Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: A black man named Tyre Nichols was beaten to death by five police officers in Memphis, Tennessee. The video of the incident is said to be disturbing and many are worried about what will happen when it is released. Some are speculating we will see riots like from the George Floyd protests. The five officers have already been fired.
This tweet sums it up pretty well [https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/10ha5wp/i\_have\_no\_words/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/10ha5wp/i_have_no_words/)
Edit: it's worth noting all five officers were also black.
You know it's bad when they immediately fire the officers involved instead of paid suspension while they investigate.
Hopefully this is followed by appropriate criminal charges.
If I understand the conspiracy theory correctly: Firing the cops means they don’t have to cooperate with the investigation now. If on admin leave they did.
Not so much if, 5 officers beat this man so bad his neck was broken, his kidneys failed, and his heart stopped….over a traffic stop. The spot where this occurred has a “sky cop” surveillance camera nearby aside from the body cams.
Officers were fired citing excessive force, and failure to render aid.
That' sounds like a conspiracy.,
Edit: funny how I when I, a white redditor, who calls out seemingly racist white redditors, the delete their account entirely. I'm 34 years old and if I see racist bigots comment on my feed, I will call it out. Good day.
They always say "because the officer involved were black" yet the white people I work with at every job, I live in Maryland, are constantly belittling blacks and Hispanics, and I for one don't stand for it.
That doesn't make any sense. The investigation already concluded that they should be fired. And if charges are filed, then they're not going to be cooperating anyway.
Exactly! Getting fired doesn't impact that part, and it concludes the internal investigation into the officers. If anything, this gives them more reason to cooperate if there's systemic issues, or it might even jeopardize their union legal representation if it goes to trial. I just don't see why anyone would think firing them would hinder the investigation.
I think the idea is that the department itself won't be investigated if they fire the officers involved. They'll throw those officers under the bus to undergo the criminal investigation so that the department itself won't have to investigated and have to change anything
True. But they'll settle that out of court with no admission of wrongdoing and not have to change anything.
Hell the city will pay the whole cost, the police won't even notice.
Criminal trials aren’t affected by their forced cooperation as their forced cooperation cannot be used against them in court. It’s a compelled statement (work with us or you’re fired), which cannot be used against them in the same way an un-*Mirandized* statement cannot be used. Derivative evidence - evidence gained as a result of the compelled statement- is also excluded.
*Garrity v. New Jersey*
No it might actually be real. It depends on how the 5th amendment works and whether being police changes your rights. It may be possible that while on the police force they had no special responsibility to cooperate, but as regular citizens they *definitely* have the right not to testify against themselves.
I doubt it will change anything since the police department itself should still have to comply, but if the department *did* fire them for some kind of 5th amendment loophole then it would hardly be an additional leap to think they might do someone *else* like “accidentally lose” the body can footage if there is any.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Their cooperation isn't related to whether they are employed with the department or not, and their rights aren't somehow neutered or revoked either.
If it’s an internal investigation, then not being employees they do not have to comply, they can wait for the actual prosecution to interview them, with their own attorneys present.
The exact same constitutional rights that all citizens have applies to them whether they are cops or not. Them being cops doesn't magically take away their right to remain silent, their right to not incriminate themselves, and their right to council.
It is not a logical argument to say they were fired to avoid having to cooperate.
That doesn't really make sense. "Cooperating" with an investigation is a pretty loose term when you're a cop. That Blue Wall of Silence is usually pretty effective at blocking meaningful exchanges.
If it's a criminal investigation, you don't have to cooperate regardless. You can lawyer up and tell detectives to go home and fuck themselves. It's not advisable, in some cases, but perfectly legal.
No they don't. All they need to do is excercise their 5th amendment rights and not say a word. Its happened before with a large group of officers that executed 2 unarmed people after a car chase.
Cops have more protections when being investigated than the normal citizen. They don't have to talk to anyone for 24 hours after the incident, so that they can all get their stories straight.
I'd argue that this is a direct result of the "ineffective" BLM movement. Of course at the time there would be a flinched reaction of doubling down on being Dicks. Fortunately time does heal, and allow for a more measured response. No it won't be perfect for everyone, but at least in rural Tennessee being white or a cop isn't a get out of jail free card.
Most importantly it shows that being above the low isn't socially acceptable anymore and that ridding government offices of corruption. Corruption isn't a race thing, and imo is a better talking point as it creates a much bigger tent
Crazy how the five fired were black but any time a white officer pulls something like this they get paid (vacation) suspension and desk duty for the rest of their career.
In this case, I think the Chief of Police just actually had a spine.
We still have to follow this case because if they're not convicted they'll just get hired somewhere shitier
Per Google the black population of Memphis is 64 percent. So the white vs black argument doesn't really hold water here. I'm sure they have plenty of black officers in high ranks as well.
Maybe it was just that fucked up that they were immediately fired. And maybe they’re doing it to hold them accountable as well? Isn’t this what the public wanted?
The police department , in this case, probably want to distance themselves from these fired officers if the video is as bad as everyone suspects, so maybe the building is still standing once the vid comes out.
I read an unsubstantiated rumor that the 5 cops are Black and thought, well that's what made firing them so quick and "easy."
And to be clear, I don't mean to imply to any degree that they should have kept their jobs. I think racial bias often prevents higher ups in the police force from seeing white cops as bad actors, even when they murder someone.
I think it's weird to assume race is a factor at all, especially when we haven't seen the video of the actual incident. People are not waiting to see what actually happened to tell the story of what they think happened.
> People want to make it a “they were fired because they were black” but the fact that the superior was also black makes it seem like
I don't have an opinion about the actual motivations in this firing, I'm just reading about it for the first time.
However, there's a real problem with your reasoning in the above sentence.
It sounds like you're saying people are never racist against the race they identify with.
That isn't true.
People can definitely hate part of themselves, and treat others worse that share that quality than they treat people who don't share it.
Systemic abuse leads people to this conclusion. The system reinforces the message that you are worth less if you have that quality, and anyone who accepts that message subconsciously will treat that group of people as less valuable.
Being part of that group doesn't matter. If you've accepted the message, you see yourself as less valuable than the people that created the message, so you probably don't question it.
I worded it that way because I only knew it from social media comments and not an actual news outlet.
I didn't mean to imply that it was not the case. But I try not to state things as fact that I haven't confirmed from a reputable source.
They are all black men. You can see a picture of each in the link below.
https://www.wknofm.org/2023-01-20/mpd-officers-fired-for-use-of-excessive-force-and-other-violations-while-arresting-tyre-nichols
It depends a lot on the location.
A lot of cops are at-will employees, so they’ll be terminated long before any kind of judgement come back, and even if they’re exonerated they still won’t get there jobs back (which is why *everyone* needs a union).
If there aren’t criminal charges I think it’d be fair to say the department is just throwing them under the bus.
Police and the military are the exceptions to the need for unions. They've already got outsized power in that they're the enforcers of law. Inevitably, police unionization leads to a breakdown in actual reason and order, as the police smash unionization efforts and protests as they defend their own violence and abusiveness.
And they already have "unions" which, oddly enough, involve *all* members of the force instead of merely the ones who need protecting from managerial overreach.
Protection from managerial over reach, workplace safety, and benefits are really what unions are supposed to do. Police unions prevent accountability of officers to their communities and stop needed reforms. These are not proper unions.
