This is why they kneel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

Had one police chief say we should be shooting more blacks than they do according to some stats. Oh, that is f'ing comforting to know. How is that productive in fostering good relationships with those they serve and protect? Or does that matter anymore?

It's these cop's attitude that pisses me off more then what bad cops do.

---

I want to address this without coming off offensive. but without context what would shooting more or less black people even mean?

I'm not in a good position to know whether the actions of police are based on race or not, but I bet there are numerous incidents when the police decision is based on actions and not the race of the person.

one of the arguments I've seen made by protesters is for police to simply stop shooting anyone black. that is just not realistic. some of the time there are going to be people in any race whether it's black/white/whatever that will have actions that will justify the police shooting. they shouldn't be handcuffed on doing their job based on the race of a possible suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Yeah, those darn consequences....

---

The consequences of my relative joining a terrorist Grigio is I should be out to death? That’s some North Korea **** right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Cops are quitting because they feel unsupported by the people that are supposed to have their backs…mayors, city councils, county commissioners.

Cops also know that the vast majority of the population supports them while their senior politicians (mayors, city councils, county commissioners) do not.

How do you think they feel when they are getting abused (both physically and mentally) and there is no support behind them???? How do you think they feel when they take on physical pain and injuries , make an arrest and then see the politicians and lawyers just let those people go????

Typical city mayors know little about law enforcement other than the expense in $$$ in maintaining that system. Mayors, city councils etc. are more concerned with generating votes than protecting the public. A few hundred (or thousand ) street creeps that can vote means more to them than one police officer.

These are the reasons they are quitting.

---

I think they’re starting to feel exactly how black people feel in society. They are getting abused by the system and are not getting any support and people view them as dangerous.

They’ve had to deal with 2 weeks of how the black community has felt for 60+ years and it’s too much to handle. Maybe they should keep these feelings in mind when they start to tell black people they’re feelings are unfounded and they should just suck it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

I want to address this without coming off offensive. but without context what would shooting more or less black people even mean?

I'm not in a good position to know whether the actions of police are based on race or not, but I bet there are numerous incidents when the police decision is based on actions and not the race of the person.

one of the arguments I've seen made by protesters is for police to simply stop shooting anyone black. that is just not realistic. some of the time there are going to be people in any race whether it's black/white/whatever that will have actions that will justify the police shooting. they shouldn't be handcuffed on doing their job based on the race of a possible suspect.

---

Then he should have said criminals and not put a racial element on it. No offensive took, I don't know how to post outside sources. My bad that I never took the time or effort to learn. I use to shake my head when my elders couldn't program a VCR and now here I am.

The optic is just bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

Then he should have said criminals and not put a racial element on it. No offensive took, I don't know how to post outside sources. My bad that I never took the time or effort to learn. I use to shake my head when my elders couldn't program a VCR and now here I am.

The optic is just bad.

---

I can agree there. just saying black people should be shot more is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

Hmmmm I mean I guess Graffiti technically is peaceful but thats not what I was talking about specifically.
Again graffiti is peaceful but not what I meant.
Kind of and really depends. If done without permission and actually blocking traffic unexpectedly then it is dangerous imo and an issue bigger than say graffiti. Not what I was talking about though.
I think breaking things could be kinda the start of what is considered violence based on definition. Physical force meant to do damage. Not what I was talking about still you are really bad at this.
This again is probably one of those things you can start to point to as over the top. I think some statues being there in the first place are just as over the top though personally. Still way off on what I was getting at.
Depends how you do it but I think those who truly care should take the extra effort to do things right and get a permit. Still not getting it.
Not complying with curfew can be peaceful again it depends on how it is done. I saw tons of people protest and so on even armed takeover of a capital with no police brutality on another issue for example and people just protesting peacefully. You could still ignore things after curfew and my points still stands without this being an example though.
Depends what you call legitimate instructions? We might differ on opinion on if people need to literally do everything a police man says no matter what. A lot of these examples are insanely generic with no actual specific context and keep missing the point.
Why would you need to identify yourself always to a cop? What have you done that isn't peaceful? Again it could be and still missing the point.
No, throwing bottles/rocks and so on hitting others is not peaceful. This might be the furthest off base you have been.

