FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > state of emergency city of Charlotte USA
state of emergency city of Charlotte USA
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Would you be making this post in outrage if the man had size 11 feet or sticky out ears?" only if the person with size 11 feet and sticky out ears was stopping drivers, then climbing on top of the vehicle and jumping on the roof whilst others kicked the hell out of the car. . Imagine if that was your terrified daughter inside the car. . If you go to BBC news or google - State of emergency for Charlotte you can read for yourselves and see in photographs what these Black Americans are doing. its an utter disgrace | |||
"Would you be making this post in outrage if the man had size 11 feet or sticky out ears? only if the person with size 11 feet and sticky out ears was stopping drivers, then climbing on top of the vehicle and jumping on the roof whilst others kicked the hell out of the car. . Imagine if that was your terrified daughter inside the car. . If you go to BBC news or google - State of emergency for Charlotte you can read for yourselves and see in photographs what these Black Americans are doing. its an utter disgrace" Those same people will be moaning about the state or thier Area in 6 months time and saying the government should do something about it. | |||
| |||
"Would you be making this post in outrage if the man had size 11 feet or sticky out ears? only if the person with size 11 feet and sticky out ears was stopping drivers, then climbing on top of the vehicle and jumping on the roof whilst others kicked the hell out of the car. . Imagine if that was your terrified daughter inside the car. . If you go to BBC news or google - State of emergency for Charlotte you can read for yourselves and see in photographs what these Black Americans are doing. its an utter disgrace" Didn't say I agree with what they are doing... Just don't understand why you need to point out they are black. That behaviour is unacceptable what ever their ethnicity. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It would probably help if the police released the dash cam footage that they have... " this..... the reason why there hasn't been the reaction in tulsa, as there is in charlotte... is that the police in tulsa have been proactive and released the cam footage... both the dashcam footage and the helicopter footage (and the helicopter commentary which is as bad) we know at least some of the police people in the charlotte incident were wearing vest camera's...... they had declined to release any... we know the story they are peddling... if that is the case they there is nothing to fear by releasing the footage to cooberate their line.... the OP is classic at this... he has lots and lots of form at this type of trolling..... and is in essence actually a classic part of the problem by refusing to believe there is an underlying issue...... oh.. race issues.. nah...nothing to see here.... it doesn't exist!!! i don't know whether to believe his head is buried in the said... or buried in a certain orifice... 
sorry... me being facetious!
the only hope i have is that others don't have the same opinion as the op, because if thats the case nothing can be done....
the solutions will come "inspite" of the OP, rather than "because" of the OP
if you ain't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.... I know which side i am on! | |||
"It would probably help if the police released the dash cam footage that they have... this..... the reason why there hasn't been the reaction in tulsa, as there is in charlotte... is that the police in tulsa have been proactive and released the cam footage... both the dashcam footage and the helicopter footage (and the helicopter commentary which is as bad) we know at least some of the police people in the charlotte incident were wearing vest camera's...... they had declined to release any... we know the story they are peddling... if that is the case they there is nothing to fear by releasing the footage to cooberate their line.... the OP is classic at this... he has lots and lots of form at this type of trolling..... and is in essence actually a classic part of the problem by refusing to believe there is an underlying issue...... oh.. race issues.. nah...nothing to see here.... it doesn't exist!!! i don't know whether to believe his head is buried in the said... or buried in a certain orifice...
sorry... me being facetious!
the only hope i have is that others don't have the same opinion as the op, because if thats the case nothing can be done....
the solutions will come "inspite" of the OP, rather than "because" of the OP
if you ain't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.... I know which side i am on!"Im on the side of "all lives matter" not "black lives matter" what side are you on fatio | |||
"It would probably help if the police released the dash cam footage that they have... this..... the reason why there hasn't been the reaction in tulsa, as there is in charlotte... is that the police in tulsa have been proactive and released the cam footage... both the dashcam footage and the helicopter footage (and the helicopter commentary which is as bad) we know at least some of the police people in the charlotte incident were wearing vest camera's...... they had declined to release any... we know the story they are peddling... if that is the case they there is nothing to fear by releasing the footage to cooberate their line.... the OP is classic at this... he has lots and lots of form at this type of trolling..... and is in essence actually a classic part of the problem by refusing to believe there is an underlying issue...... oh.. race issues.. nah...nothing to see here.... it doesn't exist!!! i don't know whether to believe his head is buried in the said... or buried in a certain orifice...
sorry... me being facetious!
the only hope i have is that others don't have the same opinion as the op, because if thats the case nothing can be done....
the solutions will come "inspite" of the OP, rather than "because" of the OP
if you ain't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.... I know which side i am on!"Are you saying its okay for African American mobs to protest by stopping vehicles, kick the shit out of vehicles and jump on the roofs as you can clearly see in the press photographs!! If that is what you consider a solution then you sure as hell are indeed part of the problem young lad. | |||
"It would probably help if the police released the dash cam footage that they have... this..... the reason why there hasn't been the reaction in tulsa, as there is in charlotte... is that the police in tulsa have been proactive and released the cam footage... both the dashcam footage and the helicopter footage (and the helicopter commentary which is as bad) we know at least some of the police people in the charlotte incident were wearing vest camera's...... they had declined to release any... we know the story they are peddling... if that is the case they there is nothing to fear by releasing the footage to cooberate their line.... the OP is classic at this... he has lots and lots of form at this type of trolling..... and is in essence actually a classic part of the problem by refusing to believe there is an underlying issue...... oh.. race issues.. nah...nothing to see here.... it doesn't exist!!! i don't know whether to believe his head is buried in the said... or buried in a certain orifice...
sorry... me being facetious!
the only hope i have is that others don't have the same opinion as the op, because if thats the case nothing can be done....
the solutions will come "inspite" of the OP, rather than "because" of the OP
if you ain't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.... I know which side i am on!
Im on the side of "all lives matter"
not "black lives matter"
what side are you on fatio"come on hand in hand surely your better than trying to make a stupid size ist comment.. again? you may disagree with him but really. any need for it?  | |||
" come on hand in hand surely your better than trying to make a stupid size ist comment.. again? you may disagree with him but really. any need for it? "thats okay... let him have that one.... it goes to show that his head is well and truely up his ass and also blowing smoke.... 
anyway..... onwards and upwards....
to be able to solve a problem first of all you have to be able to acknowledge the problem....
if people like the op don't acknowledge the problem.... its not worth having the conversation with them.... they are the people who like to put thier fingers in their ears and scream "la la la, i'm not listening"
you can at the end of the day only help the people who want to be helped.....
also at the end of the day people like the OP will be a footnote to the history the rest of us make by progressing with the conversation.... if they have to dragged on by the civilised majority on both sides... so be it!!
