More examples of the peacefulness of the BLM.

[gr8indoorsman]

Certainly not for lack of trying. Curious - how is it you've decided without a doubt a case where the police did something wrong? All 3 of the 6 police who have had their day in court have been acquitted of any wrong doing.

You're not helping your case if this is the best you can come up with. Again, you'd think you end keyboard dude would have long list of stories since you both seem to be so worked up over so-called unjustified police action shootings. Give us all a few obvious cases of where the police unjustly shot someone and walked free.

We make these kinds of determinations all the time. I guess you only have an issue with it when it doesn't favor your argument?

So I guess Hillary didn't engage in any "wrong doing" either with respect to her email? I guess OJ didn't engage in "wrong doing"?

Point being, there's a pretty distinct line, in my opinion, between being a convicted criminal and engaging in something that's wrong morally, ethically, civilly. Freddie Gray died at the hands of police who refused to secure him in the back of a van, and was unable to defend himself because he was handcuffed, thus suffering fatal injuries on the van ride. There is definitely "wrong doing" there in that his death was at least negligent, if not criminal.

 

[qazplm]

This:

It is possible - even preferable - to be upset about BOTH problems, rather than feeling like you have to pick a side and close your mind to everything else. People don't deserve to die because they're high, because they're resisting arrest, or because they're DWB and legally armed. People ARE going to die when they attack police, point weapons at police, etc., because the police also have a right to defend themselves.

Well I don't think any reasonable person thinks that if you attack police or point a weapon at them that you have pretty much forfeited your personal safety...then again...

there was the female doctor who got a short, suspended sentence for basically running into a cop intentionally with her car after breaking away from custody.

but I digress...the Dallas shooter? Glad he's gone. 99% of folks are. I don't think there's much debate about the second half. So as Hillary likes to say, you have violent agreement about that from the vast majority of the populace, including the AA populace.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

but I digress...the Dallas shooter? Glad he's gone. 99% of folks are. I don't think there's much debate about the second half. So as Hillary likes to say, you have violent agreement about that from the vast majority of the populace, including the AA populace.

Interestingly, I've seen at least two people (black men as it were) question police overreach in using a bomb to kill the Dallas shooter, even asking why a bomb wasn't used on Dylan Roof... even though Roof didn't resist arrest or target police or hole up in a violent standoff when he was actually confronted...

I personally saw no difference between that and a sniper, and I doubt anyone would've questioned the use of the sniper had it been possible at the time.

 

[qazplm]

Interestingly, I've seen at least two people (black men as it were) question police overreach in using a bomb to kill the Dallas shooter, even asking why a bomb wasn't used on Dylan Roof... even though Roof didn't resist arrest or target police or hole up in a violent standoff when he was actually confronted...

I personally saw no difference between that and a sniper, and I doubt anyone would've questioned the use of the sniper had it been possible at the time.

I think there are some legit things to look at concerning Roof and some AA suspects who were shot and killed, but no, I have no problem with using a bomb in this case. I think it has to be something highly controlled and rarely used but it seems clear that the shooter was mentally unstable and an active threat and he was holed up, by himself, with no threat to others and he wasn't going to give himself up...he was writing in his own blood for cripes sakes.

I'm sure someone, somewhere out there would disagree with just about anything.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

there was the female doctor who got a short, suspended sentence for basically running into a cop intentionally with her car after breaking away from custody.

I just read something on this. Sounds like the officer didn't want to press charges. The doc did lose her job--she reminds of Alec Baldwin's character in Malice. "You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God."

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Certainly not for lack of trying. Curious - how is it you've decided without a doubt a case where the police did something wrong? All 3 of the 6 police who have had their day in court have been acquitted of any wrong doing.

You're not helping your case if this is the best you can come up with. Again, you'd think you end keyboard dude would have long list of stories since you both seem to be so worked up over so-called unjustified police action shootings. Give us all a few obvious cases of where the police unjustly shot someone and walked free.

What's not obvious enough about this? I'm not saying get the ropes, but there must be a certain amount of responsibility here.

