Riley24

That's a fair point. But on the flip side just because someone isn't innocent, doesn't mean they deserved to die also I'm fairly sure the guy you're debating with in this thread is trolling. Just a heads up...

If you talk far more about how bad the protesters are than the issues they're protesting, you can't claim to be looking for solutions to the problem. The police in St. Paul were indiscriminately arresting peaceful protesters on sidewalks and side streets. Watch the videos for yourself. A famous activist was whisked away by riot cops while standing on a sidewalk preaching for peace. Will there ever be any accountability for that? Of course not. I've talked with you before about systemic issues in policing, and you've told me that there were none. Have you changed your mind since then? Are we now more on the same page? If so, ignore most of my first post. My mistake You misunderstood my point. I wasn't excusing crime, I was explaining some of the factors that lead to it in those areas.

I'm afraid that if you say something like "I haven't seen any police department have the mentality of an occupying force. They go out trying to protect innocent people and enforce the law.", you haven't quite been exposed to what's going on in the country. That a massively generalized and idealistic statement, and doesn't accurately reflect many departments. Overall, are the police a force for good in the country? Yeah. But does that mean that NO systemic problems exist? Of course not. "Most cops are good" is not a good response to grievances of systemic problems. There are so many examples and testimonies I could give you, I frankly don't know where to start in terms of getting you to see what all of us are seeing. You're a smart guy though, I'm sure you'll arrive there on your own (that wasn't sarcastic or condescending). Just read over all of these cases again, read the Ferguson DOJ reports, read testimonies from police whistleblowers and activists. There's a very ugly side of policing that's been given a free pass up until this point. And at the end of the day, BLM has a constitutional right to peacefully protest. That right was taken away in the past, and is being taken away literally right now. Look on Twitter, check out what's going on in St. Paul. Riot cops are snatching up peaceful protesters and dragging them away for literally no reason. There's videos of people walking around preaching for peace, and riot cops come battling in and drag them away. They're firing flash bangs and tear gas at journalists. Can you blame ANYONE at that peaceful protest for their disdain for law enforcement? How can you not look at that stuff and see why people are angry? Their legitimate right to be angry doesn't end the second someone throws a rock, or some crazy mass shooter decides he wants to kill cops. You can mourn the loss of every officer, and still demand a more justice system. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. It is not anti-police to want reform. So far, all you've done is defended law enforcement no matter what the situation was. That seems to be your function here, and if that's the case I don't want any more of a debate. I've talked about my grievances with BLM, I have no dog in this fight. So what do you think police can do to help amend this growing problem in the country?

Why did I laugh so hard at this? Couldn't let this joke go unappreciated Also, this is largely irrelevant but Eric Garner didn't have a gun. Think you're mixing up your victims (human mistake).

Right, I never said they were bad people. I'm sure they're great people, all the cops I've come across so far have been. The only problem is that our society's definition of injustice is changing. And my problem with the thin blue line mentality (not the literal bumper sticker) is that we instill a lot of fear into police officers, and I think some of them get the idea that its cops vs. bad guys, instead of cops protecting citizens. At some point, some police departments start treating themselves as an occupying force who's safety is more important than that of the citizen. But that's literally not the job of the police, they're supposed to protect us. When we send cops out on the streets with a lot of fear, the mentality of an occupying force, and questionable legal precedents, is it at all surprising that the shooting in Minnesota happened. It feels like law enforcement philosophy changed post 9/11. There's such a massive emphasis placed on militarization and officer safety, it seems like the safety of the citizen is an afterthought. Even if that's just a perception problem, its theirs to fix. BLM and police need to both come together and realize that they want the same exact thing: justice, peace, and safety. I think its the job of public servants to start that conversation, just like the police in Pittsburgh, Dallas, and Los Angeles. Here's an idea: instead of cracking down on protest and throwing gas on the fire, why don't police departments invite all of the local BLM organizers to the headquarters, sit down, and talk about how to make the city safer? Then without admitting fault, issue a statement pledging to continue improving relations and finding solutions? But no, its cops vs. protesters, and no one wants to look like a traitor.

