So illary continues to fan the flames of racism and divide the country with her lies about the guy being unarmed. Of course, our main stream media outlets will remain silent about those lies, and will instead focus their attention on some way to smear Trump. Yep, pretty much another normal day.
The decision to use force is largely based on the probability of harm occurring to others if no force is used. It just so happens that those with mental problems often have much greater potential to harm others.
While you act like a derp characterizing it as "cops running around killing handicapped people," it just as easily can be characterized as "police stopping unstable people from harming others."
You don't get to declare your view right because it fits better with your biases.
HamburgerBoy
Lifer
- Apr 12, 2004
- 27,111
- 318
- 126
Not just the MSM either. Our always-reliable fact-checkers will praise her for being mostly correct!
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...man-was-unarmed-when-shot-dead-white-milwauk/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...man-was-unarmed-when-shot-dead-white-milwauk/
Yep, typical liberal "logic" in action. "he was unarmed!"... to them means "at some point in his life he was unarmed". The fact that he was in fact armed at the specific moment he was shot and killed -- naaaah, not important, we'll still go ahead and call him "unarmed". Now, back to justifying looting as "understandable protest".
Svnla
Lifer
- Nov 10, 2003
- 17,986
- 1,388
- 126
While waiting for the full evidence is smart, no matter what the riots are uncalled for. So far the evidence suggests he had a gun and wouldn't listen to the cops. We'll see what the entire events were soon hopefully. These riots are extremely sad and bring out the worst in people is seems like. You have the brother of the guy killed saying stuff like this, "Just know that all white people are fucking devils. All white cops are fucking devils, and white people". Which makes zero sense, since the cop who shot him was black. But don't let the truth get in the way. A sister posted something similar. Of course equally disgusting comments were made back from white people, making matters worse. It certainly isn't just one side being the problem. I cannot comprehend why people think they can riot, steal, loot, burn, try to burn people, attack people based on their race, etc, in an instant. When they don't know the facts, all the while some blaming white people. This brings out the worst in people sadly, in all types of people.
Do you think everyone with TBI is confused all the time? If so thats pretty ignorant. Mentally handicapped people can kill just well as anyone else. If he did have a gun, and if he did not listen to commands, thats the problem.
Who said they aren't? Are convicted felons allowed to? Are you allowed to disregard an officers order to put it down? Stop making ignorant inflammatory comments that you know are false. You're being part of the problem.
Do you think everyone with TBI is confused all the time? If so thats pretty ignorant. Mentally handicapped people can kill just well as anyone else. If he did have a gun, and if he did not listen to commands, thats the problem.
Who said they aren't? Are convicted felons allowed to? Are you allowed to disregard an officers order to put it down? Stop making ignorant inflammatory comments that you know are false. You're being part of the problem.
That is not what you said, this is what you said;
Which you KNOW is a false statement, and fanning the flames. You ARE being part of the problem like I said. But just dodge the question.
Unlike you I will answer yours. I think people who carry legally and comply with cops will get treated equally yes. Sure there are instances where they won't on both sides. I know you're trying to back me into a corner with that question. This thread is about the NC riots, and the guy killed there. If he did have a gun, and if the criminal record that is being tossed around news sites is correct, he was not legally allowed to carry a firearm. Either way it appears he had a gun and wouldn't drop it, or leave it alone. If the initial reports are true, then yes he would have been shot being white or black in that instance. Especially when the cop is black, unless you're claiming that the black cop was more likely to shoot him because he was black?
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
Black cops go through the same training as white cops. I.e. They are bombarded with videos of cops being killed so they are on the edge when they finally get into the wild.
So what I said black people can't have guns? It's true. Unless they are willing to take that risk.
So what I said black people can't have guns? It's true. Unless they are willing to take that risk.
AnonymouseUser
Diamond Member
- May 14, 2003
- 9,943
- 107
- 106
Felons cannot legally own a gun (in NC). Keith Scott was a felon.
Video has been released:
Video has been released:
Last edited:
No, it is not true. Anyone who meets the qualifications can own and carry a gun legally. Everyone takes a risk if they do stupid things, and/or carry illegally. Your statement was false, trolling, and making things worse instead of better. But you can't even admit that, good job.
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
The difference between carrying legally and illegally only kicks in if you don't get killed before the cops check the paperwork.
HamburgerBoy
Lifer
- Apr 12, 2004
- 27,111
- 318
- 126
Yes, largely because black men are the gold standard in homicide in America. Gun studies intentionally over-sample black men because they make up such a disproportionate amount of gun deaths, the vast majority of which being black-on-black homicide rather than cop-on-black homicide.
tracerbullet
Golden Member
- Feb 22, 2001
- 1,661
- 19
- 81
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
Because those TVs and shoes aren't going to walk themselves to people houses. You need a good race riot to get away with that crap.
highland145
Lifer
- Oct 12, 2009
- 43,973
- 6,338
- 136
What? The factual shooting stats are in the tank for whitey?
Refute this.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016-chicago-murders
x26
Senior member
- Sep 17, 2007
- 734
- 15
- 81
Yep--It was a Book.
He wanted to Speed Read some deep Literary Piece (like the Illiad) and the Wife was Screaming: " Don't Do It!! Don't Do it!!" because he would have not gotten the Deeper Metaphors if he were Speed Reading!!
Last edited:
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/25/us/charlotte-police-video/index.html
NC trying to hide police videos from the public from now on. I am sure resident authoritarians will cheer on.
NC trying to hide police videos from the public from now on. I am sure resident authoritarians will cheer on.
flexy
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
There is now FOUR videos of this incident, in *none* of them is the guy seeing *holding* a gun and pointing it at an officers. He is exiting the car, with his hands down, rather "casually" and from what I can tell in no way in a threatening matter.
Like in the Tulsa shooting, here we have a *perceived* threat - but a "perceived" threat and an ACTUAL threat is a massive difference.
Neither his felon history, "implausible" behavior, refusing to comply, even his holster and the fact he was carrying a gun (possibly even illegally since he had a felon history) etc.. CAN legitimate *deadly* force.
If this was the case, cops would have the liberty to shoot dead anyone simply "on suspicion" of a threat, even in the absence of a real threat (whereas "real threat" means a weapon pointed at an officer). It would be "ok" to shoot someone dead, just because someone *thinks* he may pose a threat, without the need to verify whether an actual threat exists.
So yes, I changed my opinion in those both cases, Tulsa shooting and Charlotte. NO *real* threat to see, no guy pointing a weapon at an officer. FACT, people.
Like in the Tulsa shooting, here we have a *perceived* threat - but a "perceived" threat and an ACTUAL threat is a massive difference.
Neither his felon history, "implausible" behavior, refusing to comply, even his holster and the fact he was carrying a gun (possibly even illegally since he had a felon history) etc.. CAN legitimate *deadly* force.
If this was the case, cops would have the liberty to shoot dead anyone simply "on suspicion" of a threat, even in the absence of a real threat (whereas "real threat" means a weapon pointed at an officer). It would be "ok" to shoot someone dead, just because someone *thinks* he may pose a threat, without the need to verify whether an actual threat exists.
So yes, I changed my opinion in those both cases, Tulsa shooting and Charlotte. NO *real* threat to see, no guy pointing a weapon at an officer. FACT, people.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter