Derec
Contributor
Is that the best you can do? Childish comebacks and dancing stick figures?
-
Features
Black Guns Matter
- Thread starter Crazy Eddie
- Start date
laughing dog
Contributor
Compared to your illogical BLM rants, those are veritable Ph.D. dissertations in topological theory.
Derec
Contributor
BS. I actually provide reasons and arguments which completely destroyed and refuted arkirk's fictional view of #BLM. Points that have not been addressed because you have no retort. All you, Eddie et al do is cheap insults and evasive answers.
laughing dog
Contributor
While I understand that you believe your pathological fears are reasons and your six degree of separation" are arguments, the rest of the world recognizes them for the inanities that they are.
Your posts are filled with childish and cheap insults. An answer you do not understand is not evasive. Posts that include Jim Carey saying Stop Breaking the Law asshole, and the claim that the BLM coming out party was the Ferguson riots”, lack the intellectual rigor of an argument from a slow--learning elementary school student.
“Why do they then glorify a woman who murdered a cop while being part of one?” is not a rebuttal to the claim that the BLM is not clamoring for a black militia. In order for that to even be considered a logical rebuttal one would have to show that
1) Assata was part of a “black militia” (whatever the fuck that means), and
2) that the “glorification” (whatever the fuck that means) of Assata is based on her being part of a black militia and that they are glorifying the indiscriminate killing of police.
Derec
Contributor
Try zero to one degree of separation. And you still can't help yourself with insults.
I understand your and others posts very well. Just because arkirk for example is wrong about #BLM does not mean I did not understand him.
Did you read what I posted that in reference to? Arkirk claimed that #BLM was about unarmed people shot by police. I refuted that by showing that #BLM was about indiscriminately taking the side of blacks no matter the facts. One example was #BLM complaining about police handling a group of out-of-control high school students at a school bus. The point of Jim Carey was that if they hadn't assaulted the bus driver and the police, they would not have gotten arrested. Yet, #BLM took their side merely because they are black. Hell, even Al Sharpton's outfit backs the police on that one. That alone should tell you how far out #BLM is on this.
You think it wasn't? Black Lives Matter movement really got started when that phrase was used to protest the shooting of Michael Brown, often violently.
Then it would be trivial to refute by actually engaging with my claims. Rather than resorting to cheap insults (that never get censored by moderators) instead of offering anything even approaching rational thought.
Of course it is.
She was part of the "Black Liberation Army". Did you not know that?
Those are the things she is known for. Just like Wesley Cook (aka Mumia abu Jamal) is known for being a Black Panther and for murdering a cop. Just like Leonard Peltier is known for being member of AIM and murdering two FBI agents.
What do you think #BLMers have in mind here? What did Joanne Chesimard teach them? Her dope chili recipe? You are not fooling anybody, and neither are #BLM.
laughing dog
Contributor
Wrong on all counts.
arkirk did not claim the #BLM was only about the shootings of unarmed black people, so, once again, you are simply interjecting irrelevancies .
The fact is that the BLM movement really got started with the acquittal of George Zimmerman (see
Black_Lives_Matter). Your claims are routinely refuted by reality. And, an accurate description is not an insult.
No, I do not keep up with membership in marginal organizations that ceased to exist long ago.
Apparently you believe innuendos, conjectures and fears are actual evidence about the motivations and beliefs of the #BLMers. But they are not.
I agree - you are deluding yourself.
Because they make an issue about the number that are shot--never mind that well over 90% of police shootings are quite clear cut.
And note that "unarmed" includes things like the local case where the kid had never been charged with anything and was minding his own business when the cop chased and killed him. Never mind that the cop followed (waiting for backup to arrive before trying to stop him) the "kid" (16) because the car was on the hot sheet, the kid ran from the cop but was surprised when the 4-lane road he was fleeing down suddenly dead-ended. (The old road had been ripped out for a freeway, the bridge over the freeway was still being built.) He got out of the car and pointed a realistic replica at the cop who of course fired.
This was before BLM but it still caused a lot of protest from the black community.
laughing dog
Contributor
That does not answer the question. If the issue is unarmed people who are shot and killed, why change the focus to the people who are armed who are shot and killed?
Crazy Eddie
Veteran Member
To be fair, I only lob cheap insults at Derec because I have him on ignore and because making fun of racist trolls amuses me
They're not all that pissed off about the ones that are "quite clear cut," something I've pointed out to you many, MANY times. They're pissed off about the ones that AREN'T so clear cut, but even that isn't the biggest issue that gets them riled up.
