What is "Black Lives Matter"?

["Username"]

Why are those under attack not defending themselves against their attackers and/ or eliminating the threat?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Terrorists in the highway attempting to block traffic and throwing things at cars now. They are swarming and jumping on cars...

"terrorists?"

 

[bwframe]

They are not terrorizing innocents?

 

["Username"]

Just not sure how this is allowed.

Serious?

 

[Kutnupe14]

They are not terrorizing innocents?

So US governmental history, from it's inception, is case study of terrorism from 1776-1965?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Unless you think force of law to subjugate "innocents," ended earlier.

 

["Username"]

If a person is traveling down a road, comes under attack, has his property damaged, is concerned for his life, and decides to withdraw from the situation ( with disregard to whom is dispatched by vehicle or firearm or anything else), what say you?

 

[Kutnupe14]

If a person is traveling down a road, comes under attack, has his property damaged, is concerned for his life, and decides to withdraw from the situation ( with disregard to whom is dispatched by vehicle or firearm or anything else), what say you?

Uh, "crime?"

 

[bwframe]

I think terrorists are terrorizing innocent people.

Burl (not falling for Kut's baiting)

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think terrorists are terrorizing innocent people.

Burl (not falling for Kut's baiting)

Someone doesn't know the definition of terrorism. Lol

 

[Cameramonkey]

I think we are confusing the difference between Terrorists and terrorists.

The capitalized being the broader, usually Islamic (yes, I went there) type designed to scare us all, afraid of pipe bombs and direct attacks on our life by knife, bomb, or gun for a greater change such as Sharia, etc. , and the latter being generic thugs scaring the crap out of locals as a tactic of social change via general destruction and maybe bodily injury if you dont subject to their domands and GTFO. (and sometimes resulting in a Reginald Denny)

 

[bwframe]

terrorists

 

["Username"]

Uh, "crime?"

Others would call it defense of self.

Thank you, Maslow.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Tac gear? Other than maybe the vests I didn't see any tac gear. They had on standard uniforms under the vest, no helmests, balaclava, oakleys, flashbangs hanging off, etc. Is it that unusual for officers in Indy to be wearing those vests compared to soft vests under the shirt?

We have a full-time SWAT unit that is made up of 12 or so officers/Sgts. They go out and patrol neighborhoods, assist detectives with warrants, and cover special details while on-duty. It saves time when SWAT is requested because they are already out and about. They were able to get the outer body armor carriers issued to them and wear it while on patrol. They put on the "tac gear" for the high risk warrants/barricaded subjects/active shooter/etc. The outer carriers are unusual for Indy because not everyone is authorized to wear them.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Other than maybe the vest, what makes them not standard uniforms? The shirt best I can tell is a standard button up/polo style shirt.

And aren't quite a few of the SWAT members beat officers? They just carry extra gear in their cars in case they get a call. IIRC one of the members here was(is?) a IMPD SWAT and worked a beat.

I am not privy to all the IMPD uniform GOs. But, "standard except for [blank]" is usually a scenario where the uniform is not standard.


My understanding is that used to be true, but was changed a few years ago. I believe there is a primary SWAT team (my use of word "primary" - probably not theirs) for whom that is all they do. Unless ordered to do something else. There may be some reserve SWAT still, but I think it is a dedicated SWAT team.

The officers who pulled over Mr. McIver appear to be SWAT-SWAT not beat-SWAT to me.

There is a full-time SWAT team and an on-call SWAT team. They are all still patrol officers, detectives, Sgts, and Lieutenants. As stated in my above post the full-time team does SWAT stuff as their daily job. The on-call guys have other jobs until they are needed for SWAT stuff. The full-time team has only been in existence for about a year (this go-round at least).

 

[cobber]

If a person is traveling down a road, comes under attack, has his property damaged, is concerned for his life, and decides to withdraw from the situation ( with disregard to whom is dispatched by vehicle or firearm or anything else), what say you?

Apparently we have to grin and bear it. Because, y'know, the US government or something...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Not to harp on the "terrorist" label, but they did try to push a photographer into a fire.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think we are confusing the difference between Terrorists and terrorists.

The capitalized being the broader, usually Islamic (yes, I went there) type designed to scare us all, afraid of pipe bombs and direct attacks on our life by knife, bomb, or gun for a greater change such as Sharia, etc. , and the latter being generic thugs scaring the crap out of locals as a tactic of social change via general destruction and maybe bodily injury if you dont subject to their domands and GTFO. (and sometimes resulting in a Reginald Denny)

So we have Terrorists and terrorists. Lets not forget about terrorists. 1776 to? Ya know, those committed to the subjugation, by force, of a variety of peoples to maintain political power. That's how ridiculous this conversation is. We all know what a terrorist is, or at least what it has been traditionally viewed as. It's a fairly narrow scope. If were to use the very broad definition that you guys are seeming to want to use, then you should damn well apply it universally.

 

[jamil]

So we have Terrorists and terrorists. Lets not forget about terrorists. 1776 to? Ya know, those committed to the subjugation, by force, of a variety of peoples to maintain political power. That's how ridiculous this conversation is. We all know what a terrorist is, or at least what it has been traditionally viewed as. It's a fairly narrow scope. If were to use the very broad definition that you guys are seeming to want to use, then you should damn well apply it universally.

That's a pretty bold spot you've argued yourself into. To get there BLM = 1776 revolutionists or thereabouts. That's an interesting equivalency. I'm not going to go so far as saying the rioters are terrorists, but they definately aren't revolutionists for actual freedom either. either. They share some similarities with Islamic terrorists. They are duped and radicalized into an army of thugs. Useful idiots in the war of ideas.

The 1776 revolutionists didn't need to divide their countrymen politically to conquer them. In fact they weren't trying to conquer their fellow citizens of the land at all. I am not the crown. I am not the enemy. But BLM Leaders see me as that for no ther reason than because I'm white, and I don't care to indulge their fantasy that I am somehow complicit with their ancestors' enslavement, or that the free market system is inherently racist.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's a pretty bold spot you've argued yourself into. To get there BLM = 1776 revolutionists or thereabouts. That's an interesting equivalency. I'm not going to go so far as saying the rioters are terrorists, but they definately aren't revolutionists for actual freedom either. either. They share some similarities with Islamic terrorists. They are duped and radicalized into an army of thugs. Useful idiots in the war of ideas.

The 1776 revolutionists didn't need to divide their countrymen politically to conquer them. In fact they weren't trying to conquer their fellow citizens of the land at all. I am not the crown. I am not the enemy. But BLM Leaders see me as that for no ther reason than because I'm white, and I don't care to indulge their fantasy that I am somehow complicit with their ancestors' enslavement, or that the free market system is inherently racist.

I actually wasn't referring to the Revolution, though you could certainly call the revolution a terrorism campaign. I was actually using 1776 as the flashpoint as to the self-identification as "American." I said "1776 to..." in a way of asking when did the practice of government sponsored terrorism end in the United States.
Terrorist has a meaning that most people have a traditional view of. Further, most people have an idea of the traditional way of dealing with them, and that would be to kill them. If terrorism is the narrative that people want to push forward, then I can't help but think that they are essentially saying "kill them." Would I be wrong? But then, again, the "terrorism" label, obviously only applies to certain groups of people. I'm asking, if one uses so broad a definition, then don't be coy about calling everyone who applies terrorists, and asking that they be killed as well.