Juror#8

Ok I can take this one of two ways, you're either in love with me or you think that I need to better observe the posted speed limit.

Haha!!! Touché You're good people bman. I give you shiiiiiiit but you're good people. I read the articles that you link because it contributes to the dialog. Jumbo lump crab cake sandwich was off the chain. I suggest it and Korean steak tacos if you ever get by Clydes. Not terribly expensive. Nice ambiance. At the one here in tysons there is a chick with, I believe, fake breasts who is a real pleasure to look at. Have a good weekend. And please have a better dinner than you did lunch. ;)

Not sure what your first five sentences have to do with race relations. Now whether or not you want to argue that the state of the black experience sociologically has gotten worse over the last 8 years, that's an arguable point that would require me to dig into some numbers and contrast them against the last 24 years for at least some level of respectable trend analysis. And there are some not-so-ancillary things irrespective of Obama that have occurred over the last 8-10 years like the Great Recession, the housing crises, etc., which should in theory implicate a worsening sociological circumstance for folks in lower income communities.

Dude what the !@#$les?!? You spend your entire time on this board like on some, destruction, hate, democrats evil !@#$ing menace scourge of the seven seas ruinous cataclysmic current administration destroyed the beauty that bush left for the country and republicans perfect love joy, type shiiiiiiit. But then out-of-the-blue you say some semi-cogent, non-inflammatory, non-partisan, non-hater ****. I completely didn't think you had it in you. It's like you heard the Who's in Whoville singing and your "heart grew three sizes that day." Wow. Wtf. Go !@#$ing bman. For real bro I'm hurt over this. What do you mean "status driven nonsense"? Nigga you mad cuz I'm rich? Ok full disclosure, I'm really a 5'4" Asian man with an underbite and a wooden foot. Don't let the intense swag or the c7 zo6 or the platona fool you. I'm hurt by your words brother. I'll be there for you baby You be there for me sweetheart I thought that we were meant to be for eternity I thought you love me baby Momma told me take it slow boy you just don't know anything about .......................... love If you and I were meant to be than you would and it show by the end of this song.

We started with race relations so let's develop that one and then go from there. I'm walking into Clydes in Vienna if anyone wants to join me for lunch and a drink in the area. Otherwise, I'll have to shelve this convo a few hours while I get my eat on.

And kudos to you for admitting that no one has yet solved this riddle. It's such a breath of fresh air as compared to the dolts who seem to think that disharmony started in 2008. Seriously, I can't take those people serious. The current administration hasn't been nearly what people hoped it would be but it hasn't been any better or worse than the 8 years before it. For every Libya someone can raise you an Iraq. And for every financial crises someone can raise a housing crises. It's politics man. That's what these !@#$ers do. They do "ineffectual" better than anyone. They do "stone-walling" better than anyone. But this idea that one man or one party has a monopoly on it is so ahistorical and it's judgmentally incompetent bordering on retardation. The personalization of politics by one-sided hate peddlers like bman is just disgusting. With that said, I'd love to see your support for the idea that the current administration has made the climate worse.

You didn't. It's adverse inference. But you're making declarative statements (gotten worse under current administration). Since you're obviously a smart guy and one of the ten or so posters that I actually and sincerely enjoy reading on his board, I'm sure that that statement is substantiated by some testimonial evidence or statistical support. Care to share what that is since it would seem to be dispositive to your thesis?

True. So then take it back, joe. read your pierce novels more ambitiously.

So I was finally able to draw out "the master." The one that la and joe and the kitty, and others try to be like but just can't quite cut it. It's like finally getting past the second bald bull and facing off against Mr. Sandman. Alright, I'll play. But who is joking? I'm saying that Obama is responsible for all this and he has failed where all other presidents have succeeded wildly. You obviously feel differently. Why? Thanks joe!! You are America.

Offend? Oh sweetie pie it appears that the inanity in your thoughts can only be outweighed by your boisterous sense of self-importance.

Tell it like it is brother. Don't take any guff from these swine. It's so clear that racism would be solved if Romney were president. those officers wouldn't have shot those "brothas" in Minnesota and Baton Rouge, and there wouldn't have been a conflict with the traditionalist workers party in sacramento. Corruption wouldn't exist, Britain would still be in the eu and prince would be making music. Now instead of "change we can believe in" we are one step close to Andrew Macdonald's vision of the world. If HilLIAry is elected the country we will descend into debauchery and anarchy and a devolution that this world hasn't seen since Paleolithic man roamed the earth. There is only one person that can stop this: DOnaL j. Trump Just ask bman, who was obviously ass raped at some point by someone wearing a "vote democrat" sticker because that level of boneheaded, gaumless, myopic, incuriousness and inflexibility about the world doesnt arise naturally. But just so it arose. Because he is our otter now. Telling objective, peer-reviewed, dispassionate, thoughtful, and well-considered truth to the masses every day here for 2 years and 545,875,390,218,553 posts. Was that supposed to be cathartic? Have you had dick today?

The escalation is a joint venture between blm, the president, and Sterling. That's where the blame should be properly placed. Can't believe that the president hasn't issued a statement on any of this that happened in Dallas. He was quick to speak on the two "niggas" while he was in Warsaw but nothing about heroes in Dallas?? He is probably golfing or planning his next effort to destroy centuries old traditions in this country.

1. Thank you for the gold star. I'll wear it honorably. 2. It's less about me winning an argument than it is about you spouting **** that you can't support. I'm just your reckoning. You're a broken record repeating the same thing mindlessly that I've contradicted very effectively in toto. You're not in a position to actually debate an issue or your proffered points. You'd rather just make trendy homoerotic references that speak to your repressed desire for transgendered dick. Whatever bro. It's clear what took place here. Fade not-so-gracefully into the sunset and stay out of grown folks business. You're wasting my time. Walk away. And for what it's worth, I actually agree with your comment about "congress" and my community. I don't agree that it's disingenuous to care about over-zealous police responses while inner city violence is rampant.

There is the unveiling of the "sparky." You're predictable. I'm in your head. Remember your post as when you decided to take the thread personal. Yea, it was to shreds. MySpace, jdunderground, reddit, straightdope, whatever ... you said what you said and I wore your **** out. Remember that's why you tuck-tailed and stopped responding to me before. Because I would steady wear your paper mâché, weak ass arguments out. Just because it's almost two years later doesn't change the fact that your **** is still weak. Remember son, I get stronger as the game goes on. You're tryong to make the point that if the true concern was over violence perpetrated against blacks, then activists would be more focused on the copious numbers of murders that occur in the inner city daily as black-on-black violence.. Since activists are [ostensibly] not concerned about that, then the concern about the cop's use of excessive force must be disingenuous. Problem is: A. That's a non sequitur argument. B. I still have folks in the inner city (my dad lives in Seat Pleasant) and there are community organizing efforts, "peace nights," symposiums with rival groups, urban picnic events, gun exchange programs for food vouchers, neighborhood watch initiatives, etc in the hood that I'm from. Those are some of the initiatives at a local grassroots level to mitigate inner-city violence. But how does a picnic or gun exchange program address violence under color of law? C. Your point assumes that inner city civilian violence and violence perpetrated by police are principally the same. They're not. I spent the entirety of post #105 telling you why they're not.

Yes it does. It's spot on actually. But just to help you out, it specifically takes issue with your third, tenth, and thirteenth sentence(s) which essentially are the predicating points for your little post. Yea I addressed it. I actually ripped your **** to shreds and that caught you off guard because you never thought ... about it that way. Well there you go. Happy Birthday.

When a police officer uses their authority to stop a car and later detain and rape a woman, that's considered particularly egregious. That egregiousness is not mitigated by other rapes happening daily. When a police officer uses their authority to get quid pro quo kick backs for community protection lest they allow the riffraff in the community to run wild, that's considered particularly egregious. That's not mitigated by other bribery happening hourly. When a police officer takes some off the top when money or property is seized, that's considered particularly egregious. That egregiousness is not mitigated by other theft happening by the second. Murder is sin and a horrible thing. Murder under the color of law is particularly egregious because the individuals assigned a community protective function are using their state-sanctioned ability to accost, question, and detain, in order to harm and devastate the community that they're obliged to protect. Doesn't mean that one doesn't care about other lives being lost under different contextualized circumstances in the complex urban environment. Your effort at comparison falls flat on its face. Jauronimo was spot on and astute in his observation. Well said.

The person who ripped off Socrates knows that they ripped of Socrates. It wasn't you. Their name will remain unspoken because they're relatively thin-skinned (of the "give it but can't take it" variety). And just so you know, I'm southeast dc to the tilt, bout that Barry Farm life. Ain't nothing but negro in these veins. "I just landed in Europe, nigga." "Shopping bags I'm a tourist, nigga." "Money talk, I speak it fluent, nigga." "Jordans on I just do it, nigga." "Now look at me, I'm pure nigga." :) "I bet the hoes on my tour, nigga." "I don't bop I do the money dance." "My B word whip cost a hundred grand."

Mo!@#$ers basically rippin off Socrates up in this B word.

Just speaking the truth bro. Blacks are big lipped angry intellectually challenged beasts. Have you ever read "the Bell Curve." I've never met a one that brings any value to society besides athletic prowess or rap music. They all smoke crack and drain the system from the good, tax-paying, productive elements of society. Blacks disgust me but all minorities should just be segregated to the south where they can smoke dope and steal from and rape each other until genocide and natural selection cleanses that gene pool.

