Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
In The Zone

Another killing at the hands of the Police

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, [scooter] said:

So much for "good guy with a gun".

If someone posted a story where one good guy with a gun saved a life would you say that " that settles it....a good guy with a gun is what we all need? "

No??

Well then this comment you just posted is pretty worthless huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cowboysfan8 said:
5 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

So much for "good guy with a gun".

If someone posted a story where one good guy with a gun saved a life would you say that " that settles it....a good guy with a gun is what we all need? "

No??

Well then this comment you just posted is pretty worthless huh?

:mellow:

My post was an ironic commentary on the people in this thread who post stories about one good guy with a gun who save a life and then act as if "that settles it".

So, I totally agree with you. Those comments are pretty worthless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good to see Loesch and the NRA coming to the defense of Washington who had conceal and carry permit.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

If someone posted a story where one good guy with a gun saved a life would you say that " that settles it....a good guy with a gun is what we all need? "

No??

Well then this comment you just posted is pretty worthless huh?

Thoughts on the actual story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 11:20 AM, urbanhack said:

 

Good to see Loesch and the NRA coming to the defense of Washington who had conceal and carry permit.

 

 

They made their position well known in matters that involve... ahem.... these things perfectly clear with their year long silence around Philandro Castile shooting.  Then bringing "yeah but he was crazed out of his gourd on the devil's weed" to the table.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Pretty obvious why they released that footage so quickly. 

I am sure he was a uniter, and a good soul, and wouldnt hurt anybody. 

Is that sarcasm? It’s legal to have a concealed weapon in Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ketamine Dreams said:

Protesting a shooting where the guy clearly has a gun and is trying to pull it when he’s shot sets the whole movement back.

People are dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Protesting a shooting where the guy clearly has a gun and is trying to pull it when he’s shot sets the whole movement back.

People are dumb.

Yeah I can see that- didn’t really notice him going for it the 1st time but he did look to reach for it. Now that the video is out, I wonder if the protests will stop.

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ketamine Dreams said:

Jesse Jackson called this a tragedy, demanded the video be released and upon seeing it, got in his limo, called Sharpton, said no go on this one, headed to the airport and flew away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tjnc09 said:

I'm shocked.  Another pointless protest.

What are all these people without jobs going to do if there isn't a protest. They just sit by waiting for an excuse to cause trouble & commit crimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, irish eyes said:

What are all these people without jobs going to do if there isn't a protest. They just sit by waiting for an excuse to cause trouble & commit crimes

Woof!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tjnc09 said:

I'm shocked.  Another pointless protest.

 

15 minutes ago, irish eyes said:

What are all these people without jobs going to do if there isn't a protest. They just sit by waiting for an excuse to cause trouble & commit crimes

Very poor attitudes IMO. I'm not saying I love the protests about everything (I've never attended a protest in my life) but this kind of automatic response to the anger and frustration of others is extremely poor form. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

 

Very poor attitudes IMO. I'm not saying I love the protests about everything (I've never attended a protest in my life) but this kind of automatic response to the anger and frustration of others is extremely poor form. 

Bu, but...think of the anger and frustration caused by the release by law enforcement of all these videos that show a suspect in possession of a firearm... :oldunsure:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

 

but this kind of automatic response to the anger and frustration of others is extremely poor form. 

:lmao: this can't be a serious response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The homicide rate in Chicago is the highest it has been in 20 years and citizens are more interested in destroying their city, defending criminals, and criticizing the police.  Sounds like they have it all figured out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

:lmao: this can't be a serious response.

It is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

The homicide rate in Chicago is the highest it has been in 20 years and citizens are more interested in destroying their city, defending criminals, and criticizing the police.  Sounds like they have it all figured out.

Calling cops murderers and throwing glass bottles at them because they shot this criminal is just dumb.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

The homicide rate in Chicago is the highest it has been in 20 years and citizens are more interested in destroying their city, defending criminals, and criticizing the police.  Sounds like they have it all figured out.

You have absolutely no idea what the African-American community in Chicago or I'm guessing any other American city does to fight homicide and other acts of violence in their communities on a day by day, hour by hour basis. None.

