Black man shot in Kenosha, riots starting all over again...

[Hatin Since 87]

He gone.

 

[Tombs]

Looks like it was...
[video=youtube;i7gIpuIVE3k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7gIpuIVE3k[/video]

 

[KG1]

So, you are going to comply when they come for your guns.

They are the police with authority, you know.

Let’s not conflate a scenario in which the authorities are coming for my guns with what happened in the Blake incident.

If they were to ever come after me and my guns to arrest me on a warrant for alleged sexual assault and a violation of a restraining order and I chose not to comply and fight with them then I should expect to encounter an escalating response by law enforcement when I did not comply.

Especially after being tased not once but twice.

Your attempt at making comparisons have failed twice now Alpo. You might want to take a pause and regroup.

Look we can debate whether the shooting was necessary and I totally get that but the underlying fact of the matter in the Blake incident for which he chose not to comply before he got shot was not a noble cause.

 

[ghitch75]

this may have been posted.....donate

Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Defense


https://www.givesendgo.com/GUCZ

 

[ghitch75]

[h=1]Discover blocks donations to site raising money for Kyle Rittenhouse defense[/h]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets...te-raising-money-for-kyle-rittenhouse-defense

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

why not start a thread?

I did over in general politics. Tapatalk is confusing but I think I figured it out

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[jamil]

...
Stop rewarding the destruction of the family. Incentivize having a mother and a father in the home.
All else will naturally follow along with repairing the family structure. Not having a family is why people stop caring about their future.
Without a family, there's very little meaning to be found in life unless you're an especially driven person.
...

Yeah. I don't think I've heard yet from the grievance mongers that "families" are a tool of white people to oppress women and people of color.

Oh. And speaking of "people of color" I saw an explanation the other day for why you can say "people of color" but you can't say colored people. Even though the two phrasings literally mean the same thing. When you say "colored people" you're putting their "color" first and making their person-hood secondary. When you say "people" first, you're emphasizing their person-hood before their color. But the order of the nouns and verbs don't imply that the priority of the words are reversed. It just sounds ostentatious say it that way. Drawing a meaningful distinction between the two phrases is retarded.

Not that I think we should go back to saying "colored people". They're both silly, as if "white" people have no color. My skin is a sort of pasty-rosy pale peach color. It's a color. I mean. Even albinos aren't stark white. We'd be more accurate to say light-skinned or dark-skinned. But when you say it that way it kinda loses its social relevance, now doesn't it? It doesn't sound so much like an identity group that segregates "white" people from the rest of humanity. And that's kinda what "colored people" was when white people in the US used it to segregate "colored people" from the rest of humanity. They're the same terms, with the same purpose, that create similar but opposite outcomes. It's just different sets of racist people doing the excluding. So I think both terms, "colored people" or "people of color", is racist. Race is a social construct; there's no such thing in biology. It's heritage. You descend either from ancestors who were lighter skinned or darker skinned. But I'm socially coerced to use "people of color" now because it's the approved ingsoc.

 

[jamil]

VICE, the media group who picks what news story to cover by getting stoned and throwing dildos at the wall, decided they'd interview the man who killed a Trump supporter in Portland.

The ****ing gall...

[video=youtube;GhlxT9OrBIE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhlxT9OrBIE[/video]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...ortland-protest-says-he-acted-in-self-defense

Lets compare this to the treatment of Rittenhouse.

Reinoehl hasn't even been arrested or charged. Rittenhouse was immediately charged with stiff offenses, when video evidence entirely exonerates him.
Social media and crowd funding groups allow discussion and funding of Reinoehl, but will ban you for merely mentioning Rittenhouse.

Definitely propaganda. The eye-witness statement and two videos do not support the killer's story at all. But the indoctrinated won't lose faith because they're guy is the hero in this story.

 

[KG1]

Definitely propaganda. The eye-witness statement and two videos do not support the killer's story at all. But the indoctrinated won't lose faith because they're guy is the hero in this story.

What also does not support the killer’s story for me was that he allegedly attempted to pull a gun on the law enforcement agency that were attempting to arrest him after which he was subsequently shot and killed.

 

[rob63]

Yeah. I don't think I've heard yet from the grievance mongers that "families" are a tool of white people to oppress women and people of color.

It's coming...

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

 

[jamil]

It's coming...

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

Oh yeah. I do remember reading that in their list-o-bull****. I can see why people still support the blm statement, even though it's a tautology, but at this point, if they still support BLM the organization, they're ****ed in the head.

 

[Alpo]

Let’s not conflate a scenario in which the authorities are coming for my guns with what happened in the Blake incident.

