Worst Mass Shooting in U.S. History

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
deepstate2016 said:
Sorry, just like states rights mantra because it is the mantra of the GOP. It amuses me. We all know it is just an excuse for oppressing a minority group. As for the court I think you are right this is an issue that needs to be visited by a full court. But we gotta wait a little longer.
Click to expand...

When in doubt, yell racism.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
deepstate2016 said:
Sorry, just like states rights mantra because it is the mantra of the GOP. It amuses me. We all know it is just an excuse for oppressing a minority group. As for the court I think you are right this is an issue that needs to be visited by a full court. But we gotta wait a little longer.
Click to expand...

deepstate2016 said:
Oh you just said something you did not know.....you attributed a quote to me I did not make?
Click to expand...

You were saying?
 
Random Resident said:
You were saying?
Click to expand...


Your quote of me " when in doubt, yell racism". I do not see that anywhere. Did you graduate from Trump university. You must have I mean your grasp of what a quote is and then the triumphant tone when you show your misquote...well it is just kind of special
 
deepstate2016 said:
Your quote of me " when in doubt, yell racism". I do not see that anywhere. Did you graduate from Trump university. You must have I mean your grasp of what a quote is and then the triumphant tone when you show your misquote...well it is just kind of special
Click to expand...

I'm having a really hard time following what you wrote here. Maybe better punctuation and grammar would help. Doubt it, though.

Funny how you whine about minorities, then claim ignorance when called on it.
 
deepstate2016 said:
Funny how you cannot grasp what a quote is.
Click to expand...

Nonsensical gibberish. Are you mad about me quoting you or are you trying to reference your quotation marks? It's like you expect everyone to read your mind and fail to understand that the Internet doesn't allow for supralinguistics to help you make a point.

This is why people use emojis or memes.
 
I will spell it for you sloooowwwwwlllllly.
1. A quote is the use of THE EXACT SAME WORDS. Such as a quote in a newspaper.
2. You show a post I made to validate a quote
3. They are not the same words, hence not a quote.
4. Your post has a triumphant tone such as "see I was right" when you were clearly wrong.
Resulting in my comparison of you and donald trumps grasp on facts.
Understand now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This goes on long enough. You are an idiot. Period. Simple enough for you even.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
deepstate2016 said:
This goes on long enough. You are an idiot. Period. Simple enough for you even.
Click to expand...

You manufactured that post all on your own. Those were your words. You're doing a great job of evading what was originally stated - you dropping the minority card because you think states' rights are somehow discriminatory. You can throw names at me all you want - if you are so insistent that you didn't originate that thought, show me in the 46 pages of this thread who did.

Until then, you're still a schmuck.
 
Random Resident said:
You manufactured that post all on your own. Those were your words. You're doing a great job of evading what was originally stated - you dropping the minority card because you think states' rights are somehow discriminatory. You can throw names at me all you want - if you are so insistent that you didn't originate that thought, show me in the 46 pages of this thread who did.

Until then, you're still a schmuck.
Click to expand...



And you are still an idiot. Really look at what states rights have been used to excuse. Christ you are denser then lead.
 
Y'all need to get a room, seriously.

One thing I haven't seen talked about a ton is the officer's reaction to the shooting in Minnesota. He seemed legitimately distraught; whether he was upset about what he did or about the consequences he's going to suffer, we'll probably never know for sure.

Let's pretend like the witness' account is more or less correct (unlike some other shootings, i.e. Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, I kinda actually believe this may have been unprovoked). And let's assume that the police officer didn't accidentally discharge his firearm (he fired 4 times, and he's not some 67 yo senior citizen playing cop thinking his gun is a taser). Which means the police officer freaked out over someone following his own order. Which means either A) that police officer did not have the temperament to do his job correctly, B) he had really ****ty training and was not prepared to handle a simple traffic stop, or C) he was so racist that he was looking for an excuse to murder someone.

Judging from his reaction, I'm going to guess mostly A), maybe a little B), and just the touch of racism that everyone has. So which is worse? An incompetent person with a gun or a racist with a gun?

