What is "Black Lives Matter"?

[hoosierdoc]

I agree with everything he said, I should suspend myself too. Surprising someone in the spotlight would make such a statement though. Guesses on whether or not he was inebriated?

 

[churchmouse]

WOW.....what double standards.....one league praises them the other league suspends them.......what a joke!!!!

The whole system is a freaking joke.

 

[jamil]

MLB is not the NFL. Nor have I seen any such vulgarity out of any other players.

You sure you want people googling for counterexamples? Sports figures can tweet some ****.

And, do you really believe that a player who said equivalent things against, say, the TEA Party and Sarah Palin, would have been suspended? I'm not a fan of either but I'd bet everyone would just yuk it up and the league would mostly ignore it. I'd ignore it.

 

[KLB]

they should all be on the same page......

Why would you think that? Do you think that all corporations should march in lock step as well?

Other than being professional sports leagues, what do they have in common?
They are run by different people.
The teams are owned by different people.
They have different contracts with different companies.
They have different images they wish to present and maintain.

Why would they get together about something like this?

 

[ghitch75]

Why would you think that? Do you think that all corporations should march in lock step as well?

Other than being professional sports leagues, what do they have in common?
They are run by different people.
The teams are owned by different people.
They have different contracts with different companies.
They have different images they wish to present and maintain.

Why would they get together about something like this?

i guess i should have said everyone need to be respectful of the flag and the USA........on the same page.....

 

[bwframe]

Latest "case" looks like another "hands up, don't shoot"?

Court records show Keith Scott?s wife filed for restraining order | myfox8.com

...protective order that Scott’s wife took out on him last year. The order, filed in Gaston County, said that Scott hit his child in the head with his fist, kicked his wife and threatened to kill them with his gun.

It also claimed that Scott told his family that “he’s a killer and they should know that.”

It went on to say that Scott has a 9-millimeter handgun, that he did not have a permit for it and that he is a convicted felon...

 

[printcraft]

D'oh!!

 

[indiucky]

And, do you really believe that a player who said equivalent things against, say, the TEA Party and Sarah Palin, would have been suspended? I'm not a fan of either but I'd bet everyone would just yuk it up and the league would mostly ignore it. I'd ignore it.

[video=youtube;k_QVzYAWkKo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_QVzYAWkKo[/video]

Remember when making jokes about candidate's daughters was cool??????

 

[indiucky]

It went on to say that Scott has a 9-millimeter handgun, that he did not have a permit for it and that he is a convicted felon...

It looked like a little Colt .380 Government model to me...Maybe the slide said 9mm kurz????

 

[printcraft]

The gun uneducated wouldn't be able to tell the difference very easily.
Everything is a 9mm.

 

[Expat]

He wasn't professional enough for the fotay.

 

[printcraft]

He wasn't professional enough for the fotay.

Only the po-lice are.

 

[ghitch75]

It looked like a little Colt .380 Government model to me...Maybe the slide said 9mm kurz????

looks like a Mustang to me so 380.....i have 2 of them....safety was off so he was planning on using it.....

 

[chipbennett]

So you're ok with the guy who got shot in the back running away?

The officer involved in this incident has been charged and is awaiting trial.

or
the guy who was getting his driver's license and caught a few rounds?

The officer involved in this incident was charged and convicted.

or
the guy in the Wal-Mart holding the gun shot in the aisle?

The officers acted reasonably, based on the information they were given. The ******* who SWATted the victim should face charges, but will not. The police are not at fault.

or
the guy who had the gun placed to his temple?

Not sure I recall this incident.

or
the kids (5th graders) who had a gun pulled on them in their backyard, while building a treehouse?

Not sure I recall this incident.

or
beating to a pulp a woman on the highway?

Not sure I recall this incident.

or
the guy who got shot in the stairwell because he startled an officer?

The police officer acted reasonably, based on proper application of the "reasonable man" legal standard as applied to the circumstances of that incident.

or
the elderly man killed during a "welfare check" after he wouldn't open the door?

That falls into "the rest of the time," for you?

And once again: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". You have provided a small handful of anecdotes (most of which do not prove your point, as demonstrated above).

I do not understand rioting and looting in response to incidents in which someone has faced or will face trial for his or her actions. What other recourse do the rioters/looters (or you) propose, other than filing charges and a subsequent trial? Alternately, what controls do you propose the state implement that would prevent people from doing bad things - and how would those controls not immorally and unacceptably trample the liberties of the vast majority of law-abiding people?

Bad people are going to do bad things in a free society - including agents of the State. I would not trade that reality for an Orwellian society in which (some) bad people are prevented by the State from doing (some) bad things. In such a dystopian society, law-abiding people have their liberties and rights trampled, and the State is more free to do all manner of bad things, with impunity.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The officer involved in this incident has been charged and is awaiting trial.



The officer involved in this incident was charged and convicted.



The officers acted reasonably, based on the information they were given. The ******* who SWATted the victim should face charges, but will not. The police are not at fault.



Not sure I recall this incident.



Not sure I recall this incident.



Not sure I recall this incident.



The police officer acted reasonably, based on proper application of the "reasonable man" legal standard as applied to the circumstances of that incident.

