The PC Police should apologize....

[Freewill]

The BLM is a federal law enforcement agency.

Shouldn't they be allowed to be at least as armed as Bundy's thugs were?

I see no reason for them to be armed. They are after all enforcing land use not coke sales. In my opinion, when the government gets in trouble it is because they use force before using their head. They wanted a confrontation at Waco and got more then they bargined for. If they would have just arrested the Davidians at the local WalMart none of those events would have happened.

Of course you don't see any reason for BLM officers to be armed. Why would they want to be armed when they confront illegal hunters or other criminal activity on BLM land?

Has there been a lot of shooting in their line of work? I do believe the game commission regulate hunting.

Having a gun does not ensure you won't be shot. Especially if a person knows you have the gun.

I think having to confront white thugs like this justifies being armed:

Lucky for him he isn't black.

Who is he pointing the gun at?

 

[Freewill]

.

Looks like they're going to try to divert this thread into a gun issue.

They will not take responsibility.

Not gonna let that happen.

.

WHO should take responsibility Mac? You are trying to manufacture an issue here.

The first responsibility goes to the shooter, as always. You then look at events that may have provided the shooter with his "excuse", his perceived motivation, the environment in which they exist. He provided that motivation when, on his Instagram account, he wrote "I'm putting wings on pigs today. They take 1 of ours, let's take 2 of theirs."

Some are choosing to pretend that this has nothing to do with the racial tensions surrounding recent events (an example of which would be the crowd shouting "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now"), and that those who leverage Political Correctness have nothing to do with the racial tensions.

It's my opinion that those people are lying.

.

I don't support the protesters who called for dead cops. But who is fanning the flames? There is no excuse for what Fox News did to try to pin that NYC march on the peaceful march Al Sharpton led in Washington DC.

If you need to assign secondary blame, it falls squarely on Fox News...

Fox & Friends Airs Misleading Footage To Suggest Al Sharpton Led Protesters Calling For "Dead Cops"
Fox's Clayton Morris: Al Sharpton Is "Calling To Kill Cops"

Fox & Friends Sunday repeatedly spliced footage of Al Sharpton speaking at a Washington, D.C. "Justice for All" march with footage from a separate event in New York City where some in the crowd chanted for "dead cops" to claim Sharpton is "calling to kill cops."

The December 14 edition of Fox & Friends Sunday opened with video from a December 13 march in New York City where some protesters chanted, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now." Co-host Anna Kooiman set up the footage by saying, "Thousands march with Al Sharpton against the police," and later promised "more from Sharpton's 'March for Justice.'"

But the footage of protesters chanting anti-police slogans was not from Sharpton's December 13 march, which The Washington Post described as a "peaceful civil rights march led by families of the slain and organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network."

In a later segment flagged by liberal news site Raw Story, Fox sandwiched -- without explanation -- a clip of the "dead cops" chant in between two clips of Sharpton speaking at the "Justice for All" rally, conflating the two events.

Although an on-screen graphic identified the "dead cop" chant as coming from the New York City protest, co-host Tucker Carlson strongly implied that all the footage shown was from Sharpton's event, stating, "Huh. So the first clip you heard people are saying, 'We want the cops dead.' And the second you heard Al Sharpton say 'We're not against the police.'"

Fox's ongoing circus act surely adds to the animosity. But this is not the same as what is happening on the other side of this issue. Unfair accusations of racism do, too, especially when it's crammed in the face of everyone and anyone who is trying to have a "conversation about race". Street protests will always add an element of danger, and there are plenty on the Left who will say essentially anything. Then these same people are defended by the Left.

The two are not the same. Fox babbles. The PC Police act, intimidate, punish.

.

Fox is the one adding fuel to the fire. Accusations of racism have some basis. And I blame St. Louis Prosecutor Robert McCulloch for manipulating and abusing the Grand Jury process in the Brown shooting. If Wilson had stood trial and then found innocent, it would have been more acceptable.

