Dallas police sergeant files federal suit accusing Black Lives Matter [for] anti-cop violence

a reply to: Boadicea

Good for him, and he's clearly got a case. There is simply no excuse for people promoting violence against the police. The cases they use to excuse their actions aren't even good cases. Every single time, we find out that the person was attacking police, and was a criminal of some sort. Chanting things like, "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" is flat out inciting violence, and is illegal.

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: ChesterJohn
or a sensible human would just see this as more political point scoring and throw it out.

Your point is well taken. But I would like to see it go forward, through discovery and witness depositions and see what the evidence/testimony yields -- especially more specifics of the coordination/collusion between BLM and the DOJ and other government agencies/officials. I've seen plenty of rabble rousing and not nearly enough statesmanship -- from anyone.

Hope wins against this violent group.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Good for him, and he's clearly got a case.

Yes, but I'm not sure he has standing, because he personally suffered no particular harm as a result. Perhaps a class action lawsuit would have been more appropriate (for many reasons). Or why not file on behalf of the families of the slain officers, who would definitely have standing. It's one reason I question the motivations of the lawsuit.

The cases they use to excuse their actions aren't even good cases.

I agree to the extent that they do seem to focus like a laser on some cases that seem less worthy than others; but on the other hand, there are too many times when law enforcement could have and should have done better, too many times when they created, perpetuated and escalated a dangerous situation, too many times when law enforcement has protected the bad guys -- even from fellow LEO whistleblowers -- and too many times when opinions and hearsay and inconclusive evidence is presented as "fact" and "truth."

Chanting things like, "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" is flat out inciting violence, and is illegal.

Exactly... the word that comes to mind is "deplorable." Oh the irony...

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Good for him, and he's clearly got a case.

Yes, but I'm not sure he has standing, because he personally suffered no particular harm as a result. Perhaps a class action lawsuit would have been more appropriate (for many reasons). Or why not file on behalf of the families of the slain officers, who would definitely have standing. It's one reason I question the motivations of the lawsuit.

He hasn't been injured, perhaps, but I don't think we can say he's suffered no harm at all. Being treated as a target, as the police have been, will be stressful, and can cause all sorts of mental anguish. His family will surely be concerned, as well, far more than the usual. Plus, as a police officer, he was threatened by their statements, as is true for any cop. Far more threatened than some college kid demanding a "safe space" because they share a skin color with some guy who was shot while attacking the police. Legally, I think he has standing, but I am not a lawyer. Guess we will have to see, in that case. Perhaps the families of the cops attacked and/or killed could file similar lawsuits. I'd like to see that!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The cases they use to excuse their actions aren't even good cases.

I agree to the extent that they do seem to focus like a laser on some cases that seem less worthy than others; but on the other hand, there are too many times when law enforcement could have and should have done better, too many times when they created, perpetuated and escalated a dangerous situation, too many times when law enforcement has protected the bad guys -- even from fellow LEO whistleblowers -- and too many times when opinions and hearsay and inconclusive evidence is presented as "fact" and "truth."

There are cases like that, of course, because cops are people, and that means a bad apple now and then. That said, I see cases like that ignored by these groups. Ever hear, for example, of Sandra Bland? I hadn't, and when I did, it wasn't from those groups! Now THAT was a case of "bad behavior" on the part of the police! Some cases of that sort aren't black victims, either, so they are ignored by these groups. The homeless man shot down is one that comes to mind. Watching that video, I saw murder.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Chanting things like, "pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" is flat out inciting violence, and is illegal.

Exactly... the word that comes to mind is "deplorable." Oh the irony...

Exactly! This one should prove interesting, at any rate!

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

He hasn't been injured, perhaps, but I don't think we can say he's suffered no harm at all.

I agree -- definitely. Every cop had/has a target painted on their back. I'm just not sure courts would necessarily consider that "legal standing." I'm hoping there's something there that can qualify him according to the legal terms. I just don't know. I'm basing much of my thinking upon the many Birther court cases that were dismissed for lack of legal standing; I think a case with another candidate from a small party was able to attain that legal standing though. It might be that because law enforcement officers were specifically targeted -- as opposed to the population as a whole -- that law enforcement officers would have that legal standing. I think that specific targeting is a big difference. I hope the court does as well.

I see cases like that ignored by these groups. Ever hear, for example, of Sandra Bland? I hadn't, and when I did, it wasn't from those groups! Now THAT was a case of "bad behavior" on the part of the police! Some cases of that sort aren't black victims, either, so they are ignored by these groups. The homeless man shot down is one that comes to mind. Watching that video, I saw murder.