The irony here is that what happened in Dallas is exactly what the NRA lobby is trying to defend. Isn't one of the basic tenets of the 2nd Amendment for civilians to be able to violently resist an oppressive government if they need to? Well (regardless of my personal opinion on the subject) there's a segment of the population that feels oppressed and a smaller subset of that population that is violently resisting. Or does only the majority get to decide if oppression is actually oppression? (I'm in the majority, by the way).

We've made this bed; now we get to sleep in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
WholeLottaGame7 said:
Y'all need to get a room, seriously.

One thing I haven't seen talked about a ton is the officer's reaction to the shooting in Minnesota. He seemed legitimately distraught; whether he was upset about what he did or about the consequences he's going to suffer, we'll probably never know for sure.

Let's pretend like the witness' account is more or less correct (unlike some other shootings, i.e. Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, I kinda actually believe this may have been unprovoked). And let's assume that the police officer didn't accidentally discharge his firearm (he fired 4 times, and he's not some 67 yo senior citizen playing cop thinking his gun is a taser). Which means the police officer freaked out over someone following his own order. Which means either A) that police officer did not have the temperament to do his job correctly, B) he had really ****ty training and was not prepared to handle a simple traffic stop, or C) he was so racist that he was looking for an excuse to murder someone.

Judging from his reaction, I'm going to guess mostly A), maybe a little B), and just the touch of racism that everyone has. So which is worse? An incompetent person with a gun or a racist with a gun?

The irony here is that what happened in Dallas is exactly what the NRA lobby is trying to defend. Isn't one of the basic tenets of the 2nd Amendment for civilians to be able to violently resist an oppressive government if they need to? Well (regardless of my personal opinion on the subject) there's a segment of the population that feels oppressed and a smaller subset of that population that is violently resisting. Or does only the majority get to decide if oppression is actually oppression? (I'm in the majority, by the way).

We've made this bed; now we get to sleep in it.
Click to expand...

The NRA is trying to defend the idea of a sniper taking out law enforcement at a peaceful rally?

What is their stance on it?
 
Random Resident said:
The NRA is trying to defend the idea of a sniper taking out law enforcement at a peaceful rally?

What is their stance on it?
Click to expand...

Yep, that's exactly what I said. You're so good at reading comprehension.

One man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter. Just depends on what side you're on and who ends up writing the history books.
 
Random Resident said:
The NRA is trying to defend the idea of a sniper taking out law enforcement at a peaceful rally?

What is their stance on it?
Click to expand...

Or here, we can take race out of it altogether. Did the NRA come out and support the Branch Davidians in Waco or those dudes out in Oregon? No. Those were even more clearly protests about government oppression. So when exactly are people NRA-approved to use firearms to protest against the government? When it's a foreign government? I don't recall that being part of the 2nd Amendment language.

To be clear, I don't support any of the examples I've mentioned in the last 2 posts. But you can't defeat (or befriend) your enemy if you don't understand him. I think some old dead Chinese dude said that.

Personally, I still think this is the greatest country in the world. Yes, there is plenty of racism on the individual and institutional level, but our poor people our fat and no one is disappearing out of the comfort of their home in the middle of the night at the hands of the government. Not to belittle the events of the past few days, but I think a lot of the emotional response is out of lack of perspective of what's happening in the rest of the world.
 
WholeLottaGame7 said:
Yep, that's exactly what I said. You're so good at reading comprehension.

One man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter. Just depends on what side you're on and who ends up writing the history books.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension? Literally just trying to understand your point and asking for clarification. Sorry that offended you. I did not ask about racial anything.
 
WholeLottaGame7 said:
Let's pretend like the witness' account is more or less correct...
Click to expand...

Let us also consider the possibility that being pulled over "for a broken tail light" in mid-day, when later pictures show both tail lights to be in good working order, is extremely odd, even for someone who is being pulled over for "driving while black."

Given the odd nature of the reason for the stop, isn't it entirely possible that the "broken tail light" was a pretense because the cop had reason to believe the driver was, in fact, a wanted and possibly dangerous felon?

The officer clearly stated "I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand off it."

Then the woman says something to the effect of, he was reaching for his ID in his pocket as you instructed him to.