The prosecutor, who is a democrat, went out of his way to ensure impartiality. You just don't like what Brown's peers decided and would rather have a nation dividing trial which would have ended the same way only 2 years later and a whole pile of money. And if they did have a trial and found him innocent you still would not find it acceptable, in my opinion.

 

[Freewill]

WHO should take responsibility Mac? You are trying to manufacture an issue here.

The first responsibility goes to the shooter, as always. You then look at events that may have provided the shooter with his "excuse", his perceived motivation, the environment in which they exist. He provided that motivation when, on his Instagram account, he wrote "I'm putting wings on pigs today. They take 1 of ours, let's take 2 of theirs."

Some are choosing to pretend that this has nothing to do with the racial tensions surrounding recent events (an example of which would be the crowd shouting "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now"), and that those who leverage Political Correctness have nothing to do with the racial tensions.

It's my opinion that those people are lying.

.

I don't support the protesters who called for dead cops. But who is fanning the flames? There is no excuse for what Fox News did to try to pin that NYC march on the peaceful march Al Sharpton led in Washington DC.

If you need to assign secondary blame, it falls squarely on Fox News...

Fox & Friends Airs Misleading Footage To Suggest Al Sharpton Led Protesters Calling For "Dead Cops"
Fox's Clayton Morris: Al Sharpton Is "Calling To Kill Cops"

Fox & Friends Sunday repeatedly spliced footage of Al Sharpton speaking at a Washington, D.C. "Justice for All" march with footage from a separate event in New York City where some in the crowd chanted for "dead cops" to claim Sharpton is "calling to kill cops."

The December 14 edition of Fox & Friends Sunday opened with video from a December 13 march in New York City where some protesters chanted, "What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now." Co-host Anna Kooiman set up the footage by saying, "Thousands march with Al Sharpton against the police," and later promised "more from Sharpton's 'March for Justice.'"

But the footage of protesters chanting anti-police slogans was not from Sharpton's December 13 march, which The Washington Post described as a "peaceful civil rights march led by families of the slain and organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network."

In a later segment flagged by liberal news site Raw Story, Fox sandwiched -- without explanation -- a clip of the "dead cops" chant in between two clips of Sharpton speaking at the "Justice for All" rally, conflating the two events.

Although an on-screen graphic identified the "dead cop" chant as coming from the New York City protest, co-host Tucker Carlson strongly implied that all the footage shown was from Sharpton's event, stating, "Huh. So the first clip you heard people are saying, 'We want the cops dead.' And the second you heard Al Sharpton say 'We're not against the police.'"

Fox's ongoing circus act surely adds to the animosity. But this is not the same as what is happening on the other side of this issue. Unfair accusations of racism do, too, especially when it's crammed in the face of everyone and anyone who is trying to have a "conversation about race". Street protests will always add an element of danger, and there are plenty on the Left who will say essentially anything. Then these same people are defended by the Left.

The two are not the same. Fox babbles. The PC Police act, intimidate, punish.

.

Fox is the one adding fuel to the fire. Accusations of racism have some basis. And I blame St. Louis Prosecutor Robert McCulloch for manipulating and abusing the Grand Jury process in the Brown shooting. If Wilson had stood trial and then found innocent, it would have been more acceptable.

I think we have to take a hard look at the Grand Jury process, maybe just as it pertains to accused public servants.

That seems like a conflict of interest to me.

.

The Grand Jury is suppose to serve a function and I think they do. Instead of the DA deciding which cases go to trail a Jury of the person's peers decide if it goes to trial based on more evidence then would probably be presented in a real trial. As far as I know the process is away from the fog defense attorneys can generate.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe if the guy was busted for this 50 or so times....he should have been doing jail time....how many times should someone be busted for the same thing before you do some time?...

i don't know, I think the only people who should be doing time are people who actually hurt other people. Not the taggers, not the onesy-sellers, not the turnstyle jumpers.

Have you watched that film? These cops didn't like he was giving them some lip and they were going to teach him a lesson. That's bad enough in itself. The fact he died makes it a lot worse.

