Forestluv

That looks like a good option for someone that wants some home protection, yet doesn’t want to have a gun in the house.

That is more damaging than I was aware of. So, they guy was firing a fairly serious weapon. It’s not like it was a slingshot or BB gun. Can they leave any lasting damage?

People keep leaving out the part about a biased justice system. It’s not just the police treatment. The police treatment could be professional and humane. There is also the justice system. If a white middle class person gets caught with 5-Meo, it’s just a slap on the wrist and a minor penalty, if any penalty at all. Now imagine if a white middle-class person caught with 5-Meo goes to hardcore prison for 5 years after they get screwed over in a corrupt justice system that is biased and incentivized to imprison “dangerous drug criminals” into the prison industrial complex as part of “The War on Drugs”? And cops get extra bonuses for 5-Meo arrests because they are a schedule I drug. The more arrests they make, the better chance they get financial merit bonuses and promotions for their outstanding work on the “War on Drugs”. And once they are released, they have a felony of possessing a schedule I illegal drug, stigmatized as a drug offender and no longer eligible for things like college loans or lots of jobs. This significantly changes they dynamics. There is now a HUGE incentive to evade getting arrested. And people who use 5-Meo would be throwing a fit.

I think you make some good points about trust and accountability. You bring up a few thoughts in me: — In the Wendy’s case, they cops did not start off using excessive force. They treated the guy professionally and humanly. Even when he started to fight, the cops tried to restrain him without injuring him. To me, he panicked when those cuffs were about to go on. I don’t know what was going through his mind. To me, there would be no reason to fear that I could get beat by the cops or or get screwed over in a biased justice system. I know the cops will treat me humanly and I will be treated fairly in the justice system. I would actually fair very well in the justice system because I can afford a good lawyer and I have a job that is respected by judges. Since I wasn’t actually driving at the time at my blood alcohol level was barely over the limit, I know I will get off with a slap on the wrist. I was actually in this same situation when I was younger. I fell asleep drunk in my car on the side of the road. Police officers woke me up, just like in the Wendy’s case. I told the cops “I had a few drinks at a party last night and thought I was ok to drive. Yet I realized that I wasn’t 100% ok to drive. Rather than continuing to drive home or back to the party, I thought it would be more responsible to just pull over, sleep the night and drive back in the morning”. I stressed the word responsible and said it with a humble tone of “given the adverse circumstances I faced, I did the best I could to be responsible”. They actually let me go without even doing a breathalyzer test!! . . . Yet even if they arrested me, I had no reason to resist since I knew I would only get a slap on the wrist. It would be absurd for me to resist. Yet as you describe, what if the context is different. What if I’m a young black male that lives in an inner-city neighborhood? I know there is a chance they will beat me up and if I comply, I need to be 100% submissive and not give them any trivial reason to beat me up. I got pulled over one time in a city and was searching in my glove compartment for my car registration as the cop approached me. The cop was like “How ya doing tonight? Find that registration yet? I gave it to him and he went back to the cop car. A black friend of mine was in the car and she was shocked. She was like “Oh my god! You can do that?”. I had no idea what she was talking about. She told me that black males in the city put both hands on top of the steering wheel so the police officer can see their hands and they won’t appear as a threat. That never even crossed my mind because I don’t live in that world. . . . For a young inner city black male, the margin of error is much narrower. Even if you are a noncriminal and it’s a minor infraction, you’ve got to be extra careful and complicated to the officer. They chance of getting abused is higher. Yet in addition to this, there is a good chance as a black inner city black male, you are going to get screwed over in the justice system. And face overly-severe penalties. Imagine being a black youth in NYC during “stop and frisk”. You are a regular noncriminal black male with a little weed on you. You are walking to a friends house to smoke some weed and listen to music. You see a cop. As a black youth, you know that you might get manhandled, yet even if you don’t - when he finds that weed you know you are going to the station, they are going to comb through your record looking for things to exploit and you may serve prison time for cannabis possession and your Donzo. This is a completely different context than for me. In this context, I can understand running away from the cop. In this context, there would be a very good chance I ran away from the cop. . .