I dunno why you would need to wait or what relevance ANY of this has to the violence we have seen taken against actual peaceful protestors. It seems like you are just trying to bring up ANY possible but what about to justify bad actions from police. Now I have a question for you...

Is protesting ever alright? What did you think of earlier ones and the armed ones takeover of capital? Do you think police should have used the same force they have against peaceful people then like they are now or would that have gotten a different reaction from many do you think?



I hope more do turn in the bad apples, the issue is that hasn't been happening enough (or action isn't taken correctly when it is and that also needs to change/happen).

I think it hasn't been happening and is very very needed for change. Police must be held accountable and have higher standards moving forward in major ways.

Haha of course you bring up Omar. Your hate of certain people runs so deep. I think people would be fools to let cops keep killing/attacking and so on people in this state personally. That would be really dumb if it just continued and no one spoke up.

---

Like my lunch, your post is full of baloney. Mine is all beef Boar's Head, yours is just convoluted

All graffiti, unless on your own property or done with the property owner's permission, is breaking the law and therefore not peaceful. Destruction of property is not peaceful. One question that never gets answered here: if graffiti is so acceptable, is it OK to do it on your house or property or vehicle, No one ever answers this.

First bolded…could be kinda the start??? No, breaking things that do not belong to you is not peaceful. Period

Second bolded…statues are erected by an authority to do do and can be removed by that same authority. Tearing them down because you don't like them is not peaceful. I would suggest taking the request to whatever legal board decides thongs and give it a shot. That is how things are done in a lawful orderly society.

Third bolded…not complying with curfew is against the law. Again, breaking the law is not peaceful. Think of a party with loud music next door to you that goes on all night when the noise curfew is 11 PM. It breaks a law and is not peaceful.

Fourth bolded…all instructions from a Police officer and "legitimate instructions." A police officer is not going to give you instructions to go commit an illegitimate act. Let's not get silly here.

Fifth bolded…simply because he asked is reason enough. He has a reason for asking unbeknownst to you. He's not asking just to bust chops or, if you're a hottie,, to find out where you live.

What s really amazing here is … who are the ones destroying property here??? Who are the looters??? Who is taking over city blocks??? Would you feel safer with the police gone or the demonstrators gone???

And you keep worrying about the police…over 800 injured so far. You really do not get it

Last Bolded…what are you implying here??? And can you back up that implication??? Do I like Omar??? No, I don't. She's is an incompetent congressional that is there solely to stir the pot. As is Tlaib and AOC. Are you implying that this based on race??? I put Adam Schiff in that group too. Incompetence and rabble rousing is what it is…white or black. To clarify somewhat…Omar sees everything as racial, Tlaib is the most vulgar person I have ever seen in Congress, AOC is just plain stupid, and Schiff is obsessed with his "get Trump" attitude. So, yeah, I do not like these peo[le representing mu country. Throw Pelosi in there too. I think the country would be better off with them out of the government.
\But I assume you disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I think they’re starting to feel exactly how black people feel in society. They are getting abused by the system and are not getting any support and people view them as dangerous.

They’ve had to deal with 2 weeks of how the black community has felt for 60+ years and it’s too much to handle. Maybe they should keep these feelings in mind when they start to tell black people they’re feelings are unfounded and they should just suck it up.

---

Stretching the point a little bit here, aren't we????

And keep in mind that in some ways blacks were better off 60+ years ago…before all the laws were written to "help them."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

I'm not fighting to preserve anything. I originally asked a question because I wanted to know what people here thought, because I'm not in a position to have strong feelings either way.