 

[atmafola]

Interestingly, I've seen at least two people (black men as it were) question police overreach in using a bomb to kill the Dallas shooter, even asking why a bomb wasn't used on Dylan Roof... even though Roof didn't resist arrest or target police or hole up in a violent standoff when he was actually confronted...

I personally saw no difference between that and a sniper, and I doubt anyone would've questioned the use of the sniper had it been possible at the time.

I have seen people make that argument as well talking about slippery slope. The crazy dude in Dallas had 2 hours of negotiation to surrender, but kept making threats about shooting more officers if they approached him, and talking about having explosive devices. Despite killing so many people, he was still given a chance to come in peacefully and chose otherwise. I feel bad for his family, or he himself (if he wasn't mentally there), but for the sake of everyone one else, I am glad he was taken out, in a way that hurt nobody but him.

I can only imagine how much Castille's family would have wanted him to get even 2 minutes of negotiation to clear things up before he was on the receiving end of 4 bullets.

 

[qazplm]

I just read something on this. Sounds like the officer didn't want to press charges. The doc did lose her job--she reminds of Alec Baldwin's character in Malice. "You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God."

yeah she came across...lil bit crazy.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I think there are some legit things to look at concerning Roof and some AA suspects who were shot and killed, but no, I have no problem with using a bomb in this case. I think it has to be something highly controlled and rarely used but it seems clear that the shooter was mentally unstable and an active threat and he was holed up, by himself, with no threat to others and he wasn't going to give himself up...he was writing in his own blood for cripes sakes.

While I would have had zero problem if the cops had identified Dylann Roof as the culprit in the Charleston shooting and shot on sight (OK, well, I would've had a problem with that I guess!), I thought his surrender was peaceful, was it not? Thus I don't know what needs investigating in terms of how police handled that versus AA suspects. Unless you mean AA suspects were actually shot without resisting or incident (which is, of course, true in St Paul at the least). I just don't understand what about Roof's apprehension requires looking into, I guess. I think one has little to do with the other, and I certainly don't see why anyone would advocate killing Roof vs. killing the Dallas shooter, given the circumstances of the apprehensions. One surrendered, even pulled the car over and didn't try to run. The other was actively engaging police with sniper and assault rifle fire, etc. Thus I thought the "Dallas shooter gets a bomb, why didn't Dylann Roof get a bomb" posts were pretty ignorant, actually.

 

[qazplm]

While I would have had zero problem if the cops had identified Dylann Roof as the culprit in the Charleston shooting and shot on sight (OK, well, I would've had a problem with that I guess!), I thought his surrender was peaceful, was it not? Thus I don't know what needs investigating in terms of how police handled that versus AA suspects. Unless you mean AA suspects were actually shot without resisting or incident (which is, of course, true in St Paul at the least). I just don't understand what about Roof's apprehension requires looking into, I guess. I think one has little to do with the other, and I certainly don't see why anyone would advocate killing Roof vs. killing the Dallas shooter, given the circumstances of the apprehensions. One surrendered, even pulled the car over and didn't try to run. The other was actively engaging police with sniper and assault rifle fire, etc. Thus I thought the "Dallas shooter gets a bomb, why didn't Dylann Roof get a bomb" posts were pretty ignorant, actually.

well yes you got it, Roof doesn't resist and commits grave crimes, non shooting...several others don't resist, commit minor crimes (if at all) and are shot dead, that's what I think the intent is of using the Roof comparison for some and myself...not that Roof deserved to be killed.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

well yes you got it, Roof doesn't resist and commits grave crimes, non shooting...several others don't resist, commit minor crimes (if at all) and are shot dead, that's what I think the intent is of using the Roof comparison for some and myself...not that Roof deserved to be killed.

Right, but at the time of the Roof interaction with police, he did not resist. This, I don't see why that has anything to do with the AA shootings anymore than any other non-violent police interaction. It is disingenuous to ask why Dallas got a bomb and Roof didn't. The two situations are far from equivalent as far as police interactions go.