@AtheisticNonduality As an example of the value of different perspectives. Who knows more about police brutality A) An inner-city police officer with 20 years of experience, B) a black inner city poor youth that has 20 years dealing with racial profiling and brutality, C) A white sociology professor with 20 years of researching social dynamics of policing or D) An observer that hasn’t been influenced by any of the factors in (A-C). I would say that each perspective has value and the wisest one’s know the limits of their perspective. For example, it would be silly for the sociology professor to lecture the black youth of what it’s actually like to live in a poor inner city neighborhood and have to deal with police. She doesn’t have the direct experience.

This reminds me of an old saying “Fake It Until You Make It” Of course. That is the whole point. The target of evolution is Tier2. The key is to learn and grow. Imagine this is a forum to learn Spanish. The point is to learn Spanish to fluency. It would be silly to create a forum exclusively for fluent Spanish speakers. That defeats the whole purpose! And it’s fine to stumble around as we converse in Spanish class. This is actually an important component. When I was learning Spanish in Honduras, my goal was to make 100 errors per day. I only spoke and wrote Spanish, so this meant making about 10-15 errors every hour. The other students thought I was crazy, yet those that were actual fluent in Spanish knew this was a great idea. If I make 100 errors a day, it means I’m putting myself out there. I’m open and willing to learn and I’m putting myself out there. And my learning took off. In terms of evolution, the problem isn’t where someone is at. I was a beginner when I went to Honduras. Rather, the problem is the orientation. If I went in with the attitude of “English is better than Spanish, but I have to learn this stupid language for my job”, it becomes toxic to the community. If I have an agenda to spread anti-Spanish ideology and argue and debate about how stupid Spanish is, it becomes toxic to the community. In this analogy, students at an intermediate level mocking beginner level students also creates a toxic atmosphere because it puts different stages of development in conflict with each other.

He makes a couple points I hadn’t considered and I agree with a lot of what he says. I would even add in another point in support of the cops. In particular, I like how he didn’t just say “It’s police policy”. Rather, he described the rationale of why it was an appropriate response. — I don’t think there was a racial element during the initial interactions. I’ve been in similar situations and the police treated me very similarly. Here, the cops seemed very professional and respectful. — I agree with the officer that this is not a good example of police brutality or racial targeting. This goes into another category and using it as an example of police brutality and racial targeting by protestors is counter-productive for the immediate cause. — In general, liberals SUCK at messaging. This is not the case to use to message for restructuring police departments. As well, “Defund the Police” is an awful message slogan. What they are calling for isn’t even “defunding” the police. Liberals are sooo good at snatching away defeat from the jaws of victory. . . — I’m impressed that CNN is telling this side of the story and educating their viewers. CNN is often criticized for being one-sided and it’s nice to see them air this view. — The officer stated that a cop does not want to be on the ground in a wrestling match - their life is in danger. Here, I actually think the cops showed restraint. They yelled at the guy and warned him they would taze him if he didn’t stop. To me, this is restraint and giving the guy another opportunity to comply. — I did not know that a taser paralyzes a person for five seconds. That makes a taser more powerful than I originally thought. However, I’ve read that a police taser can only repel a person up to 20ft. It looked like the guy was about 20ft away and I don’t know if it is as effective at that distance. — I have mixed feeling about his statements that if the cop didn’t shoot him, it would send a message to black youth that they can run away from cops without consequence. I think there is some truth to this in today’s environment, yet I also think there is another issue at play. There is also the issue that a lot of noncriminal minority inner city youth do not trust police or the justice system. Many have been unfairly treated for minor infractions such as cannabis possession in the “War on Crime”. And they’ve seen it in their peers. Imagine if “complying” means that you go to prison for a year on a minor infraction. That’s the other side of the coin. The idea of “You shouldn’t run away from a cop” doesn’t hold as much weight for non criminals or petty offenses if complying with the cop means unfair draconian consequences. . . If I had a dime bag of weed and was approached by a cop and feared that I would lose my job, go to prison and lose my chance at a decent career over cannabis possession, the calculus changes. It’s no longer as simple as “just comply with the cop”. And if I ran from the cop, it’s not completely fair to charge for a second crime and add an extra year to the prison sentence. My life is Donzo at this point. When the consequences are extremely over-severe for the infraction, it’s a different dynamic.