I would think there must be some black Americans that found this offensive or racist and wanted something done. I'm not objecting to that, I just don't know if it's worth the time because as you said there are more serious things to worry about.

---

Some do, especially the younger bucks, but that is more of a social media thing than something that is brought up in black churches and among the social activists. On social media and tweeter, there are people bit ching about and demanding all sorts of things. And here I thought only TV rots the brain.

I bet you a dime to a dollar these companies are responding more to their PR staff than anything coming out of the black communities. "Look, folks, see how woke we are". I wonder how many minorities and women sit in important positions within their companies. If it is a high number, I will pat them on their back, but if it isn't then it is just window dressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Stretching the point a little bit here, aren't we????

And keep in mind that in some ways blacks were better off 60+ years ago…before all the laws were written to "help them."

---

You know that sixty years ago, Jim Crow was still hanging in there. Barely, but it was present. Try forty years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

where did they intent to assault?

from the time Brooks assaulted the police and stole the taser, where was the improper intent to unjustly assault Brooks?

different states have different ways of charging, like 1st degree murder has to show premeditated. I don't know if that is the case in Atlanta, but in Atlanta in this case don't they ahve to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intended to kill Brooks?

---

The assault with a deadly weapon is shooting a person in the back. The kicking afterwards speaks directly to the intent of the shooting.
Additionally he was charged with the assault of the people in the car he hit.

Felony Murder is the same everywhere. The mens rea required is for the underlying felony (not the murder). This is used for inherently dangerous felonies that could logically result in a death. So they needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer intended to assault the victim. Kicking him while he is dying indicates the malice necessary to show this. It shows his actions were more than reckless, they were intentional and therefore criminal in nature.

A Self defense defense can be negated in 2 ways. The first being a disproportionate response. Being assaulted with a non lethal weapon does not justify the use of deadly force, it is disproportional to the initial attack. In this case, the cop the becomes the aggressor due to this. The second being de-escalation. If there is a period of de-escalation, you are no longer entitled to a self defense claim. By the victim running away (lots of case law backing this up), he effectively de-escalated the situation, meaning the cop was no longer justified in a response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crovash

Not feeling supported or respected?

Sounds like the lot of many working folk in this country.

---

Those ones are ungrateful whiners


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Like my lunch, your post is full of baloney. Mine is all beef Boar's Head, yours is just convoluted

All graffiti, unless on your own property or done with the property owner's permission, is breaking the law and therefore not peaceful. Destruction of property is not peaceful. One question that never gets answered here: if graffiti is so acceptable, is it OK to do it on your house or property or vehicle, No one ever answers this.

First bolded…could be kinda the start??? No, breaking things that do not belong to you is not peaceful. Period

Second bolded…statues are erected by an authority to do do and can be removed by that same authority. Tearing them down because you don't like them is not peaceful. I would suggest taking the request to whatever legal board decides thongs and give it a shot. That is how things are done in a lawful orderly society.

Third bolded…not complying with curfew is against the law. Again, breaking the law is not peaceful. Think of a party with loud music next door to you that goes on all night when the noise curfew is 11 PM. It breaks a law and is not peaceful.

Fourth bolded…all instructions from a Police officer and "legitimate instructions." A police officer is not going to give you instructions to go commit an illegitimate act. Let's not get silly here.

Fifth bolded…simply because he asked is reason enough. He has a reason for asking unbeknownst to you. He's not asking just to bust chops or, if you're a hottie,, to find out where you live.

What s really amazing here is … who are the ones destroying property here??? Who are the looters??? Who is taking over city blocks??? Would you feel safer with the police gone or the demonstrators gone???

And you keep worrying about the police…over 800 injured so far. You really do not get it

Last Bolded…what are you implying here??? And can you back up that implication??? Do I like Omar??? No, I don't. She's is an incompetent congressional that is there solely to stir the pot. As is Tlaib and AOC. Are you implying that this based on race??? I put Adam Schiff in that group too. Incompetence and rabble rousing is what it is…white or black. To clarify somewhat…Omar sees everything as racial, Tlaib is the most vulgar person I have ever seen in Congress, AOC is just plain stupid, and Schiff is obsessed with his "get Trump" attitude. So, yeah, I do not like these peo[le representing mu country. Throw Pelosi in there too. I think the country would be better off with them out of the government.
\But I assume you disagree.