None of which has anything to do with a career criminal capping off his useless life with a pair of cop murders.

What about the tax cheats? They don't hurt anybody. Should we all stop paying our "fair share" of taxes?

Excellent point. Don't expect Job to have a valid rebuttal.

Well, since the argument is, should we throw people in jail for non-violent crimes, then no. I don't think we should throw tax cheats in jail.

Just take everything th ey have.

 

[JoeB131]

The prosecutor, who is a democrat, went out of his way to ensure impartiality. You just don't like what Brown's peers decided and would rather have a nation dividing trial which would have ended the same way only 2 years later and a whole pile of money. And if they did have a trial and found him innocent you still would not find it acceptable, in my opinion.

First, impartiality is not his job. His job is to make sure that the victim gets justice.

Second- the prosecutor put on witnesses like Witness #40 who outright lied.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Joe if the guy was busted for this 50 or so times....he should have been doing jail time....how many times should someone be busted for the same thing before you do some time?...

i don't know, I think the only people who should be doing time are people who actually hurt other people. Not the taggers, not the onesy-sellers, not the turnstyle jumpers.

Have you watched that film? These cops didn't like he was giving them some lip and they were going to teach him a lesson. That's bad enough in itself. The fact he died makes it a lot worse.

None of which has anything to do with a career criminal capping off his useless life with a pair of cop murders.

What about the tax cheats? They don't hurt anybody. Should we all stop paying our "fair share" of taxes?

Excellent point. Don't expect Job to have a valid rebuttal.

Well, since the argument is, should we throw people in jail for non-violent crimes, then no. I don't think we should throw tax cheats in jail.

Just take everything th ey have.

That's exactly what the police did.

 

[JoeB131]

I thought about this today and I think I will disagree with the PC police have blood on their hands. I think it starts at the top, Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Deblazeo (sp) all the race baiting liberals who would rather support a criminal because he is black over the police that risk their lives to save theirs. Then they have the outright gall to accuse everyone else of racism. THEY are the ones with blood on their hands. THEY lead a march that was chanting about dead cops. THEY heard it and THEY said NOTHING.

It's not a matter of whether he was criminal or not.

It was a matter of whether police used excessive force in a situation that didnt' call for it.

 

[Freewill]

The prosecutor, who is a democrat, went out of his way to ensure impartiality. You just don't like what Brown's peers decided and would rather have a nation dividing trial which would have ended the same way only 2 years later and a whole pile of money. And if they did have a trial and found him innocent you still would not find it acceptable, in my opinion.

First, impartiality is not his job. His job is to make sure that the victim gets justice.

Second- the prosecutor put on witnesses like Witness #40 who outright lied.

There was a whole lot of lying going on and the Grand Jury decided there was not enough evidence of guilt to take it to trial. You may not agree but that is our system.

 

[JoeB131]

I think the only people who should be doing time are people who actually hurt other people.
so a shoplifter should not do time no matter how many times he steals as long as no one is hurt?...just let him go and wave your finger at him?...

I think there are alternative punishments to throwing him in prison with rapists and murderers.

Of course, prisons are big business.

How is it the other industrialized nations only lock up 50,000-80,000 people and WE have to lock up 2 million.

It's nuts.

 

[JoeB131]

There was a whole lot of lying going on and the Grand Jury decided there was not enough evidence of guilt to take it to trial. You may not agree but that is our system.

No, the grand jury was mislead by a prosecutor who gave them witnesses he knew were lying.

 

[Carib Gyal]

I thought about this today and I think I will disagree with the PC police have blood on their hands. I think it starts at the top, Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Deblazeo (sp) all the race baiting liberals who would rather support a criminal because he is black over the police that risk their lives to save theirs. Then they have the outright gall to accuse everyone else of racism. THEY are the ones with blood on their hands. THEY lead a march that was chanting about dead cops. THEY heard it and THEY said NOTHING.

It's not a matter of whether he was criminal or not.

