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

[Grumblenuts]

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

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

What injustice and by who? These riots started because of the death of George Floyd. Tell me why Uncle Ike had to have his pot shop destroyed in Seattle because a black man died in police custody in Milwaukee. And what do you mean by "indelibly marking those properties"?

Didn't really think you would recognize a simple corollary to your own assertion so no surprise. Expand upon your own ravings or don't. No one else's problem.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Not long ago these officers would still be patrolling the streets. The protests are working.

Maybe. Or maybe they're working just a little too well.

That's not to say the firings were not justified in this case. But human nature dictates that, now that a precedent has been set, we will begin to see officers being summarily fired or vilified for things that no one would have given two thoughts about in the past. It has already happened many times, and is still happening, with civilians in the racism mania that is gripping the country.

What invariably happens in these kinds of public hysterias to protect and defend the "righteous" from the "unrighteous" is that, before long, not even the righteous are spared from rash judgment and condemnation.

So in other words, purging bad cops who get caught in the middle of their racist race war fantasies is a slippery slope?? How??

That depends on what you mean by "purging bad cops". If you mean changing the system or the current racial zeitgeist through awareness and education, then no, it's not a slippery slope. But if you mean committing violence and destruction of property and assault of citizens, or screaming in someone's face for wearing a MAGA hat or a Blue Lives Matter T-shirt then yes, it is a slippery slope.

People tried to enact change by other means. Violence is the only thing that has worked. When people peacefully protested and tried to state their complaints the president called them SOB's.

And? So the solution is to create thousands more victims of people who had nothing to do with the shootings or the president's position on the matter?

Having said that, do you mean to tell me that the head kicking incident and the killing of the Trump supporter in Portland and the Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha were not obvious clues to you that we are already careering down a slippery slope? Are you deaf and blind or just stupid?

t was on this day in 1765 that the British Parliament signed the Stamp Act, a move that lit the fuse for a revolution in the American colonies that burned for a decade.

The disgust with the tax peaked on August 14, 1765, when an angry mob in Boston reacted to the first incident of “taxation without representation” in the colonies, an event that foreshadowed open rebellion 10 years later.

The prolonged violence showed the British government that it had severely miscalculated a taxing effort to pay for nearly 10,000 British troops who remained stationed on American soil after the French and Indian War concluded.

The seeds of Revolution: The Stamp Act protests in Boston - National Constitution Center

One would think that those in positions of leadership would learn from history but that rarely seems to be the case.

Here's the key difference: The patriots of that time committed violence against those who actually did them wrong. They did not indiscriminately destroy property and businesses just because they were there.

The one major problem with all this rioting and looting is that the wrong people are being punished.

The solutions is easy. Address the complaints of the people, don't call them SOB's and ignore their issues.

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

You can quote Jefferson all you want, I'll never dismiss or condone wrongs against the innocent because some **** got his panties in a bunch. Righteous indignation is not an excuse and does not absolve one of his personal responsibility to obey the law and not create new victims of injustice. Because that is exactly what the looting and burning is: injustice to those whose property is being destroyed.

What's next, should people on the right destroy property of even more innocent people to illuminate the injustice of destroyed property of innocents by people on the left? Where does it end?

If you (and others) would have stood up and condemned the violence against others long ago we would not be here.

Don't start that empty moral posturing with me. You don't know me from Adam.

Where does it end? Addressing the calls of the people. When a president dismisses them by calling them SOB's the reactions are not going to be positive.

No, I don't imagine they would be. But it doesn't mean the reaction needs to be violent and destructive against those who are not even their ******* enemy.

Do you know what was spray painted all over the CHAZ in Seattle? "Eat the Rich". What the hell do the rich have to do with the death of George Floyd?

The takeover in Seattle and the marches and protests were only tangentially about cops shooting blacks and George Floyd was all but forgotten by that point. This is no longer about cops shooting blacks, it's class warfare.

Have you called upon the president to address the calls of the people or do you agree they are SOB's?

Do your moral-masquerading bait-and-switch with someone else. The looting and burning is wrong and illegal. You're trying to justify one illegal act with another. I'm not buying it and I never will, no matter what Jefferson said.

Yes, if one illegal act is allowed to get a pass I'm going to give others a pass also. Either the law applies to all or none.

Well then, you've just proven yourself to be just as morally ambivalent as those wretched cops shooting blacks.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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

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

What injustice and by who? These riots started because of the death of George Floyd. Tell me why Uncle Ike had to have his pot shop destroyed in Seattle because a black man died in police custody in Milwaukee. And what do you mean by "indelibly marking those properties"?

Didn't really think you would recognize a simple corollary to your own assertion so no surprise. Expand upon your own ravings or don't. No one else's problem.

Maybe I didn't recognize the corollary because I never made any assertion. What assertion did I supposedly make?

 

[pknopp]

Not long ago these officers would still be patrolling the streets. The protests are working.

Maybe. Or maybe they're working just a little too well.

That's not to say the firings were not justified in this case. But human nature dictates that, now that a precedent has been set, we will begin to see officers being summarily fired or vilified for things that no one would have given two thoughts about in the past. It has already happened many times, and is still happening, with civilians in the racism mania that is gripping the country.

What invariably happens in these kinds of public hysterias to protect and defend the "righteous" from the "unrighteous" is that, before long, not even the righteous are spared from rash judgment and condemnation.

So in other words, purging bad cops who get caught in the middle of their racist race war fantasies is a slippery slope?? How??

That depends on what you mean by "purging bad cops". If you mean changing the system or the current racial zeitgeist through awareness and education, then no, it's not a slippery slope. But if you mean committing violence and destruction of property and assault of citizens, or screaming in someone's face for wearing a MAGA hat or a Blue Lives Matter T-shirt then yes, it is a slippery slope.

People tried to enact change by other means. Violence is the only thing that has worked. When people peacefully protested and tried to state their complaints the president called them SOB's.

And? So the solution is to create thousands more victims of people who had nothing to do with the shootings or the president's position on the matter?

Having said that, do you mean to tell me that the head kicking incident and the killing of the Trump supporter in Portland and the Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha were not obvious clues to you that we are already careering down a slippery slope? Are you deaf and blind or just stupid?

t was on this day in 1765 that the British Parliament signed the Stamp Act, a move that lit the fuse for a revolution in the American colonies that burned for a decade.

The disgust with the tax peaked on August 14, 1765, when an angry mob in Boston reacted to the first incident of “taxation without representation” in the colonies, an event that foreshadowed open rebellion 10 years later.

The prolonged violence showed the British government that it had severely miscalculated a taxing effort to pay for nearly 10,000 British troops who remained stationed on American soil after the French and Indian War concluded.

The seeds of Revolution: The Stamp Act protests in Boston - National Constitution Center

One would think that those in positions of leadership would learn from history but that rarely seems to be the case.

Here's the key difference: The patriots of that time committed violence against those who actually did them wrong. They did not indiscriminately destroy property and businesses just because they were there.

The one major problem with all this rioting and looting is that the wrong people are being punished.

The solutions is easy. Address the complaints of the people, don't call them SOB's and ignore their issues.

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

You can quote Jefferson all you want, I'll never dismiss or condone wrongs against the innocent because some **** got his panties in a bunch. Righteous indignation is not an excuse and does not absolve one of his personal responsibility to obey the law and not create new victims of injustice. Because that is exactly what the looting and burning is: injustice to those whose property is being destroyed.

What's next, should people on the right destroy property of even more innocent people to illuminate the injustice of destroyed property of innocents by people on the left? Where does it end?

If you (and others) would have stood up and condemned the violence against others long ago we would not be here.

Don't start that empty moral posturing with me. You don't know me from Adam.

Where does it end? Addressing the calls of the people. When a president dismisses them by calling them SOB's the reactions are not going to be positive.

No, I don't imagine they would be. But it doesn't mean the reaction needs to be violent and destructive against those who are not even their ******* enemy.

Do you know what was spray painted all over the CHAZ in Seattle? "Eat the Rich". What the hell do the rich have to do with the death of George Floyd?

The takeover in Seattle and the marches and protests were only tangentially about cops shooting blacks and George Floyd was all but forgotten by that point. This is no longer about cops shooting blacks, it's class warfare.

Have you called upon the president to address the calls of the people or do you agree they are SOB's?

Do your moral-masquerading bait-and-switch with someone else. The looting and burning is wrong and illegal. You're trying to justify one illegal act with another. I'm not buying it and I never will, no matter what Jefferson said.

Yes, if one illegal act is allowed to get a pass I'm going to give others a pass also. Either the law applies to all or none.

Well then, you've just proven yourself to be just as morally ambivalent as those wretched cops shooting blacks.

I do not support discrimination in any form.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Not long ago these officers would still be patrolling the streets. The protests are working.

Maybe. Or maybe they're working just a little too well.

That's not to say the firings were not justified in this case. But human nature dictates that, now that a precedent has been set, we will begin to see officers being summarily fired or vilified for things that no one would have given two thoughts about in the past. It has already happened many times, and is still happening, with civilians in the racism mania that is gripping the country.

What invariably happens in these kinds of public hysterias to protect and defend the "righteous" from the "unrighteous" is that, before long, not even the righteous are spared from rash judgment and condemnation.

So in other words, purging bad cops who get caught in the middle of their racist race war fantasies is a slippery slope?? How??

That depends on what you mean by "purging bad cops". If you mean changing the system or the current racial zeitgeist through awareness and education, then no, it's not a slippery slope. But if you mean committing violence and destruction of property and assault of citizens, or screaming in someone's face for wearing a MAGA hat or a Blue Lives Matter T-shirt then yes, it is a slippery slope.

People tried to enact change by other means. Violence is the only thing that has worked. When people peacefully protested and tried to state their complaints the president called them SOB's.

And? So the solution is to create thousands more victims of people who had nothing to do with the shootings or the president's position on the matter?

Having said that, do you mean to tell me that the head kicking incident and the killing of the Trump supporter in Portland and the Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha were not obvious clues to you that we are already careering down a slippery slope? Are you deaf and blind or just stupid?

t was on this day in 1765 that the British Parliament signed the Stamp Act, a move that lit the fuse for a revolution in the American colonies that burned for a decade.

The disgust with the tax peaked on August 14, 1765, when an angry mob in Boston reacted to the first incident of “taxation without representation” in the colonies, an event that foreshadowed open rebellion 10 years later.

The prolonged violence showed the British government that it had severely miscalculated a taxing effort to pay for nearly 10,000 British troops who remained stationed on American soil after the French and Indian War concluded.