I think this is a big imagination a lot of people are missing. A lot of inner city inner city youth don’t trust the police. I think it’s around 35%. I imagine the number is much higher in for youth in low income neighborhoods and even higher for minorities. Imagine the experience of not trusting the police or justice system and the cops are adversaries. There is a fear that confrontation with police could end up with you getting harassed, beat up and in the police station and they comb through your record looking for things to exploit. I’m not saying this is occurring everywhere in the U.S., yet it is a reality for many. The closest I can come to is when I was traveling through Colombia. People told me I can only partially trust the police and to avoid any encounters with them. Some were heavily armed and the uncertainty was really uncomfortable. Below, a young black male describes his experience with NYPD police. He is as medical student.

This can be an issue from the perspective of a person. In some spaces, it can be ungrounded of what is imagined and what is real and not “being able to come back this time”. However, ime these are advanced stages. For the vast majority of people It’s not an issue. . . For example, if you started to dream deeply while you sleep, would it be hard for you to come back to your original waking life form? Not really. You would have to go really really deep into those dreams. As well, it can be tempting to get addicted to dream spaces as an escape. Lastly, there comes a point in which the dream and “original form” are both forms of imagination.

I agree with that. I hear a lot of people suggesting that cops in the U.S. should just have tasers. Yet I don’t know if that’s feasible when there are so many civilian guns. Across the street from me, down the street from me is an apartment complex with people that drink and blast there music at night. Occasionally, I call public safety and request that a cop comes over to tell them to quiet down. I think people in most countries would think it’s not necessary for a cop to bring a gun on a simple noise violation call. Yet, they have lots of guns over there. They aren’t gang members or anything. They are just regular Americans with guns. . . Yet is it feasible to expect a cop to enter a situation unarmed in which people are drinking, have guns and want to play loud music? I think part of the problem in the U.S. is that there are way too many guns. And Americans are seeing sensationalized violence on TV, getting scared and buying even more guns. I think part of the solution is reducing the number of guns.

If a mugger stole my wallet, ran away and a nearby cop gunned him down with three bullets in his back, I would be absolutely horrified. I would be terrified of the cop and run away from him as fast as I could. If I made it home safely, I wouldn’t know who to call. Do I call the cops on a bad cop and hope good cops come? I would probably lay low and avoid getting involved.

Per capita gun ownership in the UK is 6.6 guns per 100 people. Per capita gun ownership in the USA is 120.5 guns per 100 people. If the UK went from 6.6 guns / 100 people to 120.5 guns / 100 people - do you think it would still be feasible for UK officers to only carry a taser?

Yes, the police officer has a very difficult job and must make split second decisions. As well, he could have been following police policy of when to shoot. However, your analogy is way off the mark. This is not a situation in which a mugger confronts someone and threatens to use a taser if you don’t turn over you wallet. . . This guy was running away and was shot in the back. It’s a very different context.

It’s important to note that the power of the two weapons were nowhere near equal. A taser from 30ft away is nowhere near the power of a gun. There is a HUGE difference between shooting back with a taser or shooting back with a gun.

Of course I’m not 100% certain. These are impressions. There was nothing to suggest he was a violent sociopath. In fact, the evidence preceding the arrest was that he was not a violent sociopath. That’s not how violent sociopath’s act. Even violent sociopath’s trying to act normal don’t act like that. The master violent sociopath was Ted Bundy. Violent sociopaths don’t show genuine remorse in a sloppy manner like this guy did. I’ve spent a lot of time imagining the cops experience. Yesterday in this thread I was talking about the perspective of the cop and people piled up on me. Today I’m talking about the perspective of the guy, and people are piling up on me. Yes, I can see the perspective of the cop. I made arguments for him yesterday. It is not an easy position to be in. . . For example, in hindsight, the cops should have used more force when they tried to handcuff him. Yet if they did, people may complain “He was a decent, nice guy - using that much force to handcuff him is police brutality!!”. They obviously thought he was a decent guy and treated him gingerly. They didn’t expect him to freak out. As well, you “what if” scenario is possible, yet as I said. . . . I find it unlikely. I find it much more likely that they would have found him sitting on a curbside crying. He came to visit his mother’s grave and fucked up. This is also an example why it can be beneficial to have people trained in social work and drug addiction there. I’ve done a lot of volunteer work with alcoholics and drug addicts. If there was a trained professional there that sat down with him and bonded with him, the situation may have been very different. If there was an alcohol addiction specialist telling him “you fucked up and are going to have to go to the station. You’ll be in a jail cell for a few hours to sober up, yet you have support and resources.”. . . It would have been far less likely he freaked out. I’ve been in a similar situation in which I was half drunk and belligerent. I almost freaked out, yet there was a social worker there that talked with me and I calmed down. The cops had no idea how to deal with a half-drunk person. The cop even said “I don’t want to deal with this situation”. Imagine having someone there that was actually trained for that situation that said “Perfect!! A half drunk guy that passed out in his car!! Right up my alley!! I’ll get right in there!!”

