Jawbreaker
Member
Ah, so I see pictures of Micah's dead body are floating around on the Internet now.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shots fired at Police during Dallas Police anti-violence protest (5 officers killed)
- Thread starter thenight11
- Start date
- Status
evil solrac v3.0
Member
where is the GOVERNOR in all this? why is this Lt. Gov allowed so much screen time?
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
But I agree with him that shouting "racist" is completely missing the point. This guy was a goddamn fool, but unfortunately he is a product of a system of oppression, as opposed to a muslim man who decided to shoot up a bar full of gay people who he hated for no reason, or the white man who decided to shoot up a church full of black people who he again hated for no reason.
Not to say these cops were to blame specifically for any wrong doings, but there is a reason Johnson targeted white police offers.
But even if we were to absolve him of being racist, that isn't to say that what he did still wasn't depraved. Someone can see his actions as not being racist, but at the same time completely denounce them. I think people need to stop getting caught up in whether or not what Johnson's actions were racist, and instead WHY they happened. That's the issue here. And if it is racist, then what lead to this racism? There is an innate difference in something committing a racist act from the position of strength and someone committing a racist act from the position of being oppressed.
There is a difference between how and why racism manifests in someone who joins the KKK to lynch black people, and the way it manifests in a man who's people have been victimised by the establishment for centuries. And that is what needs to be understood here. I don't think many people in this thread seem to.
brokenwatch
Member
I live in Austin and have been on the fence about Avacedo, but I could not agree with him any more. Thanks for posting this.
Then I'll try to understand where you're coming from before any rebuttal. What changes if we call Johnson prejudiced and not racist? This argument began with people claiming he wasn't racist. Why is it important that we understand him to not be a racist?
Shamrock7r
Member
If I remember correctly, in Texas, The Lt. Governor actually has more power than the Governor. The Governor has very little real power aside from influence. I may be misremembering it some, but I had learned it was something along those lines.
He's absolutely right, sadly I'm sure he just committed career suicide
kame-sennin
Member
Oh, my sweet summer child.
It does make it easier, though. The crude phrase, "don't put on a condom unless you wanna fuck" comes to mind.
If cops wanted to protect protesters they'd stay home.
Wait, what?
GoldenEye 007
Member
He'll be fine in local elections. People forget the Dallas mayor saying previously he is more scared of his white neighbor than he is of Islamic terrorism.
Dallas also had a bathroom bill in effect before pretty much anyone else.
Thank you for understanding.
GoldenEye 007
Member
I do remember you saying something along the lines of the police can't be trusted regarding the murder's statements. Which would imply the police could have been lying with what he said.
Is it necessary to not acknowledge Johnson as a racist to understand that he was a product of the state's failings? Why specifically the label racist? Does saying he was racist automatically invalidate the factors that drove him to do what he did?
Yes, that's why I quote and thanked dude above.
GoldenEye 007
Member
No, he was racist. And also in part shaped by the issues on the US. He can be both. This isn't unreasonable.
If calling a racist person racist invalidates exploring what made him or her racist for you, that's your personal failure.
kame-sennin
Member
Ya know, maybe y'all have a point about the racist terminology. As a person of color and an activist who has felt police repression first hand, my tendency is not to be interested in the explanations on race provided by mostly white liberals. But, after seeing post after post of mostly non-substantive, breathless condemnations, my views are starting to change. Micah X did a bad thing, and so in our anger we ought to have a bad name to call him. 'Terrorist' is kind of played out, and we don't want to let Muslims off the hook, so 'racist' is as good as any. Sure, "reverse racism" and "anti-white racism" as terms have an ugly history of being coined and used by the far-right to distract from black oppression. But like slavery, Jim Crow, and soon (thanks to the valiant efforts of the Dallas PD) police brutality, all that is histo-
Rudy Giuliani Says Black Lives Matter Is Inherently Racist
Well, fuck.
