RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH

RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 11:30:22 AM)
quote: At least thats the commonly understood propaganda, same as justice, same as land of the free, same as demobcracy THE SUPREME COURT: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSEJUNE 28, 2005 Continue reading the main story WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation. No claim was made that the police have a CONSTITUTIONAL duty to protect anyone. There is however an implicit civic duty.

Real0ne -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 11:34:23 AM)
yeh and in court we can wipe our asses with it. If you have a cite? if its not positive law it dont exist as far as the courts are concerned common law in the us is now considered 'statutes' because that is the law commonly observed. everything has been destroyed by the zionist take over (coup)

InfoMan -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 11:47:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird The fact of the matter is that the guy, however screwed up he might have been at the time, had four guns pointed at him, and, however much screwed up he might or might not have been at the time, made no threatening move towards the police. By her own account, the police officer killed the man not because he presented any real threat to anybody, but because he didn't respond to her own satisfaction to her own 'police order.' She was a nut job who had no business even being in that position in the first place, as the other three policemen's otherwise assessment of of the situation attested to well enough. He was trying to get into an idling vehicle. he continued to try and retrieve things from his pockets. he continued to ignore police orders for over 30 seconds. yeah those are all threatening moves towards police... attempting to enter the vehicle alone (intent was defined by the fact that he walked to the driver side door and faced it) while at gun point against police order is evidence enough that he was engaging in behavior that is potentially threatening the individuals on scene or general public at large. If he managed to access that car while in a hallucinatory state (as the first officer made the assessment that he was high on some type of controlled substance indicative of PCP) His actions could of lead to the death of the officer on the scene or any other innocent life anywhere in the immediate area as that car could of been converted into a battering ram. You have yet to prove that these actions are NOT threatening.

Edwird -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 11:48:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird So then; only 33% of a death by gun is fault of the shooter, the rest is just target practice. So then?? If you ever grow a second brain cell, it's going to wonder how you've even managed to put your pants on with the one you've got. K. Didn't read the whole post, did you? Why am I not surprised. By your own account, she only one third meant to kill him, so she didn't really mean to kill him. I know that it might be 'stepping out of school' for an economics major (minor in German) with an 'inferior education,' as you put it, to point out to an English major with thuswise superior education (looking aside the fact that you needed four years of university education to attain what any half-smart teenager already knows), that 'one third' is in fact equivalent to 33%, rounded off. Sorry to trouble you there. So why then all the kerfuffle in police training regarding use of "lethal force," "deadly force," etc.? Shouldn't that instead be referred to as "one third lethal force," and "use of one third deadly force", by your estimation? (By way of years of superior education in how to speak the home language.)

InfoMan -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 11:53:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The actual facts of the case is that she was recalled from a dispatch to respond to the abandoned vehicle which 911 calls warned of a potential explosive threat of a suspiciously abandoned vehicle in the middle of the road. That is not the case according to the linked article in the OP. quote: What he recounted and attempted to present was that she basically drove by this situation on her way to another call, that the suspect waved her down because of car troubles, and it was her malicious intent which caused her to gun him down. A complete fabrication by you. No one other than you ever said the subject waved her down. Please stop inventing thngs that are not on the record. She perceived correctly that the man was acting irrationally. Irrational behavior does not license deadly force. That is the case according to the article linked in the OP. But because you refuse to actually research the information which you yourself have posted - you continue to maintain this ignorant belief that it isn't. This is evidence enough of your ignorance on this subject. it is not a fabrication. your quote says specifically: quote: That may be so but you should note that in the report linked in the OP we learn that Officer Shelby was responding to an unrelated call when she stopped at the Crutcher scene. We also learn that Crutcher walked calmly back toward his car. The syntax and structure of this statement is intended to read that She was not supposed to respond to this situation. That she instead stopped at the scene of her own will, despite other officers already handling it. This is further confirmed when given context of your original statement: quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML gunned down and killed by yet another law officer arriving late at the scene and feeling threatened. Never mind that other officers were already in control of the scene. This Janey-come-lately claims Crutcher was reaching into his car to get a weapon. No weapon was found. In fact - if you actually knew the case - Officer Shelby was the first responded on scene. This fact has been proven through several sources. you continue to ignore this and persist on the idea that she came later.

