He didnt say never report on it. He said "fail to see the reason it's a headline news story"
You took what he said, turned it into something uglier, then attacked him for that. You do that a lot, its shite tbh.
Oops, maybe you were being sarcastic. Soz if so.
Agreed. Should also apply to law enforcement agencies.Anyone breaking the law - deserves a trial and if convicted - a fair sentence.
He didnt say never report on it. He said "fail to see the reason it's a headline news story"
You took what he said, turned it into something uglier, then attacked him for that. You do that a lot, its shite tbh.
Oops, maybe you were being sarcastic. Soz if so.
I watched them, terrible terrible tbh. Made me sad and I knew it would. But it was headlines on the bbc, I mean major story and features on each video etc. Not sure about the others, but it should have been anyway.Go and watch the videos, with sound, and then come back to me about how it’s not a headline news story that 5 policemen deliberately beat and kicked a man to death as he begged for mercy and his mother and the police department tried to cover it up no matter what country it happens in.
By the way, it’s only the 4th highest story on BBC news, 3rd on the guardian, 8th on Telegraph and 29th on the Daily Mail.
So it’s hardly dominating coverage like @jaiguruKun Made out.
Not sure what you mean. I thought it should be a headline story.There are pretty obvious reasons that were pointed out, as to why it's a headline news story.
I worded my post poorly - by "overreaction" - I meant "violent protest." Vigorous non-violent protest is called for - obviously. Especially effective will be organization of local voting recruitment. Vote anyone opposed to reform out-of-office.“Overreaction”.
Yeh, let’s not “overreact” to the police beating a man to death, or to the daily murders of civilians by American police, most of whom are never brought to justice.
I take the point in the abstract, but I don't share what seems to be your view of priorities. A stat I heard the other day from Chris Hayes was that police kill about 1,000 people a year on average in the US. The majority of the time the public response (in terms of protest and so on) involves no damage to property, and it almost never involves violence against people. Often (though not always) the worst riots only happen after the law has shown itself to be unwilling or unable to deliver justice - the Rodney King riots only happened after the officers were found not guilty, despite the beating being captured on video. So I don't accept the equivalence you are drawing - we're not talking about two equal problems.I worded my post poorly - by "overreaction" - I meant "violent protest." Vigorous non-violent protest is called for - obviously. Especially effective will be organization of local voting recruitment. Vote anyone opposed to reform out-of-office.
Violent conduct as a form of protest - is criminal. Those engaging in such should be jailed.
I'm not sure that I'm making my point at all.I take the point in the abstract, but I don't share what seems to be your view of priorities. A stat I heard the other day from Chris Hayes was that police kill about 1,000 people a year on average in the US. The majority of the time the public response (in terms of protest and so on) involves no damage to property, and it almost never involves violence against people. Often (though not always) the worst riots only happen after the law has shown itself to be unwilling or unable to deliver justice - the Rodney King riots only happened after the officers were found not guilty, despite the beating being captured on video. So I don't accept the equivalence you are drawing - we're not talking about two equal problems.
Politicians meanwhile are happy to pay lip service to reform (like equipping police with body cameras or tasers - which didn't stop these 5 murderers in Memphis from killing Tyre Nichols) but do nothing meaningful to change things. The problem is compounded by a dysfunctional political system (gerrymandering, the Senate, the electoral college, etc) that makes it harder for voting to actually achieve meaningful change.
For some context about my perspective: my wife is a Black American. My father in law and brother in law live in a working class neighbourhood in Miami. They're poor - it's easy to imagine there being some kind of maintenance issue with one of their cars or something, that makes them vulnerable to a traffic stop. What's more my brother in law suffers from a mental illness that could make it harder for him to manage the situation safely. Obviously the chances of either of them being killed by police are still low in absolute terms, but relative to other Americans their risk - due to race, social class, and in the case of my brother in law mental illness - is massively elevated. So this isn't an abstract issue for me. Is it bad if a shop gets smashed up in a protest? Yes obviously. But it's just so unimportant in comparison to the issue at hand.
I understand your point I just don't really agree. Violent protest is a consequence of the failure of the US political system to bring about any change in policing, and of - let's call a spade a spade here - the insistence by police unions across the country that they have the absolute right to murder anyone they want with impunity. It's the police violence which has no place in a civilised society.I'm not sure that I'm making my point at all.
Which is simply this - violent protest is abhorrent and has no place in civilized society.
Policing in America is as nearly bad as it can be - but violent protest, including looting, and physical attacks on police is criminal.
Peaceful demonstration, and especially organization of voters to change the system in power - that's the way to protest.
Violent conduct randomly injures those who have nothing to do with police conduct and provides a convenient counter-narrative for those who support the status quo. Such conduct is very detrimental to the goal of changing the extant system.