If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The difference being that your country prides itself on being disarmed
No, no. We don't even pride ourselves on not having so many innocent people die easily preventable deaths. We look down on you guys for letting it happen, even mores on those of you who effectively celebrate it.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I can't help your memory, that's on you, but there have been several instances already. IMO, it's always a travesty when anyone is killed (unlike your feelings about Trump), even when it can be justified.
In your defence, I don't read all of them. I stepped out of this thread completely for a long time.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
That's how society works, it's about checks and balances between the various ideologies, your views on the actual dynamics at work here are absurd, to say the least. Most of the time you come in here armed with movie and TV show plots and believe they represent the real world.
Yeah but the system was set up with a much healthier base line that no-one would drop below. I feel like tat line is high above us all now and left and right are not equally to blame for it being there. Wouldn't it be nice if we could spend more time working towards progress instead of nullifying each other? I feel like that used to happen.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I can see where everyone is just going to run from police, and the police can't try to catch them.
A meme I'm seeing a lot on facebook, is they managed to take down a bomber with a bullet to the leg, why if they feel threatened by someone reading or fixing a car or walking, do they shoot to kill?
I can see where everyone is just going to run from police, and the police can't try to catch them.
A meme I'm seeing a lot on facebook, is they managed to take down a bomber with a bullet to the leg, why if they feel threatened by someone reading or fixing a car or walking, do they shoot to kill?
Meme aside, we're told cops are to shot to kill, so did they fail to do that here? Or perhaps the terrorist was seen as more valuable alive and they purposely incapacitated him? Though I'm told life is not a tv show and they can't do that.
I can see where everyone is just going to run from police, and the police can't try to catch them.
A meme I'm seeing a lot on facebook, is they managed to take down a bomber with a bullet to the leg, why if they feel threatened by someone reading or fixing a car or walking, do they shoot to kill?
To be fair the two cops were shot in the process and they came upon a guy whom they probably thought was homeless because he was sleeping in a doorway. It just happened to be the bomber.
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
The misplaced anger from the black community is further proof that a more forceful response to the rioters is needed. No more excuses for their idiotic violent behavior. Their actions are inexcusable.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No, no. We don't even pride ourselves on not having so many innocent people die easily preventable deaths. We look down on you guys for letting it happen, even mores on those of you who effectively celebrate it.
The UK has no right to "look down on" anyone, not with your own violent crime rate climbing through the roof.
In your defence, I don't read all of them. I stepped out of this thread completely for a long time.
Then why throw the accusation in the first place? Knee jerk?
Yeah but the system was set up with a much healthier base line that no-one would drop below. I feel like tat line is high above us all now and left and right are not equally to blame for it being there. Wouldn't it be nice if we could spend more time working towards progress instead of nullifying each other? I feel like that used to happen.
Complete poppycock. You don't see people on the Right starting city-wide riots; burning, looting, and attacking innocent civilians, do you?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Man takes a knee during national anthem to bring attention to BLM, critics focus on disrespect. Protest over police shooting turns into riot, critics focus on that violence.
It's funny how there's always something else for the critics to talk about.
Man takes a knee during national anthem to bring attention to BLM, critics focus on disrespect. Protest over police shooting turns into riot, critics focus on that violence.
It's funny how there's always something else for the critics to talk about.
Exactly. When it comes to this issue there has never been an acceptable form of protest for such "critics". Because at the end of the day they simply don't give two sh*ts about it as long as it doesn't impact them. And even when it doesn't impact them they'd rather not even hear about it ... thank you very much. It's as obvious as the day is long.
I'm not saying the riot is acceptable, I'm saying if you hate to see rioting, maybe you should take a minute to ponder the cause and what can be done about it.
It's always okay to peacefully protest. You have the right to freedom of expression (though it doesn't always come without consequences, because others have the right to tell you you're a d-bag).
It's never acceptable to drag people out of their cars and beat the shit out of them.
It's never acceptable to damage or set fire to someone else's property, this includes public property.
It's never acceptable to shoot anyone, including other protesters.
