Are Republicans in favor of police murdering black people?

[Logical1]

I haven't seen them post much saying they are in favor of it. But I also haven't seem them post pretty much at all about the largest mass movement in US history wanting to reduce it. I haven't seen a bit of praise for the 99% of peaceful protesters. No compliments for their acting as good citizens, exercising their right to protest for better government. Either silence or smears falsely claiming they're the same at the 1% committing violence, often using the protests as cover. Almost no discussion of their cause, of the wrongs they are protesting; only looking for anything they can to criticize and attack. So if all they have to say about the protests of wrong police violence are attacks, they're fighting to defend wrong police violence.

The police do not "murder" anyone!!!! They try to arrest criminals for crimes. If during arrest the criminals fight back it is the duty of the police to subdue the criminals that put police lives in danger. If they are forced to shoot a criminal SOB to keep from getting hurt, tuff ****.

 

[Ouroboros]

As I said, he could have reached in, to sooth his three children that were crying. He may even have done it exasperatedly some. He did not think cops are going to start shooting around his children.


PARTICULARLY in light of his ALREADY having told the cops there was a knife in the floorboards. He was not going for the knife.

For anyone: as yet has Blake made a public statement as to why he reached into the car?

 

[Ouroboros]

Why cops get called in rarely gets lost in the shuffle. I have yet to see a story about such an incident that doesn't mentioned what started things off, why the cops were there. The focus understandably switches to the illegal or brutal actions of the officers if applicable, as these overwhelm the original incident in importance.

It's certainly not impossible for the actions of the suspect and those of the police to be equally brutal. It's also possible, as in the case of Michael Brown, that the news may assert that the cop's action was improper, way in advance of the court's ruling on the matter.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you really don't understand what racism is, I see. Not surprising.

But this is all just more deflection from you. Your moronic argument is that African-Americans who "resist arrest" (which UNIVERSALLY results in going to jail)...do so because they don't want to go to jail. I've simply pointed out the absurdity of that "logic". And, clearly, you've now begun to recognize how CLUELESS you are; thus, the deflection.


SNOWFLAKE ALERT!! Are you really so fragile that you can't handle criticism of your opinions? Grow some stones, man!

What a stupid thing to say. I am not "restricting the ability of white people to voice opinions", nor anything else. People like you have become so entitled that you THINK criticism of your opinions is "restricting". That's the most pathetic argument I've seen on this board in a long time.

And again...this just MORE DEFLECTION from the discussion. You really don't want to defend your previous arguments, do you? :lamo



...says the clueless, entitled white guy who JUST "invoked the idea" (based upon nothing more than delusions of his ability to whitesplain stuff) that black people think the way to avoid jail is to do the one thing that guarantees jail time. That's some BRILLIANT stuff, there!...from the suburban white guy perspective, I suppose. :roll:

Why do extremists always resort to such simple-minded, concrete reasoning?

Of course, we both know that the ONLY place I could have "invoked" such an idea is within the confines of your brain, don't we? Just because you offered up a really IGNORANT argument, doesn't mean that all white people are as clueless as you, Ouroboros. You're perfectly entitled to your opinions. That's not your problem. Your problem is that you (and people like you) are so entitled that you believe your opinions deserve to be graded on an intellectual curve...simply because of your sense of entitlement. The simple FACT of the matter here is that you have no freaking idea what Rayshard Brooks was thinking. None, whatsoever. But you feel entitled to speak in declarations about him, for some reason.

I just happen to understand the kind of "reasoning" that infects the minds of people like you. And that also explains why you keep DEFLECTING with each response.


Whitesplaining is what it is. You seem to be upset that you got called our for saying some really stupid stuff. That's what this is all about for you, isn't it. Clearly, you're not interested in addressing the issues I raised about the substance of your remarks.


