Black Lives Matter thread

Originally posted by Lestov16
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/officer-who-shot-terence-crutcher-has-history-of-drug-use-domestic-disturbances_us_57e3f0f8e4b08d73b82fd9ae?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

Drug use and domestic disturbances. If Terence had that I bet he'd be labeled a thug or shitty parent.

Dude I hope you still aren't butthurt because I called some dumb people driving around smoking weed in their car with their child shitty parents.

I hope that isn't what this is, because they totally are dog shit parents for doing that.

I just hope we are crystal clear on that: you are a piece of shit parent if you drive around doing drugs with your child in the car. Since I can't figure out why it's wrong to question the parenting of people who drive around getting high with their kids, did we enter Bizarro World?

Anyways just curious, do any of these recent dead black men..did they have criminal records? Since if the cops criminal past is relevant then..that makes their criminal pasts relevant too. That is how this tends to work it's definitely not an "either or" thing.

If I had kids I'd totally do drugs, btw. I just wouldn't drive around in a car getting high with them in the back seat. But I'm just a bit old fashioned when it comes to my drugs.

But you're not dog shit for killing a man who posed zero threat. She could have easily tazed him. Cops could non-lethally apprehend an armed terrorist yet couldn't non-lethally apprehend an unarmed drugged-out slow-walking man? He wasn't Michael Brown. He didn't try to attack her. He literally was killed for walking.

He could have easily been tazed or overpowered by the cops but instead he is now dead and he is supposed to hold blame even though it is the cops who had various non-lethal options to subdue him and instead decided to pull out guns against an unarmed nonviolent man.

My question is that if it's justifiable to kill someone solely because there is a tiny per cent of a chance that they can kill you, doesn't that justify black gang violence? They're just like her. They give commands and if they even think someone is posing a threat or disobeying them then they kill them out of nervousness. Or is it only okay when cops do it?

Originally posted by Lestov16
But you're not dog shit for killing a man who posed zero threat.

I never said that though. I'm just saying this isn't the first time you've felt the need to mention the parenting thing. It's off topic, but yes: you're a shitty parent if you go around getting high with your kids in the car.

This doesn't mean I think it was okay for the cop to shoot the guy.

She could have easily tazed him. Cops could non-lethally apprehend an armed terrorist yet couldn't non-lethally apprehend an unarmed drugged-out slow-walking man? He wasn't Michael Brown. He didn't try to attack her. He literally was killed for walking.

You won't see me disagreeing with all this and YET..I can still at the end say: he could of easily just complied, right? He wasn't Michael Brown and this wasn't the men who beat down Rodney King either. He was literally killed for repeatedly disobeying the commands of armed police officers. That is why he died. It was because he refused to comply with a simple order. I'm pretty sure it's against the law to refuse a lawful command by a cop.(Now again will you take that to assume I meant he deserved it?)

He could have easily been tazed or overpowered by the cops but instead he is now dead and he is supposed to hold blame even though it is the cops who had various non-lethal options to subdue him and instead decided to pull out guns against an unarmed nonviolent man.

Again: why do we act like the cops are the only people in the world with choices? This man made the choice NOT TO COOPERATE. Why can't we discuss that aspect without it having to mean we feel he deserved to die? What the hell is so wrong with this damn country?! Yes, everyone involved made poor f*cking decisions. Yep, this man should be alive. Yep, he played a part in his death..just like the cop did.

Did I say anything false? Is saying he played a PART in his own death..not accurate to you?

My question is that if it's justifiable to kill someone solely because there is a tiny per cent of a chance that they can kill you, doesn't that justify black gang violence? They're just like her. They give commands and if they even think someone is posing a threat or disobeying them then they kill them out of nervousness. Or is it only okay when cops do it?

Is this supposed to be satire? Are black thugs..law enforcement officers giving lawful commands? Did I miss something? When did these criminals become "just like her" ?

Some of these bangers have shot at other thugs and then the bullet accidentally hits some little girl in the damn face half a block away. Damn these guys must have super powers in order to see THAT far away that this little girl might of posed a threat. No wonder Hilldawg calls them SUPER!

Here I can sum this up very quickly: the cop was wrong, the perp was wrong. Both made mistakes, both did things they never ever in a million years should have done. Both sides could have made choices that would have resulted in a vastly different outcome. Cops need better training and people need to learn to cooperate more with them(within reason).