they aren't a big enough barrier to stop the rest of us from making progress........ | |||
 | |||
| |||
"the thing at the end of the day... people can ridicule "black lives matter" as such.... but there are other huge groups that people could look at and ask "is there a general problem" people could look at reading and articles from the NAACP.... people could look at the readings from the Urban League.... or the National Action Network.... there are huge organisations people could look at who say "theres a problem!"..... as someone said all the charlotte PD have to do is release the vest camera footage....." I dunno, Fabio...according to Kathy Miller, formerly of the Ohio Trump campaign, there wasn't a problem until Obama took office. | |||
"the thing at the end of the day... people can ridicule "black lives matter" as such.... but there are other huge groups that people could look at and ask "is there a general problem" people could look at reading and articles from the NAACP.... people could look at the readings from the Urban League.... or the National Action Network.... there are huge organisations people could look at who say "theres a problem!"..... as someone said all the charlotte PD have to do is release the vest camera footage....." you evaded answering the question, so I will ask you again; Are you saying its okay for African American mobs to protest by stopping vehicles, kick the shit out of vehicles and jump on the roofs as you can clearly see in the press photographs!! If that is what you consider a solution then you sure as hell are indeed part of the problem | |||
| |||
"A solution could be...the cops stop shooting civilians dead...then there'll be nothing to complain about" in the perfect world where the civilian is not brandishing a firearm and it is unknown if it is loaded and ready to fire then yes that would be a good solution. But civilians who refuse to put heir firearms down then they are being instructed too, by the police, deserve the next line of action | |||
"A solution could be...the cops stop shooting civilians dead...then there'll be nothing to complain about in the perfect world where the civilian is not brandishing a firearm and it is unknown if it is loaded and ready to fire then yes that would be a good solution. But civilians who refuse to put heir firearms down then they are being instructed too, by the police, deserve the next line of action" Maybe shoot to disarm or injure, not shoot to kill? | |||
"A solution could be...the cops stop shooting civilians dead...then there'll be nothing to complain about in the perfect world where the civilian is not brandishing a firearm and it is unknown if it is loaded and ready to fire then yes that would be a good solution. But civilians who refuse to put heir firearms down then they are being instructed too, by the police, deserve the next line of action" No, they don't. Having a firearm on your person is not a reason for death and a cop is neither a judge nor a jury. Cops need to realize this. They don't decide guilt, they aren't executioners, and this isn't some war where they are on the front lines. It's happens plenty often that white guys with guns refuse to relinquish them. There was a whole open carry movement where mostly white people walked all over the place with visible weapons. I never heard of one police killing in those instances. We need to get this notion out of our heads that the simple act of not listening to a police officer means you deserve to die. Not listening to a police officer is cause for resissting arrest charges, not the death penalty. | |||
| |||
"This problem is two way you know i have not seen anyone from "black lives matter" admit that until black communities stop bringing their children up to hate all police , carrying firearms is perfectly normal , being in a gang is a way of life and that committing crime is an acceptable way of getting bythen im sorry to say this sort of thing will become more and more the norm not and not the tragedy it is " why would they when most of what you have ascribed is not how all black people live? its a bit like saying fathers for justice must put out a press release admit that all fathers are responsible for abuse carried out by a minority.. if you sincerely believe that is how one group within any society acts then you are so far off the mark its untrue.. unless.. | |||
"A solution could be...the cops stop shooting civilians dead...then there'll be nothing to complain about in the perfect world where the civilian is not brandishing a firearm and it is unknown if it is loaded and ready to fire then yes that would be a good solution. But civilians who refuse to put heir firearms down then they are being instructed too, by the police, deserve the next line of action" So the next line of action is shooting them dead....you really have a strange outlook on these things. But going back to your question...YES i think America has a huge problem with racists....but a much bigger problem with gun laws. It wasnt that long ago...that these people were stringing up blacks...putting burning tyres around them etc etc...and this has happened in my lifetime. I have a friend who lives in Colorado...shes vehemently anti gun...last year she sent me a cutting from a newspaper from the deep south ie some of the most racists states in America...and it went like this. A young girl asked a guy to accompany her to her prom night...the father of the girl shot this young man dead..... you wanna know why. He was black!!!! | |||
"This problem is two way you know i have not seen anyone from "black lives matter" admit that until black communities stop bringing their children up to hate all police , carrying firearms is perfectly normal , being in a gang is a way of life and that committing crime is an acceptable way of getting bythen im sorry to say this sort of thing will become more and more the norm not and not the tragedy it is why would they when most of what you have ascribed is not how all black people live? its a bit like saying fathers for justice must put out a press release admit that all fathers are responsible for abuse carried out by a minority.. if you sincerely believe that is how one group within any society acts then you are so far off the mark its untrue.. unless.. " I was not talking about all blacks but im afraid there are areas in american cities where the doctrine i ascribed is prevolent | |||
"A solution could be...the cops stop shooting civilians dead...then there'll be nothing to complain about in the perfect world where the civilian is not brandishing a firearm and it is unknown if it is loaded and ready to fire then yes that would be a good solution. But civilians who refuse to put heir firearms down then they are being instructed too, by the police, deserve the next line of action Maybe shoot to disarm or injure, not shoot to kill? " There is no such thing as " shoot to injure" or " shoot to disarm". You might see it in the movies ; but that's the movies: it's bollocks . The reality is that even an " expert" and highly trained marksman cannot do anything but shoot directly at the target as a whole ; not even with a well zeroed sniper rifle at any significant distance; certainly not with a handgun or even an assault rifle ; and "average" police officer has enough trouble hitting the main target at anymore than about 10 meters with a handgun. And particularly in a dynamic and moving target scenario. Do if you deliberately discharge a firearm at someone, the odds are ( if you hit them) that they will be severely wounded, possibly fatally. | |||
"It would probably help if the police released the dash cam footage that they have... this..... the reason why there hasn't been the reaction in tulsa, as there is in charlotte... is that the police in tulsa have been proactive and released the cam footage... both the dashcam footage and the helicopter footage (and the helicopter commentary which is as bad) we know at least some of the police people in the charlotte incident were wearing vest camera's...... they had declined to release any... we know the story they are peddling... if that is the case they there is nothing to fear by releasing the footage to cooberate their line.... the OP is classic at this... he has lots and lots of form at this type of trolling..... and is in essence actually a classic part of the problem by refusing to believe there is an underlying issue...... oh.. race issues.. nah...nothing to see here.... it doesn't exist!!! i don't know whether to believe his head is buried in the said... or buried in a certain orifice...
sorry... me being facetious!
the only hope i have is that others don't have the same opinion as the op, because if thats the case nothing can be done....
the solutions will come "inspite" of the OP, rather than "because" of the OP
if you ain't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.... I know which side i am on!"Theres more racism from blacks towards whites than vice versa, and this really just highlights it.Black cop shoots black citizen and black citizens go out and target whites and attack them, whose racist again? | |||
"A solution could be...the cops stop shooting civilians dead...then there'll be nothing to complain about in the perfect world where the civilian is not brandishing a firearm and it is unknown if it is loaded and ready to fire then yes that would be a good solution. But civilians who refuse to put heir firearms down then they are being instructed too, by the police, deserve the next line of action Maybe shoot to disarm or injure, not shoot to kill? There is no such thing as " shoot to injure" or " shoot to disarm". You might see it in the movies ; but that's the movies: it's bollocks . The reality is that even an " expert" and highly trained marksman cannot do anything but shoot directly at the target as a whole ; not even with a well zeroed sniper rifle at any significant distance; certainly not with a handgun or even an assault rifle ; and "average" police officer has enough trouble hitting the main target at anymore than about 10 meters with a handgun. And particularly in a dynamic and moving target scenario. Do if you deliberately discharge a firearm at someone, the odds are ( if you hit them) that they will be severely wounded, possibly fatally." . https://youtu.be/Aeoca-VmpcM  | |||
"The governor of North Carolina has declared a state of emergency in the city of Charlotte, sending in the National Guard, as unrest over a police shooting continues How many times do Police have to insist that the offender drops his firearm before he is shot!!!! . Any Law Abiding Citizen would immediately drop the handgun and do exactly as the police instruct . " . I agree to that point. However for the life of me, I cannot understand how the police can't shoot somebody in the leg or the arm first, there does seem to be a shoot to kill policy inside some American forces(and here the UK) as unloading an entire clip into somebodys head and torso has let's say a greater chance of killing them than shooting them once in the leg(and before anyone says it,.... Yes I know it CAN still kill them) .
| |||
"A solution could be...the cops stop shooting civilians dead...then there'll be nothing to complain about in the perfect world where the civilian is not brandishing a firearm and it is unknown if it is loaded and ready to fire then yes that would be a good solution. But civilians who refuse to put heir firearms down then they are being instructed too, by the police, deserve the next line of action Maybe shoot to disarm or injure, not shoot to kill? There is no such thing as " shoot to injure" or " shoot to disarm". You might see it in the movies ; but that's the movies: it's bollocks . The reality is that even an " expert" and highly trained marksman cannot do anything but shoot directly at the target as a whole ; not even with a well zeroed sniper rifle at any significant distance; certainly not with a handgun or even an assault rifle ; and "average" police officer has enough trouble hitting the main target at anymore than about 10 meters with a handgun. And particularly in a dynamic and moving target scenario. Do if you deliberately discharge a firearm at someone, the odds are ( if you hit them) that they will be severely wounded, possibly fatally.. https://youtu.be/Aeoca-VmpcM "Yes; a non moving target with a sniper rifle at about 30 yards; with a long time to choose the shot. Not the same as a " normal " police officer with a handgun. | |||
"The governor of North Carolina has declared a state of emergency in the city of Charlotte, sending in the National Guard, as unrest over a police shooting continues How many times do Police have to insist that the offender drops his firearm before he is shot!!!! . Any Law Abiding Citizen would immediately drop the handgun and do exactly as the police instruct . . I agree to that point. However for the life of me, I cannot understand how the police can't shoot somebody in the leg or the arm first, there does seem to be a shoot to kill policy inside some American forces(and here the UK) as unloading an entire clip into somebodys head and torso has let's say a greater chance of killing them than shooting them once in the leg(and before anyone says it,.... Yes I know it CAN still kill them) .
"Remember the person is holding a loaded handgun and has to be approached A person shot in the leg, or arm or clipped can still shoot and kill you have to ask yourself, why the person did not follow police orders in the first place, why the person is still holding onto the firearm, and anyone who owns a firearm in that situation knows fully the police will shoot to kill, if they continue to keep hold of the gun. So again, if they do not follow the orders of the police, they deserve the next action coming to them | |||
"A solution could be...the cops stop shooting civilians dead...then there'll be nothing to complain about in the perfect world where the civilian is not brandishing a firearm and it is unknown if it is loaded and ready to fire then yes that would be a good solution. But civilians who refuse to put heir firearms down then they are being instructed too, by the police, deserve the next line of action Maybe shoot to disarm or injure, not shoot to kill? There is no such thing as " shoot to injure" or " shoot to disarm". You might see it in the movies ; but that's the movies: it's bollocks . The reality is that even an " expert" and highly trained marksman cannot do anything but shoot directly at the target as a whole ; not even with a well zeroed sniper rifle at any significant distance; certainly not with a handgun or even an assault rifle ; and "average" police officer has enough trouble hitting the main target at anymore than about 10 meters with a handgun. And particularly in a dynamic and moving target scenario. Do if you deliberately discharge a firearm at someone, the odds are ( if you hit them) that they will be severely wounded, possibly fatally.. https://youtu.be/Aeoca-VmpcM
Yes; a non moving target with a sniper rifle at about 30 yards; with a long time to choose the shot.
Not the same as a " normal " police officer with a handgun.". The guys face is pretty hilarious.... It's like, fuck where's me gun gone | |||
"A solution could be...the cops stop shooting civilians dead...then there'll be nothing to complain about in the perfect world where the civilian is not brandishing a firearm and it is unknown if it is loaded and ready to fire then yes that would be a good solution. But civilians who refuse to put heir firearms down then they are being instructed too, by the police, deserve the next line of action Maybe shoot to disarm or injure, not shoot to kill? There is no such thing as " shoot to injure" or " shoot to disarm". You might see it in the movies ; but that's the movies: it's bollocks . The reality is that even an " expert" and highly trained marksman cannot do anything but shoot directly at the target as a whole ; not even with a well zeroed sniper rifle at any significant distance; certainly not with a handgun or even an assault rifle ; and "average" police officer has enough trouble hitting the main target at anymore than about 10 meters with a handgun. And particularly in a dynamic and moving target scenario. Do if you deliberately discharge a firearm at someone, the odds are ( if you hit them) that they will be severely wounded, possibly fatally.. https://youtu.be/Aeoca-VmpcM
Yes; a non moving target with a sniper rifle at about 30 yards; with a long time to choose the shot.
Not the same as a " normal " police officer with a handgun."People who have never handled a firearm cannot understand that logic, sometimes it is pointless trying to explain . but your explanation is spot on, and their police handguns are certainly not .45 colt Goldcups with various modifications including lightened trigger.  | |||
"The governor of North Carolina has declared a state of emergency in the city of Charlotte, sending in the National Guard, as unrest over a police shooting continues How many times do Police have to insist that the offender drops his firearm before he is shot!!!! . Any Law Abiding Citizen would immediately drop the handgun and do exactly as the police instruct . . I agree to that point. However for the life of me, I cannot understand how the police can't shoot somebody in the leg or the arm first, there does seem to be a shoot to kill policy inside some American forces(and here the UK) as unloading an entire clip into somebodys head and torso has let's say a greater chance of killing them than shooting them once in the leg(and before anyone says it,.... Yes I know it CAN still kill them) .
Remember the person is holding a loaded handgun and has to be approached
A person shot in the leg, or arm or clipped can still shoot and kill
you have to ask yourself, why the person did not follow police orders in the first place, why the person is still holding onto the firearm, and anyone who owns a firearm in that situation knows fully the police will shoot to kill, if they continue to keep hold of the gun.
So again, if they do not follow the orders of the police, they deserve the next action coming to them". Of course they can still fire of a shot after they've been shot in the leg, it's called a risk assessment made at short notice, is the person contained, does he pose a general threat to the public, have I got something to cover behind, could we shoot and detain the individual with less risk to themselves. | |||
"A solution could be...the cops stop shooting civilians dead...then there'll be nothing to complain about in the perfect world where the civilian is not brandishing a firearm and it is unknown if it is loaded and ready to fire then yes that would be a good solution. But civilians who refuse to put heir firearms down then they are being instructed too, by the police, deserve the next line of action Maybe shoot to disarm or injure, not shoot to kill? There is no such thing as " shoot to injure" or " shoot to disarm". You might see it in the movies ; but that's the movies: it's bollocks . The reality is that even an " expert" and highly trained marksman cannot do anything but shoot directly at the target as a whole ; not even with a well zeroed sniper rifle at any significant distance; certainly not with a handgun or even an assault rifle ; and "average" police officer has enough trouble hitting the main target at anymore than about 10 meters with a handgun. And particularly in a dynamic and moving target scenario. Do if you deliberately discharge a firearm at someone, the odds are ( if you hit them) that they will be severely wounded, possibly fatally.. https://youtu.be/Aeoca-VmpcM
Yes; a non moving target with a sniper rifle at about 30 yards; with a long time to choose the shot.
Not the same as a " normal " police officer with a handgun.
People who have never handled a firearm cannot understand that logic, sometimes it is pointless trying to explain
.
but your explanation is spot on, and their police handguns are certainly not .45 colt Goldcups with various modifications including lightened trigger. ". What a load of shit, I've just given you both a video clip of the police shooting a gun out of the guys hand. Something you both insisted couldn't be done even by marksmen with scopes!.... Well there it is?. | |||
"you evaded answering the question, so I will ask you again; Are you saying its okay for African American mobs to protest by stopping vehicles, kick the shit out of vehicles and jump on the roofs as you can clearly see in the press photographs!! If that is what you consider a solution then you sure as hell are indeed part of the problem " Can I turn your question on it's head? Do you consider it is all right for US police to be so unaccountable when it comes to violence against black and brown people that whole sections of US society feel they have no recourse but the use of violent civil unrest to force change? "Maybe shoot to disarm or injure, not shoot to kill? " When firearms are used, especially pistols and other short barrelled weapons which by nature of their short barrels are inaccurate, the shots fired must be aimed at the largest centre of mass exposed in order to reduce the danger of hitting bystanders. Therefore shooting to injure or incapacitate is a non starter. That is why tasers and non lethal beanbag and plastic rounds are in continual development. | |||
"A solution could be...the cops stop shooting civilians dead...then there'll be nothing to complain about in the perfect world where the civilian is not brandishing a firearm and it is unknown if it is loaded and ready to fire then yes that would be a good solution. But civilians who refuse to put heir firearms down then they are being instructed too, by the police, deserve the next line of action Maybe shoot to disarm or injure, not shoot to kill? There is no such thing as " shoot to injure" or " shoot to disarm". You might see it in the movies ; but that's the movies: it's bollocks . The reality is that even an " expert" and highly trained marksman cannot do anything but shoot directly at the target as a whole ; not even with a well zeroed sniper rifle at any significant distance; certainly not with a handgun or even an assault rifle ; and "average" police officer has enough trouble hitting the main target at anymore than about 10 meters with a handgun. And particularly in a dynamic and moving target scenario. Do if you deliberately discharge a firearm at someone, the odds are ( if you hit them) that they will be severely wounded, possibly fatally.. https://youtu.be/Aeoca-VmpcM
Yes; a non moving target with a sniper rifle at about 30 yards; with a long time to choose the shot.
Not the same as a " normal " police officer with a handgun.
People who have never handled a firearm cannot understand that logic, sometimes it is pointless trying to explain
.
but your explanation is spot on, and their police handguns are certainly not .45 colt Goldcups with various modifications including lightened trigger. .
What a load of shit, I've just given you both a video clip of the police shooting a gun out of the guys hand. Something you both insisted couldn't be done even by marksmen with scopes!.... Well there it is?.
"Yes; it's a well known shot; at 30 yards ; in a situation where the marksman had a very long time to work out; with a static target ( who was already spaced out or d*unk. ) even then, an inch off, it would have taken the guys leg off. If you knew anything about shooting; you would know that the idea of " shoot to wound" "shoot to disable" or " disarm" is complete nonsense. If you shoot at anyone; you shoot to get the most effective hit. On the body. Which means, you are doing it it the knowledge that you will probably kill. Every police, or military shooting course explains this clearly. There is no "halfway ". If you shoot someone, you are making an assumption that there is a very high probability that they will die. There are so called " non lethal weapons" eg tasers, stun rounds, baton rounds; they are actually misnamed, as they are not actually " non-lethal" as they can kill. And do, frequently. But are designed to be " probably non lethal". | |||
"It would probably help if the police released the dash cam footage that they have... this..... the reason why there hasn't been the reaction in tulsa, as there is in charlotte... is that the police in tulsa have been proactive and released the cam footage... both the dashcam footage and the helicopter footage (and the helicopter commentary which is as bad) we know at least some of the police people in the charlotte incident were wearing vest camera's...... they had declined to release any... we know the story they are peddling... if that is the case they there is nothing to fear by releasing the footage to cooberate their line.... the OP is classic at this... he has lots and lots of form at this type of trolling..... and is in essence actually a classic part of the problem by refusing to believe there is an underlying issue...... oh.. race issues.. nah...nothing to see here.... it doesn't exist!!! i don't know whether to believe his head is buried in the said... or buried in a certain orifice...
sorry... me being facetious!
the only hope i have is that others don't have the same opinion as the op, because if thats the case nothing can be done....
the solutions will come "inspite" of the OP, rather than "because" of the OP
if you ain't part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.... I know which side i am on!"you had plenty comments on this thread until you were asked one question then you disappeared into hiding, so I will ask you one more time Are you saying its okay for African American mobs (claiming black lives matter) to protest by stopping vehicles, kick the shit out of vehicles and jump on the roofs as you can clearly see in the press photographs!! If that is what you consider a solution; then you sure as hell are indeed part of the problem still waiting on your reply. | |||
but i'll answer your question...
IF the people side is what the police say that it, and it is that clear cut and dried... then as someone else said "all they have to do is release the vest cam footage".....
if is as a clear cut as that, then no one has a reason to go out on the streets..... that would completely difuse the situation
as I said before, and again your selective amnesia kicked in, the difference between the aftermath of what happened in charlotte, and what happened in Tulsa (and i notice that you decided to completely ignore that) is that the tulsa police department have been in front of the incident and released all the footage they have
but as i said, since you dont believe there are any issues, there is really no point having a conversation with you, because you are doing a whole lot of scream and not much listening.... | |||
"actually.... you evaded my question..... and decided to throw in the cheapshot as well... so you do seem to have selective amnesia!
but i'll answer your question...
IF the people side is what the police say that it, and it is that clear cut and dried... then as someone else said "all they have to do is release the vest cam footage".....
if is as a clear cut as that, then no one has a reason to go out on the streets..... that would completely difuse the situation
as I said before, and again your selective amnesia kicked in, the difference between the aftermath of what happened in charlotte, and what happened in Tulsa (and i notice that you decided to completely ignore that) is that the tulsa police department have been in front of the incident and released all the footage they have
but as i said, since you dont believe there are any issues, there is really no point having a conversation with you, because you are doing a whole lot of scream and not much listening...."On that note, it's worth saying that the police officer in Tulsa has been charged with first degree manslaughter. And while the victim in that instance was unarmed, the police chief was pretty straight forward about saying that the officer escalated force when she shouldn't have and that not listening to police orders is not a reason to open fire. I find that pertinent to the conversation. | |||
"actually.... you evaded my question..... and decided to throw in the cheapshot as well... so you do seem to have selective amnesia!
but i'll answer your question...