Hint- they do a lot.  And here's more reading about citizen activists and the systemic problems they are up against.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

You have absolutely no idea what the African-American community in Chicago or I'm guessing any other American city does to fight homicide and other acts of violence in their communities on a day by day, hour by hour basis. None.

Hint- they do a lot.  And here's more reading about citizen activists and the systemic problems they are up against.

 

Those systematic problems aren't new.  It's another thread that ignores the macro repercussions of all that is happening in cities like Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tjnc09 said:

Those systematic problems aren't new.  It's another thread that ignores the macro repercussions of all that is happening in cities like Chicago.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The second sentence reads like the product of a random word generator.

You accused people in Chicago of being "more interested in destroying their city, defending criminals, and criticizing the police" even though "the homicide rate in Chicago is the highest it has been in 20 years" (actually went down 15% from 2016 to 2017 but whatever).  That was a baseless and almost certainly incorrect accusation, as my first link shows and the twitter thread in my second link persuasively argues.  So why did you make it?

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I have no idea what you're talking about. The second sentence reads like the product of a random word generator.

You accused people in Chicago of being "more interested in destroying their city, defending criminals, and criticizing the police" even though "the homicide rate in Chicago is the highest it has been in 20 years" (actually went down 15% from 2016 to 2017 but whatever).  That was a baseless and almost certainly incorrect accusation, as my first link shows and the twitter thread in my second link persuasively argues.  So why did you make it?

You probably should check out a graph showing 20 years of data (instead of one year but whatever) and then get back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago's homicide rate increased 58% from 2015-16 but decreased only 15% from 2016-17.  Great job everyone! 

Edited by tjnc09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tjnc09 said:

You probably should check out a graph showing 20 years of data (instead of one year but whatever) and then get back to me.

I've seen the data. You and I both know that something can't be the highest it's been in 20 years if it was higher in 2016 than it was in 2017 (the last year for which there is data).

But also, don't hide behind a dumb semantics argument.  Why did you say the people in Chicago care more about "destroying their city, defending criminals and criticizing the police" than they do about the homicide rate? Did you have any basis for saying this? Because I obviously have a basis for thinking otherwise, which I linked. And I don't think you're racist, but does it bother you that your argument strongly resembles the "what about black on black crime?" nonsense frequently spouted by idiot racist trolls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I've seen the data. You and I both know that something can't be the highest it's been in 20 years if it was higher in 2016 than it was in 2017 (the last year for which there is data).

But also, don't hide behind a dumb semantics argument.  Why did you say the people in Chicago care more about "destroying their city, defending criminals and criticizing the police" than they do about the homicide rate? Did you have any basis for saying this? Because I obviously have a basis for thinking otherwise, which I linked. And I don't think you're racist, but does it bother you that your argument strongly resembles the "what about black on black crime?" nonsense frequently spouted by idiot racist trolls?

:lmao: you don't really know anything about me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, tjnc09 said:

:lmao: you don't really know anything about me.  

Right, that's why I asked the questions. I'd say your refusal to answer them even as you take the time to reply to me is somewhat enlightening though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And did anyone see those idiots in pittsburgh yesterday. Blocking traffic "protesting" a month after the cop has been charged. Apparently surrounded 1 car, nice law abiding hard working folks...hahaha such a joke. But I'm sure the next comment in here will be "you're a racist". This is a perfect example of thugs having an excuse to try and intimidate people.

Edited by irish eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

No, I won't call you a racist. You are encouraging potential homicide though so that isn't good. 

I've edited to remove that concern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, irish eyes said:

And did anyone see those idiots in pittsburgh yesterday. Blocking traffic "protesting" a month after the cop has been charged. Apparently surrounded 1 car, nice law abiding hard working folks...hahaha. People just need to start running these pieces of garbage over, such a joke. But I'm sure the next comment in here will be "you're a racist". This is a perfect example of thugs having an excuse to try and intimidate people.

I dunno, I feel like the dozens of videos in this thread of police officers using excessive force are a better example of thugs having an excuse to try and intimidate people than peaceful protests that slightly inconvenience motorists. Telling people to murder each other because of said inconvenience seems pretty thuggish.  But to each their own I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TobiasFunke said:

I dunno, I feel like the dozens of videos in this thread of police officers using excessive force are a better example of thugs having an excuse to try and intimidate people than peaceful protests that slightly inconvenience motorists. Telling people to murder each other because of said inconvenience seems pretty thuggish.  But to each their own I guess.

So surrounding a car and intimidating is peaceful,  got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, irish eyes said:

I've edited to remove that concern

Fair, I've certainly said things here I didn't mean. I have deleted my post quoting you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, irish eyes said:

So surrounding a car and intimidating is peaceful,  got it.

I guess that's kind of in the eyes of the beholder. But it's definitely not nearly as good an "example of thugs having an excuse to try and intimidate people" as the dozens of videos in this thread of police officers using excessive force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I guess that's kind of in the eyes of the beholder. But it's definitely not nearly as good an "example of thugs having an excuse to try and intimidate people" as the dozens of videos in this thread of police officers using excessive force. 

So you condone the non peaceful protests because they aren't as violent as the shooting. If you're significant other or a close family member is surrounded in their car being threatened, you would just tell them " well dear, even though you had nothing to do with it, someone they didn't know was shot by police so they have the right to intimidate you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, irish eyes said:

So you condone the non peaceful protests because they aren't as violent as the shooting. If you're significant other or a close family member is surrounded in their car being threatened, you would just tell them " well dear, even though you had nothing to do with it, someone they didn't know was shot by police so they have the right to intimidate you.

I didn't say any of that. I pointed out the amusing irony of you considering the protests to be a "perfect example of thugs having an excuse to try and intimidate people" in a thread that has literally dozens of much better examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Protesting by obstructing traffic has got to be ineffective. Whose minds are the protesters trying to change anyway? Anyone caught in their traffic jam is lost to their cause. Any cop involved in wrongdoing won't be reached. Any district attorney or judge will not be reached or swayed. Obstructing traffic is no more flailing wildly without purpose -- essentially, an excused tantrum.

Protesters: "We're mad enough to do THIS!"
People stuck in traffic: "OK ... and? What do you want me to do about it?"
Protesters: "Ummm ... dunno. Hadn't thought that far ahead. But we're mad!"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, irish eyes said:

So surrounding a car and intimidating is peaceful,  got it.

I think there are quite a few people in here that are pro-violence if it suits their cause.  

Some hide it better than others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Doug B said:

Protesting by obstructing traffic has got to be ineffective. Whose minds are the protesters trying to change anyway? Anyone caught in their traffic jam is lost to their cause. Any cop involved in wrongdoing won't be reached. Any district attorney or judge will not be reached or swayed. Obstructing traffic is no more flailing wildly without purpose -- essentially, an excused tantrum.

Protesters: "We're mad enough to do THIS!"
People stuck in traffic: "OK ... and? What do you want me to do about it?"
Protesters: "Ummm ... dunno. Hadn't thought that far ahead. But we're mad!"

In March 1965, protestors blocked the Edmund Pettis Bridge despite the efforts not just of motorists but also of state law enforcement, who ordered protestors to disperse and then tear-gassed and beat them when they refused. Many people criticized the protests (and others that caused inconveniences for "innocent" people like lunch counter sit-ins) for reasons similar to what you articulate here. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed less than six months later.

I haven't spent a lot of time reading up on this Pittsburgh protest, but generally speaking peaceful protests that mildly inconvenience people can be effective. We all need to understand that people, minorities in particular, are justifiably angry and feel like they have limited options. African-Americans currently have to endure a racist president who campaigned on thinly veiled racial resentment, got almost no support from them and lost the popular vote by millions who repeatedly and angrily attacks peaceful athlete protests by his own citizens while condoning the use of excessive force, defending the worst among us, and pardoning one racist after another. The same Voting Rights Act they fought so hard for fifty years ago has been neutered by a Supreme Court made up of appointees partially of another president who lost the popular vote- and that same institution had an empty seat eventually filled by another popular vote loser because people refused to let the black president do his job and appoint a Justice.  So it's not like they can just vote and solve the problem, because they have and that hasn't worked. Frankly it's remarkable and a credit to the activists that the protests have been as peaceful and convenient as they have been.

