Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
I belive he had a round to play.
I'm guessing both of you are rocket scientists
RE: His goal is to point out that that same leadership (well, minus NYC)
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
RE: RE: His goal is to point out that that same leadership (well, minus NYC)
should be trying to get cooler heads to prevail here as well, and that doesn't seem to be the case.
So they should block CNN, etc from broadcasting? Shut down social media?
So what, you're stuck on two modes, pedophile or moron?
Because only a moron would walk away with that from what Chris posted. Our senior leaders should be trying to get people to cool off, no different than when bombs went off in NYC, so as to avoid collateral damage to innocent people.
RE: Why is it that when rioting occurs, the narrative....
is that the culprits are "outside agitators"? They continue to say that this morning on CNN, and I recall the same assertions when Baltimore erupted. Is there some dynamic at work that leads to this conclusion? Are people actually traveling from other parts of the country to engage in opportunistic violence? What leads people to believe that the violent protestors aren't from the city involved?
it doesn't necessarily mean they are from a different city, but the outside agitators are people who piggyback off the nonviolent protestors and use these incidents as a pretext to loot, start riots etc. they are outside because they aren't really interested or involvemd with any movements like BLM that are interested in constructive change or peaceful protests
Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
Tell me what kind of media coverage would happen if a mob of whites dragged a black bystander into a parking garage, kicked and punched him and then stripped him of his clothes and it was all caught on tape? It would be national news, Obama would make a speech, there would be more riots and you know it.
The President of the Charlotte NAACP just said on CNN....
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
was columbine a terrorist attack? Charleston? Sandy Hook? because those were also mass shootings targeting a specific set of individuals but the T word is never used. san Bernardino and Orlando were at first targeted shootings in a confined space. once they figured out who did it and why they did it was it appropriate to label those shootings as terrorist acts.
RE: The President of the Charlotte NAACP just said on CNN....
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
The Michael Brown lawyer was on Fox last night and Kelly ripped him to shreds about how he lied and was wrong about his case and why its similar to this one in Charlotte. The lawyer said he didnt want to talk about his case, even though he was making the same case despite evidence showing he was wrong.
I dont understand why black leaders think its ok to justifying riots and attacks on police officers/civilians when the police officers were initially right.
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
was columbine a terrorist attack? Charleston? Sandy Hook? because those were also mass shootings targeting a specific set of individuals but the T word is never used. san Bernardino and Orlando were at first targeted shootings in a confined space. once they figured out who did it and why they did it was it appropriate to label those shootings as terrorist acts.
If your point is what is terrorism vs. a school shooting or workplace violence incident that's an important distinction, they all suck and they all create victims whose families probably don't give a fuck how in the end it's classified, but they have very different purposes and motives.
Dylan Roof, Dylan Klebold (and the other Columbine attacker), Adam Lanza (it's sad I even know those names) did not set out to randomly kill Americans to support a radical Muslim agenda. They could be considered one-off unaffiliated isolated incidents (like the Bathe bombing in the early 1900's). Not better or worse, but different.
Farook and Mateen did and from the beginning it was fairly obvious.
Do you think people are watching the news or listening to politicians?
Nice misdirection. Did you think it was wrong of the president and mayor and governor of NYC to come out and say we shouldn't rush to judgement with the bombings?
Some of you are such sheep when it comes to your political views it's laughable.
Are you doing anything wrong by getting out of a car carrying a gun in an open carry state? People keep saying he was armed. I haven't seen anything that indicates he was stopped for cause. Why was he told to drop the weapon?
This is why we need videos.
RE: The President of the Charlotte NAACP just said on CNN....
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
Exactly, and if that's the case, how can we even have a discussion?
RE: The President of the Charlotte NAACP just said on CNN....
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
A think a lot of people have a misconception about what "leaders" telling people to "calm down until we have the facts" will accomplish. People who riot and loot aren't interested in any of that. The rest of the people simply don't trust any aspect of the criminal justice system, including those collecting "the facts".
So people tend to blame "leaders" and the media when the real issue is a complete lack of faith and trust in the competency, transparency, and the impartiality of law enforcement. That's why you see rushes to judgment in cases that quite possibly may be 100% the fault of the person shot/killed. The sad part is it isn't some subset of blacks that feel this way... most of us do.
What are we trying to save here, exactly? Does it cost too much in gas to drive one of these guys up to a microphone to ask them to tell everyone to calm the fuck down?
