What is the hidden agenda MSM is trying to pull of with the shooting of Stephon Clark?

a reply to: donnydeevil

Right wingers screamed and yelled when police even pointed a gun at the bundy's and even whined when he was shot

Until the footage came out that he was reaching for a gun.

Yes some still defended laVoy and said he was murdered, but the majority of people in support of that theory changed tune once EVIDENCE came out.

Don't run at the police when they have their guns drawn and typically you won't get shot.

Maximum outrage (and ratings) are generated if there is video footage. Often times, shootings aren't even worth reporting unless the so-called news media has video.

Some folks just want to be an anti-hero and take on the law
Most end up statistics no matter the demographic.
"I fought the law , and the law won"- Bobby Fuller 4 and others.

IDK if this has been brought up yet but I've read that both officers were black and that one was black, the other white, and Ive read one black, the other it didn't mention. So it seems that at least one officer was black and possibly both, so that does change the narrative a bit but it seems that the news isn't reporting this.

originally posted by: CrazyK22
For days I’ve been told at work that they shot an unarmed black man in his grandmothers backyard which caused a giant protest that made the NBA cancel the game that night. Every single person fully believed an innocent dude was shot for no reason just holding a cell phone, myself included. That is till I got a call from my brother who told me he was breaking into cars and houses and ran from the police. Wait what!? So after googling “what did Stephon Clark do to get shot by police?” Link after link after link of the protests that he was shot with a cell phone by all the MSM outlets I scroll quite aways down to find out what actually happened.

So this good sematritan whom got out of jail last month was in fact breaking into cars and houses. Sprinted from the police hopped fences ducked behind a picnic table. Only to spring up and charge the officers with something in his hand in the dark.

Okay why are they trying to start riots and huge protests, nearly burying what in fact actually happened. What is the end goal here to make the racial divide so bad we all just kill each other? Can’t even approach my black friends about it as they have been fully brain washed by MSM and don’t believe he did any wrong doing. Sure they dumped their entire clips into him, they were terrified and anyone would of done the exact same. In that scenario adrenaline and fear to blame, not the officers.

I just couldn’t believe it after reading the facts and watching the footage that a single soul would protest for this dude. He was absolutely begging to be shot and doing anything in his power to make it happen it seems like. So to ATS why do you think MSM is using this to further the racial divide only concentrating on the fact he only had a cell phone and was in his grandmothers back yard?

To answer your question...to sell advertising for $$ on television, in print, and as click bait.

Just kill whomever needs killin.

originally posted by: MteWamp
Black or white, there are things you can do that can greatly increase the chances of coming out of it alive.

Do what the officers tell you, at least to the best of your ability.
If you are holding something in your hand, drop it.
Above all, don't flee and make the police chase you. I think it was Chris Rock that said "If the police have to chase you, it's a pretty safe bet they'll be bringing an ass whipping with them."

If you are confronted, in your own (or a relative’s) yard (as Mr. Clark was), by person or persons who do not identify themselves as police, Which these officers failed to do as evidenced by their own body cam video as released by the SPD, is it really wise to disarm yourself?

If so, then to what value are concealed carry laws?

If you are in your own yard, at night, perhaps investigating a disturbance, and happen to be armed, would you drop your weapon if ordered to do so by someone you don’t know and cannot identify because they are shining a blinding light in your face?

Bear in mind, this person has NOT identified themself as a police officer.

Oh, and by the way, before you have even a second to consider your response to their command,

They’ve opened fire on you.

That, is the reprehensible situation at the heart of this outcry.


The race of the officers doesn’t matter.

The race of the victim doesn’t really matter (except for the very important fact that persons of color, as in this instance, are very often the victims).

What matters, and although it is being voiced as a matter of racial bias, (it is really a matter of police training and procedure being corrupted by cognitive bias enhanced by exposure) what really matters is that in some circumstances officers are apparently, and ignorantly, pre-disposed to use deadly force when it is un-called for.