 

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

In March 1965, protestors blocked the Edmund Pettis Bridge despite the efforts not just of motorists but also of state law enforcement, who ordered protestors to disperse and then tear-gassed and beat them when they refused. Many people criticized the protests (and others that caused inconveniences for "innocent" people like lunch counter sit-ins) for reasons similar to what you articulate here. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 passed less than six months later.

I haven't spent a lot of time reading up on this Pittsburgh protest, but generally speaking peaceful protests that mildly inconvenience people can be effective. 

I'm not convinced that the two events bolded above necessarily had a cause-and-effect relationship. YMMV. Also, I think even if road obstruction did measurably lead to positive results 50+ years ago, I'm not convinced that that particular form of protest suits the world of 2018 very well (generally: more harried pace of life, people juggling more obligations, people more insular, etc.).

I mean ... do people that hijack highways want "sideline" people to be sympathetic to their message or not? I'm supposed to ... what, vote for candidates the protesters prefer? To what end? What if, instead, I end up voting for candidates who aim to push through legislation to make highway protest a felony because I want highway protests stopped?

...

To me, the lunch counter protests were a very different thing -- that was a "a right to be there, a right to be served" issue not unlike, say, taking seats in the front of city buses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Right, that's why I asked the questions. I'd say your refusal to answer them even as you take the time to reply to me is somewhat enlightening though.

:lmao: you are spot on Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Doug B said:

To me, the lunch counter protests were a very different thing -- that was a "a right to be there, a right to be served" issue not unlike, say, taking seats in the front of city buses.

Yep. People aren't blocking highways because they are being restricted from using highways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I'm not convinced that the two events bolded above necessarily had a cause-and-effect relationship. YMMV. Also, I think even if road obstruction did measurably lead to positive results 50+ years ago, I'm not convinced that that particular form of protest suits the world of 2018 very well (generally: more harried pace of life, people juggling more obligations, people more insular, etc.).

I mean ... do people that hijack highways want "sideline" people to be sympathetic to their message or not? I'm supposed to ... what, vote for candidates the protesters prefer? To what end? What if, instead, I end up voting for candidates who aim to push through legislation to make highway protest a felony because I want highway protests stopped?

...

To me, the lunch counter protests were a very different thing -- that was a "a right to be there, a right to be served" issue not unlike, say, taking seats in the front of city buses.

I don't know that there was any causality either, just pointing out that this sort of thing has a ton of precedent and that public opinion generally was similar back then. Good point about the practical differences in 2018.

I assume the people that hijack highways want awareness, which comes before persuasion. We've seen protests lead to awareness/media coverage and then to change a number of times already during the Trump era- think of the women's marches and the subsequent #metoo movement, or the initial airport protests of the early (more obviously discriminatory) versions of the travel ban, or the various forms of uproar in response to the family separation policy.  And like I said, part of it isn't necessarily as much about converting people to your cause as it is about simply having a way to have your voice heard when nothing else seems to be working.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I assume the people that hijack highways want awareness, which comes before persuasion. We've seen protests lead to awareness/media coverage and then to change a number of times already during the Trump era- think of the women's marches and the subsequent #metoo movement, or the initial airport protests of the early (more obviously discriminatory) versions of the travel ban, or the various forms of uproar in response to the family separation policy. 

Two things: (1) Awareness has long been achieved, and (2) there isn't a straight, direct path between "awareness" and "persuasion". Somewhere, somehow, sympathy has to be garnered. My memory is that the #metoo movement never resorted to highway obstruction (possibly excepting permitted and sanctioned public marches).

 

Quote

And like I said, part of it isn't necessarily as much about converting people to your cause as it is about simply having a way to have your voice heard when nothing else seems to be working.

OK ... highway obstruction won't be working, either. What would be next in the logical progression?

This might be kind of a weird analogy ... but to me, it's like trying to aim a telescope at a specific star in the night sky. Yes, you can move the telescope around by whacking it really hard. The telescope will, indeed, move. Will it be pointed on that specific star, though? If not, keep whacking at it. Does it ever get into alignment? Do you ever meet the goal of lining the telescope up with the star?

Aiming the telescope takes care, feedback (looking in the eyepiece to check bearings), and patience -- but you will end up with a bead on that star every time. In such a task, desperation and impatience make success virtually impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.