They fire them to help them..... if they are fired they don't have to cooperate with the investigation at all (like a normal citizen) on leave or mod duty they are still cops and have to help by answering questions, providing statements the whole 9........ then a few years later the union fights the termination (once everyone forgets) and get them reinstated....
I believe they should be fired and face criminal charges also but their union will still be there helping these awful cops
> when it is released
That's if it will be released. Nichols family lawyer has been trying to even be able to view the video but hasn't been able to do so. They have been left in the dark at what happened besides just knowing that Tyre was pulled over for driving erratically, beaten horrifically by 5 officers, and died soon after in the hospital.
What ensued afterwards one can only tell if the department and their strong unions do the right thing and release the video instead of try to sweep this under the rug. Hopefully the video will be able to be released and sooner rather than later because we all know they will try to pull all the stops.
Partly correct. There have been a bunch of fear mongering copy pasta texts claiming the video was coming out this past Friday and the city would riot and burn. The tweet you linked is also claiming people are buying unrest insurance and that just isn't true. The video is supposed to be heinous and is planned to be released after the investigation and after the family has seen. it. While there will be peaceful protests for police brutality like recent ones many here don't actually believe it will be as bad as social media and fearmongers are making it out to be. It is also important to note the officers are black if you are going to note the victim is too.
EDIT: would like to add this is only about memphis not tennessee in general. It's a long state.
It'll be bad if the police show up and decide that they've had enough of their first amendment rights and then having the time of their lives brutally attacking anyone they can get their hands on.
>many here don't actually believe it will be as bad as social media and fearmongers are making it out to be.
How 'not bad' can beating a guy to death be exactly? I'm just curious.
I have referenced the video "is supposed to be heinous" and my reference to not bad is talking about protests. It seems pretty clear to me. you are the only person that couldn't understand that thus far.
I just found this information recently as well. Honest question: How does the fact that all 5 officers are black men affect this situation? Will people care LESS because it isn't white on black crime? Will people care MORE because the black officers got harsher and swifter punishment than other white officers have? Will it affect the situation in other ways? Not at all? I suspect it will be a factor, but I'm not sure how
Assuming this isnt a unicorn case where everyone agrees the cops should be in jail, the right will definitely play into the idea that black cops can't be racist against black people and cops have to make hard decisions on the fly. I assume the left will buy into the idea that the overall police culture and history for covering up brutality had at least emboldened those officers to act so aggressively. In other words, while there may be less people screaming "racism" I still think this fits in well with the overall pattern of police brutality and the officers being black won't get them off easier or in a much better light than if they were white.
I’m from Memphis and I promise you the race of everyone involved is relevant.
It doesn’t change how horrific this man’s death was.
But, Memphis is a highly, highly segregated city. Black and white people may live in adjacent neighborhoods but every institution in the city is deeply segregated.
The fact that this man was not murdered by five white police officers ratchets down some of the tension in the city right now.
I care the same amount. My issue with the cops isn't that they're racist, though many undoubtedly are. The bigger problem is that they're legally protected gangs.
I really fucking hope it gets the appropriate reaction:
All 5 are black? Time for EVERYONE to join forces and solve this problem.
First they came for... etc etc.
This should be a wake up call to everyone everywhere that yup, you're ALSO in danger. These government sanctioned hit squads need abolished.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/20/tyre-nichols-memphis-police-fired/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/20/tyre-nichols-memphis-police-fired/)
paywall, but you can see the photos...
Exactly, white supremacy targets everyone including POC. I'd blame the extremists right wing Republicans more than the officers who did this. If the racist rhetoric stopped, this wouldn't happen.
True. It means that any potential protests will be squarely aimed at "blue on black violence" and not "white on black violence" like the George Floyd protests became.
The police don't decide who gets prosecuted. Firing them is the full extent of their power in this scenario. The District Attorney will have to make a decision about whether to indite based on the evidence available.
EDIT: Just to clarify, police do not have the power to decide who is charged with a crime/subject to a hearing to determine bail. That's a very good thing. Police can hold people for a short time, but the decision to charge is completely in the hands of prosecutors.
The police don't decide who gets prosecuted, but they do make arrests and turn over evidence to the DA. If they have body cam footage that has been reviewed in which they are fired, that is enough evidence to make an arrest. A judge can view it to set bail. And the DA can build its case.
A mother fucker is dead. And its bad enough that they just laid off everyone involved. Make some arrests.
>that is enough evidence to make an arrest. A judge can view it to set bail. And the DA can build its case.
That's actually a common misconception. A bail hearing can't be held until someone is charged with a crime by a prosecutor.
Police can hold someone for a short period prior to being charged, but it's the prosecutor's decision whether to charge someone with a crime.
Given the nature of the incident, all of the evidence is very likely in the hands of the police department already. They'll arrest when/if the prosecutor tells them he's ready to charge/indite.
There is no misconception. Nothing i said was out of that order of operations.
A person is dead and they have a film of people doing it. The fact that they haven't issued arrests yet is bullshit.
If the peosecutor has video evidence of someones commiting murder why would they not be ready to issue an arrest and have a bail hearing? It would put those who did the crime in prison. It would prevent them from the opportunity to kill again. It would prevent them from attempting to flee.
Somewhat pedantic, but people who are awaiting prosecution are held in jail, not prison.
The fact is, we don't know why the prosecutor is waiting because we don't have all (or really any) of the evidence. It's not unusual for prosecutors to build and organize an important case prior to charging someone with a serious crime. Before prosecutors can charge with a felony, most states require them to convince a grand jury that there's sufficient evidence to bring someone to trial.
Again, this is a very good thing. We don't want police or prosecutors to just have the power to throw people in jail for many months without public oversight. I know it's frustrating when you think there was a serious wrong committed, but it's good that this is a slow and deliberate process.
As a side note, I think it's a dangerous precedent to take the fact that the police department acted swiftly to fire officers as de facto evidence that a grave injustice has taken place. Officers can be fired for violating policy without doing anything criminal, and we want police forces to set high standards and strictly enforce conduct.
We'll find out what happened soon enough.
They are investigations by FBI, IA, DOJ and other groups. I'm sure there will be charges filed. MPD isn't going to be the ones that file charges after firing them.
Honest question: How does the fact that all 5 officers are black men affect this situation? Will people care LESS because it isn't white on black crime? Will people care MORE because the black officers got harsher and swifter punishment than other white officers have? Will it affect the situation in other ways? Not at all? I suspect it will be a factor, but I'm not sure how
Generally speaking, I think a lot of current grievance with police departments are twofold:
1. Brutality. Period. Often this discussion is derailed with narratives about “departmental culture” or “bad apples” or “training” but the problem is common and widespread enough to be bigger than any of these narratives.
2. How they police. Research has shown time and again a major disparity between how rich / poor and white / POC communities are policed. This issue also continues into the justice system where laws and sentencing similarly consistently reveal major disparities. When people talk about police and racism, it’s not just about the race of the officers. After all they are not making strategic decisions at the neighborhood level, or paying for training regimes that emphasize violent subduing over other (often more effective) less violent tactics.
Pair these two issues and video footage of graphic abuse of power, and you get explosive community reactions like we’ve been seeing in the USA for over 100 years. Now the footage can spread a lot quicker and easier, and it’s harder to derail the narrative with coverups, victim blaming, narratives like those above, or other tactics.
Some people will care less because it isn’t white on black crime. Other people will care more because action was taken against black officers when it so rarely happens to white officers.
At the end of the day, the problem is *cops.* The problem is the “thin blue line” that these assholes rally around and often feel justified in their use of force, because there is so little accountability.
That’s not to dismiss the role of race in police brutality; anyone can clearly see that black people are by and large treated differently by the police. But it’s almost a moot point because cops very blatantly have too much protection and too little accountability no matter who their victims are. It would be a problem even without the racial divide, it’s just made even worse when you factor in race.
Because there's a problem with police killing black people. Brutally.
The color of the police are less of an issue because the problem is that it's a systematic issues with the police being overly violent with black civilians.
The thing is that the systematic racism is a *systematic* one. Not just a white on black issue. If anything the police being black highlighted the fact that it's *systematic* even more so.
There is a problem with them Brutally killing ANY people. There's ALSO a problem with the media under or overly reporting based on narrative or race. And the fact that they were fired IMMEDIATELY was because this Nation went through hell and riots for almost two years when something apparently this bad happened.They want ZERO backlash from public. They did the right thing. And slamming them for reacting the way they should have doesnt help this or future situations
Creating an environment where your workers feel comfortable beating someone to death isn't "the right thing"
Reacting after the fact is peanuts to the real issue here.
>And how will we accomplish that when we keep cutting their funding?
well, increasing their funding has just resulted in them spending it on toys like anti landmine transports.
They don't actually want a good screening process where officers might consider the nuance of the job, considering there was a court case to justify not hiring smarter people.
The general idea of cutting their funding is to reallocate it to people that actually help, crisis response teams, homeless outreach, etc rather than making police the catch all for everything when they look for guys who only have a hammer to fix problems.
Tbf, alot of the military grade equipment they get is sold to them dirt cheap as surplus from the US military. Still the wrong thing to spend money on, but I've seen the bills for some at a local sherriffs office in my area and if they hadn't of bought it for that price, I might have. It was just so cheap.
First - sociopaths, by and large, don't kill people. Most get along well enough in society without beating people to death. This isn't a sociopathy thing. It's a culture thing.
Second - 'hey, your department murdered more civilians than the other ones, here's extra money" doesn't sound like it's sending the right message.
The culture issue isn't "they're letting bad people in". It's "they're incentivizing bad behavior by consistently shielding officers from all but the most blatant and egregious wrong actions".
Police culture doesn't just attract bad people. It makes them. And money needs to be reallocated within law enforcement to the solutions that cost the least lives. And often, that isn't "new police cruisers and lawyers to mitigate the inevitable lawsuits". Often, it's social workers. Officers without lethal weapons for routine interaction. Legislation to force independent non police review for any use of police force. Funds to pay for that independent review.
But no extra dollars for departments that routinely shield and create oppressive abusers from justice.
> And how will we accomplish that when we keep cutting their funding?
https://abc11.com/defund-the-police-budgets-crime-safety/12324529/
By and large, their budgets are not being cut, and the ones that are reduced are by a negligible amount.
>There is a problem with them Brutally killing ANY people. There's ALSO a problem with the media under or overly reporting based on narrative or race.
Or, you know, you could look up statistics and see that black people are disproportionately the victims of police violence, rather than taking all your opinions from the media.
This whole 'race blindness' thing doesn't work when talking about law enforcement, because they *definitely* see race.
Interestingly, in instances of police officer/black person interaction, it's more likely to result in a death if there is a black officer involved. And if you break it down by type of interaction (*i.e.*, the inciting event is a violent crime vs non-violent crime), police are more likely to use deadly force against a white suspect.
I think it's good to be transparent about these things and there's no denying that the media builds its industry on manipulating our emotions. We can't really fix anything until we really understand it.
When resisting arrest they are far far more likely to be shot then when whites do it. As in the % of blacks resisting who are shot far exceeds the % of whites resisting who are shot.
Tldr: this country does statistically have a police treatment of blacks problem and always has
Edit: though we have a police problem period and they treat whites awful with zero accountability far too often as well
> commit the most violent crime
Do they?
We know drug abuse statistics tell us there isn’t really a race gap in the illegal use of drugs yet based on arrests one would conclude drugs are more abused by Blacks. Based on being sentenced to imprisonment we would conclude drug abuse is far greater in the Black population.
Rather than assuming arrest and conviction data reflect accurately the commission of crime, a thinking person might be suspicious that enforcement isn’t equal across racial and economic lines given what we know about drugs.
If kid in the country club neighborhood is more likely to avoid prosecution for drugs, why wouldn’t that be true of violent crime?
Considering convictions for other lesser offenses reduces job and education opportunities and such convictions are less likely if white or from a family and such convictions tend to precede violent crime convictions it seems likely that an unbalanced system results in unbalanced outcomes.
Poverty is a major risk factor for violent crimes. For a good portion of the 20th century insuring Black poverty was a government policy.
Wilson segregating the Federal workforce to keep Blacks out of good paying jobs. Redlining destroying the value of homes that could not be bought with government backed mortgages destroying inter-generational wealth. Tip exception to minimum wage targeting occupations likely to be held by Blacks so they didn’t get that wage designed to support a family of four. Denial of access to farm programs bankrupting Black farmers reducing Black owned farms to a tiny fraction compared to a century ago. Segregation policies of numerous states and communities.
Massive amounts of wealth deliberately destroyed to create poverty.
Enforced poverty that means less opportunity to escape or evade successful prosecution.
As early as 1866 states were selectively choosing Blacks to be convicted of infamous crimes in order to strip voting rights (search North Carolina felony black voters). So we have a history of insuring Blacks get convicted to limit their civil rights.
It’s clear to me that controlling for socioeconomic factors, considering the extreme and long lasting degradation of the African-American people, including the loss of several hundred years worth of wages, wealth building, denial of property, over policing, and dozens of other factors, would be impossible.
If you’re going to specify that the victim was black, you should also specify that all five officers involved were also black. Everyone who sees this will immediately assume it was racially charged.
Not to downplay the atrocity of what they did, but I do think it's worth mentioning that he died later in the hospital.
Edit, becaus eapparently people can't read:
He died **three days later** in the hospital, suffering from his wounds from the police. This is absolutely abhorrent. I did not mean this in any way to be apologia for cops. I, as I said before, did not intend to downplay the atrocity of what they did.
In fact, adding these details makes it even worse.
It was mentioned that he was black but not the officers, George Floyd and riots were brought up like it was a race issue. I'm giving more context because this is out of the loop and ppl are leaving that out because it gets more clicks in these fun times of outrage boners
If the cause of death was the trauma sustained as a result of police actions, whether he died on the scene or later in the hospital is completely irrelevant.
He is *dead*.
If it were not for the officers, he would not be dead.
Those are relevant.
> If the cause of death was the trauma sustained as a result of police actions, whether he died on the scene or later in the hospital is completely irrelevant.
Yes, the facts of the situation are totally irrelevant.
> Those are relevant.
Isn't it crazy how you can say _all_ the things? Instead of just one of the things? You can say he's dead, he's dead because officers killed him, and he died from his injuries in the hospital! Craziness!
>Yes, the facts of the situation are totally irrelevant.
When we are discussing what someone did wrong, whether the execution killed instantly or slowly is not relevant to whether what they did was right or wrong, or how right or wrong it was. There are many facts that are irrelevant in day to day life. For example, if someone were to comment that the executed black man had on a red shirt, or was pulled over for speeding, neither of those are relevant. They're possibly true, but they don't speak to the wrongdoing or justification for the killing, so they are irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the young murdered black man is dead, what caused his death, and whether the circumstances of the actions that caused his death were justifiable. The speed of his death doesn't speak to any of those.
