this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
21 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10178 readers
546 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
JuBe@beehaw.org
JCPhoenix@beehaw.org
kalanggam@beehaw.org
circularfish@beehaw.org
knokelmaat@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
21
Six MS (US) police beat black man for dating a white woman. (www.instagram.com)
submitted 1 year ago by kool_newt@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org
NSFW 41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

so just to immediately step in... we have a better source for this than Instagram, and i'd prefer if the OP link were changed to this one. this story is a few months old, and was picked up by Capital B.

Police Shot Handcuffed Black Man in the Face in Mississippi, Attorney Says: Michael Corey Jenkins is recovering in a hospital and unable to talk, weeks after an alleged encounter with Rankin County sheriff's deputies.:

BRAXTON, Miss. — A 32-year-old Black man came close to death last month when he was shot in the mouth while handcuffed during a drug raid in this small, predominately white village, according to an attorney for his family. Six white sheriff’s deputies falsely accused him and a friend of selling drugs and “dating white women,” according to Malik Shabazz, who is representing the family of Michael Corey Jenkins.

Jenkins was inside the home of Eddie T. Parker in Braxton, Mississippi, the evening of Jan. 24 when the deputies burst through the front door and handcuffed the men while searching Parker’s residence. When the officers didn’t find anything, they used “excessive interrogation methods to coerce a confession,” Shabazz said in an interview with Capital B.

For nearly two hours, the men were held by officers with the Rankin County Sheriff’s Department, and repeatedly punched, kicked, slapped, and shocked with stun guns, Shabazz said. In a press release, the attorney called it a “free-for-all intimidation and torture session” that included death threats by the deputies. They also poured liquids from Parker’s refrigerator — beer, milk, water — over their faces, Shabazz said.

[–] Dankenstein@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Holy fuck this is disgusting and just the other day someone was trying to tell me that people don't need to be armed because of the color of their skin, gender, or sexuality.

Ludicrousness, all of it.

[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Holy fuck this is disgusting and just the other day someone was trying to tell me that people don’t need to be armed because of the color of their skin, gender, or sexuality.

in fairness, i am kind of skeptical that being armed will really help you against the literal, actual cops, particularly if you're a minority in this kind of situation. maybe it'd act as a preemptive deterrent—but if it doesn't they'd then have pretext to murder you, and they'd probably get away with it.

[–] Dankenstein@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh, for sure, with the cops pretty much anyone would be unlucky to have a firearm, especially in this instance, but if the hate is so severe that the police will do shit like this then what's stopping regular people out on the streets?

Edit: Don't forget that there are already dangerous weapons, many in the hands of people like this. I'm not saying more guns is the answer but it is not as if certain population groups do not have cause for fear.

If our streets weren't already loaded with guns I'd recommend the next best legal alternative if there were also reasonable concerns for safety.

[–] killjoy@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Either of these men being armed would have resulted in both of their deaths, without doubt.

Suggesting that more firearms could have prevented or solved anything here is ludicrous.

[–] kool_newt@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Suggesting that vulnerable people avoid guns or disarm in the face of rising fascism targeting them is ludicrous. That's not to say every situation would improve, or that this situation would've been different.

Edit: Also, lets be clear, the police don't need the excuse of you having a weapon to shoot you, they've demonstrated repeatedly they will come up with an excuse and likely get away with it.

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

As the kind of person who is targeted by rising fascism, I would prefer you did not speak for us. I am firmly against gun ownership. The statistics show that having a gun on you makes you less safe, not more.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As the kind of person who is targeted by rising fascism, I would prefer you did not speak for us.

As someone who knows that you have no idea what "kind of person" @kool_newt@beehaw.org is... I would suggest you don't act like you can take away someones voice on behalf of "your" category of people.

Nobody can speak for a whole race, color, creed, type, or any other aggregate of people that includes the "whole" of people. They very well could be "vulnerable" themselves and you've just dismissed their statement in the affirmative against your stance.

And to preempt it. You also don't know who/what I am. So don't bother with your crappy logic on me either.

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't say they weren't a vulnerable person, merely that even if they were they did not speak for us.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would prefer you did not speak for us.

If they cannot represent the entire class of people... Then you can't either.

Next time just say "Don't speak for me".

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did I say I spoke for the entire class of people?

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes... That's what "us" means.

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, if I'd literally said, "I speak for us." All I said was, "You don't speak for us." Which is true. I never claimed to be speaking for anyone but myself.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They may very well speak for some. You don't know. But regardless, they appear to only be speaking for themselves. So your response of "don't speak for us" is indeed invoking the entire class.

And no, you're not speaking for yourself when you say "us" unless you've got Dissociative Identity Disorder or something of that nature... Or possible identify with "us" as a pronoun?

Otherwise... when I say "come with us" do you expect to go somewhere with me alone? or as a group? Probably the latter... and that should prove my point. You're speaking for others when you said "don't speak for us".

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

God. If you're this deliberately dense, there's no point in arguing with you. Enjoy whatever this shit is rattling around in your brain. Blocked.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 1 year ago

When you finally address what was said rather than bringing up alternative points we can continue a normal conversation.

And what's the point of responding at all if you're just going to block the person you're conversing with? Do you need to get the last word in on a conversation to feel good about yourself?

[–] kool_newt@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Who said I was speaking for "us"? And what makes you think I'm not in that group?

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are statistically much more likely to--accidentally or intentionally--kill yourself with a gun than successfully defend yourself against an attacker. Arming minorities will just result in more dead minorities.

[–] Dankenstein@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd like to think that adults can make their own decisions regarding the safety of their lives.

We're talking about people, not numbers and if owning a firearm is legal for someone to do so, I'm going to recommend that they do if they feel it is necessary and are willing to take the necessary precautionary measures as well as complete training with regular practice because these are dangerous weapons.

It's like if someone tells their spouse that they won't do laundry because they can't operate a washing machine then they probably shouldn't be driving a car.

Negligence will always result in some horrific accident but if an adult fears for their life, make your own choices, if negligence is one of those choices, you should've thought about that when you were afraid someone was going to shoot you.

Punishments for gun-related incidents resulting from negligence should be much higher.

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People are numbers. Thinking you will be the exception to statistical realities is a fool's errand. And it would be all well and good if the only people who suffered from the myriad gun deaths in this country were the people who bought the guns, but that's not the case. They are also endangering their families and neighbors. It is just objectively true that you and the people around you become less safe, not more, the moment you buy a gun.

As someone who nearly killed myself with a gun and was only stopped because I was too depressed to fill out the paperwork to buy one, my life was directly saved by gun control. If I had lived in a state where buying a gun was easier, I would be dead. If I had still been living with my dad who owns guns, I would be dead. And I am part of a hated minority, just like the people you seek to protect. The statisical reality is that people like me are still more likely to kill ourselves with guns than to be killed by bigots, and moreover, that having a gun on you does not protect you from bigots. It only gives them something to take from you and use against you. Adding a gun to a situation only ever benefits the most violent and unhinged person in that situation.

[–] Dankenstein@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I fully support euthanasia for terminal and incurable illnesses so if this is an attempt to make me feel guilty about people choosing to die, I don't.

Suicide is not something that is unique to firearms and it never has been.

Saying the availability of something that can kill you is responsible for suicide is like saying education is responsible.

There are much more accessible ways of committing suicide so I personally do not see where you're going with this.

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is not about terminal illnesses. I too support euthanasia. This is about mental illness. The fact is that if more guns are purchased, more mentally ill people will die.

As someone who has attempted suicide many times, I have no idea what you're talking about. The fact is that if you want to end your life reliably and quickly, guns are your best bet by far. As part of being suicidal, I did intensive research into what the best way to kill myself was. The universal conclusion was guns. My other attempts did not work, obviously, and not for lack of trying. It is much, much harder to kill yourself than most people realize. Besides, statistics show that having a gun in the home significantly increases the likelihood of suicide.

Gas stoves used to be a popular method of suicide. Do you know what happened when they stopped being made? Suicides went down. So yes, the method of suicide IS responsible for suicides. It's not true that people will just find another method of killing themselves. Suicide is often undertaken on a whim and people who survive attempts often never wind up killing themselves.

[–] Dankenstein@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why would I recommend that someone who is mentally ill buy a gun then? I was wondering why you brought this up in the first place.

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because when you recommend that people arm themselves, you are talking to us too. Mental illness is much more common than you think, and becoming even more common as late capitalism exacerbates the conditions which produce some forms of mental illness. Moreover, mental illness can hit at any time. Someone who showed no symptoms of mental illness before can snap one day and commit suicide or murder their family. When you recklessly recommend that people buy guns, you are increasing the likelihood that someone will commit suicide or homicide, due to mental illness or otherwise.

[–] Dankenstein@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'd recommend people do whatever it is that they want to do, given that they understand the dangers.

I would like to own a firearm, not for my safety so I'd probably keep it at the gun range, but I know that I am not mentally stable so I don't go and get a firearm, I could but nothing anyone will say is going to stop me if I actually wanted to buy one.

My recommendation for people to arm themselves isn't going to encourage to or dissuade anyone from doing so. They already fear for their lives and they have a right to own them so who am I to say that that shouldn't? Jesus Christ?

You sound like my mother.

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My recommendation for people to arm themselves isn’t going to encourage to or dissuade anyone from doing so.

Then literally why say it?

they have a right to own them

Yeah, and maybe they shouldn't. There's lots of dangerous shit you have no right to possess. Guns should be in that category. And for the record, I don't believe the government should be sending armed people to enforce shit either.

You sound like my mother.

Smart woman.

[–] Dankenstein@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where in my original comment did I say that, in general, I recommend that people purchase firearms?

Even if they shouldn't, that's what the government is for, not me. Exercise the rights you have, you nor I have the authority to tell people otherwise.

Anything else is fascism and I'd rather not be hypocritical in my beliefs.

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You heavily implied that people of color, at least, should purchase firearms.

What? When the government tells you what your rights are that's good and normal, but when a random person tells you what your rights are that's fascism? Nothing about that makes any sense at all.

[–] Dankenstein@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Heavily implied? So you're assuming that I'm making a generalization without actually having made said generalization?

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

sigh

Alright, what WAS I supposed to take from your post if not "minorities should arm themselves"?

I will also note that you did not initially deny that you had been making such a recommendation.

[–] Dankenstein@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why should I have to deny anything when I fully believe that this line of questioning was pulled out of thin air? I'll note, that you did not simply ask if this is the generalization I was making and the these statements make very little sense.

What part of "people not needing to purchase firearms because of hate and discrimination being ludicrous" is hard to get? Obviously, not everyone needs to have a firearm but to say to someone that things like racial discrimination are not reason to arm yourself is ludicrous.

Shit, people will walk into an LGBTQ+ friendly club and start shooting.

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you are saying that discrimination is a reason to arm yourself. people are being discriminated against. therefore, you are saying people should arm themselves. what about this is so hard to understand?

[–] Dankenstein@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Apparently it is hard for you to understand that not everyone generalizes populations to such an extreme extent as you.

You're assuming the meaning of the statement and all you had to do was ask for clarification but I suppose you never really wanted clarification.

[–] alyaza@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

i feel like we've about exhausted this line of inquiry and that maybe the two of you are just better off agreeing to disagree..?

[–] kool_newt@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure that creating a society of depressed people and then removing their means of self-harm (that are also useful for other things) is the best way to go about things.

While suicide can never be ended, we can work to make a world with fewer desperate people, and major parts of that are things like reducing systemic racism (e.g. this post is an example), and ending capitalism.

[–] balerion@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

I mean, obviously that's not ideal. But even stopgap measures are better than doing nothing, and "let's all just sit around until the socialist revolution and take no other measures to make things better" does not sit well with me.

[–] kool_newt@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

To be clear, I wanted that guys commentary on he was on Instagram, rather than a months old news article.

load more comments
view more: next ›