I just focused on the good and showed how they can be better. Cops get paid to do a job just like everyone else, it would be weird to praise all of them that don't questionably kill people. That would be a weird standard for praise, no? And you misunderstand the point of the BLM movement. If their slogan could be a long sentence instead of "black lives matter" it would be "Its clear that our justice system and society thinks that black lives don't matter, so we're gonna go ahead and remind you." They're not an advocacy group for keeping black people alive in every situation. And I already explained my issues with the "black on black crime" argument in my response to Sam. The shooting is South Carolina was so incredibly egregious, any human being with morals looked at that and was disgusted. I'm not at all surprised that your LEO friends spoke out. But what about the shooting of Tamir Rice? Not to start that debate again, just using it as an example. The entire Cleveland police force rallied behind the officers. That is why some people get the impression that all "cops are bad", because of the "us vs. them" mentality. Hell, they have bumper stickers that literally convey that message. IE: thin blue line.

You don't have to worry about me thinking you're racist, I can clearly tell you're not. What you're referring to is what people call "black on black crime". Which is weird, because I've never heard of "white on white crime" or "Asian on Asian crime". Most "black on black" crime occurs in inner cities, where there's a whole host of issues that contribute to it. Lack of education, poverty, lack of jobs, high circulation of guns, etc etc. The only time that Republicans and Conservatives have ever mentioned "black on black crime" is during conversations about white people killing black people. Its a distraction. It has the connotation of "black people kill more black people than white people, so lets stop talking about racism". And ironically, the people that argue that point are the same people that could not be less interested in finding ways to improve quality of life in the inner cities. Every time the government tries to start a program to help those people (like food stamps or education programs), conservatives slap it down and declare it "big government", And so the nation-wide debate goes round and round in circles. Violence within the black community and armed public servants bringing their subconscious biases to work are two completely separate issues, but of course both are important. I agree with all of this, I would only argue that there are far more instances of police officers not receiving adequate prosecution than cases where good cops go down. So far I haven't seen a case where I thought "Woah, that cop's sentence was a little too harsh". They usually have to do something so egregious to be convicted of anything, But again, if good cops are worried about getting a bad name because other cops are bad, its not a hard thing to fix. All that cop has to do is speak out for peace or justice and he will be coveted by everyone that would've hated him otherwise. But cops don't do that, because its seen as betraying their own. Its the "us vs. them" mentality that's being protested in the first place. http://images.dailykos.com/images/122941/large/Pittsburgh_police_chief_cropped.jpg?1420477874 This is the Police Chief of Pittsburgh, who was MASSIVELY criticized for simply holding this sign. He also marched with protesters at a rally just the other day, after the sniper attacks. http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/07/pittsburgh_police_chief_walks.html There's a way to approach policing in a progressive way, and some are just starting to realize it.

It depends on the protest, sure. Some are somber, some have music, some are uplifting, some are angry. Most post-shooting protests are a mix of somber and anger. Grieving and frustration. Those usually only make the news for the coverage of the family members tearful statements. The media loves its tragedy porn. They're pissed off, can you blame them? I would be too if there was a 1/3 chance of me going to jail in my life time, or if I was shot or arrested at higher rates for the same crimes. Instead of being mad that they're mad, why don't we focus on fixing what they're mad about? There's this weird need for damage control, and helping the police save face instead of fixing the problems that are being protested. You say "regardless of the facts" as if the facts aren't on their side. They're not protesting over nothing. its not all a big misunderstanding. There are proven disadvantages and disparities for black people in our justice system. Talking about it doesn't make it exist, it exists regardless. Police killed over 100 unarmed black people across the country in 2015, which is 5x the rate of whites. (Source) We absolutely need to mourn the devastating loss of any officer killed, but can we also recognize that startling statistic? It feels like even mentioning those statistics is met with accusations of being "anti-police". Those officers in Dallas were killed at a protest over those statistics. Those statistics aren't annulled because of the bloodshed, its not suddenly irrelevant. It is not pro-police or anti-police, it is anti-police brutality/injustice and "lets stop having this conversation". I've been accused of faking grief of fallen officers simply because I don't defend every officer in the news. More than a problem of law enforcement, I think its a problem of culture. We've taught ourselves to fear black people, under some false idea that they're more dangerous than other people. We've ingrained that idea into our culture. Someone much smarter than me once compared race to butterflies and spiders. Both are in your house, and both are bugs. Which one do you hit with a shoe? The one you've been taught to fear. Its all about the subconscious biases that we've all had ingrained in us. A lot of people are uncomfortable talking about that, so they instead deny deny deny, and turn it into pro-police vs. anti-police. That's not the way the conversation started. I'm afraid you're right in that it won't change. You're right in that people are "picking teams", but both sides are to blame for that. We need more police officers to speak out against brutality and racism, and more cops asking for reform. Right now, cops that do so are treated as traitors by fellow officers. At the same time we need to make sure that lines of communication exist between activists and the police, and that there is some level of understanding within the community. Look at Snoop Dogg's peace march and meeting with the LAPD, its inspirational. (Source). And that "coming together" was also happening in Dallas before the attack. One of the major grievances of BLM is that some police departments treat themselves as an occupying force, instead of community members there to protect the citizens of the community. So if that's the perception, change it! Even if that change is lead by the police more than the protesters, what harm could it possibly do? I just thought I'd take the time to respond to your entire post since you've clearly put a lot of thought into this, and you're much more reasonable and well-spoken than some. Thanks for your reply.

