Tyre Nichols Lynching

[Slave Mentality]

Murder.

[Brian4Liberty]

When someone who played the "knockout game" grows up to be a cop...

https://twitter.com/OzraeliAvi/statu...58085746167808

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/...45579019309057

[dannno]

lynching?

[luctor-et-emergo]

Glad to see the people on the right call out what needs to be called out.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status...14304041136129

[luctor-et-emergo]

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status...14304041136129

IMHO you could call this a lynching.

lynching, a form of violence in which a mob, under the pretext of administering justice without trial, executes a presumed offender, often after inflicting torture and corporal mutilation.

(https://www.britannica.com/topic/lynching)

But does it matter what you call it ? By the way, I count more than 5 officers, why aren't more arrested ? I think you're guilty when you allow your colleagues to proceed with this kind of violence. Not as a private individual, but as a cop.

In any case, as said before, I'm glad that the people on the right stand up to speak against this horrible violence.

[donnay]

They all should get 1st degree murder charges. Disgusting.

[A Son of Liberty]

The body cam video in the OP is hard to track, for me at least. It wasn't until I watched the pole cam video that Andy Ngo tweeted that I could figure out what was going on. And what was going on seems to be very clearly a case of a bunch of cops who, shockingly, fail to control their emotions and take their frustrations out on the head of this kid and end up murdering him.

In my opinion, the "Gimme yo hands..." statements were made specifically because they knew they were being recorded and they were saying it so that they could later justify what they did to Nichols ("STOP RESISTING"), which in my layman's opinion indicates a degree of premeditation. I find it incredibly unlikely that while enduring a severe beating at the hands of several large men that Nichols had the ability to prevent his hands being forcibly pulled behind his back and being restrained.

This is yet another grain of sand on the pile of not just poor but abhorrently inadequate police training that keeps getting bigger that the governments of this country continue to ignore at the cost of the lives of the citizenry.

[luctor-et-emergo]

The body cam video in the OP is hard to track, for me at least. It wasn't until I watched the pole cam video that Andy Ngo tweeted that I could figure out what was going on. And what was going on seems to be very clearly a case of a bunch of cops who, shockingly, fail to control their emotions and take their frustrations out on the head of this kid and end up murdering him.

In my opinion, the "Gimme yo hands..." statements were made specifically because they knew they were being recorded and they were saying it so that they could later justify what they did to Nichols ("STOP RESISTING"), which in my layman's opinion indicates a degree of premeditation. I find it incredibly unlikely that while enduring a severe beating at the hands of several large men that Nichols had the ability to prevent his hands being forcibly pulled behind his back and being restrained.

This is yet another grain of sand on the pile of not just poor but abhorrently inadequate police training that keeps getting bigger that the governments of this country continue to ignore at the cost of the lives of the citizenry.

To me that video looked like they pretty much had him restrained when they were beating him.

[acptulsa]

Black on black crime rarely gets this sheer amount of coverage these days. I wonder how much airtime this would be getting if Pfizer wasn't under fire. How many days passed before the story broke?

[A Son of Liberty]

Black on black crime rarely gets this sheer amount of coverage these days. I wonder how much airtime this would be getting if Pfizer wasn't under fire. How many days passed before the story broke?

Yep. And btw the utter silence from the corporate media on the PV/Pfizer story is really a bigger story than the Pfizer story itself.

If one was not convinced that there is no truth to be found in corporate media before, there should be no question now. Take the latest Twitter Files report - we're learning that the Twitter executives whom we presumed were being so malicious (and they were) were so much less so than almost EVERY SINGLE corporate media outlet in this country.

Operation Mockingbird is still very real, and still very much shaping the daily narrative, and as much as I have understood that in the past, I've never understood it so clearly as I do this morning.

[oyarde]

Pretty much my entire life when Ive seen something like this in a city my very first thought is it is a disease through the whole system , that you'd get the same from them all . Never seen anyting yet to make me think that is wrong .

[Working Poor]

My son was friends with a boy who worked at one of the local food markets. One day market called the police about something I can't remember what now but, the boy was working and when he saw the police he ran away from them and the police tazed him and he died right there in the store BOOM dead. He boy was small for his age and the police looked very large tazing the crap out of him.

The family won a big lawsuit and life went on. They had it all on tape the kid did look scared when he saw the police on that day scared looked like guilty....

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

It is not the color of the perpetrator but rather their ideology that is racist.
They should test him for COVID and if positive maybe the defense can use the he died of COVID related illness argument.

[Slave Mentality]

lynching?

