Confronting Racism

[Sovereign Nation]

(02-14-2016, 03:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I agree a police officer admitting he broke the law is a no win situation.  But, you came up with the scenario, not me.  You don't realize it, but you're laughing at yourself for asking for something which doesn't exist to disprove something which does exist.




I recognize either person in the scenario you described could lie to avoid self incrimination.  You recognize only one is lying.  I also understand a person might claim racial profiling to force a plea bargain or for a law suit when they commited a crime and were not racially profiled.



Actually, the term I used is the correct term.  If the police force segregated itself it would mean they endorsed a policy which seperated the the police officers by race and didn't allow intermingling of the races.  A seperate, but equal policy so to speak.  Institutional discrimination is different.  Institutional discrimination would mean assignments were based upon race.  White officers patrol white neighborhoods.  Black police officers patrol black neighborhoods.  Just like you proposed.  This type of assignment policy would prevent police officers from filling specific assignments based upon race alone.  That is institutional discrimination.  C'mon, you were a paper pusher in the Army.  I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Wrong, I never said the one side is lying.  I have said the that perception is one sided and that perception isn't factual and shouldn't be used as an example of oppression.

You can't prove that it the reason the officer stopped the suspect was ONLY because the suspect was black.  The perception that the officer racially profiled comes from only one side. 

Here is an example of one sided narrative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zulnhRKB090

She was just an innocent little girl, brutally and violently attack and arrested by a white police officer (the video doesn't actually give the race of the officer but there are plenty of MSM articles giving the race).  This video caused an uproar the officer was fired, and some comments from people were "if she was white it would be a bigger issue."

However, this was nation wide coverage.

Here is another video, that you may or may not have seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUeqfjrp4mU


Both videos are very one sided, they only show the victims side of things.  However, the 1st assumes that the only reason the girl was treated the way she was, is because of racism.  The 2nd has no mention of race and it is due to "just a noise complaint".  The officers have a different viewpoint.  For the 1st one, the girl was uncooperative with the teacher and the officer, the 2nd one the people were also uncooperative with the officers.

To note the SC case, the officer was fired.  The 2nd one?  They are on paid leave.


As far as the term, we are both right.  However you think it is wrong to segregate.  I don't.  You can't expect white officers to be under higher scrutiny every time they do their job.  The officer shouldn't have to defend himself against baseless claims that he is a racist and that he was racially profiling.  You can't keep doing that to white officers.  Non white officers are under no such scrutiny.