Charlottesville riots

[WuDrWu]

I'm honestly not sure you even read my posts anymore. Like how earlier in this thread you said problems 1-99 are single parents, and I cited several sources explaining how that could be tied to historical or institutional racism, and you never responded. I don't think you're interested in engaging in honest debate most of the time. I think you see my name on a post and know you have to disagree with it.

My post was about how frustrating it is that movements I mostly agree with as a general proposition can put all their eggs in the wrong basket.

Still though, it's also what pisses everyone off. It wasn't a "traffic stop" as you called it. 2 men suspected of a drug deal were ordered to stop, one fled on foot, the other in his car took the officer in question on an 80mph+ chase before being pitted it would seem.

I don't know what the officer is guilty of, but I'm pretty sure it's not murder.

[jdshock]

Still though, it's also what pisses everyone off. It wasn't a "traffic stop" as you called it. 2 men suspected of a drug deal were ordered to stop, one fled on foot, the other in his car took the officer in question on an 80mph+ chase before being pitted it would seem.

I don't what the officer is guilty of, but I'm pretty sure it's not murder.

Yeah, traffic stop was a poor choice of words. It obviously wasn't like a headlight out type situation. I did think it was a stop for speeding (ultimately resulting in a chase, as I noted in the first post), so I definitely misremembered that fact when I posted it. Ultimately, the car was stopped at the time of the shooting.

But to your point about whether or not it's murder - if a police officer shoots you during a car chase, it's almost certainly not murder. If there's a recording of you saying "I'm going to kill this guy" and then you shoot him at point blank range several minutes later, I think you deserve to go to jail. But, we'll see how the judge reacts. I think the general consensus seems to be that he is going to be found not guilty. I think that's pretty crazy given the public information about the case.

[shockmonster]

I'm honestly not sure you even read my posts anymore. Like how earlier in this thread you said problems 1-99 are single parents, and I cited several sources explaining how that could be tied to historical or institutional racism, and you never responded. I don't think you're interested in engaging in honest debate most of the time.

You know from doing your research that there is just as much research that shows that black families were much more successful prior to the Civil Rights Era. Blacks married, had stable families and children at a much more successful level than after. The divorce rate for black families was at 17% and children born out of wedlock was low. Today 70% of black children are born fatherless. This all has taken place after the acivil Rights era and after The Great Society when lots of money was spent on the War on Poverty of LBJ.

Now you will bring up incarceration rates and unemployment have gone up and leave out facts that men are going to be incarcerated if they break laws, and participate in the drug cultures. Did these things happen because of fatherless homes? Is that the vicious circle? Why were black families more stable before 1960? My father showed me a lot about self responsibility, hard work, high expectations, being college educated (when he only had a high school degree). When do people begin looking at their own responsibility and not blame their problems on others. I believe they call that having an "internal locus of control" instead of your belief of an "external locus of control."

[jdshock]

there is just as much research that shows that black families were much more successful prior to the Civil Rights Era.

Is this seriously your stance?

[wufan]

Is this seriously your stance?

I think it's a reasonable question. Was there more systemic racism in 1960 than now? If so, why haven't things improved? If they have improved, why not more? Why is it that blacks are being incarcerated at a greater rate and increasing at a greater rate than all other races? It seems to be a case that is put forward by some liberals is that systemic racism is getting worse and not better. If so, please submit the argument.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/06/incarceration-gap-between-whites-and-blacks-widens/%3famp=1

[Aargh]

I'm not so invested in any of this that I'm going to do some research until I find the statistics that back up my point. I'm pretty sure they can be found, so I'm going to just skip the numbers, but...let me change just a few words from a previous post.

You know from doing your research that there is just as much research that shows that white families were much more successful prior to the Civil Rights Era. Whites married, had stable families and children at a much more successful level than after. The divorce rate for white families was lower and children born out of wedlock was low. Today many white children are born fatherless. This all has taken place after the acivil Rights era and after The Great Society when lots of money was spent on the War on Poverty of LBJ.