Maybe everyone will ignore it - so is that a reason to skip trying something that has absolutely no cost or downside associated with it?
Do you think people are watching the news or listening to politicians?
Nice misdirection. Did you think it was wrong of the president and mayor and governor of NYC to come out and say we shouldn't rush to judgement with the bombings?
Some of you are such sheep when it comes to your political views it's laughable.
I heard many politicians request calm. The comparison to the bombings is ridiculous. What is the point or goal in saying Islam is to blame? There's where he was going with it
The President of the Charlotte NAACP just said on CNN....
Crispino : 9:50 am : link : reply
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
Yesterday, there was a news conference with black ministers present and they were discussing the reports that a gun was recovered and asked if that changed the statement from the day before that the man was unarmed, sitting in his car reading a book. The exact words were "The question isn't if the man had a gun. It is if he pointed the gun or threatened the police. If he did notr, he did not deserve to die". To which another minister in the background yells "No, sir. Did not deserve to die." and then several gave an "Amen".
I'd say it was comical, but I'm finding little to laugh about with the way this story is portrayed. We are going to find out that a bunch of people got violent and tore shit up because they initially believed a white cop killed an unarmed black man in a car reading a book, waiting to give his son hugs.
The reality is probably going to be that the man had a gun in his hand as he approached police, that he had a warrant out for his arrest already and that the officer was black.
Tell me what about that situation deserved violence as a community response?
If you agreed with the statements in that case, then you can't object to the statements in this one.
In either situation, the objective was clear - to keep people from making rash judgements and emotional reactions that could cause problems for innocent people.
When cameramen from media organizations are being beaten and thrown into fires in *THIS* country, it's time for someone up top to tell everyone to take a deep breath and calm the fuck down. And that's not happening.
Are you doing anything wrong by getting out of a car carrying a gun in an open carry state? People keep saying he was armed. I haven't seen anything that indicates he was stopped for cause. Why was he told to drop the weapon?
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
was columbine a terrorist attack? Charleston? Sandy Hook? because those were also mass shootings targeting a specific set of individuals but the T word is never used. san Bernardino and Orlando were at first targeted shootings in a confined space. once they figured out who did it and why they did it was it appropriate to label those shootings as terrorist acts.
If your point is what is terrorism vs. a school shooting or workplace violence incident that's an important distinction, they all suck and they all create victims whose families probably don't give a fuck how in the end it's classified, but they have very different purposes and motives.
Dylan Roof, Dylan Klebold (and the other Columbine attacker), Adam Lanza (it's sad I even know those names) did not set out to randomly kill Americans to support a radical Muslim agenda. They could be considered one-off unaffiliated isolated incidents (like the Bathe bombing in the early 1900's). Not better or worse, but different.
Farook and Mateen did and from the beginning it was fairly obvious.
it was not obvious at first with farook or mateen that they had terrorist/radical Muslim inspirations, until law enforcement investigated, searched their homes, phones, interviewed family/coworkers etc and found out about their beliefs/affiliations. at first it could have been someone with a mental illness who just really hated their old workplace/homosexuals.
the man was being served a warrant for his arrest.
The police chief said he was given orders to drop the weapon several times and he didn't comply.
There is no body armor cam because the officer that shot him was undercover.
I thought the deceased was the wrong person. That the warrant was not actually for him but they approached him thinking he was the person they were looking for.
it was not obvious at first with farook or mateen that they had terrorist/radical Muslim inspirations, until law enforcement investigated, searched their homes, phones, interviewed family/coworkers etc and found out about their beliefs/affiliations. at first it could have been someone with a mental illness who just really hated their old workplace/homosexuals.
Um, what?? From Wikipedia:
Quote:
At approximately 2:00 a.m. on June 12, 2016, Mateen entered the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and began shooting. At 2:22 a.m., he made a 9-1-1 call in which he pledged allegiance to ISIL; referenced Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombers;[89] and mentioned Moner Mohammad Abu Salha, an acquaintance of his who died in a suicide bombing in Syria for the Al-Nusra Front in 2014.[103] According to FBI officials, Mateen made two other 9-1-1 calls during the shooting.[104] He also called News 13 of Orlando and identified himself as the nightclub shooter; The Washington Post reported that "he had carried out the Pulse attack for the Islamic State".[105][106]
Shit, his motivations were so obscure and hard to figure!