The seeds of Revolution: The Stamp Act protests in Boston - National Constitution Center

One would think that those in positions of leadership would learn from history but that rarely seems to be the case.

Here's the key difference: The patriots of that time committed violence against those who actually did them wrong. They did not indiscriminately destroy property and businesses just because they were there.

The one major problem with all this rioting and looting is that the wrong people are being punished.

The solutions is easy. Address the complaints of the people, don't call them SOB's and ignore their issues.

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

You can quote Jefferson all you want, I'll never dismiss or condone wrongs against the innocent because some **** got his panties in a bunch. Righteous indignation is not an excuse and does not absolve one of his personal responsibility to obey the law and not create new victims of injustice. Because that is exactly what the looting and burning is: injustice to those whose property is being destroyed.

What's next, should people on the right destroy property of even more innocent people to illuminate the injustice of destroyed property of innocents by people on the left? Where does it end?

If you (and others) would have stood up and condemned the violence against others long ago we would not be here.

Don't start that empty moral posturing with me. You don't know me from Adam.

Where does it end? Addressing the calls of the people. When a president dismisses them by calling them SOB's the reactions are not going to be positive.

No, I don't imagine they would be. But it doesn't mean the reaction needs to be violent and destructive against those who are not even their ******* enemy.

Do you know what was spray painted all over the CHAZ in Seattle? "Eat the Rich". What the hell do the rich have to do with the death of George Floyd?

The takeover in Seattle and the marches and protests were only tangentially about cops shooting blacks and George Floyd was all but forgotten by that point. This is no longer about cops shooting blacks, it's class warfare.

Have you called upon the president to address the calls of the people or do you agree they are SOB's?

Do your moral-masquerading bait-and-switch with someone else. The looting and burning is wrong and illegal. You're trying to justify one illegal act with another. I'm not buying it and I never will, no matter what Jefferson said.

Yes, if one illegal act is allowed to get a pass I'm going to give others a pass also. Either the law applies to all or none.

Well then, you've just proven yourself to be just as morally ambivalent as those wretched cops shooting blacks.

I do not support discrimination in any form.

No, but you do support destroying property of those not guilty of discrimination. That makes you morally ambivalent.

 

[pknopp]

Not long ago these officers would still be patrolling the streets. The protests are working.

Maybe. Or maybe they're working just a little too well.

That's not to say the firings were not justified in this case. But human nature dictates that, now that a precedent has been set, we will begin to see officers being summarily fired or vilified for things that no one would have given two thoughts about in the past. It has already happened many times, and is still happening, with civilians in the racism mania that is gripping the country.

What invariably happens in these kinds of public hysterias to protect and defend the "righteous" from the "unrighteous" is that, before long, not even the righteous are spared from rash judgment and condemnation.

So in other words, purging bad cops who get caught in the middle of their racist race war fantasies is a slippery slope?? How??

That depends on what you mean by "purging bad cops". If you mean changing the system or the current racial zeitgeist through awareness and education, then no, it's not a slippery slope. But if you mean committing violence and destruction of property and assault of citizens, or screaming in someone's face for wearing a MAGA hat or a Blue Lives Matter T-shirt then yes, it is a slippery slope.

People tried to enact change by other means. Violence is the only thing that has worked. When people peacefully protested and tried to state their complaints the president called them SOB's.

And? So the solution is to create thousands more victims of people who had nothing to do with the shootings or the president's position on the matter?

Having said that, do you mean to tell me that the head kicking incident and the killing of the Trump supporter in Portland and the Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha were not obvious clues to you that we are already careering down a slippery slope? Are you deaf and blind or just stupid?

t was on this day in 1765 that the British Parliament signed the Stamp Act, a move that lit the fuse for a revolution in the American colonies that burned for a decade.

The disgust with the tax peaked on August 14, 1765, when an angry mob in Boston reacted to the first incident of “taxation without representation” in the colonies, an event that foreshadowed open rebellion 10 years later.

The prolonged violence showed the British government that it had severely miscalculated a taxing effort to pay for nearly 10,000 British troops who remained stationed on American soil after the French and Indian War concluded.

The seeds of Revolution: The Stamp Act protests in Boston - National Constitution Center

One would think that those in positions of leadership would learn from history but that rarely seems to be the case.

Here's the key difference: The patriots of that time committed violence against those who actually did them wrong. They did not indiscriminately destroy property and businesses just because they were there.

The one major problem with all this rioting and looting is that the wrong people are being punished.

The solutions is easy. Address the complaints of the people, don't call them SOB's and ignore their issues.

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

You can quote Jefferson all you want, I'll never dismiss or condone wrongs against the innocent because some **** got his panties in a bunch. Righteous indignation is not an excuse and does not absolve one of his personal responsibility to obey the law and not create new victims of injustice. Because that is exactly what the looting and burning is: injustice to those whose property is being destroyed.

What's next, should people on the right destroy property of even more innocent people to illuminate the injustice of destroyed property of innocents by people on the left? Where does it end?

If you (and others) would have stood up and condemned the violence against others long ago we would not be here.

Don't start that empty moral posturing with me. You don't know me from Adam.

Where does it end? Addressing the calls of the people. When a president dismisses them by calling them SOB's the reactions are not going to be positive.

