I'd absolutely love to hear about BLM paying some attention to solving the serious problem of black-on-black violence, like they have every day in Chicago.
...or maybe change their name to PRBLM (Politically Relevant Black Lives Matter).
Printable View
I'd absolutely love to hear about BLM paying some attention to solving the serious problem of black-on-black violence, like they have every day in Chicago.
...or maybe change their name to PRBLM (Politically Relevant Black Lives Matter).
Good news, it's been written about since the first time that came up!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rime/87609692/
Quote:
It’s a question asked, in various forms, from Facebook to cable networks to comments on this site. The answer, one writer says, is Black Lives Matter isn’t solely focused on the loss of black lives but also on a lack of justice.
“When a civilian has committed a violent crime, they’re generally arrested, tried and then convicted,” Franchesca Ramsey, a writer and activist who discusses race, explains in the MTV series Decoded (which you can watch here in full).
“Conversely, there’s a lot of evidence that it’s very rare to secure an indictment against a police officer for excessive force. And an indictment is just a trial; it isn’t even a conviction.”
“Black Lives Matter isn’t just about the loss of life, which is always terrible. It’s about the lack of consequences when black lives are taken at the hands of police.”
Police officers shot and killed nearly 1,000 people last year, according to a Washington Post database. Eighteen officers faced charges for such shootings that year.
While nearly twice as many white Americans were killed by on-duty officers than blacks, the Post’s updated data showed, black Americans remained 2.5 times as likely to die at the hands of police when adjusting for population.
And when unarmed, the data showed that black Americans were five times as likely to be fatally shot as white ones.
Too bad Daniel Shaver didn't fall into not getting shot category for whites, I guess.
And the cop who did it got re-hired so he could go out on a medical PTSD pension, which he no shit claimed was from shooting Shaver. Another great argument for reform even when race is not a factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
Definitely needs to be reform. I remember watching the Shaver video and the commands they gave Shaver were ludicrous given he was already down with his hands on his head.
The Motel/Hotel hallway shooter (Shaver) was damn crazy too. The Facebook live feed shooting inside the vehicle looked very very bad as well.
I don't know if this was posted yet, but here is the story behind the badass who disarmed the couple antifa douchebags in Seattle if you all are interested.
https://coffeeordie.com/marine-seattle-protest/
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, City Officials Cutting $100 Million-$150 Million From LAPD Budget, Funds To Be Reinvested In Communities Of Color
Makes sense. Less funding for better use of force training. Less money to help draw the most qualified employment candidates.
Should be interesting to see how they will wisely use this money to serve the "people of color" held down by the racist whites in charge.
So you think this will lead to a safer community?
What no one pays attention to is. The D's are the white racist, in charge. Especially in CA, of all places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
He did everyone there a favor including the shithead with the rolling stones hoodie on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gateway Pundit
You mean the Klan with a Tan?Quote:
Originally Posted by waffles
Ok i'll give it a shot
Both founded and continue to exist based on lies.
the klan still believes they're superior to the lower races / POC's
BLM to this day still believes the
Hands Up , Don't Shoot lie that was a fabrication of st swishers partner in crime. Hell it's part of their ongoing playbook, for recruiting and agenda.
Who under questioning, admitted that's not what happened, at all . BUT BLM, the media, opinion writers as well as those, who for some reason ignore the results of Obamas DOJ, FBI and other agencies findings.
That truth is, brown ignored officer wilsons order and decided he was going to get in to a wrestling match for wilsons gun. Facts backed up later, by locals (also POC's) who at the time were afraid of the backlash from thugs and agitators to come forward.
I'll give you a way their different:Quote:
Originally Posted by waffles
The KKK is up front and open about their racism.
That's really your argument? That BLM is equivalent to the KKK, an organization that since reconstruction, especially during that time and again from the 20s through the height of our civil rights era, has spent its time terrorizing minorities to include widespread theft, rape, murder, arson, with the goal of a return to a segregated, and ideally slave based state, because their chant didn't match the final testimony regarding an event that happened after they were founded?Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
I know I'm just shouting into the void here, but goddamn guys, do a little but of thinking on this stuff. You can not like something, you can not agree with it, but try to have just a little intellectual honesty.
