Williams speech/Alton/Philando/Dallas shootings

[Maury Ballstein]

This is true. But it's interesting to see how candid people can be and whence their deepest and truest feelings about a circumstance comes.

The same people who think policemen are infallible said the same thing about rapey priests for decades.

[Juror#8]

The same people who think policemen are infallible said the same thing about rapey priests for decades.

Very true. It's like this weird logical block around the idea that a traditionally respected figure could do wrong. I think that this dissonance is exacerbated when the traditionally respected figure is doing wrong to someone that one can't relate with phenotypically or, at least, culturally.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Juror#8

[Sig1Hunter]

Another salient point that I missed because your overall post is so compelling. You're making my point so demonstrably though you may not realize it. Thank you brother.

Anyway, blacks and minorities are doing everything they can to steal and suck every piece of vitality from this great country but then they had the audacity to complain when they catch some heat to the chest when they are inarguably in the wrong and aggressively attacking law enforcement. !@#$ing apes ...

Huh? The leeches on society are the convicted felons who keep walking around with guns in their possession and victimizing society - has nothing to do with the color of their skin.

 

You planning on offering any kind of real rebuttal to the points I've made? Or, are you just going to continue along the "you're a racist because that's the easiest explanation" route?

The same people who think policemen are infallible said the same thing about rapey priests for decades.

Policemen aren't infallible. The people who make it their life mission to point out how cops are wrong generally hang their hats on the wrong cases, that's all. This is the wrong case. I've provided a reasonable, rational response based on real world experience after viewing the videos. At this point, that opinion is based upon some presumption and some fact. It's possible that it could change with the reveal of more facts. But, then again, I'm a close minded, racist cop lover.

 

Nice tie in to raping priests. Because, the two situations are EXACTLY alike.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The same people who think policemen are infallible said the same thing about rapey priests for decades.

 

No one thinks police are infallible. That's a strawman put forth by the #blacklivesmatter people. What most of us think is that MANY of these circumstances are situations where there's active resistance to arrest, be it verbal or physical. That's just asking for trouble.

[Juror#8]

Huh? The leeches on society are the convicted felons who keep walking around with guns in their possession and victimizing society - has nothing to do with the color of their skin.

 

You planning on offering any kind of real rebuttal to the points I've made? Or, are you just going to continue along the "you're a racist because that's the easiest explanation" route?

 

Policemen aren't infallible. The people who make it their life mission to point out how cops are wrong generally hang their hats on the wrong cases, that's all. This is the wrong case. I've provided a reasonable, rational response based on real world experience after viewing the videos. At this point, that opinion is based upon some presumption and some fact. It's possible that it could change with the reveal of more facts. But, then again, I'm a close minded, racist cop lover.

 

Nice tie in to raping priests. Because, the two situations are EXACTLY alike.

I'm saying that blacks and minorities are leeching off society. Those apes disgust me. You're argument is cogent and objective and entirely dispassionate. I'm not sure that it can be stated better or be more American and right.

 

You're just saying that a man is a leech because he is a convicted felon (with a gun in his pocket), who has ostensibly paid his debt to society, and, at least from witnesses that have come forth to date, was minding his own business and had a good raporte with his community.

 

That's not even marginally presumptuous.

 

In fact, I agree with you except if they're Martha Stewart, Tim Allen, Mick Jagger, Tom Sizemore et cetera ... They're not leeches, because outside of they're obvious racial superiority, they're also on tv. And to me that mitigates their (in some cases multiple) felonies and leechiness.

 

And if you read my posts, I've provided ample rebuttal - even to the liberties that you've taken with facts. I'm not going to go back and itemize that rebuttal for you. Because they're most assuredly there. But if you can't see it, like really really can't see it, maybe it's because we truly agree on everything. Which would make me smile. Because at he end of the day, being aligned with your coherence and imperturbability and even-handedness, is a place that I want to be.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Juror#8

[FireChan]

Tell em Sig!! I wouldn't even worry about these libs. You're wasting your time trying to reason with them. They're always going to blame the officers and it's never the black victim's fault. The black always gets a free pass. Those officers are good Americans and the mere suggestion that could have used excessive force or act in any way extrajudicially when faced with an unfamiliar or uncomfortable situation is an affront to any traditional right-minded sense of decency and doesn't dignify a serious response from you. I would have leaned on red herrings and appeals to patriotism too because officers don't make mistakes and their infallibility is the reason that they're given the solemn responsibility to protect and serve in the first place. It's a damned shame that anyone could watch that video and see anything at all other than two guys who love baseball and equity and who are fairly and disapassionately and temperately doing their jobs. Obviously sterling did everything that he could to be shot and his actions, as far as we can tell on the video, inarguably, demonstrates that he was the aggressor who may have been going for the officer's sidearm. If the black didn't want to be shot, the black shouldn't have been moving especially after being tased and body slammed with someone kneeing, pressing, and pushing in just about every area of his massive frame.