No, I don't imagine they would be. But it doesn't mean the reaction needs to be violent and destructive against those who are not even their ******* enemy.

Do you know what was spray painted all over the CHAZ in Seattle? "Eat the Rich". What the hell do the rich have to do with the death of George Floyd?

The takeover in Seattle and the marches and protests were only tangentially about cops shooting blacks and George Floyd was all but forgotten by that point. This is no longer about cops shooting blacks, it's class warfare.

Have you called upon the president to address the calls of the people or do you agree they are SOB's?

Do your moral-masquerading bait-and-switch with someone else. The looting and burning is wrong and illegal. You're trying to justify one illegal act with another. I'm not buying it and I never will, no matter what Jefferson said.

Yes, if one illegal act is allowed to get a pass I'm going to give others a pass also. Either the law applies to all or none.

Well then, you've just proven yourself to be just as morally ambivalent as those wretched cops shooting blacks.

I do not support discrimination in any form.

No, but you do support destroying property of those not guilty of discrimination. That makes you morally ambivalent.

You excuse when cops break the laws, I'll defend the citizens when they do. Seems fair to me.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

My attitude towards negroes ... has definitely changed.... **** that and **** them. The colored pissants in this country have brought us to the brink of a civil war.... Good Americans have just about had it with their bullshit and will do so with such an overwhelming level of violence that the streets will remain stained with blood for 1,000 years.

I work in a store which has a predominantly negro clientele. Every day, I look at the "regulars" and wonder if, one day soon, I'll have to put them down. It wouldn't surprise me at all. Sure, these colored boys are friendly enough but, when push comes to shove, I have no doubt that they would turn on whites in a New York minute...

These are the words and thoughts of a psychotic racist. All too typical today. This nutcase has done nothing yet, obviously, but he clearly has — by his own admission — the makings of a genocidal maniac just awaiting the call to action.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Not long ago these officers would still be patrolling the streets. The protests are working.

Maybe. Or maybe they're working just a little too well.

That's not to say the firings were not justified in this case. But human nature dictates that, now that a precedent has been set, we will begin to see officers being summarily fired or vilified for things that no one would have given two thoughts about in the past. It has already happened many times, and is still happening, with civilians in the racism mania that is gripping the country.

What invariably happens in these kinds of public hysterias to protect and defend the "righteous" from the "unrighteous" is that, before long, not even the righteous are spared from rash judgment and condemnation.

So in other words, purging bad cops who get caught in the middle of their racist race war fantasies is a slippery slope?? How??

That depends on what you mean by "purging bad cops". If you mean changing the system or the current racial zeitgeist through awareness and education, then no, it's not a slippery slope. But if you mean committing violence and destruction of property and assault of citizens, or screaming in someone's face for wearing a MAGA hat or a Blue Lives Matter T-shirt then yes, it is a slippery slope.

People tried to enact change by other means. Violence is the only thing that has worked. When people peacefully protested and tried to state their complaints the president called them SOB's.

And? So the solution is to create thousands more victims of people who had nothing to do with the shootings or the president's position on the matter?

Having said that, do you mean to tell me that the head kicking incident and the killing of the Trump supporter in Portland and the Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha were not obvious clues to you that we are already careering down a slippery slope? Are you deaf and blind or just stupid?

t was on this day in 1765 that the British Parliament signed the Stamp Act, a move that lit the fuse for a revolution in the American colonies that burned for a decade.

The disgust with the tax peaked on August 14, 1765, when an angry mob in Boston reacted to the first incident of “taxation without representation” in the colonies, an event that foreshadowed open rebellion 10 years later.

The prolonged violence showed the British government that it had severely miscalculated a taxing effort to pay for nearly 10,000 British troops who remained stationed on American soil after the French and Indian War concluded.

The seeds of Revolution: The Stamp Act protests in Boston - National Constitution Center

One would think that those in positions of leadership would learn from history but that rarely seems to be the case.

Here's the key difference: The patriots of that time committed violence against those who actually did them wrong. They did not indiscriminately destroy property and businesses just because they were there.

The one major problem with all this rioting and looting is that the wrong people are being punished.

The solutions is easy. Address the complaints of the people, don't call them SOB's and ignore their issues.

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

You can quote Jefferson all you want, I'll never dismiss or condone wrongs against the innocent because some **** got his panties in a bunch. Righteous indignation is not an excuse and does not absolve one of his personal responsibility to obey the law and not create new victims of injustice. Because that is exactly what the looting and burning is: injustice to those whose property is being destroyed.

What's next, should people on the right destroy property of even more innocent people to illuminate the injustice of destroyed property of innocents by people on the left? Where does it end?

If you (and others) would have stood up and condemned the violence against others long ago we would not be here.

Don't start that empty moral posturing with me. You don't know me from Adam.

Where does it end? Addressing the calls of the people. When a president dismisses them by calling them SOB's the reactions are not going to be positive.

No, I don't imagine they would be. But it doesn't mean the reaction needs to be violent and destructive against those who are not even their ******* enemy.

Do you know what was spray painted all over the CHAZ in Seattle? "Eat the Rich". What the hell do the rich have to do with the death of George Floyd?

The takeover in Seattle and the marches and protests were only tangentially about cops shooting blacks and George Floyd was all but forgotten by that point. This is no longer about cops shooting blacks, it's class warfare.

Have you called upon the president to address the calls of the people or do you agree they are SOB's?

Do your moral-masquerading bait-and-switch with someone else. The looting and burning is wrong and illegal. You're trying to justify one illegal act with another. I'm not buying it and I never will, no matter what Jefferson said.

Yes, if one illegal act is allowed to get a pass I'm going to give others a pass also. Either the law applies to all or none.

Well then, you've just proven yourself to be just as morally ambivalent as those wretched cops shooting blacks.

I do not support discrimination in any form.

No, but you do support destroying property of those not guilty of discrimination. That makes you morally ambivalent.

You excuse when cops break the laws, I'll defend the citizens when they do. Seems fair to me.

Uh uh, the only thing I've said in this conversation is to condemn the looting and burning by the rioters. You have no basis whatsoever to assume I excuse cops breaking the law.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

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

What injustice and by who? These riots started because of the death of George Floyd. Tell me why Uncle Ike had to have his pot shop destroyed in Seattle because a black man died in police custody in Milwaukee. And what do you mean by "indelibly marking those properties"?

Didn't really think you would recognize a simple corollary to your own assertion so no surprise. Expand upon your own ravings or don't. No one else's problem.

Maybe I didn't recognize the corollary because I never made any assertion. What assertion did I supposedly make?

How old are you?

 

[pknopp]

Not long ago these officers would still be patrolling the streets. The protests are working.

Maybe. Or maybe they're working just a little too well.

That's not to say the firings were not justified in this case. But human nature dictates that, now that a precedent has been set, we will begin to see officers being summarily fired or vilified for things that no one would have given two thoughts about in the past. It has already happened many times, and is still happening, with civilians in the racism mania that is gripping the country.

What invariably happens in these kinds of public hysterias to protect and defend the "righteous" from the "unrighteous" is that, before long, not even the righteous are spared from rash judgment and condemnation.

So in other words, purging bad cops who get caught in the middle of their racist race war fantasies is a slippery slope?? How??

That depends on what you mean by "purging bad cops". If you mean changing the system or the current racial zeitgeist through awareness and education, then no, it's not a slippery slope. But if you mean committing violence and destruction of property and assault of citizens, or screaming in someone's face for wearing a MAGA hat or a Blue Lives Matter T-shirt then yes, it is a slippery slope.

People tried to enact change by other means. Violence is the only thing that has worked. When people peacefully protested and tried to state their complaints the president called them SOB's.

And? So the solution is to create thousands more victims of people who had nothing to do with the shootings or the president's position on the matter?

Having said that, do you mean to tell me that the head kicking incident and the killing of the Trump supporter in Portland and the Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha were not obvious clues to you that we are already careering down a slippery slope? Are you deaf and blind or just stupid?

t was on this day in 1765 that the British Parliament signed the Stamp Act, a move that lit the fuse for a revolution in the American colonies that burned for a decade.

The disgust with the tax peaked on August 14, 1765, when an angry mob in Boston reacted to the first incident of “taxation without representation” in the colonies, an event that foreshadowed open rebellion 10 years later.

The prolonged violence showed the British government that it had severely miscalculated a taxing effort to pay for nearly 10,000 British troops who remained stationed on American soil after the French and Indian War concluded.

The seeds of Revolution: The Stamp Act protests in Boston - National Constitution Center

One would think that those in positions of leadership would learn from history but that rarely seems to be the case.

Here's the key difference: The patriots of that time committed violence against those who actually did them wrong. They did not indiscriminately destroy property and businesses just because they were there.

The one major problem with all this rioting and looting is that the wrong people are being punished.

The solutions is easy. Address the complaints of the people, don't call them SOB's and ignore their issues.

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

You can quote Jefferson all you want, I'll never dismiss or condone wrongs against the innocent because some **** got his panties in a bunch. Righteous indignation is not an excuse and does not absolve one of his personal responsibility to obey the law and not create new victims of injustice. Because that is exactly what the looting and burning is: injustice to those whose property is being destroyed.

What's next, should people on the right destroy property of even more innocent people to illuminate the injustice of destroyed property of innocents by people on the left? Where does it end?

If you (and others) would have stood up and condemned the violence against others long ago we would not be here.

Don't start that empty moral posturing with me. You don't know me from Adam.

Where does it end? Addressing the calls of the people. When a president dismisses them by calling them SOB's the reactions are not going to be positive.

No, I don't imagine they would be. But it doesn't mean the reaction needs to be violent and destructive against those who are not even their ******* enemy.

Do you know what was spray painted all over the CHAZ in Seattle? "Eat the Rich". What the hell do the rich have to do with the death of George Floyd?

The takeover in Seattle and the marches and protests were only tangentially about cops shooting blacks and George Floyd was all but forgotten by that point. This is no longer about cops shooting blacks, it's class warfare.

Have you called upon the president to address the calls of the people or do you agree they are SOB's?

Do your moral-masquerading bait-and-switch with someone else. The looting and burning is wrong and illegal. You're trying to justify one illegal act with another. I'm not buying it and I never will, no matter what Jefferson said.

Yes, if one illegal act is allowed to get a pass I'm going to give others a pass also. Either the law applies to all or none.

Well then, you've just proven yourself to be just as morally ambivalent as those wretched cops shooting blacks.

I do not support discrimination in any form.

No, but you do support destroying property of those not guilty of discrimination. That makes you morally ambivalent.

