SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for mecctro
After a night of violent protests, Milwaukee residents gathered Sunday evening to mourn an armed man shot to death by police and begin the healing process.
Family and friends of Sylville Smith, 23, held a candlelight vigil at the site of Saturday's shooting in a residential area of North Milwaukee.
The shooting triggered unrest in the city's north side Saturday night as protesters torched businesses and threw rocks at officers. Four officers were injured and 17 people were arrested, Mayor Tom Barrett said.
Tensions on Sunday gave way to calls for peace as activists gathered outside the affected businesses.
Smith's sister, Sherelle Smith, condemned violence carried out in her brother's name, saying the community needs those businesses.
Black Lives Shatter
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/14/us/milwaukee-violence-police-shooting/
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 15 2016, @01:03PM
Well, every citizen who hasn't thrown said right away by becoming a felon. That's a choice though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday August 15 2016, @02:44PM
Being under the age of 16 isn't a choice! Won't someone please think of the children?!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 15 2016, @03:52PM
Under 16 it's up to your parents. I owned a shotgun at 8.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday August 15 2016, @04:35PM
For all too many people, becoming a felon is simply bad luck. Born the wrong color, in the wrong place at the wrong time, vindictive girlfriend (or boyfriend I guess but I rarely hear of that), encounter the wrong cop, you'll end up a felon even when you're innocent. If you have no money to fight the case, you lose. The system doesn't listen to the poor or racial minorities when they claim innocence, it tells them to accept the deal or get hit twice as hard for fighting the case. Even if you have resources, you'll get fucked if you're ignorant of the law and your rights (and the system will never tell you your rights, they'll always try to push you through the system fast and make waiving your rights seem like standard procedure).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by julian on Monday August 15 2016, @05:04PM
There's luck of course but our drug laws are, from the top to the bottom, deliberately racist through design and enforcement. Drug laws would be the single biggest, most efficacious, change we could make. If BLM had any sense they'd focus on that instead of this radical social justice overhaul of society which the majority of people will never go along with.
The civil rights movement of the 1960s succeeded because MLK et al realized they needed white people to be on board. Passion, even anger, are understandable. MLK was passionate. He wasn't out shooting at police, burning cars, demanding cash money reparations.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday August 15 2016, @07:53PM
Yeah, about that:
1. BLM largely does support ending the War on Drugs.
2. I'm trying to figure out why "cops shouldn't shoot black Americans for no good reason" is a "radical social justice overhaul of society which the majority of people will never go along with". I'll put it this way: If that's true, then it strongly suggests that BLM is long past due.
And neither are the vast majority of BLM activists. For example, the BLM folks in my city are talking about the need for community policing, external investigation of police shootings, punishment of officers who break the rules, better vetting of would-be officers (e.g. the cop who killed Tamir Rice had been fired from another department for being mentally unstable, and the Cleveland Police either didn't know that or ignored it), and improving job opportunities for black youth to keep them out of trouble in the first place.
Also, I think it's worth mentioning that just about everything that is being said about Black Lives Matter was said about Martin Luther King's various organizations.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @09:08PM
Except BLM incites violence the same way trump does towards Muslims.
How many police officers have been killed in retaliation in the last few weeks? How many buildings and cars were set on fire after MLK spoke to a crowd? How many cops did MLK's followers kill?
BLM should focus on why so many young black males are killing each other, if you put a stop to black on black crime, then the police won't be involved.
(Score: 2) by julian on Monday August 15 2016, @09:55PM
I actually support all the things you listed. But this latest conflagration in Wisconsin wasn't the result of a policeman shooting a black man for "no reason." He stole a gun, had it drawn, and refused to surrender to police. That's exactly the situation I would expect deadly force to be on the table. I do consider any loss of life to be a tragedy, and our society undoubtedly failed that young man as much as he failed himself.
Those other incidents you mentioned are more straightforward examples of criminal misconduct by police.
I recommend listening to Sam Harris's last podcast with Glenn Loury. [samharris.org] Some of the statistics they go over were rather surprising and illuminating.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday August 15 2016, @05:05PM
Yeah, the less than a percent error rate of the jury trial is intolerable. We should go ahead and allow felons to have guns. I mean they're going to have them anyway so we might as well make it legal and tax them, right?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 16 2016, @12:14AM
Yeah, the less than a percent error rate of the jury trial is intolerable.
