What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Black lives matter (1 Viewer)

KarmaPolice said:
Summer Wheat said:
Walking my dog today I saw two homes that had Trump-Pence signs and Black Lives Matters signs on the same lawn.  My wife thought it was odd but I said many people have open minds and different views and that they can beleive in both.
Click to expand...
Or maybe somebody else put one of the signs up as a joke?  ;)
Click to expand...
My first rationalization is a husehold of black people that support Trump (at least the head of household anyway).  But it's not like the two signs are mutually exclusive ideologically.  Seems a little odd repping both on your front lawn,  but okay.   Hopefully noone messes w them. 

 
jm192 said:
gianmarco said:
That's the biggest issue I see as well.  Let's assume one of the bullets that went through the wall killed someone else.  Are they still off the hook?
Click to expand...
I mean, I think you're changing the entire conversation at that point.

Hankison fired into 3-4 other apartments.  If his bullet killed someone, then he's killed someone by being wreckless.  That would warrant manslaughter.  

But if Cosgrove fires in the direction of Walker and it goes through the wall and hits Bob in Apartment 11, is that a charge?  I don't think so.  

But at that point--how far are we prepared to extend it?    So everytime a police officer shoots their weapon, if it goes through a wall, they could be charged?  So either don't defend yourself or go to jail for manslaughter?  You basically can't do the job at that point.  

If an officer is wreckless and kills someone, charge them.  Hankison was wreckless.  His bullets didn't kill Breonna Taylor.  You can't charge the guy who didn't kill her.  He's charged for being wreckless, as he should.  
Click to expand...
No offense meant, but I think that your statements above are the crux of the large scale disagreements.

The concept of collateral damage is a military term which is typically used to speak about wars and battles.  It should not be a term to describe police action.  Especially not police action in the investigation of a possible drug dealer.

 
JAA said:
No offense meant, but I think that your statements above are the crux of the large scale disagreements.

The concept of collateral damage is a military term which is typically used to speak about wars and battles.  It should not be a term to describe police action.  Especially not police action in the investigation of a possible drug dealer.
Click to expand...
Disagree.  They declared a war on drugs, Brenna Taylor is collateral damage in that war.  

 
cockroach said:
JAA said:
No offense meant, but I think that your statements above are the crux of the large scale disagreements.

The concept of collateral damage is a military term which is typically used to speak about wars and battles.  It should not be a term to describe police action.  Especially not police action in the investigation of a possible drug dealer.
Click to expand...
Disagree.  They declared a war on drugs, Brenna Taylor is collateral damage in that war.  
Click to expand...
Your statements scare me.  Most likely they scare a lot of other people.

Only you can decide if you care about those other opinions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JAA said:
No offense meant, but I think that your statements above are the crux of the large scale disagreements.

The concept of collateral damage is a military term which is typically used to speak about wars and battles.  It should not be a term to describe police action.  Especially not police action in the investigation of a possible drug dealer.
Click to expand...
Let's talk about it.

The crux in my opinion is that a lot of people can't separate bad outcome and illegal.

The police were shot at and hit.  They fired back in self-defense.  Someone who didn't have a gun got hit by that return fire and died.  

A lot of people keep talking about the responsibility of police in these gunfire situations as if they're held to a higher standard.  Someone told me that with a bullet in his leg, the officer should have paused and assessed the room before returning fire.  I don't agree with that.  And I don't think it's a standard anyone would ask of civilians that are defending themselves.  

And then really it just comes down to the law.  In Kentucky, police don't get any special self defense protections above civilians.  But they get the exact same protections as civilians.  And maybe that's preposterous to you.  But it's the law in Kentucky.  To claim it's self-defense, you need a "reasonable belief" that your life is in danger.  At the point that you've been shot in the leg--I don't think there's an argument against there being a reasonable belief.  

So if someone breaks into my home, and I shoot at them--and the bullet goes through the window and hits the neighbor running up to see what's happening--do I go to jail?  Of course not.  

When you're talking about "collateral damage,"  the only question that matters is were the police wreckless.  And if the bullets that killed her came from someone that acted wrecklessly--then it's manslaughter.  

Hankison acted wrecklessly.  But none of his bullets made contact with Taylor.  They said he shot into 3 or 4 other apartments.  If those bullets killed someone it's manslaughter.  You can't charge him with manslaughter when he didn't kill anyone.  If the other officers acted in self defense--defending yourself isn't a violation of the law.  It's not murder to unintentionally kill someone.  It's not manslaughter to defend yourself from gunfire and hit an innocent person.  You can dissect "well what if she was this far away."  But she was in the same room.  

And then we can dissect so much else about it.  Should the police have been sent there?  Did they announce who they were?  I'm not telling anyone that there wasn't a lot wrong with it.  And certainly there are non-legal punishments that are more than justified.  

 
JAA said:
Your statements scare me.  Most likely they scare a lot of other people.

Only you can decide if you care about those other opinions.
Click to expand...
We live in a scary reality.  Those words fit the definition of what is occurring.  What terms would you prefer people use?  

 
jm192 said:
JAA said:
No offense meant, but I think that your statements above are the crux of the large scale disagreements.

The concept of collateral damage is a military term which is typically used to speak about wars and battles.  It should not be a term to describe police action.  Especially not police action in the investigation of a possible drug dealer.
Click to expand...
Let's talk about it.

The crux in my opinion is that a lot of people can't separate bad outcome and illegal.

The police were shot at and hit.  They fired back in self-defense.  Someone who didn't have a gun got hit by that return fire and died.  

A lot of people keep talking about the responsibility of police in these gunfire situations as if they're held to a higher standard.  Someone told me that with a bullet in his leg, the officer should have paused and assessed the room before returning fire.  I don't agree with that.  And I don't think it's a standard anyone would ask of civilians that are defending themselves.  

And then really it just comes down to the law.  In Kentucky, police don't get any special self defense protections above civilians.  But they get the exact same protections as civilians.  And maybe that's preposterous to you.  But it's the law in Kentucky.  To claim it's self-defense, you need a "reasonable belief" that your life is in danger.  At the point that you've been shot in the leg--I don't think there's an argument against there being a reasonable belief.  

So if someone breaks into my home, and I shoot at them--and the bullet goes through the window and hits the neighbor running up to see what's happening--do I go to jail?  Of course not.  

When you're talking about "collateral damage,"  the only question that matters is were the police wreckless.  And if the bullets that killed her came from someone that acted wrecklessly--then it's manslaughter.  

Hankison acted wrecklessly.  But none of his bullets made contact with Taylor.  They said he shot into 3 or 4 other apartments.  If those bullets killed someone it's manslaughter.  You can't charge him with manslaughter when he didn't kill anyone.  If the other officers acted in self defense--defending yourself isn't a violation of the law.  It's not murder to unintentionally kill someone.  It's not manslaughter to defend yourself from gunfire and hit an innocent person.  You can dissect "well what if she was this far away."  But she was in the same room.  

And then we can dissect so much else about it.  Should the police have been sent there?  Did they announce who they were?  I'm not telling anyone that there wasn't a lot wrong with it.  And certainly there are non-legal punishments that are more than justified.  
Click to expand...
I would encourage you to reread my posts.  I never said that the police should be charged.  Charging the police would be a solution to a problem.  Im not there yet.

What I've said is that the outcome of that situation is not acceptable.  I refuse to start talking about solutions until everyone is on board with there being a problem.

Problem - it is not OK that someone is dead because of a no-knock/knock, plain clothes, apartment break-in, in the middle of the night, where the owner of the apartment didn't hear the police identify themselves.  Not OK.

If we can agree that the above statement is a problem, I'm willing to start discussing solutions.

 
JAA said:
I would encourage you to reread my posts.  I never said that the police should be charged.  Charging the police would be a solution to a problem.  Im not there yet.

What I've said is that the outcome of that situation is not acceptable.  I refuse to start talking about solutions until everyone is on board with there being a problem.

Problem - it is not OK that someone is dead because of a no-knock/knock, plain clothes, apartment break-in, in the middle of the night, where the owner of the apartment didn't hear the police identify themselves.  Not OK.

If we can agree that the above statement is a problem, I'm willing to start discussing solutions.
Click to expand...
100% a problem.  

 
cockroach said:
JAA said:
Your statements scare me.  Most likely they scare a lot of other people.

Only you can decide if you care about those other opinions.
Click to expand...
We live in a scary reality.  Those words fit the definition of what is occurring.  What terms would you prefer people use?  
Click to expand...
I would choose the words "unnecessary" and "avoidable".