Yes

[A Son of Liberty]

It is not the color of the perpetrator but rather their ideology that is racist.

There is expressly no racism involved in this assault. This is all about power dynamics. This is specifically about aggressive people with no meaningful training on how to control and contain their frustration, anger, and rage, while at the same time believing that they have the *authority* to demand compliance without resistance; and their only response to that situation is brute force. When they began beating Tyre Nichols, he posed no potential threat to the general population. Had the cops had control of themselves, they could have spent literal hours subduing him, if need be. But they were not meaningfully trained in de-escalation. They were trained to create submission and, effectively escalation. That is not the proper relationship between law enforcement and the citizenry (without getting into the topic of police vs. sheriffs).

If you cannot control your emotions, and cannot recognize that when a SUSPECT is not personally offending you as an individual, you have no business being a cop. Period. Regardless of what a cop sees, his role is not to exact justice, it is only to bring SUSPECTS to face justice. Thus, any occasion of police violence is definitively a violation of individual rights.

Our municipal governments are hiring the wrong people and giving them abhorrently inadequate training, and they are turning them loose on the citizenry, and this is the result.

[luctor-et-emergo]

There is expressly no racism involved in this assault. This is all about power dynamics. This is specifically about aggressive people with no meaningful training on how to control and contain their frustration, anger, and rage, while at the same time believing that they have the *authority* to demand compliance without resistance; and their only response to that situation is brute force. When they began beating Tyre Nichols, he posed no potential threat to the general population. Had the cops had control of themselves, they could have spent literal hours subduing him, if need be. But they were not meaningfully trained in de-escalation. They were trained to create submission and, effectively escalation. That is not the proper relationship between law enforcement and the citizenry (without getting into the topic of police vs. sheriffs).

If you cannot control your emotions, and cannot recognize that when a SUSPECT is not personally offending you as an individual, you have no business being a cop. Period.

Our municipal governments are hiring the wrong people and giving them abhorrently inadequate training, and they are turning them loose on the citizenry, and this is the result.

Well said. Police should try to de-escalate whenever possible but the opposite seems true in many cases. I've personally been in a situation before, not bad at all compared to this, where I was the de-escalating factor but a cop was trying to find reasons. A friend of mine was arrested heavy handed by a cop for doing exactly nothing... Only because he got the phone number of a random bystander that helped him he got off and received damages. But you imagine it happens more often...

[A Son of Liberty]

Well said. Police should try to de-escalate whenever possible but the opposite seems true in many cases. I've personally been in a situation before, not bad at all compared to this, where I was the de-escalating factor but a cop was trying to find reasons. A friend of mine was arrested heavy handed by a cop for doing exactly nothing... Only because he got the phone number of a random bystander that helped him he got off and received damages. But you imagine it happens more often...

To add to this, it is not the responsibility of the citizen to de-escalate. We have allowed the creation of this entity ("the police") into society. They are charged with the responsibility of "law enforcement". "Law enforcement" must be seen as a potential infringement upon the rights of people, which must then always be considered suspect, and well guarded against. And, again, "law enforcement" should ONLY be civilly allowed to bring suspects before justice, and expressly to not exact "justice" themselves, no matter what they think they saw or know. There is no circumstance in which society should allow cops to exact "justice".

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Is it legal to defend yourself from a beating by police? Would they consider you defending yourself resisting? I heard the FOX news anchor say something like, at that point he was not able to defend himself. When you are getting kicked in the gut, is it resisting arrest to scrunch up into fetal position to try to block the blows?
These days when a simple arrest equates to many charges, how is one to be arrested? There should be clear rules that are not open to interpretation.

[osan]

There is expressly no racism involved in this assault.

I remain to be convinced of this. On what do you base your claim?

This is specifically about aggressive people with no meaningful training on how to control and contain their frustration, anger, and rage, while at the same time believing that they have the *authority* to demand compliance without resistance; and their only response to that situation is brute force.

I would submit that no man susceptible to such emotions while on a job of this nature should ever be allowed within ten thousand light years of a gun, badge, and the imprimatur of the "state". Since every man on the planet is incapable of proving such immunity, it would follow that the very concept of "police" is, at best, the product of thinking so errant as to qualify as being demented.

When they began beating Tyre Nichols, he posed no potential threat to the general population.

They clearly had him under physical control. They murdered him, should be convicted, and I would have no problem seeing them hang until deceased.

Had the cops had control of themselves, they could have spent literal hours subduing him, if need be.

The cops had control. They turned their backs to it. This is 100.1% on them.

But they were not meaningfully trained in de-escalation.

How do you know this?

