# Black Lives Matter



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

As the three teenagers walked home from the store, police said two of them were shot multiple times in an alleyway.

“Jasean Francis, 17, was *shot in the back*, chest and left hand and taken to University of Chicago Hospital, where he died,” the ABC 7 report stated.

“Charles Riley, 16, was *shot in the back *and left leg and was taken to University of Chicago Hospital, where he also died,” the article continued.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

More hate bait.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Typical - in Chicago. 

Not hate bait, just sad that stuff like this has been allowed to get this far.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> More hate bait.


A normal human would show some type of compassion, asking why. 

Why would it evoke hate from you?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

*Dad of teen murdered by illegal immigrant says BLM ignored his son*
https://www.foxnews.com/media/jamiel-shaw-murdered-illegal-immigrant-black-lives-matter-george-floyd


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> A normal human would show some type of compassion, asking why.
> 
> Why would it evoke hate from you?


Smells more like fear of truth and facts.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

From your link

The father of a black teen murdered by an illegal immigrant in 2008 told "Fox & Friends" on Sunday that because his son's case was not a matter of police brutality, he received no support from the Black Lives Matter Movement and was forced to mourn on the "sidelines" by African-American leaders.

"It seems like Black Lives Matter only focuses on black people who were murdered by the police," Jamiel Shaw said. "You know, my son was murdered in 2008, and I reached out to anybody that would listen, especially black people, because I thought for sure I would have a lot of support in the black community.​


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Smells more like fear of truth and facts.


Counter narrative


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

BLM won't care about these kids.
The only black lives that matter to them are the ones taken by white police officers.
Black on black crime doesn't whip up the voting base.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> A normal human would show some type of compassion, asking why.
> 
> Why would it evoke hate from you?


I have doubts that you care about what you post much of the time other than getting others to bite. If that's what you want, you do you.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

It does appear that black lives matter is just a hate group, they appear focused on hating white people. They don’t appear very inclusive, and don’t seem to care much about their own people, only on hating white people. Their very name spells it out.

it tends to marginalize their message, when they are no better than the groups they say they are against.

difficult to take them seriously. Their supporters on here appear to be following lock step into agreeing that black lives do not matter, it is only hating white people that matters.

I would be all on board with eliminating white supremists; but when the black groups are just a black version of the white supremists then it’s not worth the effort, nothing is gained. One hate is replaced by another hate.

a lack of caring is certainly evident in the replies here. It’s all politics, don’t give a darn about the black person. Just using them as a tool.

Paul


----------



## mzgarden (Mar 16, 2012)

Cornhusker said:


> BLM won't care about these kids.
> The only black lives that matter to them are the ones taken by white police officers.
> Black on black crime doesn't whip up the voting base.


And I guess I don't understand why black on black crime doesn't whip up the voting base - at the very least of the black voters. Why isn't it a key issue?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

rambler said:


> Their supporters on here appear to be following lock step into agreeing that black lives do not matter, it is only hating white people that matters.
> I would be all on board with eliminating white supremists; but when the black groups are just a black version of the white supremists then it’s not worth the effort, nothing is gained. One hate is replaced by another hate.
> a lack of caring is certainly evident in the replies here. It’s all politics, don’t give a darn about the black person. Just using them as a tool.
> Paul


Very well said.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Black lives matter is focused on groups in power who use that power in racist ways. It is not about general criminals who do not have the power of the badge to perpetrate crimes on people of color and get away with it.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Leo Terrell on BLM
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6167509756001#sp=show-clips


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Rather than another race speak for him, I'll let Leo do his talking for himself.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I have doubts that you care about what you post much of the time other than getting others to bite. If that's what you want, you do you.


You should have no doubt


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Black lives matter is focused on groups in power who use that power in racist ways.


Who is this racist power broker?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

mzgarden said:


> And I guess I don't understand why black on black crime doesn't whip up the voting base - at the very least of the black voters. Why isn't it a key issue?


You'd think it would be. A fourth grade age boy being lured into an alley and shot, execution style for retribution over something his father may have done. Or, a little girl killed by a stray bullet while sitting on her bed doing homework...
Yet, these lives didn't matter enough to warrant a protest, much less a riot. The only deaths that get such attention are criminals at the hands of LEO. It's nothing more than politics. Disgusting.


----------



## manfred (Dec 21, 2005)

Blacks can hate me all they want. Doesn't matter to me.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Black lives matter is focused on groups in power who use that power in racist ways. It is not about general criminals who do not have the power of the badge to perpetrate crimes on people of color and get away with it.


Yet more white people are killed by police.
But ol ****** don't matter, and white death won't get any votes for Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet more white people are killed by police.
> But ol ****** don't matter, and white death won't get any votes for Joe


More politics...

What's the ratio of the US population between whites and African Americans? They aren't called a minority for nothing. What does that do to the statistics of more whites killed by police to African Americans killed by police when adjusted by population?

"Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites. Most victims were reported to be armed (83%); however, black victims were more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) than white (9.4%) or Hispanic (5.8%) victims."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet more white people are killed by police.
> But ol ****** don't matter, and white death won't get any votes for Joe


Yet blacks are only 13.4 percent of the population while whites are 60.4 percent. On a per capita basis blacks are killed by police at a much higher percentage. Using only part of the stats is not the entire picture.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Using only part of the stats is not the entire picture.


I agree. 

Blacks do represent a larger percentage of crime than their population.

Blacks commit 53% of murders. Whites 45%
Blacks commit 55% of robberies. Whites 43%


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I agree.
> 
> Blacks do represent a larger percentage of crime than their population.
> 
> ...


They also represent a higher percentage of unarmed people killed by the police.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Black farmers selling to black people sounds like white farmers selling to white people. Big deal


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

13.4 percent of the population does not equate to 13.4 percent of the illegal activities or 13.4 percent not doing stupid stuff resulting in death.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> They also represent a higher percentage of unarmed people killed by the police.


We could do this all day. I accept the fact, you believe police go out of their way, and take some perverse pride, in killing black men. Good for you.

I, on the other hand, think black men get involved in crime too much. When black criminal meets policeman bad things happen to black men.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

There's all kinds of crime.
Cheating on your taxes is one.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


> There's all kinds of crime.
> Cheating on your taxes is one.


How many white men got shot by the police for cheating on their taxes?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> We could do this all day. I accept the fact, you believe police go out of their way, and take some perverse pride, in killing black men. Good for you.
> 
> I, on the other hand, think black men get involved in crime too much. When black criminal meets policeman bad things happen to black men.


Which crimes make it OK to kill an unarmed person? Do people really need to die over selling loose cigarettes, owning a registered gun, resisting arrest, running away from the police? And in your opinion, is it justified to kill an unarmed person because they have a prior record, and/or a history with drugs?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Which crimes make it OK to kill an unarmed person? Do people really need to die over selling loose cigarettes, owning a registered gun, resisting arrest, running away from the police? And in your opinion, is it justified to kill an unarmed person because they have a prior record, and/or a history with drugs?


I also accept you think police are murdering racists. I simply disagree.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I also accept you think police are murdering racists. I simply disagree.


That's clearly not what I said, nor what I think. Please answer my questions.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's clearly not what I said, nor what I think. Please answer my questions.


Why do you think cops kill people selling loose cigarettes?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Yet blacks are only 13.4 percent of the population while whites are 60.4 percent. On a per capita basis blacks are killed by police at a much higher percentage. Using only part of the stats is not the entire picture.


And the only reason you can think of is racism?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

SRSLADE said:


> There's all kinds of crime.
> Cheating on your taxes is one.


Then don't do it


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Why do you think cops kill people selling loose cigarettes?


I can't think of a single thing that would justify killing a human being for selling loose cigarettes. Can you?

Do you think people deserve to die for selling loose cigarettes, resisting arrest, running away from the police, owning a registered hand gun? Or for having a prior record and/or a history of drugs?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I can't think of a single thing that would justify killing a human being for selling loose cigarettes.


So the cops must have killed him because he was black.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> So the cops must have killed him because he was black.


Are you answering your own question? That isn't what I indicated:



Irish Pixie said:


> I can't think of a single thing that would justify killing a human being for selling loose cigarettes. Can you?
> 
> Do you think people deserve to die for selling loose cigarettes, resisting arrest, running away from the police, owning a registered hand gun? Or for having a prior record and/or a history of drugs?


Can you answer my questions, please?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> Which crimes make it OK to kill an unarmed person? Do people really need to die over selling loose cigarettes, owning a registered gun, resisting arrest, running away from the police? And in your opinion, is it justified to kill an unarmed person because they have a prior record, and/or a history with drugs?


So many of these cases are not about selling loose cigarettes. It’s about the conduct and actions taken when dealing with law enforcment during a possible criminal activity. The criminal activity is not always the issue. It’s what’s done when confronted about it. Assault a officer, resist arrest, any physical interaction with a law officer can go easily go bad for one or the other. 

Want to run a way or drive away? Run loose and be a possible danger to my community or loved ones? Be a increased danger and better prepared when found and confronted at a later date? Not to worried if things go bad for you. Your responsible for your actions and to bad if it does not go as you wish.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you answering your own question? That isn't what I indicated:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you answer my questions, please?


When did someone get shot for selling loose cigarettes?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Redlands Okie said:


> So many of these cases are not about selling loose cigarettes. It’s about the conduct and actions taken when dealing with law enforcment during a possible criminal activity. The criminal activity is not always the issue. It’s what’s done when confronted about it. Assault a officer, resist arrest, any physical interaction with a law officer can go easily go bad for one or the other.
> 
> Want to run a way or drive away? Run loose and be a possible danger to my community or loved ones? Be a increased danger and better prepared when found and confronted at a later date? Not to worried if things go bad for you. Your responsible for your actions and to bad if it does not go as you wish.


She knows that is the answer. She does not want to assign any culpability to the person who died interacting with the police.

She acts like police enjoy killing people.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Redlands Okie said:


> So many of these cases are not about selling loose cigarettes. It’s about the conduct and actions taken when dealing with law enforcment during a possible criminal activity. The criminal activity is not always the issue. It’s what’s done when confronted about it. Assault a officer, resist arrest, any physical interaction with a law officer can go easily go bad for one or the other.
> 
> Want to run a way or drive away? Run loose and be a possible danger to my community or loved ones? Be a increased danger and better prepared when found and confronted at a later date? Not to worried if things go bad for you. Your responsible for your actions and to bad if it does not go as you wish.


Everything I listed, and I could go with many many more cases, were about minor crime, and after the human beings were dead there would be a listing of their criminal and/or drug history to try to justify their death. 

There is no justification for killing a human being for selling loose cigarettes, running from police, owning a licensed handgun, allegedly using a counterfeit bill, and on and on, and on.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Everything I listed, and I could go with many many more cases, were about minor crime, and after the human beings were dead there would be a listing of their criminal and/or drug history to try to justify their death.
> 
> There is no justification for killing a human being for selling loose cigarettes, running from police, owning a licensed handgun, allegedly using a counterfeit bill, and on and on, and on.


So why are they killed?

Is it an accident?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Where is SBLM when 63 people were shot and 16 fatally this last weekend in Chicago?

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-weekend-violence-gun-ride-share-driver-shot/6280115/


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

poppy said:


> Where is SBLM when 63 people were shot and 16 fatally this last weekend in Chicago?
> 
> https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-weekend-violence-gun-ride-share-driver-shot/6280115/


What is SBLM?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

HDRider said:


> As the three teenagers walked home from the store, police said two of them were shot multiple times in an alleyway.
> 
> “Jasean Francis, 17, was *shot in the back*, chest and left hand and taken to University of Chicago Hospital, where he died,” the ABC 7 report stated.
> 
> “Charles Riley, 16, was *shot in the back *and left leg and was taken to University of Chicago Hospital, where he also died,” the article continued.


*Nothing but hate bating... Yet again.*

When you have some actual facts/evidence connecting BLM to these shootings, then feel free to continue...
A conviction with admission of connection to BLM from the shooters would work pretty well.

Otherwise, your thread title trying to connect random shootings with BLM is simply hate bating, yet again.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

JeepHammer said:


> *Nothing but hate bating... Yet again.*
> 
> When you have some actual facts/evidence connecting BLM to these shootings, then feel free to continue...
> A conviction with admission of connection to BLM from the shooters would work pretty well.
> ...


Where did he imply BLM was connected to these shootings?


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

po boy said:


> Where did he imply BLM was connected to these shootings?


You can't connect the name of the thread with what was written in the very first line about vandalism of court buildings?

