American liberals can't tell good cops from evil action??

 

American liberals can't tell good cops from evil action??

As far as the US, are the good cops the bad cops, is racism institutional, are there good solutions for violence and violence by police officers?

When people say if a hundred good cops don't out a bad cop they're bad too, what makes them think that cops, whether good or not, know if a person they need to put their trust is actually bad?

Surely, a bad cop wouldn't last long if they were a bad cop from day one and often marked as a corrupt cop, and if involved in violence often, you would find they wouldn't be likely to get promoted, might end up on report, or even get fired if they are found to be in error. So the good cops, they hear of a person they know, someone they've trusted while on patrol or on a case, that that guy has been accused of an illegal act. Such as going too far, leading to the death of someone without enough provocation to call it defence, etc. In that situation, you might think that that person has been accused unfairly, he works hard, he seems down to earth, but turns out you are wrong. And if you're wrong, you're wrong. You may have had years of working with or near to a sound person who, while under pressure, was acting out of character, maybe, kneed on a guys neck, and has been found guilty of murder.

How many people who worked with or knew a cop, a cop they thought was a good cop, might have been shocked to know that such an action took place. Many "bad cops" have spotless careers until they fuck up. Very much like many criminals, including those involved in mass shootings at schools and the like.

It is almost like a greater problem of mental health is the bigger issue that overlaps with many subjects and present protections in the united states let some people through the net or that some instability isn't easily detectable. The result eventually being someone, somewhere, for some reason, snaps.

I don't think the United States nor the Police forces are racist, however, there is a problem within that seems to be poorly dealt with. Cutting funding is the wrong choice, pulling back isn't a helpful method, although I do admit that investment in communities is key to lowering crime. The acts of racism by some cops, rare thought it is, and other actions of unjustified force, are a problem that requires some serious attention. Not that you can say that there is a toxic racism that is everywhere in policing. Nor would I call it logical to insist that average cops, good or not, are part of the problem too. And liberal witch-hunts that ignore the lack of evidence in some cases are far from helpful. Indeed, as far as BLM, there are many people willing to react long before the facts are out, long before an investigation takes place. And sadly, mainstream liberal politicians are overly supportive of this thinking while poorly organised for reform in how the rule of law is implemented.

The problems go beyond the united states and their set of issues in some cases and places, at some times. Every case should be treated as a case by case issue unless their is reason to judge otherwise. For example, if police in one area seem to be targeting black youths and not simply trying to police a crime ridden area that happens to be heavily populated by black people. The types of crimes and areas tend to give an impression, just as I am sure that in a location dominated by white people, the vast vast majority of criminals are likely to be of European descent. And so on and so forth as far as areas dominated by an Asian population. The complexity is when a city or district is very mixed, and, sadly, gangs do throw any basic calculation off beyond mere proportion of the population. And some communities admire violence and alpha male status over that of hard work and honesty when it comes to life's hardships. Obviously, the mentality is not exclusive to people of sub-Saharan African descent. In fact, most people of African ethnicity are not bound to such things, most African Americans aren't trash. Enough people of every community or culture or ethnicity, are in fact far from the best people in society.

I am reminded of some of the local white trash near my small Somerset town, some people who seem to think they're above the law as they get messed up on drugs or steal from average people, or try to fight the police. It is very rare, yet if I said this without making this clear you might imagine things are far worse. And if you have an handful of street gang members in an inner-city, they're likely to be less than 1% of young males for that district, probably less. So no need to characterise people beyond the reality. And often, of the people killed by police in the US, it is petty criminals who are worried about other issues. Such as not keeping up with actions they should be up to date with, like seeing their parole officer or whatever the case.

Imagine if you had something on you, drugs or something, or you were behind on payments you were ordered to pay by the courts. And you're scared that this means the cops will throw you in a cell and the courts will bang you up behind bars. If you were in that boat, you might try to run or resist. And if you have a bunch of people around you, they might try to make the cops back off. They might film it too. As they probably should, even if often edited videos surface later online singing a different tune. I'm thinking there are so many dimensions to this subject that go far beyond simply saying police forces are a racist organisation or may as well be, as some people seem to parrot. Investment in the police, communities and mental health services is likely to be a great way to deal the problem in real world terms.

Thoughts on how racial-supremacists may think.

Thoughts on how racial supremacists may think.

Often those with notions of racial supremacy exhibit warning signs in their softness on key historical characters. Describing a specific fascist leaders as geniuses and misunderstood. They like to insist that they are part of a higher group of people. They romance the idea of some historical characters, they downplay their crimes against humanity, often admire power and militarism. Maybe describing Hitler as a madman, but a genius. Only suggesting the insanity because they are not Germanic themselves or because Hitler failed, which they may regret. Other characters or leaders can be suggested by a variety of ethnic groups as their symbol or their misunderstood mad-genius.

They show extreme loyalty to a national and racial identity, personal and group superiority.  Claims of historical, genetic, racial, national values, great virtues and morals, vast amounts of pride in things they've had no part in. Ancient acts, myths and modern heroes are considered evidence for their delusions of superiority. They are often those who have done little and have few signs of deep human value, yet they boost their self-esteem by waving flags, talking to other delusionals.

