Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

onbeing.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 308 posts

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#231

Post by icantthinkofone »

trhway wrote: post #207
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not an execution when you attack a police officer. The word "execution" has been brought into the debate solely to rile people up and make them forget that fact. Let's put it this way. Now, I'm not saying this version of events happened. I'm saying, please bear with me and seriously consider the question: You're a cop. You have a gun and nothing else. Someone has just leaned through the window of your cruise…

Even if it was so, one shot would do it, may be only wounding. Yet he had the right to kill, he used it like others. Shooting multiple times or chock holding to make sure that target is dead is execution . They could have shot Garner in leg, instead they used the right to kill. The killings at will are part of the Dominant Force law enforcement framework. In short - instilling fear as anything can happen to you, your…

He charged the officer and was shot once. Then he charged again and was shot again. Then, he came within 10 feet to tackle the officer and that was when he was killed. This was not 10 (or so) consecutive shots. If the first shots didn't stop him, why would you believe the second grouping would? Or the next?

What was Brown's intent once he reached the officer?

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#232

Post by rockmeamedee »

rockmeamedee wrote: post #182
pvnick wrote: post #93

I hope what I have to say is not as controversial as I fear, but I don't think that individual racist beliefs are as big a problem as we have been told. To look at somebody and consciously judge them to be inferior based on their skin color is so outdated and obsolete, that those who do so are fringe members of society who are typically elderly and either changing their mindset or dying out. We elected a black presid…

I disagree with your argument. Here are my thoughts why. We have been 'looking beyond our superficial differences' for a while and it hasn't done anything. I actually think 'not seeing race' is itself a form of racism, because a lot of our racism is subconscious, or cultural. We don't have a racism of segregation anymore. It's a racism of omission. Instead there are pay gaps, unfair justice, stereotypes and erasure.…

edit: forgot a word in 1) insert 'say' between the word 'to' and the racial slur.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#233

Post by icantthinkofone »

dragonwriter wrote: post #226
brianhempel wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police are trained only to shoot to kill because pulling the trigger needs to be a big event. If you think that "shoot to wound" is an option, then of course you're going to pull the trigger more often. You'll become more comfortable shooting people and, presumably, you'll also end up killing people more often. Other reasons for "shoot to kill" relate to effectiveness: in the energy of the situation if you aim to wou…

> Police are trained only to shoot to kill As I understand it, police are generally taught specifically to shoot center of mass because aiming there is the most effective way to reliably and quickly end the immediate physical threat. This also ends up pretty close to maximizing the killing effectiveness of shots, but is not the primary focus.

The reason is that you are more likely to hit the target rather than what some propose, that they should just wound him in the kneecap, an almost impossibility.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#234

Post by jqm »

seekingtruth wrote: post #175
jqm wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Genocide is when a race is eliminated. In this case it is combined. The genes aren't lost at all.

If every "white" person reproduced only with a "black" person, white people would cease to exist. That is genocide.

well then, by that standard it appears that people of each race are already much rarer than previously imagined....

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#235

Post by king_jester »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #224
aswanson wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presented no disputed testimony...I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence. Yes you did. hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. ...and then turns and runs toward the officer.. This also is not an objective fact. You disputed this yourself in stating that Browns velocity could not be determined. It just as plaus…

"hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun" That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. Wilson was treated for redness to his face, as confirmed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s In the commonly-believed version of events, Brown would not have been able to injure Wilson's face like that, since he was supposedly running away. But since the officer's face was in fact inju…

> In the commonly-believed version of events

There is no commonly believed version of events. There is a lot of inconsistency and disagreement about statements and testimony involved in the grand jury decision, you are attempting to paint a version of events you buy into as more valid.

> Another objective fact is that Brown was a violent individual who had just robbed a store.

When first interviewed after the shooting Wilson indicated he had no knowledge that Brown had anything to do with the store robbery. He did not make any indication over police radio about this when he encountered Brown. He changed this part of the story later on. The circumstances and eye witness testimony of the shooting after the altercation at the police car is very fuzzy and it is not clear that Brown did charge or attack Wilson a second time.

Moreover, whether Brown was aggressive or not does not imply that the police officer has a right to execute him.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#236

Post by malyk »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #224
aswanson wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presented no disputed testimony...I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence. Yes you did. hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. ...and then turns and runs toward the officer.. This also is not an objective fact. You disputed this yourself in stating that Browns velocity could not be determined. It just as plaus…

"hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun" That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. Wilson was treated for redness to his face, as confirmed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s In the commonly-believed version of events, Brown would not have been able to injure Wilson's face like that, since he was supposedly running away. But since the officer's face was in fact inju…

I don't think anyone disagrees that there was an altercation at the car where Wilson sustained a blow to the face.

The disputed versions of events see to me to be

1. How Wilson first addresses Brown (nice as Wilsons testimony or aggressive) 2. How the altercation at the car started (Brown slams door on Wilson vs wilson slamming door into brown and then who grabbed who first) 3. Brown charging Wilson vs trying to surrender.

Wilsons version of events isn't all that believable if you've had any experience with police. But I withhold judgement. The problem is we'll never know how things actually went down...though I have deep suspicions that Brown was trying to surrender after being fired upon as he ran away.

What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force?

And that's just the event itself. How the event was handled in the aftermath is even more troubling at a systematic level. The conflicts of interest that exist between a district attorney and the police force he or she has to work with every day vis a vis trying one of those officers is just too great.

