Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[Cooter]

Unlike you and millions of your fellow morally bankrupt Americans, I don't play the childish game of checking to see if someone who is killed had a criminal record, with the idea that they deserved to be shot dead in the streets.

It makes a difference to me.

And millions think just like you. So get rid of the rest of our criminal justice system, and just hand out death sentences in the street. Because if a guy has a criminal record, he deserves to get shot and killed. F 'em. It's not me, so who cares, right?

I notice you clipped my post, so I won't bother answering.
You've become a rather grouchy poster, like a kid who thinks the whole sand box is his.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Seems like some history pre-dates the shooting yesterday. Video from two years ago with Prayer Patriots and Antifa. We have a gun problem in this country.....

Trump - Pence 2020 Four More Years!
MAGA by VFTA

[a fan]

Unlike you and millions of your fellow morally bankrupt Americans, I don't play the childish game of checking to see if someone who is killed had a criminal record, with the idea that they deserved to be shot dead in the streets.

It makes a difference to me.

And millions think just like you. So get rid of the rest of our criminal justice system, and just hand out death sentences in the street. Because if a guy has a criminal record, he deserves to get shot and killed. F 'em. It's not me, so who cares, right?

I notice you clipped my post,

I clipped it so that I could clearly and succinctly respond to one of your assertions, and not the other. Next time I'll bold the part I'm responding to, and leave the rest. No problem. Sorry about that.

As for the grumpy? You're justifying police shootings based on previous acts of the victim. That doesn't make sense.

[Typical Lax Dad]

“Housing is the No. 1 cause of racial segregation in schools,” Brittain said, explaining how his experience inspired him to pursue the Supreme Court case.

[Cooter]

Unlike you and millions of your fellow morally bankrupt Americans, I don't play the childish game of checking to see if someone who is killed had a criminal record, with the idea that they deserved to be shot dead in the streets.

It makes a difference to me.

And millions think just like you. So get rid of the rest of our criminal justice system, and just hand out death sentences in the street. Because if a guy has a criminal record, he deserves to get shot and killed. F 'em. It's not me, so who cares, right?

I notice you clipped my post,

I clipped it so that I could clearly and succinctly respond to one of your assertions, and not the other. Next time I'll bold the part I'm responding to, and leave the rest. No problem. Sorry about that.

As for the grumpy? You're justifying police shootings based on previous acts of the victim. That doesn't make sense.

I am only discussing the parameter "deserves to be shot and killed". One could set up a scale from 0 to 10 with 0 meaning the person definitely didn't deserve to be shot, and 10 meaning he definitely did. Criminal records would affect my rating. This would just be for my own level of sympathy for the victim.
I would put Joe Rosenbaum at about an 8, which means I have little sympathy for him.

For a policeman, previous acts (if known) of the victim could be a factor, along with victim's current actions in justifying a shooting. If the victim is a record of being a violent criminal, I would expect a policeman to treat him much differently

[a fan]

I am only discussing the parameter "deserves to be shot and killed".

No one "deserves" to be shot and killed by our police forces, Cooter. You understand that, right? That's how it works in Putin's Russia.....or in Kim's N Korea.

For a policeman, previous acts (if known) of the victim could be a factor, along with victim's current actions in justifying a shooting. If the victim is a record of being a violent criminal, I would expect a policeman to treat him much differently

Assuming the police know that BEFORE the encounter? Sure, take that into account. No question.

What I'm reacting to is this game where the police shoot someone, and folks find out the guy had a criminal record and just say "well, he had it coming".

That's horrible idea, and not how our country is supposed to operate. We have a Constitution here.

[Cooter]

Riot kitchen
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... stigation/

[Brooklyn]

You define ignorance at its highest level. It is no surprise you have zero clue why driving a friggen uhaul truck into a hot zone would be seized. I bet you are still afraid to walk with scissors in your hand. And what a great name for a volunteer group "Riot Kitchen", I wonder if they hide bullets in the meatloaf.

Thank you for making my point because, as always, delusional right wingers are the biggest hypocrites anywhere. You delusionals always claim your 1st Amendment rights are always hampered by government and by the left. But in reality, it is your types who suppress all else. When it happens you look the other way and pretend it never happened. Riot Kitchen and Zao MKE church have their rights like all else. The radical far right repressive government has no right to interfere in their affairs.

