Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[Typical Lax Dad]

The Holocaust continues, this time in Syracuse:

https://www.syracuse.com/news/2020/06/f ... ustice.htm
As always the solution is there - disarm the government, arm the people.

I like the sentiment but I’m afraid the ‘heroes’ you choose aren’t exactly pictures of peace. “Nickels” seems to have been armed and reaching for his gun?

Anyway, cops will soon be replaced by robots and they won’t care too much when you shoot at them. In order to incapacitate the reckless lefty criminals, the robots will break your kneecaps. I’m all for it.

Atlanta is burning as we speak because a cop shot a career criminal who overpowered two cops and stole ones stun gun and shot at the cops. So the Democrats saw another opportunity to burn down a city. Same as it ever was.

I didn’t know you were in Atlanta. My wife tells me our neighborhood hasn’t been touched and most of the city is fine, tensions are very high because the guy was shot in the back and a cop said “I got him” while a nearby person is overheard saying “yo, there’s kids around here” as the cop is shooting.

But sure speak on everyone and everywhere even if you are just talking out of your a**. Standard practice

This will shock the resident Dems here, but here's a helpful hint: if you drive drunk (you see, that's an actual danger to society...there's this new phenomenon called drunk drivers who kill), pass out in a drive-through lane at a restaurant holding up traffic, fail the sobriety test, then choose to fight the cops, overpower both, swing at one's jaw, steal his gun (stun or otherwise), and THEN fire the stun gun at the cop, I have bad news if you think most cops aren't gonna shoot back.

two things can be true at one time: the guy deserves zero pity, and the cop could have let him run away.

" and the cop could have let him run away."

I hope folks will be happy when that is what more and more police decide to do. I only hope then they don't rip the cops for not doing their job. Any person today that would want to be a cop has to be questioning their career choice. Your damned if you do and soon you will be damned if you don't.

Shooting a guy in the back is cowardly.

[old salt]

...there is another state school in Virginia with D1 lacrosse. Its past is very linked to the Confederacy.
https://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/v ... c435b.html

Given his tenure there, it will be difficult to erase Stonewall Jackson from VMI's history.
He is an integral integral part of the school's military ethos.
https://www.vmi.edu/museums-and-archive ... on-at-vmi/
Given VMI's history, I expect a movement to demilitarize VMI, remove ROTC & make it a nonmilitary state university with a different name.
It's history as an institution is unalterably "tainted" by it's Confederate history.

It's also inaccurate to characterize A.P. Hill as a loser, at least on the battle field.

[Kismet]

It's also inaccurate to characterize A.P. Hill as a loser, at least on the battle field.

Although "Little Powell" enjoyed a favorable and successful career during the Civil War, his death on April 2, 1865 (during the Union breakthrough in the Third Battle of Petersburg, just seven days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House), where he was shot dead by a Union soldiers, as he rode out to the front of the Petersburg lines, accompanied by one staff officer calling upon the Union soldiers to surrender. Not a particularly bright move and certainly not a winning move either. Confederates were forced to evacuate those lines shortly thereafter and the rest, as they say, is history.

Certainly, U.S. Grant was a good deal more successful in terms of military success in the same war and never has had a fort named after him - maybe when they remove Hill's name they can replace it with Grant.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It's also inaccurate to characterize A.P. Hill as a loser, at least on the battle field.

Although "Little Powell" enjoyed a favorable and successful career during the Civil War, his death on April 2, 1865 (during the Union breakthrough in the Third Battle of Petersburg, just seven days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House), where he was shot dead by a Union soldiers, as he rode out to the front of the Petersburg lines, accompanied by one staff officer calling upon the Union soldiers to surrender. Not a particularly bright move and certainly not a winning move either. Confederates were forced to evacuate those lines shortly thereafter and the rest, as they say, is history.

Certainly, U.S. Grant was a good deal more successful in terms of military success in the same war and never has had a fort named after him - maybe when they remove Hill's name they can replace it with Grant.

Was he shot in the back?

[old salt]

It's also inaccurate to characterize A.P. Hill as a loser, at least on the battle field.

Although "Little Powell" enjoyed a favorable and successful career during the Civil War, his death on April 2, 1865 (during the Union breakthrough in the Third Battle of Petersburg, just seven days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House), where he was shot dead by a Union soldiers, as he rode out to the front of the Petersburg lines, accompanied by one staff officer calling upon the Union soldiers to surrender. Not a particularly bright move and certainly not a winning move either. Confederates were forced to evacuate those lines shortly thereafter and the rest, as they say, is history.

Certainly, U.S. Grant was a good deal more successful in terms of military success in the same war and never has had a fort named after him - maybe when they remove Hill's name they can replace it with Grant.

Whatever. Fine by me.

I just don't think it's accurate history to include A. P. Hill in the group of "loser" Confederate Generals, for whom Forts are named.
Unlike Lee & Grant who commanded entire armies from their HQ's in the rear, Jackson & Hill were commanders of component corps engaged in maneuver warfare which they commanded from the battlefield, exposing themselves to enemy fire.

If the purge continues, I don't see how VMI survives as a state military school. It is too tainted by it's Confederate history.

[old salt]

It's also inaccurate to characterize A.P. Hill as a loser, at least on the battle field.

Although "Little Powell" enjoyed a favorable and successful career during the Civil War, his death on April 2, 1865 (during the Union breakthrough in the Third Battle of Petersburg, just seven days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House), where he was shot dead by a Union soldiers, as he rode out to the front of the Petersburg lines, accompanied by one staff officer calling upon the Union soldiers to surrender. Not a particularly bright move and certainly not a winning move either. Confederates were forced to evacuate those lines shortly thereafter and the rest, as they say, is history.

Certainly, U.S. Grant was a good deal more successful in terms of military success in the same war and never has had a fort named after him - maybe when they remove Hill's name they can replace it with Grant.

Was he shot in the back?

Was A P Hill ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

It's also inaccurate to characterize A.P. Hill as a loser, at least on the battle field.

Although "Little Powell" enjoyed a favorable and successful career during the Civil War, his death on April 2, 1865 (during the Union breakthrough in the Third Battle of Petersburg, just seven days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House), where he was shot dead by a Union soldiers, as he rode out to the front of the Petersburg lines, accompanied by one staff officer calling upon the Union soldiers to surrender. Not a particularly bright move and certainly not a winning move either. Confederates were forced to evacuate those lines shortly thereafter and the rest, as they say, is history.

Certainly, U.S. Grant was a good deal more successful in terms of military success in the same war and never has had a fort named after him - maybe when they remove Hill's name they can replace it with Grant.

Was he shot in the back?

Was A P Hill ?

Yes. Was he shot in the back?

[old salt]

It's also inaccurate to characterize A.P. Hill as a loser, at least on the battle field.

Although "Little Powell" enjoyed a favorable and successful career during the Civil War, his death on April 2, 1865 (during the Union breakthrough in the Third Battle of Petersburg, just seven days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House), where he was shot dead by a Union soldiers, as he rode out to the front of the Petersburg lines, accompanied by one staff officer calling upon the Union soldiers to surrender. Not a particularly bright move and certainly not a winning move either. Confederates were forced to evacuate those lines shortly thereafter and the rest, as they say, is history.

Certainly, U.S. Grant was a good deal more successful in terms of military success in the same war and never has had a fort named after him - maybe when they remove Hill's name they can replace it with Grant.

Was he shot in the back?

Was A P Hill ?

Yes. Was he shot in the back?

No. He was shot in the chest by a Union Corporal named Mauck.

[youthathletics]

Johns Hopkins.....you are up next. Gaining traction. https://twitter.com/villagebby/status/1 ... 37568?s=21

[Typical Lax Dad]

It's also inaccurate to characterize A.P. Hill as a loser, at least on the battle field.

Although "Little Powell" enjoyed a favorable and successful career during the Civil War, his death on April 2, 1865 (during the Union breakthrough in the Third Battle of Petersburg, just seven days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House), where he was shot dead by a Union soldiers, as he rode out to the front of the Petersburg lines, accompanied by one staff officer calling upon the Union soldiers to surrender. Not a particularly bright move and certainly not a winning move either. Confederates were forced to evacuate those lines shortly thereafter and the rest, as they say, is history.

