Out of Pod Experience

Actually, I did a report on this entire debacle (militarized police forces) and I found out quite a few things. I ended up using it as a response to a friend who was blaming police for killing blacks, and I had to condence the ten-page paper (obviously) into the following:

The problem isn’t the police or black people. Placing a massive label and stereotyping proves nothing other than you know how to paint with a broad-stroke brush, but any autistic kid can do that. The problem is the violence that has risen in the last fifty years, and the fact of the matter is that the police are on the front lines of this problem, and it is not abating.

Before 1985, police were allowed to shoot a suspect who was fleeing from a felony crime scene. Police could use deadly force for any reason that you didn’t stop, and that was that. No inquiry, nothing. It was a call to stop and if you ignored it, enjoy the pine box. The Supreme Court case “Tennessee v. Garner” changed that, but with that change also brought a bigger problem: violence by criminals against the police began to rise. Nowadays, you see far too many people engaged in large felonies—and more often than not this includes spree and rampage killers—committing “suicide by cop”. Could you imagine how the police feel when they are placed in the position that they have to shoot and kill you, because you don’t want to go to jail?

And so, police training has pushed to distance themselves from the people they are called to arrest. Empathy has given way to apathy, because there’s no telling what the ************ is going to do. Why do you think nine-times-out-of-ten, cops responding to a domestic violence dispute are ready to taze, beat, or shoot a suspect? Because that has become the trend.

You blame the police for going beyond what many people consider is their job. I blame the people in charge who push apathy over empathy, but I also see where they are coming from. In truth, the blame lies on society, because it pushes people to believe the best way to go is to take as many people with you. In that same breath, society also teaches people that they should be free from consequences for the wrong decisions they make. As the courts have removed the powers of the police and made it more difficult for them to effectively enforce the laws while being safe, it has also pushed people to harass and demean them, to not respect them for any number of reasons.

Cops aren’t pissed that you record them because they did something wrong. They get pissed because anyone can easily edit and modify a video to show the cops acting like barbarians and providing only one side of the story. A great case in point is what happened with George Zimmerman, when MSNBC edited the 911 call he made to make him sound like an absolute racist. Or when the reporter edited his tape to make Cliven Bundy sound like a racist to the nth degree, when in reality the words he said, while maybe not the most profound or well-strung-together, was the opposite.

And unfortunately in today’s day and age, in a civil court the police are at a disadvantage, because there is close to no burden of proof to get a judgment in your favor. They know that.

But if you want to paint with a broad stroke, remember that there are a shitton of black people convicted of major felonies, and plenty of them for dealing in drug trafficking. Plenty of Hispanics are accused of similar things, as well as being here illegally. Considering how most drug dealers act and how violent illegals can be when confronted by the police, do you honestly blame them for how they act? And if you want to stereotype, then they have the right to do that as well.

Considering their job description, yeah. You’re ******.

There's a recording making the rounds in which an alleged eyewitness is heard off-camera stating that he watched Brown turn and charge at the officer, with his head down. the original uploader appears to have made it private after realizing something was off, but the gist of it was the guy said he WATCHED Brown turn and charge the officer before the officer shot him. And the officer already had his gun out and pointed at the man, so...yeah.

EDIT:

Here's a copy of the same video. Skip to 6:28 to hear the exchange.

Warning: Graphic Content NSFW

I would say it better:

israelis vs palestinians.

who killed first?






















ah man, I so went there.

The great majority of the people that take the side of authority are the ones that think, and believe " As lone as I am polite, proper and law abiding, they will never do that to me!" Keep giving them power and unfettered support. See how long that belief hold true**.





** From witness and experience, only about one second before they discover they can "get away with it". Wolves and sheep are predictable in nature. As are human beings.

Escape From New York leaps to mind. :P

But anyway stoic, you're partially correct, but you're not thinking far enough. It's already too late, there is not one America, there are four or five by now. And they don't share a lot of common ground. It's not about income disparity, it's about cultural incompatibility.

The melting pot was always a lie.

That's freedom of speech.... everyone gets their own set of facts to support their opinion, courtesy of the local media.

Sorry, was being facetious. Of course you're right, however following the way the media report things in the US, depending on which network you choose to follow, each has it's own set of facts.

From where I'm sitting, this is just a temporary hiccup. It ties into disruption thinking and, if you believe in such things, singularity.

Take a step back and look at the wider picture: this huge growth in the connectedness (for lack of a better word) of the human species has been going on for centuries.

With each step, we connect more and more over larger distances. this automatically brings cultural differences to the forefront

We started in nomadic groups
We settled in villages
these became cities
Which became city states
Which coalesced into nations
Which entered into alliances

Tieing disruption thinking into this: technology is moving faster and faster these days. The telephone has been around for about a hundred years, but failed to achieve what the internet and social media have done in a decade. I can tweet at Khomeini in 3 seconds whilst typing this.

Society is incapable of stomaching these accelerating leaps of interconnection: they are appearing faster than we can incorporate them into our cultural psyche.

If you look at the singularity university guys, they see 3 integrators of disruption: society, business and government. In order, these 3 go from fastest to slowest in ability to incorporate technological disruption. Look at this graph:

http://runontoast.typepad.com/.a/6a01053603cf59970b0115711e234c970b-pi

Technology is changing faster than we can change. This, in essence, is what is creating this supposed cultural incompatibility. Think about it:

200 years ago, people from the next town over were weird and uncouth
100 years ago, people from the next country would never see eye to eye with you
20 years ago, there was barely any intercontinental contact on the consumer level

These days, I can hit up the editor of a Tokyo, Iranian, or US media outlet whenever I want through various channels.

Now this is where we may differ of opinion: you seem to state that the incompatiblity will force more and more conflict, even within societies itself, which somehow will force a cataclysm. I would posit that 'nations' and cultures as such are by definition artifical constructs, that do not bear out long term incorporation of technological change.

In short: the current crises may last a few more decades or centuries, but barring a cataclysm, we are inexorably growing into a global society, devoid of ancient cultural barriers. Technological change, for the most part, is driving this faster than politics or business.

Where we might agree: is the human species able to cope with the vastly accelerating level of change, without resorting to a potential world war 3? I don't discount the possibility that the changes are happening so fast, that they will lead to clashes. We see this all around. Our only superpower is intervenging globally to stop 'terrorism'. Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, the list goes on. At he same time though, they are exporting their culture. We live in an American age, wether you like it or not. The world drinks Cola, uses Google, and goes to McD. So this hegemonic culture is so prevalent, we don't even see it. Whatever you might think of it, it does bring people closer to one another in the longer term.

This very nature of globalization, lead quite naturally by the remaining superpower, will drive many groups to rebel: people don't like change. It's clear though, that the battle has already been won. ISIS, Russia, et al: they are small compared to the vast global majority that looks at the west. This does not mean per se that any one is better than the other, just different and with differing degrees of power.

In the longer term, cultural incompatibility is nothing but a temporary struggle on the road to global culture. After that (and it'll take a few centuries, no doubt). Where do we look but above?

TL:DR: Dude, we're going to the starrrrrssss man! Roddenberry was rriiight!

while you are dealing in absolutes here and there is clear error in that,
i completely agree with you about cultural incompatibility being horse****.