George Floyd killed in America by police

Research on how nonviolent protest movements in the 1960's Civil Rights Movement succeeded in moving people towards support for civil rights whereas violent protests in the late 60's succeeded in electing Law and Order Republicans:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C

Firstly, I agree with the first point obviously with racist police officers, but an increased police presence does not lead to more unlawful, racist killings without the first explanation, hence why the BLM group heavily focus on that. You can clearly see why people would take issue with such killings when the killing is racially motivated by a person who believes their profession as a police officer protects them to the point they are above the law.

In terms of the second reason you gave, and ‘gang violence’, this seems to be a reappearing theme when it comes to the issue of discussing police brutality against Black people.

Crime is based on proximity, socioeconomic status and other factors. An area of one particular race with these factors would result in more crime. In the same way if a white 34 year old man was killed, for example, you wouldn’t say that people should focus their time on ‘white on white’ crime or ‘gang violence’ , so why say it when it comes to the killing of a black man.

More specifically about ‘gang violence’, Black people aren’t killing each other for the fact their black, as with racist police killings. When ‘black on black’ violence is brought up in relation to police brutality, it’s like saying ‘if you kill each other, why can’t police kill you’. It is not a justification for police killing black Americans and it minimises the importance of police brutality. The main priority, (for all people), should be saving as many lives as possible. BLM specifically aims to help prevent loss of life at the hands of racist law enforcement officials.
In terms of protesting both police brutality and gang violence, they’re both two completely separate things.

I was quite onboard with a lot of what you were saying until this post.




When I gave those two reasons I gave them as possible causes. The disproportionately high rate of killings of black people by police could be caused by racists hiding behind police badges, it could be caused by increased interaction with police, it could be a bit of both or it could be neither. The best anyone can do is speculate and put forward possible explanations, I think it's problematic to jump to assumptions.

The theory of increased police presence causing more death holds up on its own. The more interactions there are between the police and the public, particularly in high crime areas (I don't think there are many unlawful killings of black men in Kenilworth or Atherton) the more likely it is that you will see horrible outcomes.

I also think it's important to distinguish between justifiable police homicides and unjustifiable homicides because they often seem to get lumped in together.



In no way was I using gang violence as any kind of justification for excessive force or brutality on the part of police. The only link between gang violence and police brutality in my mind would go back to my above theory; if you have areas of high gang activity and violent crime you are more likely to see police reacting aggressively.



I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.



1. You're assuming motive without good evidence
2. No sensible person would make the argument that because black Americans kill each other at a high rate it makes it okay for the police to kill black Americans. The point I am making is if your primary concern is saving the lives of black people in the USA the police are not your biggest enemy, gang culture is because it claims so many more lives. I'm not suggesting people keep quiet and do nothing about unjustified police homicides but to go back to your earlier injury analogy what people are doing now is demanding treatment for a broken arm while they also have heart disease. Treat both but one is clearly more severe than the other.

The point I am making is if your primary concern is saving the lives of black people in the USA the police are not your biggest enemy, gang culture is because it claims so many more lives. I'm not suggesting people keep quiet and do nothing about unjustified police homicides but to go back to your earlier injury analogy what people are doing now is demanding treatment for a broken arm while they also have heart disease. Treat both but one is clearly more severe than the other.

My point is that the dictatorship of the capitalist class produces a police which are institutionally anti working class.

I'm definitely sure most cops are working class.

Right. You've just admitted the police station was empty. How is burning down an empty building an act of self defence?

That explains it.

Unjustified speculation. Law enforcement officers have been convicted of violence against suspects before.


Ironic, given your call for genuine justice and due process.


Now you're just being silly. This is a serious issue.


I don't demand anything. I was merely wondering what the people burning the neighbourhood and looting local businesses hoped to achieve? There are far more effective means of civil disobedience than ****ting on your own doorstep. The sad thing is that the genuine racist and corrupt police will be laughing at the people trashing their own lives. You can easily imagine the kind of thing they will be saying to each other, confirming their prejudices.

Genuine justice means fair treatment for black people in this regard, not a man murdering someone on camera and getting away with it. He's now been arrested but that wouldn't have happened without riots, given that same cop has gotten away with brutality 20 times in the past, and even then he's only been charged with 3rd degree murder (i.e. no intent to cause death) when his actions (continuing to kneel on Floyd's neck after Floyd said he couldn't breathe) would obviously have caused death. And still 3 accessories to murder (his squadmates who didn't intervene) walk free.