IF the people side is what the police say that it, and it is that clear cut and dried... then as someone else said "all they have to do is release the vest cam footage".....
if is as a clear cut as that, then no one has a reason to go out on the streets..... that would completely difuse the situation
as I said before, and again your selective amnesia kicked in, the difference between the aftermath of what happened in charlotte, and what happened in Tulsa (and i notice that you decided to completely ignore that) is that the tulsa police department have been in front of the incident and released all the footage they have
but as i said, since you dont believe there are any issues, there is really no point having a conversation with you, because you are doing a whole lot of scream and not much listening...."Im sorry, I have no idea what you mean in this statement "IF the people side is what the police say that it" can you clarify? and then possibly answer the question that I have asked you many times, here it is again; Are you saying its okay for African American mobs (claiming black lives matter) to protest by stopping vehicles, kick the shit out of vehicles and jump on the roofs as you can clearly see in the press photographs!! If that is what you consider a solution; then you sure as hell are indeed part of the problem still waiting on your reply | |||
| |||
"actually.... you evaded my question..... and decided to throw in the cheapshot as well... so you do seem to have selective amnesia!
but i'll answer your question...
IF the people side is what the police say that it, and it is that clear cut and dried... then as someone else said "all they have to do is release the vest cam footage".....
if is as a clear cut as that, then no one has a reason to go out on the streets..... that would completely difuse the situation
as I said before, and again your selective amnesia kicked in, the difference between the aftermath of what happened in charlotte, and what happened in Tulsa (and i notice that you decided to completely ignore that) is that the tulsa police department have been in front of the incident and released all the footage they have
but as i said, since you dont believe there are any issues, there is really no point having a conversation with you, because you are doing a whole lot of scream and not much listening...."But _abio that does not answer the question i do not see any problem at all with peaceful protest but some of the behaviour of the protesters was shameful and so again do you seriously see no problem in vandalising cars putting white people in hospital and trying to throw people on fires | |||
" come on hand in hand surely your better than trying to make a stupid size ist comment.. again? you may disagree with him but really. any need for it?
thats okay... let him have that one.... it goes to show that his head is well and truely up his ass and also blowing smoke....
anyway..... onwards and upwards....
to be able to solve a problem first of all you have to be able to acknowledge the problem....
if people like the op don't acknowledge the problem.... its not worth having the conversation with them.... they are the people who like to put thier fingers in their ears and scream "la la la, i'm not listening"
you can at the end of the day only help the people who want to be helped.....
also at the end of the day people like the OP will be a footnote to the history the rest of us make by progressing with the conversation.... if they have to dragged on by the civilised majority on both sides... so be it!!
they aren't a big enough barrier to stop the rest of us from making progress........"In all seriousness, could you define the problem? It really does make a difference whether the problem is 'instutional racism', racist individual police officers, gun control laws, police doctrine, gang culture... and if you are going to say "well it's a mixture of things" then could you rank them in terms of criticality? | |||
"if was meant to be "if the Police side is what the police say........ but i have given up talking to you op... like i said... in one ear, out of the other and not listening, you are not wanting to engage in serious conversation... its about scoring points.... if you deride black lives matter as much as you do... as we said there are other option... talk to the NAACP instead, talk to the Urban League instead, talk to the National Action Network instead.... so again.... for the 4/5th time in the thread... all the police have to do is release the vest cam footage, that immediately defuses the situation and then there is not excuse for people to be out demostrating " Fabio, you are well aware of what has been said with the police camera footage as it is on the news daily, the camera footage is part of the confirmation that he had a gun in his hand but not totally confirmative, Police reports, DNA on the gun and fingerprints are also part of the evidence, but then you already should know that. now again for the 4th or 5th time, will you answer this? Are you saying its okay for African American mobs (claiming black lives matter) to protest by stopping vehicles, kick the shit out of vehicles and jump on the roofs as you can clearly see in the press photographs!! If this is what you consider a solution; then you sure as hell are indeed part of the problem if you go to abc news or RT you will see the footage of the African Americans pulling over vehicles, kicking the hell out of them and jumping on the roofs whilst terrified victims inside still waiting on your reply | |||
| |||
""I did not see that in the videos that I reviewed," Putney said at a news conference. "So what I can tell you, though, is when taken in the totality of all the other evidence, it supports what we've heard and the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr. Scott." ******** When the Scott family was asked if the video they saw matches what police has described, their attorney replied, "No comment." ********* Earlier, Putney reiterated that he has no plans to publicly release the video, arguing that it would jeopardize the integrity of the investigation. "We release it when we believe it is a compelling reason, but I'm not going to jeopardize the investigation," he told reporters "No comment." "No comment." "No comment." "No comment." " I feel like you're using this case as THE prime example of why the complaints the black community has against police forces is wrong. It's falacious. I could pick one example of the opposite....namely what happened in Tulsa. Let's be honest, I'd have plenty of examples to choose from. To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. The more the problem is ignored, the worse it will become and the more we will leave people with no opiton but violence. Is that what we want? It isn't what I want. | |||
" To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. " If you go on YouTube and search "morgan freeman black history month", he argues that the biggest problem with 'race relations' is that Americans won't shut up about it. I am inclined to agree, some of the scenes are basically mild forms of ethnic warfare, which is basically as primitive as it gets. You can't change your ethnic group so if everyone goes around defining their personal identity that way, there's an inherent limit on how cohesive a society can be. It makes far more sense (to me) to define groups along the lines of values that people of any ethnicity could subscribe to. | |||
" To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. If you go on YouTube and search "morgan freeman black history month", he argues that the biggest problem with 'race relations' is that Americans won't shut up about it. I am inclined to agree, some of the scenes are basically mild forms of ethnic warfare, which is basically as primitive as it gets. You can't change your ethnic group so if everyone goes around defining their personal identity that way, there's an inherent limit on how cohesive a society can be. It makes far more sense (to me) to define groups along the lines of values that people of any ethnicity could subscribe to. " There's truth in that. I made clear on a different thread that I don't like identity politics. But I'm not sure that ignoring the problem is the way forward, either. Or, as I've seen on this thread, pretending it doesn't exist. | |||
" To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. If you go on YouTube and search "morgan freeman black history month", he argues that the biggest problem with 'race relations' is that Americans won't shut up about it. I am inclined to agree, some of the scenes are basically mild forms of ethnic warfare, which is basically as primitive as it gets. You can't change your ethnic group so if everyone goes around defining their personal identity that way, there's an inherent limit on how cohesive a society can be. It makes far more sense (to me) to define groups along the lines of values that people of any ethnicity could subscribe to. There's truth in that. I made clear on a different thread that I don't like identity politics. But I'm not sure that ignoring the problem is the way forward, either. Or, as I've seen on this thread, pretending it doesn't exist." OK but as per the above: "Could you define exactly what the problem is? It really does make a difference whether the problem is 'instutional racism', racist individual police officers, gun control laws, police doctrine, gang culture... and if you are going to say "well it's a mixture of things" then could you rank them in terms of criticality?" | |||
" To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. If you go on YouTube and search "morgan freeman black history month", he argues that the biggest problem with 'race relations' is that Americans won't shut up about it. I am inclined to agree, some of the scenes are basically mild forms of ethnic warfare, which is basically as primitive as it gets. You can't change your ethnic group so if everyone goes around defining their personal identity that way, there's an inherent limit on how cohesive a society can be. It makes far more sense (to me) to define groups along the lines of values that people of any ethnicity could subscribe to. There's truth in that. I made clear on a different thread that I don't like identity politics. But I'm not sure that ignoring the problem is the way forward, either. Or, as I've seen on this thread, pretending it doesn't exist. OK but as per the above: "Could you define exactly what the problem is? It really does make a difference whether the problem is 'instutional racism', racist individual police officers, gun control laws, police doctrine, gang culture... and if you are going to say "well it's a mixture of things" then could you rank them in terms of criticality?"" Sure. I'll start by saying it's a mix of things. Then I'll rank them as I see them. I see history as the main problem. It does well and truly divide the races in the US in a unique way. My dad used to say that as far as what divides us, Europe had religion and the US had race. Next I would say the problem is the justice system. Both the overcriminalization of historically black crimes and the unfairness in sentencing decisions. Next it's the cyclical poverty. It is a cycle that is perpetuated by our laws and our lack of any social welfare. Then there is the racism inherent in US society which evidences itself both personally and via public institutions, like police forces. Then there is our reaction to it as a society. The black lives matter movements, affirmative action, white people's insistence that such racism doesn't exist (as shown by the Ohio Trump campaigner in the news recently). Identity politics. It's hard to rank them, though, because they each feed into eachother in a vicious cycle. But that's probably how I'd do it. | |||
" To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. If you go on YouTube and search "morgan freeman black history month", he argues that the biggest problem with 'race relations' is that Americans won't shut up about it. I am inclined to agree, some of the scenes are basically mild forms of ethnic warfare, which is basically as primitive as it gets. You can't change your ethnic group so if everyone goes around defining their personal identity that way, there's an inherent limit on how cohesive a society can be. It makes far more sense (to me) to define groups along the lines of values that people of any ethnicity could subscribe to. There's truth in that. I made clear on a different thread that I don't like identity politics. But I'm not sure that ignoring the problem is the way forward, either. Or, as I've seen on this thread, pretending it doesn't exist. OK but as per the above: "Could you define exactly what the problem is? It really does make a difference whether the problem is 'instutional racism', racist individual police officers, gun control laws, police doctrine, gang culture... and if you are going to say "well it's a mixture of things" then could you rank them in terms of criticality?" Sure. I'll start by saying it's a mix of things. Then I'll rank them as I see them. I see history as the main problem. It does well and truly divide the races in the US in a unique way. My dad used to say that as far as what divides us, Europe had religion and the US had race. Next I would say the problem is the justice system. Both the overcriminalization of historically black crimes and the unfairness in sentencing decisions. Next it's the cyclical poverty. It is a cycle that is perpetuated by our laws and our lack of any social welfare. Then there is the racism inherent in US society which evidences itself both personally and via public institutions, like police forces. Then there is our reaction to it as a society. The black lives matter movements, affirmative action, white people's insistence that such racism doesn't exist (as shown by the Ohio Trump campaigner in the news recently). Identity politics. It's hard to rank them, though, because they each feed into eachother in a vicious cycle. But that's probably how I'd do it." So as I see it, Morgan Freeman had he right idea about dealing with the history of it! Honestly, shut the f up about it. On another note, this is an excellent example of why politics and racial history don't mix: https://youtu.be/TNfH41-LI4w As far as I can see, republicans ignore racial issues entirely and Democrats just want a perpetual set of victims who will vote to be saved every 4 years. Remember those "yes we can" chants??? What did they materialise into exactly? As per the cyclical poverty (which personally I rank #1) then that's what I feel black lives matter should be dealing with. I admit that it's very difficult to solve, but equally the baseline is so low in many neighbourhoods that it's relatively easy to make some initial progress. | |||
" To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. If you go on YouTube and search "morgan freeman black history month", he argues that the biggest problem with 'race relations' is that Americans won't shut up about it. I am inclined to agree, some of the scenes are basically mild forms of ethnic warfare, which is basically as primitive as it gets. You can't change your ethnic group so if everyone goes around defining their personal identity that way, there's an inherent limit on how cohesive a society can be. It makes far more sense (to me) to define groups along the lines of values that people of any ethnicity could subscribe to. There's truth in that. I made clear on a different thread that I don't like identity politics. But I'm not sure that ignoring the problem is the way forward, either. Or, as I've seen on this thread, pretending it doesn't exist. OK but as per the above: "Could you define exactly what the problem is? It really does make a difference whether the problem is 'instutional racism', racist individual police officers, gun control laws, police doctrine, gang culture... and if you are going to say "well it's a mixture of things" then could you rank them in terms of criticality?" Sure. I'll start by saying it's a mix of things. Then I'll rank them as I see them. I see history as the main problem. It does well and truly divide the races in the US in a unique way. My dad used to say that as far as what divides us, Europe had religion and the US had race. Next I would say the problem is the justice system. Both the overcriminalization of historically black crimes and the unfairness in sentencing decisions. Next it's the cyclical poverty. It is a cycle that is perpetuated by our laws and our lack of any social welfare. Then there is the racism inherent in US society which evidences itself both personally and via public institutions, like police forces. Then there is our reaction to it as a society. The black lives matter movements, affirmative action, white people's insistence that such racism doesn't exist (as shown by the Ohio Trump campaigner in the news recently). Identity politics. It's hard to rank them, though, because they each feed into eachother in a vicious cycle. But that's probably how I'd do it. So as I see it, Morgan Freeman had he right idea about dealing with the history of it! Honestly, shut the f up about it. On another note, this is an excellent example of why politics and racial history don't mix: https://youtu.be/TNfH41-LI4w As far as I can see, republicans ignore racial issues entirely and Democrats just want a perpetual set of victims who will vote to be saved every 4 years. Remember those "yes we can" chants??? What did they materialise into exactly? As per the cyclical poverty (which personally I rank #1) then that's what I feel black lives matter should be dealing with. I admit that it's very difficult to solve, but equally the baseline is so low in many neighbourhoods that it's relatively easy to make some initial progress. " No Morgan Freeman was wrong because the first thing in my list was not the only thing in my list. History is real and needs to be dealt with. Just look at the middle east. I think poverty should be the number one issue, but it isn't. I wish it were because then we may do something about it. I think people in power like identity politics because it keeps all of us from seeing the real problem and uniting against it. We are our own worst enemies. | |||
| |||
" To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. If you go on YouTube and search "morgan freeman black history month", he argues that the biggest problem with 'race relations' is that Americans won't shut up about it. I am inclined to agree, some of the scenes are basically mild forms of ethnic warfare, which is basically as primitive as it gets. You can't change your ethnic group so if everyone goes around defining their personal identity that way, there's an inherent limit on how cohesive a society can be. It makes far more sense (to me) to define groups along the lines of values that people of any ethnicity could subscribe to. There's truth in that. I made clear on a different thread that I don't like identity politics. But I'm not sure that ignoring the problem is the way forward, either. Or, as I've seen on this thread, pretending it doesn't exist. OK but as per the above: "Could you define exactly what the problem is? It really does make a difference whether the problem is 'instutional racism', racist individual police officers, gun control laws, police doctrine, gang culture... and if you are going to say "well it's a mixture of things" then could you rank them in terms of criticality?" Sure. I'll start by saying it's a mix of things. Then I'll rank them as I see them. I see history as the main problem. It does well and truly divide the races in the US in a unique way. My dad used to say that as far as what divides us, Europe had religion and the US had race. Next I would say the problem is the justice system. Both the overcriminalization of historically black crimes and the unfairness in sentencing decisions. Next it's the cyclical poverty. It is a cycle that is perpetuated by our laws and our lack of any social welfare. Then there is the racism inherent in US society which evidences itself both personally and via public institutions, like police forces. Then there is our reaction to it as a society. The black lives matter movements, affirmative action, white people's insistence that such racism doesn't exist (as shown by the Ohio Trump campaigner in the news recently). Identity politics. It's hard to rank them, though, because they each feed into eachother in a vicious cycle. But that's probably how I'd do it. So as I see it, Morgan Freeman had he right idea about dealing with the history of it! Honestly, shut the f up about it. On another note, this is an excellent example of why politics and racial history don't mix: https://youtu.be/TNfH41-LI4w As far as I can see, republicans ignore racial issues entirely and Democrats just want a perpetual set of victims who will vote to be saved every 4 years. Remember those "yes we can" chants??? What did they materialise into exactly? As per the cyclical poverty (which personally I rank #1) then that's what I feel black lives matter should be dealing with. I admit that it's very difficult to solve, but equally the baseline is so low in many neighbourhoods that it's relatively easy to make some initial progress. No Morgan Freeman was wrong because the first thing in my list was not the only thing in my list. History is real and needs to be dealt with. Just look at the middle east. I think poverty should be the number one issue, but it isn't. I wish it were because then we may do something about it. I think people in power like identity politics because it keeps all of us from seeing the real problem and uniting against it. We are our own worst enemies." Why do you cite the middle east as an example? What progress are they making through their perpetual ethnic conflicts? I think the history has been addressed. As per the YouTube video, it's boring now and there are some far more positive role models that young blacks could be learning about that are frankly more relevant today. See my post above about WSO for a model for dealing with the problem... | |||
" To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. If you go on YouTube and search "morgan freeman black history month", he argues that the biggest problem with 'race relations' is that Americans won't shut up about it. I am inclined to agree, some of the scenes are basically mild forms of ethnic warfare, which is basically as primitive as it gets. You can't change your ethnic group so if everyone goes around defining their personal identity that way, there's an inherent limit on how cohesive a society can be. It makes far more sense (to me) to define groups along the lines of values that people of any ethnicity could subscribe to. There's truth in that. I made clear on a different thread that I don't like identity politics. But I'm not sure that ignoring the problem is the way forward, either. Or, as I've seen on this thread, pretending it doesn't exist. OK but as per the above: "Could you define exactly what the problem is? It really does make a difference whether the problem is 'instutional racism', racist individual police officers, gun control laws, police doctrine, gang culture... and if you are going to say "well it's a mixture of things" then could you rank them in terms of criticality?" Sure. I'll start by saying it's a mix of things. Then I'll rank them as I see them. I see history as the main problem. It does well and truly divide the races in the US in a unique way. My dad used to say that as far as what divides us, Europe had religion and the US had race. Next I would say the problem is the justice system. Both the overcriminalization of historically black crimes and the unfairness in sentencing decisions. Next it's the cyclical poverty. It is a cycle that is perpetuated by our laws and our lack of any social welfare. Then there is the racism inherent in US society which evidences itself both personally and via public institutions, like police forces. Then there is our reaction to it as a society. The black lives matter movements, affirmative action, white people's insistence that such racism doesn't exist (as shown by the Ohio Trump campaigner in the news recently). Identity politics. It's hard to rank them, though, because they each feed into eachother in a vicious cycle. But that's probably how I'd do it. So as I see it, Morgan Freeman had he right idea about dealing with the history of it! Honestly, shut the f up about it. On another note, this is an excellent example of why politics and racial history don't mix: https://youtu.be/TNfH41-LI4w As far as I can see, republicans ignore racial issues entirely and Democrats just want a perpetual set of victims who will vote to be saved every 4 years. Remember those "yes we can" chants??? What did they materialise into exactly? As per the cyclical poverty (which personally I rank #1) then that's what I feel black lives matter should be dealing with. I admit that it's very difficult to solve, but equally the baseline is so low in many neighbourhoods that it's relatively easy to make some initial progress. No Morgan Freeman was wrong because the first thing in my list was not the only thing in my list. History is real and needs to be dealt with. Just look at the middle east. I think poverty should be the number one issue, but it isn't. I wish it were because then we may do something about it. I think people in power like identity politics because it keeps all of us from seeing the real problem and uniting against it. We are our own worst enemies. Why do you cite the middle east as an example? What progress are they making through their perpetual ethnic conflicts? I think the history has been addressed. As per the YouTube video, it's boring now and there are some far more positive role models that young blacks could be learning about that are frankly more relevant today. See my post above about WSO for a model for dealing with the problem... " I cited the middle east as an example of why history matters. Not for any progress, certainly. And the problem is that it isn't boring to some people caught up in the problem. I think there are better ways, I have not defended black lives matter once. I routinely critize them. But I accept the problem. It isn't boring to me. I've seen people live it. I agree that there are better ways to fix it. I'll check out your video later, thanks for posting it.  