Oh boy...this one's gonna get ugly

I get these ideas. However, the two parties are not equal. Legally, whether you agree or not, the police officer is the legal authority here, and is the only one authorized in certain circumstances to use force.

That doesn’t mean a police officer is always right. They can abuse that authority or use excessive force.

a reply to: Boadicea

originally posted by: whargoul

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Side note but not off topic. What would have happened if this kid grew up in a nuclear family and had a mother and father?

If you want to end racism, black groups need to come out and call out when black people act stupid and get killed by cops.

Judge everything by the content of the chcaracher and not the color of the skin. This kid sounds like he was a POS...

If you want a nuclear family you have to end poverty...

The break down of the family in the black community is because social programs under LBJ encouraged it.

Prior to the 1970s, two parent households were the norm in the black community. In the early 60s, Daniel Moynihan warned of families being destroyed by government welfare policies and then the out of wedlock birth rate in the black community was only like 20% or so. It is damn near 75% now.

You have it backwards, the breakdown of the family is what keeps people in poverty. Most married couples are not in poverty because of shared responsibility and dual incomes. The bulk of kids raised by single mothers are in poverty.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Probably because most of us understand that when the cops pull you over, you do what they say. You don't fight it.

I got pulled over and harassed for a crack in my windshield! Do you think I was fighting the cop over it? No. I did what he told me in every way and made no sudden moves.

I think that one issue is that in some communities, there is def an anti authority and anti police teaching, and sometimes people are even raised being told they don’t need to comply with authority figures, from police to teachers.

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest
Ok, so I almost didn't want to post this one because it has to do with race, and I have to admit that I mostly actively stay away from such topics because they can be so inflammatory, but there's an incident that has happened near my home here in Texas that I don't see making national news but is making a good bit of local press here.

So here's the story, here in Arlington, TX (a city right between Dallas and Fort Worth, it's where the Cowboys stadium and Rangers Ballpark is located), there was a police shooting. Essentially, a policeman pulled over a car of young black people and whatever occurred, it ended up with an officer being shot and the shooter being shot and killed by the police. The shooter was a 20 year old young man with something of a criminal record, I guess he'd just been offered 5 years on a burglary charge he's facing.

Alrighty, so here's where things get a bit wonky and what was ultimately the impetus of this thread. The mothers (a lesbian couple who are calling themselves the man in questions 'mothers') have come out in that angry, righteous fashion characterized by police shootings of young black men arguing that the young man in question only fired at the police in self-defense. So, I decided to write this thread because, to me, this is a case of giving someone an inch they'll take a mile type of thinking and behavior. Make no mistake, I hate that a young man lost his life...hate it! He might have had troubles and anger, but he was only 20 and if he'd had some years to grow and wisen he may have worked past those things, so I don't write this to make light in any way the loss of a young life. However, to try and turn this one around and blame the police I think is just a bridge too far, and really why I think this story has failed to gain any sort of national coverage...this doesn't even come close to fitting the narrative.

I'll include a video of the women and a link to an article for y'alls perusal. Peace...

The Electric Priest

dfw.cbslocal.com...

www.star-telegram.com...

Vast majority of killings involve known thugs. This is a fact. However, the ironic thing is that 9 out of 10 times when interviewing family members, the mother / grandmother is always in denial about the victims lifestyle.

The black community is lost culturally. This is the end result of 50 years of accepting liberalism and feminism.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

...and is the only one authorized in certain circumstances to use force.

And for good reason and I get that.

But I also think the current criteria for using lethal force, and protocols in general -- before, during and after cops initiate contact -- all need major reform. As it stands, there is too much room for abuse, and not enough accountability and liability for abuse.

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey
a reply to: TheElectricPriest
Thanks - changed it.

So you agree that for some reasons it is fine to take away people's guns?

Slippery slope there. They might come for yours if you post crazy things on a conspiracy site....

If the guy was on parole, it means he was convicted of a crime. You believe that everyone should have the right to carry a firearm, even if they have been convicted of a crime?

Are you ok with gang members out on parole having guns? What about a man who went to jail for murdering his wife with a gun and then was released on parole? Should he be allowed to have a gun?