I think there has been a serious disconnect between cause and effect. Since the noted observations have occurred across racial lines and have affected all economic strata, I don't think LBJ, the War on Poverty, or the Great Society is the causal factor. It seems much more likely to have been merely contemporaneous. It becomes very easy to identify contemporaneous things as causal items when that fits an agenda someone wants to support.

[shockmonster]

Is this seriously your stance?

You are pretty condescending for someone who claims to be open minded.

There is a lot of information on this. Did you ever hear of Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Dem. New York). He wrote a report on it.

The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies | City Journal

Articles: The Decline of the African-American family - American Thinker

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-moynihan-report-an-annotated-edition/404632/

[Aargh]

this whole idea that things were so great before - and then attaching some government action to them as a reason to disavow that government action reminds me of something I saw a few months back that I will try to repeat, but I have no memory of the actual time frames.

When I started doing air conditioning work, I was making $10 an hour. My truck cost me $3,000 and I rented a house for $300 a month. I'm still doing air conditioning work. Now I'm making $17 an hour, my truck cost me $30,000 and my rent for the same size house is $1,200 a month.

Comparing an era when one working parent could support a family to another era when, for the majority of the work force, it pretty much requires two working parents to support a family isn't a logical comparison.

[jdshock]

You are pretty condescending for someone who claims to be open minded.

There is a lot of information on this. Did you ever hear of Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Dem. New York). He wrote a report on it.

The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies | City Journal

Articles: The Decline of the African-American family - American Thinker
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...dition/404632/

Not trying to be condescending but baffled at the notion that you could have a definition of "success" that didn't account for legalized lynchings, statutory segregation, etc.

[wufan]

I'm not so invested in any of this that I'm going to do some research until I find the statistics that back up my point. I'm pretty sure they can be found, so I'm going to just skip the numbers, but...let me change just a few words from a previous post.

You know from doing your research that there is just as much research that shows that white families were much more successful prior to the Civil Rights Era. Whites married, had stable families and children at a much more successful level than after. The divorce rate for white families was lower and children born out of wedlock was low. Today many white children are born fatherless. This all has taken place after the acivil Rights era and after The Great Society when lots of money was spent on the War on Poverty of LBJ.

I think there has been a serious disconnect between cause and effect. Since the noted observations have occurred across racial lines and have affected all economic strata, I don't think LBJ, the War on Poverty, or the Great Society is the causal factor. It seems much more likely to have been merely contemporaneous. It becomes very easy to identify contemporaneous things as causal items when that fits an agenda someone wants to support.

Great point! Similar trends have been seen cross culturally when comparing "the break up of the nuclear family." This isn't just a black thing, but black families have seen a much greater increase.

Why is it important? Because one of the three main causes for staying in poverty is children out of wedlock. Second reason why; the number one predictor of crime is being raised in a fatherless household. This, again, is true across all races, but has a higher correlation amongst African-Americans.

If the goal is to keep people out of poverty and to keep them out of prison, then we should make sure that everyone has a good education, has equal opportunity for jobs, and doesn't have babies before marriage.

What does ANY of this have to do with civil rights? If the causes of poverty and incarceration were racism, then why have these things gotten worse since the civil rights era? I don't think anyone would argue that we are more racist in 2017 than in 1957. Is it possible there is another cause to poverty and incarceration other than racism?

There is a hypothesis that perhaps the war on poverty impacted the situation. When welfare became more available to citizens, then it became less critical to keep mediocre daddy around. Mama could get the bare necessities from the state and baby wouldn't starve. At the same time, welfare did add to increased freedom to choose a spouse and to choose to work or not work. It's a trade off.

As far as the adequacy of the civil rights argument, in not sold on its accuracy, but it deserves additional scrutiny.

