A "protester" shot another "protester"... can we please stop calling them "Protesters"?

my2hands

These aren't protesters... these are trouble makers, mostly young, just looking for a reason to fuck shit up and loot

MLK would be ashamed of what passes for a "protester" nowadays

Now feel free to make excuses for them, excuse away their heinous actions, and lecture me about white priviledge

mace1229

Protester is offensive. Please use the term "Non-unionized societal striker."

JC29856

my2hands said:

These aren't protesters... these are trouble makers, mostly young, just looking for a reason to fuck shit up and loot

MLK would be ashamed of what passes for a "protester" nowadays

Now feel free to make excuses for them, excuse away their heinous actions, and lecture me about white priviledge

I have a gently used bridge in Brooklyn for sale, PM your offers.

JC29856

Officials initially said from the city’s official Twitter account that the victim had died, but later stated that the victim was in critical condition and on life support.

Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” But a police spokeswoman declined to comment on how they reached that conclusion, other than to say, “This is not an officer-involved shooting.”

Go Beavers

Who's making excuses?

I will add, white privilege does grant us the right to dictate terms!

JC29856

JC29856 said:

Officials initially said from the city’s official Twitter account that the victim had died, but later stated that the victim was in critical condition and on life support.

Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” But a police spokeswoman declined to comment on how they reached that conclusion, other than to say, “This is not an officer-involved shooting.”

I'm supposed to believe that in all the chaos authorities know the source of the bullet or projectile that struck a man when they aren't sure if the same man is dead or alive?

unsung

Go Beavers said:

Who's making excuses?

I will add, white privilege does grant us the right to dictate terms!

No such thing.

pjalive21

Yes nothing screams oppression by destroying your own city and looting from people who make an honest living!!! yeah America!!

Doing stuff like that really makes people apathetic to your cause let me tell ya, now everyone take a knee to bring awareness

mace1229

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Officials initially said from the city’s official Twitter account that the victim had died, but later stated that the victim was in critical condition and on life support.

Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” But a police spokeswoman declined to comment on how they reached that conclusion, other than to say, “This is not an officer-involved shooting.”

I'm supposed to believe that in all the chaos authorities know the source of the bullet or projectile that struck a man when they aren't sure if the same man is dead or alive?

They don't have to know the source of the bullet to know it was civilian. They just have to know it wasn't a cop. That would be easy to determine. Cops on riot patrol aren't by themselves, but with groups of many others. For a cop to have fired that shot and not be accounted for, you would have to believe that every cop was willing to lie and possibly go to jail by lying for said cop because they would have seen and heard him fire his weapon. Seems much more probable it was another "protester" instead.

JC29856

mace1229 said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Officials initially said from the city’s official Twitter account that the victim had died, but later stated that the victim was in critical condition and on life support.

Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” But a police spokeswoman declined to comment on how they reached that conclusion, other than to say, “This is not an officer-involved shooting.”

I'm supposed to believe that in all the chaos authorities know the source of the bullet or projectile that struck a man when they aren't sure if the same man is dead or alive?

They don't have to know the source of the bullet to know it was civilian. They just have to know it wasn't a cop. That would be easy to determine. Cops on riot patrol aren't by themselves, but with groups of many others. For a cop to have fired that shot and not be accounted for, you would have to believe that every cop was willing to lie and possibly go to jail by lying for said cop because they would have seen and heard him fire his weapon. Seems much more probable it was another "protester" instead.

Bullet? I don't see anywhere that it was a bullet that struck the man. Please advise confirmation of bullet?

rgambs

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Officials initially said from the city’s official Twitter account that the victim had died, but later stated that the victim was in critical condition and on life support.

Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” But a police spokeswoman declined to comment on how they reached that conclusion, other than to say, “This is not an officer-involved shooting.”

I'm supposed to believe that in all the chaos authorities know the source of the bullet or projectile that struck a man when they aren't sure if the same man is dead or alive?

