• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Police Brutality Thread

Hey look. An anonymous juror in Officer Chauvin's trial! 🤣

That didn't last long now did it. And I doubt very much that he contacted all of the networks offering up his insights. You bet your ass they looked him up to ask him if he'd be prepared to go on camera and be interviewed.

Now I'm sorry I didn't post here i.e. probably typed and then deleted no less than ten posts on a whole bunch of shit here since my last post. One point that I made, and am now finally making, is that anybody that thought for one minute that the identities of the jurors would remain a state secret is using some bad shit and way too much of it to too. You think the jurors didn't know that they'd eventually be identified no matter what? And, well, here we are. In the flesh. And 11 to go.

Conversely of course: had they found Officer Chauvin not guilty on any single one of the charges (let alone acquitted him): they'd not have been able to find this dude for dust nor for love nor money.



Yeah that guy is an excellent example of narcisscistic personality disorder, especially when he goes on and on about himself and the histrionics between himself and George Floyd's brother, being unmasked, etc.
 
I don't see what's wrong with this, since the trial is over. Though if I were that guy I wouldn't want to show my face, given how intense the whole thing is. I imagine he will get death threats/harrassment from some types.
Yeah. Not saying there’s anything wrong. My point really was that I don’t see how jurors in any high profile case such as this could not fear or factor in ramifications knowing full well that there isn’t a hope in hell of their identities not becoming known at some point. But you’re right i.e. harassment etc. could come from any side. It’s just that in this case: the more serious ramifications would have been from the likes of BLM et al. Well. I say that reservedly because that’s what I’m led to believe by the media coverage of the rioting and carrying on. For all I know that’s a narrative being pushed in its own right.
 
Yeah that guy is an excellent example of narcisscistic personality disorder, especially when he goes on and on about himself and the histrionics between himself and George Floyd's brother, being unmasked, etc.
You mean a narcissist, because...
  1. You're not a psychiatrist or otherwise qualified to diagnose mental disorders
  2. You haven't referred to the diagnostic criteria for NPD
  3. This man is clearly not suffering clinically significant impairment or distress
  4. You have not conducted a psychological assessment of him
  5. It would be totally unethical to publicly disclose a diagnosis of a personality disorder
  6. It would be illegal to disclose protected medical records publicly.
 
But speaking of media, misinformation, misrepresentation, lack of knowledge, being misled or misleading, or simply stirring the pot: here is a primo example that I just saw two minutes ago. This in reference to that prize South African individual that I posted about around a week or two ago (shot by the Hawaiian police).

This now from a foreigner (like me on here) but in reverse. The dude was no ZULU PRINCE. He was an ex rugby player and a contestant on South African Idol (our abysmal attempt at the American Idol franchise). He was by no means Zulu Royalty. Yet the dude in the video below, with his catchy title, would have you believe that this could be an International issue with Diplomatic ramifications. And if you read some of the comments made below the video: some actually believe this to be the case. But. It suits the narrative and gives it momentum. And that’s the problem.

To be fair to the mainstream media in this case: they are using the title “prince” reservedly in their headlines i.e. using quotation marks to possibly highlight the fact that he ain’t Royalty.

Now if a legit member of the Zulu Royal Family was involved: that’d be an incident of note. But then you’d not find a legit member of said family waltzing into a strangers house, sitting down, removing his shoes casual like, and there to shoot the breeze, uninvited, with some stranger, and causing hysterics. Not to mention putting some officers in hospital. And so this shit goes on and on.


 
Last edited:
Hey look. An anonymous juror in Officer Chauvin's trial! 🤣

That didn't last long now did it. And I doubt very much that he contacted all of the networks offering up his insights. You bet your ass they looked him up to ask him if he'd be prepared to go on camera and be interviewed.