Are you seriously trying to make a point by comparing Raleigh to the bombings? And you're asking how people function?
The comparison is not with the situations at the detail level, it's with the overt rush to judgment and reaction by leaders and media.
After the Michael Brown shooting when "hands up don't shoot" was believed to be a true narrative, media and leadership ran with it.
President Obama without one shred of investigation or even a question asked said Michael Brown's death "stains the heart of black children" and exposed the racial divide in America.
is that not jumping to a conclusion without any shred of evidence? Not just that, but maybe the rioters and looters don't care, but some people do actually care how the leadership reacts and they take their cue from them.
The point on bombings is the same people bend over backward not to jump to conclusions, not for fear of rioting, but for fear of backlash against the innocent and fear of being politically incorrect.
If you don't see that as a contradiction and if you can't see how they're publicly handled differently I think you're trying hard not to.
Or maybe I'm doing the opposite, hard to tell anymore.
the man was being served a warrant for his arrest.
The police chief said he was given orders to drop the weapon several times and he didn't comply.
There is no body armor cam because the officer that shot him was undercover.
Thanks. I thought the warrant was being served on someone else and he was observed carrying a gun. If this is the case, they should get all the evidence out there ASAP
I thought the deceased was the wrong person. That the warrant was not actually for him but they approached him thinking he was the person they were looking for.
Original reports said it was the wrong person. Yesterday they said it was for him and they also disclosed that the family was in the process of being evicted for the last month and hadn't complied.
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
How is this relevant? What is your goal?
I think to show that that we react to similar things different, not because of the acts themselves but more because of our socialized conditioning. And also, that much of what we know, and much of what induces us to react, comes from a carefully orchestrated narrative by those that provide and massage our information.
from the reports if the warrant was tied to the eviction situation of if the warrant is indeed for another person. The answers were vague about that and the reporter's didn't press the issue. I'm sure they will today or in the coming days.
Micheal Brown was a mistake. That has nothing to do with people who get pissed because political leaders don't say "the bomber was a Muslim" the day after the attack.
I understand that one side is angry and feeling oppressed.
Does the other side get to be angry, too? Do they get to be angry about the insanely high crime and murder rate in our cities, towns, and doorsteps, about innocent people getting caught in the crossfire? And then hearing the screaming of injustice when somebody gets killed over it?
I have no sympathy for criminals that end up getting killed in the act of committing a violent crime, resisting arrest, brandishing a weapon at police or civilians. Zero. You put yourself in the situation (and make no mistake, I guarantee you most of these police killings involve somebody doing one of the above things, and not some innocent guy minding his own business when the big bad police roll up and shoot him for no reason) and you are putting your own life in your hands. Yes, there are exceptions, but I probably put them in the dying by plane crash, being murdered by another civilian (actually probably much higher odds of this), or struck by lightning odds. The decision is nobody else's but yours.
This whole current movement is based on the falsehood that the police are singling out and shooting one race of people because they are of that race. I don't believe it. The falsehoods are growing, and being perpetuated. I have no sympathy for a lie.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have a feeling that a very, VERY large majority of Americans of all nationalities and colors feel the same way.
Micheal Brown was a mistake. That has nothing to do with people who get pissed because political leaders don't say "the bomber was a Muslim" the day after the attack.
It's insulting when the bomber was a Muslim and had reported ties to terrorist activity whether through facebook (or his father reporting him as a possible terrorist to the FBI) and still not hearing people classify it as an act of terrorism.
I'm not going to debate this, it's like Facebook political debates (which I read but don't engage in).
Micheal Brown was a mistake. That has nothing to do with people who get pissed because political leaders don't say "the bomber was a Muslim" the day after the attack.
It has everything to do with it, but you're too simple to figure it out or being deliberately stupid.
The leaders didn't come out and say 'act of terrorism' to protect Muslim citizens and keep tempers under control. That's fine - that's what they're elected to do.
Why are they not doing the same here? Because you feel it wouldn't serve a purpose? How does it serve a purpose in one case and not another?
The officers under attack here deserve the same protection from government officials, but they're not getting it.
Yes, I agree with the way the response to the bombings was handled.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
Yes, I agree with the way the response to the bombings was handled.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
You are the dumbest person alive - so they said that to not credit ISIS?!
What are they calling those attacks today, crimes of passion?
not because of whether or not an act is called terrorism or appeals for calm or whatever, but because in both cases outliers are used to define the whole. But only with Islam and terrorism do people, especially leaders and media, make any effort to correct that impression.
not because of whether or not an act is called terrorism or appeals for calm or whatever, but because in both cases outliers are used to define the whole. But only with Islam and terrorism do people, especially leaders and media, make any effort to correct that impression.
that was my point, but better said by you Bill.
And AP no clue why you're digging your heels in on this, it seems pretty obvious why people bring it up now and why it's relevant.
RE: I understand that one side is angry and feeling oppressed.
Does the other side get to be angry, too? Do they get to be angry about the insanely high crime and murder rate in our cities, towns, and doorsteps, about innocent people getting caught in the crossfire? And then hearing the screaming of injustice when somebody gets killed over it?
I have no sympathy for criminals that end up getting killed in the act of committing a violent crime, resisting arrest, brandishing a weapon at police or civilians. Zero. You put yourself in the situation (and make no mistake, I guarantee you most of these police killings involve somebody doing one of the above things, and not some innocent guy minding his own business when the big bad police roll up and shoot him for no reason) and you are putting your own life in your hands. Yes, there are exceptions, but I probably put them in the dying by plane crash, being murdered by another civilian (actually probably much higher odds of this), or struck by lightning odds. The decision is nobody else's but yours.
This whole current movement is based on the falsehood that the police are singling out and shooting one race of people because they are of that race. I don't believe it. The falsehoods are growing, and being perpetuated. I have no sympathy for a lie.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have a feeling that a very, VERY large majority of Americans of all nationalities and colors feel the same way.
It's an awkward circumstance when saying the blatantly obvious - that we are excusing what is, for lack of a better word, fiction and the violence and chaos that ensues from it - is unacceptably racist but the sort of absurd overreaction, the credulity given to blatant lies and bullshit, the sort of reactions that feed into the hysteria that allows for rioting and looting to happen, can simply be dismissed later as an understandable reaction to systematic injustice, even if in this case (just this one case!) it turned out to be an embellishment or an untruth.
Yes, I agree with the way the response to the bombings was handled.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
You are the dumbest person alive - so they said that to not credit ISIS?!
What are they calling those attacks today, crimes of passion?
Yes, giving credit to terrorists is counter productive, as is using Islamic terrorists. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else to say.
I didn't see much on the news or on this site, but I did see a news flash that ISIS is believed to have used chemical weapons (I think one flash said mustard gas) on Americans yesterday.
If true, it's incredible news and a game-change in both terrorism and how we approach terror. Huge ramifications for the entire world. IMO, that should supersede every other headline today. But I don't think I saw it mentioned at all in my local rag. So, maybe not confirmed?
Quote:
Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
Quote:
really. Have been tied up at work all day and just got in. Had no idea any of this was happening and figured he had some take on this. I am honestly asking what his position was because I missed it.
I belive he had a round to play.
I'm guessing both of you are rocket scientists
So they should block CNN, etc from broadcasting? Shut down social media?
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
Quote:
In comment 13135596 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
That's the talk radio line. It aells
Your act is tired.
Quote:
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
Quote:
should be trying to get cooler heads to prevail here as well, and that doesn't seem to be the case.
So they should block CNN, etc from broadcasting? Shut down social media?
So what, you're stuck on two modes, pedophile or moron?
Because only a moron would walk away with that from what Chris posted. Our senior leaders should be trying to get people to cool off, no different than when bombs went off in NYC, so as to avoid collateral damage to innocent people.
it doesn't necessarily mean they are from a different city, but the outside agitators are people who piggyback off the nonviolent protestors and use these incidents as a pretext to loot, start riots etc. they are outside because they aren't really interested or involvemd with any movements like BLM that are interested in constructive change or peaceful protests
Quote:
In comment 13135596 bradshaw44 said:
Quote:
Absolutely awful. Man Beaten Visciously - ( New Window )
Wow that is very disturbing. Looks like a hate crime to me.
Black on white crime isnt newsworthy though so I dont think this will make the MSM.
You can't be serious. Your types constantly say, "What about black on black crime?" Now you're complaining the media doesn't care about "black on white crime". Yet every time I watch the 6 o'clock news, there's nothing but wall to wall black/hispanic dudes with readily available mug shots doing perp walks. Whatever point you're trying to make is ridiculous.
