72 Portland Rioters Arrested; Federal Crimes, 10-year Jail Sentences; George Soros Funds

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

You wanna go pull someone in Chicago unarmed?

Why not? Whoever you pull over has no concern over being concerned. They know they aren't going to get shot for doing what they were asked to do.

Besides, there are more than one way to handle this. If a monitor catches someone doing 65 in a 45 they can record the plate number and relay the info for a citation to be sent to the home.

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

You wanna go pull someone in Chicago unarmed?

Why not? Whoever you pull over has no concern over being concerned. They know they aren't going to get shot for doing what they were asked to do.

Besides, there are more than one way to handle this. If a monitor catches someone doing 65 in a 45 they can record the plate number and relay the info for a citation to be sent to the home.

you want real changes, you have to change the job. stopping traffic stops, is a valid change. a real change.


if the area is such that a licence plate can be used to send a fine, that could work.


but, what happens when the guy is driving drunk? you going to let him keep going? or call a cop?

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

You wanna go pull someone in Chicago unarmed?

Why not? Whoever you pull over has no concern over being concerned. They know they aren't going to get shot for doing what they were asked to do.

Besides, there are more than one way to handle this. If a monitor catches someone doing 65 in a 45 they can record the plate number and relay the info for a citation to be sent to the home.

you want real changes, you have to change the job. stopping traffic stops, is a valid change. a real change.


if the area is such that a licence plate can be used to send a fine, that could work.


but, what happens when the guy is driving drunk? you going to let him keep going? or call a cop?

For major crimes the police will still be called. It happens now. People call 911 stating they saw someone driving erratically.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Something needs to be done about George Soros, perhaps ship him off to the Philippines; President Duterte would like to see him.

 

[the other mike]

"Federal authorities in Portland have arrested 74 demonstrators and charged 60 with federal crimes, Department of Justice (DOJ) spokeswoman Kerri Kupec announced on Monday. The DOJ spokeswoman made the announcement on Monday, providing the number of federal arrests and charged cases “related to violent opportunists & civil unrest.” Nationwide, federal authorities have made 236 arrests, with 238 defendants charged" DOJ: 72 Portland Rioters Arrested, Dozens Charged with Federal Crimes​

Tools the rioters were carrying included Molotov cocktails, Sledgehammers, Pipe bombs, Mortar fireworks, Metal spikes. Some "peaceful protesters," no? You'd be correct if you guessed these items were planned to kill and maim police and federal peacekeepers.

"President Trump doubled-down on his calls for tough action against thousands of protesters damaging statues across the United States Friday; calling for “10 year prison sentences” when damaging federal property." TRUMP on DC PROTESTS: ‘Many People in Custody, Many Sought for Vandalization, 10 Year Prison Sentences! | Sean Hannity​

Why are the Democrats using their minions to do this? Could be because George Soros is giving them $52 million dollars to "win" the election in November. George Soros Spends $52 Million on 2020 Election Cycle

I've never been happy to see 'protesters' being arrested
until now. But they're not even smart enough to know what they're protesting about.

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

Well, again, you guys didn't listen when Colin took a knee peacefully, did you?

Comply with the America haters or violence? You are of your mother the devil/Hillary

 

[Correll]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

You wanna go pull someone in Chicago unarmed?

Why not? Whoever you pull over has no concern over being concerned. They know they aren't going to get shot for doing what they were asked to do.

Besides, there are more than one way to handle this. If a monitor catches someone doing 65 in a 45 they can record the plate number and relay the info for a citation to be sent to the home.

you want real changes, you have to change the job. stopping traffic stops, is a valid change. a real change.


if the area is such that a licence plate can be used to send a fine, that could work.


but, what happens when the guy is driving drunk? you going to let him keep going? or call a cop?

For major crimes the police will still be called. It happens now. People call 911 stating they saw someone driving erratically.

you give the cops the job to enforce traffic safety, yet you don't want to trust them to have the judgement to decide when to pull people over.


we'll have great cops. people willing to take a job, where they are in danger and treated like they are wacist assholes, and knowing all the while that one mistake, or even one false accusation of a mistake and they get thrown to the wolves.


hey, and let's cut their funding too. why not? no down side, right?


i want to see the new "cops" show, but have it be :"SOCIAL WORKERS", and see them deal with violent asshole criminals, and see how it works out. and, when it doesn't, i want to see the citizens of these dem cities, sitting in a pool of their own blood while they cry for someone to come and protect them.


lol!!!

 

[the other mike]

It's gonna be the wild, wild west again.

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

 

[Dragonlady]

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

I keep saying that those who are protesting peacefully are protesting peacefully........and those who aren't, aren't.

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have never said I didn't support those who have escalated things. Especially after Trump outright dismissed those protesting peacefully. I have NEVER argued that I only support peaceful protest.

You never really say anything, but you tend to say a lot of it.

and why should he call out those protesting peacefully when they are not who he is after? dismiss their legal activity and go after illegal.

common sense seems to befuddled you

“A riot is the language of the unheard.

MLK

but you people are heard all the time. so, what is your reason for rioting?

Why waste everyone's time? This has been addressed so many times.

because your stated reasons keep being obviously not true.


i mean, you've been making the argument, mostly not explicitly, that the riots are about being "heard".


but, your side dominated the media and pop culture. we hear your side of the debate constantly.


so that was a lie.