It'd be plenty fair to compare the Roof interaction with St Paul, but that has more to do with St Paul than Roof. It's as if the implication is that the police would've been more justified in shooting Roof five times than Castile, when the correct answer is that neither would've been justified, in my opinion.

 

[atmafola]

that term "resisting arrest" is so nebulous, it bothers me a lot. The way it is often used, you can use to defend just about any use of force in any circumstance. Personally, I have unwittingly been on the wrong end of it and it wasn't fun.

It's also the go-to charge of many actually physically abusive officers. I believe it's NYPD's data that showed that 5% of their force was responsible for like 40% of resisting arrest charges filed. Either all of New York came together and conspired to keep resisting these 5% of officers or we should actually be looking closely at those officers and ushering them out.

https://project.wnyc.org/resisting/

 

[gr8indoorsman]

that term "resisting arrest" is so nebulous, it bothers me a lot. The way it is often used, you can use to defend just about any use of force in any circumstance. Personally, I have unwittingly been on the wrong end of it and it wasn't fun.

It's also the go-to charge of many actually physically abusive officers. I believe it's NYPD's data that showed that 5% of their force was responsible for like 40% of resisting arrest charges filed. Either all of New York came together and conspired to keep resisting these 5% of officers or we should actually be looking closely at those officers and ushering them out.

In the way I was using it, I meant "firing on officers with multiple semi-automatic weapons, threatening to kill more officers having already shot 12, and making bomb threats," not, "not respecting their authoritaaaaaa".

The account of Roof's arrest that I've read was essentially they pulled him over, went up to the car with guns drawn, asked him out, he stepped out, they frisked him and cuffed him. Had the Dallas shooter done that, I would bet he'd be alive. He didn't, thus, bomb.

 

[hunkgolden]

that term "resisting arrest" is so nebulous, it bothers me a lot. The way it is often used, you can use to defend just about any use of force in any circumstance. Personally, I have unwittingly been on the wrong end of it and it wasn't fun.

It's also the go-to charge of many actually physically abusive officers. I believe it's NYPD's data that showed that 5% of their force was responsible for like 40% of resisting arrest charges filed. Either all of New York came together and conspired to keep resisting these 5% of officers or we should actually be looking closely at those officers and ushering them out.

https://project.wnyc.org/resisting/

Is it possible that those officers filing more resisting arrest charges work an area where people are actually resist arrest more? Here in Indy, I would bet that IMPD officers working in Franklin Township experience barely any resisting arrest situations while officers working beats on the near east side and northeast side experience it quite often. I would like to see where these NYPD officers are patrolling.

Again, I can only think of one instance of late (that we've seen video of) where the black male who was shot fully cooperated with police. The only video I've seen where that didn't happen was that poor kid who got shot at the gas station when he was reaching back in his car for his I.D.

The reason why the blm movement hasn't gone mainstream and why the vast majority of people in this country do not see police actions shootings as a problem is because the people the police are shooting are generally lifelong criminals; have an attitude with the police; don't follow the police commands; and who resist arrest. Most people who look at these videos and learn about the guys who were shot believe that the exact same result would've occurred had the person been white. Then we see statistics that show how young black males are for more likely to murder someone than any other group of people.

As soon as black males stop being so violent, stop resisting arrest, and start obeying the officer's commands than you will see a DRAMATIC decrease in the number of them getting shot by police.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

The reason why the blm movement hasn't gone mainstream and why the vast majority of people in this country do not see police actions shootings as a problem is because the people the police are shooting are generally lifelong criminals; have an attitude with the police; don't follow the police commands; and who resist arrest. Most people who look at these videos and learn about the guys who were shot believe that the exact same result would've occurred had the person been white. Then we see statistics that show how young black males are for more likely to murder someone than any other group of people.

This is a classic case of someone being so sheltered, so surrounded only by people who think like him and act and talk and probably look like him that he is convinced of some truth. BLM is pretty mainstream. There is no "vast" majority of people who do not see this as a problem. I'm not even sure it's a majority, but maybe.

