RIP officer Patrick Zamarripa, Cowboys fan

[Nightman]

Being against police brutality isn't being anti-police.

Just calling them like I see them.... "stop racist police terror" "blue klux klan" "no justice no peace" are anti-police signs and rhetoric....

 

[Tabascocat]

starting to get rowdy in Baton Rouge and Atlanta

 

[tyke1doe]

Just calling them like I see them.... "stop racist police terror" "blue klux klan" "no justice no peace" are anti-police signs and rhetoric....

And if you're not a police officer that doesn't practice such, it doesn't apply to you. Again, being against police brutality and racism on the police force isn't being against police. People from both sides are too binary when it comes to this issue.

 

[Dodger12]

Being against police brutality isn't being anti-police.

Yes. I'm sure all law enforcement were touched by the protesters good intentions.

 

[Dodger12]

And if you're not a police officer that doesn't practice such, it doesn't apply to you.

So if the public had a generally positive relationship with the Dallas Police, then why protest? Why does a killing in another city apply to Dallas? If one police officer, out of tens of thousands, acted inappropriately, then why does it apply to lawmen in other cities across the country?

 

[tyke1doe]

Yes. I'm sure all law enforcement were touched by the protesters good intentions.

You had members of the Dallas Police Department, even the chief, affirming the right to protest. And you had protesters who were assembled to condemn police brutality standing up for the police as they were being targeted.

But this is part of the problem: people view this issue as an either/or, i.e., you're either with the police or against the police; you're either with the protesters or against the protesters; you're either anti-police or for-protests.

It's not an either/or situation, at least not for me and many others who want police brutality to stop even as we want the senseless, murderous targeting of police to stop.

 

[mattjames2010]

Being against police brutality isn't being anti-police.

Which signs were you focusing on? There are blatant anti-cop signs there, or at least, painting cops with a very broad brush.

 

[tyke1doe]

So if the public had a generally positive relationship with the Dallas Police, then why protest? Why does a killing in another city apply to Dallas? If one police officer, out of tens of thousands, acted inappropriately, then why does it apply to lawmen in other cities across the country?

Let me answer your question with a question: why did police officers in other cities beyond Dallas offer support of solidarity and condemned the police shootings if the shootings didn't happen in their community? Why speak out against the senseless violence of one crazed sniper if that sniper didn't reside in their community?

I'll await your answer.

 

[tyke1doe]

Which signs were you focusing on? There are blatant anti-cop signs there, or at least, painting cops with a very broad brush.

Again, being anti-brutality isn't being anti-police. I didn't see anyone say abolish the police department or kill police. If so, yes, that would be anti-police. But decrying the unlawful and overly aggressive actions of police, that's not being anti-police.

 

[mattjames2010]

You had members of the Dallas Police Department, even the chief, affirming the right to protest. And you had protesters who were assembled to condemn police brutality standing up for the police as they were being targeted.

But this is part of the problem: people view this issue as an either/or, i.e., you're either with the police or against the police; you're either with the protesters or against the protesters; you're either anti-police or for-protests.

It's not an either/or situation, at least not for me and many others who want police brutality to stop even as we want the senseless, murderous targeting of police to stop.

I'm sorry, but both of these are never going to be stopped. I'm not against protests, but let's not pretend this is ever going to be achieved. You can minimize it, sure, but to stop it? This is, in my mind, a lofty goal that everyone knows simply won't happen.

 

[mattjames2010]

Again, being anti-brutality isn't being anti-police. I didn't see anyone say abolish the police department or kill police. If so, yes, that would be anti-police. But decrying the unlawful and overly aggressive actions of police, that's not being anti-police.

When you compare the police force to the KKK, you are stating there isn't a police force. You are stating there is a militant group with prejudices. That's not law enforcement. I'm not entirely sure what your definition of "anti" is, it's simply meaning to be against.

They, by definition, are against the police there. No, #notall, but some there are blatantly against the police. If you view the police, especially as a black person, equivalent to the KKK you are against them. I'm not sure how you couldn't be. But then again, that's why most 3-4 word signs are stupid. About as useful as a bumper sticker.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm sorry, but both of these are never going to it. I'm not against protests, but let's not pretend this is ever going to be achieved. You can minimize it, sure, but to stop it? This is, in my mind, a lofty goal that everyone knows simply won't happen.

Fortunately, not everyone thinks like you. Some people have hope that things will improve. And that's why they're out protesting, trying to make a change in the best way they know how. Besides, it has worked before, i.e., the Civil Rights protests. And if it has before, there's precedence that it can work and maybe will work again.

 

[tyke1doe]

When you compare the police force to the KKK, you are stating there isn't a police force. You are stating there is a militant group with prejudices. That's not law enforcement. I'm not entirely sure what your definition of "anti" is, it's simply meaning to be against.

First, I didn't see any of those posters in the picture contained in this thread. If they were among the crowd and in the picture, I missed them.
Second, I don't understand why people can't understand this but in a public protest, you get all types of people and all types of messages. That's the nature of free expression. The issue, in this case, isn't the fact that people with ulterior motives were found within the crowd. The issue is that the protest was peaceful. People can have their wacked out ideas, but they still have a right to express those ideas if they do so in a peaceful way.
Third, why are you focusing on the KKK messages and not the other messages? While I didn't see those signs, I'm going to guess even if they were present, that was one message out of, what, dozens of others decrying police brutality?

 

[mattjames2010]

Fortunately, not everyone thinks like you. Some people have hope that things will improve. And that's why they're out protesting, trying to make a change in the best way they know how. Besides, it has worked before, i.e., the Civil Rights protests. And if it has before, there's precedence that it can work and maybe will work again.

Read my post again, I never said things can't improved. I said it won't be stopped. Murder will not be stopped, police brutality will not be stopped. You can hope to minimize it (There were 26 incidents last year of unarmed people being killed), that's out of 800 people being shot by police. If I remember correctly, about 14 of those were toy gun incidents. Sure, we can attempt to minimize this, but I'm still not entirely sure how much you are expecting. If your expectation is 0, with the gun laws and population of this country, it's never going to be met. Even take away guns, it's not going to happen.

I like to place realistic goals, actually I wish everyone would. So when those goals aren't met, emotions don't run high and we have another pointless riot/protest and we can actually work towards something achievable.

 

[tyke1doe]

Read my post again, I never said things can't improved. I said it won't be stopped. Murder will not be stopped, police brutality will not be stopped. You can hope to minimize it (There were 26 incidents last year of unarmed people being killed), that's out of 800 people being shot by police. If I remember correctly, about 14 of those were toy gun incidents. Sure, we can attempt to minimize this, but I'm still not entirely sure how much you are expecting. If your expectation is 0, with the gun laws and population of this country, it's never going to be met. Even take away guns, it's not going to happen.

I like to place realistic goals, actually I wish everyone would. So when those goals aren't met, emotions don't run high and we have another pointless riot/protest and we can actually work towards something achievable.

If such incidents decrease in frequency, I'll take that. I'm not picky.

 

[lane]

Rip Patrick..you and your wife look like great people.. I can't imagine what she is going through having to make funeral arrangements for her husband after being murdered by a hate monger who wants to kill police officers who had nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

 

[Dodger12]

You had members of the Dallas Police Department, even the chief, affirming the right to protest. And you had protesters who were assembled to condemn police brutality standing up for the police as they were being targeted.

Of course people have the right to protest and the police will do their job no matter the nature of the protest. It's not for them to decide what is appropriate.

And how did these folks stand up for police when they were being targeted? They ran one way and the police ran the other. If you want to stand up for police, then have a pro-police rally in support of the authorities. But in every instance, even those where police were cleared of wrong doing, the anti-police protests took place.

But this is part of the problem: people view this issue as an either/or, i.e., you're either with the police or against the police; you're either with the protesters or against the protesters; you're either anti-police or for-protests.

It's not an either/or situation, at least not for me and many others who want police brutality to stop even as we want the senseless, murderous targeting of police to stop.

Cooler heads would realize that the huge majority of police contact with all groups, minority or otherwise, end peacefully. People took up Michael Brown as some sort of martyr for their cause instead of looking at the facts and coming to a reasonable conclusion. When folks decide to attack the police and challenge them at every turn, bad things are going to happen.

