This is really insightful. How long has this been happening in the media? Let's attach a timeline of a presidency to it. When did the media lose its objectivity? Do anyone know?
That's been happening across the country. Rather than try to stop the riots police are standing down and letting it happen.
Ask 10 people and you'll probably get 10 different answers (such is each person's view of "objectivity"). It's been trending this way for years, but at least for me it seems to accelerated since the Trump presidency.
Because they have been put in an impossible situation. Protect the neighborhood and sometimes resort to (excessive) force in stopping the mayhem, but if they do that they will be attacked by the media/social media, politicians who will fuel the anti-police narrative, thereby increasing the size/wrath of the protests. Or do nothing, let the neighborhood burn, and hopefully it dies down without the police response provoking the idiots more. We'll probably see more people taking up arms in defense of their neighborhoods as a result of this. We've already seen a dramatic increase in violent crime across all major cities this year, and this is why.
While there has always been some bias I think things really started to separate with the rise of Fox News. Rupert Murdoch created a monster and then CNN and others rolled up their sleeves and went to war when they saw the ratings and the powers that be behind the DNC saw how the media can be weaponized and dug in.
I agree but for political reasons the local leaders in a lot of these cities, typically democrats, refuse to seek help from the national guard. I don't want to see martial law but if you bring in the guard and put boots on every corner and allow the police to control the actual protest you will limit the violence and destruction. Human walls in riot gear work.
In some places it's worked. Like here in Nashville. The protests here never got too out of control but plenty of local citizens, myself included, have at times taken to guarding private property. Some of us, while do this, have had discussions with the protesters. Meaningful, peaceful protesters. In other areas it's different because the armed citizens are looking to do more than just protect and the "protesters" want to agitate and riot. And when they see a private citizen with a gun they automatically think it's the enemy.
Not sure who of our members on this board are black. There's something I sincerely want to understand. We have athletes boycotting their own games, the media cheering them on wholeheartedly, because of police brutality and systemic racism. Every year we see police gunning down black people, sometimes totally uncalled for, other times out of fear or self-defense. These tragedies have reached a point where they have inspired athletes to stop playing. Here's what I don't get. Every year I see that thousands of black people are gunned down by other black people, not police. Why don't pro athletes boycott their games in response to the constant horrific violence that black people inflict on each other? It kills literally hundreds of times more black people per year than the police kill. Someone please help me understand why athletes view police brutality, and it's unfortunate victims, as something worthy of stopping everything, but the constant inner city violence among blacks isn't? What am I missing?
The police have been forced into an untenable situation. They can't win for losing. Individual acts of extreme violence from some of the police has partially negatively-coloured forces across not only the States but in Canada as well. With private citizens being forced into the position of protecting business and personal property, it's almost as if history is repeating itself. Back in the day when cowboys and settlers protected their properties from warring bands and outlaws.
I think it will be difficult for the collective intelligence in this country (or rather lack of it) to see anything but the narrative they are being fed, as critical thinking is completely out the window. Each side has drawn the proverbial line in the sand, the shouting is deafening, and yet no one is listening. Congress and long surrendered its willingness to compromise, and each side passively goose steps to whatever is being served and around we go. Leadership appears to only incite, and not one person has stepped in to take over the reins. There can be no solution if we don't recognize that we even have a problem. As was said we're fucked.
https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article4187602.html Leonard Pitts Jr.: Let’s talk about black-on-black violence OK, fine. Let’s talk about “black on black” crime. That, after all, is where the conversation seems to inevitably turn whenever one seeks to engage a conservative on the American habit of shooting unarmed African-American boys and men. So it was exasperating, but nowhere near surprising, to see former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani go there last week on Meet The Press. Asked by host Chuck Todd, during a discussion of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Mo., about the fact that African-American communities like that one are often served by snow white police departments, he offered some perfunctory words about the effort to produce more representative cop shops. But then Giuliani took a sharp turn off topic and into the brambles. “I find it very disappointing,” he told Todd, “that you’re not discussing the fact that 93 percent of blacks in America are killed by other blacks....I would like to see the attention paid to that that you are paying to this.” There followed a sharp exchange with another panelist, author and professor Michael Eric Dyson, which produced this parting shot from the mayor: “The white police officers wouldn’t be there if you weren’t killing each other.” Somehow, he managed not to call Dyson “you people.” In nearly every other respect, Giuliani’s words reeked of a paternalistic white supremacy unworthy of a former mayor of America’s largest city — or even a sewer worker in its remotest Podunk. But again, this has become the go-to “reasoning” for those on the right — Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh — when asked to give a damn about the killings of unarmed black boys and men. That formulation is false for multiple reasons. In the first place, being concerned over the shooting of unarmed black men hardly precludes being concerned over violence within the African-American community. Giuliani and others suggest a dichotomy where none exists. In the second place, they ignore the obvious: When black people commit crimes against black people, they face prosecution, but when police officers (or certain neighborhood watchmen) commit crimes against black people, they face getting off with little if any punishment. In the third place, what exactly is “black on black” crime? Do black people kill one another? Sure they do. Ninety percent of black murder victims are killed by black assailants. But guess what? White people kill one another, too. Eighty-three percent of white victims are killed by white assailants. See, the vast majority of violent crime is committed within — not between — racial groups. Crime is a matter of proximity and opportunity. People victimize their own rather than drive across town to victimize somebody else. So another term for “black on black” crime is, crime. But there is crime and there is crime. Redlining, loan discrimination and predatory mortgages have stripped generations of wealth from the African-American community. What is that if not robbery? The Republican Party practices policies of voter suppression. That’s the assault and battery of African-American political rights. Mass incarceration criminalizes the very existence of black men and boys. That’s the rape of equal justice. Unarmed people are killed by those who are purportedly there to protect and serve them and the “just us” system looks the other way. That’s the murder of basic human rights. It is touching that Giuliani and others are so concerned about black on black crime. But African Americans have also been long oppressed by what might be called “America on black” crime. When do you suppose they’ll be ready to talk about that? Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion...rd-pitts-jr/article4187602.html#storylink=cpy
Except that those blacks that are killing other blacks aren't paid to "serve and protect". Those are two different issues and both need to be addressed. There is plenty of blame to go around, even in the black community, but whenever a bill is brought forward to benefit those communities as well as the middle-class it's more often dismissed as socialism.
This is misleading. Get an ID.....get on a bus....go vote. And vote in better leaders. And voter suppression is an assault of all rights. Stop committing crimes. Go to school. Don't abandon your kids. Don't have kids until you're ready. That article was shit.
Most of these high profile cases in recent years have seen the cops arrested and tried. The judicial system determines whether they're guilty or not. But that article doesn't address the root of what I raised. Black people are hundreds of times more likely to kill each other (at crime rates much higher than white on white) than die at the hands of police. Even more whites are killed by police than blacks. Why should the world stop over these few deaths, tragic as they are, when it doesn't for the thousands of others?
I'd like to see just one athlete get angry when a kid wearing shoes he endorses is killed because of the shoes.
Again, doesn't answer my question. Why should the world stop over the deaths of a few blacks at the hands of the police but not the thousands of other blacks killed in inner city violence? Just because cops are paid to "protect and serve" doesn't make their victims any more valuable than the thousands of others who lost their lives to violence.