 

[qazplm]

This is a classic case of someone being so sheltered, so surrounded only by people who think like him and act and talk and probably look like him that he is convinced of some truth. BLM is pretty mainstream. There is no "vast" majority of people who do not see this as a problem. I'm not even sure it's a majority, but maybe.

It's not even worth engaging on at this point with guys like that. It's one thing to admit there is a problem and say it's complex and has multiple parts to it, it's another to say there is no problem or that the problem is simply because black men are violent and resist and deserve what they get.

 

[hunkgolden]

This is a classic case of someone being so sheltered, so surrounded only by people who think like him and act and talk and probably look like him that he is convinced of some truth. BLM is pretty mainstream. There is no "vast" majority of people who do not see this as a problem. I'm not even sure it's a majority, but maybe.

In a Rasmussen poll conducted just last month - 53% of those polled had an unfavorable view of blm. But please go ahead with your fantasy.

 

[qazplm]

In a Rasmussen poll conducted just last month - 53% of those polled had an unfavorable view of blm. But please go ahead with your fantasy.

so something is only mainstream if it is more than 50% popular?

Pretty sure that's not what mainstream means.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

In a Rasmussen poll conducted just last month - 53% of those polled had an unfavorable view of blm. But please go ahead with your fantasy.

From the Rasmussen Poll: "Most voters view the Black Lives Matter movement unfavorably. Perhaps in part that’s because they tend to think the U.S. justice system is less likely to be unfair to blacks than to Americans in general."

It's shocking that people who generally don't think the criminal justice system is unfair to blacks would disapprove of BLM...eh, not really.

And, that's one poll...hardly definitive. Who's living in a fantasy world?

 

[qazplm]

From the Rasmussen Poll: "Most voters view the Black Lives Matter movement unfavorably. Perhaps in part that’s because they tend to think the U.S. justice system is less likely to be unfair to blacks than to Americans in general."

It's shocking that people who generally don't think the criminal justice system is unfair to blacks would disapprove of BLM...eh, not really.

And, that's one poll...hardly definitive. Who's living in a fantasy world?

I'm guessing his world includes the belief that the criminal justice system isn't unfair to AAs.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

In a Rasmussen poll conducted just last month - 53% of those polled had an unfavorable view of blm. But please go ahead with your fantasy.

So 53-47 is a "vast majority"? Got it.

In any event, I wasn't even worried about the comment on BLM. It's definitely mainstream. They have people appearing daily on pretty much every major media network out there and I'm guessing everyone in America has heard of it, even if they view it unfavorably.

My concern is more about the "vast majority" of the country not believing there is a problem with police employment of force against AA suspects. I'd guess that's not even remotely true. I'd guess that most Democrats in this country believe there is a problem. I'd guess that most Republicans don't believe there is a problem. I'd guess independents are pretty evenly split on it. There are more Democrats than Republicans, so I'd certainly challenge your use of the word "VAST" and probably challenge that the majority of this country believes what you say is true at all.

I think you and your buddies you talk to regularly believe that there's no problem. I think people tend to surround themselves with like-minded people are rarely want to have those views challenged. Thus, I think your view that the vast majority of people agree with you should really be stated as "the vast majority of people I talk to" agree.

 

[qazplm]

So 53-47 is a "vast majority"? Got it.

In any event, I wasn't even worried about the comment on BLM. It's definitely mainstream. They have people appearing daily on pretty much every major media network out there and I'm guessing everyone in America has heard of it, even if they view it unfavorably.

My concern is more about the "vast majority" of the country not believing there is a problem with police employment of force against AA suspects. I'd guess that's not even remotely true. I'd guess that most Democrats in this country believe there is a problem. I'd guess that most Republicans don't believe there is a problem. I'd guess independents are pretty evenly split on it. There are more Democrats than Republicans, so I'd certainly challenge your use of the word "VAST" and probably challenge that the majority of this country believes what you say is true at all.