Certainly, U.S. Grant was a good deal more successful in terms of military success in the same war and never has had a fort named after him - maybe when they remove Hill's name they can replace it with Grant.

Was he shot in the back?

Was A P Hill ?

Yes. Was he shot in the back?

No. He was shot in the chest by a Union Corporal named Mauck.

Thanks.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

a little more footage leading up to the brooks shooting in atlanta: https://nypost.com/2020/06/14/rayshard- ... -shooting/

[Peter Brown]

The Holocaust continues, this time in Syracuse:

https://www.syracuse.com/news/2020/06/f ... ustice.htm
As always the solution is there - disarm the government, arm the people.

I like the sentiment but I’m afraid the ‘heroes’ you choose aren’t exactly pictures of peace. “Nickels” seems to have been armed and reaching for his gun?

Anyway, cops will soon be replaced by robots and they won’t care too much when you shoot at them. In order to incapacitate the reckless lefty criminals, the robots will break your kneecaps. I’m all for it.

Atlanta is burning as we speak because a cop shot a career criminal who overpowered two cops and stole ones stun gun and shot at the cops. So the Democrats saw another opportunity to burn down a city. Same as it ever was.

I didn’t know you were in Atlanta. My wife tells me our neighborhood hasn’t been touched and most of the city is fine, tensions are very high because the guy was shot in the back and a cop said “I got him” while a nearby person is overheard saying “yo, there’s kids around here” as the cop is shooting.

But sure speak on everyone and everywhere even if you are just talking out of your a**. Standard practice

This will shock the resident Dems here, but here's a helpful hint: if you drive drunk (you see, that's an actual danger to society...there's this new phenomenon called drunk drivers who kill), pass out in a drive-through lane at a restaurant holding up traffic, fail the sobriety test, then choose to fight the cops, overpower both, swing at one's jaw, steal his gun (stun or otherwise), and THEN fire the stun gun at the cop, I have bad news if you think most cops aren't gonna shoot back.

two things can be true at one time: the guy deserves zero pity, and the cop could have let him run away.

" and the cop could have let him run away."

I hope folks will be happy when that is what more and more police decide to do. I only hope then they don't rip the cops for not doing their job. Any person today that would want to be a cop has to be questioning their career choice. Your damned if you do and soon you will be damned if you don't.

This is my point. These cities will go the way of Baltimore. And these folks will have no clue.

[Peter Brown]

It's also inaccurate to characterize A.P. Hill as a loser, at least on the battle field.

Although "Little Powell" enjoyed a favorable and successful career during the Civil War, his death on April 2, 1865 (during the Union breakthrough in the Third Battle of Petersburg, just seven days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House), where he was shot dead by a Union soldiers, as he rode out to the front of the Petersburg lines, accompanied by one staff officer calling upon the Union soldiers to surrender. Not a particularly bright move and certainly not a winning move either. Confederates were forced to evacuate those lines shortly thereafter and the rest, as they say, is history.

Certainly, U.S. Grant was a good deal more successful in terms of military success in the same war and never has had a fort named after him - maybe when they remove Hill's name they can replace it with Grant.

To all the libs here, maybe read this thread by a very astute observer of who your party is being dominated/decimated by:

https://twitter.com/luinalaska/status/1 ... 21442?s=21

“ Don’t bother with your own legacy you’re busy shitting on the long dead who aren’t here to care. Go burn down every Starbucks. That’ll show them. Torch the Target. Tear down every monument. Deface every memorial. But what have you built? What do you leave behind?”

[Kismet]

I just don't think it's accurate history to include A. P. Hill in the group of "loser" Confederate Generals, for whom Forts are named.
Unlike Lee & Grant who commanded entire armies from their HQ's in the rear, Jackson & Hill were commanders of component corps engaged in maneuver warfare which they commanded from the battlefield, exposing themselves to enemy fire.

