Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[Farfromgeneva]

The first cop was a decent guy. The cop that shot him was just the type you run across. Already a bad disposition when he arrived. He needed a new job. So the guy tussles with the cops so they can shoot him? Like I said, I know two high school lacrosse players that punched cops and nothing much happened to them. Wrestled to the ground. No weapons drawn. Of course both had been drinking.

Nice job Dad, living up to your screen name. Did you coach those 2 lax bro knuckleheads too ?
No big deal, of course they'd been drinking. That makes it ok. Sad.

Did your 2 drunken lax bro proteges throw off 2 cops, punch them, take their weapon & flee.
...& the problem was the cop's attitude ?
I can't believe how casual you all are about Brooks drunk driving. No prob. Call him a cab. He won't do it again.

Rolfe patiently & professionally questioned & tested Brooks. He did not escalate a very difficult, potentially dangerous situation. He gave Brooks every opportunity. Brooks just keep digging his hole deeper. Brooks was a risk who needed to be arrested, removed from the road & his driving privileges revoked before he killed someone on the road, maybe his daughters.

You think Brooks posed no immediate risk ? He was drunk out of his mind. He overcame 2 trained police officers who had the advantage on him, injuring one in the process (Brosnan was limping noticeably & having difficulty pursuing). Rolfe had to make a split second decision. He had no way of knowing what Brooks would do. Would he drag someone out of a car & try to escape or enter someone's home & try to hide. Rolfe had to make an immediate, instinctive decision. He eliminated the threat when he was still within close range, before he got away. In situations like that, you instinctively revert to your tactical training. Hesitation can be deadly. It was an "awful but lawful" split second adrenaline fueled decision Rolfe had to make in an instant. Brooks created the situation which cost him his life.

I’m pretty sure training doesn’t include someone without a legally defined lethal weapon to be shot in the back. If so maybe that’s why the chief of police was forced out. Perhaps some phys Ed would be useful too if two guys got manhandled like you suggest but the drunk guy, and he was drunk. If you’re suggesting drunk driving deserves the death penalty, we’ll then say that and let that play out. It’s choosing who’s life is more important that you are doing and as citizens no one should have the power to do that.

At the end of the day there’s all these people far from Atlanta saying this and that but the guy was fired and probably will be convicted so that “awful but lawful” will be proven untrue. And if one wants to argue that the system was rigged well then it applies to been record for every citizen within that same system including the ones some are so fast to proclaim that the guy was an evil gangbanger because he had a record. Either the system is correct or it isn’t but in the community thus happened even most white people are horrified I can say from people at banks and funds to people I know who work at garages.

[Peter Brown]

I haven't heard any national media or Al Sharpton crying in anguish over Officer Julian Keen Jr. being executed last night by three thugs.

Maybe his life doesn't matter as much as someone who can help their racial division narrative?

https://www.tampabay.com/news/breaking- ... uestioned/

Ironically, Julian clearly led an exemplary life, was beloved by all, and was actually helping out at a hit and run and he wasn't even on duty. Selfless. Good guy. He wasn't passed out drunk in a drive through Wendy's take out lane. He was actually helping others, off duty.

And then there are his murderers. Pure 100% thug-life.

Where is the national outpouring of disgust for those that would so callously take a life? Where are the riots? Where is the looting? Who in our fearless media will excoriate the thugs who did this?

Will our Fanlax colleagues of the left dedicate a thread to Julian? Does HIS life matter?

So you're back to your game where you think it makes sense to crash a Children's Hospital fundraiser in Miami, and demand that they wipe out world hunger before they fundraise for a Children's Hospital?

You're telling us that Americans aren't allowed to fix these obvious policing problems unless your demands that we first fix X, Y, and Z. And you really don't don't see how stupid this reasoning is?

You sure are doing everything you can to keep people from discussing and fixing serious problems with our government, Pete.

I didn't realize that we were 'discussing and fixing problems with our government'. I keep seeing rioting and anarchy.

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/stat ... 54560?s=20

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/12 ... 10016?s=20

Nothing like scaring a dog in a car! The rioters are just discussing government though!

https://twitter.com/CaliConserv1/status ... 56769?s=20

[a fan]

I didn't realize that we were 'discussing and fixing problems with our government'. I keep seeing rioting and anarchy.

You're using the actions of a few as an excuse to not look at the actual problems.

And you're doing it intentionally. So are millions of Americans.

Meanwhile, back with those of us who aren't pro-government zealots, looking for excuses not to so much as look at problems in our government, let alone fix them.....the issue is being discussed, and laws are being proposed and passed.

[Peter Brown]

I didn't realize that we were 'discussing and fixing problems with our government'. I keep seeing rioting and anarchy.