Rudy Giuliani Says Black Lives Matter Is Inherently Racist
Well, fuck.
TarpitCarnivore
Member
She wrote about it here: https://feminewbie.wordpress.com/20...s-picture-and-im-so-disturbed-because-its-me/
This was not in Dallas
Edit: I stand corrected. The blog I posted is from a woman who experienced a moment of her own like the one in the picture while living in Germany.
Please explain, if you would, instead of implying I am a child because I think a police force is kinda integral to any nation.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Giuliani is a racist piece of shit who wouldn't be shit except for 9/11. Nobody here is defending him or anything he says.
And wow at comparing modern Dallas PD to Jim Crow and slavery.
And wow at comparing modern Dallas PD to Jim Crow and slavery.
So much wasted effort put into banal sarcasm because you can't bring yourself to insult someone directly, but you do admit you've no interest in learning because the education comes from a (edit: you assume) pale person.
That admission should hopefully end the attempts from others at discussions moving forward and put the thread back on whatever track is left to pursue.
You were the first to claim that he was not racist. All subsequent argument has been questioning the logic behind that. And assuming that everyone who isn't black must be white is some bullshit, excuse the language. I'm also a minority.
kame-sennin
Member
I am a very very well aware that there are POC liberals that hold your beliefs. That's why I said "mostly" white. It's almost like y'all only skim my posts before you start flaming. That can't be it though.
Unlike my other posts, that would actually be a derail. I'll post a link in a bit when I get to my laptop though. Also, my last post was a game of thrones quote.
Unlike my other posts, that would actually be a derail. I'll post a link in a bit when I get to my laptop though. Also, my last post was a game of thrones quote.
I don't think it's the same girl. I could be wrong, but I believe the story reads as a flashback when she felt like she was in the photographed girls shoes.
Jim Crow Laws were racist
Segregation was racist
KKK is racist
American slavery was racist
Near genocide of Native Americans was racist
Charleston Church shooter was racist
They all had the goal of maintaining and enforcing white supremacy.
Like Rudy Guiliani!
GoldenEye 007
Member
This murderer was racist too. Even if his cause wasn't white supremacy. Even if his "cause" was due to his issues with white supremacy.
Not sure what you were getting at here.
TarpitCarnivore
Member
Yah, I updated my post.
I am not trying to flame, just trying to understand. I don't think there is a single nation in the world without a police force. In my eyes, the way to fix police over-reach is not to burn it all down :/
And I know that was a Game of Thrones quote, which is why I took a bit of offense.
It's not a shocking notion, at least to me, that people need a force to keep the law unless they want anarchy. I understand it's super fucking frustrating to seem like there is no progress to be had, but saying stuff like 'no one else understands' or 'disband the police' is really...odd. Progress on anything is long, hard road and it takes time.
Sorry if it seems like I am 'somethingsplaining' or some shit, I am not white, not that that gives me a pass, but I am just trying to understand your position.
Edit: I don't want top of the page
I feel like I'm trying to explain to a friend the difference between "black power" and "white power" and why that's racist.
One demands equality and the other says no to it. Saying black power is racist implies removing power or switching places on the seesaw.
Rudy saying BLM is racist is him implying BLM doesn't want equality but to switch places or take something away from whites.
GoldenEye 007
Member
No need. I understand the differences between racism and institutional racism.
He deprived people of their rights due to their race. He made this clear prior to his death. He didn't just target the institution of policing, he targeted only the white portion of that very same institution.
You're not going to change my mind on this front. Me calling him a racist does zero harm. So it's probably not a fruitful point of discussion at this point.
He didn't say "black power." He said let's terrorize a city and kill only white officers.
Iorv3th
Member
You don't have to explain anything. Your definition of racism is different than others definition.
Which I'm surprised, I went to a majority white high school and majority white college. Most of my history classes and sociology or similar classes gave me what I guess would be a sociology definition of the word and understanding of it.