All the while an armed black group had to stand security around the state house in Michigan because white, armed anti-government bunch took it over, caused damage, and cause the staff to evacuate in fear of their lives...
The police assigned to protect the state house simply let an armed mob into the state house.

Maybe we could contract with black armed groups to protect court houses since they stopped the siege of the state house in Michigan...
I mean if it's effective, why not when so much is ineffective?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

JeepHammer said:


> You can't connect the name of the thread with what was written in the very first line about vandalism of court buildings?


Slow down space cowboy. You got two thread confused in your mind. This one is about two black kids killed in cold blood by an older black kid in Chicago and how they do not matter.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Slow down space cowboy. You got two thread confused in your mind. This one is about two black kids killed in cold blood by an older black kid in Chicago and how they do not matter.


You mean more Hate Bating...
It's hard to keep up since you repost so much of it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

JeepHammer said:


> You mean more Hate Bating...
> It's hard to keep up since you repost so much of it.


There is a lot of hate in this world. You seem eat up with it.

If it is bait then why don't you be the smarter mouse and don't bite.

I am just sharing news. I am offering commentary. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of a movement built on the false premise of American police hunting down and killing black men for sport or for spite, while the movement ignores the hundreds of blacks, way too many being young kids, killed by their own violent culture.


----------



## JeepHammer (May 12, 2015)

HDRider said:


> There is a lot of hate in this world. You seem eat up with it.
> 
> If it is bait then why don't you be the smarter mouse and don't bite.
> 
> I am just sharing news. I am offering commentary. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of a movement built on the false premise of American police hunting down and killing black men for sport or for spite, while the movement ignores the hundreds of blacks, way too many being young kids, killed by their own violent culture.


And again, a lie.

Your viewpoint would mean Hispanics don't kill Hispanics and whites don't kill whites to be true.
FACTS are most murders happen within the same race, outside of white supremacist groups.

Again, simply hate bating to *Believe* otherwise...
Or do you know more about murders than the police & FBI in your world?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SRSLADE said:


> More hate bait.


Just the facts.



> painterswife said: ↑
> *Black lives matter *is focused on groups in power who use that power in racist ways.


They are more racist than anyone else.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> "Victims were majority white (52%) but *disproportionately* black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites.


Maybe if they didn't commit so many crimes....


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

JeepHammer said:


> And again, a lie.
> 
> Your viewpoint would mean Hispanics don't kill Hispanics and whites don't kill whites to be true.
> FACTS are most murders happen within the same race, outside of white supremacist groups.
> ...


That is not his viewpoint. It is true most murders are within their race. It is also true that black on black murder is much higher in number than any other race and it's ignored by most.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Irish Pixie said: ↑
> Which crimes make it OK to kill an unarmed person? Do people really need to die over selling loose cigarettes, owning a registered gun, resisting arrest*,* running away from the police? And in your opinion, is it justified to kill an unarmed person because they have a prior record, and/or a history with drugs?





Irish Pixie said:


> There is no justification for *killing* a human being *for* selling loose cigarettes, running from police, owning a licensed handgun, allegedly using a counterfeit bill, and *on and on, and on*.


None of that ever happened.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> What is SBLM?


"*Some* Black Lives Matter"


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

JeepHammer said:


> And again, a lie.
> 
> Your viewpoint would mean Hispanics don't kill Hispanics and whites don't kill whites to be true.
> FACTS are most murders happen within the same race, outside of white supremacist groups.
> ...




So you contend blacks killing blacks is no bigger a problem than whites killing whites. OK.

83% of whites are murdered by whites. 14% of whites are murdered by blacks.

90% of blacks are murdered by blacks. 8% of blacks are murdered by whites.


The latest FBI numbers I could find were 2013.


3,005 whites were killed in that year.

2,491 blacks were killed that year.


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....f_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "*Some* Black Lives Matter"


Small # black lives matter.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> Everything I listed, and I could go with many many more cases, were about minor crime, and after the human beings were dead there would be a listing of their criminal and/or drug history to try to justify their death.
> 
> There is no justification for killing a human being for selling loose cigarettes, running from police, owning a licensed handgun, allegedly using a counterfeit bill, and on and on, and on.


I have not researched all the cases by any means. I do highly suspect that police have not killed anyone for a counterfeit bill, cigarettes, etc. Running, assault, resisting are all real bad ideas and death should not be a result but if it is then little sympathy from here. 


People are dying as a result of their actions that go badly when dealing with law enforcement.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

HDRider said:


> So you contend blacks killing blacks is no bigger a problem than whites killing whites. OK.
> 
> 83% of whites are murdered by whites. 14% of whites are murdered by blacks.
> 
> ...


Those numbers are for a single victim/single offender.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

po boy said:


> Those numbers are for a single victim/single offender.


No sure what that means.

Does the pattern change if it is looked at another way? The way you are suggesting.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Redlands Okie said:


> I have not researched all the cases by any means. I do highly suspect that police have not killed anyone for a counterfeit bill, cigarettes, etc. Running, assault, resisting are all real bad ideas and death should not be a result but if it is then little sympathy from here.
> 
> 
> People are dying as a result of their actions that go badly when dealing with law enforcement.


You may want to familiarize yourself with George Floyd's case (counterfeit bill/bad check), Eric Garner (selling loose cigarettes), Rayshard Brooks (shot in the back twice while running away), Philandro Castile (reaching for his pistol permit), and many others. 

Please look up the names I listed. Which of those actions justified the killing of a human being?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Redlands Okie said:


> I have not researched all the cases by any means. I do highly suspect that police have not killed anyone for a counterfeit bill, cigarettes, etc. Running, assault, resisting are all real bad ideas and death should not be a result but if it is then little sympathy from here.
> 
> 
> People are dying as a result of their actions that go badly when dealing with law enforcement.


If you are going to be arrested it's a done deal! Go peaceful and call your bail bondsman and lawyer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You may want to *familiarize yourself* with George Floyd's case (counterfeit bill/bad check), Eric Garner (selling loose cigarettes), Rayshard Brooks (shot in the back twice while running away), Philandro Castile (reaching for his pistol permit), and many others.
> 
> Please look up the names I listed. Which of those actions justified the killing of a human being?


You left out the things they did that ultimately lead to their deaths.
You only want to talk about part of the facts while pretending not to see reality.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

HDRider said:


> No sure what that means.
> 
> Does the pattern change if it is looked at another way? The way you are suggesting.


Not sure if the pattern changes, but the victims would increase a lot.
I am looking for that data.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "*Some* Black Lives Matter"


Not these though. 

*Man who killed 9-year-old girl in Ferguson as she did homework is going to prison for 22 years*
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_1621ebc8-0e59-5367-87a3-eac77b73cc61.html


*Prosecutors say Tyshawn Lee was lured to his death by gang rivals of his father. Nearly four years later, two men are on trial for his execution-style killing*
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...0190916-aotsrrv3pbcafezcrfqiu6qxgi-story.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeepHammer said:


> You can't *connect* the name of the thread with what was *written in the very first line about vandalism of court buildings?*


Explain the "connection" to "court buildings".



HDRider said:


> As the three teenagers walked home from the store, police said two of them were shot multiple times in an alleyway.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

po boy said:


> Not sure if the pattern changes, but the victims would increase a lot.
> I am looking for that data.


Table 4 gives total homicides and it's more than double the single victim/offender
U can rollover the tables and see what they contain.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

JeepHammer said:


> You can't connect the name of the thread with what was written in the very first line about vandalism of court buildings?
> 
> All the while an armed black group had to stand security around the state house in Michigan because white, armed anti-government bunch took it over, caused damage, and cause the staff to evacuate in fear of their lives...
> The police assigned to protect the state house simply let an armed mob into the state house.
> ...


Who cares what color the security forces might be ? As long as they do their job. Which it seems some of the police forces have not been allowed to do.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> You may want to familiarize yourself with George Floyd's case (counterfeit bill/bad check), Eric Garner (selling loose cigarettes), Rayshard Brooks (shot in the back twice while running away), Philandro Castile (reaching for his pistol permit), and many others.
> 
> Please look up the names I listed. Which of those actions justified the killing of a human being?


George Floyd did not die because of a counterfeit bill/bad cheek. He did not die as a result of his past criminal activities. He died as a result of refusing to get in the police car when they tried to get him into it. In the struggle and subduing afterward he unfortunately died. Once again I will repeat myself. He died as a result of his actions resting arrest. Sad to happen and perhaps the officers should not have subdued him in a manner that they did. Bottom line is if he had got in the car and gone to the police station a lawyer and judge would have handled it, not a funeral home. And the officers would not be in risk of jail and lost jobs.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Redlands Okie said:


> George Floyd did not die because of a counterfeit bill/bad cheek. He did not die as a result of his past criminal activities. He died as a result of refusing to get in the police car when they tried to get him into it. In the struggle and subduing afterward he unfortunately died. Once again I will repeat myself. He died as a result of his actions resting arrest. Sad to happen and perhaps the officers should not have subdued him in a manner that they did. Bottom line is if he had got in the car and gone to the police station a lawyer and judge would have handled it, not a funeral home. And the officers would not be in risk of jail and lost jobs.


To be clear, you are indicating that resisting arrest is a crime that LEOs should use deadly force? I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Unless you have a crystal ball there is no way to know what would have happened, if the four former officers (now charged with murder) hadn't caused his death (evidenced by two autopsies) and just written him a citation, a human being would still be alive.

My opinion is a human being shouldn't die over a misdemeanor.

ETA: I appreciate you responding to my posts in a rational manner. Thank you.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> To be clear, *you are indicating that resisting arrest is a crime that LEOs should use deadly force?* I don't want to put words in your mouth.


He didn't say or indicate that. He said this.



Redlands Okie said:


> ....*He died as a result of refusing to get in the police car when they tried to get him into it. In the struggle and subduing afterward he unfortunately died..... He died as a result of his actions resting arrest.*..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> To be clear, you are indicating that resisting arrest is a crime that LEOs should use deadly force?


What "deadly force"? 
Which *specific* case?



Irish Pixie said:


> Unless you have a crystal ball there is no way to know what would have happened, if the four former officers (now charged with murder) hadn't caused his death (evidenced by two autopsies) and *just written him a citation*, a human being would still be alive.


They don't "write citations" for the things he did.
He caused his own death through his own actions.
To think otherwise would be irrational.



Irish Pixie said:


> I appreciate you responding to my posts in a *rational* manner.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

You are chasing the wind! I know you know this.


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> To be clear, you are indicating that resisting arrest is a crime that LEOs should use deadly force? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
> 
> Unless you have a crystal ball there is no way to know what would have happened, if the four former officers (now charged with murder) hadn't caused his death (evidenced by two autopsies) and just written him a citation, a human being would still be alive.
> 
> ...





Irish Pixie said:


> To be clear, you are indicating that resisting arrest is a crime that LEOs should use deadly force? I don't want to put words in your mouth.
> 
> Unless you have a crystal ball there is no way to know what would have happened, if the four former officers (now charged with murder) hadn't caused his death (evidenced by two autopsies) and just written him a citation, a human being would still be alive.
> 
> ...



I really don’t understand where your point of view is coming from or how convoluted to get there.

Floyd was arrested for passing a bad check. As a minor thing he would have been booked and back out to steal some more in a few hours most likely.

he chose to become belligerent and scuffle with the police. At that point his evil and hatred actions put him down a path that did not end well for him. But it was his choice to create the bad scene. He could have simply cooperated with the arrest for his stealing and he would be alive today.

did he ‘deserve’ to die? I don’t know, I don’t really know what that exactly means. You question does not fit the situation.

he chose His actions very poorly, and ended up dead for it.

as you well know, and any thinking person could understand, Floyd’s death had nothing at all to do with a forged check. It had to do with his asssult of a police officer.

and that is what makes all this so hard to understand. You appear to be defending assaults on police, if you think Floyd was some sort of upstanding person and the police run around town gunning down people who write bad checks.

or sell cigarettes.

they were assaulting police officers.

at that point, they chose their path. If they get killed for it, it is on them.

I don’t think they ‘deserve’ to die, but I think they chose to die.

I don’t care if they are black, white, Asian, Native American, Hispanic, or Martin.

I don’t understand in any way your defense of violent people not being held accountable for their actions?

none of this, not any of this, in any way at all, had anything to do with a bad check, or a cigarette sale. That is nonsense.

it is difficult to even figure out what you are talking about, your questions make no sense. They are not related to what happened.

Floyd, and most of the others you mention were not dead for some minor offense. They were shot for reacting violently to a police visit.