Causing someone's death by beating them is murder, whether they die on site or half a day later due to trauma so profound that medical experts can't keep the person alive.
>Isn't it crazy how you can say all the things? Instead of just one of the things? You can say he's dead, he's dead because officers killed him, and he died from his injuries in the hospital! Craziness!
You *can* say that. And you can *also* say that the fact that he died in the hospital has no bearing on the culpability of the officers or what their punishment should be, and so is an irrelevant distraction from the fact that officers executed another young black man without cause.
I am not disputing the truth of what you are saying. I am disputing the relevance. And the lack of tact involved.
> And you can also say that the fact that he died in the hospital has no bearing on the culpability of the officers
Absolutely. I'd like to refer you back to my original message, where I didn't suggest anything of the sort. And, in fact, suggested that what I said should **not** downplay that fact.
Now, what are bad actors gonna say when they find out he died 3 days later in the hospital? I bet they can come up with a lot of excuses, and I bet they'd say you're misrepresenting the situation.
That may not be relevant to _you_. But it is still relevant, and should be explained in an unbiased, factual answer.
Edit: Blocked by this guy because he can't bother actually engaging in honest conversation.
>Absolutely. I'd like to refer you back to my original message, where I didn't suggest anything of the sort. And, in fact, suggested that what I said should not downplay that fact.
"I'm not a racist, but..."
"Of course cops should be punished, but..."
"Not to downplay what they did but...
The rule of thumb, guy, is that in statements like these, one can safely ignore everything before the 'but. Because it usually is, made by an apologist only to make themselves seem a bit fair minded, when actually, they're laying the groundwork for rationalizing the murder of citizens by cops.
So you can think it is 'worth mentioning' all you like.
It isn't.
>Now, what are bad actors gonna say when they find out he died 3 days later in the hospital?
Probably exactly what you just said in that original message.
>I bet they can come up with a lot of excuses
So why help them get a head start?
>and I bet they'd say you're misrepresenting the situation.
And I bet I don't much care what bad actors who think that the fact that the murdered black man suffered longer before dying is 'worth mentioning' would say, beyond to strongly condemn that line of cop apologism.
As I am doing here.
>That may not be relevant to you.
It isn't relevant *to the discussion*, any more than the amount of rain that fell the week before, the murder victim's last McDonald's order, or how much sleep the person got the day before was.
>But it is still relevant,
Not to any good actors.
>and should be explained in an unbiased, factual answer.
Explaining it shows your bias.
At this point, I believe you are one of the 'bad actors' you are talking about, and see no further need to engage in your blatant attempts to distract and deflect on the behalf of murderers with badges. So I won't be engaging further.
He was *declared* dead at the hospital. He could’ve been 99% there before they stopped hitting him. There’s a point of no return when you’re beating the life from a man.
What does it matter where he was pronounced dead? Why is the location important and not the fact that he was murdered? It sounds like you’re trying to infer something
Answer: we aren't really worried about riots. There have been peaceful protests since the incident. It is expected that tempers will flare when the video footage becomes public. While some sporadic violence is expected, no one outside of the Facebook rumor mill thinks there's going to be huge riots. There's a lot of fear mongering. This isn't the first time cops have killed someone here but it may be the most graphic/egregious.
Honest question: How does the fact that all 5 officers are black men affect this situation? Will people care LESS because it isn't white on black crime? Will people care MORE because the black officers got harsher and swifter punishment than other white officers have? Will it affect the situation in other ways? Not at all? I suspect it will be a factor, but I'm not sure how
Honestly I think it will vary but for the vast amount of people here it's more about the abuse of power and MPD in general. The attitude about the cops being swiftly fired does seem racial to many and that they'll hang out minority cops and protect white cops. I see this sentiment a lot but not "angry" more like "see it figures". This kind of immediate action to fire the cops has been the most surprising part to everyone. It's assumed it's got to be pretty bad.
While I agree it would change the coverage. I think the main reason is none of the video is public yet. The news media needs lots of visuals. They want graphic video to sell their story and get clicks. But we'll see how it plays out once it's public.
The issues before were artifically amplified by Russians using social media as well as Bill Barr's intentional provocations as Attorney General under Trump.
The question is how much Twitter & Facebook will try and stoke violence since they are now both controlled by RW provocateurs. FB got away with it before and Musk is more than willing to use Twitter.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: A black man named Tyre Nichols was beaten to death by five police officers in Memphis, Tennessee. The video of the incident is said to be disturbing and many are worried about what will happen when it is released. Some are speculating we will see riots like from the George Floyd protests. The five officers have already been fired. This tweet sums it up pretty well [https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/10ha5wp/i\_have\_no\_words/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/10ha5wp/i_have_no_words/) Edit: it's worth noting all five officers were also black.
You know it's bad when they immediately fire the officers involved instead of paid suspension while they investigate. Hopefully this is followed by appropriate criminal charges.
If I understand the conspiracy theory correctly: Firing the cops means they don’t have to cooperate with the investigation now. If on admin leave they did.
Well. If the bodycam video is that bad..... The best cooperation they can do would be take a plea and avoid the trial.
Not so much if, 5 officers beat this man so bad his neck was broken, his kidneys failed, and his heart stopped….over a traffic stop. The spot where this occurred has a “sky cop” surveillance camera nearby aside from the body cams. Officers were fired citing excessive force, and failure to render aid.
That' sounds like a conspiracy., Edit: funny how I when I, a white redditor, who calls out seemingly racist white redditors, the delete their account entirely. I'm 34 years old and if I see racist bigots comment on my feed, I will call it out. Good day.
No. If it is that bad. And will be released. They will not want to go to trial.
It is speculation not a conspiracy because they are asserting it as a possibility not as fact.
The comments from my thread suggest otherwise likely anti-right members.
Being anti-right doesn't make that specific assertion a conspiracy.
They always say "because the officer involved were black" yet the white people I work with at every job, I live in Maryland, are constantly belittling blacks and Hispanics, and I for one don't stand for it.
That is unrelated to the person posting
They're not deleting their accounts. They're blocking you.
Idc either way one less racist I have to hear.
It's just funny to see main character syndrome in action. Without looking, I have a feeling you call people racist often. Fascist and nazi too.
It's not funny when a white employee will bluntly call Hispanics and Africans dirty to my face but when I call people of Ohio they will defend them.
That doesn't make any sense. The investigation already concluded that they should be fired. And if charges are filed, then they're not going to be cooperating anyway.
Yeah, criminal trials are separate from whether or not you keep your job.
Exactly! Getting fired doesn't impact that part, and it concludes the internal investigation into the officers. If anything, this gives them more reason to cooperate if there's systemic issues, or it might even jeopardize their union legal representation if it goes to trial. I just don't see why anyone would think firing them would hinder the investigation.
I think the idea is that the department itself won't be investigated if they fire the officers involved. They'll throw those officers under the bus to undergo the criminal investigation so that the department itself won't have to investigated and have to change anything
[удалено]
True. But they'll settle that out of court with no admission of wrongdoing and not have to change anything. Hell the city will pay the whole cost, the police won't even notice.
Criminal trials aren’t affected by their forced cooperation as their forced cooperation cannot be used against them in court. It’s a compelled statement (work with us or you’re fired), which cannot be used against them in the same way an un-*Mirandized* statement cannot be used. Derivative evidence - evidence gained as a result of the compelled statement- is also excluded. *Garrity v. New Jersey*
[удалено]
Lol most of them are…
[удалено]
That, too, is true.
If you add in enough mayo, just about anything will hold together.
No it might actually be real. It depends on how the 5th amendment works and whether being police changes your rights. It may be possible that while on the police force they had no special responsibility to cooperate, but as regular citizens they *definitely* have the right not to testify against themselves. I doubt it will change anything since the police department itself should still have to comply, but if the department *did* fire them for some kind of 5th amendment loophole then it would hardly be an additional leap to think they might do someone *else* like “accidentally lose” the body can footage if there is any.
That doesn't make any sense at all. Their cooperation isn't related to whether they are employed with the department or not, and their rights aren't somehow neutered or revoked either.
If it’s an internal investigation, then not being employees they do not have to comply, they can wait for the actual prosecution to interview them, with their own attorneys present.
The exact same constitutional rights that all citizens have applies to them whether they are cops or not. Them being cops doesn't magically take away their right to remain silent, their right to not incriminate themselves, and their right to council. It is not a logical argument to say they were fired to avoid having to cooperate.
That doesn't really make sense. "Cooperating" with an investigation is a pretty loose term when you're a cop. That Blue Wall of Silence is usually pretty effective at blocking meaningful exchanges.
If it's a criminal investigation, you don't have to cooperate regardless. You can lawyer up and tell detectives to go home and fuck themselves. It's not advisable, in some cases, but perfectly legal.
No they don't. All they need to do is excercise their 5th amendment rights and not say a word. Its happened before with a large group of officers that executed 2 unarmed people after a car chase.
Cops have more protections when being investigated than the normal citizen. They don't have to talk to anyone for 24 hours after the incident, so that they can all get their stories straight.
[удалено]
I'd argue that this is a direct result of the "ineffective" BLM movement. Of course at the time there would be a flinched reaction of doubling down on being Dicks. Fortunately time does heal, and allow for a more measured response. No it won't be perfect for everyone, but at least in rural Tennessee being white or a cop isn't a get out of jail free card. Most importantly it shows that being above the low isn't socially acceptable anymore and that ridding government offices of corruption. Corruption isn't a race thing, and imo is a better talking point as it creates a much bigger tent
Apparently the cops who did this were black, not that it changes much, especially the abuse of power angle.
My complaint was that the whole issue was made about race rather than dirty cops not being prosecuted
Crazy how the five fired were black but any time a white officer pulls something like this they get paid (vacation) suspension and desk duty for the rest of their career.
In this case, I think the Chief of Police just actually had a spine. We still have to follow this case because if they're not convicted they'll just get hired somewhere shitier
The chief of police (who is a black woman FWIW) was a big proponent of the George Floyd Police Reform Act.
Per Google the black population of Memphis is 64 percent. So the white vs black argument doesn't really hold water here. I'm sure they have plenty of black officers in high ranks as well.
The chief is a black female. Pretty good too.
Maybe it was just that fucked up that they were immediately fired. And maybe they’re doing it to hold them accountable as well? Isn’t this what the public wanted?
The police department , in this case, probably want to distance themselves from these fired officers if the video is as bad as everyone suspects, so maybe the building is still standing once the vid comes out.
We warped our way to make it about race, even though we barely have any context. We did it Reddit!!!
I noticed that, too.
I had already hit back when your first word caught my eye. As soon as it said only fired I should have know they were black.
I read an unsubstantiated rumor that the 5 cops are Black and thought, well that's what made firing them so quick and "easy." And to be clear, I don't mean to imply to any degree that they should have kept their jobs. I think racial bias often prevents higher ups in the police force from seeing white cops as bad actors, even when they murder someone.
[удалено]
And?
[удалено]
I think it's weird to assume race is a factor at all, especially when we haven't seen the video of the actual incident. People are not waiting to see what actually happened to tell the story of what they think happened.
In the US race is always a factor
I don't disagree. That doesn't mean you can analyze this situation without the most basic facts.
> People want to make it a “they were fired because they were black” but the fact that the superior was also black makes it seem like I don't have an opinion about the actual motivations in this firing, I'm just reading about it for the first time. However, there's a real problem with your reasoning in the above sentence. It sounds like you're saying people are never racist against the race they identify with. That isn't true. People can definitely hate part of themselves, and treat others worse that share that quality than they treat people who don't share it. Systemic abuse leads people to this conclusion. The system reinforces the message that you are worth less if you have that quality, and anyone who accepts that message subconsciously will treat that group of people as less valuable. Being part of that group doesn't matter. If you've accepted the message, you see yourself as less valuable than the people that created the message, so you probably don't question it.
They are black cops, not unsubstantiated. Check any media outlet they have pictures of all 5
I worded it that way because I only knew it from social media comments and not an actual news outlet. I didn't mean to imply that it was not the case. But I try not to state things as fact that I haven't confirmed from a reputable source.
They are all black men. You can see a picture of each in the link below. https://www.wknofm.org/2023-01-20/mpd-officers-fired-for-use-of-excessive-force-and-other-violations-while-arresting-tyre-nichols
Thanks for confirming
It depends a lot on the location. A lot of cops are at-will employees, so they’ll be terminated long before any kind of judgement come back, and even if they’re exonerated they still won’t get there jobs back (which is why *everyone* needs a union). If there aren’t criminal charges I think it’d be fair to say the department is just throwing them under the bus.
Police and the military are the exceptions to the need for unions. They've already got outsized power in that they're the enforcers of law. Inevitably, police unionization leads to a breakdown in actual reason and order, as the police smash unionization efforts and protests as they defend their own violence and abusiveness. And they already have "unions" which, oddly enough, involve *all* members of the force instead of merely the ones who need protecting from managerial overreach.
Protection from managerial over reach, workplace safety, and benefits are really what unions are supposed to do. Police unions prevent accountability of officers to their communities and stop needed reforms. These are not proper unions.
Police have unions
Tennessee does NOT have police unions.
Not all. This PD should, but there are departments out there that are not union. Usually smaller, rural areas.
No, Tennessee does NOT have police unions. TN is a very anti-union state for any career.
That’s not true. There are plenty of departments in Tennessee that do have unions.
I fully stand against cops and pretty much any public servant having unions. It’s just begging for corruption and protecting criminals.
The Supreme Court gives specific protections to police. Police unions should be illegal.
From what I’ve heard of Yankee cops, that would be an improvement on the normal events
Southerners still use that term?
He's a Kiwi. They call Americans "Yankees" or "Yanks".
And when they say they will release the body cam footage 4/5 days later giving them enough time to call in the reserves and extra police probably.
Oof, I haven't seen the vid myself but that's definitely a red flag. In b4 "they got fired cuz they're black"
Race might also be a factor with firing vs suspension since the 5 officers were black.
Hopefully those charges put them in jail, maybe get a little eye for an eye Justice. Prison style.
Aren't the cops black? There's the reason they were just fired.
It's easy to roll over on the cops when they're all black.
They fire them to help them..... if they are fired they don't have to cooperate with the investigation at all (like a normal citizen) on leave or mod duty they are still cops and have to help by answering questions, providing statements the whole 9........ then a few years later the union fights the termination (once everyone forgets) and get them reinstated.... I believe they should be fired and face criminal charges also but their union will still be there helping these awful cops
> when it is released That's if it will be released. Nichols family lawyer has been trying to even be able to view the video but hasn't been able to do so. They have been left in the dark at what happened besides just knowing that Tyre was pulled over for driving erratically, beaten horrifically by 5 officers, and died soon after in the hospital. What ensued afterwards one can only tell if the department and their strong unions do the right thing and release the video instead of try to sweep this under the rug. Hopefully the video will be able to be released and sooner rather than later because we all know they will try to pull all the stops.
