CDZ Diversity, What's Important?

[joaquinmiller]

If you don't want diversity, become a Smurf or an Oompa Loompa. They'll show you a homogenized society.

 

[JoeB131]

You are pitiful. Of course the Justice Department has jurisdiction, that's why they ran an investigation.

Ran an investigation, found there wasn't a federal statue they could charges this POS under.

As for Wilson, he was actually screwed the situation up from the very beginning the way he handled two subjects , he should have had both of them on the ground with their hands on their head before he got within 25' feet of them. Letting a suspect approach his car was a stupid,d and costly error.

Or he could have, you know, respected their civil rights. The problem was, he was just doing what the FPD did all the time, hassling the darkies. He wasn't expecting one to fight back.

 

[JoeB131]

Present some fucking evidence or shut up.

I've presented the evidence several times... most of the witnesses said he had his hands up.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Present some fucking evidence or shut up.

I've presented the evidence several times... most of the witnesses said he had his hands up.

I thought the "clean debate zone" was meant to be a refuge from the clowns in the other forums, but your presence proves that is not the case. Very disappointing.

Brown's shooting was justified PERIOD.

 

[Meister]

Please remember that this is the CDZ. Some need to refresh themselves to the rules of this forum.
Others were shown the exit to this thread.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Please remember that this is the CDZ. Some need to refresh themselves to the rules of this forum.
Others were shown the exit to this thread.

Thank God, and apologies if I even came close to breaking a rule.

I don't even know this turned into a Michael Brown thread.

Anyway, as for diversity, what is really missing today is an acceptance of diversity of thought. And I think primarily that is due to how many people confuse facts with opinions. You are entitled to your own opinion, but if that opinion isn't even based on facts, what's it worth

 

[Unkotare]

Diversity seems to be a topic of conversation in many areas, including politics, business, school, ect. So, as a general rule, what would you say is the most important type of diversity? By that I mean, what is the ultimate goal of having a "diverse" group, whether it be a political party, a business, school, working group, work force, governing body, or citizenry at large? Is the goal to have a diverse looking group? Is it to have diversity of background? Diversity of ideas? Diversity of perspective? What is the ultimate goal?

Before anyone gets bogged down in the concept that it depends on the overarching goal of the group (and that is true in many cases), let's just say that's not the point. I am wondering what people think on the topic in general.

Is it better to have people who look different, but think much the same; or is it better to have people who think differently, and come from a variety of backgrounds, regardless of what they look like?

Note: This is intended to be a non-political/non-partisan discussion. Please, if you are unable to leave your partisanship at the door, move on.

A much more important concept is 'Assimilation". Diversity and integration in some mixing pot is not as great a desire as taking all that diversity and assimilating it into OUR own culture. ....

That’s what the Melting Pot means.

You let Me know when it starts...

It’s happening right now. It’s been happening all along.

I see it every day. It’s easy to spot if you’re not trying hard to miss it.

 

[MacTheKnife]

The fact is Jason Van Dyke was convicted in that case, the first police officer to be convicted of that kind of misconduct in 40 years. But there wouldn't have been so much controversy if the officer was black would there. And there wouldn't have been so much controversy if Rahm Emanuel had not sat on the video that was the primary evidence for so long. Chicago has the reputation of being one of the most corrupt cities in the nation with a lot of really ugly history in that regard as well as being among the most violent. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the mayor is black or white or in the case of Emanuel, dark skinned Jewish.

It took four years and a lot of effort to convict him, and as you say, he's the first guy in 40 years to be convicted of that kind of misconduct. Do you think he's the only cop in 40 years to engage in that kind of misconduct?

In any case, either white cops cannot be honest or honorable as much as black cops--and how racist is it to say THAT?--or intellectual honesty has to factor in that misbehavior of a white cop should not condemn all any more than misbehavior of a black cop should condemn all.

The fact is, all Jason's fellow WHITE cops all sat around and conspired to cover for him. You talk to any of his fellow cops, they STILL think he's a martyr. (One of my relatives is a friend of his... We don't talk anymore.) Maybe if they had to work alongside black cops, didn't go back to their suburban homes at night, they'd act more like a community police force and less like an occupying army.

While I understand that bad things happen--really terrible things happen--one case is not sufficient to condemn a whole group of people.

Again if this had been a black cop in the same situation, it would be touted by you and everybody else as racist to condemn all black cops for the misconduct of one or those on one police force. Does it not follow that to condemn all white copes for the misconduct of one or those on one police force is just as racist?

More racial diversity will do nothing to make a difference. Ferreting out the scum--trust me that there are scum in pretty much any occupation you want to name and it comes in all colors--and requiring professional and honorable conduct from the top down will make a difference.

Personally I think that to begin with the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people and it is difficult to ferret all of them out.

I do not like police types, I have never had a pleasant experience with a policeman.....they are arrogant and control freaks...dangerous to be around,trigger happy...stay far,far away from them...do not believe they are there to protect you or you may have a terrible experience if you depend on one of thiem...very dangerous people.

However all the crap about them going out hunting unarmed young black males is ridiculous....as in they kill more white folks than black and that is documented.

I can't agree that the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people any more than any profession. I have run across scumbags in pretty much all walks of life. In every profession, there are always going to be people who prey on others for various reasons, people who are bigoted or racist, dishonest, people who are unprofessional, people who are cruel and uncaring--borderline to full blown sociopathic et al.

I do know many police officers who are wonderful people. We have them as friends, as family, and in some cases associates.

We can agree that even though it could happen, the probability that anybody, police officer or not, is hunting unarmed young black males is so remote that it is ridiculous to make it any kind of issue.

You are equating police with all other professions....that is talking apples and oranges....the police are the only ones that have a license to kill...they can use it lawfully,logicially as with common sense and most do...yet there are some who are trigger happy, paranoid creatures who will shoot at the drop of the hat and no matter how egregious it may be...most of them get away with it...all they have to do is say I was in fear of my life...I thought he had a gun, I thought he was going for a weapon.

Now lately due to some high profile cases that have gotten a lot of publicity a lot of pressure has been brought to bear on the police....especially if they happen to shoot a African American....but this lopsided pressure is allowing the police still to run amok when it comes to white perps. The cops know if they shoot a person of color they will be thoroughly investigated and probably sued as there are organizations that will put up the money to get a lawyer and sue the police dept. and the policeman...thus most cops do their best to avoid shooting a black perp and police depts. now quite often make sure their police chief is black even though there may be more qualified white cops.

Not even to mention the fact that many cops will no longer pusue a black perp....they tryi to avoid any confrontation with africans because the potential for trouble is just too huge...thuis black neigghborhoods get very little police protection and since they brought it on themselves...who gives a damn....let them keep killing each other like they are doing in Chicago and have been doing for decades.....it is a problem that will eventually solve itself...if they were provided with more guns that time would come much sooner.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact is Jason Van Dyke was convicted in that case, the first police officer to be convicted of that kind of misconduct in 40 years. But there wouldn't have been so much controversy if the officer was black would there. And there wouldn't have been so much controversy if Rahm Emanuel had not sat on the video that was the primary evidence for so long. Chicago has the reputation of being one of the most corrupt cities in the nation with a lot of really ugly history in that regard as well as being among the most violent. And it doesn't seem to matter whether the mayor is black or white or in the case of Emanuel, dark skinned Jewish.

It took four years and a lot of effort to convict him, and as you say, he's the first guy in 40 years to be convicted of that kind of misconduct. Do you think he's the only cop in 40 years to engage in that kind of misconduct?

In any case, either white cops cannot be honest or honorable as much as black cops--and how racist is it to say THAT?--or intellectual honesty has to factor in that misbehavior of a white cop should not condemn all any more than misbehavior of a black cop should condemn all.

The fact is, all Jason's fellow WHITE cops all sat around and conspired to cover for him. You talk to any of his fellow cops, they STILL think he's a martyr. (One of my relatives is a friend of his... We don't talk anymore.) Maybe if they had to work alongside black cops, didn't go back to their suburban homes at night, they'd act more like a community police force and less like an occupying army.

While I understand that bad things happen--really terrible things happen--one case is not sufficient to condemn a whole group of people.

Again if this had been a black cop in the same situation, it would be touted by you and everybody else as racist to condemn all black cops for the misconduct of one or those on one police force. Does it not follow that to condemn all white copes for the misconduct of one or those on one police force is just as racist?

More racial diversity will do nothing to make a difference. Ferreting out the scum--trust me that there are scum in pretty much any occupation you want to name and it comes in all colors--and requiring professional and honorable conduct from the top down will make a difference.

Personally I think that to begin with the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people and it is difficult to ferret all of them out.

I do not like police types, I have never had a pleasant experience with a policeman.....they are arrogant and control freaks...dangerous to be around,trigger happy...stay far,far away from them...do not believe they are there to protect you or you may have a terrible experience if you depend on one of thiem...very dangerous people.

However all the crap about them going out hunting unarmed young black males is ridiculous....as in they kill more white folks than black and that is documented.

I can't agree that the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people any more than any profession. I have run across scumbags in pretty much all walks of life. In every profession, there are always going to be people who prey on others for various reasons, people who are bigoted or racist, dishonest, people who are unprofessional, people who are cruel and uncaring--borderline to full blown sociopathic et al.

I do know many police officers who are wonderful people. We have them as friends, as family, and in some cases associates.

We can agree that even though it could happen, the probability that anybody, police officer or not, is hunting unarmed young black males is so remote that it is ridiculous to make it any kind of issue.

You are equating police with all other professions....that is talking apples and oranges....the police are the only ones that have a license to kill...they can use it lawfully,logicially as with common sense and most do...yet there are some who are trigger happy, paranoid creatures who will shoot at the drop of the hat and no matter how egregious it may be...most of them get away with it...all they have to do is say I was in fear of my life...I thought he had a gun, I thought he was going for a weapon.

Now lately due to some high profile cases that have gotten a lot of publicity a lot of pressure has been brought to bear on the police....especially if they happen to shoot a African American....but this lopsided pressure is allowing the police still to run amok when it comes to white perps. The cops know if they shoot a person of color they will be thoroughly investigated and probably sued as there are organizations that will put up the money to get a lawyer and sue the police dept. and the policeman...thus most cops do their best to avoid shooting a black perp and police depts. now quite often make sure their police chief is black even though there may be more qualified white cops.

Not even to mention the fact that many cops will no longer pusue a black perp....they tryi to avoid any confrontation with africans because the potential for trouble is just too huge...thuis black neigghborhoods get very little police protection and since they brought it on themselves...who gives a damn....let them keep killing each other like they are doing in Chicago and have been doing for decades.....it is a problem that will eventually solve itself...if they were provided with more guns that time would come much sooner.

News flash. I also have a license to kill when it is necessary to defend myself, my property, my loved ones. It is called the U.s. Constitution.

I happen to know a LOT of police officers, both professionally and personally. I have some in my family. I have and have had some in my closest social circles. The vast majority are good people, professional in conduct and application of the law, risk their lives frequently for the benefit of others, go out of their way and way beyond the call of duty at times to give assistance to somebody in need or peril. I simply will not allow anybody to paint them all with the same brush applied to the few bad apples in the barrel.

 

[sartre play]

Seems we are quick to single out people white, black, brown or police who have stepped over the line. as an example of what? where do you live? there always have and there always will be people who cross the line. pointing out a person as bad because you don't like there color, or uniform, like that proves all people of that color or uniform are the same. I call it keeping the anger flowing.

 

[MacTheKnife]

It took four years and a lot of effort to convict him, and as you say, he's the first guy in 40 years to be convicted of that kind of misconduct. Do you think he's the only cop in 40 years to engage in that kind of misconduct?

The fact is, all Jason's fellow WHITE cops all sat around and conspired to cover for him. You talk to any of his fellow cops, they STILL think he's a martyr. (One of my relatives is a friend of his... We don't talk anymore.) Maybe if they had to work alongside black cops, didn't go back to their suburban homes at night, they'd act more like a community police force and less like an occupying army.

While I understand that bad things happen--really terrible things happen--one case is not sufficient to condemn a whole group of people.