They are being conditioned to see a gun, for example, where no gun actually exists.

originally posted by: sjorges2002
Criminals are class allies to the proletariat according to Marxists.

That's funny.

Marxists see different groups - including the middle class - as class allies at different times. That's dialectical materialism ay work.

What's more, Marxists see crime as not a moral issue but a political one. Some criminals, eg prostitutes, are victims of capitalist economics. Organised crime, on the other hand, is a form of capitalism.

Of course, I can understand why some people would rather keep it simple than think.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Marx thought anyone, not working class or "Proletariat" to be considered a Lumpenproletariat, and not worth the time

"Lumpenproletariat is a term used primarily by Marxist theorists to describe the underclass devoid of class consciousness. Coined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the 1840s, they used it to refer to the "unthinking" lower strata of society exploited by reactionary and counter-revolutionary forces, particularly in the context of the revolutions of 1848. They dismissed its revolutionary potential and contrasted it with the proletariat. Among other groups, criminals, vagabonds, and prostitutes are usually included in this category."

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: donnydeevil

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: CrazyK22

It's the same thing they did with travon Martin and that other scumbag.

Fabricate a narrative that completely ignores the facts, make it about race and wait for the riots to start.

RATINGS!

Some of you right wingers are the real scumbags. The facts are that a black man was shot 20 times for a cell phone and although he was committing crimes being shot 20 times is not justice, it is murder.

Don't tell me this is not about race, they take armed white people in all the time alive but rarely do so for a minority. Some of you right wingers love to minimize these incidents because it is another minority killed, something you people love due to your imaginary war on white people.

I just had to take your post and run with it because it just demonstrates how stupid people can be made to vote a certain way.

First off, he was not shot 20 times for being black and having a cellphone.

What he was shot for is committing felonies, fleeing the scene of the crime (with a helicopter following him, no less), jumping fence after fence after fence while being told to stop, then turning around after a police chase to confront the police with something in his hand. In the dark.

So he wasn't shot for being black and having a cellphone, he was shot because he was flat out stupid.

Speaking of scumbags, this guy was one. But people who point out that he committed suicide by cop are the scumbags.

Rigghhhttt.

They take in armed white people all the time... care to even link an opinion piece on that? Sounds like leftist mental masturbation to me. Source please?

As for the war on white people, please familiarize yourself with Affirmative Action.

Then realize that a Cherokee Veteran woman such as myself does not need to compete for a federal job against a white man. I will win every time. It's the law.

Is that right? Of course not. But keep thinking that I need a law to be equal with someone and I will keep pointing out that I am not being given the opportunity to directly compete. So my own government thinks I am not as good as a white guy? And this is the crap that you champion. Of course there is a war on whites.

Because if there wasn't a war on whites there would be a war on "insert majority skin color here".

Democrats can't win anything without victims, after all.

Without victims, they would have to debate actual facts. That's never going to happen.

Good night to your sad self and I'm sorry about your worldview.

OMG.. Thank you.. just thank you, one of the best responses I think I have EVER read.

a reply to: Lumenari

Yes the headlines and written articles are "race biased" or sensationalised, or however you want to call it, but, the articles are stories are accurate


www.alternet.org...

blavity.com...

originally posted by: donnydeevil
So you don't find it wrong that the police shot this man twenty times? You think the result was justice for breaking into cars or whatever?

Right wingers screamed and yelled when police even pointed a gun at the bundy's and even whined when he was shot while armed yet a black man shot twenty times because police thought he had a gun is perfectly OK.

Lol you think it's ok to run at police with something in your hand? Is common sense not the issue here?

Black or white, left or right, you don't run at armed officers with anything in your hand.

Derp derp derp.

a reply to: Flesh699

He wasn't running at them... and see above post

a reply to: XAnarchistX
If you really think that you have never been a street fight. Never started one in my life but somehow wound up in many, and yes he was going to fight what else was he gunna do give em in ice cream cone. Dude use your brain...

a reply to: CrazyK22
So why do you have issues with left-wing media creating a false narrative but not when right-wing media does the same thing to accomodate the story into their political agenda?