[Brooklyn]

Obviously the police want to quell the riot in a peaceful manner.


One sort of wonders what sort of church would be supporting looters.

Band aids = peaceful??

Yeah you have to wonder about those delusional right wingers in government. After all how much proterty damage can be rendered by a loaf of bread and a tooth brush.

[Cooter]

I am only discussing the parameter "deserves to be shot and killed".

No one "deserves" to be shot and killed by our police forces,

I don't know that I would agree with that.

For a policeman, previous acts (if known) of the victim could be a factor, along with victim's current actions in justifying a shooting. If the victim is a record of being a violent criminal, I would expect a policeman to treat him much differently

Assuming the police know that BEFORE the encounter? Sure, take that into account. No question.

What I'm reacting to is this game where the police shoot someone, and folks find out the guy had a criminal record and just say "well, he had it coming".

That's horrible idea, and not how our country is supposed to operate. We have a Constitution here.

For me it would depend a lot on the what the person's criminal record was.

[Cooter]

Obviously the police want to quell the riot in a peaceful manner.


One sort of wonders what sort of church would be supporting looters.

Band aids = peaceful??

Yeah you have to wonder about those delusional right wingers in government. After all how much proterty damage can be rendered by a loaf of bread and a tooth brush.

If people get hungry and thirsty, they might decide to go home.

[a fan]

I am only discussing the parameter "deserves to be shot and killed".

No one "deserves" to be shot and killed by our police forces,

I don't know that I would agree with that.

Well, you'd love living in a fascist country, where the government decides on the spot who "deserves" to be shot.

You're history buff. We revolted, in part at least, to get the hell away from that kind of thinking, and that manner of governance.

I have no interest in going back to that type of rule. I had no clue why it's of interest to you. The police are supposed to be the first step in the process, not the last.

[kramerica.inc]

I am only discussing the parameter "deserves to be shot and killed".

No one "deserves" to be shot and killed by our police forces, Cooter. You understand that, right? That's how it works in Putin's Russia.....or in Kim's N Korea.

For a policeman, previous acts (if known) of the victim could be a factor, along with victim's current actions in justifying a shooting. If the victim is a record of being a violent criminal, I would expect a policeman to treat him much differently

Assuming the police know that BEFORE the encounter? Sure, take that into account. No question.

What I'm reacting to is this game where the police shoot someone, and folks find out the guy had a criminal record and just say "well, he had it coming".

That's horrible idea, and not how our country is supposed to operate. We have a Constitution here.

People love to assign Motivations to things that are likely not even there.

There’s a similar knee -jerk reaction to anytime a white person is NOT shot, and a police exhibits patience without escalation. The left shouts “white privilege!” When in reality it’s just good, non-Escalation policing.

[Cooter]

I am only discussing the parameter "deserves to be shot and killed".

No one "deserves" to be shot and killed by our police forces,

I don't know that I would agree with that.

Well, you'd love living in a fascist country, where the government decides on the spot who "deserves" to be shot.

You're history buff. We revolted, in part at least, to get the hell away from that kind of thinking, and that manner of governance.

I have no interest in going back to that type of rule. I had no clue why it's of interest to you. The police are supposed to be the first step in the process, not the last.

Are you sure that has not happened in communist countries too? I have l no desire to live in a facist country.

Sometimes the police's hand is forced, and they have to be the last.

[a fan]

Are you sure that has not happened in communist countries too?

We've never once had a communist country in this world. You're a history man...this should come as no surprise to you.

Communism was sold, and in every case, they got fascism on day one.

I have l no desire to live in a facist country.

Then might I suggest that you get upset any time someone is killed by the police, and doesn't get access to our criminal justice system.

Sometimes the police's hand is forced, and they have to be the last.

And sometimes it's not, and we just have poor management of our government services. Pity that so many don't want to hear that.

[a fan]

People love to assign Motivations to things that are likely not even there.

Who cares about motivation? You get that, right? That yep, that might not be the motivation....but the outcome, nonetheless, sucks.

They're complaining about bad outcomes in governance. Something you anti-goverment types are supposed to understand. But instead? You don't want to so much as hear about it, let alone wish to fix the problem...I don't get it.

These complains about *hit governance are in Republican's wheelhouse. It's sitting on the damn tee, waiting to be hit out fo the park.

Instead, what do you do? Problem? What problem? Government is the aweseome-est!

There’s a similar knee -jerk reaction to anytime a white person is NOT shot, and a police exhibits patience without escalation. The left shouts “white privilege!” When in reality it’s just good, non-Escalation policing.

Can you even tell me what would have to happen for you to tell me that there's a problem?

Can you concoct a scenario that would make you go "wow, we really DO have a problem in some of these police departments!"

[old salt]

I am only discussing the parameter "deserves to be shot and killed".

No one "deserves" to be shot and killed by our police forces, Cooter. You understand that, right? That's how it works in Putin's Russia.....or in Kim's N Korea.

Their criminal record is not cited to justify their fate. It's to point out that they have a tendency to place themselves at risk & explain why police justifiably approach them with a greater degree of trepidation.

[DocBarrister]

Trump is using Nixon’s old racist law and order playbook, and too many of his supporters on this forum are falling for it.

One could argue that Trump’s law and order mantra has its roots in Richard Nixon’s success with it in the 1968 presidential campaign. As Time magazine reported at the time, to some it was “a shorthand message promising repression of the black community”— and to that community, it was “a bleak warning that worse times may be coming.”

This sentiment, if not the phrase itself, has been part of presidential politics ever since. George Bush used it in 1988 with his Willie Horton campaign ad. Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill was an effort to demonstrate that Democrats could be tough on crime. George W. Bush ran his campaign for governor of Texas using a Willie Horton-style ad, promising to be tough on crime and asserting that his opponent, Ann Richards, was soft on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/opin ... e=Homepage

Please stop advocating for the repression of the African American community on this forum.

“Unseemly” is far too genteel a word to describe the racist pro-Trump messaging seen on this forum.

DocBarrister

[kramerica.inc]

People love to assign Motivations to things that are likely not even there.

Who cares about motivation? You get that, right? That yep, that might not be the motivation....but the outcome, nonetheless, sucks.

They're complaining about bad outcomes in governance. Something you anti-goverment types are supposed to understand. But instead? You don't want to so much as hear about it, let alone wish to fix the problem...I don't get it.

These complains about *hit governance are in Republican's wheelhouse. It's sitting on the damn tee, waiting to be hit out fo the park.

Instead, what do you do? Problem? What problem? Government is the aweseome-est!

There’s a similar knee -jerk reaction to anytime a white person is NOT shot, and a police exhibits patience without escalation. The left shouts “white privilege!” When in reality it’s just good, non-Escalation policing.

Can you even tell me what would have to happen for you to tell me that there's a problem?

Can you concoct a scenario that would make you go "wow, we really DO have a problem in some of these police departments!"

See, I believe we have lousy cops. I have said for years that some are not better than the people they arrest, but are on the right side of the badge.

The “problem” are the unions who protect the bad ones, just the way the unions protect the bad teachers.

Take away the “safety net” of the unions and you’ll have people think twice if they are personally responsible for killing someone and representing themselves before charges.

But I do think the vast majority of cops and teachers are good, in it for the right reasons, and doing what is best.

[6ftstick]

Trump is using Nixon’s old racist law and order playbook, and too many of his supporters on this forum are falling for it.

One could argue that Trump’s law and order mantra has its roots in Richard Nixon’s success with it in the 1968 presidential campaign. As Time magazine reported at the time, to some it was “a shorthand message promising repression of the black community”— and to that community, it was “a bleak warning that worse times may be coming.”

This sentiment, if not the phrase itself, has been part of presidential politics ever since. George Bush used it in 1988 with his Willie Horton campaign ad. Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill was an effort to demonstrate that Democrats could be tough on crime. George W. Bush ran his campaign for governor of Texas using a Willie Horton-style ad, promising to be tough on crime and asserting that his opponent, Ann Richards, was soft on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/opin ... e=Homepage

Please stop advocating for the repression of the African American community on this forum.

“Unseemly” is far too genteel a word to describe the racist pro-Trump messaging seen on this forum.

DocBarrister

Whats unseemly is your assurance that there's a racist behind every rock.

Whats unseemly is how democrats stir up their base in election years by screaming racism then jamming those black voters back into a box to use next election.

Nobody believes it anymore. Not even the blacks you've manipulated for 6 decades.