Even if I were to agree that that was the actual error rate, it would still be intolerable. People shouldn't be punished forever in the first place.
Besides, I consider it an error when someone is convicted of violating an unjust and/or unconstitutional law, whether or not they are actually guilty of doing so.
We should go ahead and allow felons to have guns.
I'd be fine with that. Why are they out of prison if they're still deemed to be highly dangerous?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:11AM
Well, for starters there's this thing called "parole". Most everyone in prison gets out early on it. But really I'd just rather criminals not be legally armed. They've already proven they can't be trusted.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 16 2016, @05:59AM
I'd rather the government have no such power, because it has shown it can't be trusted. And the government is astronomically more powerful and dangerous than any individual criminal.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 16 2016, @02:56AM
You mean follow the Constitution? Next you'll be saying that felons should have free speech, need a warrant to be searched and horror of horrors, have the right to due process and be protected from self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:18AM
You don't so much get the concept that committing a crime means giving up your rights, do you? A hell of a lot of them, really. Every sentence ever was a violation of the defendant's rights if you want to be reductio ad absurdum about it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 16 2016, @05:28AM
Sentences are given by Judges and often end. Division of power, legislature writes the laws, executive enforces them and judiciary decides on guilt and punishment. This is why the 1st says Congress will pass no laws limiting speech rather then the government will never limit speech.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday August 15 2016, @06:31PM
For all too many people, becoming a felon is simply bad luck.
Nice theory.
Too bad it isn't even remotely true.
Oh yes, everybody likes to trot out arrest rates, and their lopsided nature.
But nobody likes to look too carefully as actual crime commission rates. Because its embarrassing.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @10:44PM
> But nobody likes to look too carefully as actual crime commission rates. Because its embarrassing.
What does that even mean? Please provide a link to these "crime commission rates" so that I can be embarrassed.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:32AM
You've obviously never been to jail, never talked at length worth anyone who has, and place an inordinate amount of trust in the abilities and ethics of law enforcement officers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2016, @12:07AM
It's not a good idea for the government to have the power to arbitrarily strip people of some rights forever simply because they were felons, especially since many laws are unjust and/or unconstitutional.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:04AM
No, it's a fair enough idea. I do agree the laws that can land you as a felon need fixing but that doesn't mean you throw out all the good ideas with the bad.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Tuesday August 16 2016, @02:40AM
The 2nd amendment doesn't mention felons. If you are willing to throw away the 2nd amendment over felonies, then what meaning is there in the 8th amendment?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:12AM
S'a fair point. It should be amended in instead of its current state.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 16 2016, @02:41AM
I've read the 2nd amendment, it's really simple, people have the right to bear arms. Not honest citizens have the right to bear arms. Not Protestants have the right to bear arms as the Bill of Rights of 1689 stated.
I'm not American and my country doesn't have that right, yet it takes a Judge, as part of sentencing, to remove the privilege of bearing arms. And it's only done when someone deserves it, eg doing something stupid with a firearm such as the guy who recently lost the privilege for 10 years (after getting out of prison) for trying to shoot a cop.
Your founding fathers knew that arms were important for dealing with unjust laws, just like voting, another thing Americans remove from citizens for simple shit like possessing a plant.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:15AM
Criminals routinely have their rights taken away. The whole concept of going to jail is a massive rights violation if you want to be picky about it. I'll agree this one should be codified as an amendment but it's not remotely exceptional.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by dry on Tuesday August 16 2016, @05:32AM
Criminals also routinely have their rights restored after finishing their sentence. The idea of a blanket law removing rights forever seems very repressive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 16 2016, @04:33PM
Many criminals are repeat offenders. Why should any criminal, including violent ones, be allowed to purchase fire arms upon release? Your choices in life have lasting effects, not that it really stops ex-cons from access to guns anyhow.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 17 2016, @03:21AM
Lots of people are potential criminals, why should anyone be allowed to purchase firearms? Oh right, it is considered a right, at least in the USA.
If you don't like your Constitution, change it (assuming you're an American)