4 Oakland officers killed

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Craig234


While most wouldn't, and most don't - whether right-winger or black thug - murder over the injustices, I'd like to see what a right-winger facing six months (or longer) in jail unfairly had to say about it. They take for granted the ability of lawyers to get them out of the problem if they're in the right, the media to write stories about the injustice - but if they faced the 'who cares' reaction to their own imprisonment, they'd better understand why this thug dehumanizes the same way he was dehumanized.

The world isn't fair, that's for sure but allowing yourself to wallow in a "victim mentality" state until you feel their is no way out falls squarely on this murder's shoulders.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: smack Down
Might care more when cops in oakland stop shooting suspects in the back.

... when they're face down on the ground, hands behind their back, begging for their lives. Both these guys were African American, about the same age, happened in nearly the same neighborhood.

Uhh, the shooting of Oscar Grant was by the BART Police, not the OPD, Ok?
Two different police agencies.

Oakland PD is in a terrible position. Underfunded and undermanned, and facing a poor city with lots of crime. And then they get blamed for shit they didn't even do.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Oakland needs to just disappear. What a shithole....

Maybe all of the residents could move to Orange County? Problem solved.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article

I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.

You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.

You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.

Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.

Oh wow, you're serious. :Q

What? Do you think I was joking? :roll: WTH are you?

I was hoping you were joking.

Who am I?
I'm someone who didn't immediately assume the criminal was black when I heard about this incident.
I'm someone who sees the criminal as a criminal, not just a black man.
I'm someone who can see more differences between this incident and Bonnie & Clyde than race.
I'm someone who thinks Bonnie and Clyde were worthless human beings who deserved their fate.
I'm someone who thinks that this criminal did was detrimental to all black Americans; he should be vilified by all black people, just like he is vilified by all non-black people.
I'm someone who is disgusted that some bystanders were taunting the police after the shootings.
I'm someone who freely admits that racism is alive and well in the United States, but this incident and the reporting of it have nothing to do with race.
I'm someone who is tired of greedy people who sell guns to criminals. I think whoever sold this criminal his gun(s) should be held responsible for the murders that were committed with it/them.
I'm someone who is glad that this criminal is dead, and angry that it cost the lives of four men.

Very well, testify. I won't be attacking you or nitpicking. I don't agree on all counts but some. I'll leave it at that. Buy why in the world were you actually thinking I was joking?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article

I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.

You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.

You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.

Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.

Try as you might, this guy shot down traffic cops. He was nothing but a thug.

It's laughable to see you trying to romanticize this person.

I'm not defending Mixon, but I'd like to point out that if he were white, he would not be called a thug.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Craig234

I do think, though, that many comentators from the right will not understand many of the relevant issues. They can't even understand the discussion of those issues, only thinking that it's somehow wanting to excuse the murderer. I'm interested in hearing from each person on the right who has any direct experience with the environment of the typical young black thug, who understand their environment and influencers. I don't expect we have any such people.

-snip-

So, this story doesn't really say a lot beyond the tragedy to the people affected by this murderer - unless people look at the larger issues about why there are such thugs.

I'm very far from a right winger, but I'll comment anyway. I understand (just look at this thread) that most people have no sympathy, compassion or any understanding of the culture from which Mixon evolved. My mother and sister live in Oakland and I live less than a mile from the Oakland border. I spent over ten years working principally in Oakland, taking temporary jobs through the agencies and in most of those jobs I worked shoulder to shoulder with young black guys, the many of whom lived in conditions very similar to Mixon. I have understanding of what's going on in the disadvantaged areas of Oakland, and have some understanding of what's going on in Hunter's Point S.F. and the worst areas of Richmond as well, it's not all that terribly different. In the housing projects, it's all the worse, of course. To me, most of these guys aren't just thugs. Even the ones with criminal records in many if not most cases have tried to make it in legit ways, have worked jobs, had to deal with unemployment, insecurity, schools in which it was almost impossible to be motivated to learn what with what was going on all around them.

I haven't been convinced that Mixon was a thug. I've seen no information indicating that he was affiliated with any gangs or involved in organized drug trade. After he shot the motorcycle cops where did Mixon go? He didn't seek out his homies, he went to his sister's apartment. He was involved in one armed robbery (car theft), and they say he was a suspect in a murder. I've heard no details other than that charges were never pressed against him in the murder case. I heard that he wanted to work and that his problems with his parole officer (the officer stood him up for scheduled meetings) prevented him from getting a job.

You people can think that Mixon was simply being selfish when he killed cops to avoid being put in jail, but you aren't accessing his emotions. Put a gun in the hands of a fearful/resentful/humiliated person and you have a recipe for murder.

I am strongly in favor a gun control, but that's another thread.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article

I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.

You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.

You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.

Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.

Try as you might, this guy shot down traffic cops. He was nothing but a thug.

It's laughable to see you trying to romanticize this person.

I'm not defending Mixon, but I'd like to point out that if he were white, he would not be called a thug.

The hell you say. What would they call him then, because to me a murderous thug is a murderous thug.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Craig234

I do think, though, that many comentators from the right will not understand many of the relevant issues. They can't even understand the discussion of those issues, only thinking that it's somehow wanting to excuse the murderer. I'm interested in hearing from each person on the right who has any direct experience with the environment of the typical young black thug, who understand their environment and influencers. I don't expect we have any such people.

-snip-

So, this story doesn't really say a lot beyond the tragedy to the people affected by this murderer - unless people look at the larger issues about why there are such thugs.

I'm very far from a right winger, but I'll comment anyway. I understand (just look at this thread) that most people have no sympathy, compassion or any understanding of the culture from which Mixon evolved. My mother and sister live in Oakland and I live less than a mile from the Oakland border. I spent over ten years working principally in Oakland, taking temporary jobs through the agencies and in most of those jobs I worked shoulder to shoulder with young black guys, the majority of whom lived in conditions very similar to Mixon. I have understanding of what's going on in the disadvantaged areas of Oakland, and have some understanding of what's going on in Hunter's Point S.F. and the worst areas of Richmond as well, it's not all that terribly different. In the housing projects, it's all the worse, of course. To me, most of these guys aren't just thugs. Even the ones with criminal records in many if not most cases have tried to make it in legit ways, have worked jobs, had to deal with unemployment, insecurity, schools in which it was almost impossible to be motivated to learn what with what was going on all around them.

I haven't been convinced that Mixon was a thug. I've seen no information indicating that he was affiliated with any gangs or involved in organized drug trade. After he shot the motorcycle cops where did Mixon go? He didn't seek out his homies, he went to his sister's apartment. He was involved in one armed robbery (car theft), and they say he was a suspect in a murder. I've heard no details other than that charges were never pressed against him in the murder case. I heard that he wanted to work and that his problems with his parole officer (the officer stood him up for scheduled meetings) prevented him from getting a job.

You people can think that Mixon was simply being selfish when he killed cops to avoid being put in jail, but you aren't accessing his emotions. Put a gun in the hands of a fearful/resentful/humiliated person and you have a recipe for murder.

I am strongly in favor a gun control, but that's another thread.

He's called a thug because he's black. When white people kill, there's something wrong with them individually. When black people kill, there's something wrong with black culture. White privilege is to be judged for your actions, not your background.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
The hell you say. What would they call him then, because to me a murderous thug is a murderous thug.

Thugs are strongly associated with black gang culture. To not realize that is to be oblivious to the world around you. That Mixon is called a thug implies that his crime was a part of gang culture, an assumption for which there is no evidence.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Craig234

I do think, though, that many comentators from the right will not understand many of the relevant issues. They can't even understand the discussion of those issues, only thinking that it's somehow wanting to excuse the murderer. I'm interested in hearing from each person on the right who has any direct experience with the environment of the typical young black thug, who understand their environment and influencers. I don't expect we have any such people.

-snip-

So, this story doesn't really say a lot beyond the tragedy to the people affected by this murderer - unless people look at the larger issues about why there are such thugs.

I'm very far from a right winger, but I'll comment anyway. I understand (just look at this thread) that most people have no sympathy, compassion or any understanding of the culture from which Mixon evolved. My mother and sister live in Oakland and I live less than a mile from the Oakland border. I spent over ten years working principally in Oakland, taking temporary jobs through the agencies and in most of those jobs I worked shoulder to shoulder with young black guys, the many of whom lived in conditions very similar to Mixon. I have understanding of what's going on in the disadvantaged areas of Oakland, and have some understanding of what's going on in Hunter's Point S.F. and the worst areas of Richmond as well, it's not all that terribly different. In the housing projects, it's all the worse, of course. To me, most of these guys aren't just thugs. Even the ones with criminal records in many if not most cases have tried to make it in legit ways, have worked jobs, had to deal with unemployment, insecurity, schools in which it was almost impossible to be motivated to learn what with what was going on all around them.