Tell me what kind of media coverage would happen if a mob of whites dragged a black bystander into a parking garage, kicked and punched him and then stripped him of his clothes and it was all caught on tape? It would be national news, Obama would make a speech, there would be more riots and you know it.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
Quote:
In comment 13135593 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
The Michael Brown lawyer was on Fox last night and Kelly ripped him to shreds about how he lied and was wrong about his case and why its similar to this one in Charlotte. The lawyer said he didnt want to talk about his case, even though he was making the same case despite evidence showing he was wrong.
I dont understand why black leaders think its ok to justifying riots and attacks on police officers/civilians when the police officers were initially right.
Quote:
In comment 13135623 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13135593 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
was columbine a terrorist attack? Charleston? Sandy Hook? because those were also mass shootings targeting a specific set of individuals but the T word is never used. san Bernardino and Orlando were at first targeted shootings in a confined space. once they figured out who did it and why they did it was it appropriate to label those shootings as terrorist acts.
If your point is what is terrorism vs. a school shooting or workplace violence incident that's an important distinction, they all suck and they all create victims whose families probably don't give a fuck how in the end it's classified, but they have very different purposes and motives.
Dylan Roof, Dylan Klebold (and the other Columbine attacker), Adam Lanza (it's sad I even know those names) did not set out to randomly kill Americans to support a radical Muslim agenda. They could be considered one-off unaffiliated isolated incidents (like the Bathe bombing in the early 1900's). Not better or worse, but different.
Farook and Mateen did and from the beginning it was fairly obvious.
Nice misdirection. Did you think it was wrong of the president and mayor and governor of NYC to come out and say we shouldn't rush to judgement with the bombings?
Some of you are such sheep when it comes to your political views it's laughable.
This is why we need videos.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
Exactly, and if that's the case, how can we even have a discussion?
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
A think a lot of people have a misconception about what "leaders" telling people to "calm down until we have the facts" will accomplish. People who riot and loot aren't interested in any of that. The rest of the people simply don't trust any aspect of the criminal justice system, including those collecting "the facts".
So people tend to blame "leaders" and the media when the real issue is a complete lack of faith and trust in the competency, transparency, and the impartiality of law enforcement. That's why you see rushes to judgment in cases that quite possibly may be 100% the fault of the person shot/killed. The sad part is it isn't some subset of blacks that feel this way... most of us do.
Maybe everyone will ignore it - so is that a reason to skip trying something that has absolutely no cost or downside associated with it?
How do you people function in real life?
Quote:
Do you think people are watching the news or listening to politicians?
Nice misdirection. Did you think it was wrong of the president and mayor and governor of NYC to come out and say we shouldn't rush to judgement with the bombings?
Some of you are such sheep when it comes to your political views it's laughable.
I heard many politicians request calm. The comparison to the bombings is ridiculous. What is the point or goal in saying Islam is to blame? There's where he was going with it
Crispino : 9:50 am : link : reply
that nothing on the video will prove that police acted properly in this shooting. Further, she stated that even if the video shows that the victim had a gun, it doesn't matter because he might not have posed a threat with it. This after saying that the cops have to release the video. So they have to release the video, but if it doesn't advance the anti cop point of view, it's meaningless.
Well, we can thank the head of the Charlotte NAACP for her leadership.
Yesterday, there was a news conference with black ministers present and they were discussing the reports that a gun was recovered and asked if that changed the statement from the day before that the man was unarmed, sitting in his car reading a book. The exact words were "The question isn't if the man had a gun. It is if he pointed the gun or threatened the police. If he did notr, he did not deserve to die". To which another minister in the background yells "No, sir. Did not deserve to die." and then several gave an "Amen".
I'd say it was comical, but I'm finding little to laugh about with the way this story is portrayed. We are going to find out that a bunch of people got violent and tore shit up because they initially believed a white cop killed an unarmed black man in a car reading a book, waiting to give his son hugs.
The reality is probably going to be that the man had a gun in his hand as he approached police, that he had a warrant out for his arrest already and that the officer was black.
Tell me what about that situation deserved violence as a community response?
In either situation, the objective was clear - to keep people from making rash judgements and emotional reactions that could cause problems for innocent people.
When cameramen from media organizations are being beaten and thrown into fires in *THIS* country, it's time for someone up top to tell everyone to take a deep breath and calm the fuck down. And that's not happening.
