Protests erupted overnight in Charlotte after an officer-involved shooting of an African American man in the University City area. The officer was reportedly also African American.
According to accounts in the Charlotte Observer, “a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer fatally shot a man in the parking lot of a University City apartment complex Tuesday afternoon.” The man killed was identified as Keith Lamont Scott, age 43.
The police account is that they were searching for a man who had an outstanding warrant when they saw Mr. Scott leave his car holding a gun.
Officers then approached Mr. Scott as he got back into the car. He emerged from the car again, reportedly armed with a firearm “and posed an imminent deadly threat to the officers, who subsequently fired their weapon striking the subject,” according to the police statement. “The officers immediately requested Medic and began performing CPR.”
He was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead. Police Chief Kerr Putney later acknowledged to reporters that Mr. Scott was not the person they were searching for. Police report that they recovered the firearm held by Mr. Scott.
However, there is another account of what happened. A woman claiming to be Mr. Scott’s daughter “claimed on a live-streamed video on Facebook that Scott was unarmed when he was shot.”
“In the video, the woman said her father was sitting in his car reading a book and waiting for the school bus to drop off his son. She claimed that her father was Tasered and then shot four times, and that he was disabled.”
“IT WAS A BOOK,” one protester’s sign read. The Observer reports, “Police declined to respond directly to the woman’s accusations.”
Mayor Jennifer Roberts tweeted early Wednesday: “The community deserves answers and full investigation will ensue. Will be reaching out to community leaders to work together.”
Video Shows Oklahoma Officer Fatally Shoot An Unarmed Black Man
On Monday, the Tulsa Police Department released several videos showing last week’s fatal shooting of an unarmed black man by a white female officer. Terence Crutcher, 40, was shot and killed Friday after officers responding to an unrelated call spotted his vehicle stalled in the middle of the roadway, Tulsa World reports.
The police department initially claimed that Mr. Crutcher refused orders to put up his hands, but the footage appears to show him walking toward his vehicle with his hands above his head.
During a press conference on Monday, Tulsa Police Chief Chuck Jordan called the video footage “very disturbing — it’s very difficult to watch.” He said there was no gun found on Crutcher or in his vehicle.
“I will just make this promise to you: We will achieve justice in this case,” Chief Jordan said. “I want to assure our community and I want to assure all of you and people across the nation who are going to be looking at this: We will achieve justice ― period.”
An attorney for Mr. Crucher’s family, Damario Solomon-Simmons, said at a news conference that said the department’s claim that Crutcher died at the hospital was not true.
“Terence died on that street in his own blood, without any help,” said Mr. Solomon-Simmons. “We saw that Terence did not have any weapon,” he continued. “We saw that Terence did not make any sudden movements. We saw that Terence was not being belligerent. We did not see Terence reach into the car. We did not see Terence attacking the officers.”
The video shows that more than two minutes go by before officers begin administering aid after he was shot.
LA Police Commission Faults LAPD Officers in Two Deadly Shootings
The LA Times is reporting today that the “Los Angeles Police Commission concluded Tuesday that LAPD officers violated deadly-force rules in two controversial shootings last year, breaking ranks with Police Chief Charlie Beck.”
In both cases, the “rulings raised questions about whether the officers could have avoided using deadly force. In one case, a woman armed with a knife was fatally shot by officers. In another, police killed a man who had thrown a beer bottle at their patrol vehicle.”
The Times notes, “The commission, a civilian panel that oversees the LAPD, announced that it had faulted both officers who fatally shot James Joseph Byrd in October after a bottle shattered the back window of their police cruiser in Van Nuys. The officers told investigators they believed they had come under fire.
“In the shooting of Norma Guzman nearly a week earlier, the commission found fault with the tactics and use of deadly force by one of the two officers who shot her as she was walking along a street near downtown while carrying an 8-inch knife.”
The rulings contradict Chief Beck’s assessment that both officers who shot Ms. Guzman “followed the department’s policy for using deadly force.”
Chief Beck “believed the initial rounds fired by the officers who shot Byrd fell within policy, but faulted the officers for firing an additional 11 rounds.”
Both individuals suffered from mental illness. Mr. Byrd was a 45-year-old white man with a history of schizophrenia, while Ms. Guzman was a 37-year-old Latina, suffering from undiagnosed mental illness.
The Times reports Commissioner Steve Soboroff split with his colleagues and believed “that both officers who shot Guzman were justified in doing so. Soboroff also voted alone in finding that one of the officers who shot Byrd didn’t violate the LAPD’s deadly force rules, though he agreed the other did.”
”It was very, very hard to make that determination — for all of them,” he said. “There’s possibility for reasonable people to disagree.”
It is now up to Chief Beck “to determine what, if any, punishment to hand down to the officers.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Protests? It was more like a bunch of thugs rioting and looting.
BP wrote:
> Protests? It was more like a bunch of thugs rioting and looting.
I’ve always wondered why so many “protests” about police violence seem to include looting of the local shoe stores and liquor stores…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fna_RrNeBy0
One person’s thug is another person’s freedom fighter. It is pretty obvious there is a lot of anger and frustration here. I keep seeing people dismiss it.
So your freedom fighters rob, loot and burn trucks and stores? If they robbed you and burned your hose would you still think they’re freedom fighters?
One doesn’t have to condone the actions of protesters to understand the rage that those actions result from. The data are overwhelming. The number of fatal police shootings in total, and the number of demonstrably unjustified shootings (e.g., of unarmed individuals)—which disproportionately involve black victims—is at epidemic levels. Where’s the condemnation of that from the right?
Violent crime is at epidemic levels in black urban neighborhoods. Where is the condemnation for that?
Don’t you think maybe they are different things?
Think deeply about this. What are the “things”?
I don’t see a difference from a basic level.
I see dead people that should not be dead people. Isn’t that the “problem” we should be focused on? How do we prevent death of people that should not be dead? How do we do so without causing material risk of harm to others?
I have said that we need to have reforms in policing.
Do you really think that is going to reduce the number violent deaths of blacks?
I think reforms in policing could reduce the number of violent deaths of blacks because part of the problem is that there are whole communities right now who believe calling the police will make things worse, not better.
Eric writes:
> the number of demonstrably unjustified shootings (e.g., of
> unarmed individuals)—which disproportionately involve
> black victims
In 2015 the WaPo (not a right wing paper) reported that 50% of people killed by cops were white and 20% were black.
I know Eric will want to remind us that whites are ~62% of the population and blacks are only ~13%.
In the link below Newsweek (not a right wing magazine) says that whites killed 44% of the cops in 2013 and blacks killed 37% of them.
http://www.newsweek.com/who-kills-police-officers-315701
It is not PC to say this, but there is a disproportionate amount of crime in black neighborhoods and cops are disproportionately more likely to get shot at (and killed) in black neighborhoods so while it is sad when anyone get’s shot by a cop we should expect that more people are shot by cops in black neighborhoods.
P.P.S. Remember that Michael Brown (who grabbed an officers gun causing him to fire it in his car), Trayvon Martin (who was bashing a guys head against a concrete sidewalk) and a guy who’s name I forget (who pulled the trigger himself trying to grab a cops gun) show up on most lists as “unarmed victims”…
P.P.S. Does anyone know if a cop has ever killed anyone (of any race) in Davis?
David wrote:
> Protests erupted overnight in Charlotte after an officer-involved
> shooting of an African-American man in the University City area.
Any reason you didn’t mention the race of the officer?
I know David must be bummed that it was not a white cop, but I still think it should be mentioned.
I don’t know what happened, but my guess is that officer Vinson saw the gun and decided that he did not want to be the next guy added to the growing “black on black” murder list this year.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3528179/brentley-vinson-photos-pictures-of-black-cop-who-killed-african-american-man-keith-lamont-scott-go-viral-facebook-live-video/
P.S. To Highbeam, I think the guy’s name was Keith Lamont Scott (not Keith “Soctt” as David writes above).
David did, reread the article.
BP wrote:
> David did, reread the article.
It is there now, did David (or Highbeam) add the race of the officer after fixing the spelling of Mr. Scott’s last name?
I read it first thing this morning and I posted one-half hour before you.
It was in the original article – I put the race for the officer in both current cases. But you need to understand that it doesn’t matter from my point of view what the race of the officer is. Implicit bias is not endemic to only one race and the bigger issue is the culture of the police department and profession.
not me…fixed Soctt to Scott even before I fact-checked, as it was obviously a typo…then checked the Charlotte paper, and added the middle name …and it was clear immediately that the 2nd sentence here identified the race of the officer, which was confirmed from fact checking
David wrote:
> It was in the original article – I put the race for the
> officer in both current cases.
Sorry that I missed it maybe after reading mainstream media articles for so many years I now have an “Implicit bias” where I “think” they will have a left of center view (aka the view white cops are running around shooting people of color with their hands up for no reason) when they really don’t…
I think you’re misusing the word “implicit bias.”
I think you are misusing the word “word”.
Oklahoma shooting looks like a straight up hit. 842 killed by USA cops so far in 2016.
Biddlin wrote:
> Oklahoma shooting looks like a straight up hit.
I would not call it a “hit” but I would like to see a full on murder trial for the cop (or cops) that pulled the trigger. There is a big difference between shooting someone because you are mad at them for not doing what you say (I have wanted to shoot my kids many times for this reason) and having a valid reason for shooting to protect your life (or the lives of others)…
Well how disappointing is this? Many of the black suspect deaths that have received national attention had black officers involved. It totally destroys the white cop racism narrative that has been the basis for the recent BLM and liberal social justice anti-cop crusade.
This shooting looks terrible from the video and the story. It is almost perfect for the BLM and liberal social justice crusades against the cops. Except for the fact that the cop shooter was also black.
Too bad BLM, the liberal social justice crusade and the DNC all immediately launched into their “cops are white racists” platform. It set up a divide that isn’t going to heal anytime soon. There isn’t much being done to change things. The cops are just standing down in the high crime areas and so crime is increasing in ALL of these areas.
You would also give yourself more credibility on this topic by posting a few articles on the black on black violent crime occurrences in these neighborhoods. We get our heartstrings pulled by the tragedy of killings by cops, but nothing about the much greater tragedy of all the criminal killings in these neighborhoods… plus all those that have been prevented by quality policing. I am starting to get that only certain black lives matter to the social justice crusader… only those killed by a cop.
No it doesn’t, unless you continually misrepresent the issue by claiming that anyone argues that every police shooting is the result of white racism. The issue is a culture within law enforcement—among police of all races—that has resulted in a disturbing number of unjustified police shootings disproportionately involving blacks.
I agree that there is a police culture improvement opportunity, but there is also outside justification for some of what has happened with police becoming more likely to shoot. Primarily it is the greater likelihood that they will be shot first. It is the greater incidence of violence and the greater likelihood that suspects will be armed and willing to shoot.
The black urban neighborhood is a mess. With the help of black urban pop culture that lauds violence and crime… that is certainly contributed to by so much out of wedlock birth and fatherless families… the cops are more on edge with black suspects.
Take a look at the Asian urban neighborhood and the Latino urban neighborhood. Again, I don’t dispute the need to reform police practices, but to denying that the problems in the black neighborhood are contributing will prevent us from achieving actual improvements… or it will just trade one set of terrible circumstances for others.
Closing arguments in Frankly World:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: My client, Officer Dogood, should be found not guilty of killing Mr. Johnson, who was holding his bible while walking home to his wife and children from his volunteer work at the soup kitchen, because, you know, black urban neighborhoods are a mess; and black urban pop culture lauds violence and crime. And just think about all of the out-of-wedlock births and fatherless families there are in the black community. This was clearly nothing more than an unfortunate but, certainly, understandable mistake. So, I ask you to find that this was justifiable homicide. Maybe then, folks will clean up the black community so things like this don’t happen any more at some point in the future.
Practice hyperbole much?
And thanks for demonstrating why we will never make much progress on this. You want to lynch the cops for their mistakes in an environment that invites mistakes even though the cops are not responsible for the environment. They are just left having to clean up the mess. Absolutely zero acknowledgement of these source problems. Absolutely zero acknowledgement of the gross over-representation of blacks in crime and violence.
You have your narrative and each of these tragically ending police encounters are just valuable PR to make you feel right and righteous. Meanwhile, stepping back to see the bigger picture, nobody is well served by that practice.
and then…
Wasn’t needed here.
“Lynch” was an unfortunate choice of words, given the topic here. Perhaps “hold accountable” was the term you were looking for.
Eric wrote:
> that has resulted in a disturbing number of unjustified
> police shootings disproportionately involving blacks.
Since you are saying the “number of unjustified police shootings disproportionately involve one race” are you saying that the police (of all races) are “racist” (not just the white cops)?