How about Gen. George Thomas instead - a native Virginian who did not resign his commission in the U.S. Army and who did a whole lot of winning in a similar position and who, as a result, later also commanded winning armies in the Western Theater. No military installations are currently named for General Thomas.

BTW General Braxton Bragg (for whom a large facility is named) wasn't exactly a winner either. Considered by historians as among the worst Confederate General officers, he fumbled more than a few of the campaigns and battles he was involved in (as an Army Commander like Lee and Grant) losing most of them. In fact, one of his most incompetent Division commanders, Gen. Leonidas Polk, also has one of these facilities named for him, too. He was killed at the Battle of Atlanta in 1864 when Gen. W.T. Sherman observed a group of enemy officers out scouting his positions and ordered a Federal battery to fire upon them. BOOM! and out. Tecumseh Sherman did not mess around. The only things the Feds named for him were a WWII tank and a fort in Panama in 1911 that was ceded over to the Panamanian government in 1999. He'd also make a good choice to replace one of these current names.

I guess, the main point is not that these people were "losers" but , more importantly they all took up arms against the United States which, by definition (Constitutionally) makes them traitors and certainly not worthy of much recognition except as such. They certainly got a better deal than Aaron Burr did for similar crimes (and who also BTW does not have any Federal Facilities named for him).

[ggait]

I hope folks will be happy when that is what more and more police decide to do. I only hope then they don't rip the cops for not doing their job.

The Atlanta shooting is nowhere near as massively egregious/outrageous/conscience shocking as the knee on the neck. Which imo legal opinion is stone cold murder 1.

But Atlanta is still pretty awful.

First, recognize that the job of a cop is to deal with bad people and bad situations. You are in the wrong line of work if you don't want to deal with drunks, druggies, jerks, criminals, etc. under conditions of stress and emotion. Don't become a doctor if you hate dealing with sick people!

The only reason that we give you a badge, color of authority, a gun, and a license to kill is because we expect you to be able to use those things lawfully and responsibly. We also assume your employer will have screened and trained you so that you can do that.

I suspect the training really let this officer down. Running from the cops is just not a capital offense. The cops knew the perp did not have any weapons (having previously patted the guy down). So if you or others are not in mortal danger, then deadly force is just not even close to being an justified option. Even after taking heat of the moment into account.

Police authorities finally got around to banning car chases in almost all cases. Turns out trying to "always get your man" via a car chase is just too dangerous and unjustified thing to do. There's just so many other better and safer ways to make the collar. Same needs to be applied to choke holds and deadly force.

I can think of 20 easy ways these cops could have collared this perp without using a gun. Like maybe following him slowly on foot and with a cruiser as he tries to run? How far and fast is a drunk guy in the dark really going to be able get? Like maybe going to his house later to make the arrest? Totally do-able since the cops did have the guy's name, driver license and car.

Shooting the guy in these circumstances is NOT doing the job. It is massively failing to do the job.

I do think that the quick firings of these offending officers is going to be pretty helpful to getting the cops to do better. Screw the drawn out union disciplinary process. You screwed up badly; you're fired. Knock yourself out if you want to sue for wrongful termination. But as of today, you've got no job, no paycheck, and no career. Because we take this shirt seriously. Totally the correct management technique.

[RedFromMI]

I hope folks will be happy when that is what more and more police decide to do. I only hope then they don't rip the cops for not doing their job.

The Atlanta shooting is nowhere near as massively egregious/outrageous/conscience shocking as the knee on the neck. Which imo legal opinion is stone cold murder 1.

But Atlanta is still pretty awful.

First, recognize that the job of a cop is to deal with bad people and bad situations. You are in the wrong line of work if you don't want to deal with drunks, druggies, jerks, criminals, etc. under conditions of stress and emotion. Don't become a doctor if you hate dealing with sick people!

The only reason that we give you a badge, color of authority, a gun, and a license to kill is because we expect you to be able to use those things lawfully and responsibly. We also assume your employer will have screened and trained you so that you can do that.

I suspect the training really let this officer down. Running from the cops is just not a capital offense. The cops knew the perp did not have any weapons (having previously patted the guy down). So if you or others are not in mortal danger, then deadly force is just not even close to being an justified option. Even after taking heat of the moment into account.

Police authorities finally got around to banning car chases in almost all cases. Turns out trying to "always get your man" via a car chase is just too dangerous and unjustified thing to do. There's just so many other better and safer ways to make the collar. Same needs to be applied to choke holds and deadly force.

I can think of 20 easy ways these cops could have collared this perp without using a gun. Like maybe following him slowly on foot and with a cruiser as he tries to run? How far and fast is a drunk guy in the dark really going to be able get? Like maybe going to his house later to make the arrest? Totally do-able since the cops did have the guy's name, driver license and car.

Shooting the guy in these circumstances is NOT doing the job. It is massively failing to do the job.

I do think that the quick firings of these offending officers is going to be pretty helpful to getting the cops to do better. Screw the drawn out union disciplinary process. You screwed up badly; you're fired. Knock yourself out if you want to sue for wrongful termination. But as of today, you've got no job, no paycheck, and no career. Because we take this shirt seriously. Totally the correct management technique.

Had a big discussion about this at lunch today after church. All of us thought it was crazy to shoot the guy.

In fact, our solution was to make sure the guys car was out of the way, take his keys and let him sleep it off. Then in several hours bring him back his keys.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The Holocaust continues, this time in Syracuse:

https://www.syracuse.com/news/2020/06/f ... ustice.htm
As always the solution is there - disarm the government, arm the people.

I like the sentiment but I’m afraid the ‘heroes’ you choose aren’t exactly pictures of peace. “Nickels” seems to have been armed and reaching for his gun?

Anyway, cops will soon be replaced by robots and they won’t care too much when you shoot at them. In order to incapacitate the reckless lefty criminals, the robots will break your kneecaps. I’m all for it.

Atlanta is burning as we speak because a cop shot a career criminal who overpowered two cops and stole ones stun gun and shot at the cops. So the Democrats saw another opportunity to burn down a city. Same as it ever was.

I didn’t know you were in Atlanta. My wife tells me our neighborhood hasn’t been touched and most of the city is fine, tensions are very high because the guy was shot in the back and a cop said “I got him” while a nearby person is overheard saying “yo, there’s kids around here” as the cop is shooting.

But sure speak on everyone and everywhere even if you are just talking out of your a**. Standard practice

This will shock the resident Dems here, but here's a helpful hint: if you drive drunk (you see, that's an actual danger to society...there's this new phenomenon called drunk drivers who kill), pass out in a drive-through lane at a restaurant holding up traffic, fail the sobriety test, then choose to fight the cops, overpower both, swing at one's jaw, steal his gun (stun or otherwise), and THEN fire the stun gun at the cop, I have bad news if you think most cops aren't gonna shoot back.

two things can be true at one time: the guy deserves zero pity, and the cop could have let him run away.

" and the cop could have let him run away."

I hope folks will be happy when that is what more and more police decide to do. I only hope then they don't rip the cops for not doing their job. Any person today that would want to be a cop has to be questioning their career choice. Your damned if you do and soon you will be damned if you don't.

This is my point. These cities will go the way of Baltimore. And these folks will have no clue.

Fire them and hire more cops if they don't want to do their jobs. It worked with the Air Traffic Controllers.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I hope folks will be happy when that is what more and more police decide to do. I only hope then they don't rip the cops for not doing their job.

The Atlanta shooting is nowhere near as massively egregious/outrageous/conscience shocking as the knee on the neck. Which imo legal opinion is stone cold murder 1.

But Atlanta is still pretty awful.

First, recognize that the job of a cop is to deal with bad people and bad situations. You are in the wrong line of work if you don't want to deal with drunks, druggies, jerks, criminals, etc. under conditions of stress and emotion. Don't become a doctor if you hate dealing with sick people!

The only reason that we give you a badge, color of authority, a gun, and a license to kill is because we expect you to be able to use those things lawfully and responsibly. We also assume your employer will have screened and trained you so that you can do that.

