• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Propaganda or News?

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,467
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This article contains the biased and propagandistic, inciting distortions of the events of the Duante Wright Shooting and death.

The inflammatory comments quoted in this article from Obama and Biden are a disgusting example of inciting mobs to violence.

Really disgusting quotes from the ideologues, really disgusting distortions and omissions by the writer and really disgusting lack of editorial integrity by the biased propagandists running the show at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.

 
This article contains the biased and propagandistic, inciting distortions of the events of the Duante Wright Shooting and death.

The inflammatory comments quoted in this article from Obama and Biden are a disgusting example of inciting mobs to violence.

Really disgusting quotes from the ideologues, really disgusting distortions and omissions by the writer and really disgusting lack of editorial integrity by the biased propagandists running the show at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.

Obama's statement from your article:
"Our hearts are heavy over yet another shooting of a Black man, Daunte Wright, at the hands of police," the couple wrote in a joint statement. "It’s important to conduct a full and transparent investigation, but this is also a reminder of just how badly we need to reimagine policing and public safety in this country,"
How is this inciting mobs to violence exactly?
 
As your link appears to be behind a paywall, let me provide Obama's words on the killing of Daunte Wright.

1618411183472.png

What is remotely controversial about anything he said?
 
Obama's statement from your article:

How is this inciting mobs to violence exactly?

It says quite clearly that the police are at fault and that it was negligence and stupidity that caused the tragedy.

The fact that the police knew they were dealing with a man who attempted an armed robbery along with a gun charge was resisting arrest and getting into his car. There could have been a gun inside.

As in most things, there is not only one side at fault.

Except in the blame the bad guy words from Obama. this was an ongoing tactic of Obama and works to benefit Democrat-Socialists at the polls as it hurts the country in general.

Why didn't he express sadness that the event occurred and wish the best to all involved asking for calm and urging that those who encounter police listen and behave as instructed?

Obama's words are intentional and well thought out to provoke and divide.

 
It says quite clearly that the police are at fault and that it was negligence and stupidity that caused the tragedy.

Let's try again. Where in the following statement do the Obamas incite violent mobs?

"Our hearts are heavy over yet another shooting of a Black man, Daunte Wright, at the hands of police," the couple wrote in a joint statement. "It’s important to conduct a full and transparent investigation, but this is also a reminder of just how badly we need to reimagine policing and public safety in this country,"

The fact that the police knew they were dealing with a man who attempted an armed robbery along with a gun charge was resisting arrest and getting into his car. There could have been a gun inside.

The police don't get to shoot someone because there 'could have been' a gun.
 
Let's try again. Where in the following statement do the Obamas incite violent mobs?





The police don't get to shoot someone because there 'could have been' a gun.

The entire Obama statement is one of bias against the police. This is an example of avoiding the chance to do some good by just doing nothing. This is the general character of every statement Obama ever makes regarding police.

They aimed the blame directly at the police. A tragedy occurred. The TRAGEDY is the target. They missed because they were shooting at the police. Divisive, hate filled and inciting.

In this particular case, the police say, and this is shown by what the body cam recorded, that the SHOOTING was both an accident and a mistake. Obama making a statement when he knew NOTHING was just wrong.

In this case, the police were trying to control a person that was resisting arrest that they new had a history of armed robbery, had skipped bail and was jumping into a car instead of following their instructions.

You or I would have the choice to just walk away. They do not if they are observing the call of duty.

However, I assume that more and more police will just walk away in the future if they choose to arrive at all in the first place.

Are you suggesting that the police must be shot BEFORE they can return fire and then it's okay? Is there EVER a reason that justifies the use of force?

Should all police officers be jailed on every occasion that any sort of force is employed?
 
Last edited:
The entire statement is one of bias against the police. This is an example of avoiding the chance to do some good by just saying nothing.
Where in the statement does he incite mobs to violence?

Are you suggesting that the police must be shot BEFORE they can return fire and then it's okay? Is there EVER a reason that justifies the use of force?

Should all police officers be jailed on every occasion that any sort of force is employed?
Nice strawmen.
 