Now I'm sorry I didn't post here i.e. probably typed and then deleted no less than ten posts on a whole bunch of shit here since my last post. One point that I made, and am now finally making, is that anybody that thought for one minute that the identities of the jurors would remain a state secret is using some bad shit and way too much of it to too. You think the jurors didn't know that they'd eventually be identified no matter what? And, well, here we are. In the flesh. And 11 to go.

Conversely of course: had they found Officer Chauvin not guilty on any single one of the charges (let alone acquitted him): they'd not have been able to find this dude for dust nor for love nor money.



Yep. What a character. When he said " the only reason it took us 9 hours to find him guilty is because we had to explain a JURY INSTRUCTION to one of them"
I'm sure the Judge loved that one. Or: We held it against him because he didnt testify. Ummmm. K.

Okey Dokey there bud. The defense loves you.
 
You mean a narcissist, because...
  1. You're not a psychiatrist or otherwise qualified to diagnose mental disorders
  2. You haven't referred to the diagnostic criteria for NPD
  3. This man is clearly not suffering clinically significant impairment or distress
  4. You have not conducted a psychological assessment of him
  5. It would be totally unethical to publicly disclose a diagnosis of a personality disorder
  6. It would be illegal to disclose protected medical records publicly.
We had a wannabe phoney who claimed they have a PhD. in psychology 'diagnose' Chauvin earlier in this thread, so the guy that claims he was on the jury is fair game.

😂 If you have been around, been 'friends' with a narcissist or had a "relationship" with one, or lived with one you know the signs and he definitely has them, loves the attention, fame, and $ he is getting going on talk shows and hamming it up with his histrionics of "But...but...but...It could have been ME! I took off my mask! (Focus on ME!)"
 
So your advice is: don't be black, don't wear what black people wear, don't live where black people live.

You're an intelligent man so this is a disappointing misinterpretation of what was posted.

Alas, I guess the cancel culture forgot what thread this is and simply couldn't take anything that made them offended.

These threads that bring traffic dont end well for the OP usually.

Ty for the thread anyway Priest
:(
 
That’s a problem with the cops, not with the people getting stopped. You just endorsed racial profiling. Which by definition is racist.


*sigh*... Its an unfortunate reality that people in general do racially profile and in particular when out on the street in person, judging the situation, I'd say everyone does this, even you. Profiling everyone based on appearance.

I mean, it would be idiotic to just assume everyone regardless of how they're acting or looking is equal amount of risk to your personal safety.

As a cop, its obv they would profile. Rscially yes and also gang/drug/risk of the public to themselves or other people.

Its really not anyone's fault, gangs and culture are made popular knowledge by the gangs and cultures. People who are likely to be violent or offenders do include drug users, its just how it is.


Racial profiling happens, it exists, csn you say you're not culpable?
 
That’s a problem with the cops, not with the people getting stopped. You just endorsed racial profiling. Which by definition is racist.
This thread sure has brought up some interesting issues.

I saw the above last night and I've been thinking about it.

Is that strictly true i.e. is racial profiling indeed by definition racist? Or is it a legitimate law enforcement tool?

If it be the latter: one would assume that it's based on the accumulation of data and statistics?

Come to think of it: it doesn't necessarily even have to be race based. But if broadened in scope and definition then does it become discriminatory? But, again, is it a legitimate law enforcement tool?

Merely pondering here i.e. not to be construed as anything else. Not agreeing nor disagreeing with anybody here and not in defense of anybody here either. As I said: merely pondering.
 