For DUIs, police do a check on the license plate. They say that they are checking registration, insurance and for previous driving infractions - yet I’m curious how deep the check actually goes. For example, if they scan for previous criminal records.

I think you are being cynical. To me, he seemed like a genuinely decent guy that got really scared. Like a scared dog. And I’ve read nothing about him having a history of being a manipulative, violent sociopath. I’ve been in situations in which I suddenly got really scared and acted it out inappropriately. I can also imagine being in situations like this. For example, if law enforcement tried to put me in a straight jacket, I would likely panic and freak out. Being trapped in a straight jacket is one of my worse nightmares. I could see myself going into fight or flight mode and fighting like hell. And if I fought the cops and started to run away. I would NOT harm anyone else. My issue is with the straight jacket, nothing else. You are not relating to how a decent, normally nonviolent person could panic and do something like this.

Wow, that’s a lot of cynical stuff you are projecting on him. To me he seems like a decent guy that got scared. He was visiting his mother’s grave and talking about his family. He seemed genuinely remorseful about passing out in his car. I don’t take him as a person that was inherently violent that would have tried to harm others. I think it would have been far more likely that he ended up sitting down on a curb and start to cry about what was happening and how much he fucked up. He was trying to get away from police, he had NO issues with anyone else.

This connects nicely with the video of Sadhguru you posted up. Sadhguru talked about being ok with “selective violence” and how if we become ok with selective violence against animals, it can spill over to being ok with selective violence against humans.

The only justification I can find is if the officer was genuinely unsure if he also stole a gun. Since the man stole an officer’s taser, it’s somewhat reasonable that he could have also stolen a gun. Yet this seems unlikely and I don’t get the sense that the officer felt like the guy may have stolen a gun and posed a lethal threat. Afterwards, there is footage of him speaking to others and others’ asking him if he was ok. He gave no indication that he was unsure if the guy had a gun or that his felt threatened. And from what I read, he didn’t check or ask if the guy had a gun. I realize this was a dramatic situation that happened quickly and he was filled with adrenaline, yet if he had uncertainty of wether he had a gun and that he was a lethal threat, I would think that would be a major thing he would be automatically expressing. I imagine if saw someone on my property at night and I thought he had a gun and shot him - yet it turned out that he didn’t have a gun and was just trespassing - front and center would be me expressing my uncertainty of him having a gun and how I was protecting myself from a lethal threat. . . I suppose it’s possible that the cop was uncertain, but didn’t say anything because that would be tacitly admitting he screwed up. If the cop says “Crap, I thought he also stole a gun. He didn’t have my partner’s gun?”. That would be admitting he made a mistake. Yet I am now starting to make excuses for him. The more I consider it, the more it seems like uncertainty of whether the guy had a gun was not a factor and I’d lean toward a manslaughter situation.

I wrote that the dot is correct and has value from one perspective. I can see the dot as well as some of the surrounding dots. Yet I’m continually expanding and learning about new dots.

I like this from a compassionate/empathetic/community wellness perspective. For many humans, it’s easier to do with animals than humans. For example, we understand that the dog has been conditioned that way and is acting out it’s nature. It can’t help act any other way. We wouldn’t say “The dog chose to bite me and run away. That dog made bad decisions and I killed it”. . . Yet we could also realize that the dog is simply acting act it’s conditioning. The dog may have been abused as a puppy and is now scared and hyper-defensive. This puts things in a new context. If the dog has rabies and is an imminent lethal threat, we handle the situation one way. Yet if the dog got scared and is acting out his trauma by biting someone and running away, we handle the situation another way. Imo, this view isn’t the mainstream in the U.S. It’s more of a this is how police handle criminals mindset. I think we need to step back and question the big picture of how we label crime and deal with crime. I think a common response to this would be “That is very naive. Try treating a vicious dog with rabies with hugs and kisses and see how far it gets you”. Yet we are not talking about a dog with rabies. We are talking about a dog that had suffered trauma, got scared and bit someone. In the current police system, I can see someone saying that the police officer technically followed police policy. Yet the bigger question is looking at the police policy itself. Do we want to live in a society with these police policies? Can we do better as a society?

