Black Lives Matter

So you believe what the Police tell you ? And you believe that the police do not lie ? And you believe what stats complied by the police tell you ?

I accept the stats that are confirmed by just about every study (and the other evidence that I stated). If you can provide me with a serious of reliable sources countering these stats be my guest.

I'll ask you again. It's three simple questions.

Do you believe what the Police tell you ? Do you believe that the police do not lie ? And you believe what stats complied by the police tell you ?

Do you believe what the Police tell you ? For the most part yes, especially US police.

Do you believe that the police do not lie ? For the most part no, especially US police.

This is a message I wrote to @underscore but like you he had this naive view of the USA Police. So I'll ask you.

1) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain that the police plant evidence on suspects to frame them, as with the Ramparts division scandal or they protect drug runners ?

2) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain that the police deal in drugs THEMSELVES. Ever heard about New York’s infamous 75th precinct ?

3) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain the police murdering those who file complaints against them ?

4) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain the slaughtering innocent civilians and then covering up the crime ?

5) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain how the police enforce the war on drugs, which has disproportionately targeted black people, even though according to every study and at every age level, whites use and deal drugs at the same or higher rates than the black people ?

6) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain that sometimes the police are told not to enforce drug laws against white people.

7) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain that the police profile and stop-and-frisk, harassing almost exclusively innocent persons so as to get at the statistical few that have actually committed a crime ?

8) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain the Police in Ferguson have functioned for years as the enforcers of a massive municipal shakedown scheme, in which black people were targeted for minor offences, ticketed and then fined so as to raise money for local government ?

9) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain when the riots happened in the USA last year following the killing of Michael Brown, police responded to protests by using military equipment and tactics, sending a message that they were essentially at war with their own people !! Tactics that they are now admitting only escalated the crisis ?

10) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain that the Police threaten to kill black folks and hide the evidence, but are allowed to keep their jobs ?

11) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain how they love posting blatantly racist and even homicidal rants on their social media pages or in text messages, in town after town across America: dozens of such cases in the past year that we know of, including one particularly egregious case in San Francisco, in which a group of officers exchanged messages calling African Americans “monkeys” and declaring that all blacks (whom they certainly didn’t refer to in that way) “must hang.” ?

12) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain another case from Albuquerque where an officer who shot and killed a suspect after a traffic stop referred to his profession as “human waste disposal” on Facebook.

13) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain in some of these cases, the racist cops have also been allowed to keep their jobs or to get them back after being fired, as recently happened in Florida.Police beat black suspects without cause and then lie about it, or plant evidence to cover up their misdeeds ?

14) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain how they respond to the least verbal challenge with violence, as in the case of Eric Garner who was killed by a Staten Island cop by way of neck compression, simply for telling police to stop harassing him.

15) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain how too often they have shot first and asked questions (or not) later, and are far quicker to shoot unarmed black folks than unarmed whites ?

16) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain how they shoot children like Tamir Rice, playing with a toy gun and then lie about the incident ?

There are so many mistruths / lies in the above that it does not warrant a serious reply, never mind the multiple suspect sources. You have referred to the death of several individuals in which I am already aware, cases in which I support the action taken by the police (hence why I can identify the mistruths).

I knew you would not debate. I knew that you'd dismiss. I knew you'd overlook whatever facts that do not suit your argument, You're locked in your own self-delusion and nothing anyone says will make any difference.

The problem now is that you can’t accept the plain and proven truth. You have invested too much in to lies and accepting the truth now would mean accepting that, all along, you haven't been a “dispassionate realist” but an ignorant fool and that you can’t accept of yourself.

1) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain that the police plant evidence on suspects to frame them, as with the Ramparts division scandal or they protect drug runners ?

2) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain that the police deal in drugs THEMSELVES. Ever heard about New York’s infamous 75th precinct ?

3) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain the police murdering those who file complaints against them ?

5) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain how the police enforce the war on drugs, which has disproportionately targeted black people, even though according to every study and at every age level, whites use and deal drugs at the same or higher rates than the black people ?

6) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain that sometimes the police are told not to enforce drug laws against white people.

7) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain that the police profile and stop-and-frisk, harassing almost exclusively innocent persons so as to get at the statistical few that have actually committed a crime ?

10) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain that the Police threaten to kill black folks and hide the evidence, but are allowed to keep their jobs ?

11) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain how they love posting blatantly racist and even homicidal rants on their social media pages or in text messages, in town after town across America: dozens of such cases in the past year that we know of, including one particularly egregious case in San Francisco, in which a group of officers exchanged messages calling African Americans “monkeys” and declaring that all blacks (whom they certainly didn’t refer to in that way) “must hang.” ?

12) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain another case from Albuquerque where an officer who shot and killed a suspect after a traffic stop referred to his profession as “human waste disposal” on Facebook.

13) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain in some of these cases, the racist cops have also been allowed to keep their jobs or to get them back after being fired, as recently happened in Florida.Police beat black suspects without cause and then lie about it, or plant evidence to cover up their misdeeds ?

14) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain how they respond to the least verbal challenge with violence, as in the case of Eric Garner who was killed by a Staten Island cop by way of neck compression, simply for telling police to stop harassing him.

15) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain how too often they have shot first and asked questions (or not) later, and are far quicker to shoot unarmed black folks than unarmed whites ?

16) If you think the police for most part are honest then how do you explain how they shoot children like Tamir Rice, playing with a toy gun and then lie about the incident ?

Please provide evidence that they were unjustified. The fact that they were unarmed alone is not sufficient.



This thread is about the group you support called BLACK lives matter and I am bringing race into it?

Again please provide evidence that these were unjustified killings. I know you don't believe in an justified killing so let me use this to educate you what the establishment considers this to be.

"A non-criminal homicide ruling, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, exists under United States law. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder"

justifiable homiciden. a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or toprotect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties. This is not to be confused with acrime of passion or claim of diminished capacity which refer to defenses aimed at reducing the penalty or degree of crime.

As i said earlier, yes this thread is about blm which of course i support but the vconversation i was having on here had no mention of white people or black people specifically... As for unjustied, tamir rice the twelve year old who was killed for having a bb gun was shot in Ohio. Ohio is an open carry state, so what law was he allegedly breaking?

BLM is relevant to white people as white people is what they are protesting essentially.

As for Tamir Rice... I'm assuming that twelve year old didn't have a licence for that weapon. So the law he was breaking was possession of a dangerous firearm. He also didn't drop the weapon when told to by police officers.

Im not 100% on their gun laws but im fairly sure theyre one of the ost liberal about it ie seeing someone carry a gun around is not uncommon at all. Not to mention, that i would like to think that shooting a twelve year old would be a complete last resort, he wasnt even old enough to be totally legally culpable.
When did i say blm wasnt relevant to white people? Although tney arent protesting white people.

Even with liberal gun laws you still need a licence and they certainly don't hand them to 12 year olds. Yes shooting a kid is obviously a last resort. It isn't a matter of being culpable, it is a matter of public safety. He could have shot another member of public or the police officer. The officer should not be taking risks with his own life or the life of others so he made the call and took the shot. Sometimes its the right call and sometimes its wrong but that decision has to be made and this is a far better outcome than another member of public being shot and the police officer being at fault for inaction.

You just asked what do white people have to do with blm and now you're agreeing they are linked? Of course they are protesting against white people, the entire movement is based on hating white people. Their co-founder even tweeted about killing all white people.

Doesnt seem like they used it as a last resort to me. If someone is armed you need to have an armed response unit who can diffuse the situation without killing people, there are plenty of people who are in jail because they were caught committing crimes with guns, armed robberies and threatening people and the like, so there obviously are ways of dealing with someone having a gun other than just killing them on the spot. Ericx garner is a good example as well, he was strangled to death, thats not a knee jerk reaction or self defense, thats very deliberate.
... I didnt ask what white people have to do with blm? And it isnt a movement decoted to hating on white people, its a movement based around tryoing to get people to stop justifying the murded of black people.

There are so many mistruths / lies in the above that it does not warrant a serious reply, never mind the multiple suspect sources. You have referred to the death of several individuals in which I am already aware, cases in which I support the action taken by the police (hence why I can identify the mistruths).

Doesnt seem like they used it as a last resort to me. If someone is armed you need to have an armed response unit who can diffuse the situation without killing people, there are plenty of people who are in jail because they were caught committing crimes with guns, armed robberies and threatening people and the like, so there obviously are ways of dealing with someone having a gun other than just killing them on the spot. Ericx garner is a good example as well, he was strangled to death, thats not a knee jerk reaction or self defense, thats very deliberate.
... I didnt ask what white people have to do with blm? And it isnt a movement decoted to hating on white people, its a movement based around tryoing to get people to stop justifying the murded of black people.

I get that, but I can see why they say "blacklivesmatter", because in the end this is unfortunately what seems to need to be most specified to the US police. They really do seem pretty racist.

And what is the supposition for racism?
. Most people waving a gun at police regardless of race get shot, as would be expected.

I do agree the US has issues over this but this is just the US (and I know for example a African American is much more likely to be killed by another African American)

So perhaps they need to learn themselves that their own lives matter