The police chief said he was given orders to drop the weapon several times and he didn't comply.
There is no body armor cam because the officer that shot him was undercover.
Seriously, yes.
And I know how you function, with a white van out by the middle school.
This is why we need videos.
I assume he was told to drop the weapon.
Quote:
In comment 13135629 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 13135623 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13135593 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
that with the terrorist attacks, we can generally anticipate what the outcome is going to be, despite the insistence that we not rush to judgment. There are little mysteries involved, the how and the why of radicalization, what if any help he had, etc etc, but the basics of it (ISIS inspired, equipped and/or trained killing in the name of faith as he understands it) have been pretty consistent for the last couple years.
I fundamentally disagree that there is an insistence that we don't rush to judgment for terrorist attacks.
at first the attack on saturday looked like it could have been a targeted attack against an individual or business (outside an Israeli jewlerry store) rather than a random act of violence designed to maximize casualties. so to say right away that it was definitely terrorism is reckless.
contrast that with the boston marathon bombings, the paris terrorist attacks, and others where it was clear that the perpetrators were terrorists seeking to kill and people right away used the "t" word.
San Bernardino was classified as "Workplace violence" initially, Orlando they tried to say was a closet gay guy, almost never will any political official or media outlet assume terrorism even when all initial signs point that way without first exploring every other possible option.
there are many reasons for this, some should be obvious to you, and it's not really debatable.
and in some cases there is some restraint on police violence conclusions, but not typically, you only need to look at Michael Brown for the best example and look how our leaders reacted to it.
was columbine a terrorist attack? Charleston? Sandy Hook? because those were also mass shootings targeting a specific set of individuals but the T word is never used. san Bernardino and Orlando were at first targeted shootings in a confined space. once they figured out who did it and why they did it was it appropriate to label those shootings as terrorist acts.
If your point is what is terrorism vs. a school shooting or workplace violence incident that's an important distinction, they all suck and they all create victims whose families probably don't give a fuck how in the end it's classified, but they have very different purposes and motives.
Dylan Roof, Dylan Klebold (and the other Columbine attacker), Adam Lanza (it's sad I even know those names) did not set out to randomly kill Americans to support a radical Muslim agenda. They could be considered one-off unaffiliated isolated incidents (like the Bathe bombing in the early 1900's). Not better or worse, but different.
Farook and Mateen did and from the beginning it was fairly obvious.
The police chief said he was given orders to drop the weapon several times and he didn't comply.
There is no body armor cam because the officer that shot him was undercover.
I thought the deceased was the wrong person. That the warrant was not actually for him but they approached him thinking he was the person they were looking for.
Quote:
Are you seriously trying to make a point by comparing Raleigh to the bombings? And you're asking how people function?
Seriously, yes.
And I know how you function, with a white van out by the middle school.
And in what way are they similar? Perhaps the rioting ended in NYC after they refused to use terrorism?
Um, what?? From Wikipedia:
Shit, his motivations were so obscure and hard to figure!
The comparison is not with the situations at the detail level, it's with the overt rush to judgment and reaction by leaders and media.
After the Michael Brown shooting when "hands up don't shoot" was believed to be a true narrative, media and leadership ran with it.
President Obama without one shred of investigation or even a question asked said Michael Brown's death "stains the heart of black children" and exposed the racial divide in America.
is that not jumping to a conclusion without any shred of evidence? Not just that, but maybe the rioters and looters don't care, but some people do actually care how the leadership reacts and they take their cue from them.
The point on bombings is the same people bend over backward not to jump to conclusions, not for fear of rioting, but for fear of backlash against the innocent and fear of being politically incorrect.
If you don't see that as a contradiction and if you can't see how they're publicly handled differently I think you're trying hard not to.
Or maybe I'm doing the opposite, hard to tell anymore.
but that's how I see it.
The police chief said he was given orders to drop the weapon several times and he didn't comply.
There is no body armor cam because the officer that shot him was undercover.
Thanks. I thought the warrant was being served on someone else and he was observed carrying a gun. If this is the case, they should get all the evidence out there ASAP
Original reports said it was the wrong person. Yesterday they said it was for him and they also disclosed that the family was in the process of being evicted for the last month and hadn't complied.
Quote:
In comment 13135657 AP in Halfmoon said:
Quote:
Are you seriously trying to make a point by comparing Raleigh to the bombings? And you're asking how people function?
Seriously, yes.