Does anyone disagree with this? We can sit here and argue about this all day, but it really comes down to: do you just agree with what I just said? Do you find it at all reasonable?

http://www.laweekly.com/news/an-unarmed-white-man-is-shot-by-a-cop-and-black-activists-rally-7216759

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/us/tulsa-charlotte-shooting-protests/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/terence-crutchers-fatal-shooting-by-tulsa-officer-betty-shelby-ruled-homicide/

It's no surprise the Tusla cop is being charged. Not in this specific case.

Though why did you post a link about black people "rallying" around some unarmed white dude who was shot?

http://www.laweekly.com/news/an-unarmed-white-man-is-shot-by-a-cop-and-black-activists-rally-7216759

Here is the thing: why do I hear about one of these stories from several news sites and on the radio and all that and why do I hear about the one with the white guy on a forum like this?

Hell it happened in August lol. So you can't even say these incidents overshadowed it. I just don't know what specific angle you were trying to take with that. Were you trying to show that these incidents with cops do not just occur with black people? Were you trying to show an example of black people caring about someone who isn't black getting shot? I'm not complaining you provided it, just curious.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol "bro" I don't need to be desperate to paint them in a negative light.

Then why are you?

They do it themselves. Like the family screaming the guy had a book, whoops! He didn't.

Relevance to your desperation at painting the Tulsa guy as in the wrong?

Nobody demonized him.

You did.

I simply pointed out he should have complied with the orders.

Irrelevant.

Can you explain why it's wrong to say that someone should have merely stopped moving and done what the cops said?

Because it's frankly irrelevant. Should he have? Sure.

What does answering this incredibly obvious question solve? Do you think you're some enlightened messiah shedding light on someone no one considered?

No one gives a shit about his actions because his actions were irrelevant once one determines that they didn't justify the use of lethal force.

Does that make sense to you?

You also jump on the "nervous" shit. You are the one who tried to imply he was SO nervous about cops(because cops just gun you down for no reason)

The cop who gunned him down sure gunned him down for no reason. 🙂

Or rather, for no valid reason. Everything happens for a reason. Her reason just wasn't justified.

that..that nervousness made him act in a way to make him not comply. Then I point out perhaps the cop was nervous too and..well shit, how f*cking dare I?

Yeah, because her hypothetical nervousness led to her murdering an unarmed civilian, and his didn't.

It's a difference of magnitude. His hypothetical nervousness (and/or intoxication) didn't lead to him killing someone, and hilariously enough was completely vindicated when she blew him away for "no" reason.

Does that make sense to you?

Originally posted by Surtur
He was literally killed for repeatedly disobeying the commands of armed police officers. That is why he died. It was because he refused to comply with a simple order.

Blame is responsibility for a wrong. You said that him not complying with an armed police officer got him killed. Which is to say, he got himself killed.

You're hilarious. You'd rather talk about how him dying was his own fault rather than assign blame to the person who actually killed him.

So how are you not saying he didn't deserve it then? If THAT (singular, so the only reason) action of his is why he died, how did he not deserve it?

Originally posted by Surtur

Did I say anything false? Is saying he played a PART in his own death..not accurate to you?

If a man cuts me off in traffic, and I respond by following him home, hitting him in the head with a baseball bat, dragging him into my car, taking him to my basement, and torturing him for an entire year before blowing his brains out, does the man who cut me off play a part in his death? Yeah.

Should anyone care? No, not really.

Originally posted by Surtur
Here I can sum this up very quickly: the cop was wrong, the perp was wrong. Both made mistakes, both did things they never ever in a million years should have done. Both sides could have made choices that would have resulted in a vastly different outcome. Cops need better training and people need to learn to cooperate more with them(within reason).

Does anyone disagree with this? We can sit here and argue about this all day, but it really comes down to: do you just agree with what I just said? Do you find it at all reasonable?

http://www.unilad.co.uk/video/man-hugs-police-officers-during-riot-in-powerful-video/

What a nice man.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Now see, here you're putting the blame on the victim for being murdered. Yes, that is exactly what you are doing.

Blame is responsibility for a wrong. You said that him not complying with an armed police officer got him killed. Which is to say, he got himself killed.

You're hilarious. You'd rather talk about how him dying was his own fault rather than assign blame to the person who actually killed him.

So how are you not saying he didn't deserve it then? If THAT (singular, so the only reason) action of his is why he died, how did he not deserve it?

They both were at fault, that is why he is dead. It's that simple. I never said I'd rather talk about one or the other. I merely pointed out he didn't comply with repeated commands from an officer holding a gun to him.

Saying both were at fault doesn't mean they both share equal blame though. I never said it did.

Originally posted by NemeBro
His part in his own death is so minor and insignificant it isn't worth mentioning.

If a man cuts me off in traffic, and I respond by following him home, hitting him in the head with a baseball bat, dragging him into my car, taking him to my basement, and torturing him for an entire year before blowing his brains out, does the man who cut me off play a part in his death? Yeah.

Should anyone care? No, not really.

Would he be alive if he had complied: yes or no? It's not insignificant. There is this growing trend of people, for no valid reason, not complying with commands from officers.

Every single time this happens people behave just as you do: they don't want to talk about it..and then it keeps on happening.

Did he deserve to die? No. Should he have obeyed the commands? Yes. Did that play a role in his death to the extent that if he had complied he'd be alive? Yep.

You see the truth is I'm more than willing to talk about more than just the fact he didn't comply. But it's you who constantly keeps whining over this fact that has drawn out this discussion. You with your just smug obnoxiousness have corralled us all into this one discussion about f*cking compliance. I said he should of complied, deal with it. If you're going to talk shit over it to me then do so and move on.

For instance so let me show you what I'm guessing you'll do to just perpetuate this. Or what you would have done if I didn't post this..since you can hardly just now do the things I'm predicting. So in my previous post I just said the following:

"There is this growing trend of people, for no valid reason, not complying with commands from officers."

You will take something like this and then try to imply I just refuse to discuss anything about the officers culpability and that all I want to focus on is non-compliance. I'm beginning to see more how you work.

The problem is that isn't the case. I was and still am more than willing to discuss all aspects of what happened. Like I said, it is you that have kept us on this merry-go-round.

Originally posted by Surtur
They both were at fault, that is why he is dead. It's that simple. I never said I'd rather talk about one or the other. I merely pointed out he didn't comply with repeated commands from an officer holding a gun to him.

Saying both were at fault doesn't mean they both share equal blame though. I never said it did.

Then why bring it up?

Would he be alive if he had complied: yes or no? It's not insignificant. There is this growing trend of people, for no valid reason, not complying with commands from officers.

Don't know friend, but it's cute that you believe you know.

Also, no valid reason? While I suppose one could argue that them murdering you in retaliation for the grave offense of not doing what they told you to could be a good enough reason to do everything a cop says, there is a valid reason to not want to trust a police officer (which goes hand in hand with complying to their demands): they might kill you for no valid reason.

Every single time this happens people behave just as you do: they don't want to talk about it..and then it keeps on happening.

Yeah, maybe if the police weren't gunning down unarmed civilians people would be a lot more inclined to trust them. Weird, huh?

Did he deserve to die? No. Should he have obeyed the commands? Yes. Did that play a role in his death to the extent that if he had complied he'd be alive? Yep.

Prove he would still be alive if he complied.

You see the truth is I'm more than willing to talk about more than just the fact he didn't comply.

Just about every time this happens that is the first thing you zoom in on. The actions of the person killed. Who do you believe you're fooling?

But it's you who constantly keeps whining over this fact that has drawn out this discussion. You with your just smug obnoxiousness have corralled us all into this one discussion about f*cking compliance.

And considering that you so desperately want to dismiss me as a troll, I guess that means you were stupid enough to be trolled by me, huh?

I said he should of complied, deal with it. If you're going to talk shit over it to me then do so and move on.

Well no, that's not what you said.

You said he wasn't just an innocent civilian being gunned down by the police as he was walking down the street.

You were attacking his moral character and his standing in the law so you could relate it to the incident of his death. Furthermore, you were comparing it to a cartoonish narrative where a police officer commits a drive-by shooting on a random civilian GTA style.

Why is that? What purpose did your comparison intend to serve? What makes a police officer killing someone in the make-believe scenario worse than a police officer killing someone in the real scenario? Is it because the police officer in the latter had a flimsy excuse for it?

I'm just curious what the angle here is. Why do you constantly want to inform people of the apparently poor character of people who were gunned down by police officers?

I said he wasn't an innocent civilian walking down the street minding his own business when shot.

I already explained why I pointed that out so..why are you asking again? What is your angle here? To go round and round some more? Why are you one second quoting me one thing I said and then next second asking me to explain why when I also already mentioned that too.

Quit playing games.

Originally posted by NemeBro
[B]Also, no valid reason? While I suppose one could argue that them murdering you in retaliation for the grave offense of not doing what they told you to could be a good enough reason to do everything a cop says, there is a valid reason to not want to trust a police officer (which goes hand in hand with complying to their demands): they might kill you for no valid reason.

I see, so there is a valid reason to disobey police officers because in the past police have killed people for disobeying them. Okay then.