Where is this reform Trump said he was going to pass?

don't know, don't care. not my issue. are you implying that he not doing what he said he was going to do, is justification for open insurrection?


i personally, other than some of the prison reform, hope he does not do it. that is not why i supported him for the presidency, and i want him focused more on my issues, than the issues of an unwashed, commie mob.

I'm saying that like you, he isn't listening.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

No idea what you are talking about.

i heard you. now the question is, are you going to hear me?

my question stands.


f you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. None.

i can see that. it is almost like you are not listening to me. ie i am not being heard.


this is something i had mentioned before.


i, and increasingly more and more of america are done being lectured like we are dim witted children.


you complain about not being heard, and use it as a justification for open insurrection.

but, what you really want is not just to be heard, but for your opponents to just stand there like stupid bitches and take your abuse, without any pushback.


well, we are done with that.


we disagree with you. this is a democratic republic. you will not always be getting your way.


can you hear me now?

You like me are irrelevant. Nothing you say matters.

we are a microcosm of what is occurring in the nation at large.

you people,

You can discuss things with me or you can go off and discuss them with "you people".

yet are you or are you NOT going "you people" when you say "us people" should have listened to "those peoples" grievances?

No, as I said, you, me and others are irrelevant. It matters very little if you listen or not. I gave specific instances. Trump calling people SOB's and Pence turning his back on those peacefully protesting and walking out on them.

getting sick and tired of "you fucks" on the left getting pissed at others for following YOUR LEAD on how to try and address things. you ONLY want things to go ONE way.

fuck that shit.

I'm pro-life. I fully support the 2nd Amendment. I believe in a balanced budget. What makes me "left"? That I understand a need for police reform? I said the same about the couple who were arrested for arming themselves outside of their home.

Do you really believe that "Police Reform!!!" is going to solve the problems of blacks in urban areas, PK? Is it going to stop blacks from shooting other blacks in Chicago and New York? Or is it simply a diversion by the left because they don't want to admit that 60 years of progressive policy has hurt not helped the average black person living in places like Chicago?

It's going to address one problem. You don't accept one issue because it doesn't solve every issue. I don't support the politics of Chicago. Recall, there were protests out in front of Rahm Imanuel's house.

I don't think there's that large of a problem to begin with, PK! The statistics simply don't support a narrative that Police are assassinating black men in this country. On the other hand...black on black gun violence is through the roof in cities like Chicago and New York and ZERO is being done about it! How does defunding the Police going to make that issue go away? The answer to that is that it's not! It's going to make it much worse.

Don't believe there is an issue. I don't care.

I didn't say there wasn't an issue...I simply pointed out that compared to OTHER problems that plague the black community...Police officers killing blacks is WAY down on the list of biggest issues or at least should be!
And the "cure" for what the left sees as a problem...defunding the Police...is going to make those other more pressing problems FAR worse! Do you "care" about that?

That's like saying one type of cancer is not as prevalent as other kinds so no one should be concentrating on the less prevalent type.

If you aren't trying to spin "defund" you would understand it isn't going to make the other problems worse. Pulling some black guy over because of some made up offense to try and find a little pot in the car is not going to make things worse.

Your own analogy proves my point, PK! If you've got two kinds of cancer...one that's going to kill you in a month unless you deal with it right away...and another that's going to kill you in ten years...which would you address first?

Having fewer Police patrolling in neighborhoods that are now being hit with a tidal wave of shootings isn't going to make things worse? How do you figure that? Of course it will make it worse.

Except there isn't a "tidal wave of shootings" anywhere in the USA. Chicago is same shit, different day, and New York is calming down. It's puppyshit compared to the tidal wave of police violence sweeping the country. 1500 people died in police custody last year. Hundred of millions of dollars being paid out annually in "excessive force claims", and the highest incarcation rates in the world. In France, the first world country with the next highest levels of police violence, police killed 26 people.

You now have a virus sweeping the nation that kills blacks and Hispanics at much higher rates than white people. Donald Trump's reaction to that news, was to immediately demand that the nation re-open. Black and brown people disproportionately have jobs which will not allow them to work from home. Trump wants these people to go to work with no health insurance, and no sick time, and no ability to sue employers for unsafe working conditions.

The cancer, is racism and it has matasticized. Racism is killing black and brown people NOW. In massive numbers. Black Lives Matter protests are about the racism that thinks nothing of sending black and brown people back to work, to get sick and die, and that isn't something that is happening in the future, that is HAPPENING RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!

 

[Oldestyle]

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

I keep saying that those who are protesting peacefully are protesting peacefully........and those who aren't, aren't.

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have never said I didn't support those who have escalated things. Especially after Trump outright dismissed those protesting peacefully. I have NEVER argued that I only support peaceful protest.

You never really say anything, but you tend to say a lot of it.

and why should he call out those protesting peacefully when they are not who he is after? dismiss their legal activity and go after illegal.

common sense seems to befuddled you

“A riot is the language of the unheard.

MLK

but you people are heard all the time. so, what is your reason for rioting?

Why waste everyone's time? This has been addressed so many times.

because your stated reasons keep being obviously not true.


i mean, you've been making the argument, mostly not explicitly, that the riots are about being "heard".


but, your side dominated the media and pop culture. we hear your side of the debate constantly.


so that was a lie.