I haven't been convinced that Mixon was a thug. I've seen no information indicating that he was affiliated with any gangs or involved in organized drug trade. After he shot the motorcycle cops where did Mixon go? He didn't seek out his homies, he went to his sister's apartment. He was involved in one armed robbery (car theft), and they say he was a suspect in a murder. I've heard no details other than that charges were never pressed against him in the murder case. I heard that he wanted to work and that his problems with his parole officer (the officer stood him up for scheduled meetings) prevented him from getting a job.

You people can think that Mixon was simply being selfish when he killed cops to avoid being put in jail, but you aren't accessing his emotions. Put a gun in the hands of a fearful/resentful/humiliated person and you have a recipe for murder.

I am strongly in favor a gun control, but that's another thread.

You make it sound like Mixon had a 9-5 and needed a ride one day, so he car jacked someone to get to work. Describing it as armed robbery/car theft defuses it to what it was--unless you are the one getting car jacked. If you are car jacking people and your name pops up in a murder case--you're probably not dealing with legitimate businesses. Is he a thug? Maybe. Although killing 4 cops, regardless of race--you may qualify as a thug.

Trust me Muse, it may not sound like it but we would probably have sympathy for his situation--then he killed four people and at that point sympathy goes out the window.

 

[SKC]

Sorry, I had to add this to the discussion. I've been following it since it was reported, because it's in a neighboring city and I have some familiarity with both sides of the issue.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...9/03/24/MNBQ16LGNH.DTL

With regards to the parole officer - we may not know the entire story. Mixon may not have shown up for parole meetings, or he could very well have had a bad apple officer. With respect to the above, and to his actions the day of the killings - they are inexcusable.

from n yusef

I'm not defending Mixon, but I'd like to point out that if he were white, he would not be called a thug.

This is a good observation as well.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Craig234


While most wouldn't, and most don't - whether right-winger or black thug - murder over the injustices, I'd like to see what a right-winger facing six months (or longer) in jail unfairly had to say about it. They take for granted the ability of lawyers to get them out of the problem if they're in the right, the media to write stories about the injustice - but if they faced the 'who cares' reaction to their own imprisonment, they'd better understand why this thug dehumanizes the same way he was dehumanized.

The world isn't fair, that's for sure but allowing yourself to wallow in a "victim mentality" state until you feel their is no way out falls squarely on this murder's shoulders.

Well, I guess this guy didn't have a victim mentality. Are you arguing for not correcting problems in our systems? I can't agree with that.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: ericlp
I feel sorry for the cops doing their jobs. Hey I'd be shooting assholes in the back too ... you don't know why they are reaching in their pockets trying to answer a cell phone or going for a gun. I dunno, until someone gets a clue and starts banning fire arms a lot of innocent people and cops will continue to die in this country.

Why did this guy need an assault riffle? Why does anyone need one?

:roll:

He was a felon, so did not obtain the weapon through legal channels. A ban on guns would not have mattered.

Nice try though, libby.

Yeah, let's just keep flooding the market with assault riffles... This shit will continue going on when all the crazies out there start to get them. Let's just make it more easy for them to have access to them ... that's the ticket right?

Guess again.

FYI, you can't buy an assault rifle if you're crazy. Everyone knows this.

That's not the point! If Joe Plumber the fucking idiot goes out and buys an AR-15 you know because he was once in the army and leaves it sitting on the kitchen table and someone breaks into his house. Well, ANOTHER CRAZY has another assault riffle.

Your point????????? I guess you are on the crazy side huh?

Then there is the freaks that will by 500 of these things to sell them to the crazy brothers. Ya know, if you just wanna pass these things out like candy why not give em to everyone? How much of a tard do you have to be to see that if you did put a ban on these rifles it would be a bit harder to get a hold of one.

I'm not saying that a ban is going to make the world a more jolly place but do we have to make it easy for the thugs to get a brand new assault riffle with 3 or 4 new clips of ammo?

Purchases of Assault rifles and high capacity magazines(over 10 rounds) have been banned in California since January 1, 2000.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: ericlp
I feel sorry for the cops doing their jobs. Hey I'd be shooting assholes in the back too ... you don't know why they are reaching in their pockets trying to answer a cell phone or going for a gun. I dunno, until someone gets a clue and starts banning fire arms a lot of innocent people and cops will continue to die in this country.

