Another unarmed black man gunned down

weso1 said:
And your stat is misleading as well since it doesn't take into account that blacks commit 40% of violent crime and thus police are more likely to encounter black people relative to their population. Also, studies have shown that when all things are equal police officers are actually less likely shoot a black person than a white person. And that's the stat that actually matters.
Click to expand...

They're convicted of 40% of violent crimes. Let's not confuse convictions and committing a crime.
 
sturg33 said:
He literally cannot acknowledge that the cop was in the wrong. It's scary that people think that way
Click to expand...

Because we don't know that for sure and that's what the trial is for? What's scary is how you and a few others always assume the cop is in the wrong yet always believe the criminal is completely innocent in causing the shooting to happen. That is some ****ed up logic.
 
Black Lives Matter is not a racist organization. Its true purpose is to help inform and fight for equal treatment of black citizens in America. It allows black communities to know what is going on throughout America so we can link up and support these causes with protests and money.

Now in every organization there are bad apples. But BLM is doing a lot of good. Its helping us to realize that Dr King and brother Malcolm's fight is not over just because we have a few government acts, a black president, advanced degrees, or black millionaires. No matter how rich you are.... You are still a "N". Colin is speaking about this. The treatment of Michelle Obama should show everyone that.

I just think people who think BLM is racist are living in their own little bubble. Its easy to believe this when all youve known is white supremacy. So fear of the unknown can be very scary for people who know America is changing ;-)
 
Garmel said:
Because we don't know that for sure and that's what the trial is for? What's scary is how you and a few others always assume the cop is in the wrong yet always believe the criminal is completely innocent in causing the shooting to happen. That is some ****ed up logic.
Click to expand...

Yes - I will always assume that a cop should not shoot and kill an unarmed person with their arms up.

You don't agree with that?
 
sturg33 said:
Yes - I will always assume that a cop should not shoot and kill an unarmed person with their arms up.

You don't agree with that?
Click to expand...

Have you watched the entire film from all angles? His hands were not up at the end. The fact that two cops shot him at the same time(one with a taser) hints that he might have done something that alarmed them both. There is also the story that he was reaching in the car. If he did I don't blame the officers for taking him down. However, it is not known for sure if the windows were up in the car. If they were up the cop is guilty. Regardless of what you believe this case is not clear. How about we wait until we know more facts before we haul her off to prison?
 
I generally won't side with the government when the government is killing the citizens its supposed to protect. Sorry
 
sturg33 said:
I generally won't side with the government when the government is killing the citizens its supposed to protect. Sorry
Click to expand...

So, it doesn't matter if she's innocent? That's right up with your claim that taxes are slavery. As I said that is some ****ed up logic.
 
Garmel said:
Have you watched the entire film from all angles? His hands were not up at the end. The fact that two cops shot him at the same time(one with a taser) hints that he might have done something that alarmed them both. There is also the story that he was reaching in the car. If he did I don't blame the officers for taking him down. However, it is not known for sure if the windows were up in the car. If they were up the cop is guilty. Regardless of what you believe this case is not clear. How about we wait until we know more facts before we haul her off to prison?
Click to expand...

The case is pretty clear. Deadly force was not necessary. Why didn't she have a taser drawn? To me it's cut and dry, she killed an unarmed person in a non-lifethreatening situation and must pay. Period. It's getting to the point that some cop has to be made an example of for using de-escalation techniques and not shooting to kill immediately.
 
So sick of the rioting when someone pulls a gun on a cop and gets shot. STFU already. Ignorant ****ing millennials.
 
zitothebrave said:
The case is pretty clear. Deadly force was not necessary. Why didn't she have a taser drawn? To me it's cut and dry, she killed an unarmed person in a non-lifethreatening situation and must pay. Period. It's getting to the point that some cop has to be made an example of for using de-escalation techniques and not shooting to kill immediately.
Click to expand...

No, it's far from clear cut. We don't why she didn't have a taser. We'll find out during the trial. Sorry, if he's reaching in the car he deserved to be shot. You haven't learned a damn thing from the Ferguson case, have you? When all of the facts come up in court then we'll know enough to make an informed decision.
 
MrShwag said:
So sick of the rioting when someone pulls a gun on a cop and gets shot. STFU already. Ignorant ****ing millennials.
Click to expand...

latest
 
MrShwag said:
So sick of the rioting when someone pulls a gun on a cop and gets shot. STFU already. Ignorant ****ing millennials.
Click to expand...

This is a different case but yeah. Millennials are freaking clueless. However, you can say that about every generation when that said generation was young. They don't have enough life experience to make informed decisions.
 
Garmel said:
No, it's far from clear cut. We don't why she didn't have a taser. We'll find out during the trial. Sorry, if he's reaching in the car he deserved to be shot. You haven't learned a damn thing from the Ferguson case, have you? When all of the facts come up in court then we'll know enough to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...

There was no video evidence of the Ferguson case.

ANd I'm glad reaching into a car is a reason to shoot someone. I hope you never reach into your car or a cop may just murder your ass.
 
Garmel said:
This is a different case but yeah. Millennials are freaking clueless. However, you can say that about every generation when that said generation was young. They don't have enough life experience to make informed decisions.
Click to expand...

I'm 27. and I don't think cops should shoot and kill people. CLUELESS!!
 
Garmel said:
You mean a person has to have a gun pointed at them in order for it to be self-defense? Holy ****.
Click to expand...

Nope, but deadly force should be a last resort, not a first resort. Ask someone in the military about escalation. Thank god our troops don't just shoot civilians overseas because they're not responding to them and move arond.
 
zitothebrave said:
There was no video evidence of the Ferguson case.

ANd I'm glad reaching into a car is a reason to shoot someone. I hope you never reach into your car or a cop may just murder your ass.
Click to expand...

When somebody is acting odd and not obeying orders then reach into a car a cop is supposed to just stand there? Sorry, but that is justifiable for the cop to shoot. I know this is hard to believe but cops are human beings too and want to go home to their loved ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top