken out of the gene pool.
I concur, that many parents are in fact the problem!
tbieter
Posts: 1203
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: BLAME

Post by tbieter »

Here is a very interesting article on blame applied to a contemporary situation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... c-mccarthy
Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: BLAME

Post by Gee »

Tbieter;

I can't believe that I am writing a post in the Ethics forum, as I usually try to avoid talk of ethics. But your link below is interesting and worth a response, so please consider my following comments.
tbieter wrote:Here is a very interesting article on blame applied to a contemporary situation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... c-mccarthy
When I was very young, my Mother always told me that if I got into trouble or lost, I should go to a policeman. She said that the police were there to protect me, and I should trust them. So why is this not what I taught my children? I taught my children to go to a neighbor, scream, and bang on the door for help, if they were in the neighborhood. I taught them to seek out an employee, if they were lost or frightened in a public place, as it is much more likely that an employee of a store is there to work, rather than there to make trouble. If my children were picked up by the police, I taught them to give my name, phone number, and address, then to say nothing else until I arrived.

What changed?

The first real contact that I had with police was when I was 19, and the police had come to my home to arrest my younger brother. They said that he had gone AWOL after basic training in the Army and was being arrested and returned to the Army. But my brother had never been in the Army, and I said so. My Mother also said so. My brother, who was only 17 years of age, pointed out that he had hair half-way down his back, and so could not possibly have been in basic training, as the first thing they do is shave your head. Two witnesses plus evidence did not stop the police from taking him to jail and holding him for two days, until the Military Police showed up and proved his innocence. The fingerprints were wrong and the hair was a dead giveaway. Someone else had used his name and Social Security Number. This was the first time that I remember thinking that all policemen were not necessarily bright or trustworthy. The real tragedy was that this arrest stayed on his record all of his life. We did not realize this until a policeman called him a "draft dodger" 30 some years later, so every policeman that he dealt with, all of his life, had a prejudiced view of him because of that record.

The next time I dealt with the police, I was in my early 20's. I had worked the afternoon shift, gone home to change, and left again for my friend's wedding reception, hoping to see her. When I got there, it was over, and the bride's father was sweeping the floor of the hall they had rented. We talked for a few minutes, then I left for home. On the way home, I had to cross a railroad track that was diagonal to the road that I was on. As soon as I crossed it, my car started to fishtail wildly; I barely got it under control and off to the side. I was frightened and shaking when I saw a police car pull up behind me. The policeman shined his light in my window/face and asked me what I thought I was doing. I responded that I didn't know and got out of my car. Walking around the car, I could see that the driver's side tire was pointing straight, but the passenger's side front tire was pointing completely sideways. I had broken a tie rod and maybe more. So I asked the police if they could take me up the road to a restaurant, or someplace where there was a phone. (no cell phones then) The policeman responded, "We are not a taxi service." and left. So the police left a young woman on a deserted road in the middle of the night wearing high heels to walk to whatever could be found for help. Obviously, the idea of "serve and protect" was no longer their motto.

There are more examples and experiences that I could share, but I think that the above is enough. What I learned long ago is that the police were no longer there to protect me. Their job, as they state, is to uphold the law, which means to fight crime and look for bad guys. The problem is that what you look for will be what you find, and what you expect to see is what you will see. This idea was confirmed in an article that I read about divorce rates and police officers. It explained that policemen spend their entire careers looking for bad and evil, and it is difficult for them to turn that off and see innocence when they get home; hence, the high divorce rate.

I have no doubt that in their minds and hearts, policemen really believe that they are protecting the public, but in reality they are in a war on crime. Wars have casualties on both sides, so I am not surprised by the recent events. I was a young, white, naive female, with no criminal record, who was well dressed and well spoken -- innocence personified -- yet I still learned to distrust the police. What would a male, who was black, maybe not so well spoken, who lives in a rough part of town learn?

It is my personal belief that when a large group of people turn bad, it is the fault of bad governing, so I suspect that most of this tragedy is due to simple policy change and attitude change. I also expect that it will continue and worsen if someone does not wake up. We are actually creating criminals where they need not exist.

Gee
mickthinks
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: BLAME

Post by mickthinks »

tbieter wrote:Here is a very interesting article on blame applied to a contemporary situation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... c-mccarthy
Yes, it's Interesting in the same way that holocaust deniers are 'interesting', Tom.

McCarthy says "police [...] used force because the two men resisted efforts to effect lawful arrests" as if the kind of force that kills a man were a routine police response. That's the nub of the issue, Tom. The kind of force that kills you is used rarely against white people like McCarthy, but daily against black people. Brown and Garner were just particularly public examples of such unnecessary deaths.