Would you "guys" please stop referring to one person you've quoted as "you guys" or "guys"? Try just a little intellectual honesty and realize you're answering or discussing with one person and not the forum in it's entirety.Quote:
Originally Posted by waffles
That's fair, but I've got no desire to limit it to Kazoo as he's not the only one who said it/agreed to it, nor the only one doing drive bys with easily replied to statements asking why doesn't BLM care about black on black violence, then ignoring the reply and going on to whatever else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I've been teetering on this forum for awhile, I've met some cool people on here, and I really liked when we talked about guns, or when we could discuss current events without getting to the point of craziness like "BLM is the African American KKK" and being the only one saying hey this is pretty fucking out there. I'll go ahead and leave everybody to it, I don't think I'm changing anybody's mind on anything and we're not even in a fact-based argument at this point, and seems to be that way on on a lot of things. I'd advise everyone to seriously take stock of why they don't like particular movements rather than going into whataboutism, and to also consider that other groups succeeding doesn't necessarily take away from you, and may even have a nice "rising tide lifts all boats" impact. Not everybody has to be your enemy, and you (and the gun community as a whole) are missing out on chances to both acknowledge issues in the world and gain new 2A supporters, especially younger ones, who are coming around on the need to be armed for traditional 2A reasons, even if they don't agree with you on a lot of other things.
After watching what?s been going on, I?m beginning to wonder if the people looking for an excuse to agitate were also largely the police involved.
It?s sad that this behavior is commonplace amongst police at this time, makes me wonder how many jobs will be lost on the force or if cops won?t be held accountable for their actions.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/04/buffal...eed-from-head/
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAK
This is exactly what I spoke about in an earlier post. At some point people need to start taking responsibility for their actions. I am not saying the officers were correct or justified in what they did and I'm not defending them. Having said that, let's just look at some facts of the situation:
It's after curfew. The man isn't even supposed to be on the street. He approaches a skirmish line of officers and appears to argue with them...about what I don't know. He reaches towards the officer on his right and may have even touched him or something on his belt. They were telling him to leave but he wasn't having any of it. Then he gets shoved...and it really wasn't a violent shove. He is not innocent in this situation. A third officer immediately, within seconds, appears to radio for medical assistance and it appears the guys in camo were medics/EMTs. It's very dangerous for officers to stop and focus on this guy while he's on the ground due to the risk of bottles and bricks and other objects being thrown at them. That's why they continued to advance. Not because they didn't want to assist.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for this guy. I don't think he "had it coming", but he chose to place himself into a dangerous situation. And I don't think the officer that shoved him at all meant for that to happen. He even looked very distressed by it. I think this is simply a situation that spiraled out of control based on poor decision making and poor reaction to that poor decision. Hindsight says the officers should've just handcuffed him and taken him into custody rather than try to push him back. But who knows how he would've reacted to that?
ETA: The part that pisses me off the most is now this asshat is gonna be rewarded for his piss poor decision making ability and two officers are in jeopardy of losing their jobs. This is the type of situation that normalizes bad behavior and costs everyone...not just those directly involved...a lot of wasted time, money and resources.
How about DPD firing pepper balls at passing cars?
https://youtu.be/_cCwmAB5vc4
Makes me wonder what your thoughts are on women wearing dresses out after dark...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Was she really just asking to be raped?
Looks like he was trying to return one of their helmets.
Seems like he should have worn it instead.
That is quite possibly the most stupid and ignorant analogy in the history of analogies.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAK
I'm thinking that's his motorcycle helmet.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
"I know I'm just shouting into the void here, but goddamn guys, do a little but of thinking on this stuff. You can not like something, you can not agree with it, but try to have just a little intellectual honesty."Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAK
Here's an interesting read. You can listen to the audio book on youtube for free. It's just over 8 hours long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiGCeg3qK4Q
https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/com...500_SS500_.jpg
I’m going to take that as you saying they all get what they deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Well then you're just a fool and not worth attempting to discuss an issue that's obviously too complicated for you to understand.
Rather than making ridiculous statements like I think "they all get what they deserve", why don't you try to defend your analogy? Tell me why a woman, engaged in a perfectly legal activity, is viciously attacked thru no fault of her own, in any way equates to a man, engaged in illegal activity, in a place where he shouldn't be in the first place because of rioting, demonstrations and very high tensions between police and citizens, approaches a police skirmish line and is shoved?
Please tell me. How is that the same? And, please, explain to me how you came to the conclusion I think anyone "had it coming" when I specifically said I don't think he "had it coming" and gave a very valid and coherent explanation of why I think he AND the police were wrong? You've got this all figured out so explain it to me.
