Now there are demonstrations in Chicago, following the release of the video of a young black man (Laquan MacDonald) shot by police some thirteen months ago. The family has already been compensated millions of dollars, and the cop (Jason Van Dyke) was recently charged with first-degree murder. (The protests are at least partly about the delay in charging him.)
Van Dyke says (through his lawyer) he was in fear for his life, which was why he discharged his weapon sixteen times from just a dozen feet away. It's said he was reloading when his partner stepped up to kick a knife away from the guy dying on the ground, ending the incident.
Sixteen times. That's a lot of fear.
It's the level of fear you'd expect if the cop was facing a maniac coming at him with a bloody axe.
Or maybe a charging grizzly bear.
I don't know what really happened in this case. Maybe the cop just plain went nuts. On the other hand, I suspect a lot of people know for sure Van Dyke was simply a racist getting his rocks off. (There had been complaints of him using the n-word, but he'd never been disciplined.)
There were five other cops on the scene, none of which fired a round. Maybe that's why there were so many shots from Van Dyke. He was making up for the lack of action from his fellow officers. I don't know.
About the only remaining question—and the one I've heard nobody talk about—is what the cops should have done in this situation.
I assume walking the streets of Chicago with a knife in your hand is illegal, so the cops probably had to do something about the guy. But what?
Something "less-than-lethal" sounds promising.
They could have shot him with a Taser, but that doesn't always work. Recently a guy loaded up on cocaine was Tased an extravagant number of times with little result. (More controversy there—he later died, but probably from the cocaine.)
The cops had no Taser, but according to reports they were waiting on a unit that had one. In the meantime they were trying to corral the guy with the knife, to keep him from walking off.
Another option might have been a bean-bag gun, but the cops didn't have one of those, either. Bean-bag guns are like shotguns, but with special rounds and loads inside. They're usually carried in the trunk of a squad car (maybe a sergeant's car)—when they exist at all. They're pretty rare.
What else? Pepper spray? Something that squirts a tight stream from a safe distance? Maybe. Might just make their guy take off running, though.
Or what about batons? Go up to MacDonald and have at him, try to knock the knife out of his hand. Maybe whack him on the back of the head.
Thing is, I'm not sure all cops get ninja training for dealing with knife guys. Traditionally, cops are more about shooting.
And by shooting, I mean shoot to kill.
Cops are trained to aim at center of mass. They only go for head shots when they suspect the guy is wearing body armor. Shooting knives or guns out of people's hands is a stunt reserved for white-hat TV cowboys from the fifties.
(There was that famous video of a sniper shooting the gun out of the hand of a hostage-holding fellow who was sitting in a chair, dangling the handgun below his knees. Famous and extremely rare.)
Pretty much the only other option would be to just let the guy walk away with the knife in his hand, trust that he wouldn't cause any more trouble down the road.
No doubt the guy's mother would endorse that response. Mothers all know their kids are no threat to anyone for any reason. Their answer is always: Leave the poor guy alone, why don't you?
(Mothers, being human, are just naturally full of crap 24/7.)
The fact is, the cops had been following the young man for some time, after a report of his trying to break into parked cars. He'd refused many times to drop his weapon (a three- or four-inch folding knife), actually using it at one point to slash a tire on a police SUV. The autopsy showed PCP in his system. Realistically, there wasn't a chance in the world those cops were going to let him wander off into the night.
All that said, I hope you get I'm not suggesting Van Dyke acted properly in this case. Sixteen times is way overboard. Some very serious nonsense must have been going on in that guy's head.
Van Dyke's lawyer said—as they always do—when all the facts are known the cop would be exonerated.
(The other back-shooting cop's lawyer said the same thing.)
That's one attorney with his work cut out for him. I can't think of any scenario that would justify this shooting, short of convincing evidence the cop recognized the black kid as a dangerous space alien notorious for taking a lot of rounds without going down.
Not likely to fly, in court. Especially since the majority of bullet hits were delivered with the guy lying on the pavement.
Van Dyke says the young man lunged at him with the knife, but I saw nothing like that on the video. The cop fired just six seconds after getting out of his squad car, MacDonald in the process of walking away.
This incident is yet another example of why the cops need some special tools to handle suspects like MacDonald. Some sort of sticky-tape shooter that wraps the man up like a mummy. Nobody dies. Nobody gets hurt.