SOD: I have to ask, why do you continue to try to bait on this issue?
David asks:
> SOD: I have to ask, why do you continue to try
> to bait on this issue?
I’m really am wondering why you are continue to post article after article on the “issue” of people one specific “race” getting shot if you really don’t think “racism” is the reason. If someone has an “unconscious bias” that causes them to pull over, ticket, shoot and often kill members of one race (for no other reason than the “unconscious bias” wouldn’t that be “racist”?
P.S. I think that some cops are racist, but most that shoot people (of all races) really do have a valid reason to fear for their life…
You’re wondering why there is a national discourse on an issue of police shooting people? On your PS, I think there are a lot of shootings that are preventable. Understanding how to prevent them should be our focus
I’m wondering why there isn’t even an equivalent national discourse on all the black on black crime, violence and death.
It is political.
Enjoy. http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/08/open-letter-to-white-people-who-are-obsessed-with-black-on-black-crime/
David wrote:
> Understanding how to prevent them should be our focus
If that “should be our focus” why do you just post story after story about black people getting shot by cops rather than “focus” on stories about “how to prevent police shootings” (or post much about the far more common occurrence of cops shooting white people). It is my hope that the Vanguard can help people get out of the RNC “every cop only shoots people that deserve it” DNC “every black guy that gets shot by a cop is an innocent victim” mindset.
This is interesting Don Shor. The message is that blacks killing blacks is a black issue and whites should just mind their own business.
How racist.
So, should the cops just stand down? Stay out of these neighborhoods because it is a black problem?
There is so much explicit racism in that article, I am surprised you would even post it.
The only way I can understand you and others on this is to assign you the explicit bias of racial victim mentality. It is one that puts certain racial classes of people in a category that is off limits for standard criticism and provided excuses for their bad behavior. While also giving them clearance to attack those that call them on their bad behavior.
On the left we identify the good racial victims and those that are forever forbidden from being victims… because they are just privileged being born into one of those favored races.
Again… this is real explicit racism. And it is rampant in the politics of the left.
Even the inference here is racist. That blacks are superior in their justification for excuses and that should not be have their behavior measured by the same social norms that are (I guess) white.
Do you care about the death of all humans or are you only capable of responding to your emotional impulses related to you perceptions of the powerful over the perceived powerless?
You see, I care as much or more about the innocent teen killed in the middle of a thug gang war. I care about the young men having their lives cut short. I care about them the same as I do a tragic cop shooting that cuts a life short.
How do we fix this problem? You spend all this time just focusing on the cop instances and the result will be (it already is) more innocent black teens and black young men killed by the members of their own tribe. So, you and others pursuing this attack on law enforcement are in fact complicit in some of these other deaths.
Actually, I just thought you might find it an interesting perspective.
I would suggest you not do that.
David wrote:
> You’re wondering why there is a national discourse
> on an issue of police shooting people?
No I’m wondering why “you” (not the nation, not the media) are NOT having a “discourse on an issue of police shooting people?” but coming out before the facts are in saying things like “A woman claiming to be Mr. Scott’s daughter “claimed on a live-streamed video on Facebook that Scott was unarmed when he was shot.” Can we really have an “honest debate” about police shootings when you are throwing out quotes from someone and don’t even know who she is, and before the cops release video they say they have?
> On your PS, I think there are a lot of shootings that are
> preventable. Understanding how to prevent them
> should be our focus
I’ll be waiting for a story that “focuses” on how to prevent police shootings (rather than yet another race baiting I’m going to hint that all cops are bad story…
It’s David’s Blog and he can post what he wants, but if he really wants to understand how to prevent police shootings he will cut back on the race baiting cops are bad stories.
P.S. I know this may shock David, but cops in town have asked white guys to leave the library, talked to white guys yelling at their girlfriends and even talked to white guys mowing their lawns…
“I’ll be waiting for a story that “focuses” on how to prevent police shootings”
Maybe that’s an article you should write, under your own name. Just saying.
“Too bad BLM, the liberal social justice crusade and the DNC all immediately launched into their “cops are white racists” platform.”
Two bad that you continue to ascribe to anyone that you view as being on the political left, assertions that they are not making. I believe that you have read ( since you have responded to them) multiple posts from David in which he points out that racial bias is not confined to the members of one race. I would love to see your quotes from the DNC that state that all “cops are white racists”. I would love to see these quotes….but I will not…for the simple reason that they do not exist except in your head. What I anticipate instead of the requested quotes is a chorus of crickets.