Another ignorant comment. Brooks was NOT stopped for drunk driving. There is no crime for sleeping in your own car. And Brooks was neither asking, nor attempting to get behind the wheel and drive again. He wanted to walk home and leave his keys and his car with the police. We already know that cops have different rules for African-Americans than for white Americans. Young white guys don't get arrested, for falling asleep in their cars, 400 feet from home. They get sent home.


Nonsense. Brooks committed no crime and had not violated his probation. Sleeping in your own car is not a crime. If he was white, he'd have been allowed to walk home and go to bed. What we know is that criminal records mean MORE when you're black, and LESS when you're white.

Sure I understand racism. I just said you had demonstrated it, and you have. You certainly didn't demonstrate anything else, despite your delusions to the contrary.

Mad Lib Gambit #2: after trying to monopolize the discussion with nonsense like "whitesplaining," you cry "snowflake." That's a case of the snowstorm calling the icecube flaky.

I see you don't care to admit your ridiculous lie that I never insulted black people as a whole, simply by criticizing black individuals. Probably 'cause you still have not prove the lie, even badly.

People certainly can be arrested for falling asleep in their cars , even when they aren't drunk and haven't parked in a Wendy's service lane, a point you've conveniently omitted-- or else you didn't even know it. But it's because he *had* been driving drunk-- as was proved by both his peculiar parking and by the breath analysis-- that he was in danger of having his probation revoked. That's why he ran, and had he been living in an all-black country like Ghana, he would have committed the same reckless and ultimately fatal act. But yeah, you go on believing that every black person, no matter their crimes, is the victim of the great white conspiracy. I'm sure it makes you feel noble.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, you can't produce statistical evidence to refute my previous arguments. And I think you know that, too. I'm not too concerned about what you allow yourself to believe, or not believe.


No, what it will produce is fewer calls to armed cops for simple civil/domestic issues. It's been shown to work in the U.S. and every other western-style democracy on the planet. An armed officer is not needed to deal with the homeless guy who takes a shopping cart out of the grocery store parking lot. The FACT is that 95% of police calls leading to arrests (literally, 95%) involve issues that do not require an armed officer to resolve. It's a waste of time and resources to deploy armed officers for EVERY call that comes into 911, or EVERY issue that pops up on the streets. Armed police should be reserved for the 5% of calls that involve murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, etc., not disputes between neighbors about tree limbs that encroach upon one guy's property, etc. In other western democracies, various social services can (and do) handle many issues be more efficiently and effectively than police officers who are entirely UNDER-trained for many issues.


:lamo
This just shows how warped your perspective is. As someone who spent about 5 years in NYC, I am very aware of that issue. The NYC undercover units were NOTORIOUS for their corruption, racism and violence. That's why they were disbanded. And they earned it. Their duties will be absorbed, but those units need to be dissolved. Should have happened about 25 years ago, in fact.


Well, first, let's be clear...you don't set an standards or parameters around here. Secondly, since we both KNOW for a FACT that most of the "burning buildings" are being set ablaze by various WHITE NATIONALIST types at these protests, we'll just ignore that last part of your remarks, ok?

Now, let's talk specifics. Pick a city.

In Minneapolis, four officers have been removed from the force and charged with manslaughter. The city has made changes to use of force rules, and is in the process of reforming the entire police force (including funding redistribution).

In Louisville, no-knock warrants are now banned. The DA is about to lose his job, and the officers will likely be charged soon. Stay tuned.

In major cities across the country, police reform is on the way. NY City, LA, Chicago, Houston, Charlotte, Portland, Durham, Atlanta, etc. etc. And the 2020 elections (local and state) are just around the corner. Public monuments to Confederate traitors to the U.S. are coming down. Awareness and support for the issues of police misconduct and systemic racism have never been higher.

But let's be honest. None of this is of interest to someone like you. Those people who oppose issues and mission of the #BLM movement are angry, rural/suburban white men (and about half of the wives) who either support, or sympathize with white grievance and/or white nationalist ideology. And as I said previously, the truth is that you people don't count. You'll never be a part of the change that is coming. As it always has, it will come in spite of you and your ilk...not because of you. Your side always loses, over time.

If you really don't believe that counter-statistics to your position exist, you're incredibly naive. I'm not saying you would have to believe them because they exist, but at least show some sense by admitting that counter-statistics by the Right will always be generated to dispute those of the Left.

Your claims about the supposed abuses of the system, particularly the police undercover units, are unsourced, so you're just spouting off. And as I said before, since you're not able to make any sort of argument beyond this unoriginal hectoring, why would anyone listen to you?

Nope, White Antifa are clearly behind the worst of the assaults. White Nationalists have no motive to help Black Lives Matter tear apart the country. Together BLM and Antifa are probably helping White Nationalists swell their ranks.

I see that all the specific citations of allegedly meaningful changes are also unsourced, so again, they hold no persuasive power. If I had what you laughably call a "side," it would never be threatened by such empty, utterly derivative rhetoric.

 

[Ouroboros]

Since I complained to a poster about posting unsourced opinions, I should provide a source for my statement that not all statistics support the claim re: disproportionate black shootings. From USAToday:

Such self defense may be understandable if the police were engaging in an epidemic of shooting unarmed Black men and women, as we now hear daily — but there is no such epidemic. For the last five years, the police have fatally shot about 1,000 civilians annually, the vast majority of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. Black people account for about 23% of those shot and killed by police; they are about 13% of the U.S. population.

As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019. The database does not include those killed by other means, like George Floyd.

The number of unarmed Black shooting victims is down 63% from 2015, when the database began. There are about 7,300 Black homicide victims a year. The 14 unarmed victims in fatal police shootings would comprise only 0.2% of that total.

Ideally, officers would never take anyone’s life in the course of their duties. But given the number of arrests they make each year (around 10 million) and the number of deadly-weapons attacks on officers (an average of 27 per day in just two-thirds of the nation’s police departments, according to a 2014 analysis), it is not clear that these 1,000 civilian shooting deaths suggest that law enforcement is out of control.

 

[veritas1]

veritas1 when less than 3500 Americans die from H1N1: ER MAH GERD OBLAMMMAAAAA :2mad: :argue

veritas1 when over 190,000 Americans die from COVID-19:

You apparently can't read or fail to do so if you can. At least 60 million people got H1N1. If it had been as lethal as Covid, that's 1.8 million deaths. Obama didn't stop anything. He simply got lucky that he wasn't dealing with a virus from a Chinese lab.

 

[Barnacle]

I haven't seen them post much saying they are in favor of it. But I also haven't seem them post pretty much at all about the largest mass movement in US history wanting to reduce it. I haven't seen a bit of praise for the 99% of peaceful protesters. No compliments for their acting as good citizens, exercising their right to protest for better government. Either silence or smears falsely claiming they're the same at the 1% committing violence, often using the protests as cover. Almost no discussion of their cause, of the wrongs they are protesting; only looking for anything they can to criticize and attack. So if all they have to say about the protests of wrong police violence are attacks, they're fighting to defend wrong police violence.

"Are Republicans in favor of police murdering black people?"

When will democrats stop beating their spouses?

 

[Phys251]

You apparently can't read or fail to do so if you can.

Says the person who says "this is fine" to 200,000 COVID-19 deaths in America. :roll:

 

[veritas1]

Says the person who says "this is fine" to 200,000 COVID-19 deaths in America. :roll:

I never said that anywhere. You are lying again.

 

[sjmay]

I haven't seen them post much saying they are in favor of it. But I also haven't seem them post pretty much at all about the largest mass movement in US history wanting to reduce it. I haven't seen a bit of praise for the 99% of peaceful protesters. No compliments for their acting as good citizens, exercising their right to protest for better government. Either silence or smears falsely claiming they're the same at the 1% committing violence, often using the protests as cover. Almost no discussion of their cause, of the wrongs they are protesting; only looking for anything they can to criticize and attack. So if all they have to say about the protests of wrong police violence are attacks, they're fighting to defend wrong police violence.

Yes.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.