You are aware that in many states Police are no longer allowed to participate in high speed chases, right?  Why do you think that is?  Is it possible that these changes were made because too many innocent people were killed over someone fleeing the police over a bench warrant?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jm192 said:
JAA said:
I would encourage you to reread my posts.  I never said that the police should be charged.  Charging the police would be a solution to a problem.  Im not there yet.

What I've said is that the outcome of that situation is not acceptable.  I refuse to start talking about solutions until everyone is on board with there being a problem.

Problem - it is not OK that someone is dead because of a no-knock/knock, plain clothes, apartment break-in, in the middle of the night, where the owner of the apartment didn't hear the police identify themselves.  Not OK.

If we can agree that the above statement is a problem, I'm willing to start discussing solutions.
Click to expand...
100% a problem.  
Click to expand...
Cool, and I agree.

Lets assume all of the warrants issued were legal.  What avenues do we have in trying to protect innocent people from dying?  If we go back in time, knowing everything we know today, what would we do different?

 
JAA said:
Cool, and I agree.

Lets assume all of the warrants issued were legal.  What avenues do we have in trying to protect innocent people from dying?  If we go back in time, knowing everything we know today, what would we do different?
Click to expand...
No knock warrants probably just need to go.

They increase the likelihood of a physical/violent confrontation.  It's more dangerous for the people being investigated.  It's more dangerous for police.  

 
jm192 said:
No knock warrants probably just need to go.

They increase the likelihood of a physical/violent confrontation.  It's more dangerous for the people being investigated.  It's more dangerous for police.  
Click to expand...
There's no real right answer.  Sometimes if the police do announce their presence, it can lead to someone having moments to prepare an ambush for them.  I knew this guy from the minor league baseball team in the area.  He was killed in just such a situation.

https://www.odmp.org/officer/21234-investigator-michael-john-walter

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JAA said:
I would choose the words "unnecessary" and "avoidable".

You are aware that in many states Police are no longer allowed to participate in high speed chases, right?  Why do you think that is?  Is it possible that these changes were made because too many innocent people were killed over someone fleeing the police over a bench warrant?
Click to expand...
I'm an ACAB dude, bra.  "Collateral damage" doesn't refer to an acceptable loss.  It's what a casualty of war one wasn't participating in is called. 

 
Mr.Pack said:
Nah, no one cares about any of that, you guys just want to blame the police for everything.

Cool. I should have known better.

I'm out
Click to expand...
What?

A member of the grand jury took the extraordinary measure of filing a motion today to release the grand jury proceedings, suggesting the AG has not been truthful with the public. 
 

The SWAT force in that city expressed serious misgivings about the actions of the officers. 
 

The police department has not been truthful about the state of things that night. 
 

Five of the same people executed a similarly disastrous warrant a year and a half before. 
 

Many people care about that. 

 
Henry Ford said:
What?

A member of the grand jury took the extraordinary measure of filing a motion today to release the grand jury proceedings, suggesting the AG has not been truthful with the public. 
 

The SWAT force in that city expressed serious misgivings about the actions of the officers. 
 

The police department has not been truthful about the state of things that night. 
 

Five of the same people executed a similarly disastrous warrant a year and a half before. 
 

Many people care about that. 
Click to expand...
wow i did not know this......  :popcorn:  

 
PinkydaPimp said:
for those that continue to say things like there is no racism any longer, our president refused to condemn white supremacists on national TV.  If that isnt proof enough of systemic racism then i don't know what is. 
Click to expand...
Just did some research on the Proud Boys as I knew nothing about them, they are led by a mixed race black-latino man and the group has around 20% people of color. That is not really a white supremacist group.

 
Summer Wheat said:
Just did some research on the Proud Boys as I knew nothing about them, they are led by a mixed race black-latino man and the group has around 20% people of color. That is not really a white supremacist group.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point.  Trump was asked to denounce white supremacists.  He did not.  That is alarming.  And sad.

 
sho nuff said:
You should do some more research beyond their make up...the protests and rallies they have been involved in and so on.
Click to expand...
Ok I just googled Proud Boys and white supremacists.  This popped up.  

It turns out not everybody believes the Proud Boys are white supremacists, including a prominent Black professor at a historically Black university.

Wilfred Reilly, associate professor of political science at Kentucky State University, said Wednesday that “the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” describing the right-wing group’s beliefs as “Western chauvinist” and noting that their international chairman, Enrique Tarrio, is Black.