I find it interesting that some here continually ignore the distinction between racist and implicit bias and it completely distorts the conversation. I don’t believe that most police officers are racist in the classic sense of the word. Okay, you have the text messages in San Francisco, but the bigger problem here is not racism, it is a subconscious bias. It is why departments like DPD are giving their officers unconscious bias training so that they can be aware of it. Everyone has unconscious biases and that’s why I don’t think we can ignore things if it is a black cop shooting a black man anymore than a white one.
David wrote:
> I find it interesting that some here continually ignore
> the distinction between racist and implicit bias
Maybe you can explain to us the difference between a “racist” cop that shoots an unarmed black men for no reason and a cop with “implicit bias” that causes him to shoot an unarmed black men for no reason…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversive_racism#Implicit_versus_explicit_racism
You’re looking at outcome rather than process in your question. The question isn’t the outcome, but rather what explains the action and hence, the road to understanding how to better prevent it.
David you should check out the link Don posted
It says that Implicit “and” explicit are both “racism”
Don’s link actually is “implicit racism” not “implicit bias”
Here’s a better link: http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Topics/Gender%20and%20Racial%20Fairness/Implicit%20Bias%20FAQs%20rev.ashx
Frankly
“ You want to lynch the cops for their mistakes in an environment that invites mistakes even though the cops are not responsible for the environment. “
And what you seem to be missing is that most of the residents of these neighborhoods are also not responsible for the environment in which they live. They may be trapped there because they are children, or because they are too intertwined by family to consider moving, or because they are too poor to move.
What baffles me about your attitude is that you have stated many times that you do not believe that responsible gun owners should be subjected to additional restrictions upon owning guns since presumably only the criminals are dangerous, and yet, you are willing to place it on the community as a whole that there are criminals on their streets that you state are the underlying cause of the police being more anxious and therefore more likely to make a fatal mistake in their neighborhood. Either there is collective responsibility in both cases, or their is not collective responsibility at all. I believe the police should be held equally responsible for a shooting in one of these neighborhoods as they should anywhere else with no “but they were afraid because it was a bad neighborhood” excuse. These men and women are paid to protect the non violent members of these communities, not to shoot them because they are overly anxious. This is their job. If they are unable to remain calm and rationale under these circumstances, they should not be on the streets armed.
Just as I stopped doing surgery when I recognized that I no longer had the stamina for the job, these officers who are too afraid to manage their weapons responsibly should seek alternative positions before they use excessive force due to excessive fear.
Tia wrote:
> most of the residents of these neighborhoods are also not
> responsible for the environment in which they live.
Sadly, “most” (in over half) of the residents of “these neighborhoods” (the neighborhoods with 10x the average crime rate and 10x the average murder rate) are “responsible for the environment in which they live” In Davis if a kid was shot in a drive by the police would probably get details on the car and the shooters from everyone that saw it while in high crime neighborhoods it is common for dozens of people in the area of the crime to all say they “dinseenuffin” (since almost every high crime area with residents of almost all races tend to have a “no snitch” culture).
> Just as I stopped doing surgery when I recognized that I
> no longer had the stamina for the job
I commend Tia for this and I wish police unions made it easier to ask people who were not up to the job, who do not do it on their own like Tia to leave, as well as increasing the standards (and increasing the pay) to try and attract a higher number of high quality individuals to consider a career in law enforcement.
Ok Tia. Then who is? (this will be fun)
I suspect this will not be answered. Who is responsible for the terrible state of the environment in which they live?
Like I said.
I wonder if you understand why nobody bothered to answer your question.
The answer is Democrats.
BP, I would expand to be liberal government policies. That is why they do not answer. Because thinking deeply they know that the environment is a mess because of what they support and advocate for.
1. More regulations and taxes levied on business, thus causing fewer of them to exist thus causing fewer jobs.
2. Eliminating industry in the name of global warming, thus causing fewer jobs.
3. Their advocacy for a new world order and globalism and trade agreements that have also led to a great loss of jobs (elite establishment Republicans share this cause).
4. The previous causing fewer jobs destroying families as fathers cannot provide for them and leave.
5. Constant attacks against basic positive moral institutions like Christianity ensuring their negative branding chasing more people away from them.
