3 ms·

Because one of those groups is a set of criminals that will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and the other one of those groups is a set of governmen

Because one of those groups is a set of criminals that will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and the other one of those groups is a set of government agents with a history of not being held accountable for their actions. There's never been a lack of focus on intra-community violence. It's been the go-to "whataboutism" for ... ever. It's also not relevant to the question of why government authorities should be exempt from the consequences of violating the law.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Because one of those groups is a set of criminals that will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and the other one of those groups is a set of government agents with a history of not being held accountable for their actions. You could say that about both groups. There is a cultural tradition in the relevant communities of not talking to the police, which causes disproportionately many of those murderers to get away with it, and the murder solve rate in the US isn't all that high to begin with. You tend to get more murders in proportion to how much the perpetrators expect to get away with it, so the numbers are telling a story there. > There's never been a lack of focus on intra-community violence. It's been the go-to "whataboutism" for ... ever. Apparently not to a sufficient extent to actually address the problem. If you don't want people to keep pointing to it then get there to not be something to point to. > It's also not relevant to the question of why government authorities should be exempt from the consequences of violating the law. The officers in question are facing homicide charges, as it should be. You're just begging the question in limiting it to government authorities. If Black Lives Matter then shouldn't all of them?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > There is a cultural tradition in the relevant communities of not talking to the police, A direct consequence of the long history of police racism, abuse,and complicity of the police in abuse originating outside of the police. So fixing the police is key to both sides of the problem.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Because one of those groups is a set of criminals that will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and the other one of those groups is a set of government agents with a history of not being held accountable for their actions. You could say that about both groups. There is a cultural tradition in the relevant communities of not talking to the police, which causes disproportionately many of those murderers to get away with it, and the murder solve rate in the US isn't all that high to begin with. You tend to get more murders in proportion to how much the perpetrators expect to get away with it, so the numbers are telling a story there. > There's never been a lack of focus on intra-community violence. It's been the go-to "whataboutism" for ... ever. Apparently not to a sufficient extent to actually address the problem. If you don't want people to keep pointing to it then get there to not be something to point to. > It's also not relevant to the question of why government authorities should be exempt from the consequences of violating the law. The officers in question are facing homicide charges, as it should be. You're just begging the question in limiting it to government authorities. If Black Lives Matter then shouldn't all of them?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> There is a cultural tradition in the relevant communities of not talking to the police, A direct consequence of the long history of police racism, abuse,and complicity of the police in abuse originating outside of the police. So fixing the police is key to both sides of the problem.