Is it your position we just just let all criminals run around free and have no rules or bounds on anyone, or just let black people run round with no rules and no bounds, free to steal, attack, and kill all they want?

it appears that is the result of what you are supporting with your views on this. Tho it is very hard to understand your views here at all.

Paul


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

TripleD said:


> You are chasing the wind! I know you know this.


 you can't convince someone who knows it all.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Floyd did not pass a bad check.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> To be clear, you are indicating that resisting arrest is a crime that LEOs should use deadly force? I don't want to put words in your mouth.


Did you really just say this? You did read what he wrote didn't you?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Goodness, looks like white women are next on the to do list.
Better start apologizing now.
*Washington Post editor facing backlash for going after white women*
https://www.foxnews.com/media/washi...ng-white-women-lucky-were-calling-for-revenge


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Did you really just say this? You did read what he wrote didn't you?


I guess she hasn't been around to many officers before. You are going to jail if they decide it!!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Floyd did not pass a bad check.


Right he tried to pass a bogus 20, and the cop murdered him for trying. Killed him like a dirty dog in the street. The virtuous, gentle giant snuffed out in the prime of his life by a rabid racist policeman, while three other raciest policemen cheered him on.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> Goodness, looks like white women are next on the to do list.
> Better start apologizing now.
> *Washington Post editor facing backlash for going after white women*
> https://www.foxnews.com/media/washi...ng-white-women-lucky-were-calling-for-revenge


How do they know that 53 percent of white women voted for Trump? We don't sign our names, race or genders on our ballots here in Texas. Do they make you do it in other states?

"I am a white male and I vote for Joe yuk,yuk......"

Really? How do they know? I smell something here and it's not my Armani.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Conspiracies?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> How do they know that 53 percent of white women voted for Trump? We don't sign our names, race or genders on our ballots here in Texas. Do they make you do it in other states?
> 
> "I am a white male and I vote for Joe yuk,yuk......"
> 
> Really? How do they know? I smell something here and it's not my Armani.


Exit polls, and statistical extrapolation


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

po boy said:


> That is not his viewpoint. It is true most murders are within their race. It is also true that black on black murder is much higher in number than any other race and it's ignored by most.


I've been told by people who lived in Denver at the time that had Columbine been like this, or even been done by white perpetrators at any of several high schools, that it would barely have been a blip in the local news and would only be discussed nowadays on racist websites, and believe the same thing about Sandy Hook (I am aware that both shootings had black casualties, from middle-class families). The Charleston church shooting seemed headed in this direction UNTIL it was discovered that the pastor (who died) was also an elected state representative.

I should add that the thing that's always upset me the most about Charleston is that the perp told the arresting officers, "They were so nice to me, I almost didn't do it."


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Yet more white people are killed by police.
> But ol ****** don't matter, and white death won't get any votes for Joe


Several years ago, a black police officer in my town fatally shot a white disabled man who was about 60 years old. This is probably the first you heard of it, and here's why: It was 100% justified; he was extremely dangerous, and there were witnesses who testified as to the way the man was acting, not only that time but in the past.

The officer actually self-identifies as Hispanic, because he's a Jr.; he had a Hispanic father and a black mother, but just to look at him, most people would call him black.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

HDRider said:


> Exit polls, and statistical extrapolation


My brother was exit-polled a while back, and deliberately gave all wrong answers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

thesedays said:


> My brother was exit-polled a while back, and deliberately gave all wrong answers.


There is that. Polls, exit, or prescient, are useless.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SRSLADE said:


> Conspiracies?


Nah, just a little BS.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

thesedays said:


> My brother was exit-polled a while back, and deliberately gave all wrong answers.


I don't know anyone that tells the truth on those.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

kinderfeld said:


> He didn't say or indicate that. He said this.


And Mr. Floyd was (allegedly) murdered due to *resisting arrest*, correct? Based on many opinions offered on this thread, there are people that feel resisting arrest can be handled with deadly force by LEOs. That taking the life of a human being over a misdemeanor is justified. There is no other way to look at it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> And Mr. Floyd was (allegedly) murdered due to *resisting arrest*, correct? Based on many opinions offered on this thread, there are people that feel resisting arrest can be handled with deadly force by LEOs. That taking the life of a human being over a misdemeanor is justified. There is no other way to look at it.


Why was he murdered?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> And Mr. Floyd was (allegedly) murdered due to *resisting arrest*, correct? Based on many opinions offered on this thread, there are people that feel resisting arrest can be handled with deadly force by LEOs. That taking the life of a human being over a misdemeanor is justified. There is no other way to look at it.


There is another way to look at it. One that doesn't imply intent. Another viewpoint would place some of the blame on the criminal.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> And Mr. Floyd was (allegedly) murdered due to *resisting arrest*, correct? Based on many opinions offered on this thread, there are people that feel resisting arrest can be handled with deadly force by LEOs. That taking the life of a human being over a misdemeanor is justified. There is no other way to look at it.



Pixie you were asked this before a couple comments back and I am truly curious of you answer as I am trying to understand your viewpoint

"Is it your position we just just let all criminals run around free and have no rules or bounds on anyone, or just let black people run round with no rules and no bounds, free to steal, attack, and kill all they want?"

Do you not see this as a problem .. if people did not want to get arrested and all they had to do is cause a fight with the police or run away from them? 

Do you not see the chaos that would ensue?


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> And Mr. Floyd was (allegedly) murdered due to *resisting arrest*, correct? Based on many opinions offered on this thread, there are people that feel resisting arrest can be handled with deadly force by LEOs. That taking the life of a human being over a misdemeanor is justified. There is no other way to look at it.


The former cop who murdered George Floyd sometimes did security work at the same place Floyd did, so they knew each other! You know darned well that when he saw George, he was going to do his best to find some excuse to dispatch him; he just didn't think there would be any consequences, I suspect.

As for the Somali cop who shot an Australian tourist and went to prison, it wasn't because he was black and she was white, but because he was a very crooked cop himself, and by all accounts, the only reason he was hired in the first place and allowed to stay on the force was due to pressure from the large and powerful Somali community in the Twin Cities. One of the many reasons why communities don't want Somalis coming in is because they completely take over any community where they are settled, and you're not allowed to criticize them (and this is one of the few places online where I can say this and get away with it).


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> And Mr. Floyd was (allegedly) murdered due to *resisting arrest*, correct? Based on many opinions offered on this thread, there are people that feel resisting arrest can be handled with *deadly force* by LEOs. That taking the life of a human being over a misdemeanor is justified. There is no other way to look at it.


There was no "deadly force" used.
You just keep saying words without knowing what they really mean.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thesedays said:


> The former cop who murdered George Floyd sometimes did security work at the same place Floyd did, *so they knew each other*!


The owner of the club said she didn't know if they had ever actually met.
The one person who said they had met recanted his story.

Chauvin worked there for years and Floyd worked there a few months.
There were over 30 "security guards" who worked various hours, with some working outside and others inside.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was no "deadly force" used.
> You just keep saying words without knowing what they really mean.


She knows what the words mean. She uses them like a flame thrower, or more like a Bic lighter. Either way, she like to start fires, and fan flames.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> And Mr. Floyd was (allegedly) murdered due to *resisting arrest*, correct? Based on many opinions offered on this thread, there are people that feel resisting arrest can be handled with deadly force by LEOs. That taking the life of a human being over a misdemeanor is justified. There is no other way to look at it.


There are police officers that should not be on the force. However the vast majority do their job correctly. There is a whole legal system designed to try to protect those being accused of crimes. People being arrested should be handled as gently and carefully as possible given the situation the person being arrested presents. If something goes wrong and the person being arrested resists then we have problems. The person being arrested might get hurt or killed. The officers might get hurt or killed. Bystanders might get hurt or killed. If the person being arrested escapes then once again all of the above people are at risk. The we have the legal issues, possible damaged carreers, lost jobs, protestors, lawyers, family, jails, all getting involved in something that was caused by the person being arrested not being cooperative. The life of someone is NOT being taken because they committed a misdemeanor. It’s being taken often times because the person being arrested does not cooperate. If things go wrong for some reason some people want to blame everyone except the person that started the whole darn problem.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The owner of the club said she didn't know if they had ever actually met.
> The one person who said they had met recanted his story.
> 
> Chauvin worked there for years and Floyd worked there a few months.
> There were over 30 "security guards" who worked various hours, with some working outside and others inside.


You are wasting your digital breath. She is convinced of her suspicions.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

thesedays said:


> The former cop who murdered George Floyd sometimes did security work at the same place Floyd did, so they knew each other! You know darned well that when he saw George, he was going to do his best to find some excuse to dispatch him; he just didn't think there would be any consequences, I suspect.
> 
> As for the Somali cop who shot an Australian tourist and went to prison, it wasn't because he was black and she was white, but because he was a very crooked cop himself, and by all accounts, the only reason he was hired in the first place and allowed to stay on the force was due to pressure from the large and powerful Somali community in the Twin Cities. One of the many reasons why communities don't want Somalis coming in is because they completely take over any community where they are settled, and you're not allowed to criticize them (and this is one of the few places online where I can say this and get away with it).


Is this sarcasm or serious ? What does working together have to do with am excuse to dispatch him ?


I really do wonder how George Floyd got a job working security anywhere. It’s a totally separate issue but whoever hired him for such a job should be checked out. Absolutely ridiculous for someone with George Floyd’s record to be working security. His past employer is probably very lucky he is not dealing with a law suit as a result of some action George Floyd took on the job.


The immigrant neighbor hood issue you mention seems fairly common and has been a long term problem of not assimilating immigrants into the general population and customs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> She knows what the words mean.


I'm not sure she does.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> You are wasting your digital breath. She is convinced of her suspicions.


Maybe it will help someone else reading it though.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Why do you think cops kill people selling loose cigarettes?





HDRider said:


> When did someone get shot for selling loose cigarettes?


Not shot, strangled to death with a prohibited choke hold. 
Eric Garner Look it up, lots of video. His killer was never charged.
Soverign immunity, another term that keeps police above the law.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Danaus29 said:


> Not shot, strangled to death with a prohibited choke hold.
> Eric Garner Look it up, lots of video. His killer was never charged.
> Sovereign immunity, another term that keeps police above the law.


Me and everyone else knows all about Eric Garner. What we do not agree on is whether the cop murdered him.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

mreynolds said:


> How do they know that 53 percent of white women voted for Trump? We don't sign our names, race or genders on our ballots here in Texas. Do they make you do it in other states?
> 
> "I am a white male and I vote for Joe yuk,yuk......"
> 
> Really? How do they know? I smell something here and it's not my Armani.


In Ohio there is a ballot number next to your name. The card the official puts in the computer box has that number printed on it. With mail in ballots your name and address is right on the ballot form. Of course they know how you voted.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Garner wasn't killed by one cop. He was at the bottom of a dogpile. He was killed by police, the death was ruled a homicide.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Danaus29 said:


> In Ohio there is a ballot number next to your name. The card the official puts in the computer box has that number printed on it. With mail in ballots your name and address is right on the ballot form. Of course they know how you voted.


Hmmm, here you just check your name that you are voting. Then you get a blank ballot, go vote and then put it in with the rest of the vanilla ballots.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Not shot, strangled to death with a prohibited choke hold.


That's the media spin, not the reality.



Danaus29 said:


> Garner wasn't killed by one cop. He was at the bottom of a dogpile. He was *killed by police*, the death was ruled a homicide.





> Specifically, an autopsy indicated that Garner's death resulted from "[compression] of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police".[2] *Asthma, heart disease, and obesity were cited as contributing factors*.[6]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Eric_Garner#cite_note-Pearson01Aug2014-6
Had he *not* had those preexisting conditions and had he not *fought* with the police, he'd probably be alive now.

The same applies to George Floyd.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Keep in mind that Garner had I think about 30 previous interactions with police resulting in arrest. Resulting in 30 times being released and allowed to continue with his lifestyle. This time for unknown reasons Garner committed several actions leading up to and during the confrontation that just kept escalating the situation. His existing health problems during the struggle resulted in a series of medical problems leading to his death after he left the scene while in the care of the EMTs who had checked him out and deemed he was breathing and had good pulse so as to allow them to transport him front the scene. 

One more case of life’s and careers lost and ruined by the poorly thought out reactions people make when dealing with the police. In this case really sad since Garner was more than familiar with the procedures. 

I think the officers involved were never convicted of wrong doing in federal criminal court or in civil court. Lots of opportunities from a variety of legal people to prosecute them and none were able to do so even with film of the incident.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Redlands Okie said:


> The immigrant neighbor hood issue you mention seems fairly common and has been a long term problem of not assimilating immigrants into the general population and customs.


There is a name for this. Such people are called "colonists".


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Black lives matter is focused on groups in power who use that power in racist ways. It is not about general criminals who do not have the power of the badge to perpetrate crimes on people of color and get away with it.


So, they are a selective hate group? They get to pick and choose who they think are worth hating?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Yet blacks are only 13.4 percent of the population while whites are 60.4 percent. On a per capita basis blacks are killed by police at a much higher percentage. Using only part of the stats is not the entire picture.


And yet blacks manage to commit 60 percent of the crime.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

muleskinner2 said:


> So, they are a selective hate group? They get to pick and choose who they think are worth hating?


As an unpaid and unapproved spokesperson for BLM, she should probably run her comments by them first.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> I can't think of a single thing that would justify killing a human being for selling loose cigarettes. Can you?
> 
> Do you think people deserve to die for selling loose cigarettes, resisting arrest, running away from the police, owning a registered hand gun? Or for having a prior record and/or a history of drugs?


No


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> resisting arrest


Depends on how they resisted.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> running away from the police,


Depends on the circumstances.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> owning a registered hand gun?


No


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

muleskinner2 said:


> No


Yet it does happen. How many human beings have been killed (many allegedly murdered) by the police for misdemeanor crime just this year? How many in the last decade?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yet it does happen. How many human beings have been killed (many allegedly murdered) by the police for misdemeanor crime just this year? How many in the last decade?


The data is there. The (your) reaction to the false flag of police misdeeds completely dwarfs actual police maleficence.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> The data is there. The (your) reaction to the false flag of police misdeeds completely dwarfs actual police maleficence.


Yes, the statistics are there for all to see. And your opinion of my view is noted, and is not in any way how I think or feel regarding the killing (murdering) of human beings over misdemeanor crime.

My opinion of your post is that you don't care if the police kill (murder) _some_ human beings for misdemeanor crime because they must deserve it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, the statistics are there for all to see. And your opinion of my view is noted, and is not in any way how I think or feel regarding the killing (murdering) of human beings over misdemeanor crime.
> 
> My opinion of your post is that you don't care if the police kill (murder) _some_ human beings for misdemeanor crime because they must deserve it.


Opinions have no consequences on data, or facts


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Opinions have no consequences on data, or facts


Absolutely correct. So why do you bother to skew my opinion to what you feel it should be?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yet it does happen. How many human beings have been killed (many allegedly murdered) by the police for misdemeanor crime just this year? How many in the last decade?


If it is being waved around or brandished it doesn't matter if it is registered or not. Where I live, guns, rifles or hand guns are not registered. If you took them into the police to REGISTER them, they would laugh you out of the building.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

muleskinner2 said:


> If it is being waved around or brandished it doesn't matter if it is registered or not. Where I live guns rifles or hand guns are not registered. If you took them into the police to REGISTER them, they would laugh you out of the building.


I'm sorry. I was referring to a specific incident in which a human being (Philando Castile) was shot in front of his girlfriend and daughter after informing police he had a registered handgun and permit.









Shooting of Philando Castile - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Absolutely correct. So why do you bother to skew my opinion to what you feel it should be?


I am not skewing your opinion. I am skewering your opinion


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I am not skewing your opinion. I am skewering your opinion


Nope. I am correct, and it's there for all to see. You tweak my posts and change the meaning to something you want me to have said. It's not ethical. 

I'm done. You like this attention way too much.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, the statistics are there for all to see. And your opinion of my view is noted, and is not in any way how I think or feel regarding the killing (murdering) of human beings over misdemeanor crime.
> 
> My opinion of your post is that you don't care if the police kill (murder) _some_ human beings for misdemeanor crime because they must deserve it.


Pix, you’re intentionally skewing the discussion by repeating the obviously incorrect claim that any of these people were murdered for committing a misdemeanor.

You can’t look at all of these individual situations in aggregate. That is only going to blur the facts, and set you up for a flawed view of the situation.

Eric Garner wasn’t murdered for selling cigarettes. He had been caught doing that, and similar petty crimes, many, many times. He was ARRESTED for selling cigarettes. He died as a result of resisting that arrest, his existing health conditions complicating the result of the strain of the fight, AND a cop using a banned restraint technique.

George Floyd wasn’t murdered for passing a counterfeit bill. He died because of a situation almost identical to the one with Eric Garner, but it was further complicated by a cop who refused to get off of him despite the resistance having ended, and the pleas from onlookers. Did the cop refuse to get off Floyd because he dislikes black folks? Was it a power trip that made him refuse to get off just because the peasants were demanding it? We’ll probably never know the why, but we do know the how, and that cop will probably go to prison for it.

Philandro Castile was murdered. I don’t know what else to say about that one. His situation is almost a perfect analog to Justine Damond’s. A nervous cop taking too much liberty with their power, or just plain cowardice. The cases were just different enough that Ms. Damond’s killer was charged, but Mr. Castillo’s was not. I disagree with the outcome of the latter, but I can’t even begin to confidently declare why it happened that way.

Your trying to lump them all together under the banner of “murdered for committing a misdemeanor” gives the other side just enough ammunition to dismiss them all under the banner of “caused their own death by resisting arrest/commands”. That does just as much to stymie progress and healing as saying Chauvin was just doing his job.


Be intellectually honest about your position, and save your outrage for the ones that really merit outrage, like the murders of Philandro Castile and Walter Scott, and the other side won’t be able to so easily dismiss it. It will force the discussion to a place where healing and progress can actually happen.

If I were Castille’s or Scott’s brother, I would be thoroughly disgusted with anyone who dulled the discussion of their murders by throwing the Alton Sterlings and Eric Garners into it.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

^^^^^ well said


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Redlands Okie said:


> ^^^^^ well said


Very well said, and very well thought out. Still a total waste of time. 

No one crosses the line from there to here, or from here to there, especially in their latter years.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Very well said, and very well thought out. Still a total waste of time.
> 
> No one crosses the line from there to here, or from here to there, especially in their latter years.


I think that there are an awful lot of us who live on that line, though, and can look at individual situations as individual situations.

If there’s a barrier preventing us from being able to change each others’ thinking on specific items it’s that we don’t reliably get specific in our discussion of them.

When we throw up straw men, put words in each others’ mouths, distill our position to cool-sounding memes, and debase our own arguments by using those tactics whenever others brandish them, we lose all hope of our own argument having an impact.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> we lose all hope of our own argument having an impact.


Yes we do.

There is a divide. All the bridges have been destroyed. Emissaries are maimed and killed.

Will that change from our present situation? I do not know.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Today, right now, many if not most areas of the world if you misbehave you will get a hand chopped off for stealing, vigilante actions such as stoning for misbehaving, serous problems for talking to someone of the other sex with out family supervision, years spent in prison for talking “disrespectful” about a party member, automatic death sentence for possession or use of drugs. Actual physical torture is common. The list goes on. 

Here in the USA if you are caught stealing, selling drugs, committing assault in many areas you might be arrested, then your presented in front of the court and they send you right back out to the street. No bail needed. If you do end up in jail most bail out and get a relative slap on the wrist at worst in repeated case after case. Its common to not even attempt to prosecute people committing arson and assault on camera. You can live on the sidewalk, do illegal drugs on the sidewalk, crap on the sidewalk and its overlooked. Breakdown gates and invade peoples private property and threaten them, all with impunity. Most of the people in the cases listed in numerous posts above have repeated experiences of this many times. We have become such a lenient society that it is incredible. If you happen to have the misfortune of running into a officer who is actually trying to do their job and you resist arrest, or fight back, or try to run and things go wrong its somebody else’s fault for anything that went wrong? It just baffles me that so many parents have raised several generations that find this acceptable.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Pix, you’re intentionally skewing the discussion by repeating the obviously incorrect claim that any of these people were murdered for committing a misdemeanor.
> 
> You can’t look at all of these individual situations in aggregate. That is only going to blur the facts, and set you up for a flawed view of the situation.
> 
> ...


I see your point, I do. However, what is the class of crime for resisting arrest? In NY, (as in most states in the US) it's a misdemeanor. It's my opinion that no human being should be killed (or murdered) for a misdemeanor.

ETA: No one has to agree with me, that's the beauty of a personal opinion. No one is forced to respond either.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> I see your point, I do. However, what is the class of crime for resisting arrest? In NY, (as in most states in the US) it's a misdemeanor. It's my opinion that no human being should be killed (or murdered) for a misdemeanor.
> 
> ETA: No one has to agree with me, that's the beauty of a personal opinion. No one is forced to respond either.


Resisting arrest easily turns into assaulting a police officer. And, no, before you overcook that herring, no one is saying it’s okay to execute someone for committing that crime.

Walter Scott was murdered for the crime of assaulting a police officer. That’s what happened. And his murderer was charged, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years.

I’m not sure if Chauvin tried to kill Floyd, or if he just went power-trip and tried to exert his dominance for about 7 minutes too long. Either way, he’s been charged and there will be a trial (assuming the mob doesn’t lynch him first).

Philandro Castile and Justine Damond were killed (murdered?) because trigger-happy cowards with badges got twitchy.

Of even those, the only one who was killed by “deadly force” (strictly the police term), specifically for the crime they’d committed, was Walter Scott.

Don’t cheapen the entirely valid argument against the tyrannical mindset that killed Walter Scott, and maybe George Floyd (we still have to see) by diluting the injustice of their deaths with everyone who dies while resisting arrest for minor crimes. By and large, they’re not being “killed for misdemeanors”. It’s disingenuous to say so.

ETA: and I’m just as entitled to have my own opinion (see how that works? Uncomfortable as it might make you), and am entitled to point out that you do more harm to the cause of fighting police tyranny when you assign it where it doesn’t belong, just to inflate the perceived numbers, than sticking to the actual cases.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Resisting arrest easily turns into assaulting a police officer. And, no, before you overcook that herring, no one is saying it’s okay to execute someone for committing that crime.
> 
> Walter Scott was murdered for the crime of assaulting a police officer. That’s what happened. And his murderer was charged, convicted, and sentenced to 20 years.
> 
> ...


I agree with everything you said, mostly.  Opinions (yours or anyone else) don't make me uncomfortable, I may not agree but you (and everyone else) are entitled. And we are going to have agree to disagree that many are killed (murdered) for misdemeanor crime and that it cheapens the death of another human being. Which I'm willing to do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry. I was referring to a specific incident in which a human being (Philando Castile) was shot in front of his girlfriend and daughter after informing police he had a registered handgun and permit.


He was also told to not *reach* for it.
But he reached anyway....



Irish Pixie said:


> ETA: No one has to agree with me, that's the beauty of a personal opinion. *No one is forced to respond* either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. I am correct, and *it's there for all to see*. You tweak my posts and change the meaning to something you want me to have said. It's not ethical.
> 
> I'm done. You like this attention way too much.


Yes, everyone can see.
SSDD


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)




----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, everyone can see.
> SSDD


off target


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

A large group of armed protesters on Saturday marched through Georgia's Stone Mountain Park, calling for the park's massive Confederate carving to be removed.

The predominantly Black demonstrators spoke out against the huge sculpture depicting Gen. Robert E. Lee, Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Gen. Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson, WXIA-TV reported. Carved into a granite mountain, the bas-relief sculpture is the largest Confederate monument ever crafted.

Stone Mountain Memorial Association spokesman John Bankhead said there were between 100 and 200 protesters. He said the protesters, many of whom carried large rifles, were peaceful.









Armed protesters march through Georgia's Stone Mountain Park


A large group of armed protesters marched through Georgia’s Stone Mountain Park, calling for the park’s massive Confederate carving to be removed




abcnews.go.com


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I don't think we are making progress.

This is the Stone Mountain thingy


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He was also told to not *reach* for it.
> But he reached anyway....


Castile was told to “reach for” his license and registration.

He mentioned the gun he had on him. The cop told him not to pull it out. Castile told him he wasn’t... implying that the thing he was reaching for was the thing the officer told him to produce.

Ideally, when Castile saw the cop’s hand go to his gun, his hands should have gone to the steering wheel- forget about the request to produce the license and registration for a minute, and let everything cool back down.

Unfortunately, he didn’t. He continued trying to follow the cop’s command: 

Here’s a transcript if you’re foggy on the details of his unjustified killing:





DocumentCloud







www.documentcloud.org





Jeronimo Yanez‘s cowardice killed Philandro Castile.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SRSLADE said:


>


Good to see you upping your game


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Here’s a transcript if you’re foggy on *the details* of his unjustified killing:


That confirms what I said.
He was told *not *to reach yet did it anyway.