I'm not naive enough to think that a not guilty verdict wouldn't have led to riots, but at the very least we should have a trial to better determine what happened there irregardless of the result.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#237

Post by malyk »

smsm42 wrote: post #198
king_jester wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But when I read recent reports about arson, looting, windows smashed, trash cans overturned and lit on fire, businesses destroyed, police officers assaulted with rocks, explosives and firebombs, millions of damages caused, when I read about "burn that bitch down" - I think maybe this particular instance is not what I want to be part of at all. Maybe associating with this wouldn't do as much to combat either public…

Maybe understand - as I can to some measure understand somebody who was abused as a child, grew up as a violent adult and finally when insulted by somebody strikes out and kills him - but certainly not excuse or support. Even this understanding is somewhat strained - so the problem is police thinks they should be extremely tough to citizens and always suspect they are violent and up to no good - and to prove them wro…

Two things.

First, it's not like there has been widespread looting and chaos at these marches. Yes, there has been some, for sure, but the vast vast majority of these protests and protestors are peaceful. It only takes one person to break windows and light fires.

Second, even if there is looting and destruction it's generally not a rational thought process that leads people to it. These are angry, hopeless, beat down, etc people who feel like they never get any justice.

I don't condone the violence, but I certainly understand it.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#238

Post by sillysaurus3 »

malyk wrote: post #236
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun" That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. Wilson was treated for redness to his face, as confirmed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s In the commonly-believed version of events, Brown would not have been able to injure Wilson's face like that, since he was supposedly running away. But since the officer's face was in fact inju…

I don't think anyone disagrees that there was an altercation at the car where Wilson sustained a blow to the face. The disputed versions of events see to me to be 1. How Wilson first addresses Brown (nice as Wilsons testimony or aggressive) 2. How the altercation at the car started (Brown slams door on Wilson vs wilson slamming door into brown and then who grabbed who first) 3. Brown charging Wilson vs trying to surr…

Thanks for the comment. About this:

What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force?

It's an officer's job/duty to chase down someone who just attacked them. I went into some of that at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8747052

Basically, if they're willing to attack an officer, they're definitely willing to attack anyone else in the community. Their motive isn't exactly clear, so maybe they don't pose an immediate danger to the community, but their willingness to commit physical violence is very clear at that point. So it's very important to apprehend them. Plus, if the offender later turned out to be a murder suspect, the officer would rightly get into deep trouble if they'd been attacked by them and didn't go chase them down immediately, especially if they escape and go into hiding.

What sucks is that the police department only gave him a gun and nothing else. Pepper spray or a taser would have avoided all of this madness. Or a working videocamera with audio pickups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s goes to pretty great lengths to explain all of the painstaking process the jury went through to analyze the physical evidence and every piece of witness testimony. I wholeheartedly recommend anyone who's interested in all of this or considering joining the Brown protests to watch that whole video. It seems difficult to think that the physical evidence is unreliable or that conflicts of interests may have caused the jury to ignore parts of the physical evidence. Though I suppose anything is possible.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#239

Post by malyk »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #238
malyk wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone disagrees that there was an altercation at the car where Wilson sustained a blow to the face. The disputed versions of events see to me to be 1. How Wilson first addresses Brown (nice as Wilsons testimony or aggressive) 2. How the altercation at the car started (Brown slams door on Wilson vs wilson slamming door into brown and then who grabbed who first) 3. Brown charging Wilson vs trying to surr…

Thanks for the comment. About this: What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force? It's an officer's job/duty to chase down someone who just attacked them. I went into some of that at https://n…

But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself?

Dorian Johnson's story is that Wilson almost ran them over, slammed his door into them, and then grabbed Brown and pulled him through the window. IF Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee.

And this is why the situation is so troubling. The witness testimony is all over the place and unreliable (as it usually is), and it leaves open huge variations in how the events transpired.

Yes, Wilson was struck somehow. But we don't know who initiated the conflict and that has a huge bearing on what happens next.

Yes, Brown was shot in the car. But we have no idea if he actually got ahold of the gun in Wilsons hand and was aiming it at Wilson. Wilson could have simply pulled the gun out and started firing.

Yes, we know that Brown ran away and was chased.

Yes, we know he was shot facing Wilson. But we don't know if he was standing still surrendering or charging.

I've read a huge chunk of the grand jury testimony and looked at a lot of the evidence and the only reasonable conclusion that you can come to is "I don't know what happened".

two other things. First, I'm sure most people believe that if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. That might be really good advice, especially if you have brown skin, but I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests just because the person has a badge.

Second, police tend to escalate situations way beyond what is necessary and my gut says the Ferguson event is a perfect example if you hedge against Wilsons whitewashed version.

One more thing...police need to be evaluated on a different metric then simply arrests. Killing a fleeing suspect should almost always be an intolerable event inside the police department. Letting the guy get away is almost always the better alternative (almost being the key word). But, as you said, that would get the officer in trouble. Which is just dumb.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#240

Post by yummyfajitas »

coldtea wrote: post #144
yummyfajitas wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not remotely defending his thesis (and my life choices contradict his claims pretty well) but you are simply wrong about the crime stats. To choose one category of crime, blacks make up about half of of murderers. However, there are twice as many poor whites as there are poor blacks. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/c... http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceeth... htt…

> To choose one category of crime, blacks make up about half of of murderers. However, there are twice as many poor whites as there are poor blacks. Those whites don't have the same heritage of poverty, bad education and racism against them though. Nor are over-represented by a huge margin in incarceration rates. > Further, international comparisons suggest you are wrong about American-style "destitution" causing cri…

Moron4hire stated a very clear theory: the disparity in crime rates is caused by income/poverty. That particular theory is wrong.

Now you seem to be claiming that the disparity in crime rates is caused by some complex combination of things. Can you clearly state what that combination is and what evidence would prove your views wrong? Or are your views not even wrong?

Post reply on HN