---

I just want to clear something basic up, you asked about peaceful and I used the word violence to point to when that line has been crossed for a reason. You can think breaking the law/going against rules makes something not peaceful but one definition from Webster (and multiple other places) is literally "devoid of violence or force". I then noted in my responses which actions did not include violence or force for that reason in describing which of those were peaceful to me and it literally fits the definition. This is just YOU having an issue with the way that word is defined I guess? I dunno it mostly seems like you are whining to whine, I never condoned things just because I didn't call them peaceful though, I never said X was acceptable or not and so on. Like I said this is all one big deflection, you didn't even take the tiniest second to reflect on your question or my answers despite it being quote literal and based on real life definitions not your absurd whining. You have gone off the deep end to get completely away from the point and just rant in your normal manner. You refused to answer the most basic question because you knew it would expose your hypocrisy as well, this is 100% a post to deflect.

What do you mean? Look at the Omar thread. Ill just use an early post as an example...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sluggo1

Lobbying is a way of life in American politics. That's just the way it is.

I'm just hoping Muslims getting into American politics doesn't become as common as lobbyists.

---

It's almost like you spent a ton of that thread talking about her/Muslims in general in a similar manner...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

You know that sixty years ago, Jim Crow was still hanging in there. Barely, but it was present. Try forty years ago.

---

I'd start with the civil rights legislations of the mid 60s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

I just want to clear something basic up, you asked about peaceful and I used the word violence to point to when that line has been crossed for a reason. You can think breaking the law/going against rules makes something not peaceful but one definition from Webster (and multiple other places) is literally "devoid of violence or force". I then noted in my responses which actions did not include violence or force for that reason in describing which of those were peaceful to me and it literally fits the definition. This is just YOU having an issue with the way that word is defined I guess? I dunno it mostly seems like you are whining to whine, I never condoned things just because I didn't call them peaceful though, I never said X was acceptable or not and so on. Like I said this is all one big deflection, you didn't even take the tiniest second to reflect on your question or my answers despite it being quote literal and based on real life definitions not your absurd whining. You have gone off the deep end to get completely away from the point and just rant in your normal manner. You refused to answer the most basic question because you knew it would expose your hypocrisy as well, this is 100% a post to deflect.

What do you mean? Look at the Omar thread. Ill just use an early post as an example...


It's almost like you spent a ton of that thread talking about her/Muslims in general in a similar manner...

---

You can parse these things a dozen ways I suppose. Based on your definition, I could peacefully steal your car or rob your home.

There's another tenet out there…every action will generate and equal and opposite reaction. So when a law is broken, the police will respond. Period.

RE Omar…I don't believe Muslims have a place in our government. The two cultures just do not blend well. I would feel the same way about fanatical Catholics, Jews etc. I think people like Omar would put Muslim interests ahead of American interests. Just how I see it and I doubt very much if I am alone in that view. Like all these racial caucuses in Congress. If I'm a white person with a black congressional representing me, how should I feel with that congressional traveling all over and working on black issues…and this happens quite a bit. Race religion and whatever else you qualify yourself with needs to be removed from you politics. I don't think Omar does this…not even close.

…………

And for the question that never gets answered (and you avoided)……if Graffiti is so acceptable, is it Ok to graffiti your house, car or other property.

It was OK in Olympia WA. the mayor was fine with graffiti during "peaceful protesting," until they did it to her home. Then it was unfair.

How about you???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

fantastic, you actually answered the question.

but what would be these examples beyond Aunt Jemima. Mrs. Butterworth? Uncle Ben's?

---

Well....duh.