You're a perfect example of why discussion rarely leads anywhere. You respond with illogical emotion rather than well thought out reasoning. You damn well know there is no basis for your stating I think women have it coming when they're raped because of how they're dressed. You say stupid shit like that because it's inflammatory and makes you feel like you've captured someone in the perfect "gotcha" moment. It certainly isn't because it makes sense.
Rest assured, there is zero justification for what that officer did and there is support for his prosecution here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAK
Likewise, what one officer does is not used to cast judgment on the other 499,998 officers, much as video of a black, hispanic, or white individual looting a store isn't used to cast judgment on everyone of their respective races.
Irrespective of if a protester is in the wrong or right, an officer should use only appropriate and necessary force, and additionally in these circumstances, all need to be KEENLY aware of the optics.
Officers are under increased pressure these days, and unfortunately the tiny fraction of garbage (somewhere between 1/100 to 1/1000?) is now in an increased position to show their asses, and here the media is focused only on garbage, people get a false impression that the only thing on the road is garbage trucks.
A solution isn't about money, or training, it's somehow cleaving these pieces of garbage from the forces. However, I know of no pragmatic way to do that and that problem exists in EVERY career field, sometimes with far greater ratios (law, politics). Maybe if great minds focused on a resolution for that, we could ditch the questionaires and "lie detectors" which are currently used and do legitimate screening to wash out that shit, leaving only clean water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
[MOD: COMMENT VIOLATING SITE RULES & INTENTIONALLY INFLAMMATORY HAS BEEN DELETED. - Ginsue]
She should’ve known better than to wear that skirt.
Makes me wonder about your position on the video of the cop in Washington stating that officers should ask them if what they’re doing is right.
I find it mind blowing that people can put so much effort in to rationalizing the use of extreme violence against fellow citizens.
Now I’m even wondering what your thoughts are on Breonna Taylor. Her boyfriend should have just rolled over and got shot too right? Shoot, maybe he shouldn’t have even contested the charges filed against him...
And please people, chill out. There's no official perspective here outside of issues of firearms. Everyone needs to stop trying to make their opinion the "winner" and respect that in everything, there will be other people here that do not align with your own beliefs and perspectives. Agree to disagree.
I see. So all you have is the ability to wonder. You don't have the ability to defend anything you've said. Now that you've made that abundantly clear let me ask you another question...which I doubt you'll answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAK
Do you think the video we're discussing (I use that term loosely), that shows the man being shoved, is an example of "extreme violence"?
If he didn't have it coming, then the officer was not correct or justified.
I don't see why it's so hard to just say that.
Also, that video is a perfect representation on why I refuse to fight anyone. The potential for a serious head injury (see his left hand all curled up to his chest and legs all rigid? That's bad) over what might amount to nothing is exactly why I consider any physical threat a mortal threat in potential.
Completely disagree with your first comment. His actions didn't rise to the level of a response from the police that would lead to serious bodily injury...which is what happened. On the other hand, I don't think anyone could have foreseen a simple shove like that resulting in what happened. Kind of an "unintended consequences" thing. I don't think a simple shove by officers in a skirmish line in a high risk area is unwarranted when they're approached by someone who's obviously a little agitated.Quote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
I agree with the second part about getting into fights. Hell...just walking down a flight of stairs with my physical issues is risk enough.
Oh, you mean the assault that caused him to be flung to the ground and for blood to rush out of his ears? Do you mean the assault that has gotten those officers off of duty? Do you mean the exact same behavior we are seeing all over the country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Yeah, I consider that extreme violence, and I say that while also knowing what the extent of extreme violence can encompass.
I answered your question, answer mine about the video of the cop telling other cops to do the right and constitutional thing, tell me your opinion on Beionna Taylor and her boyfriend being charged with attempted murder for shooting at home invaders.
If I shove someone and they fall down and get a serious brain injury, do you think I would be able to use the defense of, "I don't think anyone could have foreseen a simple shove like that resulting in what happened"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Or would I be legally f'ed?
There's your answer.
YupQuote:
Originally Posted by CS1983
You can use any defense you want. Assault 1 and 2, which require SBI (which is obviously present here), have the element of intent. Intent is critical to proving an offense. I think you know that.
The DA doesn't just get to prove certain elements of an offense in a prosecution...he has to prove them all. And he has to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yup. There's your answer.
No...you don't get to play "do as I say, not as I do". You're still ignoring my question re: explaining to me how a woman wearing a dress equals what happened in the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAK
Hey Bailey, still waiting on your answers to my questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
See above...