I am not sure why you deleted your comment - I know the HN commentariat will downvote anything contrary to its liking, but this is a forum for debating issues. I managed to read it quickly, and while I disagree with it, I welcome it.
I welcome it because I can input my opinion and maybe shed some light on why i think you are wrong.
You posted about raw numbers of whites in poverty vs blacks in poverty. By raw numbers you are right, there are more white people living in poverty. But there are more white people overall.
"According to 2018 US Census Data, the highest poverty rate by race is found among Native Americans (25.4%), with Blacks (20.8%) having the second highest poverty rate, and Hispanics (of any race) having the third highest poverty rate (17.6%). Whites had a poverty rate of 10.1%, while Asians had a poverty rate at 10.1%." - that means the likelihood of black people and native americans being poor is higher than that of whites.
You also implied I think all whites are racists. If I would have than it would have been racist towards white people. I think whitepeople as a people are not racist, but there is a solid number of white people being racist. This doesn't make all of them racist, just like some criminals from the black community doesn't make all black people racist.
Scholarships are meant to try and help members of that group gain education. White people are more likely to be able to attend university. Doesn't mean there are no white people who can't afford education. The issue is not that blacks are getting scholarships, the issue is that education is too expensive and only a few afford it.
You finished your comment with "no shit" to my statement that society belongs to everyone. You are right, but some disagree with you.
I remember personally speaking to a white american back when the new orleans floods happened, and he point blank told me "it's the ni* who get fu". I remember a friend who went on a trip to NY with his white lawyer friends stating that smoking weed while driving is fine, because the police will only stop the "ni". I also remember images of LA, SF, NY, and their ghettos where there are mainly black people.
As I said, I welcome debate. That's the only way we can get to the bottom of what is going on.
Great, now let's look into why they commit so much crime - perhaps because they have been marginalised for generations, depicted as criminals, denied education, pushed towards the edge of society? Your statement is like saying Jews in Germany didn't contribute tax, while they were "living" in concentration camps. It is time for the US to pull out of the middle ages and become a modern country. A society belongs to everyone, regardless of "race", "religion", and so on.
You mean to tell me I can just call the police on a black person that happens to be in my store, they get killed, and we call it a day? Everything that results in some sort of police punishment must be investigated, even if the person is dead. Both the crime that may have led to the police being called, shooting at the police, and then police handling of the situation.
I'm not saying that... i'm refering to the parent post:
> Until someone is convicted of a crime in America, they are presumed innocent. I don't see why that should change just because a suspect was killed before they could be tried. All police killings should be thoroughly investigated. The statistic that 99% of them do not lead to legal punishment is extremely suspicious.
The first part, suspect innocent until proven guilty (for the original crime, the one police got called for), and i see no point in going further with the trial for the original crime, if there is no point to be made (eg. trial for robbery, having the store owner come to court, proving was there a robbery, proving the suspect was the one robbing the store, etc.).
The shooting (so robber vs. police) part should of course be investigated.
"Justified shooting" in American merely means that the police followed the protocols of his police department, which often say "shoot if you feel threatened". The rules of police departments should not in themselves be a shield from criminal liability. If cops shoot someone who was not guilty of a crime, they should be punished, much in the same way that if you or I shoot and kill an innocent person, we should be punished.
But if the shooting itself was justified (infront of the court, jury, or whatever other method of proving justification they implement, and you consider to be fair), because (eg.) the suspect started shooting at the police first, what does it matter, if the suspect really robbed that store, or if he started shooting due to some other reason?
If the suspect started shooting at police first, he is guilty of attempted murder, since intentionally shooting someone with a gun implies intent to kill. It's not necessary to obfuscate the issue with "justified shooting" which inevitably gets biased by the officer's subjective fears, biases, and paranoia. If I wrote down rules on a piece of paper in my house stating cases in which I could shoot other people, you wouldn't give a damn about my use of force policies if I killed someone because I feared for my life. Why should we do that for police departments? Their use of force policies are arbitrary and not legally binding. It shouldn't matter one bit if a police department allows their officers to shoot a detained driver if he quickly reaches into his glove compartment. Murder is murder regardless of the bureaucratic justification.
- Suspect allegedly robs a store. Store owner calls police.
- Police finds suspect, yells "stop, police!", suspect starts shooting at the police.
- Police fires back, kills suspect.
- After that, the shooting investigation starts (or atleast should start).
All I'm saying is, that due to suspect being dead, the trial for the robbery is not needed (if noone gains anything from that). Yes, shooting, attempted murder, and everything else is valid and should be investigated, go to trial, etc. But the robbery itself, in my opinion doesn't that much anymore.
If the suspect survived the shooting, then of course, investigating the robbery should be done TOO (checking security footage, search warrant to find stolen stuff, etc), next to attempted murder etc.
I think that in order to determine if a shooting was justified, you must determine if the victim was committing a crime. That should be the standard. If you kill someone who was not committing a crime, you should be punished, regardless of what you believed at the time or what police department policy you are following.
Shouldnt the UN condemn what is going on in the US? Police ramming protesters, shooting people filming from their own property, and so on reminds a lot about HK protests. Rohynga, Uyghurs, Black Americans, Native Americans are tortured in these 3rd world countries and the UN does NOTHING.
Rare gem - the bulk is made of open source stuff no one asked for, rants against employers, and weird calls to revolution. Worth staying for the rare ones tho.
True - but I am referring to useless open source posts. Forgot to add those claiming OOP, code documentation, and so on, are useless. Waste of time and are a distraction from what you mentioned.
I yet have to understand why Chinese companies are not getting the same treatment in the US as US companies get in china. In the EU i understand - germans need to sell cars there, but in the US it is beyond me given the POTUS is “against” China.