It's never acceptable to loot and plunder. WTF does looting have to do with BLM?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
seem to recall some white folks trashing a national park.
That vacant visitors' cabin in the middle of nowhere? I seem to recall they left it in one piece and the only people killed were the protestors, by the police.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The UK has no right to "look down on" anyone, not with your own violent crime rate climbing through the roof.
Short term trends are short term. Your gun death rate has been out of hand for decades.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Then why throw the accusation in the first place? Knee jerk?
I read several, on each one you defended the cops. I thought it was a big enough sample size to warrant a comment. Plus there was your comment about all the victims behaving stupidly. It came across as callous.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Complete poppycock. You don't see people on the Right starting city-wide riots; burning, looting, and attacking innocent civilians, do you?
I don't ask rioters which way they lean politically. You do see people on the right attacking innocent civilians, thats typically why the riots start. And if those on the right were the ones being consistently victimised, I'm quite certain we'd see rioting or worse in response. The right has never been the oppressed group though. Despite their pathetic claims to the contrary.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
It's always okay to peacefully protest. You have the right to freedom of expression (though it doesn't always come without consequences, because others have the right to tell you you're a d-bag).
Because obviously there are plenty of NFL fans who consider Kaepernick to be a "d-bag" because he dared to protest and draw attention to unarmed black men ... some with their hands in the air ... being murdered by police. It ain't about the "national anthem". It ain't about the "flag". It ain't about the "soldiers". Do you really believe the man is being inundated with death threats over these things?
Make no mistake about it. This is about "Shut up n*gger and just play!".
I see the officer from Tulsa has been arrested and charged.
Indeed. As she should have been. Of course, when it comes to police "officers" being charged and being convicted are two very different things. After all, Freddie Gray must have broken his own neck.
And as I mentioned earlier, the Baton Rouge PD claimed there was an anonymous 911 caller claiming that Alton Sterling had threatened him with a gun. He was killed on July 5. It is now August 16 and to my knowledge no audio of this purported call has been released. But what has been done is that this narrative has been planted into the minds of the public by media reports that simply repeat what the police say without demanding they prove it.
OAW
I thought I'd point out that it is now Sept. 22 and we STILL have no audio of this alleged 911 call in this case. And naturally, the media is no longer covering the story so the Baton Rouge PD has successfully planted the idea in the mind of the general public that they had a legitimate reason to be hassling Alton Sterling in the first place because he "threatened someone with a gun". Especially among those inclined to take the police at their word. Now in this Charlotte incident we have the police chief swearing on top of bibles that Keith Lamont Scott had a gun even though his family and witnesses said he had a book. Just today he walked it back and said the police video doesn't show him "pointing" a gun at the police (FTR ... North Carolina is an open carry state) ... but he's still insisting he had a gun and that police narrative still holds. Even though that key part is different. More importantly they are refusing to release the video to the public. Is it to protect the integrity of the investigation? Or is it to protect the police narrative in the minds of the general public until the story is no longer front page news?
Short term trends are short term. Your gun death rate has been out of hand for decades.
Actually it's dropping, but don't let facts interfere with your agenda. Yours, however, isn't.
I read several, on each one you defended the cops. I thought it was a big enough sample size to warrant a comment. Plus there was your comment about all the victims behaving stupidly. It came across as callous.
I'm sure you thought it did.
I don't ask rioters which way they lean politically. You do see people on the right attacking innocent civilians, thats typically why the riots start. And if those on the right were the ones being consistently victimised, I'm quite certain we'd see rioting or worse in response. The right has never been the oppressed group though. Despite their pathetic claims to the contrary.
Only there are no modern examples of it, despite there also being relative poverty and deaths on the Right, in equal amounts. Yet again, police aren't any more likely to shoot any specific color, ethnicity, or political ideology.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You still believe freedom of expression means "freedom from consequences". The gov't isn't oppressing him for exercising his rights, and that's all you're guaranteed.
Make no mistake about it. This is about "Shut up n*gger and just play!".