So perhaps we have an officer in a high stress situation who tells a felony suspect to produce ID. Then, as the suspect reaches for his ID, the cop sees a gun, or is told that the suspect has a gun and a CWP, and tells the suspect not to reach for it. The suspect does not comply and puts his hand near his waist band (perhaps reaching for his wallet, perhaps reaching for his gun). The cop then says "Get your hand off it." The suspect does not comply and the cop has to make a snap judgement.

So far, we only have one side of the story, and we have yet to hear from the police. Granted, the video presents a very compelling storyline, but I'll wait to hear a full report before clamoring about police brutality and racial injustice.

-bsd
 
Disclaimer, all of the above is simple supposition. I have no evidence to support the supposition except the contemporaneous statements made by the involved party.

Recorded contemporaneous statements tend to be very accurate so any explanation of the incident should account for them.
 
Pooh & Annie said:
That does leave a lot of guns, but our opinions on what that means obviously differ.

There are clearly a lot of doctors like yourself who feel the way you do. I would think you guys could have a powerful voice, since doctors are the ones who would have the most exposure to gun violence victims (other than law enforcement). And doctors are trusted with issues of health/safety.

I don't know if there are "doctors for more guns" advocacy groups out there, but if not, you guys should have one. Personally, the idea seem a little antithetical to the profession, but if you can advocate by presenting facts and sound reasoning then you should be doing it.
Click to expand...

The AMA and state medical societies lost 30% of their memberships from my hospital when they started advocating for gun control.


Sent from my iPad using SDN mobile app
 
periopdoc said:
Let us also consider the possibility that being pulled over "for a broken tail light" in mid-day, when later pictures show both tail lights to be in good working order, is extremely odd, even for someone who is being pulled over for "driving while black."

Given the odd nature of the reason for the stop, isn't it entirely possible that the "broken tail light" was a pretense because the cop had reason to believe the driver was, in fact, a wanted and possibly dangerous felon?

The officer clearly stated "I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand off it."

Then the woman says something to the effect of, he was reaching for his ID in his pocket as you instructed him to.

So perhaps we have an officer in a high stress situation who tells a felony suspect to produce ID. Then, as the suspect reaches for his ID, the cop sees a gun, or is told that the suspect has a gun and a CWP, and tells the suspect not to reach for it. The suspect does not comply and puts his hand near his waist band (perhaps reaching for his wallet, perhaps reaching for his gun). The cop then says "Get your hand off it." The suspect does not comply and the cop has to make a snap judgement.

So far, we only have one side of the story, and we have yet to hear from the police. Granted, the video presents a very compelling storyline, but I'll wait to hear a full report before clamoring about police brutality and racial injustice.

-bsd
Click to expand...

No, I think this is very plausible. My point is, I think we all have a threshhold for what is acceptable behavior. For instance, I think Michael Brown probably was very antagonistic, assaulted the police officer in his car, then rushed at him. I think that even though maybe that shooting could have been avoided, it wasn't unjustified. I doubt many of us would have acted towards the officer as he did.

But I look at this case, and even though you are correct, we only have one side of the story, it seems much harder to find a reasonable justification. I feel like the victim in this case probably did not behave all that differently than a lot of us would have, and he still got shot.

I get that police have a hard job, but back to my first post, if you don't have the temperament or the training for the job, maybe you shouldn't be doing it? We have a hard job, too. But when **** is going south in a hurry, we don't lose our **** and put a tube in the goose and leave it there or put a Cordis in the carotid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We also are, generally, recruited through a highly selective and rigorous process and trained for years to be professionals, and we are paid like it.

Compare that to the qualifications, training, and pay of your average cop. I don't think it's any mystery why we see less of these kinds of problems in places where the pay is markedly better and thus the process is more selective.

Not to excuse bad cop behavior, I just don't think the two jobs are in any way comparable.

There is no other job that I can think of that comes with so little pay for such high expectations.

Hope we get to see the dashcam video at some point.
 
Random Resident said:
Reading comprehension? Literally just trying to understand your point and asking for clarification. Sorry that offended you. I did not ask about racial anything.
Click to expand...

You either intentionally or obtusely ignored my question in lieu of nitpicking a different comment that I made. Since I rephrased the comment/question and you still didn't answer it, I'm guessing the former.