The entire Obama statement is one of bias against the police. This is an example of avoiding the chance to do some good by just doing nothing. This is the general character of every statement Obama ever makes regarding police.

They aimed the blame directly at the police. A tragedy occurred. The TRAGEDY is the target. They missed because they were shooting at the police. Divisive, hate filled and inciting.

In this particular case, the police say, and this is shown by what the body cam recorded, that the SHOOTING was both an accident and a mistake. Obama making a statement when he knew NOTHING was just wrong.

In this case, the police were trying to control a person that was resisting arrest that they new had a history of armed robbery, had skipped bail and was jumping into a car instead of following their instructions.

You or I would have the choice to just walk away. They do not if they are observing the call of duty.

However, I assume that more and more police will just walk away in the future if they choose to arrive at all in the first place.

Are you suggesting that the police must be shot BEFORE they can return fire and then it's okay? Is there EVER a reason that justifies the use of force?

Should all police officers be jailed on every occasion that any sort of force is employed?
When is it that you are going to claim to be mr. neutral again?
 
Where in the statement does he incite mobs to violence?


Nice strawmen.

The problem is NOT, as the Obama statement states, solely born by all police. The problem is the ongoing violence in our society and the resistance of our citizens to follow instructions given by the police.

I have had, guessing here, about 10 interactions with Uniformed Cops in my life. I have ALWAYS followed their instructions. I have NEVER been shot.

"Cooperate with police" since they are doing dangerous work in dangerous situations is THE message that the Obama statement should have featured. It was completely absent. It implied police malevolence.

Police do vital work. Encouraging people who deal with cops to be cooperative seems like the thing that a responsible leader would do. Instead, the Obamas, AGAIN, instigate further cause for outrage.

At what point when dealing with a violent person, after being informed that the person in question has a gun charge, an outstanding warrant and has skipped bail, is police violence justified?

If cops are always at fault no matter the situation, cops will simply cease responding to calls. People who used to aspire to serve in this capacity will do something that does not put a target on their back.

In Minneapolis, the city to which Brooklyn Center is a suburb, the cops are down by about 240 badges out of about 817 comparing 2021 to 2020. Crime is way up.

Ilhan Omar says the problem is that cops "are unwilling to work".

Minneapolis and the surrounding area is turning into a Democrat-Socialist dream come true.

 
The problem is NOT, as the Obama statement states, solely born by all police. The problem is the ongoing violence in our society and the resistance of our citizens to follow instructions given by the police.

I have had, guessing here, about 10 interactions with Uniformed Cops in my life. I have ALWAYS followed their instructions. I have NEVER been shot.

"Cooperate with police" since they are doing dangerous work in dangerous situations is THE message that the Obama statement should have featured. It was completely absent. It implied police malevolence.
There will always be people who are uncooperative with police because they are frightened, have mental health issues, or are simply jerks. The police don't get to summarily execute them for that.

Police do vital work. Encouraging people who deal with cops to be cooperative seems like the thing that a responsible leader would do. Instead, the Obamas, AGAIN, instigate further cause for outrage.
What the Obamas did not do, as you claimed, is incite mobs to violence. Nothing in their statement does that.
 
When is it that you are going to claim to be mr. neutral again?

Did I ever claim to be "mr. neutral"?

Regarding encounters with police, there is an INTERACTION.

In every interaction, people interact. When police are performing their duties, they are in danger.

When police are interacting with a person who has an outstanding warrant for armed robbery who is resisting arrest, there is cause to be VERY alert with heightened awareness to threats.

When the person whose record indicates danger starts to resist arrest, I imagine that adrenaline starts to gush into the system of the cops. It certainly would for me.

I would prefer that when I call for help, the Police show up. I hate to see them in my rear view mirror with lights flashing, but, when stopped, I do EXACTLY what they ask or order.

If they say, "Keep your hands on the wheel", that's EXACTLY what I do. If they say I need to see your license, I say, "I'm going to move my hands from the wheel to get my license. Is that okay?" I await permission to move.

When there are police-civilian interactions, I tend to start out on the side of the cops.