Is that strictly true i.e. is racial profiling indeed by definition racist? Or is it a legitimate law enforcement tool?
In the short term it seems to make sense to racially profile suspects. If in a given community (say) 70 % of the officially reported crime has been committed by (say) black people then your odds of solving a given reported crime would be improved by focussing on black suspects.
But that’s a dry numerical analysis that totally ignores the social dynamics of crime, policing, and justice. It would seem to be transparently obvious that in the longer term such a strategy begins to reproduce itself with no increase in justice and potentially no decrease in the overall actual crime rate. For example:

1. Not all reported crime in this example is committed by black people (only 70 per cent). Failing to consider white suspects increases the chance that white perpetrators will go un-caught. As white perpetrators perceive the reduced risk their propensity to commit crime will increase. So actual crime may increase in less closely monitored sections of the community. There is also ample evidence that the same crime is treated differently in black versus white cases - with arrests in black cases more likely to lead to a prosecution than in white cases (where a warning might be deemed sufficient). These prosecutions enter the statistics and suggest more blacks than whites commit crimes of certain types. Crimes are not the same as arrests and arrests are not the same as prosecutions and prosectutions are not the same as guilty verdicts.

2. A given proportion of arrests are unjustified. A smaller proportion of prosecutions are unjustified. A smaller again proportion of fines and incarcerations are unjustified. If the police are giving disproportionate attention to the black community in locating suspects, then over time the number of unjustified black interactions with the police, judicial, and prison systems will increase. Simultaneously, distrust in the police will result in lower levels of reported crime in black communities while actual levels of crime may increase due to the increased number of people unable to obtain gainful employment due to unjustified criminal records. That is, previously law abiding citizens with unjustified records may be forced to commit petty crimes. The racial profiling system has converted a solid citizen into a criminal. If black communities report such black-on-black crime it further justifies racial profiling because it appears blacks are more likely to commit such crimes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread sure has brought up some interesting issues.

I saw the above last night and I've been thinking about it.

Is that strictly true i.e. is racial profiling indeed by definition racist? Or is it a legitimate law enforcement tool?

If it be the latter: one would assume that it's based on the accumulation of data and statistics?

Come to think of it: it doesn't necessarily even have to be race based. But if broadened in scope and definition then does it become discriminatory? But, again, is it a legitimate law enforcement tool?

Merely pondering here i.e. not to be construed as anything else. Not agreeing nor disagreeing with anybody here and not in defense of anybody here either. As I said: merely pondering.
I think racial profiling is to some extent inherently racist. Noting that I consider 'profiling' different than simple 'stereotyping' or what have you. People certainly have preconceived notions about different communities, and while these things are a somewhat natural occurrence, the implication of profiling becoming entrenched in law is absolutely problematic.

For example, white and black people use drugs at roughly the same rate, black people are just more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for simple possession. Obviously the stats will never completely show who is more the ones selling drugs or what have you, simply due to it being difficult to track who's really selling because many don't get caught. But this slanted prosecution rate against minorities surely shows an uneven distribution of 'justice'.

I'm speaking purely in relationship to the US, as I understand that different cultures have different social dynamics.
 
@Atelier3 and @deficiT. Good morning.

Just to thank you both for your posts.

It's posts such as these that restore my faith in the notion that there is still some value in open, honest, intellectual, and rational debate on these forums. Some days I have to dig REAL deep in order to hold onto that notion! :ROFLMAO:

I'm not quoting your posts in their entirety (nobody reads quotes anyway I'm told). But rest assured I've read them both (yesterday already) and given them due thought and ponderance (dunno where this fancy English is coming from this morning but anyway! :ROFLMAO: ).


But that’s a dry numerical analysis that totally ignores the social dynamics of crime, policing, and justice. It would seem to be transparently obvious that in the longer term such a strategy begins to reproduce itself with no increase in justice and potentially no decrease in the overall actual crime rate. For example:
I never considered the ramifications as you have done i.e. I fell squarely into the dry numerical analysis school of thought.

The only thing that came to mind for me (after posting my initial post on this) was that racial profiling could lead, even if inadvertently or subliminally, to racial bias and which in it's turn could lead to outright racism.

As for the rest of your insights: nothing I would have even considered as noted. That's why you're the intellectual and the lecturer and I'm, well, you know! :ROFLMAO:

I suppose I could add (at the risk of shooting myself in the foot of course) that you know the saying: there's lies, damn lies, and then statistics!


I'm speaking purely in relationship to the US, as I understand that different cultures have different social dynamics.
This a good point (in addition to others noted by you also).


General response:

In my defense (or ignorance) things are pretty cut and dried here (and I'm going to use the actual race terms here as I'm sure it's evident that these interactions between us here are not racially motivated). Here: the figures stack up nice. Black majority by far, most law enforcement officers are black, most criminals are black, and more black people in prison and/or getting shot by law enforcement. There's nothing racial about it (but it's taken me a while, as some will know, to come to this realization). I don't (I no longer anyway) discount the socioeconomic conditions and racial disparity either though.

The above being said: we're not exactly immune from narratives being pushed to suit. The farm murder situation is a prime example. The vast majority of farmers are white but in a country where the majority, by far, is black. If you take these incidents in isolation: it's easy to push the race narrative. And some do (I was one of them not that long ago as we know). It doesn't mean that there isn't racial motivation on occasion i.e. I'm sure there is. But if you take the country as a whole: that's a different story and narrative and one that isn't as bleak as some would have the world believe.

And both of your responses had me looking into our drug statistics yesterday (unfortunately they're more anecdotal it would appear i.e. we're not quite as jacked as the DEA here) (not even close and no offense meant to our guys either i.e. resources here are pushed beyond their limits and through no fault of law enforcement agencies either). Anyway. I was hoping (I guess) to make the point that certain races were more prone to using certain substances and therefore could be profiled. My logic being that if you wanted to bust for smack then you'd not go frisking black people. Turns out it's not true. Seems to me anyway that use and abuse here is pretty colorblind i.e. only affordability makes the difference.

Anyway. My point (now) is how do you deal with this in a country where things are not quite as clear cut. Things not as simple as they sometimes seem (especially not to a foreigner and where the only real source of information is mainstream media and we're all acutely aware of the inherent dangers of that are we not)!

Thanks again (the both of you). :)

In just proofreading the above before posting I reckon I can draw some parallels though. I'll save them for another post.
 
@dalpat077 thanks for the kind words and positive engagement. The situation in South Africa and the situation in the US are quite different. The much greater socio-economic disparities between races (on average) and the far larger size of the black majority might mean that assuming your suspect is black makes a lot of sense and has less flow on consequences than in the US.
 
A brief excursion from rationality.

The below just been broadcast on our local news here i.e. the 911 call made that resulted in our dude being shot by the Hawaii police.

I don't know what to make of this. Based on nothing else but my gut instinct: something doesn't sit right with me in this case. Cannot put my finger on it.

Unfortunately though: the race card and American law enforcement's excessive use of force etc. are being exploited to the nth degree here now. I don't agree with either I'm afraid. Especially not in this case. Exactly how or why this dude found himself in some stranger's home (if that's indeed the case) is one thing. But the way he reacted when the officers arrived is another thing altogether. And to now bang on about the fact that the officers didn't identify themselves at first is, to me, an excuse to push this i.e. I don't see as they had time to do so (not if you look at the body cam footage as posted previously).

Anyway. For sure there's some reports I'd like to see!

I also cannot help but to find it offensive on many levels. Those (here) uninformed and who haven't bothered to take the time or go to the trouble of actually taking a decent look at what happened and merely reacting on the headlines piss me off. And there's a part of me (a big part) that says that it's nothing to do with anybody here. Certainly not politicians anyway. Getting up in arms (no pun intended) about American law enforcement and pointing fingers. Put bluntly and had this happened here under the exact same set of circumstances (given what's currently known anyway): were it not for his apparent celebrity status it probably wouldn't have even made the news regardless of the race of the officers involved. So how this dude is suddenly some hero or some poster child is beyond me.

And the usual suspects (evils) i.e. social media and mainstream media are at play evidently.

Nevertheless. Interesting how our worlds collide now and then is it not.