But since you're interested in semantics, I will clarify my earlier statement. I should not have said that the situation is "exactly" what the NRA wanted, since clearly the NRA did not specifically want an ex-serviceman to kill 5 uniformed police officers in cold blood. I did try to rephrase and clarify my comment with my other 2 examples since A) I don't actually know the Dallas shooter's motivation, I was just assuming based on the context of national events, and B) I wanted to remove any sort of racial bias with my example.

I did not imply that you asked about racial anything, I just voluntarily removed it with my other examples in order to present less muddy examples.

The point remains, and I would genuinely love to hear people's opinions on this. Why does the NRA not publicly support these groups, when they are embodying one of the foremost Constitutional reasons for gun ownership? Do we really believe that we're protecting people's right to forcibly resist a tyrannical government, when, when people actually do it, we just label them crazy and shoot them, burn them, or imprison them?
 
[QUOTE="WholeLottaGame7, post: 17920026, member: 74032"

But since you're interested in semantics, I will clarify my earlier statement. I should not have said that the situation is "exactly" what the NRA wanted, since clearly the NRA did not specifically want an ex-serviceman to kill 5 uniformed police officers in cold blood. I did try to rephrase and clarify my comment with my other 2 examples since A) I don't actually know the Dallas shooter's motivation, I was just assuming based on the context of national events, and B) I wanted to remove any sort of racial bias with my example.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this is why I asked. Idk why you think I was attacking you or whatever. Wish I could comment more but the OR calls.
 
WholeLottaGame7 said:
Y'all need to get a room, seriously.

One thing I haven't seen talked about a ton is the officer's reaction to the shooting in Minnesota. He seemed legitimately distraught; whether he was upset about what he did or about the consequences he's going to suffer, we'll probably never know for sure.

Let's pretend like the witness' account is more or less correct (unlike some other shootings, i.e. Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin, I kinda actually believe this may have been unprovoked). And let's assume that the police officer didn't accidentally discharge his firearm (he fired 4 times, and he's not some 67 yo senior citizen playing cop thinking his gun is a taser). Which means the police officer freaked out over someone following his own order. Which means either A) that police officer did not have the temperament to do his job correctly, B) he had really ****ty training and was not prepared to handle a simple traffic stop, or C) he was so racist that he was looking for an excuse to murder someone.

Judging from his reaction, I'm going to guess mostly A), maybe a little B), and just the touch of racism that everyone has. So which is worse? An incompetent person with a gun or a racist with a gun?

The irony here is that what happened in Dallas is exactly what the NRA lobby is trying to defend. Isn't one of the basic tenets of the 2nd Amendment for civilians to be able to violently resist an oppressive government if they need to? Well (regardless of my personal opinion on the subject) there's a segment of the population that feels oppressed and a smaller subset of that population that is violently resisting. Or does only the majority get to decide if oppression is actually oppression? (I'm in the majority, by the way).

We've made this bed; now we get to sleep in it.
Click to expand...

I agree. A lot of "A", and healthy amount of "B" and definitely a dash of "C"

I think with everything that's been going on lately we all need to take time and step into the other person's shoe. I myself, especially have family members that work in law enforcement and the military, know that it is an extremely stressful job. Much of what is mentioned above is correct. The selection process stinks. If you pass a test and don't have a record you can pretty much become a police officer. Better pay for police tend to be in more affluent communities and people aren't being shot/shot-at in those places. The training is suspect (pun intended). In some communities the people are seen as "the enemy" the must be kept in line. In other communities, the people are the ones they protect. You can hear this when CNN and MSNBC and Fox interviews former police


Like I said, we should all step back and take a minute and try to understand what the other group is growing through and feeling. So I'll pull a Matthew McConaughey (sp??) and say, close your eyes and imagine the way you would feel if there were a string of black police officers shooting/killing unarmed white men and not get prosecuted for it. Just imagine how you would feel if you saw that time after time, a black cop doesn't even get a trial for shooting, choking, tazing white men who aren't armed. (or even think about how you felt when OJ first was found not guilty for killing Nicole) If you can take the time and step back and try to imagine how you would feel then you'll understand what people mean when people #BlackLivesMatter

-A black Doctor I know had the police called on him when he was looking at a home that was for sale
-I have to take precautions now when I'm driving my nice car because who knows what's going to happen when a police asks to see my ID when he pulls me over
-Hospital security questioned me when I was in the parking lot in my car talking to my mother ( my call room overlooks the parking lot. I see people sitting in their cars all the time doing all sorts of stuff)

I'm not saying you have to be Jerry MaGuire and walk around screaming "I love black people". I'm just asking to understand what we go through then maybe we can get this discussion to end all this nonsense started.