Where is this reform Trump said he was going to pass?

don't know, don't care. not my issue. are you implying that he not doing what he said he was going to do, is justification for open insurrection?


i personally, other than some of the prison reform, hope he does not do it. that is not why i supported him for the presidency, and i want him focused more on my issues, than the issues of an unwashed, commie mob.

I'm saying that like you, he isn't listening.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

No idea what you are talking about.

i heard you. now the question is, are you going to hear me?

my question stands.


f you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. None.

i can see that. it is almost like you are not listening to me. ie i am not being heard.


this is something i had mentioned before.


i, and increasingly more and more of america are done being lectured like we are dim witted children.


you complain about not being heard, and use it as a justification for open insurrection.

but, what you really want is not just to be heard, but for your opponents to just stand there like stupid bitches and take your abuse, without any pushback.


well, we are done with that.


we disagree with you. this is a democratic republic. you will not always be getting your way.


can you hear me now?

You like me are irrelevant. Nothing you say matters.

we are a microcosm of what is occurring in the nation at large.

you people,

You can discuss things with me or you can go off and discuss them with "you people".

yet are you or are you NOT going "you people" when you say "us people" should have listened to "those peoples" grievances?

No, as I said, you, me and others are irrelevant. It matters very little if you listen or not. I gave specific instances. Trump calling people SOB's and Pence turning his back on those peacefully protesting and walking out on them.

getting sick and tired of "you fucks" on the left getting pissed at others for following YOUR LEAD on how to try and address things. you ONLY want things to go ONE way.

fuck that shit.

I'm pro-life. I fully support the 2nd Amendment. I believe in a balanced budget. What makes me "left"? That I understand a need for police reform? I said the same about the couple who were arrested for arming themselves outside of their home.

Do you really believe that "Police Reform!!!" is going to solve the problems of blacks in urban areas, PK? Is it going to stop blacks from shooting other blacks in Chicago and New York? Or is it simply a diversion by the left because they don't want to admit that 60 years of progressive policy has hurt not helped the average black person living in places like Chicago?

It's going to address one problem. You don't accept one issue because it doesn't solve every issue. I don't support the politics of Chicago. Recall, there were protests out in front of Rahm Imanuel's house.

I don't think there's that large of a problem to begin with, PK! The statistics simply don't support a narrative that Police are assassinating black men in this country. On the other hand...black on black gun violence is through the roof in cities like Chicago and New York and ZERO is being done about it! How does defunding the Police going to make that issue go away? The answer to that is that it's not! It's going to make it much worse.

Don't believe there is an issue. I don't care.

I didn't say there wasn't an issue...I simply pointed out that compared to OTHER problems that plague the black community...Police officers killing blacks is WAY down on the list of biggest issues or at least should be!
And the "cure" for what the left sees as a problem...defunding the Police...is going to make those other more pressing problems FAR worse! Do you "care" about that?

That's like saying one type of cancer is not as prevalent as other kinds so no one should be concentrating on the less prevalent type.

If you aren't trying to spin "defund" you would understand it isn't going to make the other problems worse. Pulling some black guy over because of some made up offense to try and find a little pot in the car is not going to make things worse.

Your own analogy proves my point, PK! If you've got two kinds of cancer...one that's going to kill you in a month unless you deal with it right away...and another that's going to kill you in ten years...which would you address first?

Having fewer Police patrolling in neighborhoods that are now being hit with a tidal wave of shootings isn't going to make things worse? How do you figure that? Of course it will make it worse.

Except there isn't a "tidal wave of shootings" anywhere in the USA. Chicago is same shit, different day, and New York is calming down. It's puppyshit compared to the tidal wave of police violence sweeping the country. 1500 people died in police custody last year. Hundred of millions of dollars being paid out annually in "excessive force claims", and the highest incarcation rates in the world. In France, the first world country with the next highest levels of police violence, police killed 26 people.

You now have a virus sweeping the nation that kills blacks and Hispanics at much higher rates than white people. Donald Trump's reaction to that news, was to immediately demand that the nation re-open. Black and brown people disproportionately have jobs which will not allow them to work from home. Trump wants these people to go to work with no health insurance, and no sick time, and no ability to sue employers for unsafe working conditions.

The cancer, is racism and it has matasticized. Racism is killing black and brown people NOW. In massive numbers. Black Lives Matter protests are about the racism that thinks nothing of sending black and brown people back to work, to get sick and die, and that isn't something that is happening in the future, that is HAPPENING RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!

New York is "calming down"? Did you seriously just make that claim? Another 5 people were murdered last night. Dozens more were shot. The carnage in Chicago simply continues unabated!

Black Lives Matter is a scam! They claim to be about protecting black people from the Police but what they're REALLY about is furthering a far left agenda that will end up destroying what's left of our inner cities!

 

[Oldestyle]

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

I keep saying that those who are protesting peacefully are protesting peacefully........and those who aren't, aren't.

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have never said I didn't support those who have escalated things. Especially after Trump outright dismissed those protesting peacefully. I have NEVER argued that I only support peaceful protest.

You never really say anything, but you tend to say a lot of it.

and why should he call out those protesting peacefully when they are not who he is after? dismiss their legal activity and go after illegal.

common sense seems to befuddled you

“A riot is the language of the unheard.