This one contains a transcript of the 911 call:

 
Last edited:
@dalpat077 thanks for the kind words and positive engagement. The situation in South Africa and the situation in the US are quite different. The much greater socio-economic disparities between races (on average) and the far larger size of the black majority might mean that assuming your suspect is black makes a lot of sense and has less flow on consequences than in the US.
What happened in South Africa was a tragedy to the White folk there after power was given back to African people, they started killing and raping White folk and burning their farms down for no reason. White people in South Africa actually have to live on compounds so they don't get killed.

In the America it's different, it depends in the areas they live, things have changed drastically here, you now see Blacks in places they would never dare to walk into, because they might night make it back out, this was prevalent in the 80's, only because it was known if they came around certain areas it was to commit crimes, and also because try and walk through their neighborhoods, you won't make it out alive or unscathed and that's still the case, trust me I know.

You might call me racist because of what I just said, but it's fact, I know I've been through it and lived it, you don't have that problem in Australia, you don't have Blacks or at least not too many except for the Aboriginals, and they are very few that integrate into your cities, they stay on their government given land, from what I hear, I know a few Aussies here that tell me this, but you do have problems with the Muslims there though.
 
What happened in South Africa was a tragedy to the White folk there after power was given back to African people, they started killing and raping White folk and burning their farms down for no reason. White people in South Africa actually have to live on compounds so they don't get killed.

In the America it's different, it depends in the areas they live, things have changed drastically here, you now see Blacks in places they would never dare to walk into, because they might night make it back out, this was prevalent in the 80's, only because it was known if they came around certain areas it was to commit crimes, and also because try and walk through their neighborhoods, you won't make it out alive or unscathed and that's still the case, trust me I know.

You might call me racist because of what I just said, but it's fact, I know I've been through it and lived it, you don't have that problem in Australia, you don't have Blacks or at least not too many except for the Aboriginals, and they are very few that integrate into your cities, they stay on their government given land, from what I hear, I know a few Aussies here that tell me this, but you do have problems with the Muslims there though.
Just calling you out on the factual parts re Australia. Australia is a fully integrated multi-racial society where you will see dozens of races congregating together for work and leisure in every major city and town.

There have been a protests about Islam and one very notable violent riot between white Australians and Muslim Australians. But people who cannot or will not work or socialise in the same places as Aboriginals or Muslims (or Indians, or Greeks, or Lebanese, or whoever) are fairly marginal low education people.

Aussies get along with everybody and accept milticulturalism as a core part of our national identity so long as immigrants generally fit in and also try and get along.

There’s outliers on both sides.

Now it’s truer that in rural areas there is more negative attitudes towards Aboriginal people. But this is changing so rapidly you can see it in a single generation. Scorn is shifting to pity and compassion and a desire to see concrete improvements that will close the gap between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australians.

There is also a huge and growing Aboriginal middle class as more and more participate in higher education and go into trades and open businesses.
 
Just calling you out on the factual parts re Australia. Australia is a fully integrated multi-racial society where you will see dozens of races congregating together for work and leisure in every major city and town.

There have been a protests about Islam and one very notable violent riot between white Australians and Muslim Australians. But people who cannot or will not work or socialise in the same places as Aboriginals or Muslims (or Indians, or Greeks, or Lebanese, or whoever) are fairly marginal low education people.

Aussies get along with everybody and accept milticulturalism as a core part of our national identity so long as immigrants generally fit in and also try and get along.

There’s outliers on both sides.

Now it’s truer that in rural areas there is more negative attitudes towards Aboriginal people. But this is changing so rapidly you can see it in a single generation. Scorn is shifting to pity and compassion and a desire to see concrete improvements that will close the gap between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australians.

There is also a huge and growing Aboriginal middle class as more and more participate in higher education and go into trades and open businesses.
Why Greeks aren't they White Europeans? I know an Australian who was part of B&H and he accepted all Europeans as White, Italians, Greeks you name it so the Greek part is a little hard for me to accept.

As for the Aboriginals, I feel bad for them and the stories I heard of them being alcoholics and literally drinking anything and sniffing solvents and gasoline to get high and abusing their kids sexually, I hope they eventually get better treated and educated, they deserve better as they are the original people of Australia.
 
What happened in South Africa was a tragedy to the White folk there after power was given back to African people, they started killing and raping White folk and burning their farms down for no reason. White people in South Africa actually have to live on compounds so they don't get killed.
Dude. It pains me to disagree with you or point you in the right direction given that we're usually in agreement (and not to mention having the same taste in music). But I don't know which South Africa you're talking about. Certainly not the one I live in! :ROFLMAO:

And for the record: there's no lions roaming the streets of Johannesburg either! :ROFLMAO:

Fuck me. Please tell this isn't the view the rest of the world has of my country! If it is: the media has done yet another stellar job (and that includes these wannabe YouTube stars that don't have a fucking clue).

Worse still is that you sound like I did not that long ago!

Here's the real lowdown:

White people in South Africa don't live in compounds! Sad fact of the matter is that the compounds to which you refer actually still do exist and they're populated by poor, unemployed, and destitute black people to this day. And that, I'm afraid, and as I've come to realize, is no fault of theirs i.e. we're now almost 27 years later and thanks to corrupt politicians and the lack of political will: not much has changed in that regard. Fair enough: the majority keep voting the same people in. But I can tell you that our majority have started to wise up and this has happened very very quickly too. For the first time in 27 years: politicians are finally being held to account and even imprisoned. And while we've got a ways to go: we're getting there. Albeit that it's taken some time and pain.

Oddly enough: somebody laughed at me the other day, right here, when I said I'd rather be here than most other places in the world given all the shit I see going on everywhere else. I actually wasn't joking. You couldn't pay me (now) to go and live in America. From where I sit: that'd be stepping backward in time insofar as racial issues are concerned. And I mean no offense by that statement. But the fact that a white South African, in spite of all that's happened here, can sit here today and make a statement such as that should be cause for concern and pause!

The farm murders? I touched on these in my earlier post today. I'm sure some are racially motivated (and some border on absolute hatred if you look at the manner in which some of the crimes are committed). But it's mainly due to sheer numbers i.e. there's still very few black farmers and the majority of farmers are still white while the vast majority of the country are black. And farmers (both black and white) are easy targets i.e. outlying areas. As noted previously: when you put this all into perspective then this place ain't too shabby at all. But there are indeed people around (both in South Africa and overseas) that will use whatever platform they can to push their race narrative. Matter of fact: there's at least two Americans that have their own bullshit YouTube channels, not to mention a certain South African who now lives in New Zealand, and who choose to push this narrative. And it's doing damage. And oddly enough: even I'm getting tired of people bitching and squealing about the same old thing. For the first time in my (racial) life: I'd rather try be a part of the solution than continue to perpetuate the problem. And if that means telling the rest of the world or certain international organizations to fuck off? Then so be it. With all of our resources (and here I include Sub-Saharan Africa): there should not be a poor or destitute person anywhere to be seen. And politicians are squarely to blame.

But this one of my arguments on this thread (crass attempt to get back on topic of course). No longer can I blame my fellow black South Africans for resorting to crime and violence. Because I know what I'd do if I were living in their conditions (and I don't even need an excuse) and had been let down by the same people that had been promising me shit for decades and let me down. But this is my argument: you cannot blame law enforcement for this. Not here and not in America nor anywhere else. And as I noted also in my earlier post of today: fortunately the numbers add up nice here so things are pretty simple. And our law enforcement officers don't as a rule have their wings clipped or get thrown to the wolves no matter what race the unfortunate recipient of their doing their jobs may be. But therein lies another difference i.e. no matter your race here people know to not fuck with law enforcement or get smart with them. And those that do? Well? Shit happens.
 
Last edited:
Top