[dcolton]

I live in Louisville, KY, where over the past few years, 7 black men have been killed by police officers...some of the situations suspect, some valid (IMO). One case involved a handcuffed drug addict, who supposedly tried to stab an officer with a knife (while handcuffed behind the back). The most recent case, an officer shot a black drug dealer in the back as he was allegedly running away - and was acquitted just last night.

You can hear the rumblings, and I think something is gonna happen. None of the officers have been found guilty in any of the shootings. The last acquittal didn't bring forth any violence, and I was proud. I don't think this is the case this time - but I would love to be proud once again.

At any rate, the question is this...if there were riots...is it justifiable? I mean, many of you excuse terrorism because of root causes, how is this different?

http://courierjournal.com/localnews/...0930-6569.html

Verdict brings satisfaction, frustration and anger

Tears wet the faces last night of McKenzie Mattingly supporters as well as those who say they had prayed he would go to prison for killing Michael Newby.

The former officer's supporters said justice was done.

Officers across Louisville "felt all along he would be found innocent," said Richard Dotson, president of the local Fraternal Order of Police. "Justice prevailed today."

But others expressed anger, saying the jury did nothing but send a very wrong message to citizens of Louisville.

"He got away with murder, point blank," said Greg Philbot of southern Louisville, who went downtown last night to wait for a verdict. "(Mattingly) came in proud and walks out proud. ... This is going to be another war."

About a half-dozen people at the Justice Resource Center watched with disappointment as the verdict was broadcast on television.

"The prosecution was so doggone weak," said Mattie Jones, a center member. "It was no more than I expected. I felt deep down inside that this was going to happen."

Another Justice Resource member, Rhonda Mathies, predicted: "This is going to cause a larger divide. The law is above the law."

Later, the center's Louis Coleman said, "I haven't passed a person west of Ninth Street who isn't terribly upset."

In a statement after the verdict, Metro Mayor Jerry Abramson asked the community to move forward.

"We should respect the judicial process and the decision made by citizens who have had the opportunity to closely examine the evidence," he said.

Police Chief Robert White said he hopes that the verdict doesn't result in unrest.

"If there is, we'll certainly be prepared for that," he said, adding that police would have "zero tolerance."

Shortly after the verdict, a group of men and women in their 20s and 30s gathered at the Divine Cuts barber shop on Seventh Street Road to vent their frustration.

Divine, 30, who owns the shop and does not use a last name, said: "We're a young group of people, and we might be next. We want the city to get prepared (for change). We want the youth to get together."

Erick Cheatham, 33, described his frustration about the police shooting: "We're almost 100 percent sure it's going to happen again. When you feel like you're getting used to it, something's wrong."

Larry Grant, 24, who said he was a cousin of Newby's, said, "I'm heartbroke. He (Mattingly) got off scot-free because he's got a badge."

Within minutes of the verdict, people started gathering at the corner of Seventh and Jefferson streets.

The Rev. Frank Huff said he went to the corner to "pray for peace."

"We as black men of this community need to keep the peace and pray for guidance," Huff said, clutching a Bible.

Kim Bradshaw, who had been waiting for the verdict downtown, said the decision "says that cops can get away with anything. There's going to be trouble because of it."

Immediately after hearing the verdict on television, Karen Malone and Heidi Bacon walked five or six blocks with four children in tow to be near the courthouse and other people who might gather. The two said they wanted to spread the word that young people need jobs and that the system needs to help and guide them away from guns and drugs.

"There is a mother who is suffering," Bacon said as she sat on a bench near the courthouse. "We feel for that family."

Malone agreed and said she hopes everyone remains peaceful. "I don't want no retaliation. It will just be another family hurting."

Bridget Abell, founder of Citizens for the Fair Treatment of Police, said yet another family has been hurting for the past 9� months � Mattingly's. She hopes last night's verdict helps.

"I think McKenzie just wants to get back to being able to sleep at night and spend time with his family," said Abell.



Staff writer Jessie Halladay contributed to this story

[itai195]

Protests are justifiable, riots are not. Nobody excuses terrorism because of the root causes, it's a question of understanding your enemy so as to more effectively engage him/her in battle.

[djohnson]

How many white people have been killed by police in the same time frame as the black people?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by djohnson:
How many white people have been killed by police in the same time frame as the black people?

I honestly don't know. But if I were to pose a guess, the answer would be zero. I will look it up.

[Atomic Rooster]

People actually wait for riots?

OK...starting now I'm gonna wait to get mugged, beaten, stomped on and violated and the life snuffed from my body.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
People actually wait for riots?

