4 ms·

What I'm saying is they ought to be outraged, but we're so used to police violence that when we see a police officer choose to shoot a young person instead of l

What I'm saying is they ought to be outraged, but we're so used to police violence that when we see a police officer choose to shoot a young person instead of leave the area, folks hem and haw and say, "Well they did have a pipe." For what it's worth, I am saying you're right. But I also think that non-violent protests only rarely accomplish much of anything on their own when it comes to government change. Folks talk about a moral high ground in these cases, but I think its important to note that the status quo ultimately benefits the aggressors in cases like these. You can call this rhetoric if you like. I think it's odd you're asking me to provide an address to a point I ultimately agree with? Folks who like police violence will like police violence. You can tell they like police violence because when presented with clear cases of police violence, they make excuses.

bpt3 7y ago
I can't help but point out a perfect example of why I don't think you're interested in an actual discussion: The person with the pipe didn't just have a pipe, he initiated the interaction by hitting the officer with it. If the person with the pipe was just walking down the street, or even waving it in a menacing fashion, and the officer fired, this would be a very different situation. If you genuinely don't see the difference between your description and what was captured in the video, it's not possible to have a rational discussion about this. If you do, you're being disingenuous at best, and it's also probably not possible to have a rational discussion about this.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > he initiated the violence by hitting the officer with it, and the officer responded. Alternative perspective: the officer initiated violence by being there threatening a crowd advocating for the right to self determination. He came with lethal armament with the obvious goal of dispersing the gathering. That's why he was there, and the video shows it. You see militarized police as normal, so this doesn't shock you. I refuse to accept that. You can accuse me of acting in bad faith but I don't see how I could be more honest about my intentions or characterizations. You aren't even really refuting them, it seems you agree that militarized police presence should be normalized in our considerations. I'm not so sure. No good comes of it.

bpt3 7y ago

I can't help but point out a perfect example of why I don't think you're interested in an actual discussion: The person with the pipe didn't just have a pipe, he initiated the interaction by hitting the officer with it. If the person with the pipe was just walking down the street, or even waving it in a menacing fashion, and the officer fired, this would be a very different situation. If you genuinely don't see the difference between your description and what was captured in the video, it's not possible to have a rational discussion about this. If you do, you're being disingenuous at best, and it's also probably not possible to have a rational discussion about this.

KirinDave 7y ago
> he initiated the violence by hitting the officer with it, and the officer responded. Alternative perspective: the officer initiated violence by being there threatening a crowd advocating for the right to self determination. He came with lethal armament with the obvious goal of dispersing the gathering. That's why he was there, and the video shows it. You see militarized police as normal, so this doesn't shock you. I refuse to accept that. You can accuse me of acting in bad faith but I don't see how I could be more honest about my intentions or characterizations. You aren't even really refuting them, it seems you agree that militarized police presence should be normalized in our considerations. I'm not so sure. No good comes of it.