They were trained to create submission and, effectively escalation. That is not the proper relationship between law enforcement and the citizenry (without getting into the topic of police vs. sheriffs).

The police clearly differ with you on that point.

If you cannot control your emotions, and cannot recognize that when a SUSPECT is not personally offending you as an individual, you have no business being a cop.

Cannot? WILL NOT.

Our municipal governments are hiring the wrong people and giving them abhorrently inadequate training, and they are turning them loose on the citizenry, and this is the result.

An whose fault is that?

It is yours.

And mine.

WE are the problem, not them. They are merely symptoms of the deeper cancer.

[dannno]

To me that video looked like they pretty much had him restrained when they were beating him.

No, he wasn't.. they looked like they were trying to cuff him in the bodycam footage. I think it is possible they purposely didn't cuff him so they could keep beating him, but not 100% sure.

[A Son of Liberty]

I remain to be convinced of this. On what do you base your claim?



I would submit that no man susceptible to such emotions while on a job of this nature should ever be allowed within ten thousand light years of a gun, badge, and the imprimatur of the "state". Since every man on the planet is incapable of proving such immunity, it would follow that the very concept of "police" is, at best, the product of thinking so errant as to qualify as being demented.



They clearly had him under physical control. They murdered him, should be convicted, and I would have no problem seeing them hang until deceased.



The cops had control. They turned their backs to it. This is 100.1% on them.



How do you know this?



The police clearly differ with you on that point.



Cannot? WILL NOT.



An whose fault is that?

It is yours.

And mine.

WE are the problem, not them. They are merely symptoms of the deeper cancer.

If I as a white man beat a white man, would you, even momentarily, consider my motive to be based upon race?

As I said, this is about power dynamics.

I'll admit that I have no proof that they weren't trained in de-escalation, but it is clear that these thugs had no interest in de-escalating the situation.

They're given military uniforms, military weapons, military training, then sent out into the streets and we wonder why they treat the citizenry like enemies.

And you're quite right - it is my fault and yours... for allowing it to get to this point. That's kind of the point I was ham-fistedly trying to make...

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1619381527569391616

[acptulsa]

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/s...72013345529862

[osan]

If I as a white man beat a white man, would you, even momentarily, consider my motive to be based upon race?

Were you a self-hating white man whose core impetus to that strongest of emotions was based on your whiteness, then by all means yes. There are countless examples, this being a juicy one illustrating the point well:

As I said, this is about power dynamics.

Indeed it is, but it is not necessarily the sole factor.

I would add that the left embarked upon a mad, rampaging campaign to sow self-hatred in the American black man. A fine example of this is one black calling another "n i g g g e r". I grew up in some $#@! 'hoods, at least one of them predominantly black. Back in the mid-60s if a kneegrow called another kneegrow "n i g g g e r", there was soon to ensue an energetic fight. Then all of a sudden, everyone is doing it with impunity, black on black.

Now, when I was in teacher training in NYC, we had to take all manner of psychology classes, two full year's worth. In at least one of them, the phenomenon of braak people calling each other by the dreaded "n-word" was justified and even lauded as black people "reclaiming" the term for themselves. A bigger load of utter bull$#@! would be difficult to imagine. The use of that moniker only helped to further foment the brands of self-hatred that is now standard equipment in the black "community". Another was, and remains, the notion that lighter skin is indicative of "better". I saw many examples of this in my two years teaching in ghetto schools in NYC. The most notable was near the end of my first year, perhaps May 84. Two braak girls got into a verbal tete-a-tete, one being notably lighter skinned than the other. At one point the darker girl made the fatal error of telling her more lightly complected opponent, "I'm better looking than you", to which the café-au-lait participant immediately retorted with "I'm better looking than your black, burned-up ass." It was over right there and then, the darker girl having been shut down, the classroom full of students going, "OOOOoooooo..." because every single person in that room had long ago bought into the lie so utterly and tacitly that it was tantamount to a gravity question, which is to say that it was no question at all. They all "knew" the lighter girl spoke an irrefutable truth and had publicly disemboweled her rival. I remember how badly I felt for the defeated party.

So this self-hate thing is very real among black people, and a certain subpopulation of whites (lefties). To dismiss it is tantamount to the dismissal of gravity on earth: it is self-evidently false, and underestimating its effect is similarly foolhardy. I've observed this very carefully for several decades and stand satisfied that it is not only real and deeply deleterious, but that it was artificially introduced by interests that do not coincide with a healthy and right-sized sense of self in the average man.