You excuse when cops break the laws, I'll defend the citizens when they do. Seems fair to me.

Uh uh, the only thing I've said in this conversation is to condemn the looting and burning by the rioters. You have no basis whatsoever to assume I excuse cops breaking the law.

Did you join in the demands for reform? Are you on their side now?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Not long ago these officers would still be patrolling the streets. The protests are working.

Maybe. Or maybe they're working just a little too well.

That's not to say the firings were not justified in this case. But human nature dictates that, now that a precedent has been set, we will begin to see officers being summarily fired or vilified for things that no one would have given two thoughts about in the past. It has already happened many times, and is still happening, with civilians in the racism mania that is gripping the country.

What invariably happens in these kinds of public hysterias to protect and defend the "righteous" from the "unrighteous" is that, before long, not even the righteous are spared from rash judgment and condemnation.

So in other words, purging bad cops who get caught in the middle of their racist race war fantasies is a slippery slope?? How??

That depends on what you mean by "purging bad cops". If you mean changing the system or the current racial zeitgeist through awareness and education, then no, it's not a slippery slope. But if you mean committing violence and destruction of property and assault of citizens, or screaming in someone's face for wearing a MAGA hat or a Blue Lives Matter T-shirt then yes, it is a slippery slope.

People tried to enact change by other means. Violence is the only thing that has worked. When people peacefully protested and tried to state their complaints the president called them SOB's.

And? So the solution is to create thousands more victims of people who had nothing to do with the shootings or the president's position on the matter?

Having said that, do you mean to tell me that the head kicking incident and the killing of the Trump supporter in Portland and the Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha were not obvious clues to you that we are already careering down a slippery slope? Are you deaf and blind or just stupid?

t was on this day in 1765 that the British Parliament signed the Stamp Act, a move that lit the fuse for a revolution in the American colonies that burned for a decade.

The disgust with the tax peaked on August 14, 1765, when an angry mob in Boston reacted to the first incident of “taxation without representation” in the colonies, an event that foreshadowed open rebellion 10 years later.

The prolonged violence showed the British government that it had severely miscalculated a taxing effort to pay for nearly 10,000 British troops who remained stationed on American soil after the French and Indian War concluded.

The seeds of Revolution: The Stamp Act protests in Boston - National Constitution Center

One would think that those in positions of leadership would learn from history but that rarely seems to be the case.

Here's the key difference: The patriots of that time committed violence against those who actually did them wrong. They did not indiscriminately destroy property and businesses just because they were there.

The one major problem with all this rioting and looting is that the wrong people are being punished.

The solutions is easy. Address the complaints of the people, don't call them SOB's and ignore their issues.

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

You can quote Jefferson all you want, I'll never dismiss or condone wrongs against the innocent because some **** got his panties in a bunch. Righteous indignation is not an excuse and does not absolve one of his personal responsibility to obey the law and not create new victims of injustice. Because that is exactly what the looting and burning is: injustice to those whose property is being destroyed.

What's next, should people on the right destroy property of even more innocent people to illuminate the injustice of destroyed property of innocents by people on the left? Where does it end?

If you (and others) would have stood up and condemned the violence against others long ago we would not be here.

Don't start that empty moral posturing with me. You don't know me from Adam.

Where does it end? Addressing the calls of the people. When a president dismisses them by calling them SOB's the reactions are not going to be positive.

No, I don't imagine they would be. But it doesn't mean the reaction needs to be violent and destructive against those who are not even their ******* enemy.

Do you know what was spray painted all over the CHAZ in Seattle? "Eat the Rich". What the hell do the rich have to do with the death of George Floyd?

The takeover in Seattle and the marches and protests were only tangentially about cops shooting blacks and George Floyd was all but forgotten by that point. This is no longer about cops shooting blacks, it's class warfare.

Have you called upon the president to address the calls of the people or do you agree they are SOB's?

Do your moral-masquerading bait-and-switch with someone else. The looting and burning is wrong and illegal. You're trying to justify one illegal act with another. I'm not buying it and I never will, no matter what Jefferson said.

Yes, if one illegal act is allowed to get a pass I'm going to give others a pass also. Either the law applies to all or none.

Well then, you've just proven yourself to be just as morally ambivalent as those wretched cops shooting blacks.

I do not support discrimination in any form.

No, but you do support destroying property of those not guilty of discrimination. That makes you morally ambivalent.

You excuse when cops break the laws, I'll defend the citizens when they do. Seems fair to me.

Uh uh, the only thing I've said in this conversation is to condemn the looting and burning by the rioters. You have no basis whatsoever to assume I excuse cops breaking the law.

Did you join in the demands for reform? Are you on their side now?

Nope.....because then he would be aligning himself with those colored people he hates so much.......not the one or 2 good ones that he claims he is friends with -- but all of the other colored people....

and if those happen to be family members or friends of those 2 good ones he claims to be friends with, oh well...

 

[harmonica]

After contentious hearing, Judge blocks release of recording showing racist Wilmington cops | Port City Daily

Warning: This article contains profanity and racial slurs that may be disturbing to some readers. WILMINGTON — A Superior Court judge ruled today that video footage of three Wilmington cops having…

portcitydaily.com

"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...

but your title is crap = they are not racist

 

[harmonica]

I can't say I blame the cops. My attitude towards negroes (not blacks, blacks are respectable and decent people)

Just STFU.

