Rhino
New member
And you accuse me of absurd statements? Yeah, right.
Two Different Cities, Same Ol' Police State
- Thread starter BluesStringer
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
New member
The same thing I've done all of my adult life: be SOLELY be responsible for my own physical safety.
Memorize:
- Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
- Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
- Police not assigned as bodyguards have virtually no ability to protect individuals.
Unless you've got a bodyguard detail, or you're standing next to a cop when somebody tries to kill you, if you're not willing and able to protect YOURSELF, you're just not going to get protected AT ALL. Anybody who tells you different is a LIAR.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Two cops shot and killed a man that they had pinned on the ground. The video clearly shows that, though the man on the ground may have been in possession of a gun, it was visible to no one until after six shots were fired into him at point blank range, at which time the cop that goes out of frame for a few seconds appears to retrieve either the gun or what he thought was a gun from the dying man's pocket.
Your two statements above are decidedly more absurd than comparing an unjustifiable shooting by two cops of a man to someone stating their conclusions after watching the (and probably others) video, and claiming his statements/conclusions "makes you a lynch mob." It's absurd on every level. A singular person can never be a mob first of all, and even if some information came out showing error in his conclusions, those two cops haven't been "lynched" in any real or imagined way by him simply stating the way he saw it.
Your second statement was just as absurd. "You've now put yourself on a par with the KKK gangs who used to lynch black people from trees in the middle of the night." Instead of pointing out the absurdity of that ridiculous statement though, I chose instead to point out the irony of one man being overpowered by two heavily armed men, then being shot dead within seconds of contact between them when the one man posed no discernible threat at all to the two who killed him, and you then claiming that concluding those facts as showing a murder taking place is somehow analogous to KKK lynchings when the only person dead in all this is a black man at the hands of two white men wearing the same costume and using their disparity of force to accomplish the killing!
You may not like the irony that I see in your second statement, but it's a whole heckuva lot less absurd than you saying unequivocally that an individual's statements typed into an internet forum are in any way analogous with actually killing another human being under any circumstances, whether the killing is accomplished by two people wearing blue uniforms or white sheets and white, pointy hats.
Yeah, that's right.
Blues
Rhino
New member
Your opinion is noted. Discarded, but noted.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Not analyzed and contradicted with logic, but just discarded. That in and of itself is an absurd statement.
The short, logical version:
A "mob" of one from behind a keyboard is no mob at all.
Under no logical analysis of meaning culled from words typed into an internet forum can the conclusion be valid that the words equal actually "lynching" someone.
Those are much more absurd conclusions than saying/thinking/believing that either one of the killings highlighted in this thread were examples of some degree of murder. Even if it turns out that he (or I) was wrong, it is still not an absurd thought to express, while your absurd statements indeed, are.
Blues
vernsimpson
New member
Very true. We have to protect ourselves but without the Police there would be total chaos, riots, looting and destruction such as we have seen during protests in many of our cities. Unless you have amassed enough food, water, ammo and everything you need to survive for a very long time, you may not survive.
I for one believe that we need the Police to keep at least some kind of order.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
To be as accurate as possible in conveying what you wish to convey, you should tack onto the end of the bolded sentence, "...by any means necessary, no matter how many rights are violated or how many bodies piled up, no matter whether legal or illegal means, no matter whether held accountable for abuses or not."
In other words, maintain the status quo that has led to all the protests and violence perpetrated by both cops and other-than-cops against both non-sworn citizens and cops.
You know, just to be as accurate as possible and stuff.
YyyyaaaaAAYY The Police State!
Blues
BluesStringer
Les Brers
SR9
New member
The problem here is that people that live in cities are very much like rats in a maze. They will eventually eat each other. I prefer to live in the country where people get along better. We have both blacks, white, native Americans, etc. We all get along just fine. When traveling, I go out of my way to avoid cities. Nothing good happens there. Cities and the people in them are inherently bad. If city people move to the country, the will always bring their bad habits and attitudes with them.
bofh
Banned
Back on topic, Philando Castile apparently did had a permit to carry a firearm. From Time | Philando Castile’s Family Releases Copy of Gun Permit:
Deanimator
New member
You seem to be implying that those cities didn't HAVE police.
If they DID, and they STILL had "total chaos, riots, looting and destruction", that tends to contradict your argument.
I view the police as a SOMETIMES necessary EVIL.
I have no illusions about their motivations or in some cases competence.
I've lived in Chicago where the Chicago PD is simply just another species of criminal, living on the public dole.
I've lived in NE Ohio and seen the Cleveland PD in action. Unlike the Chicago PD, they're unlikely to beat you outside of a law enforcement context, or to rob you outright. On the other hand, they quite clearly don't give a damn, as evidenced by 2/3 of my interactions with them, and their record of ignoring race riots, a dead woman by the side of the Interstate (whom they identified as a "deer"), and multiple kidnapping victims in one location for TEN years.
I AVOID the police whenever humanly possible. The odds of them doing anything of BENEFIT to me are slim to none. Depending upon where I am, the odds of them HARMING me, short of actually shooting me, can be quite high. Unlike the grifters of "Black [Felon] Lives Matter", I don't believe that a [Black] felon getting shot to death in the act of a violent assault is a cause for outrage, nor do I believe that the only "misdeeds" by police which matter are the shootings of violent [Black] felons in the act. Akai Gurley wasn't committing ANY crime, and NEITHER the police unions NOR Black Lives Matter give a damn about him OR people like Kathryn Johnston, Emma Hernandez, Margie Carranza or David Perdue.
Nadir Point
Member
The LA guy was resisting arrest. End of story. Carry a gun, resist arrest, get shot. Pretty simple, justified and after you peel away all the BS, that's really all there is to it.
The MN guy, pillar of the community, cafeteria supervisor (community organizer underling?) was an armed robbery suspect. Maybe the caf sup thing was just his day job, dunno. Anyway, similar narrative: Carry a gun, meet a cop looking for you, get shot. Simple, correct and time-proven outcome. You wanna play with guns and cops, you're on your own.
Obey the authorities and let the lawyers sort it out later, if called for. These a-holes had no right doing what they did, and ordinary citizens have EVERY RIGHT to be protected from this type of scum.
The MN guy, pillar of the community, cafeteria supervisor (community organizer underling?) was an armed robbery suspect. Maybe the caf sup thing was just his day job, dunno. Anyway, similar narrative: Carry a gun, meet a cop looking for you, get shot. Simple, correct and time-proven outcome. You wanna play with guns and cops, you're on your own.
Obey the authorities and let the lawyers sort it out later, if called for. These a-holes had no right doing what they did, and ordinary citizens have EVERY RIGHT to be protected from this type of scum.
bofh
Banned
You just gave LEOs a blank check to shoot you when you are resisting arrest. Assuming you are regularly carrying a weapon, you just gave up your due process right. Resisting arrest while being in possession of a firearm is not a lethal force situation, unless that firearm gets used against a person. The RNC Convention in Cleveland is in the next few days. Many demonstrators will legally carry firearms. Does that mean that if they resist arrest they can be legally shot by LEOs? A simple protest can easily end up in a blood bath using your simplistic argument.
Since important details about this case are still unknown to us, this statement is simplistic as well. Again, you just gave LEOs a blank check to shoot you during a traffic stop.
Philando Castile had a permit to carry a firearm. He was stopped because he matched the description of an armed robbery suspect. Police audio described Castile as looking like a robbery suspect because of his skin color and wide-set nose, which matches the vast majority of black males. This sounds suspicious to me.
The side of the road is never the place to argue with LEOs. That still does not give them the right to shoot and kill someone. You just argued your Constitutional rights away in favor of a police state, because you want to feel safe. So, when are you giving up your firearm and join Moms Demand Action Against Gun Violence?
BluesStringer
Les Brers
"Matching the description of" and "suspect" for any crime are not words/phrases which are synonymous. Someone matching the description of an unknown bad actor only gives cops reasonable articulable suspicion to contact that citizen in order to investigate further whether or not they indeed are the person(s) they're looking for. A "suspect" is a known person, or at the very least, a person identified by either security pics/vids or witnesses as the person who committed a given crime, even if their name isn't known at the time. No way in Hell was Castile identified as the suspect in the robbery security pics by the cop simply passing him going the other way in a car, turning around and pulling him over. Once he saw the round face of Castile and taken the opportunity to compare it to the long, skinny face of the pictured felon, he should've said, "Sorry for the inconvenience" and just let him go on his way. Other than a slight, skinny build, there is nothing "matching" between Castile and the security pics that I can discern, and even if there was, it was still only to the level of RAS for the cop to base continuation of the stop to investigate further on. Castile never rose to the level of "suspect" before he was shot while reaching for his ID after alerting the cop that he was legally armed. There is zero evidence in the public domain to the contrary on any of these points thus far.
Blues
Blues
Nadir Point
Member
The willfully ignorant BS level in this thread is reaching record levels. :fie:
bofh
Banned
Do you have any actual argument or are you just venting your frustration over not having one?
Nadir Point
Member
What argument? I don't have time to argue with fools in the Internet. You sound like the frustrated one, to me. I certainly won't be arguing with the likes of you.
Maybe you should try arguing with a police officer? That'd be an apropos way to solve your argument problem.
bofh
Banned
Yet, you have time to respond to my post. I see that you respond with ad hominem attacks, since you can't or don't want to formulate a clearly thought through argument. I am certainly a fool to expect any reasonable argument from you. I am certainly not frustrated after a nice day at the range.
Talked to a few officers at the range just today, especially about the Baton Rouge shooting as the news was evolving. Your police state argument of "comply or die" did not came up though.
- Status