Why did this guy need an assault riffle? Why does anyone need one?

:roll:

He was a felon, so did not obtain the weapon through legal channels. A ban on guns would not have mattered.

Nice try though, libby.

Yeah, let's just keep flooding the market with assault riffles... This shit will continue going on when all the crazies out there start to get them. Let's just make it more easy for them to have access to them ... that's the ticket right?

Guess again.

FYI, you can't buy an assault rifle if you're crazy. Everyone knows this.

That's not the point! If Joe Plumber the fucking idiot goes out and buys an AR-15 you know because he was once in the army and leaves it sitting on the kitchen table and someone breaks into his house. Well, ANOTHER CRAZY has another assault riffle.

Your point????????? I guess you are on the crazy side huh?

Then there is the freaks that will by 500 of these things to sell them to the crazy brothers. Ya know, if you just wanna pass these things out like candy why not give em to everyone? How much of a tard do you have to be to see that if you did put a ban on these rifles it would be a bit harder to get a hold of one.

I'm not saying that a ban is going to make the world a more jolly place but do we have to make it easy for the thugs to get a brand new assault riffle with 3 or 4 new clips of ammo?

Purchases of Assault rifles and high capacity magazines(over 10 rounds) have been banned in California since January 1, 2000.

Correct. IF gun control actual worked (which it absolutely does not, in any meaningful way, as proven through numerous studies) then MAYBE there would be an argument for it. It doesn't, so there is none. But even if it did you'd have to weigh the consequences to see if the gains were worth it...and they just aren't.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Correct. IF gun control actual worked (which it absolutely does not, in any meaningful way, as proven through numerous studies) then MAYBE there would be an argument for it. It doesn't, so there is none. But even if it did you'd have to weigh the consequences to see if the gains were worth it...and they just aren't.

It may or may not 'work' but gun advocates have got to get past their logic errors.

A shooting with a banned gun doesn't prove it 'doesn't work'. What about his next door neighbor who might have *also* got a gun and killed another officer but was prevented?

If gun control *reduces* the number of problems, it can be argued to work.

And if people view it as a stepping stone to more widespread gun control that would work, even if the local measures don't work; if people view it as something that might take decades to get rid of the excess supply already sold, but worthwhile - those are not easy to argue against. How can you 'prove' what the effect of a certain gun control policy implemented nationally would be in 40 years? Of course, neither side can easily 'prove' that.

It's not that gun advocates don't have some other good arguments, but the 'see, there was a shooting so that proves gun control doesn't work' is wrong.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
The hell you say. What would they call him then, because to me a murderous thug is a murderous thug.

Thugs are strongly associated with black gang culture. To not realize that is to be oblivious to the world around you. That Mixon is called a thug implies that his crime was a part of gang culture, an assumption for which there is no evidence.

My God, are you serious? Thug means a violent and/or anti-social person. I think you're thinking of the term "gangsta". Now one of them guys might "pop a cap" in your head.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Craig234


While most wouldn't, and most don't - whether right-winger or black thug - murder over the injustices, I'd like to see what a right-winger facing six months (or longer) in jail unfairly had to say about it. They take for granted the ability of lawyers to get them out of the problem if they're in the right, the media to write stories about the injustice - but if they faced the 'who cares' reaction to their own imprisonment, they'd better understand why this thug dehumanizes the same way he was dehumanized.

The world isn't fair, that's for sure but allowing yourself to wallow in a "victim mentality" state until you feel their is no way out falls squarely on this murder's shoulders.

Well, I guess this guy didn't have a victim mentality. Are you arguing for not correcting problems in our systems? I can't agree with that.

What? He most certainly had a victim mentality.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Correct. IF gun control actual worked (which it absolutely does not, in any meaningful way, as proven through numerous studies) then MAYBE there would be an argument for it. It doesn't, so there is none. But even if it did you'd have to weigh the consequences to see if the gains were worth it...and they just aren't.

It may or may not 'work' but gun advocates have got to get past their logic errors.

A shooting with a banned gun doesn't prove it 'doesn't work'. What about his next door neighbor who might have *also* got a gun and killed another officer but was prevented?

If gun control *reduces* the number of problems, it can be argued to work.

And if people view it as a stepping stone to more widespread gun control that would work, even if the local measures don't work; if people view it as something that might take decades to get rid of the excess supply already sold, but worthwhile - those are not easy to argue against. How can you 'prove' what the effect of a certain gun control policy implemented nationally would be in 40 years? Of course, neither side can easily 'prove' that.

It's not that gun advocates don't have some other good arguments, but the 'see, there was a shooting so that proves gun control doesn't work' is wrong.

Just like anti-gunners have to get past their own illogic.

You don't look at individual incidents, you look at the total package and compare it to other total packages and then point out where the differences are. From there you extrapolate logical cause and effect scenarios and arrive at policy that is workable.

Reducing problems is useless unless it does so without creating new ones, and only if it is a significant reduction. There are around 12,000 firearm deaths (homicide & accident) per year. If you cut that down to 11,000 but take away a fundamental right, is it worth it? If you get rid of 6000 deaths it might be, but what if they're replaced by 5500 knife deaths? Then what have you really accomplished? Moreover, what of the hundreds of thousands or even millions of defensive gun uses every year? You save 4000 lives but cause 500,000 victimizations? That hardly seems a bargain worth exploring.

A law must meet three standards for it to be useful:

1) it must address a real problem
2) it must be able to actually SOLVE that problem
3) the unintended consequences must not outweigh the benefits

Until you can CONCLUSIVELY show how gun control meets those three criteria it should not be implemented.

***NOTE: there is also a pre-requisite to the above standards...the agency in question must have the authority to enact the law - otherwise the rest is moot. Along with that authority is the consideration of rather the law will withstand scrutiny. So consider adding:

0) the acting agency must have the authority to enact such a law
4) the law itself must be likely to withstand scrutiny (ie suits to overturn)

 

[Drift3r]

-nt-

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article

I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.

You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.

You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.

Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.

Try as you might, this guy shot down traffic cops. He was nothing but a thug.

It's laughable to see you trying to romanticize this person.

I'm not defending Mixon, but I'd like to point out that if he were white, he would not be called a thug.

No if he were white no one would be defending him by implying he is being wrongly judged because of his race. People would accept that he was just scum and nothing else in life. Hey since he is black he is now the "Victim" in your eyes.

He murdered for 4 men with families

He was a suspect in a previous murder of another man.

He was linked via DNA to a rape of a 12 year old girl.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...4/BAPP16M2CH.DTL&tsp=1

He car jacked, beat up and shot at one man who was a truck driver in San Francisco with a group of friends.

He had a string of other crimes he committed as a juvenile and much more which we will never find out about.


Yet he is now a "Victim" and being mislabeled by those evil "White" people as a thug. Quick someone call Al Sharpton he needs to get on the case and rectify this horrible injustice.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article

I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.

You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.

You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.

Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.

Try as you might, this guy shot down traffic cops. He was nothing but a thug.

It's laughable to see you trying to romanticize this person.

I'm not defending Mixon, but I'd like to point out that if he were white, he would not be called a thug.

No if he were white no one would be defending him by implying he is being wrongly judged because of his race. People would accept that he was just scum and nothing else in life. Hey since he is black he is now the "Victim" in your eyes.

He murdered for 4 men with families

He was a suspect in a previous murder of another man.

He was linked via DNA to a rape of a 12 year old girl.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...4/BAPP16M2CH.DTL&tsp=1

He car jacked, beat up and shot at one man who was truck driver in San Francisco with a group of friends.

He had a string of other crimes he committed as a juvenile and much more which we will never find out about.


Yet he is now a "Victim" and being mislabeled by those evil "White" people as a thug. Quick someone call Al Sharpton he needs to get on the case and rectify this horrible injustice.

Nowhere did I claim he was a victim. I distinctly said "I'm not defending Mixon." I think he was a terrible person. He stole, raped, and murdered.

I do think that many white people are showing their bias by calling him a "thug" though.

The only victim here is you. You instantly think I'm against you and all whites. You think that I'm calling you racist. I wasn't, I was just pointing out a word that only describes blacks. Saying something ignorant (like calling him a "thug") doesn't make someone racist. It's hard not to use that language when you grow up in our society. For some reason, you assume that any discussion of race vilifies you. Well, if you get defensive, it does. If not, it doesn't.