Here's the verdict if you are "foggy":
*Trial and verdict*

The trial of Yanez began May 30, 2017, under Judge William H. Leary III.[86] Yanez would have faced up to 10 years under Minnesota law if he had been convicted.

*After five days and more than 25 hours of deliberation, the 12-member jury decided that the state had not met its burden for a conviction.*

The vote was initially 10–2 in favor of acquitting Yanez; after further deliberation the two remaining jurors were also swayed to *acquit*."


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> More politics...
> 
> What's the ratio of the US population between whites and African Americans? They aren't called a minority for nothing. What does that do to the statistics of more whites killed by police to African Americans killed by police when adjusted by population?
> 
> ...


An old adage in statistics: Torture the numbers hard enough and you can get them to confess to anything.

Blacks are killed by police in higher ratios when compared to total populations, but not when compared to total police/suspect encounters...*More importantly,* white officers are not more likely than black LEOs to kill black suspects. New Study Says White Police Officers Are Not More Likely To Shoot Minority Suspects That kinda takes the "racial prejudice" argument away, doesn't it?

Guys like Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael almost had it right-- they knew improvement in the black community had to come from within, not relying on whites to make things better for them. (I qualify that with "almost" because they advocated separatism.) 

In Chicago, 70 blacks were killed by police over the five years from '10-'14. Fatal Shootings By Chicago Police: Tops Among Biggest U.S. Cities

Over the same 5 yrs, ~ 1000 black Chicagoans were killed by other blacks. Chicago: 75% of Murdered Are Black, 71% of Murderers Are Black

Who's got the problem? Where's the solution gotta come from?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

doc- said:


> An old adage in statistics: Torture the numbers hard enough and you can get them to confess to anything.
> 
> In Chicago, 70 blacks were killed by police over the five years from '10-'14. Fatal Shootings By Chicago Police: Tops Among Biggest U.S. Cities
> 
> ...


Those statistics are worth repeating.

Which black lives matter?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

It seems the common denominator of these killings is the easy access to guns.
Guns seem to be the weapon of choice for law breakers and killers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLADE said:


> It seems the common denominator of these killings is the easy access to guns.
> Guns seem to be the weapon of choice for law breakers and killers.


It seems the common denominator of these protecting their families is the easy access to guns.
Guns seem to be the weapon of choice for those protecting themselves from law breakers and killers.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Pay attention and re read slowly.
The common denominator is in the OP title and in most of the posts.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> It seems the common denominator of these protecting their families is the easy access to guns.
> Guns seem to be the weapon of choice for those protecting themselves from law breakers and killers.


Guns are at best a deflection from the problem and many times the knee jerk reaction to doing little more than browsing a headline.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nine-year-old Nathan Wallace holds balloons during a vigil July 5, 2020, for his 7-year-old sister Natalia Wallace, who was shot and killed as her family gathered to celebrate the July Fourth holiday in the South Austin neighborhood of Chicago. (Erin Hooley / Chicago Tribune)

As many Chicagoans were celebrating the Fourth of July with barbecues and after-dinner fireworks, relatives of Natalia Wallace were experiencing the worst day of their lives.

The 7-year-old girl was one of at least 80 people shot, at least 17 of those fatally, across the city during the violent holiday weekend, starting Thursday afternoon. Gunfire erupted outside her relative’s home Saturday on the West Side, and she became the latest in a horrific string of children whose lives have been taken away by gun violence in Chicago.









‘Bullets just came from nowhere’: Fourth of July weekend gun violence kills at least 17, including 7-year-old-girl


Despite the addition of some 1,200 Chicago police officers added to the streets this holiday weekend, Chicago continues to struggle with an especially harsh toll of violence that has continued to take the lives of young children.




www.chicagotribune.com


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

OK. It's the bullets not the gun.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Illinois statutes regarding firearms have proven to be among the more restrictive in the United States. 

The registration of firearms is not required by Illinois statutes, the only exception being the city of Chicago, in which any type of firearm must be registered. 

Possession of firearms in the city of Chicago is illegal unless it is appropriately registered with the authorities. A certificate will be issued that must be carried at all times the firearm is in possession or being carried, and must be readily presentable to any law enforcement official if requested. Handguns that have not been registered before 1982 are not allowed, and thus any handgun in Chicago after said date is illegal by Illinois law. 









Illinois Gun Laws - Gun Control, Rights, News - LAWS.com


Illinois Gun Laws - Understand Illinois Gun Laws, Gun Control, Gun Rights, Gun News, Gun Broker & Deals, Nerf Guns, Gun Safe, its processes, and crucial Gun Control, Gun Rights, Gun News, Gun Broker & Deals, Nerf Guns, Gun Safe information needed.



gun.laws.com


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

SLADE said:


> OK. It's the bullets not the gun.


Tutoring should be available on facebook market.

BLM is stumbling around Georgia mountains armed with AR15s to protest a monument.
Southwest Chicago is a killbox. 
It isn't guns nor the bullets.

Which black lives matter?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

What is it?
Don't be afraid to say it.
You know you want to.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

SLADE said:


> What is it?
> Don't be afraid to say it.
> You know you want to.


I'll say it. It's prison culture leaking onto the streets. You see it in pockets of black America, you see it in certain pockets of white and Hispanic America.

You disrespect me (or even if I think you disrespected me), I get to kill you for it. Prison rules. Except now Joe and Josephina Six-Pack get to deal with it because it's no longer just that way in prison.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLADE said:


> What is it?
> Don't be afraid to say it.
> You know you want to.


You know my mind better than me.

What is it I am so afraid to say?

You know I can't think or act without someone like you to tell me.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

I don't know.
It's hidden in that dark scary place.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Mish said:


> I'll say it. It's prison culture leaking onto the streets. You see it in pockets of black America, you see it in certain pockets of white and Hispanic America.
> 
> You disrespect me (or even if I think you disrespected me), I get to kill you for it. Prison rules. Except now Joe and Josephina Six-Pack get to deal with it because it's no longer just that way in prison.


Could be. Could be a part of the problem.
Seems like hate for our fellow man plays a part also.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLADE said:


> Could be. Could be a part of the problem.
> Seems like hate for our fellow man plays a part also.


I agree.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree.


Of course you do


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> Of course you do


And of course you don't. And you are not required to read or respond to my posts.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

SLADE said:


> Could be. Could be a part of the problem.
> Seems like *hate for our fellow man* plays a part also.


True, and all these children murdered over the last weekend are only collateral damage?
Something needs to be done about the black on black hate and crime


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> And of course you don't. And you are not required to read or respond to my posts.


I am compelled to read and respond to your posts, and fascinated on how two supposedly different people march in such lockstep. I find it interesting that your partner uses so few words and now resorting mostly to emojis to possibly hide his identity. 

It seems when I reply to you or him, I am killing to birds with one stone.


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

It seems that black lives only matter to the grieving mothers/family at the gravesite. They sure don't value their own brothers while they are shooting/stabbing them, and burning down their businesses while protesting for "social justice" !


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I am compelled to read and respond to your posts, and fascinated on how two supposedly different people march in such lockstep. I find it interesting that your partner uses so few words and now resorting mostly to emojis to possibly hide his identity.
> 
> It seems when I reply to you or him, I am killing to birds with one stone.


I didn't realize that agreeing with someone was a big deal. You have buddies that do it all day long. 

Your description of other members is not nice. Are you now trying to find out his identity? Are you accusing him of something? You do realize that you do not have to respond to _either_ of us, correct? It seems to bring out your emotional side, in my observation.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

NYC - From July 3 to July 5, the NYPD recorded a total of 44 shooting incidents with 63 victims. That compares to 16 incidents and 21 victims over the same three days last year. 








9 Dead, at Least 42 Shot in Roughly 15 Hours as NYC Violence Rages Over Weekend


As the boom of fireworks receded from the New York City skies Saturday night, gunfire, stabbings and acts of violence were reported across the boroughs, resulting in the deaths of at least nine people and injuries to more than three dozen others. The NYPD says at least 42 people were shot since...




www.nbcnewyork.com





NYC - June 22, 2020 - Statistics show a 342 percent increase in shootings last week – 53 compared to 12 in 2019. 








After 28 Shootings In 72 Hours, De Blasio Says 'We Are Not Going To Allow Gun Violence To Continue To Grow'


Police said there were a total of 28 shootings with 38 victims in 72 hours over the weekend.




newyork.cbslocal.com


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

New York City reduced a billion dollars from the NYPD in its city budget for the next year. 

...one thing the pandemic and the recent protests have showed people living in the tri-state area, Manhattan, Jersey City, White Plains...these are no places to be in a public health emergency. Civil strife and scary times center around the city. 








Start Spreading The News, New Yorkers Are Leaving Today


They used to go to Florida to spend some time in their summer homes, or to visit elderly parents. The pandemic is leading them there now for good.




www.forbes.com


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I am compelled to read and respond to your posts, and fascinated on how two supposedly different people march in such lockstep. I find it interesting that your partner uses so few words and now resorting mostly to emojis to possibly hide his identity.
> 
> It seems when I reply to you or him, I am killing to birds with one stone.


WOW.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

po boy said:


> True, and all these children murdered over the last weekend are only collateral damage?
> Something needs to be done about the black on black hate and crime


More money for education?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

SLADE said:


> I don't know.
> It's hidden in that dark scary place.


Comments like yours bother me and they do nothing to end racism in any way. Accusing people of being racist serves no purpose and fosters no understanding. 

Realistically, most who are accused of being racist are not and making accusations stops any opportunity for greater understanding between communities.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

wr said:


> Comments like yours bother me and they do nothing to end racism in any way. Accusing people of being racist serves no purpose and fosters no understanding.
> 
> Realistically, most who are accused of being racist are not and making accusations stops any opportunity for greater understanding between communities.


I didn't call anyone a racist.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

SLADE said:


> More money for education?


More money would just be wasted by the teacher's union. Giving kids a school choice would be more beneficial. That would give them a better learning environment and hopefully pursue higher education.
It's not accepted by the left, but having both parents in the home would improve crime demographics. Community leaders must push this issue.
Opportunity Zones
More Criminal Justice Reform.​


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Her life didn't matter!


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

po boy said:


> More money would just be wasted by the teacher's union. Giving kids a school choice would be more beneficial. That would give them a better learning environment and hopefully pursue higher education.
> It's not accepted by the left, but having both parents in the home would improve crime demographics. Community leaders must push this issue.
> Opportunity Zones
> More Criminal Justice Reform.​


Opportunity zones are to steal land and opportunity from the poor and spoon feed the rich. Buying votes.
School choice is to funnel money into religious schools which is against the constitution. Buying votes.
Corruption at it's finest.
Corruption is not a path forward.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

SLADE said:


> Opportunity zones are to steal land and opportunity from the poor and spoon feed the rich. Buying votes.
> School choice is to funnel money into religious schools which is against the constitution. Buying votes.
> Corruption at it's finest.
> Corruption is not a path forward.


A good example of why I don't fool with you and verification that u should just keep making your short snide replies because you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Don't get huffy.
Where am I wrong?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLADE said:


> Don't get huffy.
> Where am I wrong?


Everywhere, every time


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

SLADE said:


> Don't get huffy.
> Where am I wrong?


All of it!
You can't prove u r right without propaganda!


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

SLADE said:


> Could be. Could be a part of the problem.
> Seems like hate for our fellow man plays a part also.


Currently its all about the police doing things wrong. It really seems the problem is starting at home and in local communities. According to the statistics it seems some men hate their fellow men more than others. When lots of organizations and data keeps showing the same pattern year after year it should not be ignored. Yet somehow some people choose to ignore the information.


chart with the following heading is a good example. 
“Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders”



https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf





Is another government agency with similar information. 









Expanded Homicide Data Table 3






ucr.fbi.gov







Pick a search engine of your choice and look all you want. Same basic pattern over and over for years and years.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Why do people keep putting THEMSELVES at risk. When thinks go wrong its easy to pass out blame to others. But often times, in fact, usually, the REAL PROBLEM starts with their own actions. And then everyone is upset that things went “wrong.” Misdemeanors resulting in death and life’s and careers ruined would not be happening if the people would act responsibly and with some responsibility to start with. It’s just that simple.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLADE said:


> It seems the *common denominator* of these killings is the *easy access to guns*.
> Guns seem to be the *weapon of choice* for law breakers and killers.


The largest "common denominator" is black criminals resisting arrest.
Parroted rhetoric only shows your true lack of knowledge.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Your description of other members is not nice.


Nor is yours.



Irish Pixie said:


> You have buddies that do it all day long.


As do you. The same few every day.



Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that you do not have to respond to _either_ of us, correct?