I suspect the training really let this officer down. Running from the cops is just not a capital offense. The cops knew the perp did not have any weapons (having previously patted the guy down). So if you or others are not in mortal danger, then deadly force is just not even close to being an justified option. Even after taking heat of the moment into account.

Police authorities finally got around to banning car chases in almost all cases. Turns out trying to "always get your man" via a car chase is just too dangerous and unjustified thing to do. There's just so many other better and safer ways to make the collar. Same needs to be applied to choke holds and deadly force.

I can think of 20 easy ways these cops could have collared this perp without using a gun. Like maybe following him slowly on foot and with a cruiser as he tries to run? How far and fast is a drunk guy in the dark really going to be able get? Like maybe going to his house later to make the arrest? Totally do-able since the cops did have the guy's name, driver license and car.

Shooting the guy in these circumstances is NOT doing the job. It is massively failing to do the job.

I do think that the quick firings of these offending officers is going to be pretty helpful to getting the cops to do better. Screw the drawn out union disciplinary process. You screwed up badly; you're fired. Knock yourself out if you want to sue for wrongful termination. But as of today, you've got no job, no paycheck, and no career. Because we take this shirt seriously. Totally the correct management technique.

Had a big discussion about this at lunch today after church. All of us thought it was crazy to shoot the guy.

In fact, our solution was to make sure the guys car was out of the way, take his keys and let him sleep it off. Then in several hours bring him back his keys.

I am pretty certain we have the "I take the car keys from the under age drinkers at my house" type parents on this board that take the keys all the time. Could not imagine them being ok with a drunk teenager being shot while running from the police drunk...... I actually know two former High School lacrosse players that fought cops. One was just driven home and the other had to do some community work.......

[ardilla secreta]

Another touching moment of Americana

Oregon’s founders sought a ‘white utopia,’ a stain of racism that lives on even as state celebrates its progressivism
Slavery, the issue that was tearing the young nation apart, was banned in the new state. Many of Oregon’s leaders believed they had a better model. They wouldn’t allow black people at all.

This objective was spurred by the U.S. Congress’ 1850 Oregon Donation Land Act, which granted land for free to “every white settler” in the Oregon Territory and explicitly excluded people of color. (Abrogating Native American tribal land rights, the Oregon Territory’s U.S. House delegate Samuel Thurston told Congress, was the “first prerequisite step” before Oregon could join the union as a state.)

https://www.oregonlive.com/history/2020 ... ivism.html

[Typical Lax Dad]

I just don't think it's accurate history to include A. P. Hill in the group of "loser" Confederate Generals, for whom Forts are named.
Unlike Lee & Grant who commanded entire armies from their HQ's in the rear, Jackson & Hill were commanders of component corps engaged in maneuver warfare which they commanded from the battlefield, exposing themselves to enemy fire.

How about Gen. George Thomas instead - a native Virginian who did not resign his commission in the U.S. Army and who did a whole lot of winning in a similar position and who, as a result, later also commanded winning armies in the Western Theater. No military installations are currently named for General Thomas.

BTW General Braxton Bragg (for whom a large facility is named) wasn't exactly a winner either. Considered by historians as among the worst Confederate General officers, he fumbled more than a few of the campaigns and battles he was involved in (as an Army Commander like Lee and Grant) losing most of them. In fact, one of his most incompetent Division commanders, Gen. Leonidas Polk, also has one of these facilities named for him, too. He was killed at the Battle of Atlanta in 1864 when Gen. W.T. Sherman observed a group of enemy officers out scouting his positions and ordered a Federal battery to fire upon them. BOOM! and out. Tecumseh Sherman did not mess around. The only things the Feds named for him were a WWII tank and a fort in Panama in 1911 that was ceded over to the Panamanian government in 1999. He'd also make a good choice to replace one of these current names.

I guess, the main point is not that these people were "losers" but , more importantly they all took up arms against the United States which, by definition (Constitutionally) makes them traitors and certainly not worthy of much recognition except as such. They certainly got a better deal than Aaron Burr did for similar crimes (and who also BTW does not have any Federal Facilities named for him).

No wonder they lost.