6. Their protection of teacher union jobs and opposition to charter schools and academies… basically locking the children of these neighborhoods to get a crappy education and more likely drop out.
7. Their demand that we keep expanding welfare and other transfer payments to the poor thus ensuring generations of welfare families will continue as the children model what they learned from their parents (or more likely their grandparents).
8. Their demand that we eliminate stop-and-frisk and also to force the cops to stand down thus ensuring more crime, more violence and more death.
9. Their lecturing of whites as being racist for criticizing black urban culture as being unhealthy and harmful to the black community.
The cause of the messed up environment in the black urban environment is primarily them… their politics, their worldview and their bleeding hearts.
No, that is not why they do not answer.
SOD
““most” (in over half) of the residents of “these neighborhoods” (the neighborhoods with 10x the average crime rate and 10x the average murder rate) are “responsible for the environment in which they live” In Davis if a kid was shot in a drive by the police would probably get details on the car and the shooters from everyone that saw it while in high crime neighborhoods”
This is an easy statement to make from the safety of our own community. If you have never lived in a really bad neighborhood ( as I did for one year) then perhaps you do not realize just how much of the “do not snitch culture” is based on the fact that you do not want you or one of your children to be the next fatality. I remember my mother telling me exactly which streets to follow home, who I could and could not speak to and who I was to cross the street or go to a “friendly” house if I saw them coming in the year we lived in one of these neighborhoods in Albuquerque. My recollection is that much of this “culture” is survival based, not because anyone wants it that way, but because they do not feel empowered to change it. For my family, it was a year of living scared. I do not believe that this should necessarily be laid at the feet of those who have no ability to extricate themselves as my mother managed to do.
SOD
“It says that Implicit “and” explicit are both “racism””
Yes, but they are quite distinct manifestations. My mother never hung anyone, spat on anyone, was outwardly discourteous to anyone…..and yet she made it very clear to her daughters that those of different colors were not “our type” for reasons that she could not explain beyond “that was how I was raised”. Implicit and explicit racism manifested in one person, who I dearly loved, but came to realize had no idea what motivated her behaviors with regard to minorities, and who never chose to examine or challenge her own views.
Time to get off the “implicit bias” BS. It is a construct of the hopelessly liberal-biased social sciences field. Psychological research on implicit bias is relatively recent and absolutely not well-vetted nor well understood. In fact, this was just a liberal social science leap to go from something well known called “implicit attitudes” (primarily used in marketing)… but lacking the punch needed for a tool of the social justice crusade.
I reject the theory 100%. And I urge everyone else with a brain to do the same.
Here is my “explicit” bias for those throwing out the term in their arguments in this topic… “you are full of crap.”
To sit there and tell me or anyone else that you know what they are thinking about someone else not even knowing the person of observing the person and that they are biased (meaning lacking a defensible objective basis for their opinion)… well it is so wrong and so freaking holier than thou it just stinks.
Oh, so you say there have been studies. Yes, studies from the well known highly explicitly-liberal biased field of social science.
In liberal utopia (read The Giver) we shed all individualism and tribalism… but in the real world members of a tribe adopt behaviors of the tribe. And then there is eugenics. Freakin’ eugenics has more science backing it than does implicit bias, and yet liberals keep throwing out the latter term like it is next to global warming in their secular bible of protected scripture. And then scream to the PC correctness cops to arrest anyone that mentions the work done on eugenics.
Everyone has opinions. It does not matter. What matters is behavior. Actions. Encounters. Reality. See that person dressed like a thug and behaving like a thug… well I have both implicit and explicit attitudes that the person is a thug. I don’t care what race. But guess what?, people of certain races are more apt to dress and act like thugs.
I have explicit bias for statistics. The really mess up the liberal social justice crusaders game… hence the need to invest new terms like “implicit bias” to counter.
Don’t you dare try to tell me that you know I am implicitly biased about anything because neither you nor anybody else can make that claim. Now go ahead and blast me about my explicit bias. For example, my explicit bias that liberal social justice people are out of control with their unscientific theories to prop up their broken worldview.
Frankly
“The only way I can understand you and others on this is to assign you the explicit bias of racial victim mentality.”
This speaks only to your lack of ability to understand, not to anyone else’s position.