MLK

but you people are heard all the time. so, what is your reason for rioting?

Why waste everyone's time? This has been addressed so many times.

because your stated reasons keep being obviously not true.


i mean, you've been making the argument, mostly not explicitly, that the riots are about being "heard".


but, your side dominated the media and pop culture. we hear your side of the debate constantly.


so that was a lie.

Where is this reform Trump said he was going to pass?

don't know, don't care. not my issue. are you implying that he not doing what he said he was going to do, is justification for open insurrection?


i personally, other than some of the prison reform, hope he does not do it. that is not why i supported him for the presidency, and i want him focused more on my issues, than the issues of an unwashed, commie mob.

I'm saying that like you, he isn't listening.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

No idea what you are talking about.

i heard you. now the question is, are you going to hear me?

my question stands.


f you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. None.

i can see that. it is almost like you are not listening to me. ie i am not being heard.


this is something i had mentioned before.


i, and increasingly more and more of america are done being lectured like we are dim witted children.


you complain about not being heard, and use it as a justification for open insurrection.

but, what you really want is not just to be heard, but for your opponents to just stand there like stupid bitches and take your abuse, without any pushback.


well, we are done with that.


we disagree with you. this is a democratic republic. you will not always be getting your way.


can you hear me now?

You like me are irrelevant. Nothing you say matters.

we are a microcosm of what is occurring in the nation at large.

you people,

You can discuss things with me or you can go off and discuss them with "you people".

yet are you or are you NOT going "you people" when you say "us people" should have listened to "those peoples" grievances?

No, as I said, you, me and others are irrelevant. It matters very little if you listen or not. I gave specific instances. Trump calling people SOB's and Pence turning his back on those peacefully protesting and walking out on them.

getting sick and tired of "you fucks" on the left getting pissed at others for following YOUR LEAD on how to try and address things. you ONLY want things to go ONE way.

fuck that shit.

I'm pro-life. I fully support the 2nd Amendment. I believe in a balanced budget. What makes me "left"? That I understand a need for police reform? I said the same about the couple who were arrested for arming themselves outside of their home.

Do you really believe that "Police Reform!!!" is going to solve the problems of blacks in urban areas, PK? Is it going to stop blacks from shooting other blacks in Chicago and New York? Or is it simply a diversion by the left because they don't want to admit that 60 years of progressive policy has hurt not helped the average black person living in places like Chicago?

It's going to address one problem. You don't accept one issue because it doesn't solve every issue. I don't support the politics of Chicago. Recall, there were protests out in front of Rahm Imanuel's house.

I don't think there's that large of a problem to begin with, PK! The statistics simply don't support a narrative that Police are assassinating black men in this country. On the other hand...black on black gun violence is through the roof in cities like Chicago and New York and ZERO is being done about it! How does defunding the Police going to make that issue go away? The answer to that is that it's not! It's going to make it much worse.

Don't believe there is an issue. I don't care.

I didn't say there wasn't an issue...I simply pointed out that compared to OTHER problems that plague the black community...Police officers killing blacks is WAY down on the list of biggest issues or at least should be!
And the "cure" for what the left sees as a problem...defunding the Police...is going to make those other more pressing problems FAR worse! Do you "care" about that?

That's like saying one type of cancer is not as prevalent as other kinds so no one should be concentrating on the less prevalent type.

If you aren't trying to spin "defund" you would understand it isn't going to make the other problems worse. Pulling some black guy over because of some made up offense to try and find a little pot in the car is not going to make things worse.

Your own analogy proves my point, PK! If you've got two kinds of cancer...one that's going to kill you in a month unless you deal with it right away...and another that's going to kill you in ten years...which would you address first?

Having fewer Police patrolling in neighborhoods that are now being hit with a tidal wave of shootings isn't going to make things worse? How do you figure that? Of course it will make it worse.

Except there isn't a "tidal wave of shootings" anywhere in the USA. Chicago is same shit, different day, and New York is calming down. It's puppyshit compared to the tidal wave of police violence sweeping the country. 1500 people died in police custody last year. Hundred of millions of dollars being paid out annually in "excessive force claims", and the highest incarcation rates in the world. In France, the first world country with the next highest levels of police violence, police killed 26 people.

You now have a virus sweeping the nation that kills blacks and Hispanics at much higher rates than white people. Donald Trump's reaction to that news, was to immediately demand that the nation re-open. Black and brown people disproportionately have jobs which will not allow them to work from home. Trump wants these people to go to work with no health insurance, and no sick time, and no ability to sue employers for unsafe working conditions.

The cancer, is racism and it has matasticized. Racism is killing black and brown people NOW. In massive numbers. Black Lives Matter protests are about the racism that thinks nothing of sending black and brown people back to work, to get sick and die, and that isn't something that is happening in the future, that is HAPPENING RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!

 

[iceberg]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

You wanna go pull someone in Chicago unarmed?

Why not? Whoever you pull over has no concern over being concerned. They know they aren't going to get shot for doing what they were asked to do.