What really pisses them off is the fact that the police can use deadly force in these situations and completely get away with it, without being prosecuted or punished, and with no one in government doing anything at all to try and keep this from happening; they're pissed off that mayors, governors and congressmen play the finger-pointing game and cast aspersions on the victims of the shooting rather than try to figure out what's going on. They're pissed off every time a public official claims that civilians' conduct is what caused the police overreaction, because that directly implies that civilians have a duty to protect the police -- a duty that is superior to even their own lives -- when it is supposed to be the other way around.
Police have been shooting unarmed black people basically for as long as there have been policemen, and we all know this. "Black Lives Matter!" is what happens when the police try to JUSTIFY doing it. The Jon Burge whackjobs of the world could go rogue and start gunning down gang bangers on sight, no warrant and no due process; the only thing BLM or the Black Community expects is that he be held accountable for that action just like anybody else would, because murder is a crime and a police officer who commits a murder should go to jail. So Jon Burge murders the leaders of the Corner Hustlers in cold blood, he should lose his job and go to prison; Jon Burge murders the Corner Hustlers and gets a 2 week vacation and a medal, expect protests.
Believe it or not, the core pathos of BLM is actually the tremendous amount of frustration and heartbreak that COMES from the loss of faith in the police department. They're supposed to be the instrument of the state that keeps the streets safe, that reduces crime and lawlessness, that creates breathing room for the poor and the struggling to actually improve their own situations. The black community depends on the police more than any other demographic in America; so they're more pissed off than anyone that the police suck are their jobs.
To be fair, I only lob cheap insults at Derec because I have him on ignore and because making fun of racist trolls amuses me
They're not all that pissed off about the ones that are "quite clear cut," something I've pointed out to you many, MANY times. They're pissed off about the ones that AREN'T so clear cut, but even that isn't the biggest issue that gets them riled up.
No, they don't protest as loud at the clear ones but we still see them trying to frame the clear ones as invalid.
For example, that guy with a "book". It's pretty obvious he tried to apply hood tactics against some plainclothes cops and it backfired horribly. Justified.
Remember where it really got started? A justified shooting of an unarmed guy.
No. That's what the rank and file believe but the reality is that it's agitators trying to stir up racial hatred.
laughing dog
Contributor
It started with the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Then it gained more traction with Michael Brown, and then Tamir Rice.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
To be fair, I only lob cheap insults at Derec because I have him on ignore and because making fun of racist trolls amuses me
They're not all that pissed off about the ones that are "quite clear cut," something I've pointed out to you many, MANY times. They're pissed off about the ones that AREN'T so clear cut, but even that isn't the biggest issue that gets them riled up.
No, they don't protest as loud at the clear ones but we still see them trying to frame the clear ones as invalid.
For example, that guy with a "book". It's pretty obvious he tried to apply hood tactics against some plainclothes cops and it backfired horribly. Justified.
Translation: The cops saw that a black man had a handgun*, so killing him was justified.
*North Carolina's status as an open carry state is irrelevant. The absence of a credible threat to anyone's safety is also irrelevant. The right to keep and bear arms is for Whites Only.
Again, it didn't help that the Ferguson police decided to attack the entire local neighborhood after Martin was killed.
Derec
Contributor
Police weren't the ones who attacked "the entire local neighborhood". That would be the rioters who attacked both the neighborhood and the police.
You need to stop with this "alternative facts" treatment of the Ferguson Riots and Black Lives Matter.
BTW, the Jewish Community Center threat maker Juan Thompson also supported the Ferguson riots.
“No Justice, No Respect”: Why the Ferguson Riots Were Justified
Last edited:
Derec
Contributor
And refused to drop it when he was ordered to.
And mind you, his family kept claiming that he only had a book, not a gun.
Also, white people are the devils, even though he was shot by a black cop.
He forfeited his right to keep and bear arms when he got convicted of a felony, to wit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, when he shot a guy ten times. It has nothing to do with him being black.
Now, you will say, the officers did not know he was a felon. Yes, but once police were aware of him having a gun he knew that as soon as they check him out they will find out his felon status and will arrest him for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which is itself a felony. That gave him a reason not to follow their commands and resulted in his death.
He also was reportedly brain damaged to some extent due to a motorcycle accident (was drunk driving involved? He has a DUI conviction as well). Why did his wife let him carry a gun in his state anyway?
Derec
Contributor
It was pretty small and not very well known before the Michael Brown protests/riots. That's why I call it the "coming out party". It's when the #BLM movement became a household name, aka "really got started".
A note on Tamir Rice. His death did not generate much in terms of protests. The biggest #BLM protests/riots were for people engaged in violent crime and/or with lengthy criminal records: Michael Brown himself, Freddie Gray, Jamar Clark, Keith Scott etc.
Derec
Contributor
Even if he didn't, #BLM is not even mostly about that. It's about reflexively backing the black perp over police no matter the circumstances.
And his words were "Cop shoots black man who is unarmed.That is what BLM is about."
