Judge Rules Recordings Of Racist Cops Won't Be Made Public


"A Superior Court judge ruled today that video footage of three Wilmington cops having racist and threatening conversations will not be released, saying the need for transparency had already been met and citing potential risk to the officers involved. In an unusual twist, the city attorney usually tasked with arguing against the release of such recordings argued for releasing them in this case, as city representatives stated they wanted to provide as much transparency as possible."

To recap, this was the case of 3 fired Wilmington, NC police officers who were basically caught on tape opining for a race war...

They were saying shit like -- 'I am going to go buy a new assault rifle, and soon we are just going to go out and start slaughtering them (n-words) -- I can’t wait. God, I can’t wait.' -- and -- ' a civil war was needed to “wipe them off the (expletive) map. That’ll put them back about four or five generations.”

Now the officers claimed they were just letting off steam due to the pressure they felt due to the black lives matter protests and while one did say he wanted to put a bullet in a black woman's head he had arrested; he didn't actually mean it or else he would have done it....on the bright side, Wilmington elected a new police chief and one of the first things he did was fire all 3 of those officers -- so its good to see them being accountable and rooting out the bad cops...it's not rocket science, good cops matter...
Don't see anything wrong with what they said.........I'd think that they were lying if they weren't talking about things like this. HOw could not fantasize to kill BLM off after all they Have done. YOu wouldnt like what I have to say in personal conversations either and I know there are many people like me. We are tired of BLM and antif-fa stupid violence and nonsense.
 
I can't say I blame the cops. My attitude towards negroes (not blacks, blacks are respectable and decent people)
Just STFU.
I just let these pussies rant online...

I GUARANTEE YOU he doesn't talk that shit out in the real world....
i think it's important for americans to keep a good relationship with their african american neighbors






\pence
Yes...African Americans (blacks, AA is the wrong term it implies they want to act like africans instead of americans and africa is chithole) are one thing---thugs, criminals, rioters, BLM, Anti-fa are a completely different thing which what I think what the cops were referring to. My father used to say that N(((( didn't refer to color but an attitude thusly you could have black or white ones but they were both bad.
 
"Don't destroy property of those who are not guilty of the injustice you're fighting against."

Such double negative assertions form a positive statement. Therefore, an equivalent, positive corollary can always be formulated by eliminating the two negatives. Disposing of the two nots in this case leaves:

"Do destroy property of those who are guilty of the injustice you're fighting against."

Which begs the question how one knows whether such a property belongs to the target set or not? Thus my suggestion, "How about indelibly marking those properties for everyone to focus upon?," being it's your unsolicited "easy""solution."
 
JHFC, you're a dumb fuck. Quoted square in the middle of the nest the whole time:
The solution is easy: Don't destroy property of those who are not guilty of the injustice you're fighting against.
Actually two assertions.

JHFC, you're a stupid fuck. If this is supposed to be a corollary:

"So destroy property of those guilty of injustice. How about indelibly marking those properties for everyone to focus upon?"

To this..

"The solution is easy: Don't destroy property of those who are not guilty of the injustice you're fighting against."

..then you must have completely misunderstood what I was saying. Either that or you support the looting and burning. I don't know which. I am at a complete loss as to what your problem or disagreement was with my comment that you felt it necessary to pose your "corollary".
 
Racist Cops? Even Joe Biden backed off on that claim (if he remembers). They are burning down democrat run cities and lefties want to make private conversations between Police Officers public so that they can nit pick certain words that they deem racist? The world is freaking upside down.
 
"Don't destroy property of those who are not guilty of the injustice you're fighting against."

Such double negative assertions form a positive statement. Therefore, an equivalent, positive corollary can always be formulated by eliminating the two negatives. Disposing of the two nots in this case leaves:

"Do destroy property of those who are guilty of the injustice you're fighting against."

Which begs the question how one knows whether such a property belongs to the target set or not? Thus my suggestion, "How about indelibly marking those properties for everyone to focus upon?," being it's your unsolicited "easy""solution."

Jesus please us. You go to the trouble of analyzing two simple sentences to form an irrelevant corollary but you were not perceptive enough to see that it was fucking sarcasm. You were not even perceptive enough to see we were not talking about injustice in general. We were talking about the rioting from the death of George Floyd. I was not actually offering a solution to the problem of cops shooting blacks.

Goddamn.
 
Democrat politicians swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect the lives and property of their citizens but they seem to be spending their time trying to justify anarchy while their citizens are suffering and put out of business. How the hell is a recording of private conversations between Police Officers going to solve the problem? The dirty little secret is that radical democrat politicians don't want to solve the problem. They are desperate to justify anarchy when it seems that American public has had enough of it.
 
No, you were writing double negative trash which you now claim was meant sarcastically and as though my response somehow wasn't equally so. You don't even know what a fucking assertion is. This was a test. Off to ignore land you go. Bubbye! :hhello:
 
No, you were writing double negative trash

Um, no. A double negative is where both negatives are applied to one person, object, entity, action, etc. in which case they would cancel each other out or mean the opposite. In this case it's two distinct groups of people: 1.) Rioters angry about the death of George Floyd. 2.) Innocent people who were not complicit in the death of George Floyd.

Rather than this mindless foray into your own grammar fantasyland, perhaps you can address the topic at hand and explain to me what, if anything, justifies the looting and burning of the businesses of people who had nothing to do with Floyd's death.

which you now claim was meant sarcastically and as though my response somehow wasn't equally so.

If you had recognized it as sarcasm at the time then I wouldn't have had to tell you it was. Idiot.

You don't even know what a fucking assertion is.

You don't even know what a fucking double negative is.

This was a test.

It wasn't a test, it was a pointless exercise meant to boost your pseudo-intellectual vanity.

Off to ignore land you go. Bubbye! :hhello:

A contradiction in terms. All you're doing is ignoring me which means I'm not going anywhere. Or was that sarcasm? Dumbass.

I always laugh at people who make a point of letting everyone know they're putting someone on ignore. They act like they just won some kind of victory.
 

Forum List

Back
Top