DCP on Chauvin Trial: "Black-on-black crime and violence" is More of a Problem than "police overreach"

[Doctor Scratch]

You would pretty much have to be living in a cave these days to not know about the recent convocation of former police officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. The verdict was largely received with a sigh of relief, with Floyd's brother, Philonise, responding by saying, "I can breathe."

Not everyone reacted to the results this way, though, and in fact, some took the opportunity to dismiss the whole affair as mere "rhetoric." One of those folks, as you might imagine, was Dr. Peterson:

I'm not convinced by rhetorical claims that something of a war is being waged by police against blacks. The data don't seem to support that, though I'm open to being convinced if somebody wants to make a case. And please recall that more than a few police are black.

Whoa... Completely apart from being insensitive, I note that he doesn't supply a link, or anything of that nature. What "data" is he referring to? Perhaps he's just trying to be inflammatory on purpose? He goes on:

• Unless I'm misinformed, there appears to be an enormous problem of black-on- black crime and violence in the United States.
I'm amazed at the silence about that subject that seems to prevail among people who are very vocal when it comes to cases of apparent police overreach. The police don't seem to be the principal threat to young black men living in America's inner cities. Unless I'm much misinformed, other young black men appear to be the principal threat. This problem badly needs to be addressed. Honestly and without demagoguery. Its causes are evidently complex, but they should not be ignored. Yet they are being currently ignored in many quarters.

Which "quarters"? And don't you kind of think that the police bear a different kind of responsibility than non-police? Peterson also notes:

I will not join efforts to canonize George Floyd.

I guess he's burned out from the efforts he's put into "canonizing" Louis Midgley and Hugh Nibley?

[Floyd] didn't deserve to die, but he was also apparently non a law-abiding citizen, let alone a martyred saint.

Wow: that's incredibly harsh.

Really, this is among the ugliest posts I've ever seen from Dr. Peterson--it ranks right up there with his photo of black people being lynched, which he posted as a "joke." I really hope he considers deleting the post: it's in incredibly poor taste, in my opinion.

[Lem]

[Floyd] didn't deserve to die, but he was also apparently non a law-abiding citizen, let alone a martyred saint.

This is horrifying. There is no reason for the sentence "He didn't deserve to die, but..." regardless of what comes after the 'but'. Adding the 'but' clearly implies that the dying was, if not partly his fault, at least something he partly deserved.

It's a despicable statement.

[Dr Moore]

joseph smith was also not a law abiding citizen.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Is there anyone left who seriously doubts that DCP is a racist?

DCP has publicly posted lynching photos with "funny" captions. DCP has publicly stated that despite 250 years of slavery, black people should feel grateful because they now get to live in the United States. DCP has publicly stated that God didn't allow black people the priesthood because then white people wouldn't have joined. DCP has criticized Martin Luther King several times on his birthday. The list goes on and on and on...

I know that DCP's postings and attitudes have been restrained and tempered by the fact that he is a sitting BYU professor. I believe that after July 1st (when DCP retires) DCP will not feel so restrained, and we will be witness to much more blatantly racist posts and attitudes. Get ready for the real DCP. It's going to make DezNat blush.


ETA Good Lord! I just read the comments over at Sic et Non. Not a good look for DCP or the Church. Lot's of blatant racism.

[Chap]

joseph smith was also not a law abiding citizen.

Joseph Smith didn't deserve to die, but ....

[Lem]

joseph smith was also not a law abiding citizen.

Joseph Smith didn't deserve to die, but ....

Exactly. A sentence you will never see on that blog.

[Shulem]

As a Latter-day Saint, I will not join efforts to canonize George Floyd!

He didn't deserve to die, BUT he was also apparently non a law-abiding citizen, let alone a martyred saint.

(In other words, he was criminal and unworthy of being a Latter-day Saint.)



Perhaps if he'd kept the commandments none of that would have happened?

[Lem]

Chapstick •

DanielPeterson, “He certainly didn’t deserve to die, but he was apparently not a law-abiding citizen, let alone a martyred saint”

Daniel, do you realize how offensive this statement might be to some? For example, let’s apply this same statement to Joseph Smith (as many scholars and historians have) and tell me if you are offended.

______
DanielPeterson Mod Chapstick •
CS: "Daniel, do you realize how offensive this statement might be to some?"

Yes, I realize that some would choose to be offended by it.

I regret that, but I won't collude in lies in order out of fear of some taking offense at it.

Wow. So he is okay with the offensiveness of his statement, but he stands by it, because it is true. (although he avoided the Smith reference.)

In other words, he does think it was at least partly Floyd's fault he was killed. (Some) victims of vicious crimes must be faultless to avoid blame, according to Professor Peterson. That's incredibly offensive.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

For a libertarian he sure does seem comfortable with agents of the state extrajudicially killing citizens.

- Doc

[Bought Yahoo]

Dr. Peterson is repeating the "black on black" story from right wing.

Before one asserts the truth of that statement, one must factor out "poor on poor" statistics. Once that is done, and it is significant that there is more "black on black" crime, I'll pay attention