The problem is bigger than only last week.

Do you have any link to back that up?

What is the rate of succesful prosecutions in black on black crime?

Do you see BLM protesters put pressure on police investigators or stand outside the courthouses to try and change that?

Or is it more something they don't want to know about, that they find excuses for and talk away.

I can't see what the point is that you're trying to make. In the eyes of the law, everyone should be treated equally.

I read this thread and wonder why so many people have left recently.

Yeah, it's like they're basically saying: "Well, some black people kill other black people. Therefore, what's the problem if a white cop suffocates a black person while they're handcuffed and pleading for their life?"

It makes no sense.

That is... Unless you're racist, I guess.

Exactly. And the black community in the US feels that’s currently not the case. They specifically feel that cops don’t seem to need to follow the law and even when they completely overstep it hardly ever pay a fair price for it. The measurable facts seem to support that feeling.

The big problem with the repeated protests is really simple: there is no leader, no Martin Luther King who formulates concrete demands to fix it. The US has been extremely creative to protect the privilege of the white middle class while making sure it looks not racist. From school financing to the university system to employment laws - the situation of minorities isn’t improving and won’t as long as the election system relies so much on donations. There is no way to make the privileged give up their wealth... and the republicans have a century and a half of track record trying to exclude people from elections. If owning a gun is a right but voting is a privilege do at some point people who are pushed down for generations use violence.

I think most politicians prefer a race riot every few years over making actual changes that would significantly hurt their voters.

How did you come up with that fantasy number?

Tom

Although not excluding people from elections, gerrymandering exists on both sides. So they've both got an impressive record of it. The democratic party has been around longer but I wouldn't go giving them the title of almost 200 years of excluding your views from making a difference.

So, for you, black person kills black person, sort of OK.
White person kills black person. Definitely not OK.

So in your view, the acceptability of the crime depends on the skin colour of the murderer?

But you aren't racist, right?

The Democratic party was still suppressing the black vote at a time that the GOP was already on the side of equality. The Democratic party has a dirty past over its entwinement with the KKK. The Democratic party was the party that defended slavery well into a time that the rest of the civilized world had banned it. If you want to take a historic perspective, the Dems have no moral high grand on this matter.

...something that has almost totally flipped over the last 80-odd years.

Although gerrymandering has been an issue in the US for over 200 years (and the product of an idiotic electoral system that allows it), it was never previously practised on the industrial scale the Republicans have been operating since about 2000 and particularly since 2010.

A nice summary here

Democrats/ Republicans. They are all bad. Let’s not divert the topic into another slagfest. There are already lots of threads where you can express your opinions.

No, I never said that a black person killing a black person is okay. And I don't know why you would choose to interpret it as that.

It's not mutually exclusive. It can be wrong for a black person to kill another black person AND wrong for a white cop to suffocate a black guy. The fact that some (not most) black people kill other blacks doesn't negate the problem of police brutality against blacks. And acknowledging the problem of police brutality and racism against blacks is not somehow negating the problem of black-on-black crime. Again, it's not mutually exclusive. And I don't think that black people in general (the majority of whom never kill anyone) should be blamed for when a white cop suffocates and kills a black guy.

And just because some blacks have killed other blacks, Floyd doesn't deserve to be suffocated by a cop while begging for his life. It's truly mind-blowing that some people don't seem to be able to understand that. White people kill other white people all the time.

Everyone understands that, so I don't know where you are getting this from.

Because of posts such as this one (but you have to consider everything that I wrote, not only the bit that you had quoted):

So my point was that just because black people aren't protesting against black-on-black crime doesn't mean that they should refrain from protesting about what happened to Floyd and about racism and police brutality against blacks in general.

Welcome to the internet.

People are correct to protest George Floyd's killing (not so much the looting, violence, pulling down of statues, vandalism etc.).

The question I posed is very simple, why do black lives matter *more* when a white person is involved?

Black lifes don’t matter more when a white guy is involved per se. However, the fact that the victim is black does matter more when it seems that they had to die because of their race. So the protesters simply believe that the cop kneeled for nine minutes on his victim because he was black. Clearly the life of a black guy didn’t matter much to him... that’s “black lifes matter” in a nutshell. It doesn’t mean other life’s don’t, it’s just a very specific conversation that seems absolutely necessary in the US.

Then we come back to the point that the number of black people killed by police (or whites) is dwarfed by the number of black people killed by other black people - so shouldn't that be the 'very specific conversation that seems absolutely necessary in the US'?

So, a black cop murdering a white woman isn't racial?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...Justine_Damond

Tom