Oh please. Of course you think that, because with you it's "OMGerd, RACISM!" 24/7. He's not the first person to ever refuse to stand for the presentation of the Flag, quit acting like he is, nor the first to ever receive blowback for such actions. However, he isn't being arrested for it. See, standing for the Flag is a rather recent thing in the NFL (2009), it was revived to pay respect to soldiers who gave their lives to defend this country. It isn't done to show solidarity with police, nor agreement with the status quo (if that was the case I'd sit down too) but as a memorial. So dissing the Flag is one thing, but the people who gave their lives to defend our freedoms deserve better.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Oh please. Of course you think that, because with you it's "OMGerd, RACISM!" 24/7. He's not the first person to ever refuse to stand for the presentation of the Flag, quit acting like he is, nor the first to ever receive blowback for such actions. However, he isn't being arrested for it. See, standing for the Flag is a rather recent thing in the NFL (2009), it was revived to pay respect to soldiers who gave their lives to defend this country. It isn't done to show solidarity with police, nor agreement with the status quo (if that was the case I'd sit down too) but as a memorial. So dissing the Flag is one thing, but the people who gave their lives to defend our freedoms deserve better.
There is a FLOOD of racist vitriol throughout the comments section of just about any article on the internet covering Colin Kaepernick and this issue where this SENTIMENT (not necessarily the exact same verbiage) is clearly expressed. You are just so in DENIAL when it comes to such matters that you either pretend it doesn't exist or minimize its prevalence. It's the same white backlash that happens EVERY ... SINGLE ...TIME ... a black athlete takes a stand on racial issues. Going back for DECADES. And as for honoring the troops is concerned, you mean like this?
Because THAT is just one example of why some of us in this country don't FETISHIZE a flag that symbolizes a country that has routinely disrespected certain groups within its own citizenry. Even "soldiers who gave their lives to defend this country." FOH with that nonsense!!!
Keith Lamont Scott was calmly walking backward when Charlotte, N.C., police shot him to death this week, a lawyer for Scott's family said after relatives were allowed to watch police video of the shooting.
In a statement Thursday night, Justin Bamberg, a lawyer for the family, said Scott, 43, exited his vehicle "in a very calm, non-aggressive manner" when ordered to do so by police Tuesday afternoon outside a condominium complex near the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
And when he was shot, "Mr. Scott's hands were by his side and he was slowly walking backwards," according to Bamberg.
Police have said Scott was armed and posed an imminent deadly threat when he was shot by Charlotte-Mecklenburg County police Officer Brentley Vinson, who, like Scott, is African-American. They said a gun was found near his body.
On some points, Bamberg indicated that Scott's widow, Rakeyia Scott, and other relatives concurred with several observations made by Police Chief Kerr Putney.
Putney said Thursday that the video showed that officers gave Scott multiple commands before they opened fire. Bamberg also said the video shows that "police did give him several commands."
And Putney said the video didn't show "absolute definitive, visual evidence" that Scott brandished a weapon at the officers. Bamberg also said "it is impossible to discern from the videos what, if anything, Mr. Scott is holding in his hands."
Where police and the family disagree is in their characterizations of Scott's actions toward police.
Putney has said that Scott acted aggressively and threateningly and that the video "supports what we've heard and the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances."
"If there's an encounter [and] you go down and the weapon is right there, it's kind of obvious a weapon was involved, even though I didn't visually see it from my angle," Putney told NBC station WCNC.
The family, meanwhile, says Scott was cooperative and calm.
"After watching the videos, the family again has more questions than answers," Bamberg said.
Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts, who imposed a midnight-to-6 a.m. curfew, told MSNBC-TV late Thursday that she had seen the videos and agreed with both Putney and the family that they were "ambiguous."
"There is not a clear picture," Roberts said. "The body camera is moving, and the view is obscured at a few points."
And let's say for the sake of discussion that Mr. Scott was armed. North Carolina is an open-carry state. And the Charlotte police chief has already walked back his initial claims that Mr. Scott pointed a gun at his officers. Cops who are known in the area as "jump out boys" because they roll up on suspects in plainclothes to arrest them without warning. Oh and did I mention that Mr. Scott wasn't even the person they were after?