Just STFU.
the blacks are acting exactly like the nazis

 

[Polishprince]

Why the great need to broadcast this? The men were fired, releasing these tapes will make it harder for them to find other employment

So where is the problem ? As an employer I would like to know about this.

The men were already fired.

Why try to ruin their lives by making this an international news story?

These men should be allowed to continue their lives, no? Or do you think that one remark deemed racist should be enough to destroy a man's reputation and life? It didn't with the Gov. of Virginia.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I can't say I blame the cops. My attitude towards negroes (not blacks, blacks are respectable and decent people)

Just STFU.

Why?

It wants me to shut up because it's too ******* stupid to offer a counter argument...

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Not long ago these officers would still be patrolling the streets. The protests are working.

Maybe. Or maybe they're working just a little too well.

That's not to say the firings were not justified in this case. But human nature dictates that, now that a precedent has been set, we will begin to see officers being summarily fired or vilified for things that no one would have given two thoughts about in the past. It has already happened many times, and is still happening, with civilians in the racism mania that is gripping the country.

What invariably happens in these kinds of public hysterias to protect and defend the "righteous" from the "unrighteous" is that, before long, not even the righteous are spared from rash judgment and condemnation.

So in other words, purging bad cops who get caught in the middle of their racist race war fantasies is a slippery slope?? How??

That depends on what you mean by "purging bad cops". If you mean changing the system or the current racial zeitgeist through awareness and education, then no, it's not a slippery slope. But if you mean committing violence and destruction of property and assault of citizens, or screaming in someone's face for wearing a MAGA hat or a Blue Lives Matter T-shirt then yes, it is a slippery slope.

People tried to enact change by other means. Violence is the only thing that has worked. When people peacefully protested and tried to state their complaints the president called them SOB's.

And? So the solution is to create thousands more victims of people who had nothing to do with the shootings or the president's position on the matter?

Having said that, do you mean to tell me that the head kicking incident and the killing of the Trump supporter in Portland and the Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha were not obvious clues to you that we are already careering down a slippery slope? Are you deaf and blind or just stupid?

t was on this day in 1765 that the British Parliament signed the Stamp Act, a move that lit the fuse for a revolution in the American colonies that burned for a decade.

The disgust with the tax peaked on August 14, 1765, when an angry mob in Boston reacted to the first incident of “taxation without representation” in the colonies, an event that foreshadowed open rebellion 10 years later.

The prolonged violence showed the British government that it had severely miscalculated a taxing effort to pay for nearly 10,000 British troops who remained stationed on American soil after the French and Indian War concluded.

The seeds of Revolution: The Stamp Act protests in Boston - National Constitution Center

One would think that those in positions of leadership would learn from history but that rarely seems to be the case.

Here's the key difference: The patriots of that time committed violence against those who actually did them wrong. They did not indiscriminately destroy property and businesses just because they were there.

The one major problem with all this rioting and looting is that the wrong people are being punished.

The solutions is easy. Address the complaints of the people, don't call them SOB's and ignore their issues.

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

You can quote Jefferson all you want, I'll never dismiss or condone wrongs against the innocent because some **** got his panties in a bunch. Righteous indignation is not an excuse and does not absolve one of his personal responsibility to obey the law and not create new victims of injustice. Because that is exactly what the looting and burning is: injustice to those whose property is being destroyed.

What's next, should people on the right destroy property of even more innocent people to illuminate the injustice of destroyed property of innocents by people on the left? Where does it end?

If you (and others) would have stood up and condemned the violence against others long ago we would not be here.

Don't start that empty moral posturing with me. You don't know me from Adam.

Where does it end? Addressing the calls of the people. When a president dismisses them by calling them SOB's the reactions are not going to be positive.

No, I don't imagine they would be. But it doesn't mean the reaction needs to be violent and destructive against those who are not even their ******* enemy.

Do you know what was spray painted all over the CHAZ in Seattle? "Eat the Rich". What the hell do the rich have to do with the death of George Floyd?

The takeover in Seattle and the marches and protests were only tangentially about cops shooting blacks and George Floyd was all but forgotten by that point. This is no longer about cops shooting blacks, it's class warfare.

Have you called upon the president to address the calls of the people or do you agree they are SOB's?

Do your moral-masquerading bait-and-switch with someone else. The looting and burning is wrong and illegal. You're trying to justify one illegal act with another. I'm not buying it and I never will, no matter what Jefferson said.

Yes, if one illegal act is allowed to get a pass I'm going to give others a pass also. Either the law applies to all or none.

Well then, you've just proven yourself to be just as morally ambivalent as those wretched cops shooting blacks.

I do not support discrimination in any form.

No, but you do support destroying property of those not guilty of discrimination. That makes you morally ambivalent.

You excuse when cops break the laws, I'll defend the citizens when they do. Seems fair to me.

Uh uh, the only thing I've said in this conversation is to condemn the looting and burning by the rioters. You have no basis whatsoever to assume I excuse cops breaking the law.

Did you join in the demands for reform? Are you on their side now?

After your baseless assumption that I support cops breaking the law and your own support of looting and burning, do you think for one minute I'm going to stand here on the carpet to prove my moral worth to you?

What I do or do not do in regards to anything pertaining to this issue is none of your concern.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Not long ago these officers would still be patrolling the streets. The protests are working.