The position of the person struck relative to the position of the police makes it nearly impossible. There was an entire crowd of people between them.

Go Beavers

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

Who's making excuses?

I will add, white privilege does grant us the right to dictate terms!

No such thing.

You mean I'm hallucinating all these comments in the race threads?

JC29856

rgambs said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Officials initially said from the city’s official Twitter account that the victim had died, but later stated that the victim was in critical condition and on life support.

Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” But a police spokeswoman declined to comment on how they reached that conclusion, other than to say, “This is not an officer-involved shooting.”

I'm supposed to believe that in all the chaos authorities know the source of the bullet or projectile that struck a man when they aren't sure if the same man is dead or alive?

The position of the person struck relative to the position of the police makes it nearly impossible. There was an entire crowd of people between them.

Where is this illustrated?

JC29856

mace1229 said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Officials initially said from the city’s official Twitter account that the victim had died, but later stated that the victim was in critical condition and on life support.

Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” But a police spokeswoman declined to comment on how they reached that conclusion, other than to say, “This is not an officer-involved shooting.”

I'm supposed to believe that in all the chaos authorities know the source of the bullet or projectile that struck a man when they aren't sure if the same man is dead or alive?

They don't have to know the source of the bullet to know it was civilian. They just have to know it wasn't a cop. That would be easy to determine. Cops on riot patrol aren't by themselves, but with groups of many others. For a cop to have fired that shot and not be accounted for, you would have to believe that every cop was willing to lie and possibly go to jail by lying for said cop because they would have seen and heard him fire his weapon. Seems much more probable it was another "protester" instead.

You're assuming that from the time the projectile or bullet was fired and the time they announced it was civilian on civilian, that they interviewed or confirmed with all the cops that they individually didn't fire a bullet? Assuming of course it was a bullet? Or you know they interviewed and investigated all cops in that time span?

I won't even bother addressing the cops lying and going to jail part.

mace1229

JC29856 said:

mace1229 said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Officials initially said from the city’s official Twitter account that the victim had died, but later stated that the victim was in critical condition and on life support.

Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” But a police spokeswoman declined to comment on how they reached that conclusion, other than to say, “This is not an officer-involved shooting.”

I'm supposed to believe that in all the chaos authorities know the source of the bullet or projectile that struck a man when they aren't sure if the same man is dead or alive?

They don't have to know the source of the bullet to know it was civilian. They just have to know it wasn't a cop. That would be easy to determine. Cops on riot patrol aren't by themselves, but with groups of many others. For a cop to have fired that shot and not be accounted for, you would have to believe that every cop was willing to lie and possibly go to jail by lying for said cop because they would have seen and heard him fire his weapon. Seems much more probable it was another "protester" instead.

Bullet? I don't see anywhere that it was a bullet that struck the man. Please advise confirmation of bullet?

A previous comment quoted officials as "Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” " that was posted that you replied to that resulted in my reply mentioning a bullet.. My bad, was it an arrow or crossbow they were "shooting"?

JC29856

mace1229 said:

JC29856 said:

mace1229 said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Officials initially said from the city’s official Twitter account that the victim had died, but later stated that the victim was in critical condition and on life support.

Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” But a police spokeswoman declined to comment on how they reached that conclusion, other than to say, “This is not an officer-involved shooting.”

I'm supposed to believe that in all the chaos authorities know the source of the bullet or projectile that struck a man when they aren't sure if the same man is dead or alive?

They don't have to know the source of the bullet to know it was civilian. They just have to know it wasn't a cop. That would be easy to determine. Cops on riot patrol aren't by themselves, but with groups of many others. For a cop to have fired that shot and not be accounted for, you would have to believe that every cop was willing to lie and possibly go to jail by lying for said cop because they would have seen and heard him fire his weapon. Seems much more probable it was another "protester" instead.

Bullet? I don't see anywhere that it was a bullet that struck the man. Please advise confirmation of bullet?