At the end of the day it would appear that Mr. Scott was shot and killed while calmly walking away from the police. Just like Mr. Crutcher in Tulsa. Just like Mr. McDonald in Chicago. Etc.
Meanwhile, this white guy who tried to attack the police with a hatchet was tasered THREE TIMES and allowed to run away.
Why do blacks seem to have such a hard time following a police officers instructions? Why do they struggle when being put in hand cuffs? Seems to me a little education is required for the AA communities.
Why do blacks seem to have such a hard time following a police officers instructions? Why do they struggle when being put in hand cuffs? Seems to me a little education is required for the AA communities.
Why do YOU ask such stupid questions immediately after I just posted an article that said ..."The family, meanwhile, says Scott was cooperative and calm." Seems to me that "education" in your case was rather pointless.
General questions. Calm down. I know you think ALL BLACKS are always innocent. Attempting to change the direction of the thread to examine the AA communities faults in all this. About time.
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) In any prosecution under this section, proof that a defendant engaged or attempted to engage in one or more of the overt acts described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) [2] and (1) has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or (2) has use of or used any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including but not limited to, mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, to communicate with or broadcast to any person or group of persons prior to such overt acts, such travel or use shall be admissible proof to establish that such defendant traveled in or used such facility of interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) A judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the laws of any State shall be a bar to any prosecution hereunder for the same act or acts.
(d) Whenever, in the opinion of the Attorney General or of the appropriate officer of the Department of Justice charged by law or under the instructions of the Attorney General with authority to act, any person shall have violated this chapter, the Department shall proceed as speedily as possible with a prosecution of such person hereunder and with any appeal which may lie from any decision adverse to the Government resulting from such prosecution.
(e) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to make it unlawful for any person to travel in, or use any facility of, interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of pursuing the legitimate objectives of organized labor, through orderly and lawful means.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to prevent any State, any possession or Commonwealth of the United States, or the District of Columbia, from exercising jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section; nor shall anything in this section be construed as depriving State and local law enforcement authorities of responsibility for prosecuting acts that may be violations of this section and that are violations of State and local law.
(Added Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 104(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; amended Pub. L. 99–386, title I, § 106, Aug. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 822; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 601(f)(15), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3500.)
[1]  So in original. Probably should be “paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this subsection—”.
[2]  So in original. Probably should be “paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subsection (a)”.
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.
General questions. Calm down. I know you think ALL BLACKS are always innocent. Attempting to change the direction of the thread to examine the AA communities faults in all this. About time.
Actually I don't think all blacks are always innocent. There are plenty of blacks who are as guilty as sin in their encounters with the police. Just like there are plenty of whites who are as guilty as sin in their encounters with the police as well. But the primary issue being discussed in this thread is the disparate treatment by the police on the basis of race ... for the innocent AND the guilty. Moreover, your attempt to "change the direction of the thread" makes about as much sense as asking what the "female communities faults in all this" is in a thread about sexual assault.
The Charlotte PD keeps stonewalling when it comes to releasing the police video. Most likely because on Oct. 1 a new state law goes into effect prohibiting the release of such videos without a court order. In the meantime Mr. Scott's wife witnessed his killing herself and RECORDED THE EVENTS that led up to it. She keeps pleading with them to "Don't shoot him! Don't shoot him! He has no weapon! He has no weapon!'. The police keep yelling "Drop the gun!" and she clearly replies "He doesn't have a gun. He has a TBI*! He's not going to do anything to you guys. He just took his medicine.".
And here is where it get's really interesting. You can hear that cops banging on the windows of his vehicle! And his wife says ...
"Keith don't let them break the windows. Come on out the car!"
Because you can see the police have his car surrounded with guns pointed at him. Keep that in mind when the Charlotte police chief starts talking that BS about Mr. Scott "not complying". Anybody would be scared shitless in that situation. Especially a black man in America.