Again if this had been a black cop in the same situation, it would be touted by you and everybody else as racist to condemn all black cops for the misconduct of one or those on one police force. Does it not follow that to condemn all white copes for the misconduct of one or those on one police force is just as racist?

More racial diversity will do nothing to make a difference. Ferreting out the scum--trust me that there are scum in pretty much any occupation you want to name and it comes in all colors--and requiring professional and honorable conduct from the top down will make a difference.

Personally I think that to begin with the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people and it is difficult to ferret all of them out.

I do not like police types, I have never had a pleasant experience with a policeman.....they are arrogant and control freaks...dangerous to be around,trigger happy...stay far,far away from them...do not believe they are there to protect you or you may have a terrible experience if you depend on one of thiem...very dangerous people.

However all the crap about them going out hunting unarmed young black males is ridiculous....as in they kill more white folks than black and that is documented.

I can't agree that the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people any more than any profession. I have run across scumbags in pretty much all walks of life. In every profession, there are always going to be people who prey on others for various reasons, people who are bigoted or racist, dishonest, people who are unprofessional, people who are cruel and uncaring--borderline to full blown sociopathic et al.

I do know many police officers who are wonderful people. We have them as friends, as family, and in some cases associates.

We can agree that even though it could happen, the probability that anybody, police officer or not, is hunting unarmed young black males is so remote that it is ridiculous to make it any kind of issue.

You are equating police with all other professions....that is talking apples and oranges....the police are the only ones that have a license to kill...they can use it lawfully,logicially as with common sense and most do...yet there are some who are trigger happy, paranoid creatures who will shoot at the drop of the hat and no matter how egregious it may be...most of them get away with it...all they have to do is say I was in fear of my life...I thought he had a gun, I thought he was going for a weapon.

Now lately due to some high profile cases that have gotten a lot of publicity a lot of pressure has been brought to bear on the police....especially if they happen to shoot a African American....but this lopsided pressure is allowing the police still to run amok when it comes to white perps. The cops know if they shoot a person of color they will be thoroughly investigated and probably sued as there are organizations that will put up the money to get a lawyer and sue the police dept. and the policeman...thus most cops do their best to avoid shooting a black perp and police depts. now quite often make sure their police chief is black even though there may be more qualified white cops.

Not even to mention the fact that many cops will no longer pusue a black perp....they tryi to avoid any confrontation with africans because the potential for trouble is just too huge...thuis black neigghborhoods get very little police protection and since they brought it on themselves...who gives a damn....let them keep killing each other like they are doing in Chicago and have been doing for decades.....it is a problem that will eventually solve itself...if they were provided with more guns that time would come much sooner.

News flash. I also have a license to kill when it is necessary to defend myself, my property, my loved ones. It is called the U.s. Constitution.

I happen to know a LOT of police officers, both professionally and personally. I have some in my family. I have and have had some in my closest social circles. The vast majority are good people, professional in conduct and application of the law, risk their lives frequently for the benefit of others, go out of their way and way beyond the call of duty at times to give assistance to somebody in need or peril. I simply will not allow anybody to paint them all with the same brush applied to the few bad apples in the barrel.

Tell that to George Zimmerman.

Your beloved Constitution did not protect him ....he was fortunate to have a couple of good lawyers or he would be in prison right now.

All he did was to legally engage in self defense....he is not the only one who has faced huge repercuissions after killing an African even though it was self defense.

Times have changed...kill one of the government's protected minority and you are in a shit load of trouble no matter the circumstances and no matter if your own life was on the line. That is reality today....and most especially if you kill one you best have a very clean computer and no record of any kind of racist behavor or some witness who claims you used the n woid back when you were in H.S.

Get down of your high horse and face the reality of our huge,huge racial problems.

 

[Foxfyre]

While I understand that bad things happen--really terrible things happen--one case is not sufficient to condemn a whole group of people.

Again if this had been a black cop in the same situation, it would be touted by you and everybody else as racist to condemn all black cops for the misconduct of one or those on one police force. Does it not follow that to condemn all white copes for the misconduct of one or those on one police force is just as racist?

More racial diversity will do nothing to make a difference. Ferreting out the scum--trust me that there are scum in pretty much any occupation you want to name and it comes in all colors--and requiring professional and honorable conduct from the top down will make a difference.

Personally I think that to begin with the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people and it is difficult to ferret all of them out.

I do not like police types, I have never had a pleasant experience with a policeman.....they are arrogant and control freaks...dangerous to be around,trigger happy...stay far,far away from them...do not believe they are there to protect you or you may have a terrible experience if you depend on one of thiem...very dangerous people.

However all the crap about them going out hunting unarmed young black males is ridiculous....as in they kill more white folks than black and that is documented.

I can't agree that the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people any more than any profession. I have run across scumbags in pretty much all walks of life. In every profession, there are always going to be people who prey on others for various reasons, people who are bigoted or racist, dishonest, people who are unprofessional, people who are cruel and uncaring--borderline to full blown sociopathic et al.

I do know many police officers who are wonderful people. We have them as friends, as family, and in some cases associates.

We can agree that even though it could happen, the probability that anybody, police officer or not, is hunting unarmed young black males is so remote that it is ridiculous to make it any kind of issue.

You are equating police with all other professions....that is talking apples and oranges....the police are the only ones that have a license to kill...they can use it lawfully,logicially as with common sense and most do...yet there are some who are trigger happy, paranoid creatures who will shoot at the drop of the hat and no matter how egregious it may be...most of them get away with it...all they have to do is say I was in fear of my life...I thought he had a gun, I thought he was going for a weapon.

Now lately due to some high profile cases that have gotten a lot of publicity a lot of pressure has been brought to bear on the police....especially if they happen to shoot a African American....but this lopsided pressure is allowing the police still to run amok when it comes to white perps. The cops know if they shoot a person of color they will be thoroughly investigated and probably sued as there are organizations that will put up the money to get a lawyer and sue the police dept. and the policeman...thus most cops do their best to avoid shooting a black perp and police depts. now quite often make sure their police chief is black even though there may be more qualified white cops.

Not even to mention the fact that many cops will no longer pusue a black perp....they tryi to avoid any confrontation with africans because the potential for trouble is just too huge...thuis black neigghborhoods get very little police protection and since they brought it on themselves...who gives a damn....let them keep killing each other like they are doing in Chicago and have been doing for decades.....it is a problem that will eventually solve itself...if they were provided with more guns that time would come much sooner.

News flash. I also have a license to kill when it is necessary to defend myself, my property, my loved ones. It is called the U.s. Constitution.

I happen to know a LOT of police officers, both professionally and personally. I have some in my family. I have and have had some in my closest social circles. The vast majority are good people, professional in conduct and application of the law, risk their lives frequently for the benefit of others, go out of their way and way beyond the call of duty at times to give assistance to somebody in need or peril. I simply will not allow anybody to paint them all with the same brush applied to the few bad apples in the barrel.

Tell that to George Zimmerman.

Your beloved Constitution did not protect him ....he was fortunate to have a couple of good lawyers or he would be in prison right now.

All he did was to legally engage in self defense....he is not the only one who has faced huge repercuissions after killing an African even though it was self defense.

Times have changed...kill one of the government's protected minority and you are in a shit load of trouble no matter the circumstances and no matter if your own life was on the line. That is reality today....and most especially if you kill one you best have a very clean computer and no record of any kind of racist behavor or some witness who claims you used the n woid back when you were in H.S.

Get down of your high horse and face the reality of our huge,huge racial problems.

You're blaming all the policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Really? You're blaming ANY policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Surely you jest.

I have a real problem taking anybody seriously who uses isolated anecdotal evidence to broad brush any person, group, demographic, etc. But if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, at least pick one that makes sense.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Personally I think that to begin with the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people and it is difficult to ferret all of them out.

I do not like police types, I have never had a pleasant experience with a policeman.....they are arrogant and control freaks...dangerous to be around,trigger happy...stay far,far away from them...do not believe they are there to protect you or you may have a terrible experience if you depend on one of thiem...very dangerous people.

However all the crap about them going out hunting unarmed young black males is ridiculous....as in they kill more white folks than black and that is documented.

I can't agree that the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people any more than any profession. I have run across scumbags in pretty much all walks of life. In every profession, there are always going to be people who prey on others for various reasons, people who are bigoted or racist, dishonest, people who are unprofessional, people who are cruel and uncaring--borderline to full blown sociopathic et al.

I do know many police officers who are wonderful people. We have them as friends, as family, and in some cases associates.

We can agree that even though it could happen, the probability that anybody, police officer or not, is hunting unarmed young black males is so remote that it is ridiculous to make it any kind of issue.

You are equating police with all other professions....that is talking apples and oranges....the police are the only ones that have a license to kill...they can use it lawfully,logicially as with common sense and most do...yet there are some who are trigger happy, paranoid creatures who will shoot at the drop of the hat and no matter how egregious it may be...most of them get away with it...all they have to do is say I was in fear of my life...I thought he had a gun, I thought he was going for a weapon.

Now lately due to some high profile cases that have gotten a lot of publicity a lot of pressure has been brought to bear on the police....especially if they happen to shoot a African American....but this lopsided pressure is allowing the police still to run amok when it comes to white perps. The cops know if they shoot a person of color they will be thoroughly investigated and probably sued as there are organizations that will put up the money to get a lawyer and sue the police dept. and the policeman...thus most cops do their best to avoid shooting a black perp and police depts. now quite often make sure their police chief is black even though there may be more qualified white cops.

Not even to mention the fact that many cops will no longer pusue a black perp....they tryi to avoid any confrontation with africans because the potential for trouble is just too huge...thuis black neigghborhoods get very little police protection and since they brought it on themselves...who gives a damn....let them keep killing each other like they are doing in Chicago and have been doing for decades.....it is a problem that will eventually solve itself...if they were provided with more guns that time would come much sooner.

News flash. I also have a license to kill when it is necessary to defend myself, my property, my loved ones. It is called the U.s. Constitution.

I happen to know a LOT of police officers, both professionally and personally. I have some in my family. I have and have had some in my closest social circles. The vast majority are good people, professional in conduct and application of the law, risk their lives frequently for the benefit of others, go out of their way and way beyond the call of duty at times to give assistance to somebody in need or peril. I simply will not allow anybody to paint them all with the same brush applied to the few bad apples in the barrel.

Tell that to George Zimmerman.

Your beloved Constitution did not protect him ....he was fortunate to have a couple of good lawyers or he would be in prison right now.

All he did was to legally engage in self defense....he is not the only one who has faced huge repercuissions after killing an African even though it was self defense.

Times have changed...kill one of the government's protected minority and you are in a shit load of trouble no matter the circumstances and no matter if your own life was on the line. That is reality today....and most especially if you kill one you best have a very clean computer and no record of any kind of racist behavor or some witness who claims you used the n woid back when you were in H.S.

Get down of your high horse and face the reality of our huge,huge racial problems.

You're blaming all the policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Really? You're blaming ANY policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Surely you jest.

I have a real problem taking anybody seriously who uses isolated anecdotal evidence to broad brush any person, group, demographic, etc. But if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, at least pick one that makes sense.

You seem to lack the logic needed to understand what I was saying though it was not at all complicated.

I was referring to the constitution...how it cannot be depended on if you use deadly force in self defense aka...especially and most especially if the perp was a African-American.

Unfortunately now and for some time there is a double standard in just about everything connected with African-Americans.

And....if you kill one in even in legitimate self defense your whole life will be examined with a federal microscope to see if you are a racist....actually even worse than that...as in....you may not be a racist but perhaps back in H.S. you in a fit of anger or whatever used the N woid...if they can conjure up a witness to that you will be labeled a racist and that coupled with the composition of the jury which will be deliberating your fate ---which will have liberals and African-Americans on it...thus your life is placed in extreme peril irregardless of how much faith you have in the constitution.

That is the reality today.....and anyone who debates politic on any of these boards....you best use bleach bit when you sign off....your computer is the first thing they check for signs or inclinations of racism.

 

[Unkotare]

While I understand that bad things happen--really terrible things happen--one case is not sufficient to condemn a whole group of people.