Besides, there are more than one way to handle this. If a monitor catches someone doing 65 in a 45 they can record the plate number and relay the info for a citation to be sent to the home.

they also know the officer can't do shit to stop them.

so tell me this - what % of calls do officers respond to where they are shot at first? do you even know these stats or are you simply too busy spouting out social justice fluffy cotton shit out of your ass?

you want what you want and anyone saying this isn't fair is the enemy to you. and much of the left these days. then YOU and much of the left these days simply reiterate how right you are for no other reason that YOU FEELZ IT N SHIT.

that isn't working together. yes it is slow and no you don't always get your way but it does keep everyone involved and in the game. this do it yourself at everyone elses expense is driving the very divide you bitch about.

 

[iceberg]

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

I keep saying that those who are protesting peacefully are protesting peacefully........and those who aren't, aren't.

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have never said I didn't support those who have escalated things. Especially after Trump outright dismissed those protesting peacefully. I have NEVER argued that I only support peaceful protest.

You never really say anything, but you tend to say a lot of it.

and why should he call out those protesting peacefully when they are not who he is after? dismiss their legal activity and go after illegal.

common sense seems to befuddled you

“A riot is the language of the unheard.

MLK

but you people are heard all the time. so, what is your reason for rioting?

Why waste everyone's time? This has been addressed so many times.

because your stated reasons keep being obviously not true.


i mean, you've been making the argument, mostly not explicitly, that the riots are about being "heard".


but, your side dominated the media and pop culture. we hear your side of the debate constantly.


so that was a lie.

Where is this reform Trump said he was going to pass?

don't know, don't care. not my issue. are you implying that he not doing what he said he was going to do, is justification for open insurrection?


i personally, other than some of the prison reform, hope he does not do it. that is not why i supported him for the presidency, and i want him focused more on my issues, than the issues of an unwashed, commie mob.

I'm saying that like you, he isn't listening.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

No idea what you are talking about.

i heard you. now the question is, are you going to hear me?

my question stands.


f you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. None.

i can see that. it is almost like you are not listening to me. ie i am not being heard.


this is something i had mentioned before.


i, and increasingly more and more of america are done being lectured like we are dim witted children.


you complain about not being heard, and use it as a justification for open insurrection.

but, what you really want is not just to be heard, but for your opponents to just stand there like stupid bitches and take your abuse, without any pushback.


well, we are done with that.


we disagree with you. this is a democratic republic. you will not always be getting your way.


can you hear me now?

You like me are irrelevant. Nothing you say matters.

we are a microcosm of what is occurring in the nation at large.

you people,

You can discuss things with me or you can go off and discuss them with "you people".

yet are you or are you NOT going "you people" when you say "us people" should have listened to "those peoples" grievances?

No, as I said, you, me and others are irrelevant. It matters very little if you listen or not. I gave specific instances. Trump calling people SOB's and Pence turning his back on those peacefully protesting and walking out on them.

getting sick and tired of "you fucks" on the left getting pissed at others for following YOUR LEAD on how to try and address things. you ONLY want things to go ONE way.

fuck that shit.

I'm pro-life. I fully support the 2nd Amendment. I believe in a balanced budget. What makes me "left"? That I understand a need for police reform? I said the same about the couple who were arrested for arming themselves outside of their home.

Do you really believe that "Police Reform!!!" is going to solve the problems of blacks in urban areas, PK? Is it going to stop blacks from shooting other blacks in Chicago and New York? Or is it simply a diversion by the left because they don't want to admit that 60 years of progressive policy has hurt not helped the average black person living in places like Chicago?

It's going to address one problem. You don't accept one issue because it doesn't solve every issue. I don't support the politics of Chicago. Recall, there were protests out in front of Rahm Imanuel's house.

I don't think there's that large of a problem to begin with, PK! The statistics simply don't support a narrative that Police are assassinating black men in this country. On the other hand...black on black gun violence is through the roof in cities like Chicago and New York and ZERO is being done about it! How does defunding the Police going to make that issue go away? The answer to that is that it's not! It's going to make it much worse.

Don't believe there is an issue. I don't care.

I didn't say there wasn't an issue...I simply pointed out that compared to OTHER problems that plague the black community...Police officers killing blacks is WAY down on the list of biggest issues or at least should be!
And the "cure" for what the left sees as a problem...defunding the Police...is going to make those other more pressing problems FAR worse! Do you "care" about that?

That's like saying one type of cancer is not as prevalent as other kinds so no one should be concentrating on the less prevalent type.

If you aren't trying to spin "defund" you would understand it isn't going to make the other problems worse. Pulling some black guy over because of some made up offense to try and find a little pot in the car is not going to make things worse.

Your own analogy proves my point, PK! If you've got two kinds of cancer...one that's going to kill you in a month unless you deal with it right away...and another that's going to kill you in ten years...which would you address first?

Having fewer Police patrolling in neighborhoods that are now being hit with a tidal wave of shootings isn't going to make things worse? How do you figure that? Of course it will make it worse.

Except there isn't a "tidal wave of shootings" anywhere in the USA. Chicago is same shit, different day, and New York is calming down. It's puppyshit compared to the tidal wave of police violence sweeping the country. 1500 people died in police custody last year. Hundred of millions of dollars being paid out annually in "excessive force claims", and the highest incarcation rates in the world. In France, the first world country with the next highest levels of police violence, police killed 26 people.

You now have a virus sweeping the nation that kills blacks and Hispanics at much higher rates than white people. Donald Trump's reaction to that news, was to immediately demand that the nation re-open. Black and brown people disproportionately have jobs which will not allow them to work from home. Trump wants these people to go to work with no health insurance, and no sick time, and no ability to sue employers for unsafe working conditions.