Not foolproof, of course. Asshole cops will always find a way to abuse any technology. (And there will probably always be asshole cops.) But it has be a better way than what we've got now.
They could've used it on that cocaine-addled guy from a week or so ago. Or on any number of guys, really, from Michael Brown up to now, or going back to Rodney King.
Or going back to everybody. It's a long, long list.
There'd still be outraged public demonstrations, of course. But they'd all be about the use of mummy tape on unarmed (or armed) black guys. And the fellows the cops used it on could play a starring role in the protests.
I'd call that progress.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Monday, November 16, 2015
DON'T PRAY FOR PARIS
I'm not saying you shouldn't sympathize with the French for what happened in Paris on Friday. I'm just pointing out the irony of prayer.
Prayer suggests a target audience—a god of some sort that will process the request and act accordingly.
There's no evidence of such an entity.
The fact is—like the attacks on 9/11—the bloodletting in Paris occurred largely because god exists in the minds of men...and nowhere else.
The guys who perpetrated the attacks acted (and died) in sure and certain hope of a reward in Paradise. They died knowing they were doing god's will.
Praying to god now—for anything—suggests there's a possibility those men were right.
Positing a god who provides men with instructions for action requires you grapple with the possibility that god is not—as usually believed by everyone—on your side.
Otherwise, why did your god permit these attacks? Does god really hate the Parisians? Or does he love them, but wishes them to learn some sort of blood-based lesson?
France is one of the most secular nations of the Eurozone. Were these attacks god's way of criticizing that trend?
Draw your own conclusions.
People know what they know, and they can't be wrong—as far as they know. Every event proves something to somebody. You only have to open your eyes to be rewarded with confirmation that all your closely held notions are correct—whatever they happen to be.
This nifty delusion is what makes us human.
It also makes us the source of unbelievable horror and carnage.
ACTS OF TERROR
I don't think the attacks on Paris were acts of terror. I think they were low-level acts of war. Simple as that.
The Islamic State feels put upon and under attack (and they're right about that). As a result, they're fighting back. They're doing the best they can to right the wrongs they've suffered. As any self-respecting nation will.
If you don't recognize their legal right to do so, what do they care? Their rights don't come from your opinion, they come from god himself. Refute that!
You say they're delusional, but they know they're not. And everything they see proves them right.
Human beings, baby. Ya gotta love 'em.
WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
Individuals with guns and bombs can be killed or otherwise dealt with. Plots can be ferreted out and quashed, at least theoretically.
(The Paris attackers had good "operational security" which made a warning difficult. There are more and more encrypted messaging apps out there. Perhaps in the future only the most inept plotters will be found out ahead of time. All others will be free to spring their attacks from a place of ultimate secrecy.)
Bombing ISIS will galvanize other Muslims to fill the bloody boots of the dead. It's inevitable. But keep it up long enough, who knows: Maybe the flow of volunteers will slow and then stop.
Perhaps, with great effort and expense, ISIS can be wiped out. But other Islamic groups are likely to spring up to carry on the work of creating a global Caliphate. The numbers of the fallen will make this necessary.
Can there be any end to it?
One sure way of preventing future attacks is to eliminate them at the source: humans.
Kill all the humans and this will stop. Guaranteed.
(Unfortunately, it will be hard to know for certain, after we're gone. But since humans are both the perpetrators and the intended targets, I think we can be pretty sure of success. Of course, automated systems might survive us, raining fire upon the empty cities. Entertainment for rats and cockroaches.)
A less decisive action would be to go after the irritant that lies behind a large measure of turmoil on this planet. And I don't mean Islam. (Christianity is also drenched in the blood of its victims.)
I'm talking about the idea of god itself.
Let's be clear. I'm not saying the banishment of this ridiculous and primitive concept will eliminate all forms of conflict on the planet. Folks can still fight over the sovereignty of countries, over ethnic and racial concerns, even over vital resources like water, food, and fire wood.
But at least some of that stuff is demonstrably real.
Please note I'm not proposing an assault on god, merely on the belief in god. If there is such a thing as god—or indeed trillions of well-hidden deities—I presume him or her safe from our puny weapons.
The belief in god, however, is just a notion held by human beings. It's protected by the flimsiest of citadels—the human brain. If nonsense can be created, it can also be destroyed.
You may wonder, would the gods object?
Should one or more gods exist, I suppose they might fight back. Or perhaps they could offer a compromise to apparent extinction. Maybe they could agree to monitor the dodgier results stemming from a belief in god.
Unless, of course, they enjoy our pain.
In that case, all bets are off. The gauntlet is loosed, the real war begun in earnest.
But perhaps the gods will lean back and let it happen, let the belief in their existence be extinguished. After all, only a rather pathetic sort of god would ever admit a desire (let alone a need) to be worshipped. This craven behavior is beneath a deity, after all.
A well-informed and reasonably intelligent god should have no objection to a war mounted against belief in the Unknowable. Such a god might even enjoy the end of all those pesky prayers from the peanut gallery.
Maybe catch up on his reading or something.
On the other hand, maybe god is not only a needy jerk but a passive-aggressive personality. In that case there will be no obvious push-back when we try to eliminate a belief in him.
But after that, everybody goes to hell.
Fair enough. We can only hope hell will be bad. Should we fail in our mission to expunge the notion of a supernatural universe, we'll want to be able to detect the difference between hell and the sort of life cut out for us in a future dominated by runaway religious crap.
Prayer suggests a target audience—a god of some sort that will process the request and act accordingly.
There's no evidence of such an entity.
The fact is—like the attacks on 9/11—the bloodletting in Paris occurred largely because god exists in the minds of men...and nowhere else.
The guys who perpetrated the attacks acted (and died) in sure and certain hope of a reward in Paradise. They died knowing they were doing god's will.
Praying to god now—for anything—suggests there's a possibility those men were right.
Positing a god who provides men with instructions for action requires you grapple with the possibility that god is not—as usually believed by everyone—on your side.
Otherwise, why did your god permit these attacks? Does god really hate the Parisians? Or does he love them, but wishes them to learn some sort of blood-based lesson?
France is one of the most secular nations of the Eurozone. Were these attacks god's way of criticizing that trend?
Draw your own conclusions.
People know what they know, and they can't be wrong—as far as they know. Every event proves something to somebody. You only have to open your eyes to be rewarded with confirmation that all your closely held notions are correct—whatever they happen to be.
This nifty delusion is what makes us human.
It also makes us the source of unbelievable horror and carnage.
ACTS OF TERROR
I don't think the attacks on Paris were acts of terror. I think they were low-level acts of war. Simple as that.
The Islamic State feels put upon and under attack (and they're right about that). As a result, they're fighting back. They're doing the best they can to right the wrongs they've suffered. As any self-respecting nation will.
If you don't recognize their legal right to do so, what do they care? Their rights don't come from your opinion, they come from god himself. Refute that!
You say they're delusional, but they know they're not. And everything they see proves them right.
Human beings, baby. Ya gotta love 'em.
WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
Individuals with guns and bombs can be killed or otherwise dealt with. Plots can be ferreted out and quashed, at least theoretically.
(The Paris attackers had good "operational security" which made a warning difficult. There are more and more encrypted messaging apps out there. Perhaps in the future only the most inept plotters will be found out ahead of time. All others will be free to spring their attacks from a place of ultimate secrecy.)
Bombing ISIS will galvanize other Muslims to fill the bloody boots of the dead. It's inevitable. But keep it up long enough, who knows: Maybe the flow of volunteers will slow and then stop.
Perhaps, with great effort and expense, ISIS can be wiped out. But other Islamic groups are likely to spring up to carry on the work of creating a global Caliphate. The numbers of the fallen will make this necessary.
Can there be any end to it?
One sure way of preventing future attacks is to eliminate them at the source: humans.
Kill all the humans and this will stop. Guaranteed.
(Unfortunately, it will be hard to know for certain, after we're gone. But since humans are both the perpetrators and the intended targets, I think we can be pretty sure of success. Of course, automated systems might survive us, raining fire upon the empty cities. Entertainment for rats and cockroaches.)
A less decisive action would be to go after the irritant that lies behind a large measure of turmoil on this planet. And I don't mean Islam. (Christianity is also drenched in the blood of its victims.)
I'm talking about the idea of god itself.
Let's be clear. I'm not saying the banishment of this ridiculous and primitive concept will eliminate all forms of conflict on the planet. Folks can still fight over the sovereignty of countries, over ethnic and racial concerns, even over vital resources like water, food, and fire wood.
But at least some of that stuff is demonstrably real.
Please note I'm not proposing an assault on god, merely on the belief in god. If there is such a thing as god—or indeed trillions of well-hidden deities—I presume him or her safe from our puny weapons.
The belief in god, however, is just a notion held by human beings. It's protected by the flimsiest of citadels—the human brain. If nonsense can be created, it can also be destroyed.
You may wonder, would the gods object?
Should one or more gods exist, I suppose they might fight back. Or perhaps they could offer a compromise to apparent extinction. Maybe they could agree to monitor the dodgier results stemming from a belief in god.
Unless, of course, they enjoy our pain.
In that case, all bets are off. The gauntlet is loosed, the real war begun in earnest.
But perhaps the gods will lean back and let it happen, let the belief in their existence be extinguished. After all, only a rather pathetic sort of god would ever admit a desire (let alone a need) to be worshipped. This craven behavior is beneath a deity, after all.
A well-informed and reasonably intelligent god should have no objection to a war mounted against belief in the Unknowable. Such a god might even enjoy the end of all those pesky prayers from the peanut gallery.
Maybe catch up on his reading or something.
On the other hand, maybe god is not only a needy jerk but a passive-aggressive personality. In that case there will be no obvious push-back when we try to eliminate a belief in him.
But after that, everybody goes to hell.
Fair enough. We can only hope hell will be bad. Should we fail in our mission to expunge the notion of a supernatural universe, we'll want to be able to detect the difference between hell and the sort of life cut out for us in a future dominated by runaway religious crap.
Monday, November 9, 2015
EMBELLISHMENTS
Now that Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson is running neck and neck with Donald Trump, reports are starting to surface that Carson might have embellished a few points in the life he reported in his book, Gifted Hands.
He says he was offered a full scholarship to West Point, though it turns out he never really applied.
Critics also note there's no such thing as a scholarship to this institution. Folks get in by congressional appointment. In exchange for a free education, students are obligated to a term of military service.
Carson claims to have had a violent temper, that he tried to attack his best friend with a knife.
I don't know the details, but it's been hard to turn up people in Carson's past who have any notion of his violent nature.
Also, the words "tried to attack" suggest there was no actual attack, no blood. Certainly no police report.
Carson could have reacted to these media reports by explaining the discrepancies, perhaps agreeing the words he used were open to another, more exalted interpretation.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, he might have said.
In the case of West Point, apparently somebody informed him that with his grades and so forth he'd have no trouble getting a free ride at that school. I have yet to hear who it was who made this prediction. (I haven't read the book.) Was it General Westmoreland?
It doesn't matter. The point is, Carson's response came right out of the Politicians' Playbook: Blame the media for bringing up all this trivial nonsense. Blame them for attempting to assassinate his character.
For a guy running on the "outsider" ticket, this was probably a bad move. Turns out the guy is a politician after all.
At a press conference, Carson suggested the next thing he's going to hear is some kindergarten teacher revealing young Ben peed in his pants.
While no one can be sure that report won't happen, it would not be the same sort of "attack" we've seen so far. What's going on is that certain inaccuracies are being brought to light. Carson is not being accused of failings in a general sense.
(I think we all pee our pants a little from time to time; that equipment is not foolproof.)
Carson shouldn't have to worry about the "peed his pants" story unless he spontaneously issues a claim he never in his life peed his pants. Once he makes such a bizarre statement, however, the gloves come off. Expect the search to begin for that kindergarten teacher with a long memory.
It may be that Carson, like a lot of human beings, simply cannot see the difference between what he said happened and what actually happened.
Far as he's concerned, he's got a good story and he's sticking to it.
Reminds me of why Brian Williams is no longer the anchor of the NBC Nightly News.
It went like this: There was an incident in a war zone--Iraq, 2003. Williams was flying in an Army helicopter that chanced upon another Chinook that had been brought down by RPG fire. In his story, Williams reported the helicopter "in front of us" had been hit. He failed to mention he meant an hour in front his 'copter. After telling the story a couple of times (on Letterman, etc.), those holes jumped the gap from one aircraft to another, miraculously (and dramatically) appearing in the chopper Williams had occupied. For this embellishment, the folks at NBC handed the guy a pretty severe time-out.
Carson's life story is sufficiently amazing at face value. He probably doesn't need to punch it up.