Wanna know how to solve over militarized cops? Martial law

Well, now you're talking nonsense, cherry picking information, projecting your own need to protect and agenda, and being rude. And the best you could do is two videos of people chanting, out of thousands of protests? That's the end of our conversation, have a good day. BLM does not have membership, no one at the rallies is a member. People just come together and unite under a common cause. No one carries membership cards. Within that group there are many different kinds of people. The vast majority are peaceful protesters. Then there are intellectuals, preachers, even former cops. Of course there some that cause trouble, but why should that be all that we focus on, and never talk about the good? It is fact that some people at BLM protests cause trouble. It is fact that some people take BLM protests too far. But if they don't have membership, it is unfair to say that that represents the movement as a whole. You have to stop at those two facts there. People are pissed off, and can you honestly blame them? Society has basically told them that their lives don't matter. It's not the fault of white people, it's not the fault of all cops. Talk to any intellectual at a BLM protest and they'll tell you that. It's society. If you don't understand WHY they're in the streets, of course it would be hard to have a fair understanding of them. Many people here don't, they still don't get it. All I'm saying is to understand their message and appreciate the fact that they've been overwhelmingly peaceful. Not smear them as something they're not because of some people that cause members.

Demanding police reform is not anti-police. Vast majority of BLM are somber and peaceful, like the one in Dallas was prior to the attack. Don't forget that. We don't have to get into the gun debate because (1): that's for another thread, and (2): We're in full agreement, which is a breath of fresh air

BLM should have further condemned the bad that she did, but they didn't. The focused on the good instead. What exactly do you think that proves, that BLM is pro-cop killing? I have, and all I've seen is complaints about police brutality. No death threats against cops.

Terrorism isn't a subjective term, it's just poorly defined and it's always interesting what is and isn't terrorism. But terrorism is NOT defined by whether or not you feel terorrized. If that's the case, then anything can be terrorism.

Listen: I have plenty of grievances with the BLM movement. The only reason I'm defending them here, is because whats the alternative? All of us grumbling about how much we hate a justice system reform group? That's an ugly sight to see. I want to have a legitimate conversation about the movement. What scares me more than anything is just how much bullshit is being spread in the debate all throughout the country. They're not a terrorist organization, a hate group, or a black supremacist group claiming only black lives should matter. I feel the need to correct that BS because it does NOTHING to further a very important debate we should be having instead. You classify BLM as terrorists because you want to, that's all. It fits your world view. The BLM protest in Dallas had a First Amendment right to protest, and they even had a permit. with police protection included. To look at them and call them terrorists is just plain silly.

So everyone that open carries at second amendment protests is a terrorist? They're using intimidation. And its in the pursuit of political aims. But no, those are red blooded Americans, right?

That's not their leader.

Still not terrorism.

Shouting in a library is not terrorism...