OK...starting now I'm gonna wait to get mugged, beaten, stomped on and violated and the life snuffed from my body.

What, do you think I am prancing around where the riots will most likely be? No, but the climate is right for violent protest. I hope and pray nothing happens, and maybe nothing will. As I said earlier, I live in a great city where people get along and we have overcome similar situations in the past.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by dcolton:
...many of you excuse terrorism because of root causes,...

Who does? (besides Taliesin)

[dcolton]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Who does? (besides Taliesin)

you guys sure as hell don't condemn it. The only acts you people condemn is anything related to the US.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by dcolton:
you guys sure as hell don't condemn it. The only acts you people condemn is anything related to the US.

I'm sure I've said this before, but, there is a difference between condemning an act of terrorism and disagreeing over how best to ensure that the act does not happen again. Anyone guilty of terrorism should be caught, prosecuted and punished/executed. There is no excuse for crossing the line and committing an act of terrorism. That's all well and good after the fact, but, if you want to stop terrorism before it manifests itself in the death of innocents, you have no choice but to look at 'root causes'.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by dcolton:
you guys sure as hell don't condemn it. The only acts you people condemn is anything related to the US.

You guys? You people?

Who are they?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
You guys? You people?

Who are they?

Who know who you are, and so do we.

There was a dude who changed his name to "They", but I don't mean him.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Who know who you are, and so do we.

There was a dude who changed his name to "They", but I don't mean him.

Exactly. Seems like I pushed a button

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by dcolton:


Exactly. Seems like I pushed a button

So you have no answer?

Black people, white people, jews, christians?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
So you have no answer?

Black people, white people, jews, christians?

Keep your innocence, it is becoming.

[CreepingDeth]

So when do they start burning down Korean shops?

Anywho, anytime somebody says "They" or "those people" are always called racists. Had it happen once. They is a pronoun and is usually said instead of saying person x. Usually you can tell when they have other reasons for saying it right of the bat.

[BoomStick]

We had a black cop to come into tha pre-K area of the school where I work and shoot a 4 year old and his mother dead then shot himself last thursday.

Does that count.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by BoomStick:
We had a black cop to come into tha pre-K area of the school where I work and shoot a 4 year old and his mother dead then shot himself last thursday.

Does that count.

sure, why not. I am not trying to play the race game, I just want to see what some of the 'liberals' see as justifiable.

[BoomStick]

I was trying to show that something that tragic never made the news.

This cop had a history of violence and was never removed from the force.

So far this year, we've had 3 cops in the news.

First cop robbed a dying man at an auto accident before he called for emergency services. The man survived and hired an attorney after he got stonewalled by the DA about it.


Second cop got caught shoplifting while on duty and then she threatened the store manager when he tried to have her arrested. The manager had to use the security tape to convince the DA to have charges brought up on the cop.

Third cop, this last one, was an out of controll spousal abuser that had had a history of violence and had broke into her ex wife's boyfriend's house and assaulted him while on duty.
They did nothing. The guy pleaded with the judge to do something and the judge ignored him. He didn't even get his medical bills paid.
Well, he waked into my school where I am and found his ex wife and child then opened fire on them with his service pistol then himself.

All of these cops were black and the victims of the crimes were black however we have a 90% black police force in a 70% black city.

[Cody Dawg]

This is a thread about Louisville and the fact that African Americans are being gunned down by white cops and not about riots themselves...or am I mistaken?



I have a good friend up in Louisville and that area of the country is beautiful. They live in Taylorsville, just outside of Louisville.

dcolton: That sort of thing still happens around the country. It happens down here in Florida frequently. Anyone who doesn't think the "good ole boy network" isn't in place here is living with his head in the sand. There are some counties down here where blacks never get a fair shake and are gunned down.

It's pretty pathetic.

It happens everywhere: Cop guns down an innocent person, goes on "unsupervised paid leave," then there is an "internal investigation," and overwhelmingly the cop is found "to have been cleared of any wrongdoing and use of force was deemed to be necessary." It is up then to the victim's family to file a lawsuit to try to obtain justice.

I think the police policing themselves should be outlawed.

[Isaac]

you know, as long as the rioters give some direction to there rage, more power to them... riot's have been one of the only tools of change in many instances... before 68 police abuse was even more rapent and blantently racist in Detroit then it is even now...

in Detroit over a period of three monthes Detroit police killed two people and a dog in completely ******** circumstances... then over a period of three weeks right after, three off duty detroit police officers were shot upon identifying themselfs as such.... yea... coincidence

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by dcolton:
sure, why not. I am not trying to play the race game, I just want to see what some of the 'liberals' see as justifiable.