Someone messaged me once and said I don't agree with much of what you say but you say what you say better than anyone says anything that I agree with.

 

I write for him. I polemicize for him. And that's what you're reading friend.

 

I'm just fed up with these blacks thinking that they can get away with attacking police officers just because they're black and have blm at their back.

 

Racism never existed and slavery/segregation was a farce and overstated ... especially in the South. People familiy's don't hold on to separatist and racist feelings especially just 1-2 generation removed from legal segregation and Jim Crow. To be sure, show me one officer who ever admitted to using excessive force? Exactly. In the last 300 years, if that really existed, someone would have admitted to it if that was a real thing instead of a creation of the deranged liberal mind, right?

 

Right?

Your point is better served without this twisted satirical angle, FYI. It's quite draining to read it from EVERYBODY on this board. Get some new material, jesus.

 

Or throw a "nutsucker" in for good measure, and I'll play "Guess that Post" with PPPers' names in hats.

Edited July 7, 2016 by FireChan

[Maury Ballstein]

Huh? The leeches on society are the convicted felons who keep walking around with guns in their possession and victimizing society - has nothing to do with the color of their skin.

You planning on offering any kind of real rebuttal to the points I've made? Or, are you just going to continue along the "you're a racist because that's the easiest explanation" route?

 

Policemen aren't infallible. The people who make it their life mission to point out how cops are wrong generally hang their hats on the wrong cases, that's all. This is the wrong case. I've provided a reasonable, rational response based on real world experience after viewing the videos. At this point, that opinion is based upon some presumption and some fact. It's possible that it could change with the reveal of more facts. But, then again, I'm a close minded, racist cop lover.

Nice tie in to raping priests. Because, the two situations are EXACTLY alike.

You getting mad huh ? Don't take a **** on my analogy. They both hold or used to hold respect from their positions. Let's not get emotional please.

 

Simma down Sally.

 

You see him reaching for a gun, news outlets see cops who pulled a gun from his pockets after he was shot 6 times and puzzled eyewitnesses.

 

Chill B.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Ryan L Billz

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You getting mad huh ? Don't take a **** on my analogy. They both hold or used to hold respect from their positions. Let's not get emotional please.

 

Simma down Sally.

 

You see him reaching for a gun, news outlets see cops who pulled a gun from his pockets after he was shot 6 times and puzzled eyewitnesses.

 

Chill B.

 

You'll pardon me if I question the veracity of news outlets.

Edited July 7, 2016 by joesixpack

[Maury Ballstein]

You'll pardon me if I don't question the veracity of news outlets.

Very fair, pardon me if I don't question sig1hunters take.

 

More and more video will come out, seems pretty grey.

[Sig1Hunter]

You getting mad huh ? Don't take a **** on my analogy. They both hold or used to hold respect from their positions. Let's not get emotional please.

Simma down Sally.

You see him reaching for a gun, news outlets see cops who pulled a gun from his pockets after he was shot 6 times and puzzled eyewitnesses.

Chill B.

Ah, yes. The "u mad bro" retort.

 

You may wanna go back and read my posts. I never said I saw him reaching for a gun. I said you can't see that hand at all. I only said that you can see on the video that there appears to be some type of struggle at the pocket just before shots are fired. You are the one who was making assumptions about his hands being completely controlled, when the videos don't even show his right hand.

 

You stop to think how the cops knew immediately which pocket to go to when they removed the gun? Lucky guess?

You're just saying that a man is a leech because he is a convicted felon (with a gun in his pocket), who has ostensibly paid his debt to society, and, at least from witnesses that have come forth to date, was minding his own business and had a good raporte with his community.

That's not even marginally presumptuous.

 

Does "minding his own business" mean threatening a citizen with his gun? Because that's the reason that the cops were there, apparently. You see that man as minding his own business, I see it as him continuing to victimize the society that he lives in.

Here's the facts as I understand them. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Call is made to police identifying a subject with Sterling's description threatening someone with a gun.

Uniformed Police officers respond and identify Sterling.

Contact is made with Sterling.

At some point, a confrontation occurs.

Confrontation becomes a ground fight.

Sterling physically resists.

During ground fight, police identify a gun in Sterlings possession.

Police shoot Sterling.

 

Presumptions that I've made based upon my personal knowledge of law enforcement training, equipment, tactics.

A taser was deployed, twice, to no effect on Sterling prior to the confrontation moving to the ground.

There appears to be a struggle at Sterling's right front pocket with on officer and Sterling, just before shots are fired.

 

Hence, my opinion. The use of force is very likely justified. That's it. No black vs white race baiting narrative peddled by the media and BLM.

 

And, with that, I'll leave the rest of the thread to the nonsensical BS that you seem to like to post. Enjoy! It was a long night at work, and I'm looking forward to some awesome sleep.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Sig1Hunter

[Juror#8]

Your point is better served without this twisted satirical angle, FYI. It's quite draining to read it from EVERYBODY on this board. Get some new material, jesus.

 

Or throw a "nutsucker" in for good measure, and I'll play "Guess that Post" with PPPers' names in hats.

Whence does this "satire" idea come from? I'm identifying with my brother Sig who has valid points that I think will "make America great again" like it was in the 40s and 50s.

 

I. Change up ...

 

My point is well served because the **** is hitting on all 8 cylinders and it just makes sense when you think about it. It's even less of a point than a rebuke towards the idea that because some bruhs have been justifiably hurt/shot by police - and that that harm has been met with outcry, that every instance of police shooting is justifiable and that the outcry, though similar in voice, culture, and scope, can't be legitimate. That sometimes the relative docility (vis a vis the ultimate harm perpetrated) of the 90% of the video that you can see tells the tale fairly well and that you don't have to contrive a 10% scenario where the victim was looking to effectuate a harm when the video context, as seen, doesn't affirmatively show that.

 

II. I'm back ...

 

And nobody on this board does anything the same way I do it. For better or for worse, I carve my own place out on this board, outside of the echo chamber and essentially label-less. There are people who are more "intellectual" and analytical than me (Gg, Take you to Tasker, Magox), there are people who are more observant and thoughtful and objective than me (Ryan L, Taro, Robs House, Levi), and there are people more interesting and entertaining than me (La and Oc and Chef); but I don't do **** than anyone else does ... by design.

 

You can attribute that to the pigment.

 

I'm label-less. Well, maybe except for "insufferable jerk." Which I'll take happily, nutsucker.

[FireChan]

Whence does this "satire" idea come from? I'm identifying with my brother Sig who has valid points that I think will "make America great again" like it was in the 40s and 50s.

 

I. Change up ...

 

My point is well served because the **** is hitting on all 8 cylinders and it just makes sense when you think about it. It's even less of a point than a rebuke towards the idea that because some bruhs have been justifiably hurt/shot by police - and that that harm has been met with outcry, that every instance of police shooting is justifiable and that the outcry, though similar in voice, culture, and scope, can't be legitimate. That sometimes the relative docility (vis a vis the ultimate harm perpetrated) of the 90% of the video that you can see tells the tale fairly well and that you don't have to contrive a 10% scenario where the victim was looking to effectuate a harm when the video context, as seen, doesn't affirmatively show that.

 

II. I'm back ...

 

And nobody on this board does anything the same way I do it. For better or for worse, I carve my own place out on this board, outside of the echo chamber and essentially label-less. There are people who are more "intellectual" and analytical than me (Gg, Take you to Tasker, Magox), there are people who are more observant and thoughtful and objective than me (Ryan L, Taro, Robs House, Levi), and there are people more interesting and entertaining than me (La and Oc and Chef); but I don't do **** than anyone else does ... by design.

 

You can attribute that to the pigment.

 

I'm label-less. Well, maybe except for "insufferable jerk." Which I'll take happily, nutsucker.

This was better. Thanks.

[Juror#8]

Ah, yes. The "u mad bro" retort.

 

You stop to think how the cops knew immediately which pocket to go to when they removed the gun? Lucky guess?

 

Does "minding his own business" mean threatening a citizen with his gun? Because that's the reason that the cops were there, apparently. You see that man as minding his own business, I see it as him continuing to victimize the society that he lives in.

Here's the facts as I understand them. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Call is made to police identifying a subject with Sterling's description threatening someone with a gun.

Uniformed Police officers respond and identify Sterling.

Contact is made with Sterling.

At some point, a confrontation occurs.

Confrontation becomes a ground fight.

Sterling physically resists.

During ground fight, police identify a gun in Sterlings possession.

Police shoot Sterling.

 

Presumptions that I've made based upon my personal knowledge of law enforcement training, equipment, tactics.

A taser was deployed, twice, to no effect on Sterling prior to the confrontation moving to the ground.

There appears to be a struggle at Sterling's right front pocket with on officer and Sterling, just before shots are fired.

 

Hence, my opinion. The use of force is very likely justified. That's it. No black vs white race baiting narrative peddled by the media and BLM.

 

And, with that, I'll leave the rest of the thread to the nonsensical BS that you seem to like to post. Enjoy! It was a long night at work, and I'm looking forward to some awesome sleep.

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.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Juror#8

[B-Man]

The truth about cops killing blacks

by Larry Elder

 

http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/the-truth-about-cops-killing-blacks/print/

 

 

 

 

Here’s the Baton Rouge Advocate newspaper, trying to put the Sterling story all into context:

http://theadvocate.com/news/16328916-124/new-video-surfaces-in-police-killing-of-alton-sterling-in-baton-rouge

[Maury Ballstein]

Ah, yes. The "u mad bro" retort.

You may wanna go back and read my posts. I never said I saw him reaching for a gun. I said you can't see that hand at all. I only said that you can see on the video that there appears to be some type of struggle at the pocket just before shots are fired. You are the one who was making assumptions about his hands being completely controlled, when the videos don't even show his right hand.

You stop to think how the cops knew immediately which pocket to go to when they removed the gun? Lucky guess?

Does "minding his own business" mean threatening a citizen with his gun? Because that's the reason that the cops were there, apparently. You see that man as minding his own business, I see it as him continuing to victimize the society that he lives in.

Here's the facts as I understand them. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Call is made to police identifying a subject with Sterling's description threatening someone with a gun.

Uniformed Police officers respond and identify Sterling.

Contact is made with Sterling.

At some point, a confrontation occurs.

Confrontation becomes a ground fight.

Sterling physically resists.

During ground fight, police identify a gun in Sterlings possession.

Police shoot Sterling.

Presumptions that I've made based upon my personal knowledge of law enforcement training, equipment, tactics.

A taser was deployed, twice, to no effect on Sterling prior to the confrontation moving to the ground.

There appears to be a struggle at Sterling's right front pocket with on officer and Sterling, just before shots are fired.

Hence, my opinion. The use of force is very likely justified. That's it. No black vs white race baiting narrative peddled by the media and BLM.

And, with that, I'll leave the rest of the thread to the nonsensical BS that you seem to like to post. Enjoy! It was a long night at work, and I'm looking forward to some awesome sleep.

Sounds like your mad bro.

[IDBillzFan]

 

No one thinks police are infallible. That's a strawman put forth by the #blacklivesmatter people. What most of us think is that MANY of these circumstances are situations where there's active resistance to arrest, be it verbal or physical. That's just asking for trouble.

 

I recognize there are bad cops, but I really hate the way so many people are so quick to take a situation like this to raise hell.

 

These people see a cop shoot a black guy, and yell that all cops are bad.

 

They see a terrorists shoot a bunch of people in San Bernardino, and yell that all guns are bad everyone should give up their right to firearms.

 

But let one Muslim murder 50 homosexuals after pleding his allegiance to a terrorist group, and these same people are yelling, "Hey, hey, hey...let's not jump to conclusions and bundle all Muslims into one group!"

 

Something went wrong in Baton Rouge, but if the police talk to you, taze you and then STILL have to tackle you, I have to wonder what the conversation sounded like.

[Sig1Hunter]

But of course, you're right. Nighty night.

Nah, the United States Supreme Court is right. Ever hear of Graham v. Connor?

 

And, yes, your witty discourse has drawn me back in. Congratulations. Hopefully, it is merely temporary because I still want that sleep.

Sounds like your mad bro.

If I was mad, I would point out your misuse of your/you're. But, I'm not, so I won't.

[Maury Ballstein]

Nah, the United States Supreme Court is right. Ever hear of Graham v. Connor?

And, yes, your witty discourse has drawn me back in. Congratulations. Hopefully, it is merely temporary because I still want that sleep.

 

If I was mad, I would point out your misuse of your/you're. But, I'm not, so I won't.

Cool, now let's move on. What happened in this one ?

 

http://usuncut.com/black-lives-matter/minnesota-police-shooting-traffic-stop/

[B-Man]

Video: Minn police shoot man during traffic stop; girlfriend live-streams aftermath on Facebook

 

 

 

 

You Don’t Have To Be Black Lives Matter To Support Police Accountability

 

 

 

 

Video: New footage of the Alton Sterling shooting emerges

[Sig1Hunter]

Cool, now let's move on. What happened in this one ? http://usuncut.com/black-lives-matter/minnesota-police-shooting-traffic-stop/

From what I can tell, a woman was seated in a vehicle next to a man purported to be her boyfriend. The man appeared to be injured, and a police officer was standing outside of the window with his gun drawn. The woman was apparently so distraught that she live streamed the incident. Other than that, I have no clue. Its entirely possible that the police officer shot the man and was not justified in doing so. It is equally possible that the man was shot after reaching for a gun when he was told not to. Objective, eh? How about we wait for more facts before making concrete conclusions based on incomplete evidence?