Before you think about yelling at me, relax, because I support our constitutional right to bear arms. I think it should be granted only to law-abiding citizens, however.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

...and is the only one authorized in certain circumstances to use force.

And for good reason and I get that.

But I also think the current criteria for using lethal force, and protocols in general -- before, during and after cops initiate contact -- all need major reform. As it stands, there is too much room for abuse, and not enough accountability and liability for abuse.

The big problem is that every situation is different. While it is nice to develop protocols, when you are in the heat of the moment and a split second could cost you your life, there has to be an ability for a cop to defend himself.

It would be nice if we could just disarm cops, but the reality is that with so many thugs runnings around armed, I don't think that is practical.

The vast majority of these cases would not happen if people just simply followed instructions.

I do think with everythign seemingly being filmed now, we will see fewer and fewer of these confrontations. I know if I were a cop, I'd want camera's every where filming all the time to protect me.

"Obviously in some situations it's ok to take away guns from people."

You are 100% correct.

And in some cases it's okay to make it illegal for them to own one to begin with, such as a case where a person has been convicted of a violent crime, or has been the subject of a protection order issued by the court. There are plenty of other reasons.

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

Completely agree, and I am torn, too. I don't get the impression that this young man was completely innocent and was just gunned down out of the blue at a routine traffic stop, and it bothers me that headlines and hashtags these days would have you believe that's always the case.

I just felt like the whole thing with the moms was a bit of a mischaracterization. They actually seemed pretty calm and reserved, given the circumstances, and simply said that they were not going to comment on the situation (unless there was more than was shown in the news clip). They want to see the footage, as would I if he were my child.

I think what will be most telling is the family response and media attention after the body cam footage is released to the family (and the public, if it is). If the video lines up with the official story, then the family should place the blame in the appropriate place - on the young man who shot a police officer. There should be no more press conferences from the family unless it is to educate on the danger and stupidity of what he did, and to try to prevent other kids from making the same choices.

Also it sounds like we may be neighbors, so howdy neighbor.

a reply to: Edumakated

The vast majority of these cases would not happen if people just simply followed instructions.

Maybe... maybe not. I want to believe that... I also want to believe that all LEO-issued instructions were reasonable instructions issued for reasonable cause. But I cannot. The guy in the hotel in Arizona tried to follow very unreasonable and impractical instructions and was still killed in cold blood. Nor can the public trust what little information we get from the authorities -- including the cops themselves.

I do think with everythign seemingly being filmed now, we will see fewer and fewer of these confrontations.

I hope you're right.

I know if I were a cop, I'd want camera's every where filming all the time to protect me.

Me too.

I read an op-ed a couple weeks ago from an LEO about the pros, cons and other considerations about using body cameras, and most LEOs are very much in favor of body cams -- which I think shows that the vast majority of cops are good cops doing their best and have nothing to hide from the public. It was more the unions and fraternities and upper levels of LE that were adamantly against body cams.

a reply to: TheElectricPriest

FFS...will be back to rip your OP/thought process apart.

ATS, wow....

a reply to: Boadicea

Another wonderful response, and no apologies necessary, your intuition made me laugh.

I also agree that this is all designed. If it's not, then well I guess that would be a whole other topic on the spirit of America. That is to ask the question why certain stories gain prominence while others do not. We all know that "if it bleeds it leads" with the news networks, so I would also argue that a reverend in Chicago doing his best is not as much fun for the viewer as a crowd of black people interrupting the lunches of diners with their BLM chants. The monetization of the one versus the other would drive the decision of the lead and the attention. So it not only reveals something hidden and nefarious working within our society, but also something sick that has germinated within that same society, and whether it is being pushed and cultivated by outside forces (something we both seem to believe), it exists there none-the-less, only its stoking making it more prominent.

Hey, I just posted another thread on a guy named Jesse Lee Peterson. Check it out...he's really very interesting. He blames the current plight of the black community on the civil rights movement and the community's giving itself over to government as its 'Daddy'. It's a very interesting perspective. Peace...

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: whargoul

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Side note but not off topic. What would have happened if this kid grew up in a nuclear family and had a mother and father?