I can appreciate folks wanting police brutality to stop. But folks make it sound like it's some kind of widespread epidemic and it feeds into the anti-police mindset that we see today and these are the results.

And I'll go back to a statement I made earlier. If police acted improperly in another state and the good people of Dallas have a good relationship with the police, then what's the logic in protesting at an anti-police rally (in Dallas)? By the same token, if there are racial divides in some communities or if there is an issue with black on white crime, would I then protest in my community where I get along with my neighbors who may be of that ethic or racial background? How do you think they would view my protest and wouldn't they wonder why I was protesting if my relationship with them was a good one?

 

[Dodger12]

Let me answer your question with a question: why did police officers in other cities beyond Dallas offer support of solidarity and condemned the police shootings if the shootings didn't happen in their community? Why speak out against the senseless violence of one crazed sniper if that sniper didn't reside in their community?

I'll await your answer.

So the police are protesting across America and targeting their protest on a certain group? Compare apples to apples. You can stand in solidarity but I don't see police protesting across the country, closing roads, stopping traffic, interfering with commerce, and holding up signs in opposition to a specific group.

 

[tyke1doe]

Of course people have the right to protest and the police will do their job no matter the nature of the protest. It's not for them to decide what is appropriate.

Exactly! But the officers were also taking pictures with the protesters too. Taking pictures is not a part of their duty.

And how did these folks stand up for police when they were being targeted? They ran one way and the police ran the other. If you want to stand up for police, then have a pro-police rally in support of the authorities. But in every instance, even those where police were cleared of wrong doing, the anti-police protests took place.

You do know that there were members of the protest pointing out to police where the bullets were coming from?

Second, why should they have a pro-police rally? That's like having a pro-parent rally. Police do what they're supposed to do. You don't have a rally when people do what they're supposed to do. Besides, there are days set aside to honor military veterans and law enforcement. There's your pro-police rally.

Look, you just don't like the fact that there are protests against police brutality because from your life experience, the police have never violated your rights. But that's not the experience of every one. Hench, the protest.
If you're so interested in pro-police rallies, then why don't you organize one. But stop telling others what they should do with their time.

Cooler heads would realize that the huge majority of police contact with all groups, minority or otherwise, end peacefully. People took up Michael Brown as some sort of martyr for their cause instead of looking at the facts and coming to a reasonable conclusion. When folks decide to attack the police and challenge them at every turn, bad things are going to happen.

And when police abuse their authority, protests are going to happen.

I can appreciate folks wanting police brutality to stop. But folks make it sound like it's some kind of widespread epidemic and it feeds into the anti-police mindset that we see today and these are the results.

Yeah, and because blacks asked to be treated fairly in the 50s and 60s, churches and homes were bombed and protesters were beat up. And there were those who blamed the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement for inciting violence.

Evil and violent people will use ANY cause to give vent to their nefarious desires.

And I'll go back to a statement I made earlier. If police acted improperly in another state and the good people of Dallas have a good relationship with the police, then what's the logic in protesting at an anti-police rally (in Dallas)? By the same token, if there are racial divides in some communities or if there is an issue with black on white crime, would I then protest in my community where I get along with my neighbors who may be of that ethic or racial background? How do you think they would view my protest and wouldn't they wonder why I was protesting if my relationship with them was a good one?

No. They would understand that you are addressing a greater issue from where you are. At least those whose understanding allows them to entertain the nuances of life.
The issue of police brutality is greater than Dallas. And the people of Dallas wanted others across the nation to see that they stand in solidarity with the people of other cities whose police departments employ such brutal and questionable practices.

It's really not that hard to understand.

 

[tyke1doe]

So the police are protesting across America and targeting their protest on a certain group? Compare apples to apples. You can stand in solidarity but I don't see police protesting across the country, closing roads, stopping traffic, interfering with commerce, and holding up signs in opposition to a specific group.

You didn't answer my question. It is quite simple and is an apple-to-apple comparison.

Again, why are police officers in Milwaukee standing in solidarity with the officers in Dallas if the shootings didn't occur in Milwaukee?

I'll await your answer.