(I won't reply to any comment that says #BlackLivesMatter is a terrorist group because that's an assinine statement and doesn't progress the discussion)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
WholeLottaGame7 said:
No, I think this is very plausible. My point is, I think we all have a threshhold for what is acceptable behavior. For instance, I think Michael Brown probably was very antagonistic, assaulted the police officer in his car, then rushed at him. I think that even though maybe that shooting could have been avoided, it wasn't unjustified. I doubt many of us would have acted towards the officer as he did.

But I look at this case, and even though you are correct, we only have one side of the story, it seems much harder to find a reasonable justification. I feel like the victim in this case probably did not behave all that differently than a lot of us would have, and he still got shot.

I get that police have a hard job, but back to my first post, if you don't have the temperament or the training for the job, maybe you shouldn't be doing it? We have a hard job, too. But when **** is going south in a hurry, we don't lose our **** and put a tube in the goose and leave it there or put a Cordis in the carotid.
Click to expand...

Do we even know the cop really asked the guy to produce his ID or that the guy stated he had a firearm? From what I understand the stream started after he was shot and all we have is his fiancee's statement. I will reserve judgement until all the evidence comes out. For all we know the cop asked him to step out of the car and he went for his gun. Seems that mass protests and violence all over the country before we know what really happened seems premature.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
SaltyDog said:
Wait, so the officer's name is Yanez, which last time I checked is a Hispanic name. So a brown man shoots a black man, and the white man gets blamed?? :shrug:
Click to expand...
oh...well then.....let's put down our picket signs and go home because it's cool since it was a Hispanic police that shot the black man. My man, it's "Police Violence" that people are protesting. If you've paid attention, the majority of the police that we're involved with the Freddie Gray death we're black. As I said, try to listen and understand the movement.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
SaltyDog said:
Wait, so the officer's name is Yanez, which last time I checked is a Hispanic name. So a brown man shoots a black man, and the white man gets blamed?? :shrug:
Click to expand...

In general, a name may indicate an individual's ethnicity but not necessarily their race.
 
periopdoc said:
Let us also consider the possibility that being pulled over "for a broken tail light" in mid-day, when later pictures show both tail lights to be in good working order, is extremely odd, even for someone who is being pulled over for "driving while black."

Given the odd nature of the reason for the stop, isn't it entirely possible that the "broken tail light" was a pretense because the cop had reason to believe the driver was, in fact, a wanted and possibly dangerous felon

The officer clearly stated "I told him not to reach for it. I told him to get his hand off it."

Then the woman says something to the effect of, he was reaching for his ID in his pocket as you instructed him to.

So perhaps we have an officer in a high stress situation who tells a felony suspect to produce ID. Then, as the suspect reaches for his ID, the cop sees a gun, or is told that the suspect has a gun and a CWP, and tells the suspect not to reach for it. The suspect does not comply and puts his hand near his waist band (perhaps reaching for his wallet, perhaps reaching for his gun). The cop then says "Get your hand off it." The suspect does not comply and the cop has to make a snap judgement.

So far, we only have one side of the story, and we have yet to hear from the police. Granted, the video presents a very compelling storyline, but I'll wait to hear a full report before clamoring about police brutality and racial injustice.

-bsd
Click to expand...







Really? Look the random stop is something commonly done to fish for something, anything. This seems far more likely then your hypothesis. Given the nature of the victim. Hard working law abiding citizen with no real criminal history with a child in the car his reaching for a weapon seems even more unlikely.
The officer in question was either a quick draw combat shooting champion or already had his weapon drawn. Guess which one is more likely given the incident?

I appreciate the wish not to rush to judgement but sometimes it stretches credulity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Twiggidy said:
oh...well then.....let's put down our picket signs and go home because it's cool since it was a Hispanic police that shot the black man. My man, it's "Police Violence" that people are protesting. If you've paid attention, the majority of the police that we're involved with the Freddie Gray death we're black. As I said, try to listen and understand the movement.....
Click to expand...