Often they insist that they're promoting the greater good, even non-religious supremacists seem to have the idea that they are doing what must be done for a greater good. Morally, they believe they can justify their goals, even their potentially genocidal views. They're often those who have painted history as their story, that of their people, and from the dream of the past they seek to create that vision in the present. Making the super-man a reality through a new order which would purge the defects and perfect society around a strict ideological view of race.

Their ideology and reality are often on different pages, their efforts to force reality to obey their dream fails, but through strict effort they throw resources at their goal. Historically, they fails even when it seems to have won.  As such things are unlikely to be a stable force, it may be that it is unlikely that any power that seeks to demote every other nation and people could not easily maintain power and nothing lasts without end.

The cult of racial supremacism lingers on, mostly in the minds of those fooled by the idea that ethnic characteristics of one kind or another mark one people are a master-race. And, to those who don't know better and are swayed when told that they are a superman, the idea of being a giant amongst ants a powerful idea. Much of this fundamentally linked to excesses of ego. I cannot speak of those who think themselves to be superior in totality, some carry some of these traits, some are sympathetic but not serious supremacists. There are those who are deeply ingrained in this kind of ideology and those who would be likely to fall into line if such ideas became mainstream.

Given lessons from history, when given a direction and a sense of importance, otherwise moral characters can be converted to carry out evil deeds.

What is a Terrorist? - Politically incorrect

What is terrorism? 

 

The definition of terrorism, 'The unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.'[Oxford dictionaries].

Any organisation that seeks to kill people based on personal conviction may as well be labelled a terrorist group, although it may be best to explain this in details. If a movement, org, group has as a mantra kill n#gg#rs, or kill the cops, or kill all of those who insult God/Allah, and they act on their dogmatic view that they'd be justified in this action, then they're a terrorist as far as I'm concerned. 

 

When we see attacks by lone gunmen in America, and they were convinced to act on murderous impulses by an extremist ideology, he is a kind of terrorist, one who is using violence and intimidation to try to create political change.  Fear is a tool of such people, kill one to scare one thousand, send a message to create change.  Often they're not the most mentally sound, after all, whether it's ISIS or Al Qaeda the idea of cutting off a head or blowing up a family isn't something that a rational and sane person can do, well not without brainwashing to shrink one's reason and limit sanity to an extreme ideology.  We shouldn't care what ideology is at work in labelling a terrorist, a white supremacist on an unofficial mission is still a terrorist like the Muslim extremist who has a whole organisation backing him from Syria or Iraq.  

 

We have had the call from many on the left to make clear that mentally ill killers get called 'terrorists', they have a point to a degree, a person, even if unstable, if affected profoundly by an ideology to act in an extreme manner is a terrorist.  However, the reason why the mainstream media doesn't call such a person a terrorist is often because they're known to be mentally ill, and the charges pressed against them are murder or gross bodily harm, not a law that relates to terrorism as such.  Thus, the term 'terrorist' is deemed unreasonable by the educated journalists and editors for most respectable outlets.  It's a distinction that doesn't prevent us from saying they are indeed terrorists.  In the eyes of the law a mentally ill man killing a Labour politician and he is influenced by far-right ideas, although those ideas didn't call for murder, he is not a terrorist as such.  The dictionary seems to disagree.  

We now have a story in the press that states a man who was closely linked to the hate group, Black Lives Matter, had killed law enforcement officers in the belief that he was justified to do so.  There is a large amount of footage of young, often middle-class and wealthy, black college students in the United States, chanting 'kill the police', while regularly blaming any and every white cop for violence that most of them have no part in.  They try to provoke violence in protests, yelling at cops, in a few minors cases even reaching for their guns, not a clever idea, and physically assaulting people.  Oh, and claiming that Black people cannot be racist.  

 

The conundrum you need to figure out is why lefties think BLM murderers, who are directly inspired to act by ideologies that demand violence, should not be called terrorists while they plead for the right-wing versions to have that label.  Surely, if a man from a right-wing neo-nazi belief is a terrorist, then so is a man from another extreme group that has actually chant for violence.  

If you can't see a double standard by arguing the point that white right-wing mental cases are terrorists and black ones who are meant to be on the left are not, then you may be confused.

Black Lives Matter are a group that wants to spread it's opinion that black people are oppressed, they bleed lies into the minds of newly political young people, and claim whenever a black man dies it's due to the police being full of racists.  They use selected data, much like any Klan would, to fool enough people, unlike the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups they focus on marxism and other selected views, because collectivist reasoning means a rich black student living on daddy's money can still claim his is a victim.  They play professional victimhood as their game, inciting violence and creating conflict, so they can share their clip of a cop fighting back after being punched and call it evidence of all they claim to be true, even though they edit out the ten minutes of getting toe to toe and hitting the police officer.  After all, how you can create good propaganda if you don't make things up.  

Real crimes against black people don't happen on camera so much, so to fill this gap they will create what they need to demand that society sees all black people as victims, that in any crime a person of pale skin must be wrong, and if it isn't done they get more recruits on many college campuses, mostly because from a slanted perspective it looks like oppression.  It's only when you don't look from an ideology, instead looking at the facts as objectively as you can, that you will see that major of BLM claims are nonsense or huge exaggerations.  And, I need not state the obvious trouble of real world racism to make clear that making up claims and exaggerating are not practical tools for a rational discussion.  

For anyone who thinks they know better than me, you may be right, 

but let us consider the facts before all things.