So let me get this straight. You actually think that violent protest is supported by "liberals?"

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
So let me get this straight. You actually think that violent protest is supported by "liberals?"

Nobody else seems to participate in the violent ones. Oddly enough.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Nobody else seems to participate in the violent ones. Oddly enough.

Yeah, I'm sure every violent protester is a registered Democrat. You have any data to support that absurd statement?

[Isaac]

ah... I'm pretty sure the BPP had alot to do with the ones in the 60s... not to sure about the DNPs involvement though...

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
So let me get this straight. You actually think that violent protest is supported by "liberals?"

I just find it odd and quite suspect that many of the 'liberals' can find a 'root' cause and justification for baby killers (AKA terrorists) while they continue to spew their veiled hate towards blacks. I mean, we are talking about people who are upset because black people can marry and gays cannot.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I just find it odd and quite suspect that many of the 'liberals' can find a 'root' cause and justification for baby killers (AKA terrorists) while they continue to spew their veiled hate towards blacks. I mean, we are talking about people who are upset because black people can marry and gays cannot.

What?


I'd hate to break it to you pal.... but it was the liberals who were for things like interracial marriage. It's conservatives that routinely suggest african americans are second class because they are miniority (and according to the core conservative platform, the minority's role in society is to serve the majority).

"veiled hate" is rather comical.

I'd think it's more the conservatives who feel it's legal and moral to ban interracial marriage.

[y0y0]

I think dcolton already had an opinion, i.e. answer before he posted the question, and the main import was to bait so called liberals. Also, while there are definitely members of the left wing side on this board who belong to the left wing lunatic fringe (version, where are you?), there are just as many memeber sof this board who belong to the right wing lunatic fringe, and, to be honest, I think dcoloton is one of them.

For example, when Eklipse makes a differentiated statement on the question of the root of terrorism, i.e he says that while the terrorism itself is in no way justified, there are reason why it happens and that those reasons should be tackled in eradicating terrorism effectively. However, dcolton (and others) immidiately ignore every word Eklipse has said and go off on the usual bandwagon of accusing him of supporting terrorism.

To me that is the lunatic fringe of debate: ignoring every statement to the contrary and carrying on a blind and ignorant campaign in a depserate search of something to confirm one's bizarre and inflexible opinions.

That isn't to say, as I stated above, that there aren't members of the left wing side that don't do exactly the same thing. There are, but Eklipse isn't one of them.

Now, on to the original and loaded question: Would riots be justified?

My answer would be that they would be understandable but not justified. They would be understandable because if the enough people in the black community saw themselves as being victimised and the emotional reaction was large enough to ferment unrest, it would very possibly spill over to the rest of the blck community itself and start a general unrest. It's mob psychology.

That would be the understandable part.

It would, however, be in no way justified because the rioting and unrest would simply cause more pain, injury, misunderstanding and hardening of opinions in the general community than there already are. Not only that, but it would not bring the dead man back to life.

Satisfied?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by y0y0:
I think dcolton already had an opinion, i.e. answer before he posted the question, and the main import was to bait so called liberals. Also, while there are definitely members of the left wing side on this board who belong to the left wing lunatic fringe (version, where are you?), there are just as many memeber sof this board who belong to the right wing lunatic fringe, and, to be honest, I think dcoloton is one of them.

For example, when Eklipse makes a differentiated statement on the question of the root of terrorism, i.e he says that while the terrorism itself is in no way justified, there are reason why it happens and that those reasons should be tackled in eradicating terrorism effectively. However, dcolton (and others) immidiately ignore every word Eklipse has said and go off on the usual bandwagon of accusing him of supporting terrorism.

To me that is the lunatic fringe of debate: ignoring every statement to the contrary and carrying on a blind and ignorant campaign in a depserate search of something to confirm one's bizarre and inflexible opinions.

That isn't to say, as I stated above, that there aren't members of the left wing side that don't do exactly the same thing. There are, but Eklipse isn't one of them.

Satisfied?

HJave you ever read one of Eklipses posts?

[y0y0]

Originally posted by dcolton:
HJave you ever read one of Eklipses posts?

Yes, I have in fact. There are a couple in this thread, for example, and I was referring to them in my post.