The cancer, is racism and it has matasticized. Racism is killing black and brown people NOW. In massive numbers. Black Lives Matter protests are about the racism that thinks nothing of sending black and brown people back to work, to get sick and die, and that isn't something that is happening in the future, that is HAPPENING RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!

New York is "calming down"? Did you seriously just make that claim? Another 5 people were murdered last night. Dozens more were shot. The carnage in Chicago simply continues unabated!

Black Lives Matter is a scam! They claim to be about protecting black people from the Police but what they're REALLY about is furthering a far left agenda that will end up destroying what's left of our inner cities!

who the fuck cares if they THINK it is calming down then AOC and most of THE LEFT said the riots were poor people stealing bread to survive? shouldn't be anything TO calm down if you ask the left.

 

[iceberg]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

 

[pknopp]

Then yo get shot cause you are not handling your grievances properly

Again, the days when cops can do that shit are coming to an end. Pretty soon, they'll all have mandatory body cams and they'll certainly not be able to claim he was reaching for a gun or had that knife I conveniently just dropped on him or whatever shit they pull now.

what about the fucklicks that blame the officers for things and the officers own body cameras show the people to be full of shit?

never hear you bitch at the liars when they lie about the police.

This has been addressed over and over. That doesn't make the news because the system works in those instances. The reason for the protests and riots is because far too often in the past when it was shown that the police officer lied the worse that happened was dropped charges and a couple days vacation.

how will giving the police less money address that?

New laws and the threat of more protests and riots will address that. Other forms of police reform is designed to stop police harassment and expecting them to address areas they are not trained to address, like the mentally ill.

i heard all of that, over and over, before.

what i expect is that,


there will be some speeches. they will say words like "racism" and "new laws" and "reform". and there will be some patting each on the their backs, for doing something,and it will fade away.



until the next time.

Possibly. But we have already seen some reform. The widespread use of body camera's is because of the previous protests. Police officers are being charged for things they would have got away with in the past.

Will politicians forget their promises? It's certainly possible but then the next video will appear and they will be faced with their promises. Remember, this all started under Obama.

this did not start under obama. it has been a part of the status quo for as long as i can remember.


i remember hearing this same shit as a child, in the 70s and it already felt stale then.


so, you agree that giving them less money, ie defunding them, the primary rallying cry this time around,


is not going to address that actual issue.

I never said that. You asked how defunding them was going to stop them abusing people. I said that it wouldn't completely. That's not the entire point. When the police are defunded and mental health experts are funded the police are less likely to abuse someone because they are not able to understand what is going on with the person they are addressing.

We learned long ago that the best way to deal with a hostage situation was to bring in someone trained to deal with a situation like this. There is no need for a person with a gun to stop a motorist to let them know that their tail light is out.

those speeches? they will say the words, "defund" too. it will have the same level of effect.


do you realize that the job of dealing with violent criminals, will require the use of violence, and in that case, people will be hurt, sometimes black people?

No one has ever claimed it wouldn't. What is claimed is that the police can't lie about those situations or escalate the violence themselves. It's also noted that there are certain crimes where violence is never justified. A police officer doesn't get to drag you out of a car because you wouldn't put your cigarette out.

1. traffic stops are the worst. the situation is completely unknown. the driver could be a little old lady, or a criminal high on meth, that just killed a man. you use unarmed non-police for that role, they will be getting killed.

There is no reason to harm a person that pulled you over to let them know their tail light is out. Or even to write them a ticket for speeding and the letting them go on their way. This all could have been avoided if we didn't accept pulling people over on fishing expeditions. Philandro Castile was pulled over for absolutely no reason.

2. if you except the use of violence and people getting hurt, even black people, what is your plan to avoid having the wace baiters use instances of violent black criminals being hurt for demagoguery?

No idea what you are asking.

3. mental health? the answer is to lock up dangerous crazy people. anything less, and people will get hurt. you can't have the coverage of an area, with trained mental health doctors the way you can with police.

I'm not interested in your spin.

1. if cops or anyone are pulling over a car, with a driver, that is a dangerous situation. you certainly need a guy with a gun, because there is a chance that the driver is a wanted criminal, with a gun, who is prepared to kill you to get away.

There are alternatives. People don't seem to be interested. They are OK with many having their rights violated in the idea that one might get caught with a little pot.

2. if you accept the use of violence, you accept that sometimes blacks will be hurt. what is your plan to avoid having this used to incite race riots as we currently see?

Do you have examples of where people rioted where violence was justified?

3. pointing out that you can't have mental health workers patrolling a city the way we have cops do it, is not spin.

And that isn't what you said. Words mean something. Mental health workers are not meant to patrol the city. They are meant to be called out when the call mentions someone with a health issue.

1. what alternatives? do you want to stop enforcing traffic laws?

I want the police to stop finding something petty to go on fishing trips.

2. not that you would admit to. but of course.

I'll take that as a no.

3. if they are not patrolling the city the way the cops are, the cops will still be the ones to respond to a person acting dangerously.

In many cases, yes they would. Elijah McClain nor Breonna Taylor was acting dangerously.