No doubt technically McCarthy is correct to call Garner's arrest 'legal' (I'm unsure whether Wilson was ever technically 'arresting' Brown at all), but that raises another crucial point. Why is it legal to arrest people on such weak grounds? I am sure it wouldn't be tolerated by the white majority in New York if white New Yorkers were arrested regularly on similarly flimsy pretexts.

Both McCarthy and you cannot see the racist wood for the cops&robbers trees, and it'll bite more than your arses if you both don't wake up very quickly.


As a not-altogether-unrelated aside, may I ask, Tom—do you watch Fox News? If so, this story will be of interest to you.
Last edited by mickthinks on Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:31 am, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9703
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: BLAME

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

tbieter wrote:Here is a very interesting article on blame applied to a contemporary situation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... c-mccarthy
What a poisonous little rag that is.
tbieter
Posts: 1203
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: BLAME

Post by tbieter »

mickthinks wrote:
tbieter wrote:Here is a very interesting article on blame applied to a contemporary situation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... c-mccarthy
Yes, it's Interesting in the same way that holocaust deniersI have been taught that the conclusions of science are always provisional are 'interesting', Tom.
As a former prosecutor, I think the article is an excellent example of legal and moral analysis.
McCarthy says "police [...] used force because the two men resisted efforts to effect lawful arrests" as if the kind of force that kills a man were a routine police response. That's the nub of the issue, Tom. Please reread McCarthy's paragraph that ends with this sentence: "A cop's escalation of force has to be reasonable under the circumstances." Also, in the paragraph, I think that McCarthy believes that the grand jury should have indicted the cop in the Garner case for either manslaughter or negligent homocide The kind of force that kills you is used rarely against white people like McCarthy, What evidence can you cite for the preceding assertion. but daily against black people. Brown and Garner were just particularly public examples of such unnecessary deaths.

No doubt technically McCarthy is correct to call Garner's arrest 'legal' (I'm unsure whether Wilson was ever technically 'arresting' Brown at all), but that raises another crucial point. Why is it legal to arrest people on such weak grounds? The reason that the person must submit to arrest is that he always has the opportunity to contest the arrest in court. And if the arrest is ruled illegal, the case is dismissed and all evidence seized after the arrest is suppressed. I am sure it wouldn't be tolerated by the white majority in New York if white New Yorkers were arrested regularly on similarly flimsy pretexts.

Both McCarthy and you cannot see the racist wood for the cops&robbers trees, and it'll bite more than your arses if you both don't wake up very quickly.


As a not-altogether-unrelated aside, may I ask, Tom—do you watch Fox News? After I watch Amy Goodman's Democracy Now program, I turn on Fox for 3 hours until Rush, the Doctor of Democracy, comes on. If so, this story will be of interest to you.
From the preceding passionate responses to my publishing the article, I suspect that you folks are glad that those two NY cops got assassinated.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9703
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: BLAME

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

tbieter wrote:
mickthinks wrote:
tbieter wrote:Here is a very interesting article on blame applied to a contemporary situation.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... c-mccarthy
Yes, it's Interesting in the same way that holocaust deniersI have been taught that the conclusions of science are always provisional are 'interesting', Tom.
As a former prosecutor, I think the article is an excellent example of legal and moral analysis.
McCarthy says "police [...] used force because the two men resisted efforts to effect lawful arrests" as if the kind of force that kills a man were a routine police response. That's the nub of the issue, Tom. Please reread McCarthy's paragraph that ends with this sentence: "A cop's escalation of force has to be reasonable under the circumstances." Also, in the paragraph, I think that McCarthy believes that the grand jury should have indicted the cop in the Garner case for either manslaughter or negligent homocide The kind of force that kills you is used rarely against white people like McCarthy, What evidence can you cite for the preceding assertion. but daily against black people. Brown and Garner were just particularly public examples of such unnecessary deaths.

No doubt technically McCarthy is correct to call Garner's arrest 'legal' (I'm unsure whether Wilson was ever technically 'arresting' Brown at all), but that raises another crucial point. Why is it legal to arrest people on such weak grounds? The reason that the person must submit to arrest is that he always has the opportunity to contest the arrest in court. And if the arrest is ruled illegal, the case is dismissed and all evidence seized after the arrest is suppressed. I am sure it wouldn't be tolerated by the white majority in New York if white New Yorkers were arrested regularly on similarly flimsy pretexts.