If they were to ever come after me and my guns to arrest me on a warrant for alleged sexual assault and a violation of a restraining order and I chose not to comply and fight with them then I should expect to encounter an escalating response by law enforcement when I did not comply.

Especially after being tased not once but twice.

Your attempt at making comparisons have failed twice now Alpo. You might want to take a pause and regroup.

Look we can debate whether the shooting was necessary and I totally get that but the underlying fact of the matter in the Blake incident for which he chose not to comply before he got shot was not a noble cause.

You didn't read the continuing response....so this is moot.

 

[ditcherman]

What also does not support the killer’s story for me was that he allegedly attempted to pull a gun on the law enforcement agency that were attempting to arrest him after which he was subsequently shot and killed.

We must have something wrong, because he "was trained in de-escalation", he "was literally a guardian angel". We must have taken a wrong turn somewhere.
The NY times article also states many people want to step up to fill his shoes. It will be interesting to see if this is a motivator or a dissuader.


Liberally apply the purple

 

[Alpo]

It's coming...

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

We just said that doesn't work. They want to make it worse?

Karl would be embarrassed by these dumbass marxists.

 

[ditcherman]

So, you are going to comply when they come for your guns.

They are the police with authority, you know.

One case is a lawful order to stop given to a person with a warrant, beat to death earlier in this thread.
The other case is an unlawful, unconstitutional, immoral order, also beat to death on this forum.
Not apples to apples.

As I agreed with earlier, I'm glad to not be in an echo chamber. But some of the logic used is baffling. It takes the whole discussion many steps backwards, instead of sincerely trying to find answers, moving forward.

 

[Alpo]

 

[Alpo]

One case is a lawful order to stop given to a person with a warrant, beat to death earlier in this thread.
The other case is an unlawful, unconstitutional, immoral order, also beat to death on this forum.
Not apples to apples.

As I agreed with earlier, I'm glad to not be in an echo chamber. But some of the logic used is baffling. It takes the whole discussion many steps backwards, instead of sincerely trying to find answers, moving forward.

Keep reading. You guys always seem to miss context. Think about what the original question was and then finish reading the q/a. I'll bet you guys never ate a TootsiePop the correct way.

The point, in case you guys can't find it is that everyone has a point where they are unwilling to back down. Lawful/unlawful really doesn't have much to do with it when the choice is made. Not all decisions are rational. Some are a lot more visceral.

None of us would likely do what Blake did. And there are a lot of people who think you would be crazy to resist gun confiscation. But, once you've committed to your choice, you don't need lawyers to settle the matter, do you? You act or don't act.

 

[BugI02]

We must have something wrong, because he "was trained in de-escalation", he "was literally a guardian angel". We must have taken a wrong turn somewhere.
The NY times article also states many people want to step up to fill his shoes. It will be interesting to see if this is a motivator or a dissuader.


Liberally apply the purple

You mean like the people who wanted to 'step up' to fill the (still smoking) shoes of Soleimani or al-Baghdadi or bin Laden? How did that work out for them?

 

[foszoe]

So would you comply if they came for your guns after a newly passed confiscation law? The general message has been comply with law enforcement so you don't get shot. That covers not just Blake but anybody and any law. Alpo raises a legitimate question. Would we comply with any law once confronted with law enforcement in possession of a warrant?

Let’s not conflate a scenario in which the authorities are coming for my guns with what happened in the Blake incident.

If they were to ever come after me and my guns to arrest me on a warrant for alleged sexual assault and a violation of a restraining order and I chose not to comply and fight with them then I should expect to encounter an escalating response by law enforcement when I did not comply.

Especially after being tased not once but twice.

Your attempt at making comparisons have failed twice now Alpo. You might want to take a pause and regroup.

Look we can debate whether the shooting was necessary and I totally get that but the underlying fact of the matter in the Blake incident for which he chose not to comply before he got shot was not a noble cause.

 

[buckwacker]

Keep reading. You guys always seem to miss context. Think about what the original question was and then finish reading the q/a. I'll bet you guys never ate a TootsiePop the correct way.

The point, in case you guys can't find it is that everyone has a point where they are unwilling to back down. Lawful/unlawful really doesn't have much to do with it when the choice is made. Not all decisions are rational. Some are a lot more visceral.

None of us would likely do what Blake did. And there are a lot of people who think you would be crazy to resist gun confiscation. But, once you've committed to your choice, you don't need lawyers to settle the matter, do you? You act or don't act.

So would you comply if they came for your guns after a newly passed confiscation law? The general message has been comply with law enforcement so you don't get shot. That covers not just Blake but anybody and any law. Alpo raises a legitimate question. Would we comply with any law once confronted with law enforcement in possession of a warrant?

The only way these questions can be answered is by invoking an immutable moral standard.