Tyre Nichols beating: Race Theory vs CRITICAL Race Theory

I have opened several threads trying to explain Critical Race Theory. I'll try again using the Tyre Nichols beating to exemplify each.

In General

Race Theory: Racism is an individual problem. White individuals are racist against black people.

Critical Race Theory: Wrong! Even though there are racist individuals (and white supremacist groups do exist) the fundamental problem with racism is that it's systemic. The system, (implicitly or explicitly) assumes that minorities can be treated differently

The Tyre Nichols case:

Race Theory: The beating of Tyre Nichols was not racist because the cops who beat him were black.

Critical Race Theory: Wrong! COPS (regardless of ethnicity) are part of the system. In many police precincts, all cops (black, white, Asian, Hispanic, ...), many of whom are not even themselves racist, have learned to assume that black people can be treated more violently. They learned this, not because it's part of their training curriculum, but because they SEE the behavior in their (white and black) senior colleagues. And then transmit it to the newer (white or black) cops. It becomes part of the culture.

Many (most?) police departments understand this. And they have taken steps to remove this culture. Where I live, the Chief of Police (who is white) has been very effective in changing the culture. When there were violent protests all over the country over Eric Garner's murder, our Chief of Police actually MARCHED with the protesters. And the march was absolutely peaceful.

So it CAN be done. But not by right-wingers who, influenced by real white supremacists like Tucker Carlson, Ron DeSantis, or Marjory Taylor Greene.... have been orchestrating their campaign of disinformation about what CRT is.

 

Hi, Golem. I'm hoping that you can help us clarify one thing about this sad situation that is only very lightly touched-on by the 'news' media.

To your knowledge, is this portion of the chronology essentially correct?

"Jan 8: Memphis police say in a statement that officers attempted to stop a man for reckless driving on Jan. 7 and he was taken to a hospital in critical condition after two confrontations. The first description of what happened says one confrontation occurred when officers approached the vehicle and the suspect fled on foot. Officers pursued, and another confrontation occurred when they took him into custody, police said."

Link: https://www.chicagotribune.com/nati...0230127-lz4rctzlxbhvbjzh7ovpxaadcq-story.html

In order to accurately understand whether or not there was "racism" (SYSTEMIC, or otherwise) involved in this tragedy, first it is important to know whether or not Mr. Nichols did, in fact, resist arrest, flee from police officers, and refuse to obey their lawful commands.

 

There are many elements that contribute to this. CRT addresses one: the systemic (system culture) aspect. Addressing that one might not completely eliminate the problem. But it would ameliorate it. After all racist cops, though few (and maybe not even involved in the most mediatic incidents), will still exist.

Some politicians, pundits, activists... are doing everything they can so it's not addressed. They do this by engaging in a cultural war against CRT and tergiversating its meaning. Whether because they are white supremacists, or for political gain, the effect is the same: black people keep being beaten to death.

 

So basically what you're saying is that all Conservatives are white supremacists. And you wonder why you have such a hard time selling us on your agenda?...lol

 

"Systemic racism" means: black people (all non-white races?) are too inferior to meet the same societal standards as white people.

 

I'm not sure I understand your question. How is that important? I don't think you're saying that fleeing or resisting arrest is cause enough to beat a guy for 3 minutes until causing his death. I'm sure that's not what you mean, so I don't understand your question.

Regardless of the fact that Nichols DID obey every single one of the lawful commands. And even tried to deescalate the situation and calm the cops down. He ran because they were going to kill him no matter what he did. Pure human survival instinct. Of course, this is obvious in the videos. But regardless, I don't understand the relevance. Please elucidate.

 

So what do you propose society do with black lawbreakers? What do you do with hysterical lawbreakers on drugs?
Shall we Ignore the laws against driving under the influence? Shall we let them walk away from a police encounter stating “sovereign racial privilege”. Do we give them a special sign on their vehicles so police will avoid them altogether?
BTW, the police brutality we witnessed puts the lie to my idea of blacks policing their own. They are their own worst problem.
In our society we blame the individual for his crimes. Who else?

 

It is not because of their senior colleagues. They see it day to day. Blacks tend to be more violent and tend to resist arrest more than whites. Police officers have come to expect this behavior because they have seen it themselves.

And, by the way, the above is supported by overwhelming statistics.

 

Thank you for your understanding of this terrible event. If, indeed, as you say, "Nichols DID obey every single one of the lawful commands", then it is very likely that firing some or all of the police officers involved and charging them with murder may be fully justified.

Please don't be so defensive... I was only trying to develop a 'baseline' understanding of whether any portion of a likely, forthcoming defense of the police officers' conduct would be rooted in facts, or not. Clearly, if as you have related, Nichols obeyed the lawful police commands, then the police must have lied and in all probability DID use unlawful force resulting in Nichols' death.