Maybe. Or maybe they're working just a little too well.

That's not to say the firings were not justified in this case. But human nature dictates that, now that a precedent has been set, we will begin to see officers being summarily fired or vilified for things that no one would have given two thoughts about in the past. It has already happened many times, and is still happening, with civilians in the racism mania that is gripping the country.

What invariably happens in these kinds of public hysterias to protect and defend the "righteous" from the "unrighteous" is that, before long, not even the righteous are spared from rash judgment and condemnation.

So in other words, purging bad cops who get caught in the middle of their racist race war fantasies is a slippery slope?? How??

That depends on what you mean by "purging bad cops". If you mean changing the system or the current racial zeitgeist through awareness and education, then no, it's not a slippery slope. But if you mean committing violence and destruction of property and assault of citizens, or screaming in someone's face for wearing a MAGA hat or a Blue Lives Matter T-shirt then yes, it is a slippery slope.

People tried to enact change by other means. Violence is the only thing that has worked. When people peacefully protested and tried to state their complaints the president called them SOB's.

And? So the solution is to create thousands more victims of people who had nothing to do with the shootings or the president's position on the matter?

Having said that, do you mean to tell me that the head kicking incident and the killing of the Trump supporter in Portland and the Rittenhouse shooting in Kenosha were not obvious clues to you that we are already careering down a slippery slope? Are you deaf and blind or just stupid?

t was on this day in 1765 that the British Parliament signed the Stamp Act, a move that lit the fuse for a revolution in the American colonies that burned for a decade.

The disgust with the tax peaked on August 14, 1765, when an angry mob in Boston reacted to the first incident of “taxation without representation” in the colonies, an event that foreshadowed open rebellion 10 years later.

The prolonged violence showed the British government that it had severely miscalculated a taxing effort to pay for nearly 10,000 British troops who remained stationed on American soil after the French and Indian War concluded.

The seeds of Revolution: The Stamp Act protests in Boston - National Constitution Center

One would think that those in positions of leadership would learn from history but that rarely seems to be the case.

Here's the key difference: The patriots of that time committed violence against those who actually did them wrong. They did not indiscriminately destroy property and businesses just because they were there.

The one major problem with all this rioting and looting is that the wrong people are being punished.

The solutions is easy. Address the complaints of the people, don't call them SOB's and ignore their issues.

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

You can quote Jefferson all you want, I'll never dismiss or condone wrongs against the innocent because some **** got his panties in a bunch. Righteous indignation is not an excuse and does not absolve one of his personal responsibility to obey the law and not create new victims of injustice. Because that is exactly what the looting and burning is: injustice to those whose property is being destroyed.

What's next, should people on the right destroy property of even more innocent people to illuminate the injustice of destroyed property of innocents by people on the left? Where does it end?

If you (and others) would have stood up and condemned the violence against others long ago we would not be here.

Don't start that empty moral posturing with me. You don't know me from Adam.

Where does it end? Addressing the calls of the people. When a president dismisses them by calling them SOB's the reactions are not going to be positive.

No, I don't imagine they would be. But it doesn't mean the reaction needs to be violent and destructive against those who are not even their ******* enemy.

Do you know what was spray painted all over the CHAZ in Seattle? "Eat the Rich". What the hell do the rich have to do with the death of George Floyd?

The takeover in Seattle and the marches and protests were only tangentially about cops shooting blacks and George Floyd was all but forgotten by that point. This is no longer about cops shooting blacks, it's class warfare.

Have you called upon the president to address the calls of the people or do you agree they are SOB's?

Do your moral-masquerading bait-and-switch with someone else. The looting and burning is wrong and illegal. You're trying to justify one illegal act with another. I'm not buying it and I never will, no matter what Jefferson said.

Yes, if one illegal act is allowed to get a pass I'm going to give others a pass also. Either the law applies to all or none.

Well then, you've just proven yourself to be just as morally ambivalent as those wretched cops shooting blacks.

I do not support discrimination in any form.

No, but you do support destroying property of those not guilty of discrimination. That makes you morally ambivalent.

You excuse when cops break the laws, I'll defend the citizens when they do. Seems fair to me.

Uh uh, the only thing I've said in this conversation is to condemn the looting and burning by the rioters. You have no basis whatsoever to assume I excuse cops breaking the law.

Did you join in the demands for reform? Are you on their side now?

Nope.....because then he would be aligning himself with those colored people he hates so much.......

You're just as reactionary, shallow and presumptive as he is. You have no basis whatsoever on which to assume I "hate colored people".

not the one or 2 good ones that he claims he is friends with -- but all of the other colored people....

and if those happen to be family members or friends of those 2 good ones he claims to be friends with, oh well...

You got all this from my condemning looting and burning? How exactly did you make that connection?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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

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

What injustice and by who? These riots started because of the death of George Floyd. Tell me why Uncle Ike had to have his pot shop destroyed in Seattle because a black man died in police custody in Milwaukee. And what do you mean by "indelibly marking those properties"?

Didn't really think you would recognize a simple corollary to your own assertion so no surprise. Expand upon your own ravings or don't. No one else's problem.

Maybe I didn't recognize the corollary because I never made any assertion. What assertion did I supposedly make?

How old are you?

Answer the question: What assertion did I make?

 

[Grumblenuts]

JHFC, you're a dumb ****. 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.