It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Looks like the Left will be destroying St. Louis tonight

page: 36
31
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Absolutely. Generally Black Americans and those who support them aren't moving toward any sort of resolution of these issues by rioting, shutting down roads and interstates, vandalism, etc. etc.

On the other hand, all these vague generic attempts to classify all of these events as the same as White kids rioting in Berkeley or even worse, dehumanizing Black Americans simply into terms like "left" or "leftist" is absolutely not solving any problems either.


Well I agree the labeling is not good, the truth is its hard to not use labels in a conversation. I don't want to speak for the OP, but if I said the left will riot (which I didn't) I certainly would mean more than just black people.

You are right about groups like antifa that riot. Most are wealthy white kids.

In fact, although I dislike most of what BLM has to say, I applauded them in dallas a week after charlotteville because they told antifa to stop being violent and co opting their message. That was very admirable and shows the problem with applying these types of labels.




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I guess we should leave "identity politics" for another day, LOL.

My first question in that would be, however, what isn't "identity politics"?

We all identify with groups. We all conform to the group's beliefs and behaviors.

Given that, it becomes questionable to me how valuable that is as a concept.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

"ANTIFA" is an interesting problem for me to the extent that part of the overall ideology is vigilante justice.

I can't seem to find a cohesive position on that concept.

I'm very clear on activities like five on one knocking someone, anyone, down and kicking/beating them: that's nothing more than gangland terrorism.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
A free media is both a blessing and a curse for certain.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

I guess we should leave "identity politics" for another day, LOL.

My first question in that would be, however, what isn't "identity politics"?

We all identify with groups. We all conform to the group's beliefs and behaviors.

Given that, it becomes questionable to me how valuable that is as a concept.


Of course we all identify with groups. The three differences in what I am talking about are this. 1) claiming that a person is nothing more than the sum of the groups they are in (in other words refusing to allow for individuality) 2) fabricating group divisions based on physical characteristics rather than thoughts. 3.) claiming the other group is not just wrong, they are bad

It is perfectly understandable to break into groups based on ideas, for example peole that want lower txes vs people that want more gov programs.

What is not helpful is to break into groups for things like race, gender, etc. Of course some grouping of this nature is perfectly reasonable and healthy, I have no problem with men or womens clubs, black or white heritage celebrations, etc.

But when combined with number one and three, and we start to view these characteristics as all that matters, problems arise.

So we have people making a sort of list, and one side of that list is oppressors and the other is victims.

Whites vs. blacks, rich vs. poor, able vs. disable, attractive vs. unattractive, etc.

So in this case, we have people who seek to profit off of this divisiveness by making this all about race.


edit on 19-9-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It may not be helpful to break into groups based on race and gender ... but our society does it.

You're challenging absolutism and/or false dichotomy which I don't disagree with.

I'm not sure how valuable it is to avoid talking about or acknowledging race here as a factor.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So, to avoid all the talky-talk ... it's your theory that if cops are excessively violent and/or cross the legal line, it's the fault of the area they work in, not their own responsibility?

Yes or no?


Cause and effect my friend. In this case two wrongs equal a crappy place to live...



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Grambler





It appears as if around 30 have been confimred killedd, though I didn't delve deep into it.


Any chance of a link ?

I'm only curious as I'm betting the stats don't add up, its not that I think you love numbers, its simply if you are using stats as a base for an argument you have to be 100% sure those stats you are using are accurate.


Can't link now but this is not a very good argument.

If the American heart association says 1 million people died of heart attacks last year and so people should watch their weight, you saying actually is was only 999,997 that died therefore we can't look at those numbers, so there is no need to watch your weight, that would be ridiculous.

So I linked the study's and stats from the fib and other places regarding violent crime numbers in these communities.

In adsition, a cursory look at a newspaper in these communities will show you how much violence there is there.

So please feel free to show me how these numbers are so massively wrong.





Perhaps, the reason I am interested in the stats is because they are easily skewed, so I would argue using stats as a basis for a factual argument is benign.

I cannot use you links from earlier as a gauge because I have nothing to use as a comparison , if you could link me evidence or stats of the deaths caused by Irma I could find additional information that could possibly show the error of the stats used to gauge the number of deaths. ?

Its only a small part of my argument however it is needed.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Indeed.

Where have all the Cowboys gone?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 12:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
Law enforcement, officers, courts, judges, juries and burden of proof. Throw it all away. The only justice today is held in the court of public opinion and sentences are carried out by the mob.

Well, perhaps a touch hyperbolic but we are headed that way and with increasing velocity.


My sentiments exactly



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Still waiting for you to provide the link to STLMPD policies procedures guidelines to know if he violated any rules.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

and yet in the 3 different videos not once do you see him with a weapon to plant.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
In rough order of your offering ...

Good deal. So, as opposed to your previous statement that no crime scene was involved, we now have established that basic fact at least. Magnificent.


No we are correcting the misinformation you posted.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
I don't pretend to be an expert, indeed. That doesn't mean that I can't look at the facts and make reasonable observations, even though it is your silly tactic to suggest that only an "expert" can make observations here, when you, who always present yourself as an "expert" continue to make the most bone-headed mistakes in your "analysis" that it's hardly any fun to even argue with you.

Again what you are doing is applying rules / laws that either dont exist or dont apply to this situation. While you dont have to be an expert some basic knowledge of laws and scotus rulings, in addition to crime scene investigatons would go a long way in helping you understand these situations and by extension cut down on the mistakes you make with your "analysis". Even when people who are trained / versed in law enforcement give their info you dismiss it. Reinforcing the fact you should probably know and understand the laws rulings in question before making a non expert uneducated opinion while telling those who do know they are wrong.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
For example, you tried to suggest that the interior of Smith's car was not a crime scene. You tried to suggest that there was nothing wrong with Stockley's handling of evidence without proper protection, thereby contaminating it, only to reverse yourself and accuse me of not understanding procedures.

I never made that claim or inferred it. I was correcting a false claim that you made. Handling evidence without proper protection? That would be immediately securing a firearm and making it safe. Since you cant provide us the link to the departments policies procedures guidelines his is another one of your uninformed guesses. A gu4ess that is completely wrong by the way.

It was not "contaminated". There was DNA transfer on the item and nothing more. A situation that is easily correctable since all law enforcement info is on record with the state crime lab and in some cases, dna profiles. since he was on scene and secured the weapon his dna was bound to be present. That foreign dna is located and identified and logged.

It didnt contaminate anything.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
You're squirming an awful lot here.

not at all.. just annoyed at your accusations that lack any5thing to back them up coupled with your opinions on how you think crime scene investigations work when in reality you don.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
Gloves aren't required? Why did all the other officers working the scene have them on then? Why did Stockley have them on and then take them off?

These kinds of statements have zero credibility.

Yes your statements and guesses and have zero credibility. What part of limiting scene access confused you? What part of locating and securing the weapon immediately after the shooting confused you? What part of 9 backup officers should not be entering a crime scene if they are not needed confuses you?

Why were they wearing gloves?

Well off the top of my head you have a shot suspect and bio protection is of utmost importance. This is what I am talking about with your guesses. Since you arent familiar you completely ignore other aspects and just assume they are gloved up for one specific reason when there are other reasons you dont consider because, in your non expert opinion, you dont know about them to consider it.

What was the suspect shot with?
What type of ammunition was used?
Where was the suspect shot?
How many times was he shot in each location?
What are the physical attributes of the suspect?
What did the suspects body do as he was shot each time?
In the parts he was hit what was the damage to?
How did that damage affect suspect blood flow?
What was the final position the suspect ended up in while in the car?
How was he removed from the car and in doing so, what parts of his body that were hit came into contact with anything in the car?
Was the suspect armed with any weapons, hidden or otherwise?
Was the suspect searched for weapons, hidden or otherwise?
How did that search occur and what affected areas came into contact with the officer doing the search?
Who provided first aid to the suspect until EMS arrived?
How may officers assisted EMS?
How many officers went with EMS to the Hospital?

Thats just off the top of my head but its been a few years since I became a state certified crime scene investigator so im sure there are items im overlooking.

But your right... your non expert opinion should be considered of for no other reason that to serve as an example of why making assumptions and uneducated guesses dont work in this type of environment.
edit on 20-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-9-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I've been trying to respond to this post for two days now... or is it three days???... This must be three days... and two more people have died at the hands of police in just that time!!!

I just can't do it right now. I'm too angry and worked up and I keep getting too snarky. And snarky just isn't practical right now.

I'll keep thinking about it -- how can I not? But I'm just not up to responding appropriately right now. Sorry



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

What a waste of time replying to anything you type ... here's a few dashed off responses:

No, you're not correcting anything, you're desperately trying to cover for absurdities you type like saying that Smith's vehicle was not a crime scene.

Right. You, in your alleged expertise, claim that there's nothing wrong with a cop corrupting a crime scene.

I'm not confused, nor am I mistaken. Neither were the prosecutors, who have raised THE SAME ISSUES I DID. And guess what, Stockley's "Brother Officers" tried the same crap you're trying here.

Your critiques are as dishonest as your statements, and a slightly more complex ad hominem attempt.

Didn't work.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gryphon66

I've been trying to respond to this post for two days now... or is it three days???... This must be three days... and two more people have died at the hands of police in just that time!!!

I just can't do it right now. I'm too angry and worked up and I keep getting too snarky. And snarky just isn't practical right now.

I'll keep thinking about it -- how can I not? But I'm just not up to responding appropriately right now. Sorry


Bo, there's no reason to try to salvage this thread. We'll just let it die.

Thanks for attempting to bring reason and a love of freedom and civil rights to the discussion.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Thanks for attempting to bring reason and a love of freedom and civil rights to the discussion.


Right back atcha. Thank you for fighting the good fight.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Way to deflect however the fact remains you cant defend your position because its undefendable given the facts. So instead you deflect in hopes no one notices.

Why dont you take another shot at defending the position you presented.

We will wait..



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Is St. Louis destroyed yet?



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Is St. Louis destroyed yet?


Not completely but a lot of damage has been done.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in

join