It was a matter of whether police used excessive force in a situation that didnt' call for it.

That SHOULD be what it's about. Instead, it was turned into a racial incident. Despite the boss lady on site being a black woman.

 

[Carib Gyal]

There was a whole lot of lying going on and the Grand Jury decided there was not enough evidence of guilt to take it to trial. You may not agree but that is our system.

No, the grand jury was mislead by a prosecutor who gave them witnesses he knew were lying.

And fabricated the evidence to back up the liars? The plot thickens.

 

[JoeB131]

That SHOULD be what it's about. Instead, it was turned into a racial incident. Despite the boss lady on site being a black woman.

No, what made it a racial incident is that this cop used an illegal choke hold and was given a pass by the grand jury.

Something that would not have happened with a white suspect.

 

[JoeB131]

And fabricated the evidence to back up the liars? The plot thickens.

Actually, the evidence didn't really prove one thing or the other. So we are back to eye-witnesses and a cop who was allowed to make a long, self-serving statement without being challenged by prosecutors.

 

[Carib Gyal]

That SHOULD be what it's about. Instead, it was turned into a racial incident. Despite the boss lady on site being a black woman.

No, what made it a racial incident is that this cop used an illegal choke hold and was given a pass by the grand jury.

Something that would not have happened with a white suspect.

Rank speculation, since you have no idea what would have happened with a white suspect.

Besides, the wheezy old geezer died in the ambulance, not from the non-chokehold.

 

[Carib Gyal]

And fabricated the evidence to back up the liars? The plot thickens.

Actually, the evidence didn't really prove one thing or the other. So we are back to eye-witnesses and a cop who was allowed to make a long, self-serving statement without being challenged by prosecutors.

At great peril to himself, since he had no idea if they would indict or not, and his testimony could have been used against him.

But the evidence supported his story, including the suspect's DNA on his weapon, his uniform, and the inside of the car, as well as a blood trail 25ft behind the dead boy.

We won't mention the 8 black eyewitnesses who testified to the truth of his account.

 

[Freewill]

There was a whole lot of lying going on and the Grand Jury decided there was not enough evidence of guilt to take it to trial. You may not agree but that is our system.

No, the grand jury was mislead by a prosecutor who gave them witnesses he knew were lying.

I understand you concern about the prosecutor telling the truth him being a democrat and all. So right off the bat i will agree that he probably did lie if statistics prove anything.

But, do you have anything to use to prove to me of yet another lying democrat?

 

[Freewill]

There was a whole lot of lying going on and the Grand Jury decided there was not enough evidence of guilt to take it to trial. You may not agree but that is our system.

No, the grand jury was mislead by a prosecutor who gave them witnesses he knew were lying.

See this is where you twist things that really happened. YES, the prosecutor stated that some of the witnesses did in fact lie. He does not deny it. So why did he let them on the stand? Because he didn't want to weed out anyone who said they witnessed the shooting, thus being impartial. So folks that think like you and lie like democrats went before a Grand Jury and LIED. My guess is that you are right they lied but they didn't lie in support of the police but just the opposite. The Prosecutor tried to be as fair as possible but folks like you don't like the outcome so you pretend to know what it should have been without even knowing the truth. Not that you are ignorant it is just that you know so much that isn't so.

 

[Freewill]

That SHOULD be what it's about. Instead, it was turned into a racial incident. Despite the boss lady on site being a black woman.

No, what made it a racial incident is that this cop used an illegal choke hold and was given a pass by the grand jury.

Something that would not have happened with a white suspect.

Is the choke hold that was done in front of a black supervisor illegal if used against blacks only?

 

[Carib Gyal]

That SHOULD be what it's about. Instead, it was turned into a racial incident. Despite the boss lady on site being a black woman.

No, what made it a racial incident is that this cop used an illegal choke hold and was given a pass by the grand jury.

Something that would not have happened with a white suspect.

Is the choke hold that was done in front of a black supervisor illegal if used against blacks only?

It's a black thang, you wouldn't understand.