He then apparently gets out. And you hear her saying "Don't you do it! Don't you do it!".And the shooting begins. Now combine that with the police video that says Mr. Scott was "walking backwards away from the police" immediately before getting shot.
The TBI she TOLD the police about is a Traumatic Brain Injury. He had been in a really bad motorcycle accident about a year ago. Now the Charlotte PD keeps insisting that they recovered a weapon near Mr. Scott's body. They are even floating a photo around the media to support this "narrative". Our Resident Forum Internet Expert CTP even claimed here that they found Mr. Scott's FINGERPRINTS on it. Naturally with no supporting evidence as is his usual MO. Notice how there is what appears to be a gun near Mr. Scott's right foot.
Then watch the video for YOURSELF and please take note of 1:10 minutes into it. The moment IMMEDIATELY after Mr. Scott was shot and killed. Filmed by his own wife BEFORE the police had a chance to tamper with the scene. And then ask yourself a simple question. Where is the f*cking gun???!!!
So explain why he was refusing to exit the vehicle for as long as he did. This goes to my point about failing to obey an officers instructions.
I already did. If you still don't get it then that's just evidence of a level of deliberate obtuseness that I have neither the time nor inclination to entertain right now.
Because instead of simply NOT pulling minority drivers over for a DWB ... they'd rather LIE on official reports and claim the drivers are white. Looks like there needs to be systematic cross-references on what these "officers" say a driver's "race" is and what the driver's license says.
The longer this thread goes, the more I think we need third party independent oversight of police departments. They simply can't be trusted.
I've long toyed with the idea of setting up a kind of "legal militia" (as in lawyers independent of the government) with oversight of the police, state's attorney's, and public defender's offices. This "legal militia" would be state wide by popular vote and outside the jurisdiction of any governmental organization. It would be a watchdog or inspector general voted on by the people to fulfill this exact purpose - to counter the government's interest in covering up wrongdoing, ignoring injustice and suppressing justice when it helps out their reelection campaigns.
This IG would have the power to indict government officials, including police officers, just as a state's attorney can indict regular citizens. This would solve the conflict of interest between the state's attorneys and the police.
Having a government job, ties to any lobbying group, or holding any public office would disqualify you from holding a position within this group (though you could do these things after your stint as part of the "legal militia").
I've long toyed with the idea of setting up a kind of "legal militia" (as in lawyers independent of the government) with oversight of the police, state's attorney's, and public defender's offices. This "legal militia" would be state wide by popular vote and outside the jurisdiction of any governmental organization. It would be a watchdog or inspector general voted on by the people to fulfill this exact purpose - to counter the government's interest in covering up wrongdoing, ignoring injustice and suppressing justice when it helps out their reelection campaigns.
This IG would have the power to indict government officials, including police officers, just as a state's attorney can indict regular citizens. This would solve the conflict of interest between the state's attorneys and the police.
Having a government job, ties to any lobbying group, or holding any public office would disqualify you from holding a position within this group (though you could do these things after your stint as part of the "legal militia").
Militia feels like very much the wrong word. Surely it would be like the district attorneys office but for prosecuting government employees instead citizens? I can't see that there would need to be anything militant about them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
General questions. Calm down. I know you think ALL BLACKS are always innocent. Attempting to change the direction of the thread to examine the AA communities faults in all this. About time.
Yes, its about time someone here tried to blame the victims.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Yeah, they deserve to see those freedoms held true for everyone.
Yep, I'm sure they'd agree, which is why disrespecting them is low class.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Of course you think that, because with you it's "OMGerd, RACISM!" 24/7. He's not the first person to ever refuse to stand for the presentation of the Flag, quit acting like he is, nor the first to ever receive blowback for such actions. However, he isn't being arrested for it. See, standing for the Flag is a rather recent thing in the NFL (2009), it was revived to pay respect to soldiers who gave their lives to defend this country. It isn't done to show solidarity with police, nor agreement with the status quo (if that was the case I'd sit down too) but as a memorial. So dissing the Flag is one thing, but the people who gave their lives to defend our freedoms deserve better.
Top