Easy there Twig. My comment was tongue in cheek. I agree that "police violence" is what should be being protested, and I'm sure that to you that's what it's all about. Snoop Dog's rally and comments in LA this weekend are a great example of what this movement should be. Unfortunately, many people have made this about race. I would argue that by naming the movement "Black Lives Matter" they are making it about race even if that's not what the focus should be. The Dallas sniper explicitly told police he was upset about the recent shootings and wanted to kill white officers. Can't we all just get along?

image.jpeg
 
I used to be an ethnic minority in my native country. I was kind of blackish there (not as skin color) for many people, whenever I told them my name. Otherwise, nobody knew what I was (I spoke the official language perfectly), so people were talking freely around me.

I learned one big thing: the more a minority complains and protests, the more it irritates even its majority fans. There is a very fine line between protesting just enough (that good people on all sides become aware of discrimination and start working on changes), and doing what BLM does. Or Jesse Williams (who gave an extremely articulate and arrogant/racist BET speech, that may have done more harm than good). The worst thing one can ask for is exactly what BLM wants: positive discrimination. There are very few things that irritate the majority more. It's about as annoying as being discriminated against, as a minority, it's just the other way round. (And it's been going on for decades in this country as affirmative action.)

Stop advocating for positive discrimination. Advocate for equality, regardless of minority status.

Just my 2 cents. Please don't shoot!

P.S. I am still a minority (I am an immigrant), and I still feel like it occasionally. Even here, people are not perfectly tolerant, despite their best intentions, but the US is almost as good as it gets, for anybody who's different from the local majority. There's no other country where the Yale student who insulted her professor would have not been severely punished.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm against protesting. . .


I just don't know how to show it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
SaltyDog said:
I'm against protesting. . .


I just don't know how to show it.
Click to expand...

The problem with BLM is that it has very little chance of addressing the root cause of the problem or making much change. Unfortunately, humans (and thus police) are hard-wired to "profile" to some extent and no amount of training will change that. If young black men are committing a disproportionate number of crimes (for whatever reason- poverty, broken families, gangs, drugs etc) the police will to some extent have a bias when seeing a young black man. That doesn't mean it's right or justified when they mistreat a law-abiding black citizen. That doesn't mean an officer violating rights shouldn't be punished. But we have to recognize it's going to be extremely hard to change these behaviors by "training" alone. I'm pretty sure after three years intense public attention that the recent officers in question were not consciously thinking, "I'm going to stop/beat/shoot this guy on camera because he's black."

Why don't we use at least some of this energy to try to address the reasons so many young black men are committing crimes (which, as guliani recently stated kills about 10,000 times more black men than the police, but no one seems to care).


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
doctalaughs said:
The problem with BLM is that it has very little chance of addressing the root cause of the problem or making much change. Unfortunately, humans (and thus police) are hard-wired to "profile" to some extent and no amount of training will change that. If young black men are committing a disproportionate number of crimes (for whatever reason- poverty, broken families, gangs, drugs etc) the police will to some extent have a bias when seeing a young black man. That doesn't mean it's right or justified when they mistreat a law-abiding black citizen. That doesn't mean an officer violating rights shouldn't be punished. But we have to recognize it's going to be extremely hard to change these behaviors by "training" alone. I'm pretty sure after three years intense public attention that the recent officers in question were not consciously thinking, "I'm going to stop/beat/shoot this guy on camera because he's black."

Why don't we use at least some of this energy to try to address the reasons so many young black men are committing crimes (which, as guliani recently stated kills about 10,000 times more black men than the police, but no one seems to care).


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Click to expand...
People can agree with you without disregarding the BLM movement. In my city and in most others, it's been peaceful, multicultural, and doesn't seem to seek anything but equal treatment. And whether they have their priorities right or not, they should get the respect of an opinion without being told they're "terrorists", or "divisive". They have a concern and politicians like Guiliani lose them as a potential partner in moving forward when he dismisses what they have to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
"Why are young black men committing crimes?" I might dare to say "The System" is involved, not to blame, but involved. But that's a whole other rabbit hole discussion.

Now I will agree with you, Black Lives Matter is if anything, a very disorganized movement. If anything it reminds me very much of the Occupy Movement. Both lack what the Tea Party actually had and that is money. Tea Party protests added members to Congress and actually affected change. You can't argue that.

What you see on TV ( and I hate to go all Trump on you here) is what the media wants to show. Of course they're going to show the craziest people because that's what the news wants people to watch. That's what generates ratings. For every crazy BLM poster or Twitter post you find me I can find an equally ridiculous Tea Party poster/Twitter post. And the same is true, we label Tea Party protests as a bunch of wackos as well, but I'll even admit that the broad message (which I'll admit passes me at this moment) probably made sense. The movement just gets overshadowed by the crazy.

I am not for the first minute denying that black men in particular commit crimes (even particularly stupid ones), but the true message of BLM is, "Why are we getting killed?" Dylan Roof shoots a group of people in church and gets to sit in jail. Eric Garner gets choked to death for selling loose cigarettes. James Eagan Holmes shoots up a movie theater and gets to sit at a trial, but Alton Sterling gets tackled and later shot for selling CDs (oh, turns out the homeless guy the called the police about someone brandishing a gun, was apparently calling about someone else). Michael Sanford can try to grab a cops gun at a gun rally and get arrested but Philando Castile gets shot going for his wallet.

Black Lives Matter is simply this: What are black people ending up dead?

That's what black people want to know, but we never get to hear an answer because the police rarely go to trial and you can't get a story from the victim because, well, he/she is dead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And some will surely say: "Well, if they didn't do anything, why are they resisting in the first place?"

It's natural instinct that if you are doing something and minding your business and suddenly someone begins to physically harass you (stranger/police/pope/whatever) the natural response is to defend yourself.

It's goes from being peppered with questions about what you're doing and why you're doing it to being grabbed, tackled (Sterling), chased (Trayvon Martin), and choked (Garner) and the first reaction, as us being society the sells itself on freedom and liberty is to be, "Get the Eff off me!" The suddenly someone is fearing for their life and shooting someone.

If you're questioning me and you don't like the answers so you suddenly tackle me, I'm gonna have a problem with that too....but I'm also black, so it's 5x more likely (according to the Washington Post) that I'll end up dead.
 
Some people think the "war on drugs" is a large culprit of the disproportionate number of black deaths/incarceration S. I don't disagree with that.
 
So new developments show that Philando wasnt even pulled over for a broken taillight at all (scene shows both tailights were working) but Police audio shows he was pulled over because of his "Wide set nose" resembling a previous robbery suspect

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-dispatch-audio-philando-castile/

It would almost sound comical if it wasnt so riduclous

Lets look at the facts (and disregard the victims girlfriend testimony )

1. He was pulled over for robbery supect because of his wide set nose
2. He was a law abbiding citizen with a concealed handgun licensce with his wife and child in the car
3. He was told he was being pulled over for a tailight being broken (that was false)
4. he had been pulled over 52 times in the last several years for various non serious traffic sitations (half of which were dismissed)
5 The only person that was calm during the altercation was the female ...let that sink it... the female who had just seen her boyfriend shot several times right next to here is calmer than the OFFICER who is supposedly trained to deal with these situation

That enough makes the shooting highly supectif not almost confirming the officer completely went off the handle

Now lets put inthe fact that DURING THE INCEDENT , with a ssmoking gun still pointing at her boyfriend ,she was able to calmy record the incident, tell what whas happing, this makes in my mind her testimony highly likely to be true
She is not some screaming hysterical crazy person..cussing , yelling etc
literaly she is recording seconds after the incident happened, and someon able to still call the officer "sir" = completely amazing

Why is the NRA not supporting the fact that a concealed carrier was shot dead ? Isnt this the "good guy with the gun" ? this should cause outrage of every concealed carrrier and gun owner as THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU *but much more likely if you are black
 
ballinsncbirth said:
Why is the NRA not supporting the fact that a concealed carrier was shot dead ? Isnt this the "good guy with the gun" ? this should cause outrage of every concealed carrrier and gun owner as THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU *but much more likely if you are black
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

 
Random Resident said:
Some people think the "war on drugs" is a large culprit of the disproportionate number of black deaths/incarceration S. I don't disagree with that.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the resulting broken homes, kids ending up in gangs as substitute families, etc... Not that having a drug dealing or addict parent is good, but a lot of those incarcerations were BS.

I'm all about personal responsibility, and no matter how sh1tty your situation, you can only count on YOU to change it. You may have to try WAY harder if your in a disadvantage because of your socioeconomics or whatever, but you can't rely on anyone else.
None of that means you shouldn't try to draw attention to what you think are injustices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
ballinsncbirth said:
So new developments show that Philando wasnt even pulled over for a broken taillight at all (scene shows both tailights were working) but Police audio shows he was pulled over because of his "Wide set nose" resembling a previous robbery suspect

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-dispatch-audio-philando-castile/

It would almost sound comical if it wasnt so riduclous

Lets look at the facts (and disregard the victims girlfriend testimony )

1. He was pulled over for robbery supect because of his wide set nose
2. He was a law abbiding citizen with a concealed handgun licensce with his wife and child in the car
3. He was told he was being pulled over for a tailight being broken (that was false)
4. he had been pulled over 52 times in the last several years for various non serious traffic sitations (half of which were dismissed)
5 The only person that was calm during the altercation was the female ...let that sink it... the female who had just seen her boyfriend shot several times right next to here is calmer than the OFFICER who is supposedly trained to deal with these situation

That enough makes the shooting highly supectif not almost confirming the officer completely went off the handle

Now lets put inthe fact that DURING THE INCEDENT , with a ssmoking gun still pointing at her boyfriend ,she was able to calmy record the incident, tell what whas happing, this makes in my mind her testimony highly likely to be true
She is not some screaming hysterical crazy person..cussing , yelling etc
literaly she is recording seconds after the incident happened, and someon able to still call the officer "sir" = completely amazing

Why is the NRA not supporting the fact that a concealed carrier was shot dead ? Isnt this the "good guy with the gun" ? this should cause outrage of every concealed carrrier and gun owner as THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU *but much more likely if you are black
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what bearing any of the "facts" you presented (mostly about the lady having a calm narrating voice) have to do with what actually happened before the video started. In the end the cop may be found totally culpable or not- I'm not sure because I am not willing to use a 20 second video to judge in place of a comprehensive investigation by experts and possibly a grand jury of citizens if they take it to that level.

But I disagree with some of the posters above. BLM protesters ARE mostly peaceful and certainly have a right to protest; however the whole movement IS divisive and without purpose. Without question the changes we've seen in police practices (ie chicago) stemming from the protests have killed 10 times the number black men then the police themselves the last few years. And for what? It seems more like a social media mob decrying every shooting of a black man before the evidence or investigation. Then of course there are always a few crazies incited to violence by the anger.

Does BLM want us to believe there is a small minority of "bad apple" police officers that need to be weeded out or that the whole police force in the US is corrupt, racist violent and out to kill black people? I'm not sure what their message is at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
deepstate2016 said:
Really? Look the random stop is something commonly done to fish for something, anything. This seems far more likely then your hypothesis.

I appreciate the wish not to rush to judgement but sometimes it stretches credulity.
Click to expand...

Well it would appear that at least the first part of my hypothesis was correct.


ballinsncbirth said:
So new developments show that Philando wasnt even pulled over for a broken taillight at all (scene shows both tailights were working) but Police audio shows he was pulled over because of his "Wide set nose" resembling a previous robbery suspect

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/breaking-dispatch-audio-philando-castile/
Click to expand...

I'll be interested to find out more details about this robbery and if it was a felonious armed robbery as I posited.

As a reminder, I do not have evidence that my supposition is correct, simply a counterpossibility to the widely broadcast narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

P
Doctor’s Day, do you know the history?
Replies
2
Views
647
woopedazz
woopedazz
O
Mass General Brigham
Replies
12
Views
3K
lotsapain
L
nimbus
Worst job in America
2 3
Replies
133
Views
8K
vector2
V
H
Worst Jobs-Biggest Rip Offs
2 3
Replies
117
Views
10K
Ashers
Ashers
D
Another shooting, more riots.
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
350
Views
12K
emergentmd
E
Top