Cliffs:
Black guy is called "thug"
I call out posters
Drift3r thinks I called him a racist; he gets defensive and starts acting like a racist

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article

I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.

You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.

You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.

Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.

Try as you might, this guy shot down traffic cops. He was nothing but a thug.

It's laughable to see you trying to romanticize this person.

I'm not defending Mixon, but I'd like to point out that if he were white, he would not be called a thug.

No if he were white no one would be defending him by implying he is being wrongly judged because of his race. People would accept that he was just scum and nothing else in life. Hey since he is black he is now the "Victim" in your eyes.

He murdered for 4 men with families

He was a suspect in a previous murder of another man.

He was linked via DNA to a rape of a 12 year old girl.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...4/BAPP16M2CH.DTL&tsp=1

He car jacked, beat up and shot at one man who was truck driver in San Francisco with a group of friends.

He had a string of other crimes he committed as a juvenile and much more which we will never find out about.


Yet he is now a "Victim" and being mislabeled by those evil "White" people as a thug. Quick someone call Al Sharpton he needs to get on the case and rectify this horrible injustice.

Nowhere did I claim he was a victim. I distinctly said "I'm not defending Mixon." I think he was a terrible person. He stole, raped, and murdered.

I do think that many white people are showing their bias by calling him a "thug" though.

The only victim here is you. You instantly think I'm against you and all whites. You think that I'm calling you racist. I wasn't, I was just pointing out a word that only describes blacks. Saying something ignorant (like calling him a "thug") doesn't make someone racist. It's hard not to use that language when you grow up in our society. For some reason, you assume that any discussion of race vilifies you. Well, if you get defensive, it does. If not, it doesn't.

Cliffs:
Black guy is called "thug"
I call out posters
Drift3r thinks I called him a racist; he gets defensive and starts acting like a racist

This guy was a career criminal. He was living the "Thug Life". He is a thug plain and simply put due to his own actions. Yet you wonder why people call him a thug despite his extensive record and you try to insinuate that its because of his skin color. If anyone had a defensive reaction it was you my friend.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article

I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.

You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.

You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.

Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.

Try as you might, this guy shot down traffic cops. He was nothing but a thug.

It's laughable to see you trying to romanticize this person.

I'm not defending Mixon, but I'd like to point out that if he were white, he would not be called a thug.

No if he were white no one would be defending him by implying he is being wrongly judged because of his race. People would accept that he was just scum and nothing else in life. Hey since he is black he is now the "Victim" in your eyes.

He murdered for 4 men with families

He was a suspect in a previous murder of another man.

He was linked via DNA to a rape of a 12 year old girl.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...4/BAPP16M2CH.DTL&tsp=1

He car jacked, beat up and shot at one man who was truck driver in San Francisco with a group of friends.

He had a string of other crimes he committed as a juvenile and much more which we will never find out about.


Yet he is now a "Victim" and being mislabeled by those evil "White" people as a thug. Quick someone call Al Sharpton he needs to get on the case and rectify this horrible injustice.

Nowhere did I claim he was a victim. I distinctly said "I'm not defending Mixon." I think he was a terrible person. He stole, raped, and murdered.

I do think that many white people are showing their bias by calling him a "thug" though.

The only victim here is you. You instantly think I'm against you and all whites. You think that I'm calling you racist. I wasn't, I was just pointing out a word that only describes blacks. Saying something ignorant (like calling him a "thug") doesn't make someone racist. It's hard not to use that language when you grow up in our society. For some reason, you assume that any discussion of race vilifies you. Well, if you get defensive, it does. If not, it doesn't.

Cliffs:
Black guy is called "thug"
I call out posters
Drift3r thinks I called him a racist; he gets defensive and starts acting like a racist

This guy was a career criminal. He was living the "Thug Life". He is a thug plain and simply put due to his own actions. Yet you wonder why people call him a thug despite his extensive record and you try to insinuate that its because of his skin color. If anyone had a defensive reaction it was you my friend.

Don't be dense. You would never say a white person was "living the 'Thug Life.'" No one would. In our society, the "Thug Life" is distinctly black.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Muse
SF Chronicle article

I ask one question. The phenomenally successful movie Bonnie and Clyde made quasi folk heros out of lawless killers who left a trail of dead bodies behind them and eventually were slaughtered by law enforcement. The white actors enjoyed great success (the studio etc. also). But I don't see much difference. This guy Lovelle Mixon (African American) was evidently in the same situation. He was wanted on a bailless warrant concerning parole violation on a charge for assault with a deadly weapon and evidently couldn't see himself being taken into custidy. Is there really much difference? The main difference I see is that Bonnie and Clyde were on a crime spree and this guy was driving down MacArthur Blvd. in a 1995 Buick.