And I know how you function, with a white van out by the middle school.
And in what way are they similar? Perhaps the rioting ended in NYC after they refused to use terrorism?
Do you or do you not agree with the political leadership's decision to make those statements in NYC? Yes, or no.
If yes - why did they make those statements?
And if yes - why would those same statements not be applicable here?
It's not hard - unless you're a mouth breathing idiot who's too busy furthering his political agenda to admit that leadership is fucking up big time.
Quote:
Why in this country are Islamic terrorists offered the benefit of the doubt yet our own police officers are assumed guilty?
In one week you have bombs explode in the streets of our largest city putting hundreds of people at risk and yet our leaders Obama, Clinton, deBlasio, etc. are sure we must not all rush to judgement or speak before gathering facts.
Then you look at what's going on in Charlotte and you have outrage over a situation that still has a lot of questions to be answered but even still, at least on the surface, appears to be a man with a gun refusing police orders to drop his weapon.
Where are those same leaders now, calling for patience, and a steady hand until more facts are known?
How is this relevant? What is your goal?
I have no sympathy for criminals that end up getting killed in the act of committing a violent crime, resisting arrest, brandishing a weapon at police or civilians. Zero. You put yourself in the situation (and make no mistake, I guarantee you most of these police killings involve somebody doing one of the above things, and not some innocent guy minding his own business when the big bad police roll up and shoot him for no reason) and you are putting your own life in your hands. Yes, there are exceptions, but I probably put them in the dying by plane crash, being murdered by another civilian (actually probably much higher odds of this), or struck by lightning odds. The decision is nobody else's but yours.
This whole current movement is based on the falsehood that the police are singling out and shooting one race of people because they are of that race. I don't believe it. The falsehoods are growing, and being perpetuated. I have no sympathy for a lie.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have a feeling that a very, VERY large majority of Americans of all nationalities and colors feel the same way.
It's insulting when the bomber was a Muslim and had reported ties to terrorist activity whether through facebook (or his father reporting him as a possible terrorist to the FBI) and still not hearing people classify it as an act of terrorism.
I'm not going to debate this, it's like Facebook political debates (which I read but don't engage in).
It has everything to do with it, but you're too simple to figure it out or being deliberately stupid.
The leaders didn't come out and say 'act of terrorism' to protect Muslim citizens and keep tempers under control. That's fine - that's what they're elected to do.
Why are they not doing the same here? Because you feel it wouldn't serve a purpose? How does it serve a purpose in one case and not another?
The officers under attack here deserve the same protection from government officials, but they're not getting it.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
You are the dumbest person alive - so they said that to not credit ISIS?!
What are they calling those attacks today, crimes of passion?
that was my point, but better said by you Bill.
And AP no clue why you're digging your heels in on this, it seems pretty obvious why people bring it up now and why it's relevant.
I have no sympathy for criminals that end up getting killed in the act of committing a violent crime, resisting arrest, brandishing a weapon at police or civilians. Zero. You put yourself in the situation (and make no mistake, I guarantee you most of these police killings involve somebody doing one of the above things, and not some innocent guy minding his own business when the big bad police roll up and shoot him for no reason) and you are putting your own life in your hands. Yes, there are exceptions, but I probably put them in the dying by plane crash, being murdered by another civilian (actually probably much higher odds of this), or struck by lightning odds. The decision is nobody else's but yours.
This whole current movement is based on the falsehood that the police are singling out and shooting one race of people because they are of that race. I don't believe it. The falsehoods are growing, and being perpetuated. I have no sympathy for a lie.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I have a feeling that a very, VERY large majority of Americans of all nationalities and colors feel the same way.
+1 good post
Quote:
Yes, I agree with the way the response to the bombings was handled.
They didn't know if he was a lunatic or had direct ties with ISIS. Whenever we blame or credit Islamic terrorists we give them a win and encourage others to seek glory.
This situations couldn't be more different.
You are the dumbest person alive - so they said that to not credit ISIS?!
What are they calling those attacks today, crimes of passion?
Yes, giving credit to terrorists is counter productive, as is using Islamic terrorists. If you don't understand that I'm not sure what else to say.
Have a nice day.
If true, it's incredible news and a game-change in both terrorism and how we approach terror. Huge ramifications for the entire world. IMO, that should supersede every other headline today. But I don't think I saw it mentioned at all in my local rag. So, maybe not confirmed?