This is why they kneel

Kim Potter's sentence was a legal injustice. She was negligent, not reckless. Nobody on either side of the case said she did it on purpose, the judge acknowledged that. She didn't knowingly put the victim in mortal danger. Both sides agree that a tasing was warranted. Both sides agree that she thought she had her taser in her hand. She was negligent but was convicted as if she was reckless. The same should be true if the cop is black and the victim is white. The law is clear and this wasn't following it ... it was politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

Kim Potter's sentence was a legal injustice. She was negligent, not reckless. Nobody on either side of the case said she did it on purpose, the judge acknowledged that. She didn't knowingly put the victim in mortal danger. Both sides agree that a tasing was warranted. Both sides agree that she thought she had her taser in her hand. She was negligent but was convicted as if she was reckless. The same should be true if the cop is black and the victim is white. The law is clear and this wasn't following it ... it was politics.

---

I guess I don’t know the legal aspect you are referring to but she was charged with first and second degree manslaughter. Up to 15 years, prosecution recommended 7 years and the judge decided on 2 years (16 months in prison).

I would say she got off pretty light for killing someone due to her mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metswon69

That doesn't change the fact that those people joined, making a conscious decision that holding down a race was part of the cause. I get there were other motivations but for many people who joined the Confederate army that was among the top things on the list. That and the South wanting their own sovereignty.

---

I hate to break this to you but for anyone on this forum. If you were born in the south in 1860, you would have joined the confederacy too. Not one person here would have the balls to fight for the north if you were born in the south. Regardless of the reasons involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngopher35

I guess I don’t know the legal aspect you are referring to but she was charged with first and second degree manslaughter. Up to 15 years, prosecution recommended 7 years and the judge decided on 2 years (16 months in prison).

I would say she got off pretty light for killing someone due to her mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Bingo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I hate to break this to you but for anyone on this forum. If you were born in the south in 1860, you would have joined the confederacy too. Not one person here would have the balls to fight for the north if you were born in the south. Regardless of the reasons involved.

---

Wussy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

No the difference between the confederacy and the kkk is the only reason to join the kkk was to hold down the black race. Also, while most people may have been racist by today's standards, not everyone joined the kkk. In the confederacy, people were basically forced to join by where they lived. Some people joined willingly but for a variety of personal reasons. While the "confederacy" may have been about holding down a race, people's motivations for joining the Confederate army weren't necessarily about those issues.

---

The other thing that played into the times of American slavery was the sections of the country that were hotbeds for it was the fact that the economy there in the south was agricultural while the north was both agricultural and industrial. The northern states therefore were making much more revenue and with money comes power and control.

The SOUTH needed a lot of labor to grow and harvest their products because the modern machines to plant grow and harvest their stuff weren't invented yet.

The bottom line is that slavery was really an economic issue that was based a lot on where you lived and what the land and technology of the time could make money for someone.

This also doesn't excuse the awfulness of slavery. I do think, though, that the culture of the world back then was such that slavery was accepted as a given. I also believe that many of the people living in the agricultural regions recognized the evil of slavery yet were powerless to do much about it other than to treat the slaves as human beings. I've read that many back then paid their workers and freed them when it became possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

No the difference between the confederacy and the kkk is the only reason to join the kkk was to hold down the black race. Also, while most people may have been racist by today's standards, not everyone joined the kkk. In the confederacy, people were basically forced to join by where they lived. Some people joined willingly but for a variety of personal reasons. While the "confederacy" may have been about holding down a race, people's motivations for joining the Confederate army weren't necessarily about those issues.

---

That applies to the Confederate Soldiers, none of that applies to the Confederate slave-owning Generals. Almost none of the statues in question are these poor privates fighting for the south because they had no choice. Stop using them as a shield to protect the wealthy, slave owning generals’ legacies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PackerBum9786

there were a solid majority of people who joined the confederacy under pretenses that it was their duty for their state to do so. back then state pride was a much more prominent than nation pride. not saying it they were right to do so just saying thats why a majority of them joined. the 1% duped the lower classes into fighting their war to protect the 1% way of life. kind of sounds familiar huh?

---

And the vast majority of the Confederate statues are of the 1%, so isn’t that even more of a reason to get rid of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

I hate to break this to you but for anyone on this forum. If you were born in the south in 1860, you would have joined the confederacy too. Not one person here would have the balls to fight for the north if you were born in the south. Regardless of the reasons involved.

---

Not necessarily. There were plenty of examples of Southern unionists and Lincoln Loyalists that fought for the North because they made a conscious decision not to support slavery or the South's want to leave the United States. They understood something that confederates didn't. That it wasn't okay to own other human beings, irrespective of the justification for doing so.

You have choices. You make those decisions to stand with racists then you're not much better than the racist themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

That applies to the Confederate Soldiers, none of that applies to the Confederate slave-owning Generals. Almost none of the statues in question are these poor privates fighting for the south because they had no choice. Stop using them as a shield to protect the wealthy, slave owning generals’ legacies

---

The motivations for joining the confederate army for generals were personal and varied as well. While yes, slavery was the major reason for the war, men joined to protect their "homeland", state pride, fellowship, etc. This includes generals as well as poor privates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metswon69

Not necessarily. There were plenty of examples of Southern unionists and Lincoln Loyalists that fought for the North because they made a conscious decision not to support slavery or the South's want to leave the United States. They understood something that confederates didn't. That it wasn't okay to own other human beings, irrespective of the justification for doing so.

You have choices. You make those decisions to stand with racists then you're not much better than the racist themselves.

---

You are talking about a very small minority. Probably in the area of 1% of the southern population. Also, their motivations were most based on finances as they were paid heavily for switching sides. Acting as if these people had type of moral epiphany is just wrong. Most people didn't have such moral fortitude back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

The motivations for joining the confederate army for generals were personal and varied as well. While yes, slavery was the major reason for the war, men joined to protect their "homeland", state pride, fellowship, etc. This includes generals as well as poor privates.

---

So what? To be clear: you’re saying we should not care that people owned slaves and intentionally fought for a side whose primary aim was the continuation of owning slaves because they had good intentions for doing so?

Your defending of slave owners becomes even more galling when you look at how you view current black rights movements. You say you disagree with their methods and that’s why you don’t support them.

So the method of rioting is enough to get you not to support someone but the method of owning slaves and fighting for slavery isn’t? Make it make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

Wussy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

From reading history books about the Civil War, there were brothers fighting brothers quite a bit in that war. I imagine the majority were in border states as well as the "territories" at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

And the vast majority of the Confederate statues are of the 1%, so isn’t that even more of a reason to get rid of them?

---

do they need to be removed? sure. do they need to be destroyed? ehh maybe. I think you could use them as learning material in museums or what not. Kind of like how the German interment camps have become museums and a place to learn of the horrors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PackerBum9786

do they need to be removed? sure. do they need to be destroyed? ehh maybe. I think you could use them as learning material in museums or what not. Kind of like how the German interment camps have become museums and a place to learn of the horrors.

---

I’m fine with putting them in museums to learn about slavery and our history. But as monuments celebrating them and their accomplishments? Definitely not.