1. you want change, then state the change you want. ceasing the enforcement of traffic laws would end traffic stops. stating that you disagree with the judgement call of individual cops, who have the job of traffic stops, is not a change.

You and I both know what I am talking about. Philandro Castille had done nothing to get pulled over.

2. hands up, don't shoot was a lie. and there were riots afterwards. for one limited example. which you will reject, because of reasons.

We have the word of one side in that situation. That's not what I asked for.

3. maybe one of the cities that defund the police, will be a success story you can point to, to back up this claim. until then, it looks like, at best, wishful thinking.

We have already started reforms.

1. i'm not denying the reality of "fishing expeditions". i asking you what change you want. stopping traffic law enforcement would do it.

One idea has been noted over and over. No more armed law enforcement pulling people over. If you think we can retrain the police to no longer pull people over for fishing trips, great. I'm not so sure of that but I'm not writing laws or policy. I really don't care how it's done. If you have nothing better to do than pull someone over for something minor or something you just made up you have too much time on your hands and that's a good argument for fewer officers.

2. hands up don't shoot was a lie. it is fine example of how an example of use of violence that happens to hurt a black person, can, and will turn into an issue. this is the norm. if your changes, are not prepared to deal with that, than nothing will change. a hundred years from now, whites will be an oppressed minority, and wace baiters will still be whining about some black thug getting shot.

It might have been a lie, it might not have been but it would seem that you have no actual example.

3. get back to me, when mental health workers are the first responders, and it lasts for more than good month, so we can get some numbers.

Fine with me.

1. out of the question. traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs a cop can do. if you are having cops pull over random people, they have to be prepared for when it is a bad actor.

It isn't going to be out of the question.

2. i gave a fine example. you support the use of violence to enforce the law, but will not defend the officers who do it, and then get accused of shit, for doing their job. that is not a sustainable position.

Since that happened we have a proliferation of video available. We are going to be able to actually see what happened. Brown didn't happen because of Brown. It happened because of a systematic abuse of the people by the officers in that area.

3. hee hee, yeah, i really hope they are committed to giving it a good long try. i really hope it lasts long enough to get some good numbers on how well it works. and the longer the better.

Great.

4. i want to be very clear. i think any dem that supports the idea that cops randomly murder blacks, should support defunding the police, or they are pussies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. and when i say defund, i mean zero it the fuck out.

I do NOT care about the political arguments. I'm not sure why I have to point this out so many times.

1. you cannot ask cops to put themselves in danger like that. at best, traffic stops, will just stop, no matter who dangerous the roads get.

2. video doesn't matter if you are not going to address bad faith accusations by wace baiters. nothing will change if you do not actually change things. saying "laws" and "wacism" in a speech, before getting bad to the norm, that is what i said will happen.

3. so far, only minneapolis seems serious. everyone else is being pussies, talking shit, but not backing it up; with real action.

4. your pretense this is not political, is silly.

If you wish to make it political, so be it. The rest has already been beaten to death.

Minneapolis police tell residents to obey criminals and 'be prepared' to be robbed

The Minneapolis Police department says that residents of the city should "be prepared" to hand over their phones, wallets and purses to robbers.

alphanewsmn.com

great. that isn't political it's the reality of "defunding" the police and ultimately taking away their authority.

Turn about I guess. Innocent people were told to just give in and allow the police to violate your rights and fight it out in the courts. Not that poor people can afford to do that.

So, let people rob and fight it out with your insurance.

 

[Correll]

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I recall all the cheering over the felonies being charged in Louisville.....then the charges were dropped.

what do you want to happen with this open insurrection? do you want the federal government drive from the cities? do you want the federal government to fall?

I want the government to listen to the grievences of the people.

burning down buildings and killing innocent is the new way of communicating, right?

The founders understood that when the government wouldn't listen that is what you are stuck with. But this has been explained to you before.

Clearly, you were educated in Wuhan as you have no idea what the American Founders crafted.

I'll highlight the part you missed in your Chinese classroom

" First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

ok - now what countries push a single narrative under penalty of legal and mass social recourse if you don't follow along?

go ahead - let me know when in the US or where in the US constitution it was ok to shove your narrative over all others in such a manner. when you can't do that - let me know what past leaders have done that.

then come back and try again.

I've addressed this over and over.

What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

So then this is a rebellion, not a peaceful protest.
Make up your fucking mind.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You keep saying these are peaceful protests

I keep saying that those who are protesting peacefully are protesting peacefully........and those who aren't, aren't.

Then you quote Jefferson to say rebellions are necessary at times.

Hence you are fill of shit and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have never said I didn't support those who have escalated things. Especially after Trump outright dismissed those protesting peacefully. I have NEVER argued that I only support peaceful protest.

You never really say anything, but you tend to say a lot of it.

and why should he call out those protesting peacefully when they are not who he is after? dismiss their legal activity and go after illegal.

common sense seems to befuddled you

“A riot is the language of the unheard.

MLK

but you people are heard all the time. so, what is your reason for rioting?

Why waste everyone's time? This has been addressed so many times.

because your stated reasons keep being obviously not true.


i mean, you've been making the argument, mostly not explicitly, that the riots are about being "heard".


but, your side dominated the media and pop culture. we hear your side of the debate constantly.


so that was a lie.