It is indeed a serious issue, policing always has been, and policing has always been to enact violence against the powerless on behalf of the powerful. There is no other reason for their existence given they create crime rather than stopping it.

What are the options then? Peaceful protest doesn't work - individually (e.g. Kaepernick) it gets castigated and ignored. As a group and on the streets, the police invariably attack and force violence. Voting hasn't worked. A demand for civility from the oppressed while society is so uncivil to them, a demand they never be violent when society enacts violence on them constantly through racialised policing and poverty is, frankly bull**** - it is a demand that they accept their mistreatment and hope that maybe one day their oppressor's will be nice enough to let up

It is indeed a serious issue, policing always has been, and policing has always been to enact violence against the powerless on behalf of the powerful. There is no other reason for their existence given they create crime rather than stopping it.

Not everyone thinks Black people are subhuman, however for certain police officers to treat black Americans like they’ve treated George Floyd and several others, black people are being seen as sub-human.

It's a serious and deep-rooted problem what requires a major paradigm shift in society. However, rioting and ceasing policing are certainly not the answers.
[...]

Unfortunately, the main cause of social racism is, like religion, childhood indoctrination. Which is why it will be almost as difficult to erase, especially when the head of state is a regular church-goer.

For your first point, I thought you were referring to unlawful killings of black people with racist motives, in which case higher police presence wouldn’t contribute solely without racist police officers.
I agree that a higher police presence could result in more police killings (generally).
In terms of distinguishing between them, in some cases it’s unclear, but if you have an unarmed suspect who hasn’t been physically violent towards you to justify using such force, it is makes it more clear that it can’t be justified. Obviously in the absence of evidence, (which is why police should be forced to wear body cameras), it makes it hard to determine.

I wasn’t suggesting you personally were justifying police brutality, but by describing gang violence in this current situation removes focus from the problem in hand, i.e police brutality against black Americans, and has been used by several other people in America as a way of justifying such disproportionate use of force.
It’s like turning up to a fundraiser raising money for cancer research and then complaining to those fundraising there are other diseases and illnesses out there which need treating.

I was referring to ‘black on black’ violence which you mentioned in your original reply.

1.What do you mean assuming motive without evidence? Are you suggesting Black people are killing each other because their skin is the same as theirs?

2. No sensible person would think it’s acceptable to kill an unarmed black man in the case of George Floyd, but (unfortunately) that is the case, and people use the excuse of Black people killing each other to justify it, with Katie Hopkins as an example.

You may see gang culture as being more severe, but (many) others see the fact a person entrusted with providing law and order and protecting the public abused this power by taking an innocent persons life being more severe. In the same way some people may see terror attacks in the UK as a bigger threat than individual murders, (despite in 2019 there being 2 terror attacks which claimed 2 lives and 648 separate murders).

Black lives matter has always been a movement against police brutality/systemic racism. That has always been their primary aim. It's like asking why the Centre for Infectious Disease Control isn't fighting against cancer as well since they are aiming to fight disease/save lives. There are tons of excellent community organisations in places like New York, Southern California, Chicago, Detroit, Houston... trying to tackle the problem of black on black violence. But it's a very complex issue in part fuelled by some of the very issues that BLM are fighting against.

I'd argue rioting can in some cases be the way forward though not necessarily "the" solution. The rioting served as a symbolism to get social media and the international press talking, which in turn put additional pressure on the authorities to act and possibly impacted the final court verdict on the killing.

The businesses and buildings that were burnt can always claim back monies from the insurance. But rioting in this instance was a well worth price to pay to get the required attention and help steer the course of justice. You don't get something for nothing unfortunately.
Think about all the revolutions in the western world that led to today's modern democracies, sacrifices had to be made to get there.

I'm not sure what Trump being religious has to do with anything?

Research on how nonviolent protest movements in the 1960's Civil Rights Movement succeeded in moving people towards support for civil rights whereas violent protests in the late 60's succeeded in electing Law and Order Republicans:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C

Naive nonsense of course. Malcolm X assassinated in 1965. Martin Luther King , the peaceful protester ,assassinated in 1968. Peaceful protest does not necessarily produce any changes. Racist police brutality in USA is still around.

Did you read the whole thing?