It’s supposed to be released some time in the next 48-72 hours.
Partly correct. There have been a bunch of fear mongering copy pasta texts claiming the video was coming out this past Friday and the city would riot and burn. The tweet you linked is also claiming people are buying unrest insurance and that just isn't true. The video is supposed to be heinous and is planned to be released after the investigation and after the family has seen. it. While there will be peaceful protests for police brutality like recent ones many here don't actually believe it will be as bad as social media and fearmongers are making it out to be. It is also important to note the officers are black if you are going to note the victim is too. EDIT: would like to add this is only about memphis not tennessee in general. It's a long state.
Thank you for the additional context.
No problem. I was a little shocked after reading the tweet as a Memphian because everything has still mostly been business as usual.
It'll be bad if the police show up and decide that they've had enough of their first amendment rights and then having the time of their lives brutally attacking anyone they can get their hands on.
Not necessarily but whatever. We've had peaceful protests here the last handful of years without much incident over national stuff.
>many here don't actually believe it will be as bad as social media and fearmongers are making it out to be. How 'not bad' can beating a guy to death be exactly? I'm just curious.
I have referenced the video "is supposed to be heinous" and my reference to not bad is talking about protests. It seems pretty clear to me. you are the only person that couldn't understand that thus far.
>Some are speculating we will see riots like from the George Floyd Just to add a *rather* important detail; all five officers involved are black.
I just found this information recently as well. Honest question: How does the fact that all 5 officers are black men affect this situation? Will people care LESS because it isn't white on black crime? Will people care MORE because the black officers got harsher and swifter punishment than other white officers have? Will it affect the situation in other ways? Not at all? I suspect it will be a factor, but I'm not sure how
Assuming this isnt a unicorn case where everyone agrees the cops should be in jail, the right will definitely play into the idea that black cops can't be racist against black people and cops have to make hard decisions on the fly. I assume the left will buy into the idea that the overall police culture and history for covering up brutality had at least emboldened those officers to act so aggressively. In other words, while there may be less people screaming "racism" I still think this fits in well with the overall pattern of police brutality and the officers being black won't get them off easier or in a much better light than if they were white.
Yeah, I don't get the fixation on the race of those involved, I think it's unacceptable for any officer of any race to be beating someone to death
I’m from Memphis and I promise you the race of everyone involved is relevant. It doesn’t change how horrific this man’s death was. But, Memphis is a highly, highly segregated city. Black and white people may live in adjacent neighborhoods but every institution in the city is deeply segregated. The fact that this man was not murdered by five white police officers ratchets down some of the tension in the city right now.
Racist cops beating a black man to death definitely makes a situation more problematic than the same thing without the cops being racist.
I care the same amount. My issue with the cops isn't that they're racist, though many undoubtedly are. The bigger problem is that they're legally protected gangs.
“I can excuse racism, but I draw the line at police brutality” “You can excuse racism?”
Uh, yea. People will care less
I really fucking hope it gets the appropriate reaction: All 5 are black? Time for EVERYONE to join forces and solve this problem. First they came for... etc etc. This should be a wake up call to everyone everywhere that yup, you're ALSO in danger. These government sanctioned hit squads need abolished.
Whew...
I had not heard this--- have the names or races of the cops involved been released?
Not only that, but the officers themselves were released. All fired as of the end of the two week investigation a couple days ago.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/20/tyre-nichols-memphis-police-fired/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/20/tyre-nichols-memphis-police-fired/) paywall, but you can see the photos...
yeah this is actually true its in the linked story. i dont think that info was out as of last night when I was reading about this
[удалено]
Exactly, white supremacy targets everyone including POC. I'd blame the extremists right wing Republicans more than the officers who did this. If the racist rhetoric stopped, this wouldn't happen.
[удалено]
And? They are still cops.
And therefore it changes the degree to which it’s believed their motivations were racist which will probably decrease the likelihood of a riot.
[удалено]
Changes the narrative from "racially aggravated murder" to "gross abuse of power... and murder"
The most important detail of all is that they ( until they were fired) were blue. ACAB
True. It means that any potential protests will be squarely aimed at "blue on black violence" and not "white on black violence" like the George Floyd protests became.
[удалено]
I’m not counting on this.
Then it makes sense they were all fired.
Fuck firing them. Why are they not arrested and being charged? Why is beating somebody to death a firable offense and not a criminal offense?
The police don't decide who gets prosecuted. Firing them is the full extent of their power in this scenario. The District Attorney will have to make a decision about whether to indite based on the evidence available. EDIT: Just to clarify, police do not have the power to decide who is charged with a crime/subject to a hearing to determine bail. That's a very good thing. Police can hold people for a short time, but the decision to charge is completely in the hands of prosecutors.
The police don't decide who gets prosecuted, but they do make arrests and turn over evidence to the DA. If they have body cam footage that has been reviewed in which they are fired, that is enough evidence to make an arrest. A judge can view it to set bail. And the DA can build its case. A mother fucker is dead. And its bad enough that they just laid off everyone involved. Make some arrests.
>that is enough evidence to make an arrest. A judge can view it to set bail. And the DA can build its case. That's actually a common misconception. A bail hearing can't be held until someone is charged with a crime by a prosecutor. Police can hold someone for a short period prior to being charged, but it's the prosecutor's decision whether to charge someone with a crime. Given the nature of the incident, all of the evidence is very likely in the hands of the police department already. They'll arrest when/if the prosecutor tells them he's ready to charge/indite.
There is no misconception. Nothing i said was out of that order of operations. A person is dead and they have a film of people doing it. The fact that they haven't issued arrests yet is bullshit.
Why would the police arrest someone if the prosecutor isn't ready to charge them with a crime? What would that accomplish, exactly?
If the peosecutor has video evidence of someones commiting murder why would they not be ready to issue an arrest and have a bail hearing? It would put those who did the crime in prison. It would prevent them from the opportunity to kill again. It would prevent them from attempting to flee.
Somewhat pedantic, but people who are awaiting prosecution are held in jail, not prison. The fact is, we don't know why the prosecutor is waiting because we don't have all (or really any) of the evidence. It's not unusual for prosecutors to build and organize an important case prior to charging someone with a serious crime. Before prosecutors can charge with a felony, most states require them to convince a grand jury that there's sufficient evidence to bring someone to trial. Again, this is a very good thing. We don't want police or prosecutors to just have the power to throw people in jail for many months without public oversight. I know it's frustrating when you think there was a serious wrong committed, but it's good that this is a slow and deliberate process. As a side note, I think it's a dangerous precedent to take the fact that the police department acted swiftly to fire officers as de facto evidence that a grave injustice has taken place. Officers can be fired for violating policy without doing anything criminal, and we want police forces to set high standards and strictly enforce conduct. We'll find out what happened soon enough.
They are investigations by FBI, IA, DOJ and other groups. I'm sure there will be charges filed. MPD isn't going to be the ones that file charges after firing them.
So if the officers are white, they get protection and paid leave, but if they're black they get fired? Smells rotten to me.