Since we are on the topic, it is of use to note the recent idiocies that are promoting black people in the most transparently ridiculous ways, glorifying them absurdly and falsely with ggrossly overblown and megalomaniacal grandiosity. All of a sudden black people are the inventors of the world, braak women are warriors beyond all others, and queens of England, and so forth. It is one thing to give the devil his due, but to falsely attribute to him the grace and kindness, say, of Jesus for example serves nobody well. In this case black people are being offered credit for $#@! they've never done, erecting a false self-image that stands to put them at ever greater odds with their non-black cohabiters of planet Earth. I see naught but a deep and difficult to detect evil in all this. It will not end well for anyone.

I'll admit that I have no proof that they weren't trained in de-escalation, but it is clear that these thugs had no interest in de-escalating the situation.

We do not disagree.

They're given military uniforms, military weapons, military training, then sent out into the streets and we wonder why they treat the citizenry like enemies.

They are taught that we are the enemy. The rest follows quite naturally.

And you're quite right - it is my fault and yours... for allowing it to get to this point. That's kind of the point I was ham-fistedly trying to make...

And at this point we have all been manipulated into such a corner, that getting out will prove no mean feat.

[A Son of Liberty]

Were you a self-hating white man whose core impetus to that strongest of emotions was based on your whiteness, then by all means yes. There are countless examples, this being a juicy one illustrating the point well:





Indeed it is, but it is not necessarily the sole factor.

I would add that the left embarked upon a mad, rampaging campaign to sow self-hatred in the American black man. A fine example of this is one black calling another "n i g g g e r". I grew up in some $#@! 'hoods, at least one of them predominantly black. Back in the mid-60s if a kneegrow called another kneegrow "n i g g g e r", there was soon to ensue an energetic fight. Then all of a sudden, everyone is doing it with impunity, black on black.

Now, when I was in teacher training in NYC, we had to take all manner of psychology classes, two full year's worth. In at least one of them, the phenomenon of braak people calling each other by the dreaded "n-word" was justified and even lauded as black people "reclaiming" the term for themselves. A bigger load of utter bull$#@! would be difficult to imagine. The use of that moniker only helped to further foment the brands of self-hatred that is now standard equipment in the black "community". Another was, and remains, the notion that lighter skin is indicative of "better". I saw many examples of this in my two years teaching in ghetto schools in NYC. The most notable was near the end of my first year, perhaps May 84. Two braak girls got into a verbal tete-a-tete, one being notably lighter skinned than the other. At one point the darker girl made the fatal error of telling her more lightly complected opponent, "I'm better looking than you", to which the café-au-lait participant immediately retorted with "I'm better looking than your black, burned-up ass." It was over right there and then, the darker girl having been shut down, the classroom full of students going, "OOOOoooooo..." because every single person in that room had long ago bought into the lie so utterly and tacitly that it was tantamount to a gravity question, which is to say that it was no question at all. They all "knew" the lighter girl spoke an irrefutable truth and had publicly disemboweled her rival. I remember how badly I felt for the defeated party.

So this self-hate thing is very real among black people, and a certain subpopulation of whites (lefties). To dismiss it is tantamount to the dismissal of gravity on earth: it is self-evidently false, and underestimating its effect is similarly foolhardy. I've observed this very carefully for several decades and stand satisfied that it is not only real and deeply deleterious, but that it was artificially introduced by interests that do not coincide with a healthy and right-sized sense of self in the average man.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again.

Thanks for that explanation, and sharing your experiences. I hadn't looked at it from that perspective.

Since we are on the topic, it is of use to note the recent idiocies that are promoting black people in the most transparently ridiculous ways, glorifying them absurdly and falsely with ggrossly overblown and megalomaniacal grandiosity. All of a sudden black people are the inventors of the world, braak women are warriors beyond all others, and queens of England, and so forth. It is one thing to give the devil his due, but to falsely attribute to him the grace and kindness, say, of Jesus for example serves nobody well. In this case black people are being offered credit for $#@! they've never done, erecting a false self-image that stands to put them at ever greater odds with their non-black cohabiters of planet Earth. I see naught but a deep and difficult to detect evil in all this. It will not end well for anyone.

Yes I've noticed this as well - it seems to me to be a paternalism not unlike the methods by which slaveholders would not only justify their owning of human beings, but to convince those human beings that their masters were really just looking out for them, helping them, etc.

And at this point we have all been manipulated into such a corner, that getting out will prove no mean feat.

Yes. We're deeply in need of a reset. There seems to be broad consensus about that, obviously... unfortunately there are several factions who each have their own ideas, and only ours is to leave everyone else alone. Probably doesn't bode well for us good guys.

