[wpietri]

Weirdly, hundreds of people were wandering around state capitols with much more dangerous looking weapons, and no cop shot them on site. It's almost like going by "perceived threat" (as determined after the fact by cops) is a giant hole that allows racial bias free reign.

[manfredo]

In Rice's case, police were responding to reports of shots fired in the vicinity. By comparison, the protestors in Michigan (presumably this is what you were referring to) were attending a planned protest in a state with legal open carry.

While it's fair to say that bias was a factor in Rice's shooting, and I'd agree, pointing to open carry protests as evidence of this may not be the most effective line of argument. Especially since armed Black demonstrators carried out their own demonstrations not long afterward: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/07/michigan-law...

[Gunax]

You've made me challenge my preconceptions. Thanks for your reasonable and researched response.

[fwip]

They were not responding to "reports of shots fired."

Police were responding to:

> "There's a guy in here with a pistol," the man tells a police dispatcher during the call. "It's probably fake, but he's like, pointing it at everybody."

[hef19898]

referring to legal open carry, California changed the gun laws after the Back Panthers did the same back in the 60s.

The problem with systematic racism is the "percieved threat" part. When I have that racisit bias, I obviously will percieve a black person more as a threat than a white one. I may not even be aware of it, and facing ones own biases is a hard thing even more so for such serious things as racism and police brutality. When this bias is combined with the kind of training US police is getting, it a given to end up where the US ended up.

The only nice thing is, it also shows where to sart to remedy theissues. Once the police and the poluation accepted to see the issues.

[gridlockd]

These guys didn't get shot either, coincidence?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZxuXBLXQAAGxMC?format=jpg&name=...

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/13/16/2B554932000005...

https://preview.redd.it/zr7cp4ggz5351.jpg?width=960&crop=sma...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dWRuf2t4wY

[zarathustreal]

Racial bias is absolutely disgusting. Nothing about the color of a person's skin or their family lineage could ever give indication of the actions they're likely to take. Culture on the other hand, which by definition includes behavior, can be a pretty good indicator. Either way, the room for error grows as the time taken to make a judgement decreases and unfortunately in the situations police find themselves in they have very little time for consideration.

[likeclockwork]

Why should they shift that risk onto the public? Why are they lauded as heroes when they err on the side of killing innocents? Why shouldn't they be the ones to die instead of the people they've miscategorized as threats? Why are their lives worth more?

[zepto]

The problem is that police often determine people’s ‘culture’ by the color of their skin.

[missedthecue]

Is there a better way to determine it before making verbal contact?

[zepto]

I don’t know, but determining it by the color of someone’s skin is clearly racism by anyone’s definition.

[missedthecue]

right. I was just wondering if there are actually other options available. I don't think there are.

[zepto]

Seems like one option would be to discard the notion that we should attempt to categorize someone’s ‘culture’ without speaking to them, especially if you are assessing whether or not to use violence against them.

[CathedralBorrow]

That just sounds like racism with extra steps.