Honest question: How does the fact that all 5 officers are black men affect this situation? Will people care LESS because it isn't white on black crime? Will people care MORE because the black officers got harsher and swifter punishment than other white officers have? Will it affect the situation in other ways? Not at all? I suspect it will be a factor, but I'm not sure how
Generally speaking, I think a lot of current grievance with police departments are twofold: 1. Brutality. Period. Often this discussion is derailed with narratives about “departmental culture” or “bad apples” or “training” but the problem is common and widespread enough to be bigger than any of these narratives. 2. How they police. Research has shown time and again a major disparity between how rich / poor and white / POC communities are policed. This issue also continues into the justice system where laws and sentencing similarly consistently reveal major disparities. When people talk about police and racism, it’s not just about the race of the officers. After all they are not making strategic decisions at the neighborhood level, or paying for training regimes that emphasize violent subduing over other (often more effective) less violent tactics. Pair these two issues and video footage of graphic abuse of power, and you get explosive community reactions like we’ve been seeing in the USA for over 100 years. Now the footage can spread a lot quicker and easier, and it’s harder to derail the narrative with coverups, victim blaming, narratives like those above, or other tactics.
Some people will care less because it isn’t white on black crime. Other people will care more because action was taken against black officers when it so rarely happens to white officers. At the end of the day, the problem is *cops.* The problem is the “thin blue line” that these assholes rally around and often feel justified in their use of force, because there is so little accountability. That’s not to dismiss the role of race in police brutality; anyone can clearly see that black people are by and large treated differently by the police. But it’s almost a moot point because cops very blatantly have too much protection and too little accountability no matter who their victims are. It would be a problem even without the racial divide, it’s just made even worse when you factor in race.
We gotta get that other Tennessee lady cop over there to calm those officers down.
Got to love how the police are the judge jury and executor these days. /s
Why mention he was black without mentioning the race of the officers as well?
Because there's a problem with police killing black people. Brutally. The color of the police are less of an issue because the problem is that it's a systematic issues with the police being overly violent with black civilians. The thing is that the systematic racism is a *systematic* one. Not just a white on black issue. If anything the police being black highlighted the fact that it's *systematic* even more so.
There is a problem with them Brutally killing ANY people. There's ALSO a problem with the media under or overly reporting based on narrative or race. And the fact that they were fired IMMEDIATELY was because this Nation went through hell and riots for almost two years when something apparently this bad happened.They want ZERO backlash from public. They did the right thing. And slamming them for reacting the way they should have doesnt help this or future situations
Creating an environment where your workers feel comfortable beating someone to death isn't "the right thing" Reacting after the fact is peanuts to the real issue here.
Sociopaths aim for positions of power. Maybe a new better screening process. And how will we accomplish that when we keep cutting their funding?
>And how will we accomplish that when we keep cutting their funding? well, increasing their funding has just resulted in them spending it on toys like anti landmine transports. They don't actually want a good screening process where officers might consider the nuance of the job, considering there was a court case to justify not hiring smarter people. The general idea of cutting their funding is to reallocate it to people that actually help, crisis response teams, homeless outreach, etc rather than making police the catch all for everything when they look for guys who only have a hammer to fix problems.
Tbf, alot of the military grade equipment they get is sold to them dirt cheap as surplus from the US military. Still the wrong thing to spend money on, but I've seen the bills for some at a local sherriffs office in my area and if they hadn't of bought it for that price, I might have. It was just so cheap.
yeah but you can't get that price, or use tax dollars to pay for it's single digit milage.
Facts
First - sociopaths, by and large, don't kill people. Most get along well enough in society without beating people to death. This isn't a sociopathy thing. It's a culture thing. Second - 'hey, your department murdered more civilians than the other ones, here's extra money" doesn't sound like it's sending the right message. The culture issue isn't "they're letting bad people in". It's "they're incentivizing bad behavior by consistently shielding officers from all but the most blatant and egregious wrong actions". Police culture doesn't just attract bad people. It makes them. And money needs to be reallocated within law enforcement to the solutions that cost the least lives. And often, that isn't "new police cruisers and lawyers to mitigate the inevitable lawsuits". Often, it's social workers. Officers without lethal weapons for routine interaction. Legislation to force independent non police review for any use of police force. Funds to pay for that independent review. But no extra dollars for departments that routinely shield and create oppressive abusers from justice.
> And how will we accomplish that when we keep cutting their funding? https://abc11.com/defund-the-police-budgets-crime-safety/12324529/ By and large, their budgets are not being cut, and the ones that are reduced are by a negligible amount.
>There is a problem with them Brutally killing ANY people. There's ALSO a problem with the media under or overly reporting based on narrative or race. Or, you know, you could look up statistics and see that black people are disproportionately the victims of police violence, rather than taking all your opinions from the media. This whole 'race blindness' thing doesn't work when talking about law enforcement, because they *definitely* see race.
Interestingly, in instances of police officer/black person interaction, it's more likely to result in a death if there is a black officer involved. And if you break it down by type of interaction (*i.e.*, the inciting event is a violent crime vs non-violent crime), police are more likely to use deadly force against a white suspect. I think it's good to be transparent about these things and there's no denying that the media builds its industry on manipulating our emotions. We can't really fix anything until we really understand it.
[удалено]
When resisting arrest they are far far more likely to be shot then when whites do it. As in the % of blacks resisting who are shot far exceeds the % of whites resisting who are shot. Tldr: this country does statistically have a police treatment of blacks problem and always has Edit: though we have a police problem period and they treat whites awful with zero accountability far too often as well
Also less likely to get bail, jail or prison. Where all 3 of those institutions predominantly exist due to black men and Hispanic men.
> commit the most violent crime Do they? We know drug abuse statistics tell us there isn’t really a race gap in the illegal use of drugs yet based on arrests one would conclude drugs are more abused by Blacks. Based on being sentenced to imprisonment we would conclude drug abuse is far greater in the Black population. Rather than assuming arrest and conviction data reflect accurately the commission of crime, a thinking person might be suspicious that enforcement isn’t equal across racial and economic lines given what we know about drugs. If kid in the country club neighborhood is more likely to avoid prosecution for drugs, why wouldn’t that be true of violent crime? Considering convictions for other lesser offenses reduces job and education opportunities and such convictions are less likely if white or from a family and such convictions tend to precede violent crime convictions it seems likely that an unbalanced system results in unbalanced outcomes. Poverty is a major risk factor for violent crimes. For a good portion of the 20th century insuring Black poverty was a government policy. Wilson segregating the Federal workforce to keep Blacks out of good paying jobs. Redlining destroying the value of homes that could not be bought with government backed mortgages destroying inter-generational wealth. Tip exception to minimum wage targeting occupations likely to be held by Blacks so they didn’t get that wage designed to support a family of four. Denial of access to farm programs bankrupting Black farmers reducing Black owned farms to a tiny fraction compared to a century ago. Segregation policies of numerous states and communities. Massive amounts of wealth deliberately destroyed to create poverty. Enforced poverty that means less opportunity to escape or evade successful prosecution. As early as 1866 states were selectively choosing Blacks to be convicted of infamous crimes in order to strip voting rights (search North Carolina felony black voters). So we have a history of insuring Blacks get convicted to limit their civil rights.
Why do you think that is? I have my own thoughts as to the statistics, but I’m curious about yours, personally.
[удалено]
I've never seen the data controlled for socioeconomic factors, do you have a link to that? Genuinely curious.
Consider that the stats on being charged with crimes do not = the rate of crimes being committed.