[shockmonster]

this whole idea that things were so great before - and then attaching some government action to them as a reason to disavow that government action reminds me of something I saw a few months back that I will try to repeat, but I have no memory of the actual time frames.


Comparing an era when one working parent could support a family to another era when, for the majority of the work force, it pretty much requires two working parents to support a family isn't a logical comparison.

I know that there are plenty of arguments on the other side. One of the main argument is that black fathers have been incarcerated and that proves racism. Moynihan' argument was viewed in a positive light by many or maybe most Democrats as late as the 1990s during Clinton's Presidency. The Democrat a Party usually don't mention Moynihan any longer and fatherlessness is often overlooked as a Social failure in the past two decades.

I would hold that families have been the glue to our culture and that the decline of the family and fathers are a microcosm of our culture, both black and white. But my values are old fashioned. We can go around in circles and not solve anything because I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. So I hope you have had to think a little. You don't hear Moynihan's views spoken very many Repiblican circles these days and NEVER in Democrat circles, even though he was a Democrat.

[Aargh]

In the early '80's I worked for a company that had one division that functioned as property management for Section 8 housing. Many of our tenants not only paid nothing for rent, they got subsidies for utilities.

Eligibility was reviewed once a year. This was all based on household income. Married couples were getting divorced so that Mama could show no income. Then, when she was set up with the kids in no rent housing with subsidized utilties, former hubby, or current boyfriend would move back in. A month before the annual review former hubby or boyfriend had to move out.

Putting maybe 1,000 families with no father figure or male role models into tight quarters turned out to be an incredibly bad idea. The boys who grew up in that environment would now be in their 40's or 50's. They've been fathering kids and moving on. That's all they knew growing up. The male kids they raised are doing the same.

[wufan]

In the early '80's I worked for a company that had one division that functioned as property management for Section 8 housing. Many of our tenants not only paid nothing for rent, they got subsidies for utilities.

Eligibility was reviewed once a year. This was all based on household income. Married couples were getting divorced so that Mama could show no income. Then, when she was set up with the kids in no rent housing with subsidized utilties, former hubby, or current boyfriend would move back in. A month before the annual review former hubby or boyfriend had to move out.

Putting maybe 1,000 families with no father figure or male role models into tight quarters turned out to be an incredibly bad idea. The boys who grew up in that environment would now be in their 40's or 50's. They've been fathering kids and moving on. That's all they knew growing up. The male kids they raised are doing the same.

If a lack of a male role model is one of the major causes of poverty and incarceration (as has been put forward by me and others on this board based on recent and repeatable studies), it would make sense to put forward programs that fostered the ideal of a two parent household (as well as education and jobs). Racism is also a problem in this country, but there is no known correlation as one of the causes of the disparity we see between races. We, as a nation, must decide if we want to put our resources towards problems with correlation or towards problems with suppositions.

[shockmonster]

As far as the adequacy of the civil rights argument, in not sold on its accuracy, but it deserves additional scrutiny.

I didn't say that Civil Rights was the cause of anything. But things changed after the 60s for all families and they changed more for black families in an era that was designed to stamp out poverty. The Civil a Rights changes were the most positive part of that decade.

[WuDrWu]

Yeah, traffic stop was a poor choice of words. It obviously wasn't like a headlight out type situation. I did think it was a stop for speeding (ultimately resulting in a chase, as I noted in the first post), so I definitely misremembered that fact when I posted it. Ultimately, the car was stopped at the time of the shooting.

But to your point about whether or not it's murder - if a police officer shoots you during a car chase, it's almost certainly not murder. If there's a recording of you saying "I'm going to kill this guy" and then you shoot him at point blank range several minutes later, I think you deserve to go to jail. But, we'll see how the judge reacts. I think the general consensus seems to be that he is going to be found not guilty. I think that's pretty crazy given the public information about the case.

Do you know why this is not a jury trial? Is that always an option for a defendant, or is this case unusual?