Where is this reform Trump said he was going to pass?

don't know, don't care. not my issue. are you implying that he not doing what he said he was going to do, is justification for open insurrection?


i personally, other than some of the prison reform, hope he does not do it. that is not why i supported him for the presidency, and i want him focused more on my issues, than the issues of an unwashed, commie mob.

I'm saying that like you, he isn't listening.

if you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

No idea what you are talking about.

i heard you. now the question is, are you going to hear me?

my question stands.


f you people are no longer respecting the peaceful transfer of power, when you lose an election,


why should we?

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. None.

i can see that. it is almost like you are not listening to me. ie i am not being heard.


this is something i had mentioned before.


i, and increasingly more and more of america are done being lectured like we are dim witted children.


you complain about not being heard, and use it as a justification for open insurrection.

but, what you really want is not just to be heard, but for your opponents to just stand there like stupid bitches and take your abuse, without any pushback.


well, we are done with that.


we disagree with you. this is a democratic republic. you will not always be getting your way.


can you hear me now?

You like me are irrelevant. Nothing you say matters.

we are a microcosm of what is occurring in the nation at large.

you people,

You can discuss things with me or you can go off and discuss them with "you people".

yet are you or are you NOT going "you people" when you say "us people" should have listened to "those peoples" grievances?

No, as I said, you, me and others are irrelevant. It matters very little if you listen or not. I gave specific instances. Trump calling people SOB's and Pence turning his back on those peacefully protesting and walking out on them.

getting sick and tired of "you fucks" on the left getting pissed at others for following YOUR LEAD on how to try and address things. you ONLY want things to go ONE way.

fuck that shit.

I'm pro-life. I fully support the 2nd Amendment. I believe in a balanced budget. What makes me "left"? That I understand a need for police reform? I said the same about the couple who were arrested for arming themselves outside of their home.

Do you really believe that "Police Reform!!!" is going to solve the problems of blacks in urban areas, PK? Is it going to stop blacks from shooting other blacks in Chicago and New York? Or is it simply a diversion by the left because they don't want to admit that 60 years of progressive policy has hurt not helped the average black person living in places like Chicago?

It's going to address one problem. You don't accept one issue because it doesn't solve every issue. I don't support the politics of Chicago. Recall, there were protests out in front of Rahm Imanuel's house.

I don't think there's that large of a problem to begin with, PK! The statistics simply don't support a narrative that Police are assassinating black men in this country. On the other hand...black on black gun violence is through the roof in cities like Chicago and New York and ZERO is being done about it! How does defunding the Police going to make that issue go away? The answer to that is that it's not! It's going to make it much worse.

Don't believe there is an issue. I don't care.

I didn't say there wasn't an issue...I simply pointed out that compared to OTHER problems that plague the black community...Police officers killing blacks is WAY down on the list of biggest issues or at least should be!
And the "cure" for what the left sees as a problem...defunding the Police...is going to make those other more pressing problems FAR worse! Do you "care" about that?

That's like saying one type of cancer is not as prevalent as other kinds so no one should be concentrating on the less prevalent type.

If you aren't trying to spin "defund" you would understand it isn't going to make the other problems worse. Pulling some black guy over because of some made up offense to try and find a little pot in the car is not going to make things worse.

Your own analogy proves my point, PK! If you've got two kinds of cancer...one that's going to kill you in a month unless you deal with it right away...and another that's going to kill you in ten years...which would you address first?

Having fewer Police patrolling in neighborhoods that are now being hit with a tidal wave of shootings isn't going to make things worse? How do you figure that? Of course it will make it worse.

Except there isn't a "tidal wave of shootings" anywhere in the USA. Chicago is same shit, different day, and New York is calming down. It's puppyshit compared to the tidal wave of police violence sweeping the country. 1500 people died in police custody last year. Hundred of millions of dollars being paid out annually in "excessive force claims", and the highest incarcation rates in the world. In France, the first world country with the next highest levels of police violence, police killed 26 people.

You now have a virus sweeping the nation that kills blacks and Hispanics at much higher rates than white people. Donald Trump's reaction to that news, was to immediately demand that the nation re-open. Black and brown people disproportionately have jobs which will not allow them to work from home. Trump wants these people to go to work with no health insurance, and no sick time, and no ability to sue employers for unsafe working conditions.

The cancer, is racism and it has matasticized. Racism is killing black and brown people NOW. In massive numbers. Black Lives Matter protests are about the racism that thinks nothing of sending black and brown people back to work, to get sick and die, and that isn't something that is happening in the future, that is HAPPENING RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!

we are done being lectured by people like you. you saying wacism, means nothing to us.

 

[Bush92]

A whole lot of nothing. Just a publicity stunt. Most cases will be thrown out dismissed or pled down to minor misdemeanors. Importantly, Trumpers are now calling his secret police Gestapo a new name, "peacekeepers". The Trumpstapo is now known as peacekeepers, even though even local police, media, leaders, and citizens credit them with being responsible for making the violence worse whenever they show up.

Lots of people in Portland appreciate them being there because they think the city has turned to shit.

As to escalation, that isn't their fault.

The fact that Antifa can't seem to help itself isn't our problem.

Move somewhere else if you don't like it.

Portland is full of pussies. What real Americans did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1989/07/16/nations-capital-held-at-mercy-of-the-mob/89f8f5bc-7e32-43aa-8479-d1213768e769/