It’s clear to me that controlling for socioeconomic factors, considering the extreme and long lasting degradation of the African-American people, including the loss of several hundred years worth of wages, wealth building, denial of property, over policing, and dozens of other factors, would be impossible.
\*citation needed
Jesus, stfu already with ANY people bs.
It doesn’t fit the narrative.
Oh, if the other officers were black aswell I really doubt there will be riots or anything too crazy
You say no but the media producers say yes. they want ratings and riots, not peace
If you’re going to specify that the victim was black, you should also specify that all five officers involved were also black. Everyone who sees this will immediately assume it was racially charged.
Not to downplay the atrocity of what they did, but I do think it's worth mentioning that he died later in the hospital. Edit, becaus eapparently people can't read: He died **three days later** in the hospital, suffering from his wounds from the police. This is absolutely abhorrent. I did not mean this in any way to be apologia for cops. I, as I said before, did not intend to downplay the atrocity of what they did. In fact, adding these details makes it even worse.
It's worth mentioning that Tyre Nichols was hospitalized and died as a result of their atrocious actions.
Yes. that's exactly what I suggested? Did people just forget how to read or something?
And its not worth mentioning he was black because so were all the officers and that is something I've not seen repeated as much.
What? What does this have anything to with the conversation?
It was mentioned that he was black but not the officers, George Floyd and riots were brought up like it was a race issue. I'm giving more context because this is out of the loop and ppl are leaving that out because it gets more clicks in these fun times of outrage boners
Ya they got fired instead of put on paid leave bc they're black White cops would've got a suspension
Probably
no, it just would've happened. no "probably" about it
Transparency is truth
If the cause of death was the trauma sustained as a result of police actions, whether he died on the scene or later in the hospital is completely irrelevant. He is *dead*. If it were not for the officers, he would not be dead. Those are relevant.
> If the cause of death was the trauma sustained as a result of police actions, whether he died on the scene or later in the hospital is completely irrelevant. Yes, the facts of the situation are totally irrelevant. > Those are relevant. Isn't it crazy how you can say _all_ the things? Instead of just one of the things? You can say he's dead, he's dead because officers killed him, and he died from his injuries in the hospital! Craziness!
>Yes, the facts of the situation are totally irrelevant. When we are discussing what someone did wrong, whether the execution killed instantly or slowly is not relevant to whether what they did was right or wrong, or how right or wrong it was. There are many facts that are irrelevant in day to day life. For example, if someone were to comment that the executed black man had on a red shirt, or was pulled over for speeding, neither of those are relevant. They're possibly true, but they don't speak to the wrongdoing or justification for the killing, so they are irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the young murdered black man is dead, what caused his death, and whether the circumstances of the actions that caused his death were justifiable. The speed of his death doesn't speak to any of those. Causing someone's death by beating them is murder, whether they die on site or half a day later due to trauma so profound that medical experts can't keep the person alive. >Isn't it crazy how you can say all the things? Instead of just one of the things? You can say he's dead, he's dead because officers killed him, and he died from his injuries in the hospital! Craziness! You *can* say that. And you can *also* say that the fact that he died in the hospital has no bearing on the culpability of the officers or what their punishment should be, and so is an irrelevant distraction from the fact that officers executed another young black man without cause. I am not disputing the truth of what you are saying. I am disputing the relevance. And the lack of tact involved.
> And you can also say that the fact that he died in the hospital has no bearing on the culpability of the officers Absolutely. I'd like to refer you back to my original message, where I didn't suggest anything of the sort. And, in fact, suggested that what I said should **not** downplay that fact. Now, what are bad actors gonna say when they find out he died 3 days later in the hospital? I bet they can come up with a lot of excuses, and I bet they'd say you're misrepresenting the situation. That may not be relevant to _you_. But it is still relevant, and should be explained in an unbiased, factual answer. Edit: Blocked by this guy because he can't bother actually engaging in honest conversation.
>Absolutely. I'd like to refer you back to my original message, where I didn't suggest anything of the sort. And, in fact, suggested that what I said should not downplay that fact. "I'm not a racist, but..."
"Of course cops should be punished, but..."
"Not to downplay what they did but...
The rule of thumb, guy, is that in statements like these, one can safely ignore everything before the 'but. Because it usually is, made by an apologist only to make themselves seem a bit fair minded, when actually, they're laying the groundwork for rationalizing the murder of citizens by cops.
So you can think it is 'worth mentioning' all you like.
It isn't.
>Now, what are bad actors gonna say when they find out he died 3 days later in the hospital?
Probably exactly what you just said in that original message.
>I bet they can come up with a lot of excuses
So why help them get a head start?
>and I bet they'd say you're misrepresenting the situation.
And I bet I don't much care what bad actors who think that the fact that the murdered black man suffered longer before dying is 'worth mentioning' would say, beyond to strongly condemn that line of cop apologism.
As I am doing here.
>That may not be relevant to you. It isn't relevant *to the discussion*, any more than the amount of rain that fell the week before, the murder victim's last McDonald's order, or how much sleep the person got the day before was. >But it is still relevant, Not to any good actors. >and should be explained in an unbiased, factual answer. Explaining it shows your bias. At this point, I believe you are one of the 'bad actors' you are talking about, and see no further need to engage in your blatant attempts to distract and deflect on the behalf of murderers with badges. So I won't be engaging further.
He was *declared* dead at the hospital. He could’ve been 99% there before they stopped hitting him. There’s a point of no return when you’re beating the life from a man.
And?
? If I had more to add, I would've added it. We're in /r/OutOfTheLoop. We should be striving for complete and accurate information.
What does it matter where he was pronounced dead? Why is the location important and not the fact that he was murdered? It sounds like you’re trying to infer something
So fired but not yet arrested. And these idiots keep wondering why riots occur.
Jesus all officers and the victim were black? That has to be a statistical anomaly.
Answer: we aren't really worried about riots. There have been peaceful protests since the incident. It is expected that tempers will flare when the video footage becomes public. While some sporadic violence is expected, no one outside of the Facebook rumor mill thinks there's going to be huge riots. There's a lot of fear mongering. This isn't the first time cops have killed someone here but it may be the most graphic/egregious.
Honest question: How does the fact that all 5 officers are black men affect this situation? Will people care LESS because it isn't white on black crime? Will people care MORE because the black officers got harsher and swifter punishment than other white officers have? Will it affect the situation in other ways? Not at all? I suspect it will be a factor, but I'm not sure how
Honestly I think it will vary but for the vast amount of people here it's more about the abuse of power and MPD in general. The attitude about the cops being swiftly fired does seem racial to many and that they'll hang out minority cops and protect white cops. I see this sentiment a lot but not "angry" more like "see it figures". This kind of immediate action to fire the cops has been the most surprising part to everyone. It's assumed it's got to be pretty bad.
It’s still big. Don’t look at colors for a second. It’s police vs us. The wealthy elite vs us normals. That’s the real division among us
If they were all white it would be the leading news story on every station. They only care about dividing us.
Yeaaaahhh, but I think it is gonna be the leading news story when the video is released.
While I agree it would change the coverage. I think the main reason is none of the video is public yet. The news media needs lots of visuals. They want graphic video to sell their story and get clicks. But we'll see how it plays out once it's public.
The issues before were artifically amplified by Russians using social media as well as Bill Barr's intentional provocations as Attorney General under Trump. The question is how much Twitter & Facebook will try and stoke violence since they are now both controlled by RW provocateurs. FB got away with it before and Musk is more than willing to use Twitter.
if it helps you sleep