Again if this had been a black cop in the same situation, it would be touted by you and everybody else as racist to condemn all black cops for the misconduct of one or those on one police force. Does it not follow that to condemn all white copes for the misconduct of one or those on one police force is just as racist?

More racial diversity will do nothing to make a difference. Ferreting out the scum--trust me that there are scum in pretty much any occupation you want to name and it comes in all colors--and requiring professional and honorable conduct from the top down will make a difference.

Personally I think that to begin with the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people and it is difficult to ferret all of them out.

I do not like police types, I have never had a pleasant experience with a policeman.....they are arrogant and control freaks...dangerous to be around,trigger happy...stay far,far away from them...do not believe they are there to protect you or you may have a terrible experience if you depend on one of thiem...very dangerous people.

However all the crap about them going out hunting unarmed young black males is ridiculous....as in they kill more white folks than black and that is documented.

I can't agree that the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people any more than any profession. I have run across scumbags in pretty much all walks of life. In every profession, there are always going to be people who prey on others for various reasons, people who are bigoted or racist, dishonest, people who are unprofessional, people who are cruel and uncaring--borderline to full blown sociopathic et al.

I do know many police officers who are wonderful people. We have them as friends, as family, and in some cases associates.

We can agree that even though it could happen, the probability that anybody, police officer or not, is hunting unarmed young black males is so remote that it is ridiculous to make it any kind of issue.

You are equating police with all other professions....that is talking apples and oranges....the police are the only ones that have a license to kill...they can use it lawfully,logicially as with common sense and most do...yet there are some who are trigger happy, paranoid creatures who will shoot at the drop of the hat and no matter how egregious it may be...most of them get away with it...all they have to do is say I was in fear of my life...I thought he had a gun, I thought he was going for a weapon.

Now lately due to some high profile cases that have gotten a lot of publicity a lot of pressure has been brought to bear on the police....especially if they happen to shoot a African American....but this lopsided pressure is allowing the police still to run amok when it comes to white perps. The cops know if they shoot a person of color they will be thoroughly investigated and probably sued as there are organizations that will put up the money to get a lawyer and sue the police dept. and the policeman...thus most cops do their best to avoid shooting a black perp and police depts. now quite often make sure their police chief is black even though there may be more qualified white cops.

Not even to mention the fact that many cops will no longer pusue a black perp....they tryi to avoid any confrontation with africans because the potential for trouble is just too huge...thuis black neigghborhoods get very little police protection and since they brought it on themselves...who gives a damn....let them keep killing each other like they are doing in Chicago and have been doing for decades.....it is a problem that will eventually solve itself...if they were provided with more guns that time would come much sooner.

News flash. I also have a license to kill when it is necessary to defend myself, my property, my loved ones. It is called the U.s. Constitution.

I happen to know a LOT of police officers, both professionally and personally. I have some in my family. I have and have had some in my closest social circles. The vast majority are good people, professional in conduct and application of the law, risk their lives frequently for the benefit of others, go out of their way and way beyond the call of duty at times to give assistance to somebody in need or peril. I simply will not allow anybody to paint them all with the same brush applied to the few bad apples in the barrel.

Tell that to George Zimmerman.

Your beloved Constitution did not protect him ....he was fortunate to have a couple of good lawyers or he would be in prison right now.

All he did was to legally engage in self defense....he is not the only one who has faced huge repercuissions after killing an African even though it was self defense.

Times have changed...kill one of the government's protected minority and you are in a shit load of trouble no matter the circumstances and no matter if your own life was on the line. That is reality today....and most especially if you kill one you best have a very clean computer and no record of any kind of racist behavor or some witness who claims you used the n woid back when you were in H.S.

Get down of your high horse and face the reality of our huge,huge racial problems.

WAAaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't agree that the profession attracts the wrong kinds of people any more than any profession. I have run across scumbags in pretty much all walks of life. In every profession, there are always going to be people who prey on others for various reasons, people who are bigoted or racist, dishonest, people who are unprofessional, people who are cruel and uncaring--borderline to full blown sociopathic et al.

I do know many police officers who are wonderful people. We have them as friends, as family, and in some cases associates.

We can agree that even though it could happen, the probability that anybody, police officer or not, is hunting unarmed young black males is so remote that it is ridiculous to make it any kind of issue.

You are equating police with all other professions....that is talking apples and oranges....the police are the only ones that have a license to kill...they can use it lawfully,logicially as with common sense and most do...yet there are some who are trigger happy, paranoid creatures who will shoot at the drop of the hat and no matter how egregious it may be...most of them get away with it...all they have to do is say I was in fear of my life...I thought he had a gun, I thought he was going for a weapon.

Now lately due to some high profile cases that have gotten a lot of publicity a lot of pressure has been brought to bear on the police....especially if they happen to shoot a African American....but this lopsided pressure is allowing the police still to run amok when it comes to white perps. The cops know if they shoot a person of color they will be thoroughly investigated and probably sued as there are organizations that will put up the money to get a lawyer and sue the police dept. and the policeman...thus most cops do their best to avoid shooting a black perp and police depts. now quite often make sure their police chief is black even though there may be more qualified white cops.

Not even to mention the fact that many cops will no longer pusue a black perp....they tryi to avoid any confrontation with africans because the potential for trouble is just too huge...thuis black neigghborhoods get very little police protection and since they brought it on themselves...who gives a damn....let them keep killing each other like they are doing in Chicago and have been doing for decades.....it is a problem that will eventually solve itself...if they were provided with more guns that time would come much sooner.

News flash. I also have a license to kill when it is necessary to defend myself, my property, my loved ones. It is called the U.s. Constitution.

I happen to know a LOT of police officers, both professionally and personally. I have some in my family. I have and have had some in my closest social circles. The vast majority are good people, professional in conduct and application of the law, risk their lives frequently for the benefit of others, go out of their way and way beyond the call of duty at times to give assistance to somebody in need or peril. I simply will not allow anybody to paint them all with the same brush applied to the few bad apples in the barrel.

Tell that to George Zimmerman.

Your beloved Constitution did not protect him ....he was fortunate to have a couple of good lawyers or he would be in prison right now.

All he did was to legally engage in self defense....he is not the only one who has faced huge repercuissions after killing an African even though it was self defense.