Actually most do prove my point. Half of those you are unaware of, and the others you admitted there was wrong doing (I can give you links to some if you want). And maybe you're thinking about a different instance concerning the guy who was shot in the stairwell. There's no place on the planet that shooting blindly into the dark, and killing a man, would be considered reasonable.

 

[Kutnupe14]

And once again: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". You have provided a small handful of anecdotes (most of which do not prove your point, as demonstrated above).

I do not understand rioting and looting in response to incidents in which someone has faced or will face trial for his or her actions. What other recourse do the rioters/looters (or you) propose, other than filing charges and a subsequent trial? Alternately, what controls do you propose the state implement that would prevent people from doing bad things - and how would those controls not immorally and unacceptably trample the liberties of the vast majority of law-abiding people?

Bad people are going to do bad things in a free society - including agents of the State. I would not trade that reality for an Orwellian society in which (some) bad people are prevented by the State from doing (some) bad things. In such a dystopian society, law-abiding people have their liberties and rights trampled, and the State is more free to do all manner of bad things, with impunity.

I won't challenge that at all. Those anecdotes are based on perception, and perception feeds belief. I will note, you are also using a version of an anecdote, not data, when you describe the rioters and looters as doing so based on trials or non-trials. In my opinion, the vast majority of people looting or rioting, aren't doing so out of legitimate rage and heartfelt conviction to a cause, but rather because they see an opportunity to thug, so they thug. Given that I'm fairly confident you have no data to prove otherwise, your premise is equally unreliable.

 

[chipbennett]

Actually most do prove my point. Half of those you are unaware of, and the others you admitted there was wrong doing (I can give you links to some if you want). And maybe you're thinking about a different instance concerning the guy who was shot in the stairwell. There's no place on the planet that shooting blindly into the dark, and killing a man, would be considered reasonable.

Actually, no. In several cases, there was no wrong-doing. And the ones that involved wrong-doing have been charged. As such, where is the alleged injustice?

There are two points here:

1. Anecdotes do not prove a systemic issue
2. Where actual wrongdoing takes place, those who have done wrong are charged and given a trial.

There is no pattern of injustice, at least not as proven by a handful of anecdotes.

I have a related question, by the way: if 2/3 - 3/4 of all police-involved fatalities involve white people who are killed, why is EVERY news story ONLY ever about the 1/4 - 1/3 who are black? The implication is two-fold: that all unjustified police fatalities involve black people, and that there is some endemic of unjustified police fatalities (involving black people).

There is no such epidemic. There is only a complicit media blowing mostly mundane incidents well beyond all proportion, in an era of 24/7 news cycles, in order to push a specific, anti-police, racially charged agenda.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Actually, no. In several cases, there was no wrong-doing. And the ones that involved wrong-doing have been charged. As such, where is the alleged injustice?

There are two points here:

1. Anecdotes do not prove a systemic issue
2. Where actual wrongdoing takes place, those who have done wrong are charged and given a trial.

There is no pattern of injustice, at least not as proven by a handful of anecdotes.

I have a related question, by the way: if 2/3 - 3/4 of all police-involved fatalities involve white people who are killed, why is EVERY news story ONLY ever about the 1/4 - 1/3 who are black? The implication is two-fold: that all unjustified police fatalities involve black people, and that there is some endemic of unjustified police fatalities (involving black people).

There is no such epidemic. There is only a complicit media blowing mostly mundane incidents well beyond all proportion, in an era of 24/7 news cycles, in order to push a specific, anti-police, racially charged agenda.

Police involved shootings aren't exactly swept under the rug. Given the disparity, in pure numbers, I'd challenge you to find me two instances within the past two years of a white person being shot under ridiculous circumstances. And for the record, number of deaths mean nothing. Not all of the instances I listed resulted in death. The argument you (I think) and others are making, is the same argument used to say that policing isn't dangerous, given the number of LE deaths compared to other occupations. It's not about deaths, it's about how interactions. Ya know the instance I told you about the kids in their backyard?
Officer Suspended For Pulling Gun On Group Of Children Building A Tree Fort (Video)

Find me an instance EVER where such has occurred to kids, who were a little fairer in complexion. You see enough anecdotes, and it easily becomes belief.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The difference between BLM and ALM, a social experiment.

Purely anecdotal. Can't vouch for it's accuracy. Guy definitely hamming it up for the clicks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL8f5iWrzN0

I guess you can illicit these sorts of responses with any phrase that's deemed "wrongthink" these days, though...

"Save the Earth" and "Global Warming is a Hoax"
"Choose Life" and "Pro-Choice"
"Look to Prayer" and "God Isn't Real"

Just depends which way the country leans in that decade.

 

[jamil]

Actually most do prove my point. Half of those you are unaware of, and the others you admitted there was wrong doing (I can give you links to some if you want). And maybe you're thinking about a different instance concerning the guy who was shot in the stairwell. There's no place on the planet that shooting blindly into the dark, and killing a man, would be considered reasonable.

How many links to counterexamples are you providing? Unless you're trying to prove that sometimes officers overstep their authority, I don't see what other point you think you've proven. And that one isn't in dispute.