I think you and your buddies you talk to regularly believe that there's no problem. I think people tend to surround themselves with like-minded people are rarely want to have those views challenged. Thus, I think your view that the vast majority of people agree with you should really be stated as "the vast majority of people I talk to" agree.

The thing about being in the military is, you have no choice but to rub up (platonically) with folks who do not remotely think like you do, or look like you, or like the same things you do.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

The thing about being in the military is, you have no choice but to rub up (platonically) with folks who do not remotely think like you do, or look like you, or like the same things you do.

True, though I think the majority in the military is slanted a bit more conservative than the rest of the country. Generally speaking, I view the military as a cross-section of society, but there is a certain "gun club" mentality that persists in our culture even more so than in the general American populace, and I think more military folks are wired to side with the police and vote for Trump or Johnson than otherwise.

 

[qazplm]

True, though I think the majority in the military is slanted a bit more conservative than the rest of the country. Generally speaking, I view the military as a cross-section of society, but there is a certain "gun club" mentality that persists in our culture even more so than in the general American populace, and I think more military folks are wired to side with the police and vote for Trump or Johnson than otherwise.

oh trust me, I know, but still there are enough liberals and other thinkers that when combined with the "everyone is green (or blue or whatever color)" and the constant emphasis on meritocracy, that differences are better tolerated.

Look at how quickly getting rid of DADT was absorbed for example even though I'd wager most military personnel are personally against homosexuality (at least the ones over the age of 35). But once the ruling came down, that was that, and it was back to you I don't care what you are so long as you do your job.

So even though I'm a liberal, and not shy about it, because I do my job well, I've never faced one issue with it during my career, and I certainly would never have an issue with giving someone a top eval if they earned it just because they were a raging conservative...I might shake my head internally at them, but they did the job, they get the top marks.

 

[CWS]

The thing about being in the military is, you have no choice but to rub up (platonically) with folks who do not remotely think like you do, or look like you, or like the same things you do.

In this case, would it be platoonically?

Rimshot.

Sorry, poor attempt at humor.

 

[qazplm]

In this case, would it be platoonically?

Rimshot.

Sorry, poor attempt at humor.

Well it's a darn sight better than the other attempt? at humor on the board just a bit ago.

 

[hunkgolden]

So 53-47 is a "vast majority"? Got it.

Ahemmm - 47% of Americans don't have a favorable view of blm. I understand why you would think that though.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Ahemmm - 47% of Americans don't have a favorable view of blm. I understand why you would think that though.

I don't believe I said that they did. I understand part of that group has no opinion. But, forest for the trees I guess. Whatever allows you to feel good about yourself.

 

[hunkgolden]

I don't believe I said that they did. I understand part of that group has no opinion. But, forest for the trees I guess. Whatever allows you to feel good about yourself.

31,511 messages on a message board is the key to feeling good about one's self apparently. Good lord - get married, have some kids, and coach them in sports.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

Yeah, you got us, we talked about it at the meeting of all black folks last week.

Sounds like exactly what they talked about at the BLM rally I posted. But hey, pretend nobody saw that and make it about me.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

31,511 messages on a message board is the key to feeling good about one's self apparently. Good lord - get married, have some kids, and coach them in sports.

Nah, I feel good about myself for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with this place, some of which you mentioned, and some others of which you'll never personally experience I'm sure. But in 35,100whatever posts, you're the first person ever to bring it up and (effectively) call me a loser because of it. Again, I do hope you feel good about that!

 

[hunkgolden]

Nah, I feel good about myself for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with this place, some of which you mentioned, and some others of which you'll never personally experience I'm sure. But in 35,100whatever posts, you're the first person ever to bring it up and (effectively) call me a loser because of it. Again, I do hope you feel good about that!

You and QAZ started on these boards at roughly the same time and have roughly the same amount of posts. I wonder how many of those posts are you two replying to one another? Interesting way to live one's life for sure...debating topics with a total stranger and I doubt either of you have EVER changed the other's opinion on ANY of the topics you've discussed. Not calling you a loser - I just find it odd that a couple of fairly articulate guys would spend 12 years of their life on an incredibly obscure anonymous message board. Seems like there could have possibly been more productive things for you two to be doing. Maybe not.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

You and QAZ started on these boards at roughly the same time and have roughly the same amount of posts. I wonder how many of those posts are you two replying to one another? Interesting way to live one's life for sure...debating topics with a total stranger and I doubt either of you have EVER changed the other's opinion on ANY of the topics you've discussed. Not calling you a loser - I just find it odd that a couple of fairly articulate guys would spend 12 years of their life on an incredibly obscure anonymous message board. Seems like there could have possibly been more productive things for you two to be doing. Maybe not.

I think there would be more productive things for you to be doing than masking ad hominem by feigning concern about how we spend our time. Some of the best discussions on current events - which is an important thing in which to engage - occur on this board and specifically with qaz.

 

[hunkgolden]

I think there would be more productive things for you to be doing than masking ad hominem by feigning concern about how we spend our time. Some of the best discussions on current events - which is an important thing in which to engage - occur on this board and specifically with qaz.

You're right - I don't care. Sorry for giving you the impression I did. Odd that you think debating current events with an anonymous stranger is an "important thing". On my list of the top 1,000 "important things" in life, debating current events with a anonymous stranger on an obscure message board comes in at 996. Although after this discussion, I think it may move down to 998.

 

[qazplm]

You and QAZ started on these boards at roughly the same time and have roughly the same amount of posts. I wonder how many of those posts are you two replying to one another? Interesting way to live one's life for sure...debating topics with a total stranger and I doubt either of you have EVER changed the other's opinion on ANY of the topics you've discussed. Not calling you a loser - I just find it odd that a couple of fairly articulate guys would spend 12 years of their life on an incredibly obscure anonymous message board. Seems like there could have possibly been more productive things for you two to be doing. Maybe not.

1. it's just qaz, QAZ is my father.
2. Actually we both have altered each other's opinions on topics in the past.
3. Spending 12 years of my life on a message board? The amount of time per day I spend on the message board on average amounts total to less than 30 minutes a day. I spend more time than that on almost everything else in life I do. You must be an exceedingly slow typist.
4. I can't imagine much productive coming from engaging you that's true.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

it's just qaz, QAZ is my father.

I've been meaning to ask, how is QAZ?

 

[qazplm]

I've been meaning to ask, how is QAZ?

fine but he prefers, Mr. PLM.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

fine but he prefers, Mr. PLM.

Mr. PLM it will be.

 

[atmafola]

You and QAZ started on these boards at roughly the same time and have roughly the same amount of posts. I wonder how many of those posts are you two replying to one another? Interesting way to live one's life for sure...debating topics with a total stranger and I doubt either of you have EVER changed the other's opinion on ANY of the topics you've discussed. Not calling you a loser - I just find it odd that a couple of fairly articulate guys would spend 12 years of their life on an incredibly obscure anonymous message board. Seems like there could have possibly been more productive things for you two to be doing. Maybe not.

wrong. I lean liberal on most issues and those issues always seem so obvious to me. At the same time, I know many other fellow Americans hold different positions. I am left wondering why would intelligent and thoughtful people look at the same issues and come to a different conclusion? What are they seeing and considering that I am not? That's why I come to this board to read opinions from people like GI man. I want to read intelligent analysis from a viewpoint that's different from mine. And in the years he has been on this board, I have seen him make tremendous progress in understanding where those of us with different viewpoints are coming from.

 

[terminalg92]

...the vast majority of people in this country do not see police actions shootings as a problem is because the people the police are shooting are generally lifelong criminals; have an attitude with the police; don't follow the police commands; and who resist arrest. Most people who look at these videos and learn about the guys who were shot believe that the exact same result would've occurred had the person been white.

I don't believe your assertions are accurate, regarding what the vast majority of people in this country think.

Or, if you happen to be correct about that, then I suspect it's simply a reflection of the "vast majority of our population" being either biased, racist, or unable to reason critically. And I'm definitely not ruling out that possibility!