Times have changed...kill one of the government's protected minority and you are in a shit load of trouble no matter the circumstances and no matter if your own life was on the line. That is reality today....and most especially if you kill one you best have a very clean computer and no record of any kind of racist behavor or some witness who claims you used the n woid back when you were in H.S.

Get down of your high horse and face the reality of our huge,huge racial problems.

You're blaming all the policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Really? You're blaming ANY policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Surely you jest.

I have a real problem taking anybody seriously who uses isolated anecdotal evidence to broad brush any person, group, demographic, etc. But if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, at least pick one that makes sense.

You seem to lack the logic needed to understand what I was saying though it was not at all complicated.

I was referring to the constitution...how it cannot be depended on if you use deadly force in self defense aka...especially and most especially if the perp was a African-American.

Unfortunately now and for some time there is a double standard in just about everything connected with African-Americans.

And....if you kill one in even in legitimate self defense your whole life will be examined with a federal microscope to see if you are a racist....actually even worse than that...as in....you may not be a racist but perhaps back in H.S. you in a fit of anger or whatever used the N woid...if they can conjure up a witness to that you will be labeled a racist and that coupled with the composition of the jury which will be deliberating your fate ---which will have liberals and African-Americans on it...thus your life is placed in extreme peril irregardless of how much faith you have in the constitution.

That is the reality today.....and anyone who debates politic on any of these boards....you best use bleach bit when you sign off....your computer is the first thing they check for signs or inclinations of racism.

None of which even addresses my point that we have a constitutional right to self defense and most police officers are pretty darn good people.

 

[MacTheKnife]

You are equating police with all other professions....that is talking apples and oranges....the police are the only ones that have a license to kill...they can use it lawfully,logicially as with common sense and most do...yet there are some who are trigger happy, paranoid creatures who will shoot at the drop of the hat and no matter how egregious it may be...most of them get away with it...all they have to do is say I was in fear of my life...I thought he had a gun, I thought he was going for a weapon.

Now lately due to some high profile cases that have gotten a lot of publicity a lot of pressure has been brought to bear on the police....especially if they happen to shoot a African American....but this lopsided pressure is allowing the police still to run amok when it comes to white perps. The cops know if they shoot a person of color they will be thoroughly investigated and probably sued as there are organizations that will put up the money to get a lawyer and sue the police dept. and the policeman...thus most cops do their best to avoid shooting a black perp and police depts. now quite often make sure their police chief is black even though there may be more qualified white cops.

Not even to mention the fact that many cops will no longer pusue a black perp....they tryi to avoid any confrontation with africans because the potential for trouble is just too huge...thuis black neigghborhoods get very little police protection and since they brought it on themselves...who gives a damn....let them keep killing each other like they are doing in Chicago and have been doing for decades.....it is a problem that will eventually solve itself...if they were provided with more guns that time would come much sooner.

News flash. I also have a license to kill when it is necessary to defend myself, my property, my loved ones. It is called the U.s. Constitution.

I happen to know a LOT of police officers, both professionally and personally. I have some in my family. I have and have had some in my closest social circles. The vast majority are good people, professional in conduct and application of the law, risk their lives frequently for the benefit of others, go out of their way and way beyond the call of duty at times to give assistance to somebody in need or peril. I simply will not allow anybody to paint them all with the same brush applied to the few bad apples in the barrel.

Tell that to George Zimmerman.

Your beloved Constitution did not protect him ....he was fortunate to have a couple of good lawyers or he would be in prison right now.

All he did was to legally engage in self defense....he is not the only one who has faced huge repercuissions after killing an African even though it was self defense.

Times have changed...kill one of the government's protected minority and you are in a shit load of trouble no matter the circumstances and no matter if your own life was on the line. That is reality today....and most especially if you kill one you best have a very clean computer and no record of any kind of racist behavor or some witness who claims you used the n woid back when you were in H.S.

Get down of your high horse and face the reality of our huge,huge racial problems.

You're blaming all the policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Really? You're blaming ANY policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Surely you jest.

I have a real problem taking anybody seriously who uses isolated anecdotal evidence to broad brush any person, group, demographic, etc. But if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, at least pick one that makes sense.

You seem to lack the logic needed to understand what I was saying though it was not at all complicated.

I was referring to the constitution...how it cannot be depended on if you use deadly force in self defense aka...especially and most especially if the perp was a African-American.

Unfortunately now and for some time there is a double standard in just about everything connected with African-Americans.

And....if you kill one in even in legitimate self defense your whole life will be examined with a federal microscope to see if you are a racist....actually even worse than that...as in....you may not be a racist but perhaps back in H.S. you in a fit of anger or whatever used the N woid...if they can conjure up a witness to that you will be labeled a racist and that coupled with the composition of the jury which will be deliberating your fate ---which will have liberals and African-Americans on it...thus your life is placed in extreme peril irregardless of how much faith you have in the constitution.

That is the reality today.....and anyone who debates politic on any of these boards....you best use bleach bit when you sign off....your computer is the first thing they check for signs or inclinations of racism.

None of which even addresses my point that we have a constitutional right to self defense and most police officers are pretty darn good people.

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

 

[Foxfyre]

News flash. I also have a license to kill when it is necessary to defend myself, my property, my loved ones. It is called the U.s. Constitution.

I happen to know a LOT of police officers, both professionally and personally. I have some in my family. I have and have had some in my closest social circles. The vast majority are good people, professional in conduct and application of the law, risk their lives frequently for the benefit of others, go out of their way and way beyond the call of duty at times to give assistance to somebody in need or peril. I simply will not allow anybody to paint them all with the same brush applied to the few bad apples in the barrel.

Tell that to George Zimmerman.

Your beloved Constitution did not protect him ....he was fortunate to have a couple of good lawyers or he would be in prison right now.

All he did was to legally engage in self defense....he is not the only one who has faced huge repercuissions after killing an African even though it was self defense.

Times have changed...kill one of the government's protected minority and you are in a shit load of trouble no matter the circumstances and no matter if your own life was on the line. That is reality today....and most especially if you kill one you best have a very clean computer and no record of any kind of racist behavor or some witness who claims you used the n woid back when you were in H.S.