You're talking about an event that took place in what the 30s and has been romanticized by hollywod vs a common thug gunning down some officers...who knows, maybe in a few decades he actions will also be seen as acceptable, but in the here and now thankfully that won't happen.

You see the difference between you and me here is that you dismiss Lovelle Mixon as a "common thug." He was a young African American man with a criminal record and a family. I don't believe he was a heartless bastard, but I wonder about you. What the hell is a "common thug?" It's just your way of dismissing this. He was a human being with intelligence, feelings and motivations. You can refuse to imagine/believe/know that, but you are wrong.

Squirm, protest, but listen... I don't see what's very different here. 1930's, so fucking what? Cops after you and it's about the gun. That hasn't changed. You dismiss the stark contrast here to Hollywood romanticizing. WTF? I'm trying to get at why they can romanticize B&C and the media put the cold shoulder to LM. Most people won't even entertain the notion of trying to get into his head, but I'm not most people. I deplore the media's pandering to the conservative instincts of couch potatoes.

Try as you might, this guy shot down traffic cops. He was nothing but a thug.

It's laughable to see you trying to romanticize this person.

I'm not defending Mixon, but I'd like to point out that if he were white, he would not be called a thug.

No if he were white no one would be defending him by implying he is being wrongly judged because of his race. People would accept that he was just scum and nothing else in life. Hey since he is black he is now the "Victim" in your eyes.

He murdered for 4 men with families

He was a suspect in a previous murder of another man.

He was linked via DNA to a rape of a 12 year old girl.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...4/BAPP16M2CH.DTL&tsp=1

He car jacked, beat up and shot at one man who was truck driver in San Francisco with a group of friends.

He had a string of other crimes he committed as a juvenile and much more which we will never find out about.


Yet he is now a "Victim" and being mislabeled by those evil "White" people as a thug. Quick someone call Al Sharpton he needs to get on the case and rectify this horrible injustice.

Nowhere did I claim he was a victim. I distinctly said "I'm not defending Mixon." I think he was a terrible person. He stole, raped, and murdered.

I do think that many white people are showing their bias by calling him a "thug" though.

The only victim here is you. You instantly think I'm against you and all whites. You think that I'm calling you racist. I wasn't, I was just pointing out a word that only describes blacks. Saying something ignorant (like calling him a "thug") doesn't make someone racist. It's hard not to use that language when you grow up in our society. For some reason, you assume that any discussion of race vilifies you. Well, if you get defensive, it does. If not, it doesn't.

Cliffs:
Black guy is called "thug"
I call out posters
Drift3r thinks I called him a racist; he gets defensive and starts acting like a racist

This guy was a career criminal. He was living the "Thug Life". He is a thug plain and simply put due to his own actions. Yet you wonder why people call him a thug despite his extensive record and you try to insinuate that its because of his skin color. If anyone had a defensive reaction it was you my friend.

Don't be dense. You would never say a white person was "living the 'Thug Life.'" No one would. In our society, the "Thug Life" is distinctly black.

Who popularized the term and made it hip to be a "Thug" for kids and anyone else dumb enough to lead such a lifestyle? Was it a white guy or black guy who popularized the term?

Edit: What would you call him if not a thug, scum or any other appropriate derogative term for a career criminal of his caliber? Please let me know because I am curious.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Who popularized the term and made it hip to be a "Thug" for kids and anyone else dumb enough to lead such a lifestyle? Was it a white guy or black guy who popularized the term?

Edit: What would you call him if not a thug, scum or any other appropriate derogative term for a career criminal of his caliber? Please let me know because I am curious.

Thanks for admitting that "thug" only describes blacks. It only took a few hours.

I don't think that "thug" is appropriate because it implies that his race was a factor in his crimes. It's saying that it would be different if a white person committed those crimes. Allow me to quote myself:

[In our society] When white people kill, there's something wrong with them individually. When black people kill, there's something wrong with black culture.

I disagree with that, so I disagree with the usage of "thug" to describe Mixon.

@ your edit: describe him anyway you like, just don't invoke race when it's not necessary.