Or am I getting the wrong impression, do you also have issues with Fox doing this?

They all have a narrative and agenda to sell:

Why even pick one, resist both. Perhaps this video will give people a clue as to how to proceed when it comes to engaging in politics, picking a side, including voting for that side:

In case you didn't get it, politics is also such a "strange game" with the same winning move, it doesn't mean you can do nothing worthwhile to better or benefit society or individuals within a society though:

First Amendment Champions

originally posted by: donnydeevil
So you don't find it wrong that the police shot this man twenty times? You think the result was justice for breaking into cars or whatever?

The number of shots fired is a red herring designed to distract people who have no clue. It's also false to insinuate he was shot for breaking into cars.

First of all, it wasn't just one cop that shot him. When you make the decision to shoot someone because you think your life is in danger, you're going to shoot multiple times. One round doesn't always stop someone. You could also miss the first shot. So you factor in that it's natural and totally normal to shoot multiple times, plus the fact that multiple officers shot him, you easily get to 20 rounds without it being strange, unusual or excessive. And it's irrelevant to whether the decision to fire was justified. That decision happened before the first round was fired. It's a distraction, and you fell for it.

Why did multiple officers fire? Because when you perceive a threat to your life, in the real world you can't just pause, turn to your buddies and say okay who is going to shoot him? This also makes an even better case for the shooting to be justified. It wasn't just one officer that would've had to make a mistake. Multiple officers perceived him as a threat. Are they all racists who were just itching for an excuse to "execute" a black man?

And he wasn't shot for breaking into cars. He was shot because they perceived him as a threat. He was reported to be violent, it was dark, they saw something in his hand that he raised and pointed at them. It turns out it wasn't a gun, but again in the real world you can't pause, ask him what he has, maybe sit down and have a nice discussion. It's sad he got himself killed but it's nobody's fault but his own.

The media tricked you into thinking the 20 rounds was a significant detail. What else have they tricked you with?

I said a year or two ago these body cams was a bad idea because even when it's a justified shooting it's gonna be turned into an issue by people who have no clue. The average citizen has no idea how to analyze a situation tactically, doesn't know anything about police procedures and training, and will not understand the way these situations unfold. For most people all they know about this is what they've seen in TV and movies, where someone points a gun at you and you point your gun back at him and you start talking. You can argue the public has a right to know, but they don't know, so seeing these videos just drives people who don't know anything into a frenzy. It was never going to diffuse this public-police tension, it's only going to exacerbate it.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: MteWamp
Black or white, there are things you can do that can greatly increase the chances of coming out of it alive.

Do what the officers tell you, at least to the best of your ability.
If you are holding something in your hand, drop it.
Above all, don't flee and make the police chase you. I think it was Chris Rock that said "If the police have to chase you, it's a pretty safe bet they'll be bringing an ass whipping with them."

If you are confronted, in your own (or a relative’s) yard (as Mr. Clark was), by person or persons who do not identify themselves as police, Which these officers failed to do as evidenced by their own body cam video as released by the SPD, is it really wise to disarm yourself?

If so, then to what value are concealed carry laws?

If you are in your own yard, at night, perhaps investigating a disturbance, and happen to be armed, would you drop your weapon if ordered to do so by someone you don’t know and cannot identify because they are shining a blinding light in your face?

This would be a good point if the guy wasn't just out committing multiple felonies and had no reason to think the cops might be on their way. Pretending he didn't know they were police is just dishonest.

a reply to: CrazyK22

heard on the radio that whoever called the authorities reported a firearm as well. responding officers expected an armed assailant.

to be fair, fighting any member of law enforcement while they are attempting to search your person is probably a bad move.

a reply to: whereislogic

Of course they don't have any issues with right-wing propaganda. Post-Obama ATS, 'nuff said. Some guy even wrote "he dindu nuffin" on the first page of this thread. This forum really did make a turn for the worse