Get down of your high horse and face the reality of our huge,huge racial problems.

You're blaming all the policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Really? You're blaming ANY policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Surely you jest.

I have a real problem taking anybody seriously who uses isolated anecdotal evidence to broad brush any person, group, demographic, etc. But if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, at least pick one that makes sense.

You seem to lack the logic needed to understand what I was saying though it was not at all complicated.

I was referring to the constitution...how it cannot be depended on if you use deadly force in self defense aka...especially and most especially if the perp was a African-American.

Unfortunately now and for some time there is a double standard in just about everything connected with African-Americans.

And....if you kill one in even in legitimate self defense your whole life will be examined with a federal microscope to see if you are a racist....actually even worse than that...as in....you may not be a racist but perhaps back in H.S. you in a fit of anger or whatever used the N woid...if they can conjure up a witness to that you will be labeled a racist and that coupled with the composition of the jury which will be deliberating your fate ---which will have liberals and African-Americans on it...thus your life is placed in extreme peril irregardless of how much faith you have in the constitution.

That is the reality today.....and anyone who debates politic on any of these boards....you best use bleach bit when you sign off....your computer is the first thing they check for signs or inclinations of racism.

None of which even addresses my point that we have a constitutional right to self defense and most police officers are pretty darn good people.

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Tell that to George Zimmerman.

Your beloved Constitution did not protect him ....he was fortunate to have a couple of good lawyers or he would be in prison right now.

All he did was to legally engage in self defense....he is not the only one who has faced huge repercuissions after killing an African even though it was self defense.

Times have changed...kill one of the government's protected minority and you are in a shit load of trouble no matter the circumstances and no matter if your own life was on the line. That is reality today....and most especially if you kill one you best have a very clean computer and no record of any kind of racist behavor or some witness who claims you used the n woid back when you were in H.S.

Get down of your high horse and face the reality of our huge,huge racial problems.

You're blaming all the policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Really? You're blaming ANY policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Surely you jest.

I have a real problem taking anybody seriously who uses isolated anecdotal evidence to broad brush any person, group, demographic, etc. But if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, at least pick one that makes sense.

You seem to lack the logic needed to understand what I was saying though it was not at all complicated.

I was referring to the constitution...how it cannot be depended on if you use deadly force in self defense aka...especially and most especially if the perp was a African-American.

Unfortunately now and for some time there is a double standard in just about everything connected with African-Americans.

And....if you kill one in even in legitimate self defense your whole life will be examined with a federal microscope to see if you are a racist....actually even worse than that...as in....you may not be a racist but perhaps back in H.S. you in a fit of anger or whatever used the N woid...if they can conjure up a witness to that you will be labeled a racist and that coupled with the composition of the jury which will be deliberating your fate ---which will have liberals and African-Americans on it...thus your life is placed in extreme peril irregardless of how much faith you have in the constitution.

That is the reality today.....and anyone who debates politic on any of these boards....you best use bleach bit when you sign off....your computer is the first thing they check for signs or inclinations of racism.

None of which even addresses my point that we have a constitutional right to self defense and most police officers are pretty darn good people.

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're blaming all the policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Really? You're blaming ANY policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Surely you jest.

I have a real problem taking anybody seriously who uses isolated anecdotal evidence to broad brush any person, group, demographic, etc. But if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, at least pick one that makes sense.

You seem to lack the logic needed to understand what I was saying though it was not at all complicated.

I was referring to the constitution...how it cannot be depended on if you use deadly force in self defense aka...especially and most especially if the perp was a African-American.

Unfortunately now and for some time there is a double standard in just about everything connected with African-Americans.

And....if you kill one in even in legitimate self defense your whole life will be examined with a federal microscope to see if you are a racist....actually even worse than that...as in....you may not be a racist but perhaps back in H.S. you in a fit of anger or whatever used the N woid...if they can conjure up a witness to that you will be labeled a racist and that coupled with the composition of the jury which will be deliberating your fate ---which will have liberals and African-Americans on it...thus your life is placed in extreme peril irregardless of how much faith you have in the constitution.

That is the reality today.....and anyone who debates politic on any of these boards....you best use bleach bit when you sign off....your computer is the first thing they check for signs or inclinations of racism.

None of which even addresses my point that we have a constitutional right to self defense and most police officers are pretty darn good people.

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

I'm not a modern American liberal. I simply could not be as rude, cruel, hateful, judgmental, intolerant as so many of them are. So how they feel about much of anything might be something of interest to know how they think or see the world, but it is not at all persuasive or relevant to me.

Having done extensive study on the debates and arguments and point of view of the nation's founders, I am quite secure that they, to a man, supported a concept of unalienable right to self defense.

 

[DandyDonovan]

You're blaming all the policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Really? You're blaming ANY policemen in America for the George Zimmerman controversy? Surely you jest.

I have a real problem taking anybody seriously who uses isolated anecdotal evidence to broad brush any person, group, demographic, etc. But if you're going to use anecdotal evidence, at least pick one that makes sense.

You seem to lack the logic needed to understand what I was saying though it was not at all complicated.

I was referring to the constitution...how it cannot be depended on if you use deadly force in self defense aka...especially and most especially if the perp was a African-American.

Unfortunately now and for some time there is a double standard in just about everything connected with African-Americans.

And....if you kill one in even in legitimate self defense your whole life will be examined with a federal microscope to see if you are a racist....actually even worse than that...as in....you may not be a racist but perhaps back in H.S. you in a fit of anger or whatever used the N woid...if they can conjure up a witness to that you will be labeled a racist and that coupled with the composition of the jury which will be deliberating your fate ---which will have liberals and African-Americans on it...thus your life is placed in extreme peril irregardless of how much faith you have in the constitution.

That is the reality today.....and anyone who debates politic on any of these boards....you best use bleach bit when you sign off....your computer is the first thing they check for signs or inclinations of racism.

None of which even addresses my point that we have a constitutional right to self defense and most police officers are pretty darn good people.

Could you show me where in the constitution it says you have a right to self defense?

I will save you a lot of time....you will be searching a long time for that....because it is not in the constitution.

Your legal right to self defense comes from the state in which you live. The states have different laws regarding self defense but most of them pretty much agree. It would behoove you to look up your states law on self defense.

But my point being....even though you have a legal right to self defense (determined by the state you live in) that does not mean however you are guranteed to be found not guilty of killing someone.

Most states say that in order for you to be justified in using deadly force in self defense you must have a reasonable fear of your life being in danger or you feel you may be grieviously harmed....who determines what is reasonable? Certainly not the law ...they do not spell out what is covered by reasonable...that is left up to the authorities....if they find your use of deadly force to be reasonable and is thus within the law...most likely you will not be charged....however in todays climate...that is not a sure thing either....there was a case in Florida not long ago....a white guy shot and killed a black guy who had violently shoved him to the ground---the sheriffs dept. said he was within his rights and did not charge him and released him.

But then....................the blacks started protesting....the media got involved.....pressure was brought to bear on the State Attorney....charges were issued and the fellow was arrested and taken to jail. Now he faces a trial. Would you like to be in his shoes?

Who knows what a jury these days will do...especially when you have so many pc people, liberal people and minority people who think anyone shooting a black guy for any reason should be in jail. And of course this poor fellow will no doubt face a jury composed of all of the above....he doe not have a lot of money....it remains to be seen what kind of lawyer he will get.

You are probably familiar with the term...I had rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6......that says a lot....before you shoot someone you should really and I mean really feel your life is in danger....if there is anyway in hell you you feel you can safely get out of the situation without killing someone you might want to do that....because once you get involved in the criminal justice system....it is a gamble...even if you feel it is a clear cut case of justifiable use of deadly force.

Now of course if you choose to try and avoid killing someone even though they are a threat...and say they do kill you...even though you had a gun but refused to use it....folks will say what a idiot.

So in such situations one has to make a very quick decision...but those who will judge you have the benefit of hindsight and cameras in slow motion....thus they not being in your shoes but judging from a safe distance will not look at it ...very likely anyhow...the same way you did.

So the whole matter of self defense these days is not simple....it involves more than the law...it involves politics, the nature of the people where the situation occurs, your station in life...the fellow you kill and his station in life....his record, his reputation, who he knows..how much political influence his family or defenders have, your history, your racism or lack there of if you kill a member of a protected minority etc.

But again...no matter what anyone tells you .....the old story of it being better to be judged by l2 than carried by six....remains. If you feel you can safely get out of a situation where you are under threat of grievious bodily harm or death....you best be damn sure of it..if you want to take the risk or the gamble....and if someone has knocked you violently to the ground is hovering over you....would you not pull out the gun in your pocket and shoot him...if you are so fortunate to get it out before he stomps you into unconsciouness...the fellow in Florida decided he did not want to risk that.

And of course a lot of people...usually women...will pull out a pistol and let some thug take it away from them because they simply cannot pull the trigger..the respect for life is so great in some people they simply cannot take a life even though that life will take hers.

In Vietnam this was found to be a real problem...a lot of guys would freeze up and when the viet cong were charging they would not shoot...because growing up in our lawful and rather peaceful society they were taught to value life ....perhaps too much. Anyhow the troops figured out a remedy for that real quick...they would take a dead viet cong and have the newbies fire rounds into it...that worked out good...conditioned them to be able to squeeze the trigger when they needed to.

Some say shoot first and ax questions later....a lot of truth to that....but it might get you life in prison...so again....the whole concept of self defense is much more complicated than most realize..the fellow that tells you that will not be there to help you when your life is in danger and if you have to go to prison he will not face that either.

Most do not even know the particular law on self defense in the state in which they live....and of course the incident could occur when you are out of your home state and most likely have no idea of the law on self defense in a state where you are just passing through or a visitor....not even to mention the laws on possessing a weapon vary from state to state....so again more complications.

But you are right about cops...most of them are good guys....but toooo many bad ones in my book.

However, to each his own.....we all have opinions.

The Constitutional right to self defense is reflected in founding documents and is embodied in the Second Amendment. The Founders clearly intended that to be the right of a nation or any part of it to defend itself against enemies from without or within, and the right of the individual to protect his/her own life and property. That intent was affirmed by the Supreme Court in McDonald v City of Chicago and District of Columbia v Heller. No state in the union has passed any law denying the individual the right to defend himself/herself.

hehheh

Reflected yes.....and some have interpeted the second amendment to cover self defense but the founding fathers were not clear at all regarding self defense....there is a huge difference between defending the nation from foreign aggressors and the concept of self defense.

If the constitution clearly spelled out the right to self defense including the use of deadly force and when that is justified.....there would be no reason for each and every state in the union to construct laws on self defense which of course they have and again that is what covers you in real life....not some nebulous concept referred to by the constitution.

The most that can really be said about the constitution and self defense is that it does not reject the concept of self defense. Thus none of the state laws on self-defense can be held to be unconstitutional.

Now I happen to believe there should be something in the constitution that guarantees the right of self defense and exactly when and how the use of deadly force in self defense is justified....and thus if that that were the case everyone in America would be under the same law of self defense....that would eliminate a lot of confusion and the differences in the law of self-defene depending on what state you are in...as in some states you have the right to stand your ground whilst in others you do not.

I would suspect the majority of folks do not even know what the law on self defense is in their own home state ...much less in other states.

A lot of confusion about it. Which was demonstrated very clearly by all the ignorance that was exhibited on the boards about the George Zimmerman affair....admittedly mostly liberals.

Some of them do not even believe in self defense...think you should just run away...and if you get killed trying to run away...they really have no problem with that....especiallly if the perp is black and the victim is white...they will not admit it but they kinda like the idea of the ethnic cleansing of whites....get rid of all dat white guilt boyos. Oh yeh ...dats da ticket.

Here is a link showing how a lot of liberals feel about self defense.............................Do We Have A ‘Right” To Self-Defense? Not Unless The Government Says So.

OMG are you kidding me?

We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness says so right in the DoI, now obviously it then follows that you have the right to protect your life, your liberty, and your ability to pursue happiness

Also, the Constitution does not grant anyone rights, apparently you need to retake 9th grade civics and try for a higher grade than a D- this time. The COTUS restricts government nothing more.