Shall I quote one? ok, here it is:

Originally posted by Eklipse:
I'm sure I've said this before, but, there is a difference between condemning an act of terrorism and disagreeing over how best to ensure that the act does not happen again. Anyone guilty of terrorism should be caught, prosecuted and punished/executed. There is no excuse for crossing the line and committing an act of terrorism. That's all well and good after the fact, but, if you want to stop terrorism before it manifests itself in the death of innocents, you have no choice but to look at 'root causes'.

Now, if you read that and say the man is supporting terrorism, because he takes a qualified opinion on the matter instead of your One True Opinion� (hating the entire Islamic world and everyone who might even think that there might be a nice person or two there), then I think I just proved my point.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by y0y0:
Yes, I have in fact. There are a couple in this thread, for example, and I was referring to them in my post.

Shall I quote one? ok, here it is:



Now, if you read that and say the man is supporting terrorism, because he takes a qualified opinion on the matter instead of your One True Opinion� (hating the entire Islamic world and everyone who might even think that there might be a nice person or two there), then I think I just proved my point.

Look harder. Try a thread that deals with terrorism.

[dcolton]

The dead kids were an accident - the intended targets were American soldiers. Nice try though.

Shame on the soldiers for luring kids into a dangerous situation with candy,

What do you call this?

[y0y0]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Look harder. Try a thread that deals with terrorism.

Hmmm, if I read your original post correctly, and I quote:

Originally posted by dcolton:
....At any rate, the question is this...if there were riots...is it justifiable? I mean, many of you excuse terrorism because of root causes, how is this different?...

Then this thread does deal with terrorism, as does Eklipse's post.

I think you've just proven my point, not that it really matters. I think you will probably always stick to your ideas no matter how hard anyone tries or how much evidence anyone posts to the contrary, sadly.

[Spliffdaddy]

Nah, I agree with dcolton, too.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by y0y0:
Hmmm, if I read your original post correctly, and I quote:



Then this thread does deal with terrorism, as does Eklipse's post.

I think you've just proven my point, not that it really matters. I think you will probably always stick to your ideas no matter how hard anyone tries or how much evidence anyone posts to the contrary, sadly.

ignoring the facts? Look above and answer my question. Is the above statement justifying terrorism? Or, can you see how it can be percieved that way?

[y0y0]

Originally posted by dcolton:
ignoring the facts? Look above and answer my question. Is the above statement justifying terrorism? Or, can you see how it can be percieved that way?

If you were referring to this:

The dead kids were an accident - the intended targets were American soldiers. Nice try though.

Shame on the soldiers for luring kids into a dangerous situation with candy

Then I can see how it can be perceived as justifying terrorism, except that the above quote is totally out of context (What was the actual debate about? What are the actual facts behind the incident in question?). I presume it was about the recent car bombing in Iraq where many children died as a result. I honestly don't know what Eklipse is referring to there. It sounds as if he is making the case that children were lured into the area by American soldiers by giving out candy. I agree that that sounds falicious, becuase it ignores the posssiblity that the American soldiers were simply being kind in giving candy to the kids and I haven't read anywhere about soldiers giving candy to kids.

BUT, I don't know. If someone would post a reference link, then I could answer in more detail. If Eklipse is making this up, then he is simply wrong.

However, I assume that the real fact of the matter is, is that the bombers don't care in the least whether kids are present or not in their insane and murderous campaign to kill as many so called collaborators and Americans as they can.

It can be argued that the American bombing of Fallujah is also taking a high toll on women and children, but that argument would simply be a justification for the bastard bombers campaign, and there is no justification, although I can understand it, which bringe me back to my original answer to your original question: There is a big difference between understanding and justification.

Understanding means knowing the bombers' motives and goals. Justification means agreeing with those motivations and goals.

[Spliffdaddy]

Defending those terrorists would be called what?

Understanding or justifying or both ?

[y0y0]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Defending those terrorists would be called what?

Understanding or justifying or both ?

Come on, you can really do better than that. I don't come here all that often anymore, because this place is a waste of time mostly and the usual rehashing of the same old fixated opinions, and there is very little real debate. If you want an answer then post a decent reply to my post, after reading it, instead of the same, tired old one-liner.

[Spliffdaddy]

Guess I made my point.

Please don't waste any more of your time in this forum. I'd hate to see you do that.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by y0y0:
If you were referring to this:
Then I can see how it can be perceived as justifying terrorism, except that the above quote is totally out of context (What was the actual debate about? What are the actual facts behind the incident in question?). I presume it was about the recent car bombing in Iraq where many children died as a result. I honestly don't know what Eklipse is referring to there. It sounds as if he is making the case that children were lured into the area by American soldiers by giving out candy. I agree that that sounds falicious, becuase it ignores the posssiblity that the American soldiers were simply being kind in giving candy to the kids and I haven't read anywhere about soldiers giving candy to kids.

BUT, I don't know. If someone would post a reference link, then I could answer in more detail. If Eklipse is making this up, then he is simply wrong.

However, I assume that the real fact of the matter is, is that the bombers don't care in the least whether kids are present or not in their insane and murderous campaign to kill as many so called collaborators and Americans as they can.

It can be argued that the American bombing of Fallujah is also taking a high toll on women and children, but that argument would simply be a justification for the bastard bombers campaign, and there is no justification, although I can understand it, which bringe me back to my original answer to your original question: There is a big difference between understanding and justification.

Understanding means knowing the bombers' motives and goals. Justification means agreeing with those motivations and goals.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post2213948

Not taken out of context...it is the whole freakin' quote.

Is the statement justifying terrorism? Yes...no? Am I a right wing nutcase for pointing out his hate towards the US and justifiying baby killers attacking children?

[Spliffdaddy]

We're wasting his time, dcolton.

Maybe he could join Demonhood's support group. The ones that troll in here once in a blue moon just to infer that we're all idiots.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We're wasting his time, dcolton.

lol.

Truth usually will make the libs run away because of 'time constraints'

[Spliffdaddy]

*slams the door behind YoYo*

"Tell Demonhood we said hello"

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by dcolton:
lol.

Truth usually will make the libs run away because of 'time constraints'

Actually I've found quite the opposite to be true. When presented with facts it's usually the Bush fanboys that are suddenly at a loss for words. That is, unless an ad hominem attack will still work.

[Spliffdaddy]

Ironically....

this forum was created because people thought political/war discussions were a waste of time - and wanted to move the threads away from the 'good' forums.

Lo and behold, a year later and folks *still* stumble into this worthless, timewasting forum just to let us know how worthless we all are.

"OMG, there's worthless timewasting stuff in that forum"

the horror of it all.

Here's an idea.

Don't click the link marked "Political/War Lounge", mkay?.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Actually I've found quite the opposite to be true. When presented with facts it's usually the Bush fanboys that are suddenly at a loss for words. That is, unless an ad hominem attack will still work.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you live in one of the most beautiful areas in the world! I love Charlotsville, now if you can only get a football team

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Ironically....

this forum was created because people thought political/war discussions were a waste of time - and wanted to move the threads away from the 'good' forums.

Lo and behold, a year later and folks *still* stumble into this worthless, timewasting forum just to let us know how worthless we all are.

"OMG, there's worthless timewasting stuff in that forum"

the horror of it all.

Here's an idea.

Don't click the link marked "Political/War Lounge", mkay?.

and have you notices that the person whose time is being wasted, is stll floating around here?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I just find it odd and quite suspect that many of the 'liberals' can find a 'root' cause and justification for baby killers (AKA terrorists) while they continue to spew their veiled hate towards blacks. I mean, we are talking about people who are upset because black people can marry and gays cannot.

That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Just because someone is against the war in Iraq does not make them "liberal." See, this post is a perfect example of my point above. You say many "...liberals can find a root cause and justification for baby killers (AKA terrorists)..." WTF does that mean? Also, lest you forget, it was Democrats and "liberals" who were for equal rights for women and blacks, NOT Republicans or the right-wing. And yes, I am upset that gays cannot marry. It's no one's business who a person marries and you right-wing fascists should stay out of their personal life. Keep up with the ad hominem attacks though, it's at least entertaining to read.

[Spliffdaddy]

pssst. Democrats were opposed to the legislation you speak of.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you live in one of the most beautiful areas in the world! I love Charlotsville, now if you can only get a football team

Low blow. We're actually pretty good this year but the next 3-4 weeks will really tell. You're right though, C-Ville is beautiful. Glad to be back here after graduating from Grad. school.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
That has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Just because someone is against the war in Iraq does not make them "liberal." See, this post is a perfect example of my point above. You say many "...liberals can find a root cause and justification for baby killers (AKA terrorists)..." WTF does that mean? Also, lest you forget, it was Democrats and "liberals" who were for equal rights for women and blacks, NOT Republicans or the right-wing. And yes, I am upset that gays cannot marry. It's no one's business who a person marries and you right-wing fascists should stay out of their personal life. Keep up with the ad hominem attacks though, it's at least entertaining to read.

The republican party was instrumental in the civil rights movement. I think you are confusing southern democrats (which are really democrats) with republicans. IIRC correctly, more civil rights legislation has been passed by republican congresses and republican administration.