I have a point I'd like to bring up. (Was thinking about it the other day, would like opinions.) Some people point out that they are criminals and that they can die because of what they did. (Although that is for the courts to decide) I'd like to compare that to prisoners of war, the Geneva convention. Two countries are at war and one side captures some of your soldiers get captured. Why does that country need to abide by the Geneva convention? They're already at war.
I think the Geneva convention is in place to make politicians feel safe. It's nothing but propaganda. What's to stop someone from deploying some untraceable disease in a high density city or country, when they're at war?
I feel like it's better for the country. If the kids and activist handle this. It's actually taking power away for organized criminals movements. Think before you speak. Turn of CNN.
Think about it some. Kids/activist, or The North American crime syndicate. They are already fighting government forces. Have been, always will. Do not give them a righteous cause. They will exploit as the always have. This actually has the chance to hurt recruitment for those organization. As we seen with ferguson. We get rid of some racist cops. That's not a big deal. It's a win, win. The more you fight it. The closer we get to a federalized police force. Okay I'm out. You people fighting the change lose. Peace.
I seen a 8 white police men beat another white man who was already on the floor with his hands behind his back on the news soooo not just minorities
It's not seen nearly as often as "racial shootings" My father resisted arrest. He was tazed, and his ribs and shoulder were broken.
Because if the first country don't abide by Geneva convention, the second country won't abide neither. Its a sort "treat the enemy prisoners like you want your people to be treated by the other country".
If the media reported on every time a black person was/is shot, the news reporters would die of exhaustion. The media makes a story out of it when the person shot and killed is (mostly) innocent.
And even then the media didn't report on EVERY SINGLE innocent shooting, as this is a very common occurrence.
The problem is that police in America have killed more Americans then terrorists have since 2000 (killed by terrorists, including 9/11: approx 3317 killed by police: over 5000)
Wow 3300 people killed in 14 years? Most of which violent criminals. That's really not many. Please finish off more so we don't have to shelter them in prison.
Protesting is a fundamental grassroots option for the general public. Take that away, and you become a dictatorship. However, this is not license for the protesters to in turn, break the law. Its that simple. What ever the reason, if enough people are annoyed by something to protest, they have that right. Racial Killings, Same sex marriages, The easter bunny? Doesn't matter. Protest away.
More relevant to your OP is the question, should the media have the right to cherry pick what to feed the public, therefore fuelling these kinds of protests?
The problem with a few of these shootings is that cops aren't supposed to use lethal means of stopping someone if their life isn't in danger. There was a video recently released that shows a man running away from an officer. That officer first shot him with his taser gun, then eventually with his pistol multiple times. Killed that man. From what the video shows, there was no need for that interaction to go that far. As a cop you don't shoot people out of fear, if that person is a genuine threat to an officer's life then shooting him would be justified. That is what gets people upset. And that's what the protesting is about.
In America, the media has a free speech policy too. They have the right to post what they want (with certain restrictions like nudity)
Not arguing with free speech. I'm just raising the point that the media showcasing these types of minority killings is what is driving the peoples discontent in that direction. Would the Ferguson shooting have caused as much drama if it was sandwiched between a host of other cop shootings of other races and places?
In my opinion. It's fair when they're peaceful but when they get all violent and such, that's when it becomes unfair. Although some cases are more fairer than others considering that some cases have a victim shot who literally didn't do anything wrong.
As a Brit, I'm not really in the place to comment on whether these shootings have been racist or whethrr the US police force as a whole is slightly racist. But I can definitely say that some of them are morally wrong. Yes, if you pull a gun on a police officer, you're gonna be shot, fair enough. But what abou that unarmed guy they strangled? I forgot his name, but you could hear him sayibg that he couldn't breath as he was being killed by a number of officers. That was ridiculous.