On the other hand, parts of Trump's life story suffer from certain attitude problems.
("My dad gave me a small loan of a million dollars." Perhaps some of Trump's supporters don't see the problem. Others might wish they could use the words "small loan" and "a million dollars" in the same sentence and have it feel just right. Well, guys, maybe someday...)
Ben Carson is at a particular disadvantage. Black folks in this country always have a plausible reason to explain why they're being attacked: racism. This societal failing is very alluring. It explains so much.
Apparently.
No need to look further, right?
The easy path is always wide and inviting. And just as hard to ignore. I don't believe Carson has played that card yet to explain why the media is after him, probably because he doesn't want to sound like a racial victim.
But he was very fast to conclude those guys were after him, not simply applying a little professional scrutiny to his story.
Due diligence, man. It's the sort of thing they do to everybody running for president.
Why ascribe more sinister motives?
He says he was offered a full scholarship to West Point, though it turns out he never really applied.
Critics also note there's no such thing as a scholarship to this institution. Folks get in by congressional appointment. In exchange for a free education, students are obligated to a term of military service.
Carson claims to have had a violent temper, that he tried to attack his best friend with a knife.
I don't know the details, but it's been hard to turn up people in Carson's past who have any notion of his violent nature.
Also, the words "tried to attack" suggest there was no actual attack, no blood. Certainly no police report.
Carson could have reacted to these media reports by explaining the discrepancies, perhaps agreeing the words he used were open to another, more exalted interpretation.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, he might have said.
In the case of West Point, apparently somebody informed him that with his grades and so forth he'd have no trouble getting a free ride at that school. I have yet to hear who it was who made this prediction. (I haven't read the book.) Was it General Westmoreland?
It doesn't matter. The point is, Carson's response came right out of the Politicians' Playbook: Blame the media for bringing up all this trivial nonsense. Blame them for attempting to assassinate his character.
For a guy running on the "outsider" ticket, this was probably a bad move. Turns out the guy is a politician after all.
At a press conference, Carson suggested the next thing he's going to hear is some kindergarten teacher revealing young Ben peed in his pants.
While no one can be sure that report won't happen, it would not be the same sort of "attack" we've seen so far. What's going on is that certain inaccuracies are being brought to light. Carson is not being accused of failings in a general sense.
(I think we all pee our pants a little from time to time; that equipment is not foolproof.)
Carson shouldn't have to worry about the "peed his pants" story unless he spontaneously issues a claim he never in his life peed his pants. Once he makes such a bizarre statement, however, the gloves come off. Expect the search to begin for that kindergarten teacher with a long memory.
It may be that Carson, like a lot of human beings, simply cannot see the difference between what he said happened and what actually happened.
Far as he's concerned, he's got a good story and he's sticking to it.
Reminds me of why Brian Williams is no longer the anchor of the NBC Nightly News.
It went like this: There was an incident in a war zone--Iraq, 2003. Williams was flying in an Army helicopter that chanced upon another Chinook that had been brought down by RPG fire. In his story, Williams reported the helicopter "in front of us" had been hit. He failed to mention he meant an hour in front his 'copter. After telling the story a couple of times (on Letterman, etc.), those holes jumped the gap from one aircraft to another, miraculously (and dramatically) appearing in the chopper Williams had occupied. For this embellishment, the folks at NBC handed the guy a pretty severe time-out.
Carson's life story is sufficiently amazing at face value. He probably doesn't need to punch it up.
On the other hand, parts of Trump's life story suffer from certain attitude problems.
("My dad gave me a small loan of a million dollars." Perhaps some of Trump's supporters don't see the problem. Others might wish they could use the words "small loan" and "a million dollars" in the same sentence and have it feel just right. Well, guys, maybe someday...)
Ben Carson is at a particular disadvantage. Black folks in this country always have a plausible reason to explain why they're being attacked: racism. This societal failing is very alluring. It explains so much.
Apparently.
No need to look further, right?
The easy path is always wide and inviting. And just as hard to ignore. I don't believe Carson has played that card yet to explain why the media is after him, probably because he doesn't want to sound like a racial victim.
But he was very fast to conclude those guys were after him, not simply applying a little professional scrutiny to his story.
Due diligence, man. It's the sort of thing they do to everybody running for president.
Why ascribe more sinister motives?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)