 

I hope this thread becomes the basis for a serious discussion. And would appreciate if you could take any white supremacist comments you wish to make to a more appropriate forum.

 

Definitely NOT beat them to death!

But that's besides the point of this thread.

I don't know what that means.

 

Just the usual bilge to discount facts in favor of a preferred theory.

 

As far as I know, the Memphis Police Department has told the truth. They fired and charged the cops involved right away. I don't know what the officers themselves said. But what happened is very clear in the videos.

 

I am think I am looking at this CRT explanation a little more narrowly than you are. Here's how I see it. Those training manuals on use of force consistently tilt towards police officers taking virtually no risk whatsoever whenever there is doubt about when or how much is needed to protect cops from potential attack. They are taught to control for any risk with maximum use of force. The more cops the better. The more batons the better, the more strikes the better as long as there is ANY risk, ANY movement that is not completely submissive, ANY effort at self defense that may lead to a dangerous scenario.

Basically the cop is a valuable community and taxpayer resource, an investment of thousands and thousands of dollars of recruitment, training, experience. There is of course the obvious resource risk of injury or death with ambivolent response. There is the risk of a compromised career if ambiguity in interpretation leads to a disciplinary matter or worse a lawsuit. So lets take out any ambiguity by always tilting things.

On the other side of that baton, we presumably have a much less valuable resource, one that the local govt has not spent thousands of dollars on. At the very least, he has not obeyed the orders of the cop in perfect pristine, and prompt fashion or that baton would not be out. He's more of a troublemaker, problem than a resource. And likely he is a wanna-be criminal, or repeat offender!

Those are the two 'resources' we are weighing when deciding use of force rules. But these training manuals and the political culture that provided the statutory framework, are the product of decades and decades of time, back to a time when the civil rights movement was just in early stages and there were marches, and there were protests, and those manuals were written when the force was an all white army of men working to contain crime and contain black anger. The legislature, the governor, the mayor, the city council, the sheriff were comparing a white valued resource, with a undervalued 'uppity' black one and building this system that tilted everything one direction based on the assumptions of the day, the perceived risks of the day. Even if there is no racism per se in any individual whatsover, the nuts and bolts of the system still weighs the respective resources and risks the same way as it did in the 1950's and 60's and 70's.

 

So basically you AGREE with the main premise of CRT. Which is that, for whatever reason, this is part of the culture. Not an individual act of racism. The only thing that we disagree on is that you believe the violence is justified.

 

Because cops are trained to use superior force against a person who is resisting. They're trained to do so for their own safety.

 

If all 5 cops were killed by this guy there'd be be no rioting.

In fact, the people who are now horrified wouldn't give a ****.

 

This is a serious discussion. You're claiming that systemic racism exists. I'm exposing the flaw in your argument.

Feel free to stop calling me names and support your argument with facts.

 

If Nichols was white, they wouldn't give a ****, either.

 

This is a terrible preventable tragedy and those involved are being held criminally liable, but, it wasn't a racial event. Everyone is involved is Black. The victim, all the police officers, the police chief, the city office holders. There is no racial angle for the rich white privileged gentry saviors to exploit.

 

Where did I say it was justified? You should stop making stuff up.

 

Since you acknowledged that we agree on everything and you conclude that I believe the violence is justified, even though I did not say that, the logical conclusion is that you believe the violence is justified.

 

Black children tend to grow up in poor neighborhoods and their experience is much different than white or Black kids who live in higher income neighborhoods. Violence is the way disputes are settled and that includes the way they deal with police. Police become accustomed to that norm as well. My family were oil field boomers, we followed the money and lived in some pretty rough areas. When I was 5 to 7 if you couldn't fight you couldn't go outside. No knives or guns, just kick your ass and establish your social standing. None of that has anything to do with CRT, it's just life in the real world. Cops are dealing with a lot of Black people that are survivors and they tend to fight back which makes the situations dangerous for everyone.

 

This is Seattle's use of force policy. Seattle is one of the most Leftist cities in the country and has no doubt revised the use of force policy for the police department.

"An officer will use only the force objectively reasonable, necessary, and proportional to effectively bring an incident or person under control, while protecting the life and safety of all persons.

In other words, officers will only use objectively reasonable force, proportional to the threat or urgency of the situation, when necessary, to achieve a law-enforcement objective. The force used must comply with federal and state law and Seattle Police Department policies, and rules for specific weapons and tools. See 8.300 - Use of Force Weapons and Tools. Once it is safe to do so and the threat has ended, the force must stop.

Note the portions I bolded. As long as someone is resisting, that person is not "under control" and until that person stops resisting it isn't safe for the officer and the threat hasn't ended.

People have been emboldened to resist police officers because they seem the 7 figure payouts for getting an ass whipping from a cop. As long as the money keeps flowing, people are going to keep resisting and people will die in some of those encounters.