We have this same conversation nearly every day.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

And now the peaceful protestors have removed the statue of Frederick Douglas and dragged it to he banks of the Genesee river. I'm sure someone more relevant and familiar with modern thought can take his place, such as, I don't know, maybe Snoop Dog.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The largest "common denominator" is black criminals resisting arrest.
> Parroted rhetoric only shows your true lack of knowledge.


I have no idea what you're trying to say.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLADE said:


> I have no idea what you're trying to say.


You say that a lot.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You don't have anything relevant to post and you don't understand what a thread is about and you can't comprehend what the posters are saying.
You should probably switch to the 3/2 stuff.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

SLADE said:


> I have no idea what you're trying to say.


You don't have anything relevant to post and you don't understand what a thread is about and you can't comprehend what the posters are saying.
You should probably switch to the 3/2 stuff.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Snoop Dog


Did you see his **** Bunch?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> You don't have anything relevant to post and you don't understand what a thread is about and you can't comprehend what the posters are saying.
> You should probably switch to the 3/2 stuff.


Are you talking to me?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I think you mean Snoops **** Bunch.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

I think the mood in our wonderful country is changing and if we look around we can see why.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLADE said:


> Are you talking to me?


What do you think?



SLADE said:


> I think the mood in our wonderful country is changing and if we look around we can see why.


It's not changing for the better.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLADE said:


> I think the mood in our wonderful country is changing and if we look around we can see why.


Tell us why


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

It's just my personal feeling.


----------



## CKelly78z (Jul 16, 2017)

SLADE said:


> I think the mood in our wonderful country is changing and if we look around we can see why.


You are absolutely correct...folks that never had a racist bone in their bodies are now starting to see the violent narrative that BLM represents, and are taking appropriate measures to ensure their own safety, and the safety of their family by acquiring a CCW (legally), and taking the classes to handle it responsibly.

The conceal carry classes instruct you to only pull your weapon when you feel your life/health is threatened....someone starts pulling me out of my car, there will only be one story to tell....mine !


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

SLADE said:


> I didn't call anyone a racist.


Not directly but I think we've all come to understand your cryptic comments. If that's not your point, perhaps you could clarify because they really don't do much to end racism.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

It was suggested that I could read minds and control the actions of others.
I HAVE NO SUCH POWERS.
I suggested that other people may have a dark scary place in their mind I wouldn't want to go.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

SLADE said:


> It was suggested that I could read minds and control the actions of others.
> I HAVE NO SUCH POWERS.
> I suggested that other people may have a dark scary place in their mind I wouldn't want to go.


You are locked in tour dark scary place.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

po boy said:


> You are locked in tour dark scary place.


I wish they'd cut off his internet


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SLADE said:


> Opportunity zones are to steal land and opportunity from the poor and spoon feed the rich. Buying votes.


I don't think you know what an opportunity zone really is. Do you?


2 Democrats authored this bill so are you saying these Democrats are buying votes?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

SLADE said:


> Opportunity zones are to steal land and opportunity from the poor and spoon feed the rich. Buying votes.
> School choice is to funnel money into religious schools which is against the constitution. Buying votes.
> Corruption at it's finest.
> Corruption is not a path forward.


You are deriving meaning from the blank spaces in the Constitution. It says that the government may not establish a religion (I.e., maintain a national religion like the national churches of Europe) and may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Further additions did not occur until after Franklin Roosevelt with 4 terms in office packed the courts with activist judges who should have been executed for treason.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> I don't think you know what an opportunity zone really is. Do you?
> 
> 
> 2 Democrats authored this bill so are you saying these Democrats are buying votes?


I think you don't get the big picture.  It's corruption at it's finest. Party be dammed
*Opportunity Zones - Welfare for the Wealthy - cato.org‎*

‎


There are about 8,700 O *Zones* across the country. O *Zones* are a bad idea and should be...


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

So what is your suggestion to encourage people to invest in such areas ?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SLADE said:


> I think you don't get the big picture.  It's corruption at it's finest. Party be dammed
> *Opportunity Zones - Welfare for the Wealthy - cato.org‎*
> 
> ‎
> ...


You didn't answer my question. 

Are your Democrats buying votes?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> Are your Democrats buying votes?


The democrats that co-sponsored this bill either did it to enrich their buddies or to buy votes.
Did you read my post?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLADE said:


> The democrats that co-sponsored this bill either did it to enrich their buddies or to buy votes.
> Did you read my post?


You just described the whole of our government, from the town council to the Congress.

I would suggest why someone is so reviled, but your mind is so polluted you'd never even consider it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

SLADE said:


> The democrats that co-sponsored this bill either did it to enrich their buddies or to buy votes.
> Did you read my post?


Ok then. Thanks for being honest. A republican was on that bill too. 

What would you suggest then to build back up distressed areas if not something like this? At least with this bill, the investor has to stay with it for ten years before they show any tax cuts.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Black Lives Matter's funding arm, Thousand Currents, is run by Susan Rosenburg, a convicted terrorist pardoned by President Bill Clinton

Alicia Garza, one of three co-founders of the Black Lives Matter national organization, has repeatedly talked about how convicted cop killer and wanted domestic terrorist Joanne Chesimard, also known as Assata Shakur, is one of her main inspirations.

Susan Rosenburg, from the late 1970s into the mid-1980s, was active in the far-left revolutionary terrorist May 19th Communist Organization, which engaged in bombings of buildings and provided support to the Black Liberation Army and is also suspected of helping Shakur escape from prison.

Patrisse Cullors, who help co-founded Back Lives Matter in 2013 along with Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi, identified herself and Garza as “trained Marxists.”


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The president of Greater New York Black Lives Matter, Hawk Newsome, said, “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right?"


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

HDRider said:


> The president of Greater New York Black Lives Matter, Hawk Newsome, said, “If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right?"


Classic Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" summarized nicely for us by Rahm Emmanuel's immortal "Exploit every crisis" comment.

With deserved apologies to the Poles: Q: How was Germany able to over-run Poland in only two weeks in 1939? A: They marched in backwards and told them they were leaving.

If we let this "protest" crap keep up, the world will be telling Stupid American jokes in 10 yrs.

In regards your earlier posts about Chicago and gun regs--- When you see these gangbangers holding their pistols sideways at arm's length straight over their heads and firing wildly, you think that instead of trying to prevent gun sales, maybe they ought to require shooting lessons when you buy one instead. Maybe that would cut down on the collateral damage to the innocent.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

I have to disagree about gun lessons. Just liquidate the fools.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

A state attorney general in New York says that the Black Lives Matter Foundation must immediately stop seeking donations from New Yorkers who believe the organization is affiliated with the Black Lives Matter movement.

The foundation is a California-based company that is not registered in New York as a charitable organization, which makes it illegal to collect donations from inside the state, New York Attorney General Letitia James said Monday.

The foundation, which is listed as a nonprofit with a singular employee and a UPS store as its address, raised more than $4 million following the May 25 death of George Floyd while in police custody in Minneapolis. The majority of those funds have now been frozen as the foundation came under scrutiny.

Many donors have given to the foundation in recent weeks thinking that they were contributing to the organization whose cause is to end police brutality. Companies including Apple, Microsoft and Google have recently made donation to the Black Lives Matter Foundation. 









Black Lives Matter Foundation must stop soliciting donations in NY, says state AG


People have been making donations to the foundation in recent weeks, believing it to be associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, which it is not




justthenews.com


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Maybe "multiculturalism" is a big part of our problem.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

What we traditionally had--a unique culture fashioned from the best of its contributors--is a great thing. Cultural schizophrenia is not.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

IndyDave said:


> What we traditionally had--a unique culture fashioned from the best of its contributors--is a great thing. Cultural schizophrenia is not.


Find time to watch the vid


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Redlands Okie said:


> I really do wonder how George Floyd got a job working security anywhere. It’s a totally separate issue but whoever hired him for such a job should be checked out. Absolutely ridiculous for someone with George Floyd’s record to be working security. His past employer is probably very lucky he is not dealing with a law suit as a result of some action George Floyd took on the job.


Very likely that he got that job through affirmative action. Some employers are required to have a certain percentage of black employees. If the only black people who apply are not qualified for the job, standards are lowered to allow those people to get the job.

Affirmative action is believed to be part of the reason Mohamed Noor was allowed to become and continue as a police officer.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

HDRider said:


> Find time to watch the vid


Not enough volume to hear and the captions aren't very good. Although you changed the subject, I stand by my characterization of multiculturalism in the American experience and will further hold the belief that it doesn't work anywhere that there are significant numbers of malcontents who have no intention whatsoever of becoming part of the larger culture.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

California duo charged with hate crime for defacing Black Lives Matter mural

“I said no one wants Black Lives Matter here!” he added. “That’s what I said. All Lives Matter, you punk.”

Two people in Martinez, Calif., spent part of Independence Day on Saturday painting over a recently created mural reading “Black Lives Matter,” according to local media reports.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcW4WM1UMAEK3Hw?format=jpg&name=small


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

IndyDave said:


> What we traditionally had--a unique culture fashioned from the best of its contributors--is a great thing. Cultural schizophrenia is not.


Huge difference between the attitudes of immigrants in the past compared to more recent immigrants-- an illustrative anecdote--
My paternal grandparents came here in 1913. Our family was "Volga Deutsch"-- Germans who went to Russia (Ukraine) to homestead ~1760 at the invitation of Catherine the Great. Always treated as 2nd class citizens by the Russians and seeing the rise of the Bolsheviks, the whole German population of the little village packed up and came to America, settling on the NW side of Chicago. 

My father became a White Sox fan as a kid despite living only 3 miles from the Cubs & Wrigley Field. All his friends were Sox fans. He taught me to be a Sox fan. I never questioned why we were Sox fans but lived on the North Side (after all, the Cubs SUCK, right?)....When he got to be 80ish and I had become more of a critical thinker, I finally asked him about it:

"Well, when we kids, we all spoke English with a little bit of a German accent and were embarrassed by it. We wanted to be REAL Americans, so when we got old enough to pay attention to baseball, we saw the Sox were in the AMERICAN League..." .

A far cry from the attitude of that babushkad Congressional ahole who was given a special chance to immigrate here to safety and now spouts nothing but hatred for this country that still protects her right to act like an ahole.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

I just got a federal district court jury summons (lucky me) last week. So I'm filling out the questionnaire, and on the back is a place to state your race. There is no option for "decline to state" and you must fill out the entire form leaving nothing blank. I read the small print on the question because it seems odd to me that they need to know my race for a jury summons, and it basically says they need to know in order to reduce the amount of racial bias/racism in selecting jury pools. 

So, then yesterday we're doing some preliminary work for a home loan. We get the same race question from the credit union - apparently on a VA loan they now need to know your race in order to prevent racism. No option to decline to state, I mean if we want the loan.

I'm not understanding how asking everyone's race for everything is reducing racism. Wouldn't NOT knowing my race be a better way of putting a jury together or giving an equal opportunity home loan? I feel like a crazy person lately.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Mish said:


> they need to know in order to reduce the amount of racial bias/racism


That is so insane.

They want to know your race so they can select the jury based on race. Even George Orwell would be amazed


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> That is so insane.
> 
> They want to know your race so they can select the jury based on race. Even George Orwell would be amazed


Or they need to know race so the jury *pool* represents the defendant's peers. Just because someone is summoned doesn't mean they'll serve, and as soon the person appears race is usually known.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or they need to know race so the jury *pool* represents the defendant's peers. Just because someone is summoned doesn't mean they'll serve, and as soon the person appears race is usually known.


And if they see a pattern of dismissing a certain race it will become an issue. 

I fully expect you to support selecting a jury based on race. You are the anti me. You are my enemy


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> And if they see a pattern of dismissing a certain race it will become an issue.
> 
> I fully expect you to support selecting a jury based on race. You are the anti me. You are my enemy


I never said, nor even implied that I'd support a jury based on race. I said, "Or they need to know race so the jury *pool* represents the defendant's peers." You know the whole "judged by a jury of your peers thing"?

"a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "*peer*" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available *jurors* include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of *race, national origin and gender*." Legal Dictionary - Law.com.

Your personal opinion means little to me.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I never said, nor even implied that I'd support a jury based on race. I said, "Or they need to know race so the jury *pool* represents the defendant's peers." You know the whole "judged by a jury of your peers thing"?
> 
> "a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "*peer*" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available *jurors* include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of *race, national origin and gender*." Legal Dictionary - Law.com.
> 
> Your personal opinion means little to me.


Who is not "equal" to you on a jury? Every vote counts.

You can deny your meaning, but it is no less clear. You just aren't brave enough to stand up for it.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

They need to know your race and gender so the jury pool can reflect the makeup of the population. We used to have juries made up of only white males. That didn’t work out so well for folks not in that particular demographic.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> They need to know your race and gender so the jury pool can reflect the makeup of the population. We used to have juries made up of only white males. That didn’t work out so well for folks not in that particular demographic.


Except it's never been done this way. That's not what a "jury of your peers" actually has meant in practicality. All white people are not my peers, even though I'm white. It's possible that I'm more a "peer" of specific black person that I would be of a specific white person, based on all sorts of things that have nothing to do with my skin tone. That's not how any of this works, and that's not how it was meant to work.

Picking jurors based on skin color is racism, plain and simple. There is no other way to describe this. It's not not racism, which is what the double speak on the form implies.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Mish said:


> Picking jurors based on skin color is racism, plain and simple. There is no other way to describe this. It's not not racism, which is what the double speak on the form implies.


Yep.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Mish said:


> Picking jurors based on skin color is racism, plain and simple. There is no other way to describe this. It's not not racism, which is what the double speak on the form implies.


Double speak is the rule now

It is a preemptive counterattack


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Mish said:


> Except it's never been done this way. That's not what a "jury of your peers" actually has meant in practicality. All white people are not my peers, even though I'm white. It's possible that I'm more a "peer" of specific black person that I would be of a specific white person, based on all sorts of things that have nothing to do with my skin tone. That's not how any of this works, and that's not how it was meant to work.
> 
> Picking jurors based on skin color is racism, plain and simple. There is no other way to describe this. It's not not racism, which is what the double speak on the form implies.


They aren’t picking jurors based on skin color. They used to do so with “white” being the only color allowed. Juries were picked based on gender even longer with only males being allowed. The demographic questions on the form are there to ensure that the make up of the jury pool is as diverse as possible. This is a good thing. They are not picking juries based on skin color.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> ...I said, "Or they need to know race so the jury *pool* represents the defendant's peers." You know the whole "judged by a jury of your peers thing"?
> 
> "a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "*peer*" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the _available *jurors* include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of *race, national origin and gender*._" Legal Dictionary - Law.com.


So, to have a fair representation of the overall population here in the United States, a jury should consist of 9 whites (76%), 2 hispanic/latinos (18%) and 1 black (13%) with an occasional Asian, Native American or Hawaiian/other Pacific islander replacement. It should also be equally divided between male and female. Are socioeconomic factors to be considered... how about sexual orientation... education???


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

SLFarmMI said:


> They aren’t picking jurors based on skin color... ...They are not picking juries based on skin color.


If they are using skin color/race as a factor in any way then they are by definition "picking juries based on skin color".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> The demographic questions on the form are there to ensure that the make up of the jury pool is as diverse as possible.


The demographics question ensures they know the race so they can pick the race to make the jury pool diverse.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

So pull up any recent court cases with information or images of the jury and start keeping score.
Note if there is any correlation to the case, the defendent, etc.
"Peers" is a very loose term.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> Or they need to know race so the jury *pool* represents the defendant's peers. Just because someone is summoned doesn't mean they'll serve, and as soon the person appears race is usually known.


Now that is racist. Peers are based on skin color ? And this country is supposed to be rid of racist? Someone is stacking the deck and playing games on deals like this. I often may not agree with comments posted but I usually understand the good intention behind them. This is a bit to far if one is to actually be trying to not be racist. Our constitution says all created equal. It’s way past time to act upon it in a ALL matters.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Redlands Okie said:





> I really do wonder how George Floyd got a job working security anywhere. It’s a totally separate issue but whoever hired him for such a job should be checked out. Absolutely ridiculous for someone with George Floyd’s record to be working security. His past employer is probably very lucky he is not dealing with a law suit as a result of some action George Floyd took on the job.


I doubt they ran any background checks.
He was just a "bouncer" at a bar.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> They aren’t picking jurors based on skin color. They used to do so with “white” being the only color allowed. Juries were picked based on gender even longer with only males being allowed. The demographic questions on the form are there to ensure that the make up of the jury pool is as diverse as possible. This is a good thing. They are not picking juries based on skin color.


Why is the color of someone's skin or the genitalia they happen to have indicative of "diversity"? I have less in common with Hillary Clinton (who I only bring up because she is someone everyone knows and also happens to a Caucasian female, like myself) than I do with my neighbor who happens to be black, male, and 20 years older than I am. We grew up in similar families, we're both from the Midwest originally and ended up in California. We both served in the same military branch - albeit at different times, we have similar incomes and lifestyles (we even have the same make/model of car!). We both love gardening. I don't think Hillary and I would have much to talk about at all, even though we're both white females. She's not my "peer" in any way.

I'm pretty sure if I were being tried for a crime, I'd want a jury of actual peers, like my black, male neighbor, and not some randomly "diverse" jury picked on skin color and gender that makes everyone else feel good. I want people who understand where I'm coming from, not people who happen to look like me. I mean if you're really interested in putting on fair trials and not just virtue signalling that we have lots of people with the same skin color as the defendant on the jury and therefore it's going to be a fair(er) trial. Which is absolutely racist, no matter what way you want to argue that it's not. 

Assuming people can't fairly judge others of different races _*is*_ a racist assumption. Valuing racial "diversity" above all else doesn't not get you racism. It gets you more of it. We're seeing those particular chickens coming home to roost now.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Mish said:


> Why is the color of someone's skin or the genitalia they happen to have indicative of "diversity"? I have less in common with Hillary Clinton (who I only bring up because she is someone everyone knows and also happens to a Caucasian female, like myself) than I do with my neighbor who happens to be black, male, and 20 years older than I am. We grew up in similar families, we're both from the Midwest originally and ended up in California. We both served in the same military branch - albeit at different times, we have similar incomes and lifestyles (we even have the same make/model of car!). We both love gardening. I don't think Hillary and I would have much to talk about at all, even though we're both white females. She's not my "peer" in any way.
> 
> I'm pretty sure if I were being tried for a crime, I'd want a jury of actual peers, like my black, male neighbor, and not some randomly "diverse" jury picked on skin color and gender that makes everyone else feel good. I want people who understand where I'm coming from, not people who happen to look like me. I mean if you're really interested in putting on fair trials and not just virtue signalling that we have lots of people with the same skin color as the defendant on the jury and therefore it's going to be a fair(er) trial. Which is absolutely racist, no matter what way you want to argue that it's not.
> 
> Assuming people can't fairly judge others of different races _*is*_ a racist assumption. Valuing racial "diversity" above all else doesn't not get you racism. It gets you more of it. We're seeing those particular chickens coming home to roost now.


Well said.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Mish said:


> Why is the color of someone's skin or the genitalia they happen to have indicative of "diversity"? I have less in common with Hillary Clinton (who I only bring up because she is someone everyone knows and also happens to a Caucasian female, like myself) than I do with my neighbor who happens to be black, male, and 20 years older than I am. We grew up in similar families, we're both from the Midwest originally and ended up in California. We both served in the same military branch - albeit at different times, we have similar incomes and lifestyles (we even have the same make/model of car!). We both love gardening. I don't think Hillary and I would have much to talk about at all, even though we're both white females. She's not my "peer" in any way.
> 
> I'm pretty sure if I were being tried for a crime, I'd want a jury of actual peers, like my black, male neighbor, and not some randomly "diverse" jury picked on skin color and gender that makes everyone else feel good. I want people who understand where I'm coming from, not people who happen to look like me. I mean if you're really interested in putting on fair trials and not just virtue signalling that we have lots of people with the same skin color as the defendant on the jury and therefore it's going to be a fair(er) trial. Which is absolutely racist, no matter what way you want to argue that it's not.
> 
> Assuming people can't fairly judge others of different races _*is*_ a racist assumption. Valuing racial "diversity" above all else doesn't not get you racism. It gets you more of it. We're seeing those particular chickens coming home to roost now.


You seem to be confusing the jury pool with the jury. Are you unaware that, before you are seated on the jury, you are asked questions by lawyers on both sides to determine ability to judge fairly, discover conflicts of interest, to weed out people who are unable to serve and to discover biases? Surely you don't think they pick the first 12 folks who show up?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> You seem to be confusing the jury pool with the jury. Are you unaware that, before you are seated on the jury, you are asked questions by lawyers on both sides to determine ability to judge fairly, discover conflicts of interest, to weed out people who are unable to serve and to discover biases? Surely you don't think they pick the first 12 folks who show up?


I'm quite aware of how jury selection works as I'm pretty much called every year for one court or another (usually federal for some reason, but I have been called twice to county). If I didn't have bad luck I'd have no luck at all, or else the random drivers license lottery just really loves mine.

Anyway, if the lawyers can choose during voir dire whoever they would like, which they can, why is it necessary to exclude/include people for the pool based on race or gender? Why not let random chance pull in the pool and let the lawyers figure it out for their own specific clients? Do you really need to tilt the pool in one direction or another before the people who actually might care about any of it get their say-so? You exclude me from the pool because I'm a white female on paper and you're really doing your client a disservice because I'm a pretty fair person in real life. Assuming I would immediately side with white prosecutors over a black client because I am white is the very definition of racism, and is extremely myopic at best, or malevolent at worst. Or just stupid virtue signalling that helps literally no one in the court system.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Mish said:


> I'm quite aware of how jury selection works as I'm pretty much called every year for one court or another (usually federal for some reason, but I have been called twice to county). If I didn't have bad luck I'd have no luck at all, or else the random drivers license lottery just really loves mine.
> 
> Anyway, if the lawyers can choose during voir dire whoever they would like, which they can, why is it necessary to exclude/include people for the pool based on race or gender? Why not let random chance pull in the pool and let the lawyers figure it out for their own specific clients? Do you really need to tilt the pool in one direction or another before the people who actually might care about any of it get their say-so? You exclude me from the pool because I'm a white female on paper and you're really doing your client a disservice because I'm a pretty fair person in real life. Assuming I would immediately side with white prosecutors over a black client because I am white is the very definition of racism, and is extremely myopic at best, or malevolent at worst. Or just stupid virtue signalling that helps literally no one in the court system.


They aren’t excluding you from the pool. Selection for the pool is random.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

SLFarmMI said:


> They aren’t excluding you from the pool. Selection for the pool is random.


From the wording on the initial questionnaire, they absolutely can exclude people from the pool. That is why you fill out the form before being given a date and time to show up for selection. The same reason the other questions are asked, like, "Do you reside in the county?" "Can you speak English?" "Are you a felon?" "Is there any reason you cannot perform jury duty?" so that they can exclude you from even getting a summons date if you fail to meet their criteria.

Selection for the questionnaire is random. Selection for the pool is not.

Edit for grammar, may not have caught them all, everyone thinks now is a good time to ask me random questions


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Any time you have to check a box for your race is pure racism. I don't care what you say. You cant reason that fact away. 

If race isn't supposed to be an issue, and we are all supposed to be equal then why do they need it? The banker can lend money on the responsibilities of the person applying for the loan. Same goes with a jury pool. The lawyers can determine their clients "peers" as well as their skill dictates. Even if their skills are the very worst, it's better than a piece a paper can.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLFarmMI said:


> You seem to be confusing the jury pool with the jury. Are you unaware that, before you are seated on the jury, you are asked questions by lawyers on both sides to determine ability to judge fairly, discover conflicts of interest, to weed out people who are unable to serve and to discover biases? Surely you don't think they pick the first 12 folks who show up?


Exactly. 

There needs to be a diverse enough pool for each lawyer to pick the best six for his or her client, and multiply that by many trials.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

homesteadforty said:


> So, to have a fair representation of the overall population here in the United States, a jury should consist of 9 whites (76%), 2 hispanic/latinos (18%) and 1 black (13%) with an occasional Asian, Native American or Hawaiian/other Pacific islander replacement. It should also be equally divided between male and female. Are socioeconomic factors to be considered... how about sexual orientation... education???


It's not my opinion, it's the definition according to the law. I gave a link. 

I don't think sexual orientation or education is something considered, and sex is already asked.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Redlands Okie said:


> Now that is racist. Peers are based on skin color ? And this country is supposed to be rid of racist? Someone is stacking the deck and playing games on deals like this. I often may not agree with comments posted but I usually understand the good intention behind them. This is a bit to far if one is to actually be trying to not be racist. Our constitution says all created equal. It’s way past time to act upon it in a ALL matters.


The definition I provided has a link, I suggest you read it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Ever notice how everyone sleeps on the same side of the bed every night?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> The definition I provided has a link, I suggest you read it.