“Gotta say: the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” tweeted Mr. Reilly, author of “Hate Crime Hoax.”

The Proud Boys came under the microscope after President Trump refused during Tuesday’s presidential debate to condemn them as white supremacists, saying, “Proud Boys — stand back and stand by,” prompting accusations that he was supporting virulent racists.

Mr. Reilly said that about  20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, a diverse racial composition that is “extremely well-known in law enforcement,” based on his research.

“Enrique Tarrio, their overall leader, is a Black Cuban dude. The Proud Boys explicitly say they’re not racist,” Mr. Reilly told The Washington Times. “They are an openly right-leaning group and they’ll openly fight you — they don’t deny any of this — but saying they’re White supremacist: If you’re talking about a group of people more than 10% people of color and headed by an Afro-Latino guy, that doesn’t make sense.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer accused Mr. Trump of refusing to condemn white supremacy, tweeting, “He told white supremacists to ‘stand back and stand by.’ President Trump is a national disgrace, and Americans will not stand for it.”

Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden told reporters Wednesday: “My message to the Proud Boys and every other White supremacist group is: cease and desist. That’s not who we are.”

White House spokeswoman Alysa Farah pushed back on the criticism, saying, “I don’t think there’s anything to clarify. He’s told them to stand back.”

Black Trump supporter Melissa Tate also challenged the “white supremacist” label, posting a video in which she and Beverly Beatty said that the Proud Boys helped provide security for them at a Christian prayer event.

“STOP THE LIES,” tweeted Ms. Tate, who has 440,700 followers. “Proud Boys are NOT White Supremacist. They are Christian men many of them hispanic &  black.”

 
Summer Wheat said:
Ok I just googled Proud Boys and white supremacists.  This popped up.  

It turns out not everybody believes the Proud Boys are white supremacists, including a prominent Black professor at a historically Black university.

Wilfred Reilly, associate professor of political science at Kentucky State University, said Wednesday that “the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” describing the right-wing group’s beliefs as “Western chauvinist” and noting that their international chairman, Enrique Tarrio, is Black.

“Gotta say: the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” tweeted Mr. Reilly, author of “Hate Crime Hoax.”

The Proud Boys came under the microscope after President Trump refused during Tuesday’s presidential debate to condemn them as white supremacists, saying, “Proud Boys — stand back and stand by,” prompting accusations that he was supporting virulent racists.

Mr. Reilly said that about  20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, a diverse racial composition that is “extremely well-known in law enforcement,” based on his research.

“Enrique Tarrio, their overall leader, is a Black Cuban dude. The Proud Boys explicitly say they’re not racist,” Mr. Reilly told The Washington Times. “They are an openly right-leaning group and they’ll openly fight you — they don’t deny any of this — but saying they’re White supremacist: If you’re talking about a group of people more than 10% people of color and headed by an Afro-Latino guy, that doesn’t make sense.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer accused Mr. Trump of refusing to condemn white supremacy, tweeting, “He told white supremacists to ‘stand back and stand by.’ President Trump is a national disgrace, and Americans will not stand for it.”

Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden told reporters Wednesday: “My message to the Proud Boys and every other White supremacist group is: cease and desist. That’s not who we are.”

White House spokeswoman Alysa Farah pushed back on the criticism, saying, “I don’t think there’s anything to clarify. He’s told them to stand back.”

Black Trump supporter Melissa Tate also challenged the “white supremacist” label, posting a video in which she and Beverly Beatty said that the Proud Boys helped provide security for them at a Christian prayer event.

“STOP THE LIES,” tweeted Ms. Tate, who has 440,700 followers. “Proud Boys are NOT White Supremacist. They are Christian men many of them hispanic &  black.”
Click to expand...
You came across a guy saying since the "leader" is half black, and they have 20% are not white...that makes them not white supremacists.

Id say to him...look at their actions, what they have done at rallies and so on as well.  Go beyond the surface of a couple google searches for your own confirmation bias and dig into what they have done in their history and recent history.

They may not be full on white supremacists as a whole...but many of them are, and the group has been involved in such issues for years.

Also not a group you want to just be defending as good or unable to condemn them...we seem to be getting lost on one aspect of their members vs the whole...a tactic that seems to always happen with Trump.

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/proud-boys-0

And that info is out there from many sources outside of the ADL as well (since Im sure some will have a problem with them)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Summer Wheat said:
Ok I just googled Proud Boys and white supremacists.  This popped up.  

It turns out not everybody believes the Proud Boys are white supremacists, including a prominent Black professor at a historically Black university.

Wilfred Reilly, associate professor of political science at Kentucky State University, said Wednesday that “the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” describing the right-wing group’s beliefs as “Western chauvinist” and noting that their international chairman, Enrique Tarrio, is Black.

“Gotta say: the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” tweeted Mr. Reilly, author of “Hate Crime Hoax.”

[...]
Click to expand...
That shot his credibility right there. Can't take seriously someone who not only thinks hate crimes are a hoax, but even wrote a book about it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
You came across a guy saying since the "leader" is half black, and they have 20% are not white...that makes them not white supremacists.

Id say to him...look at their actions, what they have done at rallies and so on as well.  Go beyond the surface of a couple google searches for your own confirmation bias and dig into what they have done in their history and recent history.

They may not be full on white supremacists as a whole...but many of them are, and the group has been involved in such issues for years.

Also not a group you want to just be defending as good or unable to condemn them...we seem to be getting lost on one aspect of their members vs the whole...a tactic that seems to always happen with Trump.

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/proud-boys-0

And that info is out there from many sources outside of the ADL as well (since Im sure some will have a problem with them)
Click to expand...
Just trying to educate myself.   I have no idea what they are as I never heard of them before this week.

 
squistion said:
That shot his credibility right there. Can't take seriously someone who not only thinks hate crimes are a hoax, but even wrote a book about it. 
Click to expand...
I think a black professor has a little more credibility than most. So I just researched the book.  It is about 100 "hate crimes" that never really happened and how the media portrayed them.    Nothing to do with actual hate crimes that happened.

 
Summer Wheat said:
I think a black professor has a little more credibility than most. So I just researched the book.  It is about 100 "hate crimes" that never really happened and how the media portrayed them.    Nothing to do with actual hate crimes that happened.
Click to expand...
The complete title of the book is: Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War  

Hate crime hoaxes means that the left is selling a fake race war?   :mellow:   

While this is a black professor, I doubt he approached this subject from a completely objective viewpoint.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
squistion said:
The complete title of the book is: Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War  

Hate crime hoaxes means that the left is selling a fake race war?   :mellow:   

While this is a black professor, I doubt he approached this subject from a completely objective viewpoint.
Click to expand...
And your thousands of posts regarding race are?

 
Summer Wheat said:
Ok I just googled Proud Boys and white supremacists.  This popped up.  

It turns out not everybody believes the Proud Boys are white supremacists, including a prominent Black professor at a historically Black university.

Wilfred Reilly, associate professor of political science at Kentucky State University, said Wednesday that “the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” describing the right-wing group’s beliefs as “Western chauvinist” and noting that their international chairman, Enrique Tarrio, is Black.

“Gotta say: the Proud Boys aren’t white supremacists,” tweeted Mr. Reilly, author of “Hate Crime Hoax.”

The Proud Boys came under the microscope after President Trump refused during Tuesday’s presidential debate to condemn them as white supremacists, saying, “Proud Boys — stand back and stand by,” prompting accusations that he was supporting virulent racists.

Mr. Reilly said that about  20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color, a diverse racial composition that is “extremely well-known in law enforcement,” based on his research.

“Enrique Tarrio, their overall leader, is a Black Cuban dude. The Proud Boys explicitly say they’re not racist,” Mr. Reilly told The Washington Times. “They are an openly right-leaning group and they’ll openly fight you — they don’t deny any of this — but saying they’re White supremacist: If you’re talking about a group of people more than 10% people of color and headed by an Afro-Latino guy, that doesn’t make sense.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer accused Mr. Trump of refusing to condemn white supremacy, tweeting, “He told white supremacists to ‘stand back and stand by.’ President Trump is a national disgrace, and Americans will not stand for it.”

Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden told reporters Wednesday: “My message to the Proud Boys and every other White supremacist group is: cease and desist. That’s not who we are.”

White House spokeswoman Alysa Farah pushed back on the criticism, saying, “I don’t think there’s anything to clarify. He’s told them to stand back.”