Sounds more like you're lost in the us vs them mentality than anything else.
Just seeing this pop up in my news feed. He is missing because he suffered second and third degree burns to his legs, and was apparently going to do a press release about it but then the events in Dallas happened.
So doubt we will hear much from him overall, and most of the media deferred to Patrick.
Believe it or not the Orlando killer also had a reason. Was it a justified reason? Absolutely not, but he believed he had one. Same goes for this guy.
I am not sure what point anyone would be missing calling him a racist? Assuming they aren't using it to merely hand wave away other context. Which I haven't seen happen so far.
Its a stupid semantics argument that 1 or 2 rigid posters refuse to accept any other definition outside of their particular interpretation. That has now dragged on for 2 days and has since had attached to it other ridiculous poisons to discourage anyone from challenging their interpretation.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Always a black woman on the front lines.
POWERFUL photo from Baton Rouge.
(Photo by Jonathan Bachman of Reuters.)
America: "Our police are so incompetent, it takes two officers in riot gear to arrest one unarmed woman"
Has she been released?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertsamaha/dallas-police-numbers?utm_term=.wnV5zYEazB#.vxGREPNeEW
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ing-those-things-could-now-be-more-difficult/
Progress is being made. It's never as quick as is wanted or needed, but it's still worth acknowledging. And if you look at the protest in Dallas vs the protest in Baton Rouge, it's night and day. Dallas had zero riot gear, no tear gas, etc -- they didn't bring in heavy equipment. They didn't surround protesters or drag anybody away. They didn't point guns at anybody or shout orders on a loud speaker. They blocked off streets for the protestors.
I was apprehensive about their presence at first -- my first reaction was like yours, thinking they shouldn't be there with so many cops like that because it's needlessly intimidating (and that was mostly just seeing 10 or so cars around the corner when I was walking to the park). But before there was any shooting, as the march went on, it became clear that my concerns weren't justified. It was clear they were there to help and facilitate the protest.
Kame's assertion is that any police involvement in helping a protest is subversion to its goals. Is a protest still purposefully disruptive and effective with police involvement and little to no antagonism between protesters and law enforcement? When the element of aggression is taken out of their communication and they are actually cooperating and the police share their goals, does the protest lose its fangs?
I don't believe so, but after mulling it over for a day and reading the Baton Rouge protest thread, it gives me pause to think about what elements of a protest give it power, and whether, for various people, that entails confrontations with police as representatives of the state.
I think confrontations with the law can increase effectiveness but I don't think it's the only thing that can give a protest effectiveness. And just because the Dallas protest hadn't subverted police doesn't mean it didn't disrupt. We weren't pushed off to the side where it didn't bother anybody -- the protest still shut down a big chunk of downtown streets. How disruptive the protest should be is probably up to the protestors -- the ones in Dallas seemed content with it. I didn't hear anybody complaining or wanting to amp things up and test the limits. There were a lot of families with children there. The vibes were more on the positive side in general. People seemed proud of what they were doing.
I think you could also argue that police cooperation has the potential to amplify the effectiveness. DPD was tweeting about it, posting pics etc -- knowing that doing so could draw more people into the protest.
Police alongside the civilians protesting the same issues is a great thing and I would consider it a big step in the right direction.
The problem is this is one police department in one state. This week others have drew weapons, slowly drove a vehicle into crowds, use tear gas, etc. Instead of standing alongside, they protect the status quo.
The problem is this is one police department in one state. This week others have drew weapons, slowly drove a vehicle into crowds, use tear gas, etc. Instead of standing alongside, they protect the status quo.
I strongly believe this is a terrible and incorrect argument, and you basically set out why in the first paragraph where you struggle to define the difference between this guy, who had in your model legitimate grievances, and the Orlando shooting which happened "for no reason" -- meaning that, although he made claims about motivations, you don't consider them legitimate. This should be a telltale sign that the problem is that claims that mass murderers make about their motivations are, in general, not legitimate. Another tip is that, although their claimed motivations are not that different from the rest of us, their chosen actions are wildly different.