If you want to end racism, black groups need to come out and call out when black people act stupid and get killed by cops.

Judge everything by the content of the chcaracher and not the color of the skin. This kid sounds like he was a POS...

If you want a nuclear family you have to end poverty...

The break down of the family in the black community is because social programs under LBJ encouraged it.

Prior to the 1970s, two parent households were the norm in the black community. In the early 60s, Daniel Moynihan warned of families being destroyed by government welfare policies and then the out of wedlock birth rate in the black community was only like 20% or so. It is damn near 75% now.

You have it backwards, the breakdown of the family is what keeps people in poverty. Most married couples are not in poverty because of shared responsibility and dual incomes. The bulk of kids raised by single mothers are in poverty.

Wow! I was just adding a response on here directing another member to a post I just made about a man named Jesse Lee Peterson, and was giving a sparse synopsis of what he's seen happen within the black community. Immediately after I read your thread and it is, basically, exactly what he's saying. Spot on.

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey
a reply to: TheElectricPriest
Thanks - changed it.

So you agree that for some reasons it is fine to take away people's guns?

Slippery slope there. They might come for yours if you post crazy things on a conspiracy site....

I'm definitely for gun control because I think that the 2nd Am has been woefully misinterpreted in our modern context. I don't think that the Am was written to protect the rights of criminals to carry guns, but was explicitly written for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." I will never understand why this part of the Am seems to be so blatantly ignored. But to answer your question, no, I do not support this young man's perceived rights to carry a weapon, the reason is in evidence.

Simple Answer to the your question is that English is a living language. The meaning of the term "Militia" has evolved a bit since the year 1783. But when it was originally used this term mean all able bodied male adult citizens eligible to serve in an army. And yes, they were trying to eliminate the riff-raff by using this term. Such as slaves, Indians, indentured servants, and non-citizens.

Actually come to think about I don't think convicted criminals are eligible to serve in the army. The 2nd wouldn't apply to him.

Ironically, the 2nd Amendment is a gun control measure.

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

If this young man was on parole, which it definitely sounds that way, he is not allowed to possess a gun.

Case closed in my opinion.

I'm watching the news now and they were just talking about it. Apparently they have now released the body cam footage and, from what is being said he fired first. Really, however, the point of this OP was simply my surprise that there was all of this civil rights buzz around this shooting, lumping it in with so many of these senseless shootings of black men by police (which is real and is absolutely abhorrent, so let there be no mistake about my position on this particular topic). Seeing the mothers coming out as if their son was this great victim after shooting a cop is, to me, a sense of group think that abrogates any sense of responsibility, and is truly emblematic of an institutional mindset inside of that community that is revealing itself as ridiculous, invalidating honest and sincere incidents of police overreach and brutality, and moves the whole cause back a major step. Live by the gun, die by the gun. If you don't want to get shot by the police, don't shoot at them.

Police shooting blacks because they're black isn't near as common as the news makes it seem. Every morning on the local news, I've heard about another officer being shot and killed but national media never covers it. They still run on "police kill innocent blacks all the time" narratives. Once the guy reached for something, the cop's life was in danger and the guy is seen as a threat. It's a shame that he killed an officer before he was killed.

originally posted by: ntech

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey
a reply to: TheElectricPriest
Thanks - changed it.

So you agree that for some reasons it is fine to take away people's guns?

Slippery slope there. They might come for yours if you post crazy things on a conspiracy site....

I'm definitely for gun control because I think that the 2nd Am has been woefully misinterpreted in our modern context. I don't think that the Am was written to protect the rights of criminals to carry guns, but was explicitly written for "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." I will never understand why this part of the Am seems to be so blatantly ignored. But to answer your question, no, I do not support this young man's perceived rights to carry a weapon, the reason is in evidence.

Simple Answer to the your question is that English is a living language. The meaning of the term "Militia" has evolved a bit since the year 1783. But when it was originally used this term mean all able bodied male adult citizens eligible to serve in an army. And yes, they were trying to eliminate the riff-raff by using this term. Such as slaves, Indians, indentured servants, and non-citizens.

Actually come to think about I don't think convicted criminals are eligible to serve in the army. The 2nd wouldn't apply to him.

Thank you for answering a question that I never asked.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

If this young man was on parole, which it definitely sounds that way, he is not allowed to possess a gun.

Case closed in my opinion.

I'm watching the news now and they were just talking about it. Apparently they have now released the body cam footage and, from what is being said he fired first. Really, however, the point of this OP was simply my surprise that there was all of this civil rights buzz around this shooting, lumping it in with so many of these senseless shootings of black men by police (which is real and is absolutely abhorrent, so let there be no mistake about my position on this particular topic). Seeing the mothers coming out as if their son was this great victim after shooting a cop is, to me, a sense of group think that abrogates any sense of responsibility, and is truly emblematic of an institutional mindset inside of that community that is revealing itself as ridiculous, invalidating honest and sincere incidents of police overreach and brutality, and moves the whole cause back a major step. Live by the gun, die by the gun. If you don't want to get shot by the police, don't shoot at them.

Police shooting blacks because they're black isn't near as common as the news makes it seem. Every morning on the local news, I've heard about another officer being shot and killed but national media never covers it. They still run on "police kill innocent blacks all the time" narratives. Once the guy reached for something, the cop's life was in danger and the guy is seen as a threat. It's a shame that he killed an officer before he was killed.

The officer that was shot lived and was just released from the hospital...so that's good news.

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

If this young man was on parole, which it definitely sounds that way, he is not allowed to possess a gun.

Case closed in my opinion.

I'm watching the news now and they were just talking about it. Apparently they have now released the body cam footage and, from what is being said he fired first. Really, however, the point of this OP was simply my surprise that there was all of this civil rights buzz around this shooting, lumping it in with so many of these senseless shootings of black men by police (which is real and is absolutely abhorrent, so let there be no mistake about my position on this particular topic). Seeing the mothers coming out as if their son was this great victim after shooting a cop is, to me, a sense of group think that abrogates any sense of responsibility, and is truly emblematic of an institutional mindset inside of that community that is revealing itself as ridiculous, invalidating honest and sincere incidents of police overreach and brutality, and moves the whole cause back a major step. Live by the gun, die by the gun. If you don't want to get shot by the police, don't shoot at them.

Police shooting blacks because they're black isn't near as common as the news makes it seem. Every morning on the local news, I've heard about another officer being shot and killed but national media never covers it. They still run on "police kill innocent blacks all the time" narratives. Once the guy reached for something, the cop's life was in danger and the guy is seen as a threat. It's a shame that he killed an officer before he was killed.

The officer that was shot lived and was just released from the hospital...so that's good news.

That's very good news. Here in Shreveport, we just lost one. The neighborhood she lived in was a high crime area that most cops won't go to.

Shreveport Officer Killed

originally posted by: TheElectricPriest

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TheElectricPriest

If this young man was on parole, which it definitely sounds that way, he is not allowed to possess a gun.

Case closed in my opinion.

Really, however, the point of this OP was simply my surprise that there was all of this civil rights buzz around this shooting, lumping it in with so many of these senseless shootings of black men by police (which is real and is absolutely abhorrent, so let there be no mistake about my position on this particular topic).

don't give in to the media/democrat hype.
there is no war on black men. the police are not going around shooting black men all over the place all the time. that's a false narrative the democrats and media push.

young black men are at great risk at the hands of other young black men. not the police.

originally posted by: FilthyUSMonkey

So you agree that for some reasons it is fine to take away people's guns?

Slippery slope there. They might come for yours if you post crazy things on a conspiracy site....

I don't agree that all felons should have their 2nd right taken away. If a person is dangerous or in the process of being determined if they are dangerous or not, such as a trial, mental evaluation etc then their right(s) can be withheld until they are deemed not dangerous. Some of those right might be to lose their 2nd, imprisonment and even the death penalty, as they lose the right to live... We also limit some right based on age and once again it can be said that the mental maturity of a young person is not there yet so it can be seen as dangerous based on that, just as we do with an older person who might be dangerous due to mental issues.

And yes there are concerns of the thought police type situation where you do nothing wrong but are treated as a criminal due to a thought only.