>>>No, Obama siding with protesters didn't create "Black Lives Matter." Police shooting black people unnecessarily and rarely, if ever, being punished for it did. Look at this week and the fact that the cop who shot Walter Scott in the back while he was running away and then put his own taser next to him to imply he (the cop) had been threatened was not convicted despite the thing being caught on tape. My black friends weren't surprised; this is their experience of the US justice system.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Agreed about police impunity.
>>DWB is a real thing.
>>Grand Juries indict everybody - except cops.
>
>Agree to here.
>
>>
>>"Black Lives Matter" is pointing out a real problem, with the wrong solution.
>>Cops standing down during riots and looting won't fix anything.
>>Cops getting less aggressive in high crime neighborhoods won't fix anything - more lives get lost to black on black violence.
>>Killing cops for revenge won't fix anything.
>>
>
>There's a fair amount of evidence that different policing styles produce different results. It's not about cops being less aggressive per se. It's about cops treating the community as partners.
>
>And, of course, killing cops for revenge is totally unacceptable. But I'd argue that the people doing that are outliers, just like other terrorists.
>
>>Long ago, when I was young, I was pulled over for the simple crime of being a young man driving a ratty car.
>>It was not unreasonable - I resembled a group that causes trouble.
>>I obeyed commands and was treated with respect.
>>
>
>I disagree with you here. If you hadn't done anything wrong, then it was not reasonable for you to be pulled over. Resembling a group that causes trouble is not probable cause.
>
>>Every black man I know has received DWB and worse, and not always treated with respect.
>>And unlike being young, they don't outgrow being black.
>>
>>I do understand the frustration but there must be better approaches than a war between police and our black friends and neighbors.
>
>Yes. And it starts with police being made aware of and trained to fight against their implicit bias (something we all have) and with police being trained in de-escalation techniques. It also requires that police who violate the social contract (as, for example, did the officer who shot Walter Scott) be punished, not protected.
>

Agreed with almost all.
Protecting bad cops is unacceptable.

Accepting the implicit bias thing would require apologizing for being (appearing to be?) white.
And it gets used to excuse bad behavior - it slips into the soft bigotry of low expectations too easily.

>I disagree with you here. If you hadn't done anything wrong, then it was not reasonable for you to be pulled over. Resembling a group that causes trouble is not probable cause.

Oh, there is always a legal pretext for the stop.
I don't think getting stopped a few times is unreasonable - especially if the practice keeps crime down.

It does get unreasonable when the stops are so frequent they are actually harassment.
If you are being harassed, record video and shame or sue the police.

Even an unreasonable stop by a cop does not justify non-compliance.

Non-compliance with police during a stop is just plain stupid.
You are facing an armed policeman.
An armed policeman who knows that some traffic stops turn deadly against the cop in a split second.
Do not under any circumstance make that policeman nervous.

White kids playing at night with toy guns have been killed by cops - utterly tragic.
But it does show the danger of non-compliance with police.
And the danger of surprising an armed man who has a split second to survive or die.

The real point is this:
Not saying racism does not exist,
Not saying all shootings are justified

Don't impute racism to all cop shootings, especially when the subject was non-compliant.
White kids get shot too when they act stupidly around a cop.