Most BLM protestors, or indeed people of color in general, manage to cope as best they can with the constant pressure of institutionalized racism without becoming mass shooters. So suggesting any sort of causal or practical link between the two is really kind of disturbing and wildly unfair to the great mass of people who live in America and manage somehow to not become maniacs.
The reality is that this guy was cashiered from the military for extreme sexual harassment, a characteristic behavior pattern among future mass shooters. He was blacklisted by the New Black Panthers for mental instability.
The reality is that this guy was crazy -- not in the "had a mental disorder" way that people think of (I have one), but in the sense of having a brittle self-image, impulse control problems, a tendency towards violence and sexual aggressiveness, and all the other factors common to all mass shooters that we don't consider mental disorders and so don't attempt to identify and correct.
Once you have those characteristics, you are pretty likely to engage in violent behavior. You'll probably come up with a reason why you want to do the stuff you want to do, but that reason is not the proximate cause. It's just a justification for taking the actions you wanted to take.
So associating this guy with any sort of reasonable response to institutional racism does him far too much credit and the rest of us too little. He was a violent murderer and he chose BLM as an identity. But BLM -- or the forces that inspire BLM -- didn't make him a violent murderer. He was that already.
MarkMclovin
Member
Is there any footage of the shooter?
Maybe the officers present were all in riot gear and it seemed silly to first change into something less tactical and more pedestrian before making the arrest?
Except making the decision to take another's life is switching places on the seesaw. When Johnson pulled the trigger he held all of the power in the world over those officers' lives. So, if being racist requires some sort of power imbalance on behalf of the perpetrator, then that box is certainly checked in this instance.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Always a black woman on the front lines.
POWERFUL photo from Baton Rouge.
(Photo by Jonathan Bachman of Reuters.)
These cops look like cartoon characters. Like extras in Equilibrium or Ultraviolet.
No, I don't feel safer. Fission Mailed.
So what happened to those reports of accomplices being arrested? People throwing bags into cars and speeding away, etc?
It seems like the US is desperate to make these shooting incidents out to be some kind of well organised, co-ordinated attack, when it almost always ends up being some "lone-wolf," with "psychological issues." He was discharged and never given proper counseling, and had no issues getting guns. I keep hearing this story again and again. Someone isolated, someone people just wanted to ignore, and the common denominator is ease of access to weapons.
The issue is that gun control probably couldn't prevent a well-funded international terrorist group from smuggling in weapons for the purpose of an attack, but gun control might prevent incidents like this.
It really seems like the spectre of terrorism is being used as some kind of external, unsolvable boogeyman, because otherwise, politicians might be forced to do something about domestic mass shootings.
(I know this counts as domestic terrorism, it's just that terrorism as something perpetuated by a group over a long period of time in order to achieve political goals is different than a individual going on a suicidal spree. Traditionally, I think of domestic terrorism as something like what the FLQ or IRA did.)
It seems like the US is desperate to make these shooting incidents out to be some kind of well organised, co-ordinated attack, when it almost always ends up being some "lone-wolf," with "psychological issues." He was discharged and never given proper counseling, and had no issues getting guns. I keep hearing this story again and again. Someone isolated, someone people just wanted to ignore, and the common denominator is ease of access to weapons.
The issue is that gun control probably couldn't prevent a well-funded international terrorist group from smuggling in weapons for the purpose of an attack, but gun control might prevent incidents like this.
It really seems like the spectre of terrorism is being used as some kind of external, unsolvable boogeyman, because otherwise, politicians might be forced to do something about domestic mass shootings.
(I know this counts as domestic terrorism, it's just that terrorism as something perpetuated by a group over a long period of time in order to achieve political goals is different than a individual going on a suicidal spree. Traditionally, I think of domestic terrorism as something like what the FLQ or IRA did.)
- Status