A previous comment quoted officials as "Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” ." That was what this discussion was about when another comment referenced a bullet. My bad, was it an arrow they were shooting?

You ever hear of a girl called Victoria Snelgrove?

PP193448

Aren't cops supposed to inventory ammo before and after each work shift?? You would think so, and then it would be easy to determine if any bullet was indeed fired by police, and exactly how many. If they don't do that, then maybe they should...

Cliffy6745

PP193448 said:

Aren't cops supposed to inventory ammo before and after each work shift?? You would think so, and then it would be easy to determine if any bullet was indeed fired by police, and exactly how many. If they don't do that, then maybe they should...

Yes, ammo is inventoried. Without getting into too many details, we had a cop at a party we host every new years day doing keg stands in full uniform. Naturally, one of his clips fell out and into the bucket with the keg while he was in the air. Needless to say he freaked the f out the next day thinking he lost a full clip until we found it at the bottom of ice water.

So yes, ammo is kept track of. Also, I am apparently 33 going on 18...

mace1229

JC29856 said:

mace1229 said:

JC29856 said:

mace1229 said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Officials initially said from the city’s official Twitter account that the victim had died, but later stated that the victim was in critical condition and on life support.

Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” But a police spokeswoman declined to comment on how they reached that conclusion, other than to say, “This is not an officer-involved shooting.”

I'm supposed to believe that in all the chaos authorities know the source of the bullet or projectile that struck a man when they aren't sure if the same man is dead or alive?

They don't have to know the source of the bullet to know it was civilian. They just have to know it wasn't a cop. That would be easy to determine. Cops on riot patrol aren't by themselves, but with groups of many others. For a cop to have fired that shot and not be accounted for, you would have to believe that every cop was willing to lie and possibly go to jail by lying for said cop because they would have seen and heard him fire his weapon. Seems much more probable it was another "protester" instead.

Bullet? I don't see anywhere that it was a bullet that struck the man. Please advise confirmation of bullet?

A previous comment quoted officials as "Officials said the apparent shooting was “civilian on civilian.” ." That was what this discussion was about when another comment referenced a bullet. My bad, was it an arrow they were shooting?

You ever hear of a girl called Victoria Snelgrove?

Not sure what I am suppose to get out of that? So you're saying I'm the only one to automatically think of a bullet when the officials say there was a "shooting"? And I should think of a crowd control pepper spray projectile instead? I think its pretty fair to assume a bullet was involved when there was a shooting.

And for the record, I never heard of her until I goggled her just now. Crappy story.

JC29856

Did they find the civilian who shot the protestor with his gun yet? Are they looking for him? With all those people and cops around they must have a good description? They must know which way he fled?

muskydan

JC29856 said:

Did they find the civilian who shot the protestor with his gun yet? Are they looking for him? With all those people and cops around they must have a good description? They must know which way he fled?

Sheeeeeet, we didn't see nuttin Office...

mace1229

JC29856 said:

Did they find the civilian who shot the protestor with his gun yet? Are they looking for him? With all those people and cops around they must have a good description? They must know which way he fled?

I would imagine the opposite. Get a large rowdy crowd together like that, only a few are going to know who actually fired the gun, and they probably fled just as quickly. You may have 100 witnesses that can tell you which way the gunfire came from, but probably only very few who actually saw the guy and they wont be talking. That's the point of the mob mentality and why it leads to pointless looting and riots, no one feels responsible because it is so difficult to catch anyone in a situation like that.

I'm curious because I cant tell from your response. Are you asking that question hypothetically as a way to make a statement? And what would that statement be?

JC29856

muskydan said:

JC29856 said:

Did they find the civilian who shot the protestor with his gun yet? Are they looking for him? With all those people and cops around they must have a good description? They must know which way he fled?

Sheeeeeet, we didn't see nuttin Office...