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"the police dept finally released the dashcam video.... it is not looking good... the dude got out of the car and was walking backwards/backing away when they shot him.." Are you surprised that the video does not fit with what the police said happened? Seems to me that it is open season on non whites for any police officer who feels the need to make their bones. But then there is nothing new in this, 'good old boys' have been proving their manhood for the last couple of centuries by killing non whites in the Land of the Brave and Home of the Free. | |||
"the police dept finally released the dashcam video.... it is not looking good... the dude got out of the car and was walking backwards/backing away when they shot him.. Are you surprised that the video does not fit with what the police said happened? Seems to me that it is open season on non whites for any police officer who feels the need to make their bones. But then there is nothing new in this, 'good old boys' have been proving their manhood for the last couple of centuries by killing non whites in the Land of the Brave and Home of the Free. "Except that the officer who shot him was black  | |||
"Except that the officer who shot him was black "Ever heard of coconuts? | |||
| |||
"Except that the officer who shot him was black
Ever heard of coconuts?"Sounds like you've decided it must be a racist shooting and are trying to get the facts to fit your theory. | |||
"the police dept finally released the dashcam video.... it is not looking good... the dude got out of the car and was walking backwards/backing away when they shot him.." Having watched both sets of footage, this is what I could see: - His hands were by his sides. This means that he probably wasn't an imminent threat, but also he was not complying with the officers. - His wife shouts at him "keith, don't do it" so I'm not sure what this refers to. This does imply a threat. - From the footage, it's hard to see what (if anything) is in his hands. I couldn't honestly say there's an object in his hands at all, based on the footage. If he had his hands up, it would be easier to tell. - I couldn't see a gun on the floor (after the shooting) in the footage either. He could still be holding it or have landed on it, but there aren't any objects on the floor in the footage that I could see. | |||
""I did not see that in the videos that I reviewed," Putney said at a news conference. "So what I can tell you, though, is when taken in the totality of all the other evidence, it supports what we've heard and the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr. Scott." ******** When the Scott family was asked if the video they saw matches what police has described, their attorney replied, "No comment." ********* Earlier, Putney reiterated that he has no plans to publicly release the video, arguing that it would jeopardize the integrity of the investigation. "We release it when we believe it is a compelling reason, but I'm not going to jeopardize the investigation," he told reporters "No comment." "No comment." "No comment." "No comment." I feel like you're using this case as THE prime example of why the complaints the black community has against police forces is wrong. It's falacious. I could pick one example of the opposite....namely what happened in Tulsa. Let's be honest, I'd have plenty of examples to choose from. To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. The more the problem is ignored, the worse it will become and the more we will leave people with no opiton but violence. Is that what we want? It isn't what I want." If you scroll right up to the top you will see this thread is about what happened in Charlotte where Keith Scott was shot for refusing to lay down his gun. If you want to comment on Tulsa I suggest you start your own thread on that subject. . Authorities have said an African-American officer shot Scott, who was black, when he made a threatening move with a gun. Saturday, police released photos of a pistol and ankle holster recovered at the scene. . questions to ask yourself: Why was Scott, who had a traumatic brain injury, why was he allowed to possess a gun? Why also with a traumatic brain injury was he in possession of marijuana and known to have committed another crime. . If he had done what he was instructed to do by the Police, he would still be alive today, perhaps locked up in jail for committing his crimes, but still alive. . African Americans are not above the law, they need to respect the law the same as every other citizen | |||
" If you scroll right up to the top you will see this thread is about what happened in Charlotte where Keith Scott was shot for refusing to lay down his gun. If you want to comment on Tulsa I suggest you start your own thread on that subject." a) again the gun is heresay at this point in time... and as others have said you can't see a gun in any of the footage that you have they have released b)so you want to use the charlotte incident as a sample size of 1... whereas people want to use tulsa to show how different police forces dealt with similar cases differently, and how those differences may have esculated or defused the situations.... tulsa pd were more upfront, released all the different cameras and the result was no incidences occuring after.... charlotte pd did the exact opposite and only released the footage after pressure was applied on them from all directions.... . "Authorities have said an African-American officer shot Scott, who was black, when he made a threatening move with a gun. Saturday, police released photos of a pistol and ankle holster recovered at the scene." if by making a threatening move you mean walking backwards and backing away from the car... then sure.... same thing happened in the tulsa case you don't want to mention, he was walking backwards as well, he also had his hand up in the air for added effect..... . "questions to ask yourself:" i'll try........ and i'll be factual with what we know "Why was Scott, who had a traumatic brain injury, why was he allowed to possess a gun?" we don't know for certain: a) there was a gun..... b) if there was a gun, since north carolina is a conceal carry state if he had a permit for one, of which the state have not said if he did or he didn't, if he did have a permit, it would have been perfectly legal to have a gun, of again we don't know if he did or he didn't, in the car..... as in the philando castile case in july in minnesota.... he got out his car... held his hands in the air, actually shouted to the police he had a concealed weapon and a permit, went to show him them the permit... and got killed... when the governor of minnesota then said the same thing would likely have not happened if the person was white, then you know there is an issue.... but you don't want other cases brought up to compare with this one.....so onto the next question "Why also with a traumatic brain injury was he in possession of marijuana and known to have committed another crime." 2nd bit first..... a) charlotte pd have not said why they stopped in the first place... we know he had been convicted of crimes in the past, but we don't know what his was stopped for in this instance.... b) in a lot of states, marijuana (medical or synthetic) is actually legal if they get a permit to say it is used for the purposes of medically relieving pain..... "If he had done what he was instructed to do by the Police, he would still be alive today, perhaps locked up in jail for committing his crimes, but still alive." again you are making a presumption the charlotte pd have not confirmed, that they were after him for something... . "African Americans are not above the law, they need to respect the law the same as every other citizen " not saying they are above the law.... but can i just point out the case of dylan ruff..... he was the white guy he killed 9 black people in the church in charleston, south carolina..... he fled and he was captured in neighbouring north carolina so, how did the ploice treat him.... apparently ask him who he was twice, handcuffed him, and then took him to a fast food joint because he said he was hungry....... no hint of a gun in site....... there are never going to be any charges that arise from this case because if he had a gun in his hand with his hands in the air, they are always going to claim "self-defense" since any move they would say would be threatening..... but again, is walking backwards/backing away a threatening move? | |||
"I don't think Donald trump will be any worse than Hillary, I just think with trumper you'll pull out the emergency brake.... They'll be no reversing anything after him" That is right, that is why trump is good, because he is not afraid to tell how it is and he dont worry about political correctness, which is killing the world slowly. | |||
"I don't think Donald trump will be any worse than Hillary, I just think with trumper you'll pull out the emergency brake.... They'll be no reversing anything after himThat is right, that is why trump is good, because he is not afraid to tell how it is and he dont worry about political correctness, which is killing the world slowly." you mean global warming Shag.. all that feckin hot air.. | |||
""I did not see that in the videos that I reviewed," Putney said at a news conference. "So what I can tell you, though, is when taken in the totality of all the other evidence, it supports what we've heard and the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr. Scott." ******** When the Scott family was asked if the video they saw matches what police has described, their attorney replied, "No comment." ********* Earlier, Putney reiterated that he has no plans to publicly release the video, arguing that it would jeopardize the integrity of the investigation. "We release it when we believe it is a compelling reason, but I'm not going to jeopardize the investigation," he told reporters "No comment." "No comment." "No comment." "No comment." I feel like you're using this case as THE prime example of why the complaints the black community has against police forces is wrong. It's falacious. I could pick one example of the opposite....namely what happened in Tulsa. Let's be honest, I'd have plenty of examples to choose from. To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. The more the problem is ignored, the worse it will become and the more we will leave people with no opiton but violence. Is that what we want? It isn't what I want. If you scroll right up to the top you will see this thread is about what happened in Charlotte where Keith Scott was shot for refusing to lay down his gun. If you want to comment on Tulsa I suggest you start your own thread on that subject. . Authorities have said an African-American officer shot Scott, who was black, when he made a threatening move with a gun. Saturday, police released photos of a pistol and ankle holster recovered at the scene. . questions to ask yourself: Why was Scott, who had a traumatic brain injury, why was he allowed to possess a gun? Why also with a traumatic brain injury was he in possession of marijuana and known to have committed another crime. . If he had done what he was instructed to do by the Police, he would still be alive today, perhaps locked up in jail for committing his crimes, but still alive. . African Americans are not above the law, they need to respect the law the same as every other citizen " 'They need to respect the law' ? Isn't that a generalisation of over 30 million people ? | |||