You're using the actions of a few as an excuse to not look at the actual problems.

And you're doing it intentionally. So are millions of Americans.

Meanwhile, back with those of us who aren't pro-government zealots, looking for excuses not to so much as look at problems in our government, let alone fix them.....the issue is being discussed, and laws are being proposed and passed.

"the few"

I'm tempted to post some photos, but you know how duplicitous that adjective was.

[MDlaxfan76]

A dishonest conversation about race in America is preventing us from having an honest conversation about race in America.

So...what would an "honest" conversation be?

Go ahead and be "honest".
That's what these threads are for, right?

[get it to x]

A dishonest conversation about race in America is preventing us from having an honest conversation about race in America.

So...what would an "honest" conversation be?

Go ahead and be "honest".
That's what these threads are for, right?

Why don't we start with the fact, and it is a fact, that according to the accepted "wisdom" of today only whites can be racist?

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

while i dont necessarily agree, i did try asking a related question, many, many, many times. nothing was responsive; just a lot of flaming for even trying to have the discussion. it's difficult to have a difficult conversation.

[MDlaxfan76]

A dishonest conversation about race in America is preventing us from having an honest conversation about race in America.

So...what would an "honest" conversation be?

Go ahead and be "honest".
That's what these threads are for, right?

Why don't we start with the fact, and it is a fact, that according to the accepted "wisdom" of today only whites can be racist?

Nope, that's not the 'wisdom'.
Racism is a function of majority oppression of a minority, based on race, with the notion of some sort of superiority of that majority.


Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

1.1The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

So, we see racism exercised in other situations in which the majority is not white.

Same dynamics, different racial make-up of the majority.

Now, if you want to say that here in America we have all sorts of prejudices and bigotry, and that these cross all demographics, you wouldn't get any argument from me. But racism is about majority domination. We just happen to have a white majority, with a legacy of using race as a means of oppression, with a theory of racial superiority as justification.

That's our factual reality.
But it's all a matter of who is in control.

You can find "racism" all over the world where whites are not in control.

[MDlaxfan76]

while i dont necessarily agree, i did try asking a related question, many, many, many times. nothing was responsive; just a lot of flaming for even trying to have the discussion. it's difficult to have a difficult conversation.

I'm open to it. "Difficult" as it may be.
But it does need to be in good faith, and indeed 'honest'.
And that really IS difficult.

[get it to x]

A dishonest conversation about race in America is preventing us from having an honest conversation about race in America.

So...what would an "honest" conversation be?

Go ahead and be "honest".
That's what these threads are for, right?

Why don't we start with the fact, and it is a fact, that according to the accepted "wisdom" of today only whites can be racist?

Nope, that's not the 'wisdom'.
Racism is a function of majority oppression of a minority, based on race, with the notion of some sort of superiority of that majority.


Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

1.1The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

So, we see racism exercised in other situations in which the majority is not white.

Same dynamics, different racial make-up of the majority.

Now, if you want to say that here in America we have all sorts of prejudices and bigotry, and that these cross all demographics, you wouldn't get any argument from me. But racism is about majority domination. We just happen to have a white majority, with a legacy of using race as a means of oppression, with a theory of racial superiority as justification.

So you're saying if a black person hates white people just because they are white he is not a racist? Then we need to redefine racist.

And by your definition, Dems are the real racists. They are all too happy to keep blacks in substandard schools, their poverty programs have in large part marginalized the black man and they destroyed the black intact family. If blacks in America were smart they would vote for Republicans, who don't pander to them and are happy to give them a shot at success. Dems largely treat blacks like their pets. Republicans largely treat them like people.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

i did warn you X!!!

[get it to x]

i did warn you X!!!

Can I help it if 76 is never wrong. He thought he was wrong once, but he must have been mistaken.

[youthathletics]

Leave it to MD to solve all the worlds problems by telling you that you are wrong.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

no need for name calling, gents.

however, X i think you ask the right question.

racism is racism. are there exemptions, or not. if yes, then i query how we are equal.

[Peter Brown]

Leave it to MD to solve all the worlds problems by telling you that you are wrong.

They promised they’d leave Washington and Jefferson out of it, and yet here we are. The woke left topple Jefferson.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... -in-oregon

Show me a billion ‘polls’ and I won’t believe one that shows Democrats getting rewarded for these kinds of anti-American riots.

[old salt]

The first cop was a decent guy. The cop that shot him was just the type you run across. Already a bad disposition when he arrived. He needed a new job. So the guy tussles with the cops so they can shoot him? Like I said, I know two high school lacrosse players that punched cops and nothing much happened to them. Wrestled to the ground. No weapons drawn. Of course both had been drinking.

Nice job Dad, living up to your screen name. Did you coach those 2 lax bro knuckleheads too ?
No big deal, of course they'd been drinking. That makes it ok. Sad.

Did your 2 drunken lax bro proteges throw off 2 cops, punch them, take their weapon & flee.
...& the problem was the cop's attitude ?
I can't believe how casual you all are about Brooks drunk driving. No prob. Call him a cab. He won't do it again.

Rolfe patiently & professionally questioned & tested Brooks. He did not escalate a very difficult, potentially dangerous situation. He gave Brooks every opportunity. Brooks just keep digging his hole deeper. Brooks was a risk who needed to be arrested, removed from the road & his driving privileges revoked before he killed someone on the road, maybe his daughters.

You think Brooks posed no immediate risk ? He was drunk out of his mind. He overcame 2 trained police officers who had the advantage on him, injuring one in the process (Brosnan was limping noticeably & having difficulty pursuing). Rolfe had to make a split second decision. He had no way of knowing what Brooks would do. Would he drag someone out of a car & try to escape or enter someone's home & try to hide. Rolfe had to make an immediate, instinctive decision. He eliminated the threat when he was still within close range, before he got away. In situations like that, you instinctively revert to your tactical training. Hesitation can be deadly. It was an "awful but lawful" split second adrenaline fueled decision Rolfe had to make in an instant. Brooks created the situation which cost him his life.

I’m pretty sure training doesn’t include someone without a legally defined lethal weapon to be shot in the back. If so maybe that’s why the chief of police was forced out. Perhaps some phys Ed would be useful too if two guys got manhandled like you suggest but the drunk guy, and he was drunk. If you’re suggesting drunk driving deserves the death penalty, we’ll then say that and let that play out. It’s choosing who’s life is more important that you are doing and as citizens no one should have the power to do that.

At the end of the day there’s all these people far from Atlanta saying this and that but the guy was fired and probably will be convicted so that “awful but lawful” will be proven untrue. And if one wants to argue that the system was rigged well then it applies to been record for every citizen within that same system including the ones some are so fast to proclaim that the guy was an evil gangbanger because he had a record. Either the system is correct or it isn’t but in the community thus happened even most white people are horrified I can say from people at banks and funds to people I know who work at garages.

I'm saying that Brooks was an immediate threat to innocent lives already, just by getting there in that condition.
There was only one safe outcome -- his immediate incarceration, with adjudication initiated before he had the opportunity to get behind the wheel again. His car was his lethal weapon.
It was a death penalty only because he resisted a lawful arrest & assaulted 2 cops correctly doing their job.
4 Atlanta cops were just fired & 2 charged for using their non-lethal tasers, but it's no big deal if an out of control drunk takes one & turns it on the police.

[MDlaxfan76]

A dishonest conversation about race in America is preventing us from having an honest conversation about race in America.

So...what would an "honest" conversation be?

Go ahead and be "honest".
That's what these threads are for, right?

Why don't we start with the fact, and it is a fact, that according to the accepted "wisdom" of today only whites can be racist?

Nope, that's not the 'wisdom'.
Racism is a function of majority oppression of a minority, based on race, with the notion of some sort of superiority of that majority.


Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

1.1The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

So, we see racism exercised in other situations in which the majority is not white.

Same dynamics, different racial make-up of the majority.

Now, if you want to say that here in America we have all sorts of prejudices and bigotry, and that these cross all demographics, you wouldn't get any argument from me. But racism is about majority domination. We just happen to have a white majority, with a legacy of using race as a means of oppression, with a theory of racial superiority as justification.

So you're saying if a black person hates white people just because they are white he is not a racist? Then we need to redefine racist.

And by your definition, Dems are the real racists. They are all too happy to keep blacks in substandard schools, their poverty programs have in large part marginalized the black man and they destroyed the black intact family. If blacks in America were smart they would vote for Republicans, who don't pander to them and are happy to give them a shot at success. Dems largely treat blacks like their pets. Republicans largely treat them like people.

It's not my definition, it's the definition.

You are talking about prejudice and bigotry and there we'd quite agree.

The rest of your diatribe is just silly blather, but I'll defend your right to blather...so have at it. That said, I do think that many well-intended policies have had unintended consequences, and I'm 100% in favor of re-thinking what works well and what doesn't.

But let's begin with recognizing the reality of 400+ years of state-sanctioned racism, the legacy of which is a major impediment to our country reaching its full potential.

[MDlaxfan76]

i did warn you X!!!

Can I help it if 76 is never wrong. He thought he was wrong once, but he must have been mistaken.

More than once.

So, your (and Chairman's) issue is that you just don't like the definition of racism?

I really DO understand the confusion, it's entirely natural to be confused...but if we're going to use language, let's be precise.

You guys are talking about prejudice and bigotry.

[Farfromgeneva]

The first cop was a decent guy. The cop that shot him was just the type you run across. Already a bad disposition when he arrived. He needed a new job. So the guy tussles with the cops so they can shoot him? Like I said, I know two high school lacrosse players that punched cops and nothing much happened to them. Wrestled to the ground. No weapons drawn. Of course both had been drinking.

Nice job Dad, living up to your screen name. Did you coach those 2 lax bro knuckleheads too ?
No big deal, of course they'd been drinking. That makes it ok. Sad.

Did your 2 drunken lax bro proteges throw off 2 cops, punch them, take their weapon & flee.
...& the problem was the cop's attitude ?
I can't believe how casual you all are about Brooks drunk driving. No prob. Call him a cab. He won't do it again.

Rolfe patiently & professionally questioned & tested Brooks. He did not escalate a very difficult, potentially dangerous situation. He gave Brooks every opportunity. Brooks just keep digging his hole deeper. Brooks was a risk who needed to be arrested, removed from the road & his driving privileges revoked before he killed someone on the road, maybe his daughters.

You think Brooks posed no immediate risk ? He was drunk out of his mind. He overcame 2 trained police officers who had the advantage on him, injuring one in the process (Brosnan was limping noticeably & having difficulty pursuing). Rolfe had to make a split second decision. He had no way of knowing what Brooks would do. Would he drag someone out of a car & try to escape or enter someone's home & try to hide. Rolfe had to make an immediate, instinctive decision. He eliminated the threat when he was still within close range, before he got away. In situations like that, you instinctively revert to your tactical training. Hesitation can be deadly. It was an "awful but lawful" split second adrenaline fueled decision Rolfe had to make in an instant. Brooks created the situation which cost him his life.

I’m pretty sure training doesn’t include someone without a legally defined lethal weapon to be shot in the back. If so maybe that’s why the chief of police was forced out. Perhaps some phys Ed would be useful too if two guys got manhandled like you suggest but the drunk guy, and he was drunk. If you’re suggesting drunk driving deserves the death penalty, we’ll then say that and let that play out. It’s choosing who’s life is more important that you are doing and as citizens no one should have the power to do that.

At the end of the day there’s all these people far from Atlanta saying this and that but the guy was fired and probably will be convicted so that “awful but lawful” will be proven untrue. And if one wants to argue that the system was rigged well then it applies to been record for every citizen within that same system including the ones some are so fast to proclaim that the guy was an evil gangbanger because he had a record. Either the system is correct or it isn’t but in the community thus happened even most white people are horrified I can say from people at banks and funds to people I know who work at garages.

I'm saying that Brooks was an immediate threat to innocent lives already, just by getting there in that condition.
There was only one safe outcome -- his immediate incarceration, with adjudication initiated before he had the opportunity to get behind the wheel again. His car was his lethal weapon.
It was a death penalty only because he resisted a lawful arrest & assaulted 2 cops correctly doing their job.
4 Atlanta cops were just fired & 2 charged for using their non-lethal tasers, but it's no big deal if an out of control drunk takes one & turns it on the police.

And you don’t see any difference in one given the authority to do so but expected to be held to a very high standard and a regular citizen?

He wasn’t an immediate danger by getting there. The danger had passed. Literally not the case. 45 minutes of calm discussion as well. So again literally not an immediate danger. Doesn’t absolve his behavior, don’t get stupid and go down that path please, I’m explicitly saying that he deserved to be held accountable. But taking his life and shooting where you risk hitting a innocence bystander (again it can be heard w people saying “to, there’s kids around here when they are shooting”) is in no way commensurate with the violation. It is really that simple. Now the shooter has got to go and his pension should go to the family of the victim. Or my share back in my pocket in a refund.

I don’t see only one outcome, seems like you are using a very narrow view of how to manage this situation. Not very thoughtful or creative to say “only one safe outcome”. You certainly can never prove that is true, it’s impossible and it’s not trying to work very hard to have a better overall outcome. Sounds like applying war like military view to domestic life to me.

[MDlaxfan76]

Leave it to MD to solve all the worlds problems by telling you that you are wrong.

They promised they’d leave Washington and Jefferson out of it, and yet here we are. The woke left topple Jefferson.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... -in-oregon

Show me a billion ‘polls’ and I won’t believe one that shows Democrats getting rewarded for these kinds of anti-American riots.

So, we get to agree that this was wrong.
I'd also agree that such overswing will not inure to the political benefit of Democrats who don't stand up to that overswing.