I used "really got started" in the sense of that it was then that it picked up steam and became well known. That wiki page pretty much says the same thing.The fact is that the BLM movement really got started with the acquittal of George Zimmerman (see
You are being too funny!
It was hardly marginal and as I said before, they are still an inspiration to today's black radicals, including #BLM.
laughing dog
Contributor
It was pretty well-known, because even I knew about.
Wrong. There were protests and not just in Cleveland. But there were no riots or over-reactions by the police.
laughing dog
Contributor
Repeating alt-facts does not make the correct. Why anyone would be obsessed with marginal and defunct groups from 50 years ago is beyond my comprehension.
Derec
Contributor
If that were true, you'd lob cheap insults and the likes of laughing dog and not me.To be fair, I only lob cheap insults at Derec because I have him on ignore and because making fun of racist trolls amuses me
Sometimes they are pissed off even at the clear cut ones.
Second night of protests after Antonio Martin shooting
Antonio Martin pulled a gun on the cop but his killing still brought out angry #BLM protesters.
And certainly they are using the total number of police shootings of blacks to make a point about how "under attack" they supposedly are, even though vast majority of police shootings are clear-cut.
When things aren't clear-cut, they should wait for the outcome of the investigation rather than declare any shooting a "murder" without knowing the facts. With Michael Brown the protests and riots started before they could have known whether or not the shooting was justified. By the time it was determined it was justified, #BLM had become way too invested in their anger to accept the outcome. Some are still calling it "murder", even though both state and federal investigation cleared the officer.
Can a Champion of Black Lives Matter Become Mayor of St. Louis?
Can you say libel?The Nation said:
And to answer his question, I sure hope not.
What are you talking about? Many police officers in these cases get charged with crimes, and they often get convicted as well.
Now of course, not every police shooting results in a prosecution, but neither should it. Should Darren Wilson for example have been charged merely to appease the violent mob, without regard to what the investigation actually yielded?
In most of these cases the shooting was justified, which means that it was the result of something the "victim" did, like for example assault the police officer and go for his gun. And if he also has a criminal history, it is fair to point that out.
I never understood this claim that we should keep the criminal record or what the person did to get shot hidden, lest we "cast aspersions" or "put the victim on trial". Rather, all relevant information should be examined.
You are assuming that the police overreacted. But even if they did, they are merely human, not robocops. And if the civilian conducts himself in such a way as to appear threatening to the cop, that is indeed their fault. For example, don't point dark objects at police while fleeing as those can easily be confused with a gun. Remember, shoot-don't shoot decisions are usually made in a fraction of a second.
It is not the duty of the police to put themselves in undue danger to avoid shooting a suspect. On the other hand, it is the duty of the civilian to obey lawful orders. Not doing so, by resisting arrest or fleeing, increases chances of things going south. There have been cases where people died while resisting arrest because they went into cardiac arrest for example. Or, as in the case of Alton Sterling, that resisting arrest led police to feel threatened by the gun the person had on them (in Sterling's case illegally).
And they have been shooting unarmed non-black people too. Note that "unarmed" does not mean "not a threat" or that the shooting was not justified. When a police officer is armed, any physical assault on him can mean the perp may gain control of the weapon.
Clerk Dead After Man Grabs Officer's Gun, Opens Fire in Bodega: NYPD
Most of the time these shootings are justified. And note that #BLM often supports armed thugs killed by police, such as Keith Scott (it was a gun after all, and not a book) of Quanice Hayes (realistic replica counts).
Jon Burge was not accused of gunning down any bangers as far as I know, and he retired in 1991.
And one could argue that Chicago police has overcorrected the excesses of the Jon Burge era, given the murder rate in the city.
No argument there, but a justified shooting does not become "murder" just because a bunch of angry protesters declare it to be so.
Except Jon Burge didn't do anything like that, and none of the #BLM cases resemble this fictional scenario in the slightest.
I believe it not. It's a retread of the hatred of police ("pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon", "what do we want? dead cops! ...") that has been a fixture of black radicalism since the Black Panthers.
I agree to an extent. Most murder victims for example are other blacks. But has it occur to you that the reason you perceive that "police suck at their jobs" is that they have been hamstrung too much? If they are in danger of being the target of a violent mob if they shoot a black thug, then that can't be good for the morale. Cue in the "Ferguson effect". If the cities take the side of the dead thugs and pay their families millions even when the officers have been exonerated, that does not exactly do much for relations between the city hall and the police. If police officers are subject to more and more restrictive use of force guidelines then the job only becomes more dangerous for the police.
And finally, what's with the whole "no snitching" ethos? That is more damaging to the black community in cities like Chicago than a thousand Jon Burges. How can residents in black communities expect police to take care of the crime problem in their neighborhoods when they refuse to cooperate? A lot of police work depends on information given by the witnesses.
Last edited: