HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » SYFROYH » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jun 29, 2004, 07:38 PM
Number of posts: 31,678

Journal Archives

What was the name of that unscrupulous law firm that was looking for possible CR infractions....

....and suing for unfair use? I believe you won the case.

I hear that someone is following their "business model" but with images.

Still trying to get a hang of the social justice thing, but I liked this image.

I've seen a version comprised of the first two slides, but I liked the addition of the third one a lot.


Wow. Rough night for the RKBA.

Of course everyone hates gun violence and wants to reduce it. There was about an hour of speakers addressing gun violence that morphed into hating guns and access to guns.

As I reflected on the night, I don't think I heard a single speaker say they supported the 2nd Amendment. Maybe someone did, but one usually hears more token gestures.

I wonder if that signifies anything important.

If you're like me and didn't hear anything about HRC improving my life or my family's life...its OK.

As I listened to her life and the fights she has undertaken, I didn't hear anything that had an impact on my life.

I'm not Black or a POC. I'm not disabled. I'm not a woman. I'm not a trafficked girl. I'm not father to a daughter. I'm not incapable of housing and feeding my family. I'm not incapable of keeping my family well insured. I'm not sending my son to public school. etc.

I didn't hear anything that makes me think she has or will fight income inequality, challenge Wall Street free market solutions, minimum wage for son when he enters the workforce, improving health care costs, etc.

I suppose that sounds selfish, but much of what I heard from HRC primary supporters is that she will help improve their lives. I'm looking for something similar in my candidate -- in HRC.

HRC's history has been about helping those less fortunate then me. And that's a good thing.

Someone once told me, after asking what HRC offers me, that HRC offers me a chance to live in a more equal society. I realized it had been a long time since really thought about the value of equality in my life. Of course I want equality -- encompassing equality as well as specific case by case equality. However, I dedicate almost no part of my day or week to making that happen. Between work and family, I'm busy. But I do want equality.

So perhaps the least I can do is vote for HRC and not expect any change to my life in the least, but hope that other's lives will be improved and when we live in a more equal society we can work on things together.

And, of course, Trump would most certainly harm my life by wrecking the economy, destroying social services and education, and getting us into more wars.

Who is the female singer solist in this Z. Marley One Love video?

Anyone? Anyone?

I once gave police the benefit of the doubt when they shot people.

I once gave police the benefit of the doubt when they shot people. Regardless of race if a weapon was found at the scene it was almost automatic for me to assume the worst of the shot person. Unless there was evidence that it was dropped by the police, it was good enough evidence for me.

That time has passed.

If police said the person "made a furtive movement", I gave them the benefit of the doubt, too. How was I to know the truth?

That time has passed.

I also gave police the benefit of the doubt regarding the higher rate of police shootings of POC versus white people. It was the Walter Scott shooting where a police officer shot Scott 8 times in the back as he ran away and then appeared to nonchalantly plant evidence that he had a piece of the cops taser. It was cold-blooded murder. I realized that if that could happen, then all the accusations could be true. I needed to see it with my own eyes to believe. I should have believed my fellow POC citizens, but I didn't.

That time has passed.

The recent shootings of Philandro Castille and Alton Sterling have broke through my denial/benefit of the doubt some more. Clearly, these officers saw black men whom thought were carrying firearms (and they were right) and that was enough to generate enough fear to shoot them even though neither poses a lethal threat. Sadly, I needed to see it with my own eyes to believe. I should have believed my fellow POC citizens, but I didn't. We haven't heard from the explanation from the police, but whatever the explanation is they cannot claim they correctly saw a weapon/gun in their hands. Even if is true that Sterling was a low-level criminal who illegally carried a firearm and had recently brandished it while threatening a homeless person, but he did not have that gun in his hand when when the police shouted he has a gun and the police shot him. He was not a lethal threat and I will give the police the benefit of the doubt.

That time has passed.

I'm more convinced then ever that its time to stop giving the benefit of the doubt for police officers. I'm convinced that giving police the benefit of the doubt has led police to take less risk, shoot quicker, and shoot more -- especially when it involves POC.

I'm not a legal scholar but I wonder if its time to create laws where law enforcement is guilty of voluntary manslaughter if there is no weapon in the hands of the person shot by police. And if there is an object that a reasonable person might think is a weapon, but isn't, then they are automatically guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The specifics of the case would dictate punishment. Maybe involuntary and voluntary manslaughter are not the right terms/laws and new terms/laws might be needed where law enforcement shoots and kills someone when they were not in grave danger. I no longer trust the police, other law enforcement, justice departments, prosecutors, judges, and juries to decide what a reasonable person or cop would do in the situations they describe especially when it is a POC who is shot.

I can't find it on the internet, but at one point Maine had a target misidentification law for hunters where if they shot someone they could not claim they thought it was an animal because the evidence of the shot person was proof enough that they did not identify the target correctly and were guilty of a crime. It didn't matter what the person was wearing. It seemed logical and reasonable to me. If you shoot, you must be sure of what you are shooting it. Its a simple logic that should be applied to police.

The time has come to take drastic measures to address just this tip of the iceberg of police brutality that impacts POC disproportionately. There are lot more brutality and racism to address, but this is a necessary start. This is the low hanging fruit, so to speak.

Police won't like it. I get it, their lives are on the line. But citizens' lives are on the line, too. We must hold police to a higher standard.

eta: I'd even be willing to entertain the idea of extra penalties for shooting POC by cops in order to try to close the gap. I do believe there are extra penalties for killing a cop.

Go to Page: 1