Edwird -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 12:10:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird The fact of the matter is that the guy, however screwed up he might have been at the time, had four guns pointed at him, and, however much screwed up he might or might not have been at the time, made no threatening move towards the police. By her own account, the police officer killed the man not because he presented any real threat to anybody, but because he didn't respond to her own satisfaction to her own 'police order.' She was a nut job who had no business even being in that position in the first place, as the other three policemen's otherwise assessment of of the situation attested to well enough. He was trying to get into an idling vehicle. he continued to try and retrieve things from his pockets. he continued to ignore police orders for over 30 seconds. yeah those are all threatening moves towards police... attempting to enter the vehicle alone (intent was defined by the fact that he walked to the driver side door and faced it) while at gun point against police order is evidence enough that he was engaging in behavior that is potentially threatening the individuals on scene or general public at large. If he managed to access that car while in a hallucinatory state (as the first officer made the assessment that he was high on some type of controlled substance indicative of PCP) His actions could of lead to the death of the officer on the scene or any other innocent life anywhere in the immediate area as that car could of been converted into a battering ram. You have yet to prove that these actions are NOT threatening. You are welcome to explain to the audience where in any legal code in the the US exists that being under the influence of whatever substance carries the sentence of death, or where the police are empowered to determine actual guilt of any crime by themselves in the first place. Determination of guilt is constitutionally empowered to the courts, not the police, however much that pisses you off.

Kirata -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 12:20:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird So then; only 33% of a death by gun is fault of the shooter, the rest is just target practice. So then?? If you ever grow a second brain cell, it's going to wonder how you've even managed to put your pants on with the one you've got. Sometimes, K, your comments and knowledge are admirable. At times like this they are utterly disappointing trash. I expect better of you. "So then;" you are defending his misrepresentation of my post (full stop). No, of course you're not. You didn't say anything of the kind. The point of your comment was something completely different. The only question is whether the "so then" at issue was a deliberate misrepresentation or an accident of diminished mental capacity. In the case you referenced, I chose what seemed the kinder option. [:)] K.

Edwird -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 12:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan You have yet to prove that these actions are NOT threatening. You have yet to prove that you are anything other than a blithering chickenshit, with inclination to find any small moving object to be a 'threat.' Still trying to get back at getting beat up when you were a kid? I got beat up by guys twice my size in school days (and a few only somewhat larger. I just didn't have a clue at the time), got bitten by large dogs, etc. I didn't want to kill them, just wanted to get away. Instead of crying years into adulthood and pounding table with impotent fists like you are doing now, and wanting the police to shoot your former (and likely present, as considered) enemies, I found a way to meet them, I expanded the social repertoire, and they now all want to be my friends, especially the erstwhile mean dogs and bad men. I've gotten so many free beers and pool games (billiards) and face licks after I finally figured it out, not that I can keep account of which came by way of the dogs or the parolees. Your choice; move on or be stuck as a bitter old man, whatever age you are at present.

BamaD -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 1:16:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan If black lives mattered so much - then why is it that a predominant number of black homicides are perpetrated by other blacks? Also - considering that Blacks perpetraters account for over ~50% of the homicides per year... that means blacks also kill more whites on average too. What's more - while there is an estimate of ~1000 lethal shootings by police each year in 2016 specifically - there where roughly 260 blacks lethally shot by police officers... so what is that other 740? Well, ~500 of them are whites... So shouldn't we be more concerned about the Whites as they are killed at roughly twice the rate then blacks by police? I find it some what saddening that MLK's dream continues to go on unrealized, not because of white oppression, but because of BLM. By your numbers to be racially equal there would need to be over 2000 whites killed by cops. there being 8 times as many whites as there are blacks. Law enforcement as a rule is being allowed to shoot first (even kill) and ask questions later. That would depend on where you were so you would have to take in account where these shooting are taking place. If it happened out in Howell Michigan you would be correct, if it happened in Detroit, you wouldn't be. Of course if you have an equal ratio to the number of murders commited by race ther should be babout 150 whites shoot by police so there is a bias against white people.

Edwird -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 1:18:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird So then; only 33% of a death by gun is fault of the shooter, the rest is just target practice. So then?? If you ever grow a second brain cell, it's going to wonder how you've even managed to put your pants on with the one you've got. Sometimes, K, your comments and knowledge are admirable. At times like this they are utterly disappointing trash. I expect better of you. quote: "So then;" you are defending his misrepresentation of my post (full stop) So my '33 percent' is a "misrepresentation"'of your 'one third.' Here we go . . .

BamaD -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 1:21:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Yarashii1 quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka I would agree that cops are risking their lives every day to deal with thugs, criminals and junkies for us. Are there a few bad apples, sure.. such is the nature of humanity. I too would like to support the overall police efforts. I agree they signed up for a dangerous job. A job to bring people to justice. Not a job to dispense justice. This particular guy we are talking about today was guilty of 2 misdemeanors. Very minor and could have been handled with slaps on the wrist or fines. No other cop on-scene was of the mindset that lethal force was needed. Yet here you are not only defending the cops actions but somehow throwing this guy into a bin of "thugs, criminals, and junkies". The problem for some people is that what they saw was a thug, criminal, or junkie. They didn't see a man in distress, a citizen who needed help. You may be a racist but I don't know you well enough to make that judgment so I will not call you one. The fact of the matter is that some people see black men, especially ones of his complexion and stature and conclude that he is somehow a danger to society. Also lest we not forget; thugs, criminals, and junkies are hazards of their jobs but their job is to keep the peace and do so by placing the unruly and dangerous into custody and bringing them for their day in court. There may have been better ways to do it. The BLM argument: If the guy had been a 20-year-old white girl doing exactly the same thing, the public outrage would have been a bit more serious. We see black people getting shot and we say "what did that thug do?" If it had been a white person there would have been little outrage because there would have been little coverage. Google white people getting shot by the police and you get stories about the police killing blacks. From the press coverage white lives don't matter. Actually had it been a 20 yr old white girl, the cop probably wouldn't have shot her at all, so no there wouldn't have been outrage or even press coverage. MY point is that there is virtually no coverage whe a white person is killed by the police. Even though, when compared to blacks, and crimes committed by each group there "should be" (for the states to come out right) far more blacks shot than whites.

tamaka -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 1:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird The fact of the matter is that the guy, however screwed up he might have been at the time, had four guns pointed at him, and, however much screwed up he might or might not have been at the time, made no threatening move towards the police. By her own account, the police officer killed the man not because he presented any real threat to anybody, but because he didn't respond to her own satisfaction to her own 'police order.' She was a nut job who had no business even being in that position in the first place, as the other three policemen's otherwise assessment of of the situation attested to well enough. He was trying to get into an idling vehicle. he continued to try and retrieve things from his pockets. he continued to ignore police orders for over 30 seconds. yeah those are all threatening moves towards police... attempting to enter the vehicle alone (intent was defined by the fact that he walked to the driver side door and faced it) while at gun point against police order is evidence enough that he was engaging in behavior that is potentially threatening the individuals on scene or general public at large. If he managed to access that car while in a hallucinatory state (as the first officer made the assessment that he was high on some type of controlled substance indicative of PCP) His actions could of lead to the death of the officer on the scene or any other innocent life anywhere in the immediate area as that car could of been converted into a battering ram. You have yet to prove that these actions are NOT threatening. You are welcome to explain to the audience where in any legal code in the the US exists that being under the influence of whatever substance carries the sentence of death, or where the police are empowered to determine actual guilt of any crime by themselves in the first place. Determination of guilt is constitutionally empowered to the courts, not the police, however much that pisses you off. You might not feel that way if your kid was killed by a drunk driver.

tamaka -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 1:55:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Actually had it been a 20 yr old white girl, the cop probably wouldn't have shot her at all, so no there wouldn't have been outrage or even press coverage. Wow! That really shines a bright light on the central point of this issue. Well done. Thank you. [:)] If it was a 20 year old girl, she most likely wouldn't behave in the same manner that this guy did.