I'm driving back from lunch listening to local sports talk radio, I enjoy listening to eagles super bowl talk every few years, anyway they break to the news and say, the Carolina Panthers are considering a venue change in light of the recent protests over a black man being shot and killed by a black police officer.
What?
I've never heard any news report where the color of skin of the person shot AND the color of the skin of the cop shooter was included in the report.
Very strange to say the least.

mace1229

JC29856 said:

muskydan said:

JC29856 said:

Did they find the civilian who shot the protestor with his gun yet? Are they looking for him? With all those people and cops around they must have a good description? They must know which way he fled?

Sheeeeeet, we didn't see nuttin Office...

I'm driving back from lunch listening to local sports talk radio, I enjoy listening to eagles super bowl talk every few years, anyway they break to the news and say, the Carolina Panthers are considering a venue change in light of the recent protests over a black man being shot and killed by a black police officer.
What?
I've never heard any news report where the color of skin of the person shot AND the color of the skin of the cop shooter was included in the report.
Very strange to say the least.

You hear it when they are of different colors. Cant remember a time when they emphasized it when it was the same tough, like what you just quoted.

JC29856

mace1229 said:

JC29856 said:

Did they find the civilian who shot the protestor with his gun yet? Are they looking for him? With all those people and cops around they must have a good description? They must know which way he fled?

I would imagine the opposite. Get a large rowdy crowd together like that, only a few are going to know who actually fired the gun, and they probably fled just as quickly. You may have 100 witnesses that can tell you which way the gunfire came from, but probably only very few who actually saw the guy and they wont be talking. That's the point of the mob mentality and why it leads to pointless looting and riots, no one feels responsible because it is so difficult to catch anyone in a situation like that.

I'm curious because I cant tell from your response. Are you asking that question hypothetically as a way to make a statement? And what would that statement be?

Usually when there is a shooting, especially with so many police around, a description of events and of the suspect is released. Sometimes they offer a reward to catch and convict the suspect. I haven't seen any.

Godfather.

they're not "protesters" they're "rioters" maybe that person should have stayed home instead of rioting.

Godfather.

JC29856

After a second night of angry protests over the fatal shooting of Keith Scott by a police officer in Charlotte, North Carolina, the city’s police chief admitted that dashcam video of the incident, which has not been made public, does not include “absolute, definitive, visual evidence that would confirm that a person is pointing a gun.”



https://theintercept.com/2016/09/22/charlotte-police-chief-refuses-to-release-dashcam-video-of-officer-killing-keith-scott/

JC29856

Justin Carr dead.

unsung

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

Who's making excuses?

I will add, white privilege does grant us the right to dictate terms!

No such thing.

You mean I'm hallucinating all these comments in the race threads?

Racism exists but to claim white privilege is to let the oppressors off the hook for treating people badly.

You don't bring one group down because another is treated unfairly, that's what claiming white privilege does. Instead we should be demanding that everyone be treated at a higher level up.

Godfather.

JC29856 said:

Justin Carr dead.

http://wccbcharlotte.com/2016/09/22/person-shot-head-protests-uptown-charlotte/#slide1

Godfather.

Go Beavers

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

Who's making excuses?

I will add, white privilege does grant us the right to dictate terms!

No such thing.

You mean I'm hallucinating all these comments in the race threads?

Racism exists but to claim white privilege is to let the oppressors off the hook for treating people badly.

You don't bring one group down because another is treated unfairly, that's what claiming white privilege does. Instead we should be demanding that everyone be treated at a higher level up.

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

Who's making excuses?

I will add, white privilege does grant us the right to dictate terms!

No such thing.

You mean I'm hallucinating all these comments in the race threads?

Racism exists but to claim white privilege is to let the oppressors off the hook for treating people badly.

You don't bring one group down because another is treated unfairly, that's what claiming white privilege does. Instead we should be demanding that everyone be treated at a higher level up.

Kind of the opposite: denying white privilege exists lets the opressor off the hook, because it's existence is a result of discrimination. It perpetuates it because people conclude "all you have to do is work hard and be responsible like me, and you'll succeed".