"I don't think Donald trump will be any worse than Hillary, I just think with trumper you'll pull out the emergency brake.... They'll be no reversing anything after himThat is right, that is why trump is good, because he is not afraid to tell how it is and he dont worry about political correctness, which is killing the world slowly. you mean global warming Shag.. all that feckin hot air.." I would say, both goes hand in hand there. | |||
| |||
""I did not see that in the videos that I reviewed," Putney said at a news conference. "So what I can tell you, though, is when taken in the totality of all the other evidence, it supports what we've heard and the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr. Scott." ******** When the Scott family was asked if the video they saw matches what police has described, their attorney replied, "No comment." ********* Earlier, Putney reiterated that he has no plans to publicly release the video, arguing that it would jeopardize the integrity of the investigation. "We release it when we believe it is a compelling reason, but I'm not going to jeopardize the investigation," he told reporters "No comment." "No comment." "No comment." "No comment." I feel like you're using this case as THE prime example of why the complaints the black community has against police forces is wrong. It's falacious. I could pick one example of the opposite....namely what happened in Tulsa. Let's be honest, I'd have plenty of examples to choose from. To hold this one case up as an example that the black community is wrong is, as I said earlier, to ignore the history of race relations in the U.S. - to cherry pick examples that fit your own rhetoric. The more the problem is ignored, the worse it will become and the more we will leave people with no opiton but violence. Is that what we want? It isn't what I want. If you scroll right up to the top you will see this thread is about what happened in Charlotte where Keith Scott was shot for refusing to lay down his gun. If you want to comment on Tulsa I suggest you start your own thread on that subject. . Authorities have said an African-American officer shot Scott, who was black, when he made a threatening move with a gun. Saturday, police released photos of a pistol and ankle holster recovered at the scene. . questions to ask yourself: Why was Scott, who had a traumatic brain injury, why was he allowed to possess a gun? Why also with a traumatic brain injury was he in possession of marijuana and known to have committed another crime. . If he had done what he was instructed to do by the Police, he would still be alive today, perhaps locked up in jail for committing his crimes, but still alive. . African Americans are not above the law, they need to respect the law the same as every other citizen " I take it your opinions are based on being a black man living in one of the southern states of the USA? Because some of us have more experience of the situation than you every will .... and its why we left, for the sake of our children more than anything. Proud to be politically correct because its the correct thing to be, politically | |||
"Take WSO for example, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/training-disadvantaged-kids-for-hotshot-it-jobs/425787/ Instead of doing the easy thing (standing outside a government building and bitching), they roll up their sleeves and do the hard work. They train disadvantaged people to get real skills that employers really need and then convince employers to give their people a chance. The great thing about this is that the employer isn't even giving the kids a sympathy vote (unsustainable), WSO acts as a quality guarantee to the employer (sustainable). Now I'm sure that sounds like a lot of hard work to the likes of BLM and I doubt the Democrats would like it either since it stops people being perpetual victims. But that is the way to do it, but it requires a positive view of humans (i.e they can get the skills with the right help) than the regressive left view that a lot of people just aren't capable of much else than making big macs and therefore need to be looked after by the state. " Weren't you supporting grammar schools the other day? Isn't that all about 80% "aren't capable of much else than making big macs" so we don't need to give them much of an education, so we can focus on the 20% that can get hotshot jobs? | |||
"Take WSO for example, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/training-disadvantaged-kids-for-hotshot-it-jobs/425787/ Instead of doing the easy thing (standing outside a government building and bitching), they roll up their sleeves and do the hard work. They train disadvantaged people to get real skills that employers really need and then convince employers to give their people a chance. The great thing about this is that the employer isn't even giving the kids a sympathy vote (unsustainable), WSO acts as a quality guarantee to the employer (sustainable). Now I'm sure that sounds like a lot of hard work to the likes of BLM and I doubt the Democrats would like it either since it stops people being perpetual victims. But that is the way to do it, but it requires a positive view of humans (i.e they can get the skills with the right help) than the regressive left view that a lot of people just aren't capable of much else than making big macs and therefore need to be looked after by the state. Weren't you supporting grammar schools the other day? Isn't that all about 80% "aren't capable of much else than making big macs" so we don't need to give them much of an education, so we can focus on the 20% that can get hotshot jobs? " Welfare to work was a good system in the USA. I worked within that system when I lived in LA and the vast majority of adults we taught and re skilled were African Americans. Never had so much fun .... it was in east LA just after the Rodney King riots. I was so much younger then and it didn't really click what a powder keg a young white woman was walking into, but I never felt disrespected or in any danger. So much so, I met and married my hubby ... and yes, he was from the deep south and we did go there together. That's a totally different world for black Americans | |||
"Take WSO for example, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/training-disadvantaged-kids-for-hotshot-it-jobs/425787/ Instead of doing the easy thing (standing outside a government building and bitching), they roll up their sleeves and do the hard work. They train disadvantaged people to get real skills that employers really need and then convince employers to give their people a chance. The great thing about this is that the employer isn't even giving the kids a sympathy vote (unsustainable), WSO acts as a quality guarantee to the employer (sustainable). Now I'm sure that sounds like a lot of hard work to the likes of BLM and I doubt the Democrats would like it either since it stops people being perpetual victims. But that is the way to do it, but it requires a positive view of humans (i.e they can get the skills with the right help) than the regressive left view that a lot of people just aren't capable of much else than making big macs and therefore need to be looked after by the state. Weren't you supporting grammar schools the other day? Isn't that all about 80% "aren't capable of much else than making big macs" so we don't need to give them much of an education, so we can focus on the 20% that can get hotshot jobs? " Conflation and drivel | |||
"Take WSO for example, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/training-disadvantaged-kids-for-hotshot-it-jobs/425787/ Instead of doing the easy thing (standing outside a government building and bitching), they roll up their sleeves and do the hard work. They train disadvantaged people to get real skills that employers really need and then convince employers to give their people a chance. The great thing about this is that the employer isn't even giving the kids a sympathy vote (unsustainable), WSO acts as a quality guarantee to the employer (sustainable). Now I'm sure that sounds like a lot of hard work to the likes of BLM and I doubt the Democrats would like it either since it stops people being perpetual victims. But that is the way to do it, but it requires a positive view of humans (i.e they can get the skills with the right help) than the regressive left view that a lot of people just aren't capable of much else than making big macs and therefore need to be looked after by the state. Weren't you supporting grammar schools the other day? Isn't that all about 80% "aren't capable of much else than making big macs" so we don't need to give them much of an education, so we can focus on the 20% that can get hotshot jobs? Welfare to work was a good system in the USA. I worked within that system when I lived in LA and the vast majority of adults we taught and re skilled were African Americans. Never had so much fun .... it was in east LA just after the Rodney King riots. I was so much younger then and it didn't really click what a powder keg a young white woman was walking into, but I never felt disrespected or in any danger. So much so, I met and married my hubby ... and yes, he was from the deep south and we did go there together. That's a totally different world for black Americans " | |||
| |||
" If you scroll right up to the top you will see this thread is about what happened in Charlotte where Keith Scott was shot for refusing to lay down his gun. If you want to comment on Tulsa I suggest you start your own thread on that subject. a) again the gun is heresay at this point in time... and as others have said you can't see a gun in any of the footage that you have they have released b)so you want to use the charlotte incident as a sample size of 1... whereas people want to use tulsa to show how different police forces dealt with similar cases differently, and how those differences may have esculated or defused the situations.... tulsa pd were more upfront, released all the different cameras and the result was no incidences occuring after.... charlotte pd did the exact opposite and only released the footage after pressure was applied on them from all directions.... . Authorities have said an African-American officer shot Scott, who was black, when he made a threatening move with a gun. Saturday, police released photos of a pistol and ankle holster recovered at the scene. if by making a threatening move you mean walking backwards and backing away from the car... then sure.... same thing happened in the tulsa case you don't want to mention, he was walking backwards as well, he also had his hand up in the air for added effect..... . questions to ask yourself: i'll try........ and i'll be factual with what we know Why was Scott, who had a traumatic brain injury, why was he allowed to possess a gun? we don't know for certain: a) there was a gun..... b) if there was a gun, since north carolina is a conceal carry state if he had a permit for one, of which the state have not said if he did or he didn't, if he did have a permit, it would have been perfectly legal to have a gun, of again we don't know if he did or he didn't, in the car..... as in the philando castile case in july in minnesota.... he got out his car... held his hands in the air, actually shouted to the police he had a concealed weapon and a permit, went to show him them the permit... and got killed... when the governor of minnesota then said the same thing would likely have not happened if the person was white, then you know there is an issue.... but you don't want other cases brought up to compare with this one.....so onto the next question Why also with a traumatic brain injury was he in possession of marijuana and known to have committed another crime. 2nd bit first..... a) charlotte pd have not said why they stopped in the first place... we know he had been convicted of crimes in the past, but we don't know what his was stopped for in this instance.... b) in a lot of states, marijuana (medical or synthetic) is actually legal if they get a permit to say it is used for the purposes of medically relieving pain..... If he had done what he was instructed to do by the Police, he would still be alive today, perhaps locked up in jail for committing his crimes, but still alive. again you are making a presumption the charlotte pd have not confirmed, that they were after him for something... . African Americans are not above the law, they need to respect the law the same as every other citizen not saying they are above the law.... but can i just point out the case of dylan ruff..... he was the white guy he killed 9 black people in the church in charleston, south carolina..... he fled and he was captured in neighbouring north carolina so, how did the ploice treat him.... apparently ask him who he was twice, handcuffed him, and then took him to a fast food joint because he said he was hungry....... no hint of a gun in site....... there are never going to be any charges that arise from this case because if he had a gun in his hand with his hands in the air, they are always going to claim "self-defense" since any move they would say would be threatening..... but again, is walking backwards/backing away a threatening move?" backing away, or backing round the rear of the vehicle on the right, so he could be in firing access of the two policemen suspect he had the gun in his right hand, there is no video proof to say he didn't. *** now back to the question you have evaded to answer 6 times . Are you saying its okay for African American mobs (claiming black lives matter) to protest by stopping vehicles, kick the shit out of vehicles and jump on the roofs as you can clearly see in the press photographs!! If this is what you consider a solution; then you sure as hell are indeed part of the problem if you go to abc news or RT you will see the footage of the African Americans pulling over vehicles, kicking the hell out of them and jumping on the roofs whilst terrified victims inside . As you continuously evade answering this question, I take it you fully support the "black lives matter" thugs who were pulling over cars, kicking the shit out of them and jumping on the roofs whilst petrified innocent drivers were inside, imagine if that was someone's teenage daughter driving the vehicle. . The people that do this should be locked up for a very long time, and yet you refuse to condemn them. You still have a chance to say what they done was wrong, but I think your true colours are showing through. | |||
| |||
" questions to ask yourself: i'll try........ and i'll be factual with what we know Why was Scott, who had a traumatic brain injury, why was he allowed to possess a gun? we don't know for certain: a) there was a gun..... b) if there was a gun, since north carolina is a conceal carry state if he had a permit for one, of which the state have not said if he did or he didn't, if he did have a permit, it would have been perfectly legal to have a gun, of again we don't know if he did or he didn't, in the car..... as in the philando castile case in july in minnesota.... he got out his car... held his hands in the air, actually shouted to the police he had a concealed weapon and a permit, went to show him them the permit... and got killed... when the governor of minnesota then said the same thing would likely have not happened if the person was white, then you know there is an issue.... but you don't want other cases brought up to compare with this one.....so onto the next question Why also with a traumatic brain injury was he in possession of marijuana and known to have committed another crime. 2nd bit first..... a) charlotte pd have not said why they stopped in the first place... we know he had been convicted of crimes in the past, but we don't know what his was stopped for in this instance.... b) in a lot of states, marijuana (medical or synthetic) is actually legal if they get a permit to say it is used for the purposes of medically relieving pain..... If he had done what he was instructed to do by the Police, he would still be alive today, perhaps locked up in jail for committing his crimes, but still alive. " Mr. Scott effectively forfeited his right to carry a gun in 2005, when he was convicted in the shooting of a man in San Antonio and sentenced to prison yes, I will say again; Mr. Scott effectively forfeited his right to carry a gun in 2005, when he was convicted in the shooting of a man in San Antonio and sentenced to prison. . North Carolina law forbids possession of marijuana, but the police said on Saturday that the officers did not “consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority” and approached him only after seeing the firearm . A photo of the marijuana cigarette released by the police on Saturday suggested that it had been smoked. . From my own personal view, if the police come across a person who is smoking drugs in one hand and holding an illegal firearm in the other - illegal because he is not permitted to own a gun due to being convicted in the shooting of a man in San Antonio in 2005 and sentenced to prison . and if that same person refuses to lay down the illegal gun which he has no legal right to own, and has previously shot a man, then the police have the right to take him out in any way they can. | |||
| |||
| |||
"as days go on this shooting is becoming much clearer and should open the eye of many watching on. Mr. Scott effectively forfeited his right to carry a gun in 2005, when he was convicted in the shooting of a man in San Antonio and sentenced to prison . North Carolina law forbids possession of marijuana, but the police said on Saturday that the officers did not “consider Mr. Scott’s drug activity to be a priority” and approached him only after seeing the firearm . A photo of the marijuana cigarette released by the police on Saturday suggested that it had been smoked. . Now on top of that it emerges CHARLOTTE (WTVD) -- The gun that Keith Scott had on him during the deadly shooting was reported stolen after a breaking and entering, police said. The breaking and entering suspect told ATF Agents that he sold the gun to Scott. and further to that Scott's wife filed a domestic violence protective order on him in 2015 saying he hit his child, kicked her and threatened to kill them with his gun, (ILLEGAL GUN). yet some still think Scott is the innocent party (open your eyes people) "I think the above info put a close to this thread | |||
| |||
"The thread is offensive, imo" Could you narrow it down from the 87 prior posts? | |||
"The thread is offensive, imo" And not only because the OP fully fails to grasp any kind of context.... | |||
"The thread is offensive, imo" then don't read it, wrap yourself up in cotton wool | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" Guess you have given up and run away from this thread now again for the 4th or 5th time, will you answer this? Are you saying its okay for African American mobs (claiming black lives matter) to protest by stopping vehicles, kick the shit out of vehicles and jump on the roofs as you can clearly see in the press photographs!! If this is what you consider a solution; then you sure as hell are indeed part of the problem if you go to abc news or RT you will see the footage of the African Americans pulling over vehicles, kicking the hell out of them and jumping on the roofs whilst terrified victims inside still waiting on your reply" For someone who has professed to have spent time in the United States you seem to demonstrate a very poor understanding of the social issues, particularly for black people who are disproportionately... Under educated, under employment and overly represented in social support programmes. Add to that that they are over represented in crime figures, over represented as murder victims as well as murder perpetrators. Bottom line is that too many black people have shit lives and yes, they could do more to help themselves and yes a black President could have done more and probably would had he not been the subject of the ultimate in prophylactics - a Republican dominated Senate. The US is a pretty fucked up place and people who feel like social outcasts are going to behave in ways that people who are not in their position would struggle to understand. Cast your mind back just a few summers ago in the UK and the entirely unacceptable riots that we had in Tottenham and elsewhere. Perceived social injustices are responsible for people behaving in unacceptable ways. | |||
" Guess you have given up and run away from this thread now again for the 4th or 5th time, will you answer this? Are you saying its okay for African American mobs (claiming black lives matter) to protest by stopping vehicles, kick the shit out of vehicles and jump on the roofs as you can clearly see in the press photographs!! If this is what you consider a solution; then you sure as hell are indeed part of the problem if you go to abc news or RT you will see the footage of the African Americans pulling over vehicles, kicking the hell out of them and jumping on the roofs whilst terrified victims inside still waiting on your reply For someone who has professed to have spent time in the United States you seem to demonstrate a very poor understanding of the social issues, particularly for black people who are disproportionately... Under educated, under employment and overly represented in social support programmes. Add to that that they are over represented in crime figures, over represented as murder victims as well as murder perpetrators. Bottom line is that too many black people have shit lives and yes, they could do more to help themselves and yes a black President could have done more and probably would had he not been the subject of the ultimate in prophylactics - a Republican dominated Senate. The US is a pretty fucked up place and people who feel like social outcasts are going to behave in ways that people who are not in their position would struggle to understand. Cast your mind back just a few summers ago in the UK and the entirely unacceptable riots that we had in Tottenham and elsewhere. Perceived social injustices are responsible for people behaving in unacceptable ways." there are no excuses for blacks running riot with a chip on their shoulders, no excuse still waiting for Fabio to answer the question asked to him | |||
| |||
"The thread is offensive, imo" I totally agree with you. It is. And it shows total ignorance and disrespect. I would fear for my children if some of these posters were around them. | |||
"I think, guys who are talking about 'blacks' in that tone and terminology are not worthy of a response because lumping everyone together under this category smacks of a different era and generation. It's totally unacceptable to me .... so I wont get involved in your debate. I live in Croydon, scene of recent (ish) riots and many of these so called 'blacks' but your language is too separatist. I have also lived in East LA, again where there were riots, and my ex was from Mississippi .... where your language would still be the norm. Do you have any direct experience of the people you are talking about, just out of interest? Do you know, for example, that they are also human beings? Do you anything of their life experience? Families? Values? Culture? " In my recently adopted bullshit rating of posts, the Original post would be classified as a troll post and from this point forward, such trolling posts will be ignored (at least by me). | |||
"I think, guys who are talking about 'blacks' in that tone and terminology are not worthy of a response because lumping everyone together under this category smacks of a different era and generation. It's totally unacceptable to me .... so I wont get involved in your debate. I live in Croydon, scene of recent (ish) riots and many of these so called 'blacks' but your language is too separatist. I have also lived in East LA, again where there were riots, and my ex was from Mississippi .... where your language would still be the norm. Do you have any direct experience of the people you are talking about, just out of interest? Do you know, for example, that they are also human beings? Do you anything of their life experience? Families? Values? Culture? In my recently adopted bullshit rating of posts, the Original post would be classified as a troll post and from this point forward, such trolling posts will be ignored (at least by me)." I can't believe such posts are allowed here. This time surely racism can't hide behind the façade of prefernce | |||
