Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
rascal

Black lives matter

Recommended Posts

Five officers involved in this raid were also involved in a botched raid in 2018.  In that case, again resulting in zero charges and a lawsuit against the city, those officers have learned how body cam footage could be used against them because it shows they executed a warrant by using a battering ram to knock in a door on a family without identifying themselves beforehand (only calling "Police" while knocking in the door with the battering ram.)

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/y3zkax/5-cops-involved-in-breonna-taylors-case-were-also-part-of-a-botched-raid-in-2018

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 2:08 PM, Juxtatarot said:
On 9/24/2020 at 1:52 PM, Enderdog said:

I'm confused on one point.  Did Walker shoot through the unopened door, or did he fire after the police had broken it open?  Seems like a big point that's unclear, to me anyway.

Quote

Walker told investigators he heard banging at the door and assumed it was Taylor's ex-boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover. Taylor, who had awoken, shouted, "Who is it?" but Walker said there was no response.

He said he and Taylor scrambled to get dressed and that he grabbed his gun, which his attorney has said he legally owns. He said both he and Taylor were yelling, "Who is it?" but received no response.

As they made their way toward the front door, Walker said, the door flew off its hinges.

"So I just let off one shot," he said. "I still can't see who it is or anything."

Police then returned fire, killing Taylor.

link

Sorry - have been away

Id like to add that the officers were in plain clothes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 2:39 PM, Juxtatarot said:
On 9/24/2020 at 2:34 PM, Shutout said:

It means that everything done legally goes through the exact same due process of justice and that THAT is protected to ALL citizens by the US constitution without exception and that is a big part of what protects our universal freedom in this country. 

Do the poor get the same due process as the rich and powerful?

Maybe we should ask Robert Kraft?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:
On 9/27/2020 at 10:40 AM, 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.

Or maybe somebody else put one of the signs up as a joke?  ;)

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 4:15 PM, jm192 said:
On 9/24/2020 at 4:07 PM, 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?

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.  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, 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.

Disagree.  They declared a war on drugs, Brenna Taylor is collateral damage in that war.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, cockroach said:
56 minutes ago, 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.

Disagree.  They declared a war on drugs, Brenna Taylor is collateral damage in that war.  

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

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

Edited by JAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 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.

We live in a scary reality.  Those words fit the definition of what is occurring.  What terms would you prefer people use?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jm192 said:
1 hour ago, 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.

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.  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

100% a problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, cockroach said:
51 minutes ago, 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.

We live in a scary reality.  Those words fit the definition of what is occurring.  What terms would you prefer people use?  

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?

Edited by JAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jm192 said:
3 minutes ago, 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.

100% a problem.  

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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?

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.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 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.  

 

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

 

Edited by Shula-holic
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shula-holic said:

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

 

C'mon... no one cares about a white guy getting killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Here are the questions that I'd like answered before we "back the badge" on this one:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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?

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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

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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, 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. 

wow i did not know this......  :popcorn: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 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

It's pretty clear how interested you are in weeding the "bad cops" out. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2020 at 11:20 PM, 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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 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.

You should do some more research beyond their make up...the protests and rallies they have been involved in and so on.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, 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.

You are missing the point.  Trump was asked to denounce white supremacists.  He did not.  That is alarming.  And sad.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 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.

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.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, 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.”

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)

Edited by sho nuff
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, 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.”

[...]

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. 

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 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)

Just trying to educate myself.   I have no idea what they are as I never heard of them before this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 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.

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.

 

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

 

And your thousands of posts regarding race are?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 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.”

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.  

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIhnnDFpYYE&feature=youtu.be&t=1397

"30% of the people in the suburbs are minorities. And so we're ruining this American dream for everybody."

:mellow:

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, 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."

I didn't want to confuse the people who still insist he's not a racist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PinkydaPimp said:

You are missing the point.  Trump was asked to denounce white supremacists.  He did not.  That is alarming.  And sad.

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. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, squistion said:

:(

Jemele Hill @jemelehill 8h

I don’t know who needs to hear this but just imagine the reaction if it would have been discovered that anyone connected to Black Lives Matter was plotting to kidnap a United States Governor.

https://twitter.com/jemelehill/status/1314255557402873856

Someone connected to BLM involved in a murderous plot?   Yeah boy....that would be different.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, perbach said:

Someone connected to BLM involved in a murderous plot?   Yeah boy....that would be different.  

How many BLM matters members have been charged with being involved in a murderous plot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, squistion said:

How many BLM matters members have been charged with being involved in a murderous plot?

Counting all the cops who have been ambushed in the name of social injustice over the last few years, more than 10.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 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.  

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.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, 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.  

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.

Edited by jon_mx
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 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.  

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.

 

Edited by squistion
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 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.

"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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 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.  

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.  

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.