[acptulsa]

Yes I've noticed this as well - it seems to me to be a paternalism not unlike the methods by which slaveholders would not only justify their owning of human beings, but to convince those human beings that their masters were really just looking out for them, helping them, etc.

This, with a heavy dose of, "You were born to be slaves, but if you agree to be our slaves, lots of white people will be slaves right along side you."

Amazingly, white abolitionists are being attacked now.

It is not obvious that the racism of antislavery activists and politicians can account for the disastrous aftermath of slavery.

If there was a fatal flaw within the antislavery movement, it was one that radicals and moderates shared, and one that was closely related to the very nature of their bourgeois radicalism — an unquestioning commitment to the economic and moral superiority of free labor, a commitment that both inspired and deluded the opponents of slavery.

Even the most radical abolitionists betrayed a blind faith in the magical healing powers of a free market in labor. Scarcely a single theme of the broader antislavery argument strayed far from the premise. Sometimes it was front and center, as when William Seward claimed to have seen with his own eyes the supposed backwardness and irrationality of a southern economy impoverished, or so Seward thought, by its dependence on labor that was coerced rather than rewarded.

Other antislavery arguments were deduced from the premise of free labor’s superiority. The critique of the Slave Power, for example, rested on the assumption that the slaveholders had successfully hijacked the federal government to prop up a slave economy that, left to its own devices, should have shriveled and died on its own. The cruelty and barbarism of slavery likewise derived from the fact that slave labor had to be forced whereas free labor was self-motivated by the lure of remuneration.

Slavery’s enemies used language that delegitimized slavery by mystifying free labor. Dethrone the Slave Power, they claimed, and slavery would die a “natural” death. Lincoln’s own defense of free labor sounded less of economic efficiency than of scriptural injunction, less Adam Smith than the King James Bible. In the right to bread she earns from the sweat of her brow, Lincoln often said, the black woman is my equal and the equal of any living man. Statements of this sort make it difficult, not to say futile, to draw sharp lines between the “moral” and the “economic” arguments against slavery.

It’s hard to imagine what abolitionism would have looked like without its faith — for that’s what it was: faith — in the invisible hand of a free market in labor. In 1833, no less a radical than William Lloyd Garrison invoked its power in the founding charter of the American Anti Slavery Society. Immediate abolition would make the South more rather than less prosperous, Garrison believed, because free labor was more highly motivated than slave labor. Emancipation “would not amputate a limb or break a bone of the slave but,” he explained, “by infusing motives into their breasts, would make them doubly valuable to the masters as free laborers.”

Even Garrison’s later disunionism rested on the premise that northern secession would force the slave states to survive on their own, isolating them within a cordon of freedom, and causing the slave system to die its long-delayed natural death. The slaveholders themselves would eventually realize that a free market in labor power would make their farms and plantations more profitable than ever.

Frederick Douglass put the matter succinctly during the Civil War. When Democrats asked, “What is to be done with the Negro?” once slavery was abolished, Douglass’s one-word answer was: Nothing. Leave the former slaves alone, free them from the restraining hands of their masters, and they would be fine. This was bourgeois radicalism at its most blinkered, narrowing freedom down to formal civic equality and letting the “market” do the rest of the work.

Only after the Civil War, when it became clear that leaving the freed people to fend for themselves was a recipe for disaster, did Douglas repudiate his former faith in the miraculous workings of the free labor market. Like many radicals in the late nineteenth century, Douglass came to see that libertarianism was not enough, that the state would have to actively intervene in the economy if capitalism was to preserve even the semblance of justice and decency. Formal civic equality and contract labor had brought little freedom and less prosperity to the postwar South. Doing “nothing” was doing too much damage.

https://jacobin.com/2014/08/the-real...abolitionists/

Talk about racism, the Constitution, God, and all the rest, people. You just can't hide the fact that what you're really attacking is freedom. These people are actually arguing that the problem isn't that the blacks were enslaved, the problem is that the whites weren't enslaved with them.

[A Son of Liberty]

This, with a heavy dose of, "You were born to be slaves, but if you agree to be our slaves, lots of white people will be slaves right along side you."

Frederick Douglass put the matter succinctly during the Civil War. When Democrats asked, “What is to be done with the Negro?” once slavery was abolished, Douglass’s one-word answer was: Nothing. Leave the former slaves alone, free them from the restraining hands of their masters, and they would be fine. This was bourgeois radicalism at its most blinkered, narrowing freedom down to formal civic equality and letting the “market” do the rest of the work.

This is the quintessence of paternalism.

Thank you for sharing this.