Black Trump supporter Melissa Tate also challenged the “white supremacist” label, posting a video in which she and Beverly Beatty said that the Proud Boys helped provide security for them at a Christian prayer event.

“STOP THE LIES,” tweeted Ms. Tate, who has 440,700 followers. “Proud Boys are NOT White Supremacist. They are Christian men many of them hispanic &  black.”
Click to expand...
The Proud Boys were started out of Taki's Magazine by Gavin McInnes.  Taki's Magazine is one of the the birthplaces of the term "alt-right," and its former editor is Richard Spencer.  It became slightly famous when it was running articles in support of European neo-Nazis. 

The Proud Boys run Confederate rallies, "alt-right" rallies, espouse views with strong references to "white genocide" and have many members who advocate for a white ethnostate, and they join forces with skinheads, as well as co-opting the same clothing brands as skinheads for their rallies.  One of their former members (Jason Kessler) was the organizer who put together Charlottesville.  The founder left the organization as a result of its heavy turn toward racism, beyond the Islamophobia and sexism it was actually founded on.

There have been a number of discussions about them on this board before.  

 
Henry Ford said:
I think you missed part of the awfulness of the quote.  "30% of the people in the suburbs are low income people - 30% of the people in the suburbs are minorities."

He even manages to equate "low income" with "minorities."
Click to expand...
I didn't want to confuse the people who still insist he's not a racist.

 
PinkydaPimp said:
You are missing the point.  Trump was asked to denounce white supremacists.  He did not.  That is alarming.  And sad.
Click to expand...
No secret that Trump's behavior is not presidential.  And, for the record, I didn't think Biden was very dignified either.  Trump does not say things well and it is often crude.  However, if you try to look past his "unorthodox style" (I'll be nice), I think one can follow his train of thought and the logic behind it.

My interpretation was that he said "sure" when asked to denounce white supremacists and Biden provided the Proud Boys when prompted for a name by Trump.  Trump then said to "stand down, stand by" in true clumsy Trump fashion.  People try to dissect that but, you've heard him ramble, I'm not looking for meaning in every phrase... Could he have made a stronger statement?  Of course, but that isn't him....  I think he believed he addressed the question and then went on the attack, possibly frustrated by the inference of the question, pointing out that much of the hate, looting, arson, destruction, attacks on law enforcement, etc that we've seen recently is from BLM/Antifa.  Personally, I get his point - that doesn't mean I side with white supremacists. 

 
squistion said:
How many BLM matters members have been charged with being involved in a murderous plot?
Click to expand...
Counting all the cops who have been ambushed in the name of social injustice over the last few years, more than 10.  

 
jon_mx said:
Counting all the cops who have been ambushed in the name of social injustice over the last few years, more than 10.  
Click to expand...
Cite your source please.  I do remember the rightists in Frisco who ambushed a couple.  I don't remember any actual BLM members convicted of this.  

 
Prinefan said:
Cite your source please.  I do remember the rightists in Frisco who ambushed a couple.  I don't remember any actual BLM members convicted of this.  
Click to expand...
The great thing is the two sets of standards that are constantly imposed by the media and the left.  On the right, there is automatically a presumption that they are associated with this catchall group called "White Nationalists".  There is no evidence required, it is all presumed.  And as soon as they find one tweet or something which appears to align with right-wing beliefs, it is all over and set in concrete and can never be debated.  On the flip side, unless the offender goes on national TV and declares "I am a member of Antifa or BLM, and I did this in the name of Antifa or BLM", it does not count.  Nobody carries a card in their pocket which says, "BLM member".  But unless they do, the media will not make any such association or will they spend one minute trying to find some ties to left-wing organizations.

There have been many police shootings which can be associated with the BLM movement, the most egregious was the 2016 Dallas shooting which killed 5 police officers. Micah Johnson ambushed and fired upon a group of police officers at a BLM protest. Johnson stated he was angry over police shootings of black men wanted to kill white police officers.   

A more recent example in the last month, were the two Compton police offices who were shot in the head while sitting in their car.  An arrest was made of a black man last week, Deonte Murray, but the story was barely a blip on the radar and there was no media interest in looking into his background and trying to associate him with BLM, eventhough it is pretty obvious what motivated such action.  You would not even know his race from the stories out there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Counting all the cops who have been ambushed in the name of social injustice over the last few years, more than 10.  
Click to expand...
And how many of those involved were members of the Black Lives Matter organization?