Both McCarthy and you cannot see the racist wood for the cops&robbers trees, and it'll bite more than your arses if you both don't wake up very quickly.


As a not-altogether-unrelated aside, may I ask, Tom—do you watch Fox News? After I watch Amy Goodman's Democracy Now program, I turn on Fox for 3 hours until Rush, the Doctor of Democracy, comes on. If so, this story will be of interest to you.
From the preceding passionate responses to my publishing the article, I suspect that you folks are glad that those two NY cops got assassinated.
And that's just the sort of moronic response I would expect from someone who loves Fox 'news' and Rush Limbaugh. Why is everything in your backwater country about politics! 'Oh, I'm a right-wing fascist religious nut, therefore I have to love Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. It also means I only care about white policemen getting shot, rather than black children. If you disagree with me then it means you are glad when white policemen get shot'. (Fundy 'logic').
Btw 'Assassinated'?
tbieter
Posts: 1203
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: BLAME

Post by tbieter »

See and comment upon: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=14535
mickthinks
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: BLAME

Post by mickthinks »

tbieter wrote:
mickthinks wrote:The kind of force that kills you is used rarely against white people ... What evidence can you cite for the preceding assertion.
Tom, you are the only person I've encountered who doubts it. I guess you haven't seen this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQwlfXdDDYA

Now compare that with this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeoZkgjCHJ4
tbieter
Posts: 1203
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: BLAME

Post by tbieter »

mickthinks wrote:
tbieter wrote:
mickthinks wrote:The kind of force that kills you is used rarely against white people ... What evidence can you cite for the preceding assertion.
Tom, you are the only person I've encountered who doubts it. I guess you haven't seen this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQwlfXdDDYA

Now compare that with this ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeoZkgjCHJ4
Are you asserting that racism soley accounts for the difference in police response?

Isn't the old man engaging in a political protest (asserting conceal carry rights)? I note that the old man did not point the gun at anybody, especially at the police!

I spoke to a parked St. Paul police officer yeterday when I was leaving the supermarket. I told him that in my more than thirty years practicing criminal law in Duluth (prosecutor, public defender, private criminal defense), I could recall only one police brutality complaint. My client wanted to sue. The police officer had slapped his face after he spit in the officer's face! I told him that a jury would not give him a dime.

Duluth, of course, is 90% white people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth,_Mi ... 010_census
And the young black people who come from old families (families whose ancestor came with the Air Force (the base closed while I was practicing) or to work in the US Steel Plant, are not criminal. They get educated and become lawfully employed. I don't recall any criminal case involving any of them.

When, in 2005, I moved from Duluth to St. Paul, I was unaware of the disproportionate black crime rate. A female police officer that I got to know at the dog park confirmed to me that the black crime rate is more than 75%, but she said they were not supposed to talk about it.

Check out this web site http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/ and let me know what you think.

In cities where there is a majority black population, why can't the city have a SWAT squad composed of all blacks to respond to impending violent situations involving black citizens?
mickthinks
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: BLAME

Post by mickthinks »

Are you asserting that racism soley accounts for the difference in police response?

No, but I believe that is an undeniable possibility that you seem bent on denying, Tom. In other words, it is the prima facie evidence you challenged me to produce, that the deadly force the police often use against black people is more rarely meted out to white people. Now may I reciprocate your challenge and ask you to cite some evidence that race is not the reason why Tamir Rice is dead and Joseph Houseman is still alive?

... the black crime rate is more than 75% ...

Even granting, for the sake of argument, this scary-sounding but dubious (and, without more detail, uninterpretable) statistic, what does it have to do with the issue of police killings? Unless you are suggesting that black people deserve to die more than white people because more black people commit crimes than white people.


Check out this web site http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/ and let me know what you think.
I think it is part of the problem, and I can't imagine why you would recommend it to me, Tom
tbieter
Posts: 1203
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Re: BLAME

Post by tbieter »

Many of the supporters and enablers of the anti-police protest movement of recent months have insisted that it is overwhelmingly a peaceful movement largely made up of idealistic reformers and members of minority communities. They insist that it is not a “radical” movement with an animus against either the police or middle class society. That narrative has been undercut by the tragic shooting of two New York City Police officers last week and by a march in New York City a few days before that during which protesters chanted, “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now.”

There was another protest event on the Brooklyn Bridge a few weeks ago that should have been taken as a signal that the movement was spinning out of control from peaceful marches into violent confrontations with police. That event, along the arrests that followed, gives us a window into the inner character of the protest movement.
http://www.newcriterion.com/posts.cfm/A ... ement-7663
Post Reply