Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,749
The accusers are framing the problem in blackness.No, the impetus is race. They aren't protesting cops profiling and allegedly abusing whites. So these riots are about blackness while the sports riots are done mostly by people who happen to be white and not in the name of whiteness. Kinda like a Charlie the Tuna misinterpretation.Not accurately methinks. We'd have to have word from the street to make such a conclusion but everything I've heard points to police overreach being the impetus. And IIRC three of the officers charged by the DA are black.
As for three cops being black, that will be problematic for the demagogues in office who foment and perpetuate the race problem.
Uhhhhmmm..... if the perceived problem is that cops are beating up on blacks, then the actor in that scene is police. The active party. Not the recipient.
Just as if the topic were men beating up women, the impetus would be from men -- the perps. Not the victims.
Where do you see that?
Considering half the instigating police are themselves black, that doesn't add up. No, the targets are black. The police were long ago integrated.
The "targets" that you refer to are CRIMINALS! If the Baltimore Police were targeting blacks then you'd be inferring that the black Police Chief and those black Police officers were complicit in racism. They didn't target someone because he was black...they targeted him because he was in a high crime area...they knew him to have a long history of drug related crimes...and when they showed up he took off running.
"Targets" means in the active perception. Try reading the context first -- the tangent was about what the impetus for the riots is. To get at that we have to get inside the rioters' collective head. "Targets" is how they see themselves. What the police's perspective is is irrelevant to that.