This is an either / or choice between loving the rapist or loving the child. In this binary construct, love for the rapist means no love for the child. Yet there is an expansion beyond this construct. One can love the rapist AND the child. Most humans can easily love the child and don’t need any more work on that. They have that part down. They need to work on loving the rapist (while also loving the child). Imagine that you speak English and don’t speak Spanish. You can already speak English. You don’t need to go to school to learn English. You need to go to school to learn Spanish. And as you learn Spanish, it doesn’t mean that you reject English or forget how to speak English. Once you learn Spanish, you will be able to speak BOTH English AND Spanish. It’s not either / or.

I wouldn’t consider the views in the thread to be yellow level. I would consider it one dot within an inter-connected network. Isolating and focusing on one dot has value, yet it neglects the inter-connectiveness of other dots. I’m not saying the dot is wrong or lacks value. From one perspective, the view of the dot is correct and has value. I’m saying there is a bigger picture in which that dot exists. You may be able to see the inter-connectiveness and are intentionally focusing on one dot. At times, yellow becomes contracted and focuses on details of one dot. I commonly do it. . . Yet yellow can expand outward. For example, yellow can contract into Peru being South America and discuss details about Peru. Yet yellow can also zoom out and inter-connect Peru with various other aspects of South America. If a person was focused on Peru, we wouldn’t know if they are orange or yellow. Yet if they are asked to put Peru in the greater context of South America and are unable to - it would indicate they are not fluent in yellow. In another context: you can easily see that I am fluent in English. Yet you don’t know if I am fluent in Portuguese. If you spoke Portuguese and I continued to speak English, you would easily be able to tell that I can only speak English. If I spoke so-so Portuguese, you would easily be able to tell that I am at a beginner level of Portuguese and not yet fluent. You can easily do this because you are fluent in Portuguese.

For those in SD. . . Consider the below statement regarding the current social unrest: ”The social movements that are in the front of this "war", are characterized as green, I didn't said it is fully integrated green as only a few people are and a fully integrated green would be way more peaceful in their approach to social change.” This brings up the concept of criticizing from below or criticizing from above. Orange criticizing Green is a different dynamic than Yellow criticizing Green. Here the criticism is that “fully integrated green would be way more peaceful in their approach”. Imagine that this criticism from blue/orange-level view. Well of course blue/orange would want green to be more peaceful. . . It would be like an abusive alcoholic facing resistance saying “if my family was healthy, they would be treating me kindly”. Yet this is progress for blue/orange, because they can recognize Green’s issue - they are just criticizing Green’s approach as not being Green. Blue and Orange love to criticize and demonize Green values, yet they also like to define how Green *should* act. This is part of narrative control. What would “criticizing from above” look like? What might be a yellow perspective? Well, there are lots of different yellow perspectives. In Tier1, people like to claim that there is one Yellow perspective, yet this is silly. . . Orange is filled with logical people, yet is there one logical perspective? Of course not, there are many different logical organge-level perspectives. Similar with yellow. This would be one of many yellow perspectives. . . Yellow would “get” green because they have embodied green. It’s not just an intellectual analysis from orange. They get it. A yellow person can easily sit down with green people and “get” them because they are green. For example, imagine that you sibling died when you were a teenager. You go through years of therapy and work through it. Years later, you meet a teenager that just lost their sibling. You don’t have to intellectually make sense of it. You don’t have to think “I read that there are four stages of grief after losing a sibling. It appears that this person is in stage two of the grief process. The book I read says that to help this person I need to talk about how they need to work on acceptance”. . . . That is fine and can be helpful, yet it is very limited. A person that actually lost a sibling, worked through it and embodied it has a much broader and deeper understanding. They are not limited to intellectual frameworks. They can connect on many different levels, because they know what it’s like. Similarly, a yellow level person is not limited to Orange level intellect about how Green ‘should’ be behaving. They are not limited to “I’ve read a book on SD theory and I watched Leo’s video - according to this theory, Green ‘should’ be behaving like xyz”. This theory is fine, yet it is limited. An integrated yellow also has green experience and embodiment in addition to the orange level theory.