Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 692 of 709 FirstFirst ... 192592642682690691692693694702 ... LastLast
Results 10,366 to 10,380 of 10632
  1. #10366
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    43,023
    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.

  2. #10367
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    13,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    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 donít 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

  3. #10368
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    14,836
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    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.

  4. #10369
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    65,802
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I guess I donít 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.

  5. #10370
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    68,762
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    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
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  6. #10371
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    5,504
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    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.

  7. #10372
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    48,023
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    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 generalsí legacies
    Last edited by valade16; 02-20-2022 at 02:32 PM.

  8. #10373
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    48,023
    Quote Originally Posted by PackerBum9786 View Post
    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 isnít that even more of a reason to get rid of them?

  9. #10374
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    50,534
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    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.

  10. #10375
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    14,836
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    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 generalsí 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.

  11. #10376
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    14,836
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    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.

  12. #10377
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    48,023
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    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: youíre 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 thatís why you donít 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 isnít? Make it make sense.

  13. #10378
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    5,504
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    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.

  14. #10379
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    10,828
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    And the vast majority of the Confederate statues are of the 1%, so isnít 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.

  15. #10380
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    48,023
    Quote Originally Posted by PackerBum9786 View Post
    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.
    Iím fine with putting them in museums to learn about slavery and our history. But as monuments celebrating them and their accomplishments? Definitely not.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •