I guess it is OPEN SEASON to kill black men in America...no one seems to care.

You guys are not understanding the point. I referenced the NBA to point out, as a basketball forum, we support a black, male-dominated sport for our entertainment. But when it comes to a real life issue like inequality in society, we don't support them. However, arguing against ignorance is moot.

 

Yup, we need 3 more black owners so that they will be proportionately represented and we need to cut out about 75% of the black players and replace them with white, hispanic, asian, and indian players and we'll have a non-racist NBA.











Or, we could realize that some things are disproportional for a reason that has nothing to do with racism.









Nah.

 

This isn't an issue about inequality in society, it's an issue about a lot of people not understanding the law.

 

mah, I don't see any issues with it man, if a guy has talent, he should play, he can be purple for all I care.

 

That's the players fault... They rather cry about Donald Sterling and get another white owner to replace him or cry about getting more money and keep getting crumbs off the table. Why dream of being an owner in the NBA when they can start their own league...

 

So you're saying there can be disproportionate representation that isn't tied to racism? Like when some segments of the population commit more violent crimes than others or like how some might be better at a given sport than others? We've made progress.

 

Sure

Personally, I don't think anything should be about a race, but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. For example, I have a friend who's mom is white, his dad is Mexican, when he fills out a job application he selects white, in social life he says he's Mexican...

Why do you think is that?

 

that's not very smart considering affirmative action might help him land a better job based on his ethic background.

 

I think it's illegal for employers to look at race as a factor in job applications, and white people still get hired more easily than minorities.

 

Called it.

http://gotnews.com/breaking-nypd-confirms-ericgarner-member-organized-crime-staten-island/

OH man, what's sad is I'm sure there are cases AA's could get behind to show a bias in the system, but this and Ferguson have completely bit them in the ass.

 

So he loved to intimidate ethnic shop owners.

Clearly it was racially motivated, right?

Right?

 

Lol is that a credible news site? I just scrolled through all their top stories and had a good laugh.

 

You are dumber than a bag of rocks. Look at the other stories on that site.

 

Cop shoots at unarmed man while daughter is having asthma attack

 

It's clear as day the officer used deadly force. Deadly force doesn't have to be a gunshot or being struck with a baseball bat as you suggest.

Reread the definition of deadly force you posted yourself. Placing someone in a chokehold obviously carries with it a high risk of substantial bodily injury or death. This is why it was banned by the NYPD.

 

The first three and last two are misleading, especially among other countries of our size.

 

That's an incredibly lame argument. The ONLY reason the guy died was because of health problems that the officers couldn't have known about. That doesn't mean that taking him to the ground all of a sudden becomes "deadly physical force" according to the legal definition. The guy had a heart condition, so if they used a tazer and he had a heart attack, would that all of a sudden be "deadly physical force" in your mind? The guy has asthma so if they used mace and it triggered a fatal asthma attack, would that be deadly force too? The intent was clearly not to kill the guy but to get him to the ground and in cuffs in order to effect the arrest that he was resisting and no reasonable person (and incidentally no one on the grand jury) would say that the cop's take down was something that the cop should have expected to kill the guy.

 

Not a credible argument. As others have pointed out in this thread, a chokehold carries with it a very significant risk of serious bodily harm.

Mace and tasers do not. If mace and tasers were as risky and dangerous as chokeholds which cut off blood flow to the brain they would likely be banned by local PD's. They aren't, but chokehold's are. There's a logical reason for that.

Reread the medical examiner's report if you seriously think Garner's poor health and obesity was the "only reason" for his death. And then share with us what medical knowledge you have that the ME who examined Garner was not privy to.

I agree that the Officer's intent was not to kill Garner, but intent is not a necessary element of each of the charges presented to the Grand Jury. Manslaughter charges do not require intent. Drunk drivers don't intend to kill, but they act negligently and thus are criminally liable. Same analogy here.

 

There is a shoot first ask question mentality the police seem to have. "If I think he might be armed, that's enough for me to shoot".

That's a big problem. Some of these cases the police should have first communicated to freeze or what not to do before firing their weapon.

Police need to be less trigger happy and follow the rules of their own department. There should be consequences to having a ask questions later mentality.

 

If the police really wanted to make a point, they should take a week off. The communities that would turn into lawless cesspools of chaos would be the communities that these protesters live in. That would teach these protesters a thing or two about the value of the police. This would educate them to how things really work.