“To sit there and tell me or anyone else that you know what they are thinking about someone else not even knowing the person of observing the person and that they are biased (meaning lacking a defensible objective basis for their opinion)… well it is so wrong and so freaking holier than thou it just stinks.”
And yet, this is exactly what you do repeatedly when you tell me that you understand better than I the reasons behind my thinking and actions…..and in fact, have told me repeatedly to “just admit it” to points of view that I have never held nor expressed.
“Everyone has opinions. It does not matter. What matters is behavior. Actions. Encounters. Reality. “
Ok, then are you saying that I am lying when I recount the implicit bias that existed in my own family ? Am I lying when I say that my own parents raised us to believe that people of other colors were to be avoided, not on the basis of their actions but on the basis of the color of their skin ? I was not taught to openly denigrate, strike out physically or verbally against such people but I definitely grew up in a household which personified the idea of white superiority without ever citing a reason or rationale. I lived implicit bias…..so please do not tell me that it does not exist. No studies needed. Behavior, actions, encounters, reality…..just like you said.
Tia wrote:
> my own parents raised us to believe that people
> of other colors were to be avoided
I think most people would call this “racism” not “implicit bias”
> I definitely grew up in a household which
> personified the idea of white superiority
I think most people would call this “full on they might have skinhead friends racism”.
I’m wondering if Tia thinks her parents could be fairly described as “racist” (based on the most widely accepted definition of the term) or if the saying “they had implicit bias” was a better way to describe their views.
Not at all. I would only make those suggestions after you have written thousands of words to indicate them. I am reflecting on your behavior. It has nothing to do with your race, gender… or any other superficial part of your identity.
As you have explained it is clearly explicit racism. I had relatives that did the same. I also had relatives that did drugs and jumped off bridges, but I did not adopt their opinions about how to live my life. On the one hand you like to point out that everyone is an individual and should be respected as an individual and then you adopt this “theory” that we are all clones incapable of assessing a person for who that person really is if that person is of color.
I know you know better than this, so I can only connect it to your need to validate your worldview which is one obsessed with perceptions of victims, oppression and unfairness. I see where you are others are going with this… it is yet another attempt to implement a sort of affirmative action social construct. One where the victim minority class is protected from standards of behavior expectations by claiming that every white person is implicitly biased against them. It is BS.
SOD
“I’m wondering if Tia thinks her parents could be fairly described as “racist” (based on the most widely accepted definition of the term) or if the saying “they had implicit bias” was a better way to describe their views.”
Here is one point of interest. My mother adamantly denied that she was racist. She would point out accurately that she never called “them” bad names, or treated “them” badly, or discriminated against “them” in any way. And she was right. What she did not seem to see was that her differentiation of “them” from “us” was in itself a discriminatory practice.
Another point of interest. I was listening to NPR today and a story of present day integration of school districts was the subject. The issue surrounding the closure of a primarily black school districted which was unaccredited with transfer of these children to primarily white schools was being ardently opposed by the predominantly white parents. During the interviews, one of the white parents stated repeatedly that this was not “racism” even though they had also successfully blocked improved public transportation from the predominantly black area to the white area because they did not want “that”, presumably blacks have better access to “our” area. She swore that it was not about racism……. Right. So whose definition should we use. That which you and I might chose ? Or that of the individual’s actually involved in the incidents ?
Frankly
“you adopt this “theory” that we are all clones incapable of assessing a person for who that person really is if that person is of color.”
“I know you know better than this, so I can only connect it to your need to validate your worldview which is one obsessed with perceptions of victims, oppression and unfairness. I see where you are others are going with this… it is yet another attempt to implement a sort of affirmative action social construct. One where the victim minority class is protected from standards of behavior expectations by claiming that every white person is implicitly biased against them. It is BS.”
You could hardly have demonstrated my point any better. You have reacted to what you think I must believe, or in this case, a “theory” that I have “adopted”, to which I have made no reference whatsoever. Please tell me what “theory” you think that I have adopted since I never said a word about a theory. I discussed only family interactions that were my own and yet you have me “adopting” something while completely ignoring that I said “No studies needed” and might as well have added, “No theory needed.” Direct experience across generations since that was how my mom learned her beliefs.
What is BS here is you, once again, attributing to me things that I have never, ever said. Please show me even one quote of mine that would imply that I believe that “every white person is implicitly biased against “them”.
Chorus of crickets ensues.