True. And for the record, I like your approach. I carry my trusty Colt Commander when I travel. I don't keep it on me; it stays in a holster under my driver seat. I like your approach though. Hand them the ccw. Seems reasonable.

I don't like to jump to conclusions, but it looks like another gangbanger uppity black teacher who was exercising his second amendment rights and had a permit to carry, who announced that he had a weapon, and was shot reaching to get his wallet though the command from the officer was to produce identification. What this man, with no criminal record and in the presence of his girlfriend and daughter, was probably going to do was grab the fire arm that he premptively announced that he had, rather than his wallet, and start shooting indiscrimately in all directions in the presence of his family. This happens all the time to whites who get pulled over and are carrying once they announce that they're carrying. Especially when they're being pulled over for being in high crime and drug infested area in the middle of the night or, equally as suggestive of criminal activity, being pulled over for a tail light being out during daylight hours in a middle class neighborhood of Minnesota. Any outrage in the black community is entirely misplaced because that rush to judgment doesn't take into consideration the volume of white folks who deal with this treatment everyday. Who cries for Chase or Maximillion or Rusty? It's reverse racism. One more monkey gang-banging hoodlum off the street. !@#$ blm. Out of touch liberals and media constructed fervor. Where I'm at, you have to let them know that you're carrying. If you do a quick search, you can probably find a lot of support around that. Your way is probably better. But the truth is, some state law enforcement ask you to announce that you're carrying upon being stopped. This guy allegedly did that. And if so, he was being compliant and did nothing wrong.

Alright bro. Fair enough. I'll toast to that.

Respond like this to the Sterling situation, and we aren't having a back and forth right now. Though you initially said something along the lines of "reserving judgment," you pretty much called Sterling a piece of **** and said that the officers were justified with incomplete evidence.

Yes, and its progeny. So what? Are you saying that police officers can shoot people, without "apprehension," because they're police officers. Ipsa facto? Because while you're making your flaccid penis argument around what your experience has been rolling around with "perps" as a law enforcement officer, I'm trying to get to "apprehension." Or do you think that actual "apprehension" and aome "reasonable law enforcement officer" standard around that "apprehension" is extenuated? And if so, do you believe that that removal of actual objectively reasonable "apprehension" has jurisprudential backing? I didn't think so. So let's assume that you're not suggesting that police officers can shoot people without a legitimate objectively reasonable apprehension of danger to themselves and others, and get back to "apprehension" conceptually relative to Mr. sterling. If you take the few proffered witness statements, and the current camera angles that the media has released, and the fact that the gun was in his pocket during the entire altercation, and the fact that no witness (that has spoken up thus far) has said that he tried to or did reach for a gun, and the fact that he was on the ground when he was shot, and the fact that there were two police officers, guns drawn, on either end of his body, the case for "reasonable apprehension such that deadly force was warranted" seems dubious. That's the facts just as we know them now though. My issue is with this entire, "every time a black person is shot people protest even though there may be (and likely is) some legitimate justification for the shooting so any time a black person is shot and someone protests there has to be legitimate justification for the shooting and the officers can't be at fault for excessive force" line of thinking. That's predicated on "cry wolfism" and it's just as bad as the converse. What I see is a guy on the ground, who seems to be repeating some variation of "what did I do wrong officer?" being shot, while seemingly overwhelmed, though not completely still and docile, but with variables there to account for the movement and agitation. No video shows him trying to get up, or reach furtively at or towards police, or reach for his pockets, or do anything except gyrate on the ground and lift his head up and down as 200 pound men are enveloping his body. That's what I see so far. You probably should opt for sleep though. If I had the choice of arguing law with a lawyer or sleeping, I would sleep too. I won't fault you for that bro.

Find a witness that says that he was waving a gun around. The store owner and the witnesses on the scene indicate that they have no clue where that came from. And no one has yet come forth to say otherwise. But since the beauty of your arguments is in the strength of your coherence and objectivity, then I'm sure that you've accounted for this and spoke to witnesses on the scene and received context behind the 911 call. But no matter, let's put that to the side for a moment, when the police arrived, the guy was leaning against a car with nothing in his hands. When they slammed him to the ground he had nothing in his hands. There is nothing in three angles of video that demonstrably shows that he was reaching for anything near his pockets None of the witnesses said that he was reaching for anything. In fact, the store owner said that he for a fact wasn't reaching for anything that he could tell as he stood within feet of the altercation. And the store camera angle, which would give yet another perspective, was confiscated by local police. So I see 90% (relative to the ultimate harm) docility and about a 10% effort at contriving a scenario that the video doesn't show. But of course, you're right. Nighty night.