A link does not change it


The link says “broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender.” The quote I responded to indicates that race is needed to provide the defendants a peer. I do not think race is needed and the link states plainly that “It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans”





Irish Pixie said:


> Or they need to know race so the jury *pool* represents the defendant's peers. Just because someone is summoned doesn't mean they'll serve, and as soon the person appears race is usually known.



jury of one's peers
n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Ever notice how everyone sleeps on the same side of the bed every night?


Some seem to always wake up on the wrong side.
I wonder why?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Redlands Okie said:


> A link does not change it
> 
> 
> The link says “broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender.” The quote I responded to indicates that race is needed to provide the defendants a peer.* I do not think race is needed and the link states plainly that “It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans”*
> ...


Exactly what I have indicated. How can the courts ensure a "broad spectrum of the population" without a diversity in the jury pool? Just because someone is in the pool doesn't mean they will be chosen as a juror. I never indicated that a person must be judged by those of their race or sex. 

I understand your opinion, I just don't agree with it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Ever notice how everyone sleeps on the same side of the bed every night?


That's an awful crowded bed.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly what I have indicated. How can the courts ensure a "broad spectrum of the population" without a diversity in the jury pool? Just because someone is in the pool doesn't mean they will be chosen as a juror. I never indicated that a person must be judged by those of their race or sex.
> 
> I understand your opinion, I just don't agree with it.


But does race guarantee diversity?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Does race guarantee diversity?

No it does not, and when skin color is used as the primary source to obtain it often fails, and badly.
As a member stated earlier on this forum, she has more in common with someone who is a different skin color than someone of her own ethnicity. It isn't uncommon, just under reported.
Focusing on race with the intent on diversity manifests division, which might have a little bit to do with the current news o' the day.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Race is a human construct. It really doesn't exist.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> But does race guarantee diversity?


I never said it did, but yes, in my opinion race does add to diversity to a jury pool.

Do you feel that sex, ethnicity, and year of birth (which are also a box to be checked/written in NY since 2010) is bigoted to ask on a jury questionnaire?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Of course it is.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Of course it is.


Texas has even more questions: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1445020/model-jury-summons-questionnaire.pdf

I believe most states have in-depth jury questionnaires.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

It saves time during the selection process, and I understand that. I simply answered the question. 

Apparently it's ok to discriminate during jury selection.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

No, no it isn't. 
It's just ok to call it something else.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> It saves time during the selection process, and I understand that. I simply answered the question.
> 
> Apparently it's ok to discriminate during jury selection.


I don't think it's discrimination, and certainly not bigotry on the state's part. But I'm reasonable, and I can agree to disagree.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nope.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Thank you for the post of truth!! It was very kind of you to acknowledge my reasonableness.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Race is a human construct. It really doesn't exist.


How can we compete with your mystic mind


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

No competition necessary.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Ever notice how everyone sleeps on the same side of the bed every night?


Not me... I sleep in the middle no matter where I start out (a rope bed with a straw mattress kinda dictates that). Luckily I sleep alone... unless you count the 110 lb. and 85 lb. German Shepherds.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think it's discrimination, and certainly not bigotry on the state's part. But I'm reasonable, and I can agree to disagree.


How is "you can't serve because you're white" any less discriminatory than "you can't serve because you're black"?


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I never said it did, but yes, in my opinion race does add to diversity to a jury pool.
> 
> Do you feel that sex, ethnicity, and year of birth (which are also a box to be checked/written in NY since 2010) is bigoted to ask on a jury questionnaire?


I do. Other than being old enough to understand what's going on or legally an adult, none of those questions have any bearing a person's ability to listen, think, or to be able to judge whether something is right or wrong.

Human beings have prejudices, but I rarely find the type of prejudice is based on those superficial things when you actually talk to people. The idea that because you're white you'll automatically think the same as other white people, which will be different from what black people think is racist. The idea that all females think alike, and differently than males about any given subject is just as untrue. 

You and I are the same race, gender, and I think the same age. We obviously hold very different opinions on a wide variety of topics. I think we prove the point I'm trying to make - none of those things tell you anything about what any specific human being thinks, feels, or believes, which should be the important part of the discussion.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I never said it did, but yes, in my opinion race does add to diversity to a jury pool.
> 
> Do you feel that sex, ethnicity, and year of birth (which are also a box to be checked/written in NY since 2010) is bigoted to ask on a jury questionnaire?


Yes, I do. The truth is we are all different and we are all similar.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for the post of truth!! It was very kind of you to acknowledge my reasonableness.


All I did was copy what you said.
Don't go assigning hidden meanings or pretending I said something I didn't.
I didn't "acknowledge" anything at all.



Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Ever notice how everyone sleeps on the same side of the bed every night?


How do you know? Yer not one of them bedist trying to force your your ways on the rest of us are ya?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

double post


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

gilberte said:


> How do you know? Yer not one of them bedist trying to force your your ways on the rest of us are ya?


I'd put money on the fact most do. Nothing is absolute, but as some might say, patterns do emerge. 

Most folks sit in about the same place at church every Sunday.

Go to a week long class and most folks will claim "their" chair. They will sit in the same area every day if they can.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Mish said:


> I do. Other than being old enough to understand what's going on or legally an adult, none of those questions have any bearing a person's ability to listen, think, or to be able to judge whether something is right or wrong.
> 
> Human beings have prejudices, but I rarely find the type of prejudice is based on those superficial things when you actually talk to people. The idea that because you're white you'll automatically think the same as other white people, which will be different from what black people think is racist. The idea that all females think alike, and differently than males about any given subject is just as untrue.
> 
> You and I are the same race, gender, and I think the same age. We obviously hold very different opinions on a wide variety of topics. I think we prove the point I'm trying to make - none of those things tell you anything about what any specific human being thinks, feels, or believes, which should be the important part of the discussion.


A jury questionnaire assists attorneys in picking the best juror for their client. We are both white women in our 50s (I'm guessing, I may be older than you are), but our education, occupation, and life experience is quite different. The questionnaire in most states requires additional information beyond just sex, age, and race so that the attorneys can fine tune the questions asked during voir dire. There is nothing bigoted in this information, there is nothing racist, sexist, ageist, etc. it's simply a way for attorneys to find the best juror for their client. And the information has been on questionnaires for decades in most states. 

This site is for attorneys, but I thought it was interesting. Getting the Most Out of Jury Questionnaires


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All I did was copy what you said.
> Don't go assigning hidden meanings or pretending I said something I didn't.


Exactly. Thank you again for acknowledging my reasonableness.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> Yes, I do. The truth is we are all different and we are all similar.


How does that make the questionnaire bigoted?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

homesteadforty said:


> How is "you can't serve because you're white" any less discriminatory than "you can't serve because you're black"?


A jury questionnaire doesn't guarantee being picked for a jury, nor can it disqualify you. That is done by random draw and an attorney asking questions during voir dire.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly. Thank you again for *acknowledging my reasonableness*.


That never happened.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That never happened.


It did in her mind.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> It did in her mind.


That's the only place.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That never happened.


@Bearfootfarm Can you explain why you quoted a portion of my post?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> How does that make the questionnaire bigoted?


Because a group of 2 is diversified. Even if they are twins.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mreynolds said:


> Because a group of 2 is diversified. Even if they are twins.


OK. I guess. It's just a tool for attorneys, but I guess some people see more in it than I do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> *Can you* explain why you quoted a portion of my post?


Yes, but I know you have many more important things to do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, but I know you have many more important things to do.


Thank you for the response. And the acknowledgment of my reasonableness.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)




----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive! Walter Scott


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. I guess. It's just a tool for attorneys, but I guess some people see more in it than I do.


I do understand your point of view. I don't totally disagree with it in very certain cases like jury selection. 

My point is that it is so common that it is in every facet of our life. I'm totally against that check box for loans, voter registration and pretty much everything else. If race is not supposed to make us unequal it doesn't need to be there. Imo


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> check box for loans


Banks have a quota of loans by race


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Oh, and THAT is not bigoted?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Oh, and THAT is not bigoted?


Companies have quotas by race in hiring.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive! Walter Scott


*“The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored, and unsung.”*

― Walter Scott 

PLM


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

HD, you know I know that. It's been challenged in court.

Reverse discrimination exists.

Affirmative action was taken to court in several states and to the Supreme Court. There are many variables in the ways it was applied in the cases. The rulings reflect that.

Either discrimination is ok, or it's not.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> HD, you know I know that. It's been challenged in court.
> 
> Reverse discrimination exists.
> 
> ...


I can never tell who you are replying to. I thought you were surprised about banks, so I thought you'd be surprised about hiring. I have no idea what you know.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

When I was a Deputy everyone I had contact with carried a gun. Ranchers, cowboys, farmers, hunters, campers, most regular traffic stops, truck drivers, housewives, soccer moms, smugglers, drug dealers, and even lawyers. And yet in over twenty years of contact with all of these people I never murdered anyone. Self control, is more important than training, policy, or laws. Self control means you don't pull out a gun and start shooting anything that moves, it also means you don't try to run away from the police. I have never heard of someone being shot by the police, who stood still and followed instructions. 

Where I live now, everyone I know carries a gun. The only place in the county you can't carry is in the Post Office. We have Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics all living and working side by side every day. And yet nobody gets shot. What are we doing different than everybody else?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> We have Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics all living and working side by side every day. And yet nobody gets shot. What are we doing different than everybody else?


Take a stab at answering your own question. I'd like to hear it.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Lol, muleskinner, the water department/meter reader was out at my gate this morning blowing the horn on his truck.
I thought I might have a water leak out at the meter pit and called it in.
He's an old timer, likely in his 70s.
I let him in, he checks it out and we talk all the way back to his truck. While he is leaning on the outside of his door I happened to glance in the cab and there on the passenger seat is a nickel plated 38 revolver.
Then I noticed a 30 30 lever action standing on the floorboard and against the passenger door.
I immediately asked him "I know what the 38 is for, but why do you keep a long gun with you?"
He didn't miss a beat "For whatever the 38 won't kill."


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

SLADE said:


> Seems like hate for our fellow man plays a part also.


I have been shot, stabbed, and threatened with worse, I don't hate my fellow man. I have spent most of my adult life trying to help them. In Africa I built a clinic, here at home I have fed and clothed my neighbors. And if I hadn't had easy access to a gun, I wouldn't be here today. In the 1980's I knew three aid workers in Liberia who were chopped to death by the people they were trying to help. I had offered to travel with them to this remote village. They refused my offer, said they were afraid of guns. Four days later, myself and two soldiers who I paid out of my own pocket, recovered what was left of the bodies. You can't fix stupid. The world is a dangerous place, some people realize this, some don't. Some people learn to use tools to protect themselves, and some people are afraid of the tools.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

SLADE said:


> into religious schools which is against the constitution.


No it isn't. The constitution forbids the government from choosing your religion for you. It doesn't say anything about helping out the one you choose.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> I have been shot, stabbed, and threatened with worse, I don't hate my fellow man. I have spent most of my adult life trying to help them. In Africa I built a clinic, here at home I have fed and clothed my neighbors. And if I hadn't had easy access to a gun, I wouldn't be here today. In the 1980's I knew three aid workers in Liberia who were chopped to death by the people they were trying to help. I had offered to travel with them to this remote village. They refused my offer, said they were afraid of guns. Four days later, myself and two soldiers who I paid out of my own pocket, recovered what was left of the bodies. You can't fix stupid. The world is a dangerous place, some people realize this, some don't. Some people learn to use tools to protect themselves, and some people are afraid of the tools.


Sounds like a lot of hate.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> No it isn't. The constitution forbids the government from choosing your religion for you. It doesn't say anything about helping out the one you choose.


Yes it is.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

SLADE said:


> Sounds like a lot of hate.


Hate of what, or who?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

SLADE said:


> Yes it is.


I think the Supremes just overruled your opinion.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)




----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

po boy said:


> I think the Supremes just overruled your opinion.


.It did open the door. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I thought you were surprised about banks, so I thought you'd be surprised about hiring. I have no idea what you know.


Surprised? No. Just an exclamation of sarcasm.

I know many small things. I am an endless font of trivia, trifles, and technicalities.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *“The wretch, concentred all in self,
> Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
> And, doubly dying, shall go down
> To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
> ...


I'll bite. PLM= Patriot Lives Matter?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'll bite.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Why did you quote my post without a response?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why did you quote my post *without a response*?


I didn't.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

It's just odd.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SLADE said:


> It's just odd.


If by "odd" you mean "lie", yes it is odd.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> If by "odd" you mean "lie", yes it is odd.


Why are you calling people names?

That is why some folks might feel justified in call you names.


----------