Yes -- excellent examples. Just more reason not to trust BLM. The proof is in the pudding... or as Jesus said, we shall know them by the fruits of their labors. BLM obviously doesn't want to really address police brutality as a whole; nor do they seem to want real solutions. So just what is their game??? That's why I'd love to see discovery take place and depositions and all of that so we can see what they were really trying to achieve -- besides total mayhem and chaos.

good for him, I hope it destroys that ghetto club of cop haters

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

He hasn't been injured, perhaps, but I don't think we can say he's suffered no harm at all.

I agree -- definitely. Every cop had/has a target painted on their back. I'm just not sure courts would necessarily consider that "legal standing." I'm hoping there's something there that can qualify him according to the legal terms. I just don't know. I'm basing much of my thinking upon the many Birther court cases that were dismissed for lack of legal standing; I think a case with another candidate from a small party was able to attain that legal standing though. It might be that because law enforcement officers were specifically targeted -- as opposed to the population as a whole -- that law enforcement officers would have that legal standing. I think that specific targeting is a big difference. I hope the court does as well.

I hope so, too. A lot of times, i swear it's more a case of the personal opinion of some judge than of any actual legal precedent. Cops have been targeted, though, and he has a case, as far as I am personally concerned. Such a case needs to be handled, too, so that this sort of nonsense stops. It's beyond out of control. With the "birther" cases (and I really dislike that term), you'd think that anyone voting would have had a case, but they claimed otherwise.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I see cases like that ignored by these groups. Ever hear, for example, of Sandra Bland? I hadn't, and when I did, it wasn't from those groups! Now THAT was a case of "bad behavior" on the part of the police! Some cases of that sort aren't black victims, either, so they are ignored by these groups. The homeless man shot down is one that comes to mind. Watching that video, I saw murder.

Yes -- excellent examples. Just more reason not to trust BLM. The proof is in the pudding... or as Jesus said, we shall know them by the fruits of their labors. BLM obviously doesn't want to really address police brutality as a whole; nor do they seem to want real solutions. So just what is their game??? That's why I'd love to see discovery take place and depositions and all of that so we can see what they were really trying to achieve -- besides total mayhem and chaos.

Exactly! Their actions, and the cases they choose, show that their real goal isn't to address any actual wrongdoing on the part of police. Some individuals, sure, might be involved, and believe that's the point, but they are being used. The real game? Massive unrest, and disruption, I believe, is the goal here. Anything to add to the list of reasons to allow someone to take over completely. That discovery would be something, wouldn't it? Assuming, of course, the data wasn't destroyed! We've seen that happen often enough these days!

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The real game? Massive unrest, and disruption, I believe, is the goal here. Anything to add to the list of reasons to allow someone to take over completely.

Just what we're seeing in Charlotte right now. BLM was all over that QUICK! I don't understand how they have the resources on the ground to do so quickly, but they sure did. I heard "BLM" as soon as I heard "protest." The amounts of money they've been raising is obscene. This isn't grassroots anything. This is well funded, well organized and well coordinated.

Yes, discovery would sure be interesting to say the least.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I think this is a perfect example of what we're talking about:

Soros Strikes - 70 Percent of Charlotte Riot Arrests Were From OUT OF STATE!

Nothing spontaneous or grassroots about this.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The real game? Massive unrest, and disruption, I believe, is the goal here. Anything to add to the list of reasons to allow someone to take over completely.

Just what we're seeing in Charlotte right now. BLM was all over that QUICK! I don't understand how they have the resources on the ground to do so quickly, but they sure did. I heard "BLM" as soon as I heard "protest." The amounts of money they've been raising is obscene. This isn't grassroots anything. This is well funded, well organized and well coordinated.

Yes, discovery would sure be interesting to say the least.

Since police have stated that around 70% arrested are from out of state, how, indeed, do they manage? You have to wonder, do they plan these cases? Sinister, I know, but that fast a response??

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I think this is a perfect example of what we're talking about:

Soros Strikes - 70 Percent of Charlotte Riot Arrests Were From OUT OF STATE!

Nothing spontaneous or grassroots about this.

Ah, you beat me to that one! How do they get them there that fast, before the case is even well known? That's some serious organization!! What, do they have busloads of people all over, just waiting to roll, and riot, or do they plan the cases that "trigger" the rioting?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

How do they get them there that fast, before the case is even well known? That's some serious organization!! What, do they have busloads of people all over, just waiting to roll, and riot, or do they plan the cases that "trigger" the rioting?

They must have something in place. My best bet at this point is that they have people monitoring radio scanners constantly, just waiting for another incident, and folks (aka rioters) on call that are quickly and easily notified and dispatched to the scene. Which means folks that don't have a regular job -- nor any real responsibilities or commitments -- who can and will up and leave at the drop of the hat for whatever blood money is offered. If the pay is good enough (and their bail is guaranteed by their masters), they're probably quite happy to turn protests into riots. After all, they get to go home again. They don't have to struggle in the chaos and destruction left behind. It's not their stuff getting ruined.

Sick. Just sick.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

How do they get them there that fast, before the case is even well known? That's some serious organization!! What, do they have busloads of people all over, just waiting to roll, and riot, or do they plan the cases that "trigger" the rioting?

They must have something in place. My best bet at this point is that they have people monitoring radio scanners constantly, just waiting for another incident, and folks (aka rioters) on call that are quickly and easily notified and dispatched to the scene. Which means folks that don't have a regular job -- nor any real responsibilities or commitments -- who can and will up and leave at the drop of the hat for whatever blood money is offered. If the pay is good enough (and their bail is guaranteed by their masters), they're probably quite happy to turn protests into riots. After all, they get to go home again. They don't have to struggle in the chaos and destruction left behind. It's not their stuff getting ruined.

Sick. Just sick.

Seems likely! Listening to the wife, I had a more sinister thought. What if he was set up? As in, they place some wanted guy in the area, knowing this guy has head issues from the TBI, arm this guy, and wait and hope he does something like he ended up doing? Creepy, I know, but her behavior seems odd to me. The whole thing seems odd, and I don't mean in a sense of the police doing anything wrong.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That is a creepy thought. I sure wouldn't put it past them... but I hate to think it.

That whole Charlotte instance strikes me as odd as well. But I'm not ready to give the cops a free pass yet. Someone died at the hands of another, and that always demands full investigation and transparency. Still too many questions. Since someone posted a video of the actual shooting in a thread, I had to see it (although I didn't want to). But I didn't see a gun. And I didn't see the holster that someone else mentioned. I saw the pics with no gun and pics with something where nothing was there before. I don't know what the truth is, so I have no opinion yet.

Maybe the cops are being set up by someone inside the department? Maybe a dispatcher? Someone who would hear immediately of officer involved shootings, and when one comes up that they know can be spun quickly and easily, they contact BLM... who can then get their narrative out first? In that scenario, perhaps they didn't have such an insider in Tulsa, which is why we didn't see rioting... but they did in Charlotte, which is why we did? Or, perhaps the insider knew it was being covered up by the department from within, and knew there would be plenty of opportunities to exploit this or that to its maximum potential -- "never let a crisis go to waste" -- which means maximum chaos and violence. The cop was charged in Tulsa, so no coverup, no potential to maximize. But maybe there is a coverup in Charlotte, so there was maximum potential for troublemaking.

And I can't forget that leaked email earlier this summer from the BLM guy (McKesson I think?) that talked about working with "Lynch" and the DOJ for their Summer of Chaos and what part they play in all this. We know Obama et al want to take our guns. They want us all to be afraid of people with guns. I don't like the focus on "did he have a gun" rather than "did he point a gun" or "did he shoot a gun." The standards are being deliberately lowered to put a target on every armed person in the country because by golly gee if you have a gun you are automatically a threat to LE.... how many people are going to be thinking twice about carrying now, knowing that? Is this a way to force us to self-disarm through attrition so to speak? And the next step of course is to take away everyone's guns because cops don't know if you're a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun, so if we take away everyone's guns, then cops will know only bad guys have guns and can shoot at will.

The only thing I know for sure is that lots of people are using this issue to create mayhem and hell for everyone and don't give a damn who gets hurt -- and killed -- in the process. None of the parties involved are offering any solutions. Just more trouble.... as if by design.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'm such an idiot.

Listening to the wife, I had a more sinister thought. What if he was set up? As in, they place some wanted guy in the area...

And then the police get a "shots fired" call and go to the area... because now that I think about it, that has happened at least a couple times recently!!!

Doh! I don't know why I didn't think of that before!!! What better way to make sure the police are already mentally and emotionally preparing for a gun fight... and lo and behold they find this confused and unstable guy with a gun...

That is so damn evil. But it sure fits. Ugh.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I think this is a perfect example of what we're talking about:

Soros Strikes - 70 Percent of Charlotte Riot Arrests Were From OUT OF STATE!

Nothing spontaneous or grassroots about this.

Yeah, but the way they crammed all those states together out east makes it easy for out of staters to visit Charlotte. Independence, VA is about 2 hours away. Rock Hill, SC is about 1 hour away. Atlanta, GA is about 4 hours away. Knoxville, TN is about 4 hours away. It's not hard for a 70 percenter to drive out to Charlotte from another state. Plus what kind of buses do you think Soros would use to bus all those hundreds of people to Charlotte? Megabus? Greyhound? Sorobus? And what was Infowars doing out there? Everybody knows they're from Texas. Why were they across the state border? Don't you think it was just a bit strange that an out of state news agency would be all the way in North Carolina? You think they visited the Appalachians while they were out there? And what is this I've been hearing about the 70% might have even been a fabrication? You don't think a spontaneous protest riot can happen? Because they can. Look at what happened when the Dallas Cowboys won a Superbowl. They had a riot about it in Dallas. I bet there were a bunch of Redskins fans there starting the whole thing, and I bet they worked with a pack load of Eagles fans to make it happen. That's fan on fan crime, and it happens all the time. It doesn't take a Soros to start a riot in this country. Sometimes it just takes a football game.

a reply to: 4003fireglo

Maybe that 70% was a complete fabrication... maybe it was completely spontaneous and grassroots... I sure don't have any independent knowledge though. If you have something concrete, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I guess we're just left with speculating on what available information is available to us.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That is a creepy thought. I sure wouldn't put it past them... but I hate to think it.

That whole Charlotte instance strikes me as odd as well. But I'm not ready to give the cops a free pass yet. Someone died at the hands of another, and that always demands full investigation and transparency. Still too many questions. Since someone posted a video of the actual shooting in a thread, I had to see it (although I didn't want to). But I didn't see a gun. And I didn't see the holster that someone else mentioned. I saw the pics with no gun and pics with something where nothing was there before. I don't know what the truth is, so I have no opinion yet.

I lean strongly toward the cops being innocent there, base don what we can see. Not 100% sure, but it is off, in some way. Her video....the way she speaks doesn't seem right, emotionally, for what she's saying. The guy had a TBI, and was using drugs, and thus would have had some head issues. What if he was put there, armed, with someone hoping he'd screw up and get shot? She was right there, taking video, almost as if prepared. He was sitting in a car, apparently near their home, to wait for a child? That alone is weird. I have a parent who waits near our house, every school day, for their kids, and they walk. Their walk is up a fairly steep hill, too. Yet he's in a car, likely armed, and using drugs, to wait for a kid?

originally posted by: Boadicea
Maybe the cops are being set up by someone inside the department? Maybe a dispatcher? Someone who would hear immediately of officer involved shootings, and when one comes up that they know can be spun quickly and easily, they contact BLM... who can then get their narrative out first? In that scenario, perhaps they didn't have such an insider in Tulsa, which is why we didn't see rioting... but they did in Charlotte, which is why we did? Or, perhaps the insider knew it was being covered up by the department from within, and knew there would be plenty of opportunities to exploit this or that to its maximum potential -- "never let a crisis go to waste" -- which means maximum chaos and violence. The cop was charged in Tulsa, so no coverup, no potential to maximize. But maybe there is a coverup in Charlotte, so there was maximum potential for troublemaking.

Now, overall, that wouldn't surprise me. Wasn't there something about a crooked 911 operator recently? No reason dispatch people couldn't be the same! With an undercover op in place there, you really have to wonder! Creepy, I know, and very sinister, but I can't get that idea out of my head.

originally posted by: Boadicea
And I can't forget that leaked email earlier this summer from the BLM guy (McKesson I think?) that talked about working with "Lynch" and the DOJ for their Summer of Chaos and what part they play in all this. We know Obama et al want to take our guns. They want us all to be afraid of people with guns. I don't like the focus on "did he have a gun" rather than "did he point a gun" or "did he shoot a gun." The standards are being deliberately lowered to put a target on every armed person in the country because by golly gee if you have a gun you are automatically a threat to LE.... how many people are going to be thinking twice about carrying now, knowing that? Is this a way to force us to self-disarm through attrition so to speak? And the next step of course is to take away everyone's guns because cops don't know if you're a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun, so if we take away everyone's guns, then cops will know only bad guys have guns and can shoot at will.

Whoa! I didn't hear about that!! And, yeah, bad news, that being armed at all is being considered a threat! Unless one is brandishing, the cops don't need to be involved. In that one case, the guy got out with gun in hand, we are told, which isn't proper carrying. Still, dangerous trend!

originally posted by: Boadicea
The only thing I know for sure is that lots of people are using this issue to create mayhem and hell for everyone and don't give a damn who gets hurt -- and killed -- in the process. None of the parties involved are offering any solutions. Just more trouble.... as if by design.

Oh, there is a design, alright! A long planned, long running design, as far as I a concerned. Interesting times!

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I'm such an idiot.

Listening to the wife, I had a more sinister thought. What if he was set up? As in, they place some wanted guy in the area...

And then the police get a "shots fired" call and go to the area... because now that I think about it, that has happened at least a couple times recently!!!

Doh! I don't know why I didn't think of that before!!! What better way to make sure the police are already mentally and emotionally preparing for a gun fight... and lo and behold they find this confused and unstable guy with a gun...

That is so damn evil. But it sure fits. Ugh.

Yes! If they can be called out for fake shootings, to target the cops, they can be called out as easily to be set up. Some people don't mind making someone else a martyr to their cause.

Evil, indeed! Fits, though, doesn't it? Has a ring of truth.