Please provide a link when you make an accusation like this - I have yet to see one legitimate source from you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
The great thing is the two sets of standards that are constantly imposed by the media and the left.  On the right, there is automatically a presumption that they are associated with this catchall group called "White Nationalists".  There is no evidence required, it is all presumed.  And as soon as they find one tweet or something which appears to align with right-wing beliefs, it is all over and set in concrete and can never be debated.  On the flip side, unless the offender goes on national TV and declares "I am a member of Antifa or BLM, and I did this in the name of Antifa or BLM", it does not count.  Nobody carries a card in their pocket which says, "BLM member".  But unless they do, the media will not make any such association or will they spend one minute trying to find some ties to left-wing organizations.

There have been many police shootings which can be associated with the BLM movement, the most egregious was the 2016 Dallas shooting which killed 5 police officers. Micah Johnson ambushed and fired upon a group of police officers at a BLM protest. Johnson stated he was angry over police shootings of black men wanted to kill white police officers.   

A more recent example in the last month, were the two Compton police offices who were shot in the head while sitting in their car.  An arrest was made of a black man last week, Deonte Murray, but the story was barely a blip on the radar and there was no media interest in looking into his background and trying to associate him with BLM, eventhough it is pretty obvious what motivated such action.  You would not even know his race from the stories out there.
Click to expand...
"The FBI announced Tuesday that Steven Carrillo, the U.S. Air Force sergeant who allegedly murdered law enforcement officers in California during protests earlier this month, was associated with the right-wing Boogaloo movement, and that Carrillo chose the timing of his attacks to "take advantage of a time when this nation was mourning the killing of George Floyd.""

Trump's FBI stating what they believe to be true.  

 
Prinefan said:
"The FBI announced Tuesday that Steven Carrillo, the U.S. Air Force sergeant who allegedly murdered law enforcement officers in California during protests earlier this month, was associated with the right-wing Boogaloo movement, and that Carrillo chose the timing of his attacks to "take advantage of a time when this nation was mourning the killing of George Floyd.""

Trump's FBI stating what they believe to be true.  
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with what i posted.  But ok, what is your point?  I am 100 percent certain that neither Deonte Murray or Micoh Johnson are Boogaloo stooges.  

 
jon_mx said:
The great thing is the two sets of standards that are constantly imposed by the media and the left.  On the right, there is automatically a presumption that they are associated with this catchall group called "White Nationalists".  There is no evidence required, it is all presumed.  And as soon as they find one tweet or something which appears to align with right-wing beliefs, it is all over and set in concrete and can never be debated.  On the flip side, unless the offender goes on national TV and declares "I am a member of Antifa or BLM, and I did this in the name of Antifa or BLM", it does not count.  Nobody carries a card in their pocket which says, "BLM member".  But unless they do, the media will not make any such association or will they spend one minute trying to find some ties to left-wing organizations.

There have been many police shootings which can be associated with the BLM movement, the most egregious was the 2016 Dallas shooting which killed 5 police officers. Micah Johnson ambushed and fired upon a group of police officers at a BLM protest. Johnson stated he was angry over police shootings of black men wanted to kill white police officers.   

A more recent example in the last month, were the two Compton police offices who were shot in the head while sitting in their car.  An arrest was made of a black man last week, Deonte Murray, but the story was barely a blip on the radar and there was no media interest in looking into his background and trying to associate him with BLM, eventhough it is pretty obvious what motivated such action.  You would not even know his race from the stories out there.
Click to expand...
.. so you can't site a source?

 
perbach said:
Someone connected to BLM involved in a murderous plot?   Yeah boy....that would be different.  
Click to expand...
Colin Kaepernick donates money to a charity named after a known cop killer that openly advocates for black radicalism and getting rid of the police. 

Surely they really only mean through legal means. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Reviewing Candice Owen's Black Lives Matter Documentary - "The Greatest Lie Ever Sold" (10/25/22 20:11 PST)
Replies
13
Views
706
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
ren hoek
I think voters are worse than nonvoters
Replies
22
Views
993
ren hoek
ren hoek
GordonGekko
Police Departments Struggle With Critical Staffing Shortages Is A Threat To National Security ( 7/19/22 22:43 PST)
2 3
Replies
100
Views
3K
Yenrub
Yenrub

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top