BamaD -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 2:05:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Actually had it been a 20 yr old white girl, the cop probably wouldn't have shot her at all, so no there wouldn't have been outrage or even press coverage. Wow! That really shines a bright light on the central point of this issue. Well done. Thank you. [:)] If it was a 20 year old girl, she most likely wouldn't behave in the same manner that this guy did. And that goes for a 20 year old black girl so there are the same odds she wouldn't ave been shot. Why do people insist on the demographic, and not the action?

BamaD -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 2:09:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Actually had it been a 20 yr old white girl, the cop probably wouldn't have shot her at all, so no there wouldn't have been outrage or even press coverage. Wow! That really shines a bright light on the central point of this issue. Well done. Thank you. [:)] And the central point is that you assume, without evidence that it is the demographic, not the action. This is an opinion, not a fact.

Edwird -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 2:09:27 PM)
You fail to understand that the police generally are working on 'suspicion' every hour on the job. If I wanted to kill everybody who did my family wrong, there would be at least five dead doctors and two dead lawyers and at least ten policemen by now. (not counting other cases where the police were completely right, sorry for my idiot youngest brother.) Half of that got settled properly in the courts, half of it didn't. Par for the course. None of them were shot, though by implication they were all 'under suspicion.' What civilian was this guy a threat to? Do you think that pushing closer to someone and shouting loudly, with a gun in your hand, constitutes his being a 'threat' to you, your pointing the gun and shouting incoherently?

BamaD -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 2:15:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird The fact of the matter is that the guy, however screwed up he might have been at the time, had four guns pointed at him, and, however much screwed up he might or might not have been at the time, made no threatening move towards the police. By her own account, the police officer killed the man not because he presented any real threat to anybody, but because he didn't respond to her own satisfaction to her own 'police order.' She was a nut job who had no business even being in that position in the first place, as the other three policemen's otherwise assessment of of the situation attested to well enough. He was trying to get into an idling vehicle. he continued to try and retrieve things from his pockets. he continued to ignore police orders for over 30 seconds. yeah those are all threatening moves towards police... attempting to enter the vehicle alone (intent was defined by the fact that he walked to the driver side door and faced it) while at gun point against police order is evidence enough that he was engaging in behavior that is potentially threatening the individuals on scene or general public at large. If he managed to access that car while in a hallucinatory state (as the first officer made the assessment that he was high on some type of controlled substance indicative of PCP) His actions could of lead to the death of the officer on the scene or any other innocent life anywhere in the immediate area as that car could of been converted into a battering ram. You have yet to prove that these actions are NOT threatening. You are welcome to explain to the audience where in any legal code in the the US exists that being under the influence of whatever substance carries the sentence of death, or where the police are empowered to determine actual guilt of any crime by themselves in the first place. Determination of guilt is constitutionally empowered to the courts, not the police, however much that pisses you off. You might not feel that way if your kid was killed by a drunk driver. Also that isn't what you said. However the police are not detemining the quilt or innocence of a person, they are exorsizing their right of self defense.

tamaka -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 2:16:01 PM)
Perhaps there is an instinctual mother reaction that wants to protect herself so she can take care of her family instead of chancing her life on a druggie who is acting erradictly.

Edwird -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 2:23:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Perhaps there is an instinctual mother reaction that wants to protect herself so she can take care of her family instead of chancing her life on a druggie who is acting erradictly. I can understand that inclination. Which makes it all the more troublesome that we have come to the point of equating erratic police behavior with "protecting our children."

BamaD -> RE: BLM NOT SO MUCH (5/21/2017 2:26:30 PM)
know that to the left there has to be at least one dead cop befor they use force. You know that if some one under arrest cannot be stopped from leaving unless they kill a cop. you know that if he tries to leave and they use "non leathal" force (Gardner) and he dies from the stress of the fight they are guilty of murder and some heroic black man will commit self defense by driving from the Carolinas to ambush cops.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875