I'm not sure I've heard of a situation in the last few decades where there was a clear cut example of an innocent civilian being hurt by police with no provocation.

Have you?
 
Just for context and a little perspective, he didn't say "we love you" to violent insurrectionists.
 
There will always be people who are uncooperative with police because they are frightened, have mental health issues, or are simply jerks. The police don't get to summarily execute them for that.


What the Obamas did not do, as you claimed, is incite mobs to violence. Nothing in their statement does that.

Of course their statement does EXACTLY that.

Please cite the language in their statement that points to the course(s) of action for those stopped by police that could reasonably be expected to help avoid a tragedy when dealing with the police.
 
Of course their statement does EXACTLY that.
It does not, anywhere in the statement.
Please cite the language in their statement that points to the course(s) of action for those stopped by police that could reasonably be expected to help avoid a tragedy when dealing with the police.
You're moving the bar. The point is that they did not incite violent mobs in their statement.
 
It does not, anywhere in the statement.

You're moving the bar. The point is that they did not incite violent mobs in their statement.

And, of course, they did.

The mobs are already in the streets. The mobs are pretty much by definition, unthinking, angry idiots waiting for justification to loot, burn, assault or even kill.

The Statement from the Obama's provides this justification.

It is the methodology of the Obamas and that is why race relations suffered the fall backs they did during his second term.
 
It says quite clearly that the police are at fault and that it was negligence and stupidity that caused the tragedy.

The fact that the police knew they were dealing with a man who attempted an armed robbery along with a gun charge was resisting arrest and getting into his car. There could have been a gun inside.

As in most things, there is not only one side at fault.

Except in the blame the bad guy words from Obama. this was an ongoing tactic of Obama and works to benefit Democrat-Socialists at the polls as it hurts the country in general.

Why didn't he express sadness that the event occurred and wish the best to all involved asking for calm and urging that those who encounter police listen and behave as instructed?

Obama's words are intentional and well thought out to provoke and divide.

And the police were negligent and stupid just on the face of it. Lets just for the sake of argument say that the Police were justified in stopping Wright and justified in attempting to cuff him and arrest him:
- why didn't they move him from drivers side door of the vehicle to the back of the vehicle, bend him over the trunk and attempt to cuff him there?
- why did the cop that shot him have her gun drawn in the first place and how did she brain fart her way to deciding she was firing her taser instead of her gun?

The entire incident smacks of negligence and stupidity even if one accepts that the Police were acting in a manner that was conducive to Public Safety in the first place and THAT itself is very much in question.
 
And the police were negligent and stupid just on the face of it. Lets just for the sake of argument say that the Police were justified in stopping Wright and justified in attempting to cuff him and arrest him:
- why didn't they move him from drivers side door of the vehicle to the back of the vehicle, bend him over the trunk and attempt to cuff him there?
- why did the cop that shot him have her gun drawn in the first place and how did she brain fart her way to deciding she was firing her taser instead of her gun?

The entire incident smacks of negligence and stupidity even if one accepts that the Police were acting in a manner that was conducive to Public Safety in the first place and THAT itself is very much in question.

Have you consumed ANYTHING regarding what actually happened in this?

The young man was driving a car with expired tags and that is what caused the stop.

AFTER the stop had occurred and the cops ran his license, the young man was identified as a person who had skipped bail.

Why was there bail? He had USED A GUN to attempt to perform a robbery.

Why was he being cuffed? Because he was a person who had demonstrated the willingness to use a gun to get his way. Also, he was resisting arrest demonstrated by the difficulty in applying the cuffs and then the dive back into the car.

I feel like the situation was changing very quickly and sliding from dangerous to deadly in a matter of seconds.

The only part of the video that I have seen is the part where the young man is resisting arrest, trying to get into his car. At the time, the cops could not know if he had a gun hidden in his car or not.

The cop who shot very obviously believed that she had a taser in her hand. That belief was not correct. She shouted Taser three times and, when the gun was fired, she was very surprised.

You beliefs regarding the event seem to be very biased and your conclusions seem to be based on things that are not facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom