Trevor Noah "Why the second amendment doesn't apply to black people".

originally posted by: blueman12
Here is a clip of trevor noah, from the daily show, commenting on how another innocent black man gets shot by police because he was using his second amendment rights. Interesting how you hardly ever hear of black people getting talked down from a shooting spree or potential one.

The big problem is that liberals have successfully created the view that legally having a gun on you is now viewed as illegal and wrong. If I was to walk down most streets in major cities with a legal open carry gun on me the police would shortly approach me and tell me that I'm making people nervous as liberals call in that I'm armed and I should put up the gun and/or leave the area.

The otherside of this is it also depends on the part of the country you live in. Alabama has a rather large number of black gang members that happen to be young black men with guns, so call the cop actions racist, or human nature, I don't know, but I'm sure the environment doesn't help.

originally posted by: smkymcnugget420

Being a black man, I do tend to take certain precautions in how I present myself, particularly around cops

a reply to: Edumakated

Being a white man...so do i. Our hearts drop when we see a cop behind us just the same.

This. My whole life as a Caucasian, the dozen or so times I’ve been pulled over since the mid-70s, my dome light goes on, window goes down, and both hands go on top of steering wheel until I get further instructions from the officer. It’s really just the smart thing to do.

a reply to: blueman12

Yes because white people are NEVER shot by cops.

a reply to: blueman12

You're right; Black men are killed by police at a disproportionately higher rate than other demographics. Both armed and unarmed Black men. And racist cops compound the problem. As do LE brass and unions and fraternities.

And it doesn't matter because that's not how and why they get away with it. There is no law that says it's okay for cops to kill Black people. There's no law protecting White people like Danny Shaver from death by police.

The problem is the Supreme Court decision in Tennessee vs Garner, which ruled that cops can use lethal force whenever they "fear" for their lives. No actual threat needs to be made. No aggressive or violent act needs to take place. If the cop "believes" there "might" be a threat, the cop can kill anyone and everyone to protect himself.

Thus virtually eliminating any possibility for a jury to convict. If the cop says he feared for his life, that's the get out of jail free card. No actual threat necessary.

And under those rules of engagement, innocent people will die... As will would be heroes like EJ.

Challenging and fighting Tennessee vs Garner is the first priority for changing the status quo.

And it's also why the ones with the power to do so -- but refuse to do so -- want you and me focused on and arguing about the racism instead of the law.

Divide-and-conquer.

a reply to: Boadicea

Tennessee v Garner more specifically requires that a reasonable fear be there. An officer can't, or isn't supposed to be able to, just say "oh that dude is scary so lemme pop a few in him." Point of fact, after the Garner decision, homicides by police actually dropped because SCOTUS directed states to abolish laws allowing police to shoot people for the simple act of running away.

Study by Northwestern University into the effect of the Garner decision.

So trying to portray the Garner decision as something that gave law enforcement free reign to shoot people on a whim isn't supported by the data.

Take the Shaver shooting. Personally, I feel it's a bad shooting. By law? That's different, considering the case law we have to work with. The totality of the circumstances and facts available at the time were that they had an unsecured male coming out of a room that had been seen waving a gun out of his window. Until the subject is searched, you don't know what he does or doesn't have concealed on him.

To challenge the Garner decision you're going to have to legislate, very specifically, something that takes fractions of seconds to happen and covers a wide range of circumstances.

At what point does a threat become real versus reasonably perceived? Is it when a gun is produced? Is it when a gun is pointed in the direction of a person? Is it when a finger touches the trigger? Is it some combination of all those elements? Is it when shots are actually fired? Again, keep in mind that you're writing this very specific legislation to address, specifically, something that can happen in dozens or hundreds of ways, each of which can take a fraction of a second to materialize. All of which has to be observed, interpreted, and responded to by a human, not a robot.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Fair enough -- you do make some good points that have to be considered and addressed. Which I appreciate, so thank you. It is important to me to take proper care for our LEOs too -- optimal care and protection!

I'm going to read your words again (and probably again!) and ponder it all in various pertinent contexts.