Riots/Looting/Violence and general post-George Floyd madness

dignin

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

^ Beating up innocent, elderly business owners while destructing cities is all part of the process for necessary change.  Didn’t you know? 

In case this needs to be said, yes, I’m being sarcastic. 

You're not going to find anyone here who thinks that okay, so why the strawman?

Looting, burning buildings and destructing is condoned and rationalized all the time here.  

I missed the ones about beating up 70 year olds. Maybe point me to those ones, the ones you were making reference too.

Well, maybe if you read my comment, you'd understand that I didn't say anything about "finding anyone here who thinks that's okay."  The point is that if necessary change is the objective, looting, burning, destructing and beating is not the way to accomplish it.  They all go hand in hand these days.

Maybe some people can understand but not condone the looting and destruction of property but not the assault on an elderly man (like you have obviously implied as a cheap shot). The two don't have to go hand in hand.  

I, for one, think that anyone that condones looting, destruction of property, or assaulting innocents is an asshat deplorable.

But you condone armed men murdering those looters. 

That's pretty fucked up.

No, I am not condoning murder.  I condone people stopping looters and protecting themselves and their property by whatever means they need to do so.  You condone looting, that’s fucked up.
I’m actually surprised we have not seen more of this.

I didn't condone the looting. 

PJPOWER

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

^ Beating up innocent, elderly business owners while destructing cities is all part of the process for necessary change.  Didn’t you know? 

In case this needs to be said, yes, I’m being sarcastic. 

You're not going to find anyone here who thinks that okay, so why the strawman?

Looting, burning buildings and destructing is condoned and rationalized all the time here.  

I missed the ones about beating up 70 year olds. Maybe point me to those ones, the ones you were making reference too.

Well, maybe if you read my comment, you'd understand that I didn't say anything about "finding anyone here who thinks that's okay."  The point is that if necessary change is the objective, looting, burning, destructing and beating is not the way to accomplish it.  They all go hand in hand these days.

Maybe some people can understand but not condone the looting and destruction of property but not the assault on an elderly man (like you have obviously implied as a cheap shot). The two don't have to go hand in hand.  

I, for one, think that anyone that condones looting, destruction of property, or assaulting innocents is an asshat deplorable.

But you condone armed men murdering those looters. 

That's pretty fucked up.

No, I am not condoning murder.  I condone people stopping looters and protecting themselves and their property by whatever means they need to do so.  You condone looting, that’s fucked up.

Is that not murder or am I missing something here? Is there a law in the USA that allows you to sit in front of a business and shoot people that potentially are going to loot it? Even if they are in the act of looting are you really just allowed to mow them down? Serious question as I really have no clue how the law works. Like if a guy throws a brick through a window can you really just shoot them down if they are going in grabbing a bag of Doritos and leaving? 

It is not the same as murder.  And in the legal sense, there is a huge difference in trying to “kill” someone and trying to “stop” someone.  And yes, there are laws in the US that allow people to use firearms to protect their private property.  Most say that you can use a firearm if someone is trying to forcefully gain entry into private property.  They are different state by state.  I cannot think of any rights people have to loot places or burn places down...
And people HAVE been physical assaulting these business owners that try to save their businesses, so any of them could argue that they feared for their safety.  Pretty simple, if you don’t want to win stupid prizes, don’t play stupid games.

Ledbetterman10

static111 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

For anyone interested in some of the underlying issues in Wisconsin and the nation, by someone who’s reported on Wisconsin for 20 years. Maybe it’ll help some to understand the issues?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/25/opinions/kenosha-shooting-jacob-blake-prison-injustice-police-lockwood/index.html

I don't think anybody here disputes that there's systemic racism in policing (and society in general). But torching furniture stores to the ground isn't going to solve it. The day George Floyd was killed, they burned the police prescient in Minneapolis. Not advisable, but at least that's taking your ire out on who you perceive is persecuting you. There's no car dealerships persecuting black people. 

Not true historically.  And perhaps not the car dealership in question, but I certainly think that as a blanket statement there’s no car dealerships persecuting black people is false.  I’m sure there are racist dealership owners , salespeople and car loan officers to this day.

That's so funny. When I typed that, I thought to myself "I bet one of these guys find a way to poke holes in this semantically." Come on, you know what I mean. It's not like car dealerships are shooting unarmed black people. My point is, obviously, if you're so worked up over the injustices, take it out on who you think deserves it. Don't just randomly go lighting things on fire. 

dignin

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

^ Beating up innocent, elderly business owners while destructing cities is all part of the process for necessary change.  Didn’t you know? 

In case this needs to be said, yes, I’m being sarcastic. 

You're not going to find anyone here who thinks that okay, so why the strawman?

Looting, burning buildings and destructing is condoned and rationalized all the time here.  

I missed the ones about beating up 70 year olds. Maybe point me to those ones, the ones you were making reference too.

Well, maybe if you read my comment, you'd understand that I didn't say anything about "finding anyone here who thinks that's okay."  The point is that if necessary change is the objective, looting, burning, destructing and beating is not the way to accomplish it.  They all go hand in hand these days.

Maybe some people can understand but not condone the looting and destruction of property but not the assault on an elderly man (like you have obviously implied as a cheap shot). The two don't have to go hand in hand.  

I, for one, think that anyone that condones looting, destruction of property, or assaulting innocents is an asshat deplorable.

But you condone armed men murdering those looters. 

That's pretty fucked up.

No, I am not condoning murder.  I condone people stopping looters and protecting themselves and their property by whatever means they need to do so.  You condone looting, that’s fucked up.

Is that not murder or am I missing something here? Is there a law in the USA that allows you to sit in front of a business and shoot people that potentially are going to loot it? Even if they are in the act of looting are you really just allowed to mow them down? Serious question as I really have no clue how the law works. Like if a guy throws a brick through a window can you really just shoot them down if they are going in grabbing a bag of Doritos and leaving? 

It is not the same as murder.  And in the legal sense, there is a huge difference in trying to “kill” someone and trying to “stop” someone.  And yes, there are laws in the US that allow people to use firearms to protect their private property.  They are different state by state.  I cannot think of any rights people have to loot places or burn places down...

We don't know whether that was their property. And it didn't look like buddy was protecting any property when he was walking through the streets with an assault weapon. Then shooting the people trying to disarm him.

PJPOWER

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

^ Beating up innocent, elderly business owners while destructing cities is all part of the process for necessary change.  Didn’t you know? 

In case this needs to be said, yes, I’m being sarcastic. 

You're not going to find anyone here who thinks that okay, so why the strawman?

Looting, burning buildings and destructing is condoned and rationalized all the time here.  

I missed the ones about beating up 70 year olds. Maybe point me to those ones, the ones you were making reference too.

Well, maybe if you read my comment, you'd understand that I didn't say anything about "finding anyone here who thinks that's okay."  The point is that if necessary change is the objective, looting, burning, destructing and beating is not the way to accomplish it.  They all go hand in hand these days.

Maybe some people can understand but not condone the looting and destruction of property but not the assault on an elderly man (like you have obviously implied as a cheap shot). The two don't have to go hand in hand.  

I, for one, think that anyone that condones looting, destruction of property, or assaulting innocents is an asshat deplorable.

But you condone armed men murdering those looters. 

That's pretty fucked up.

No, I am not condoning murder.  I condone people stopping looters and protecting themselves and their property by whatever means they need to do so.  You condone looting, that’s fucked up.

Is that not murder or am I missing something here? Is there a law in the USA that allows you to sit in front of a business and shoot people that potentially are going to loot it? Even if they are in the act of looting are you really just allowed to mow them down? Serious question as I really have no clue how the law works. Like if a guy throws a brick through a window can you really just shoot them down if they are going in grabbing a bag of Doritos and leaving? 

It is not the same as murder.  And in the legal sense, there is a huge difference in trying to “kill” someone and trying to “stop” someone.  And yes, there are laws in the US that allow people to use firearms to protect their private property.  They are different state by state.  I cannot think of any rights people have to loot places or burn places down...

We don't know whether that was their property. And it didn't look like buddy was protecting any property when he was walking through the streets with an assault weapon. Then shooting the people trying to disarm him.

That’s a fair way of spinning things, but the shooter is going to argue that he was being attacked and fired in self defense...disarming or “trying to take his gun”?  I’ll sit back and eat popcorn while the lawyers drool over this question.  If you try to “disarm” a police officer, you stand a pretty good chance of getting shot...same as a legal open carrier.
There are also plenty of cases on the books of robberies gone bad and the robbery accomplices get charged with the murder if one of their buddies gets killed because it happened in the process of a crime being perpetrated.  Looting and arson are both pretty major crimes, similar to robbery....

static111

Ledbetterman10 said:

static111 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

For anyone interested in some of the underlying issues in Wisconsin and the nation, by someone who’s reported on Wisconsin for 20 years. Maybe it’ll help some to understand the issues?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/25/opinions/kenosha-shooting-jacob-blake-prison-injustice-police-lockwood/index.html

I don't think anybody here disputes that there's systemic racism in policing (and society in general). But torching furniture stores to the ground isn't going to solve it. The day George Floyd was killed, they burned the police prescient in Minneapolis. Not advisable, but at least that's taking your ire out on who you perceive is persecuting you. There's no car dealerships persecuting black people. 

Not true historically.  And perhaps not the car dealership in question, but I certainly think that as a blanket statement there’s no car dealerships persecuting black people is false.  I’m sure there are racist dealership owners , salespeople and car loan officers to this day.

That's so funny. When I typed that, I thought to myself "I bet one of these guys find a way to poke holes in this semantically." Come on, you know what I mean. It's not like car dealerships are shooting unarmed black people. My point is, obviously, if you're so worked up over the injustices, take it out on who you think deserves it. Don't just randomly go lighting things on fire. 

Well then I suppose the proper wording would have been there are no car dealerships killing Black Americans.  Persecution is way more nuanced than being killed.

dignin

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

^ Beating up innocent, elderly business owners while destructing cities is all part of the process for necessary change.  Didn’t you know? 

In case this needs to be said, yes, I’m being sarcastic. 

You're not going to find anyone here who thinks that okay, so why the strawman?

Looting, burning buildings and destructing is condoned and rationalized all the time here.  

I missed the ones about beating up 70 year olds. Maybe point me to those ones, the ones you were making reference too.

Well, maybe if you read my comment, you'd understand that I didn't say anything about "finding anyone here who thinks that's okay."  The point is that if necessary change is the objective, looting, burning, destructing and beating is not the way to accomplish it.  They all go hand in hand these days.

Maybe some people can understand but not condone the looting and destruction of property but not the assault on an elderly man (like you have obviously implied as a cheap shot). The two don't have to go hand in hand.  

I, for one, think that anyone that condones looting, destruction of property, or assaulting innocents is an asshat deplorable.

But you condone armed men murdering those looters. 

That's pretty fucked up.

No, I am not condoning murder.  I condone people stopping looters and protecting themselves and their property by whatever means they need to do so.  You condone looting, that’s fucked up.

Is that not murder or am I missing something here? Is there a law in the USA that allows you to sit in front of a business and shoot people that potentially are going to loot it? Even if they are in the act of looting are you really just allowed to mow them down? Serious question as I really have no clue how the law works. Like if a guy throws a brick through a window can you really just shoot them down if they are going in grabbing a bag of Doritos and leaving? 

It is not the same as murder.  And in the legal sense, there is a huge difference in trying to “kill” someone and trying to “stop” someone.  And yes, there are laws in the US that allow people to use firearms to protect their private property.  They are different state by state.  I cannot think of any rights people have to loot places or burn places down...

We don't know whether that was their property. And it didn't look like buddy was protecting any property when he was walking through the streets with an assault weapon. Then shooting the people trying to disarm him.

That’s a fair way of spinning things, but the shooter is going to argue that he was being attacked and fired in self defense...disarming or “trying to take his gun”?  I’ll sit back and eat popcorn while the lawyers drool over this question.

What business was that guy protecting? You're the one spinning without any facts.

And care to apologize for saying I condone looting. And implying I'm a deplorable asshat?

bbiggs

Glorified KC said:

bbiggs said:

Glorified KC said:

bbiggs said:

cincybearcat said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Shit is out of control. One of the rioters was shot in the head in Kenosha last night:

Graphic:
https://twitter.com/livesmattershow/status/1298484404918972417?s=21

And there was a madman with an assault-style weapon shooting people. Not sure if it’s the same guy that shot the guy in the first video. But he shoots  two people at short range in this video:

Graphic:
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1298507433975799809?s=21

Just complete and utter fucking chaos. 

There ya have it...That is going to be the result of looting and burning people’s businesses.  The business owners can not afford to just let their businesses get burned to the ground.  They are going to start fighting back...and I don’t blame them.  What did they think would happen?

You think its ok to execute someone for looting?

I think it’s okay for people to protect their property.  

So thats a yes? 

It's not a great question, you are pretending it's all happening in a vacuum.

It's Newton's 3rd law.

1) Cops shoot black man in back
2) Protests
3) People using protest to destroy and loot 
4) Leadership fails to adequately handle the situation 
5) People take action into their own hands

Stupid gun laws + stupid police norms + stupid looters = Kenosha, WI

When we leave regular citizens to make the determination on appropriate level of force....we are in big trouble

Trick question.  When this de-funding of the police movement continues to progress, do we think more or less people will start taking matters into their own hands?  I think we're seeing the answer very clearly.

Less, because the idea is there will be less situations for those to "take matters" into whomever's hands.  It's about trying to rebuild the community infrastructure, because it has suffered from decades of neglect from white people vacating those neighborhoods because they couldn't handle the thought of equality with black people.  Rather than stay and continue to sustain or further build the economy, they jumped ship and it was left behind to people who couldn't financially support what had been built to that point.  Defunding the police, or better said to try to build communities through pushing more budget toward public services is not a short-term fix.  It will take several years to build.  What short-term fix in the past 50 years has made it more safe for a black person when apprehended by police?  It's this constant "retraining" or "reform" that is nothing more than a CYA that constantly moves the system laterally.

You're a trusting man, apparently.  I don't have the faith that you do.  If what you say is correct and this de-funding movement results in some better world, I'm not sure what will be left standing by the time that happens.  Might as well scrape these cities and start from the ground up at this rate.

The reason why this shit is happening is because there are black men still being gunned down or strangled to death.  The opportunists can't find an opportunity to burn cities to the ground if there isn't a reason to protest.  Jesus, you think what is going on right now is going to fix the problem?  What is your solution to stop all of this?

Don't have a solution and never claimed to have one.  Many here think they have all the answers.  I sure as fuck don't.  But taking cops off the street to let cities burn to the ground doesn't do a bit of good.

Ledbetterman10

static111 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

static111 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

For anyone interested in some of the underlying issues in Wisconsin and the nation, by someone who’s reported on Wisconsin for 20 years. Maybe it’ll help some to understand the issues?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/25/opinions/kenosha-shooting-jacob-blake-prison-injustice-police-lockwood/index.html

I don't think anybody here disputes that there's systemic racism in policing (and society in general). But torching furniture stores to the ground isn't going to solve it. The day George Floyd was killed, they burned the police prescient in Minneapolis. Not advisable, but at least that's taking your ire out on who you perceive is persecuting you. There's no car dealerships persecuting black people. 

Not true historically.  And perhaps not the car dealership in question, but I certainly think that as a blanket statement there’s no car dealerships persecuting black people is false.  I’m sure there are racist dealership owners , salespeople and car loan officers to this day.

That's so funny. When I typed that, I thought to myself "I bet one of these guys find a way to poke holes in this semantically." Come on, you know what I mean. It's not like car dealerships are shooting unarmed black people. My point is, obviously, if you're so worked up over the injustices, take it out on who you think deserves it. Don't just randomly go lighting things on fire. 

Well then I suppose the proper wording would have been there are no car dealerships killing Black Americans.  Persecution is way more nuanced than being killed.

I suppose. I figured in the context it would be pretty clear what I meant. But I guess not. 

PJPOWER

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

^ Beating up innocent, elderly business owners while destructing cities is all part of the process for necessary change.  Didn’t you know? 

In case this needs to be said, yes, I’m being sarcastic. 

You're not going to find anyone here who thinks that okay, so why the strawman?

Looting, burning buildings and destructing is condoned and rationalized all the time here.  

I missed the ones about beating up 70 year olds. Maybe point me to those ones, the ones you were making reference too.

Well, maybe if you read my comment, you'd understand that I didn't say anything about "finding anyone here who thinks that's okay."  The point is that if necessary change is the objective, looting, burning, destructing and beating is not the way to accomplish it.  They all go hand in hand these days.

Maybe some people can understand but not condone the looting and destruction of property but not the assault on an elderly man (like you have obviously implied as a cheap shot). The two don't have to go hand in hand.  

I, for one, think that anyone that condones looting, destruction of property, or assaulting innocents is an asshat deplorable.

But you condone armed men murdering those looters. 

That's pretty fucked up.

No, I am not condoning murder.  I condone people stopping looters and protecting themselves and their property by whatever means they need to do so.  You condone looting, that’s fucked up.

Is that not murder or am I missing something here? Is there a law in the USA that allows you to sit in front of a business and shoot people that potentially are going to loot it? Even if they are in the act of looting are you really just allowed to mow them down? Serious question as I really have no clue how the law works. Like if a guy throws a brick through a window can you really just shoot them down if they are going in grabbing a bag of Doritos and leaving? 

It is not the same as murder.  And in the legal sense, there is a huge difference in trying to “kill” someone and trying to “stop” someone.  And yes, there are laws in the US that allow people to use firearms to protect their private property.  They are different state by state.  I cannot think of any rights people have to loot places or burn places down...

We don't know whether that was their property. And it didn't look like buddy was protecting any property when he was walking through the streets with an assault weapon. Then shooting the people trying to disarm him.

That’s a fair way of spinning things, but the shooter is going to argue that he was being attacked and fired in self defense...disarming or “trying to take his gun”?  I’ll sit back and eat popcorn while the lawyers drool over this question.

What business was that guy protecting? You're the one spinning without any facts.

And care to apologize for saying I condone looting. And implying I'm a deplorable asshat?

Everything that I’ve read has stated that he was with a group protecting businesses, but all of the news isn’t in and it’s early in the investigation.

Fair enough, if you do not condone looting, then you are not a deplorable asshat, but still reiterate that if you do...you are.  Don’t you agree?

static111

Nothing to see here... 
https://twitter.com/davidastinwalsh/status/1298574800500269056?s=21
https://twitter.com/berniebromanny/status/1298509857134465025?s=21

cincybearcat

Halifax2TheMax said:

nicknyr15 said:

cincybearcat said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Shit is out of control. One of the rioters was shot in the head in Kenosha last night:

Graphic:
https://twitter.com/livesmattershow/status/1298484404918972417?s=21

And there was a madman with an assault-style weapon shooting people. Not sure if it’s the same guy that shot the guy in the first video. But he shoots  two people at short range in this video:

Graphic:
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1298507433975799809?s=21

Just complete and utter fucking chaos. 

There ya have it...That is going to be the result of looting and burning people’s businesses.  The business owners can not afford to just let their businesses get burned to the ground.  They are going to start fighting back...and I don’t blame them.  What did they think would happen?

You think its ok to execute someone for looting?

I think it’s okay for people to protect their property.  

So thats a yes? 

It's not a great question, you are pretending it's all happening in a vacuum.

It's Newton's 3rd law.

1) Cops shoot black man in back
2) Protests
3) People using protest to destroy and loot 
4) Leadership fails to adequately handle the situation 
5) People take action into their own hands

Stupid gun laws + stupid police norms + stupid looters = Kenosha, WI

When we leave regular citizens to make the determination on appropriate level of force....we are in big trouble

100%. Much better worded than my above post. But this is exactly my feelings. 

So gee, let’s start with reducing or eliminating #1, cops shooting unarmed black people. 

I suggest they work on #1, #3, #4 in parallel.

dignin

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

PJNB said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

dignin said:

bbiggs said:

^ Beating up innocent, elderly business owners while destructing cities is all part of the process for necessary change.  Didn’t you know? 

In case this needs to be said, yes, I’m being sarcastic. 

You're not going to find anyone here who thinks that okay, so why the strawman?

Looting, burning buildings and destructing is condoned and rationalized all the time here.  

I missed the ones about beating up 70 year olds. Maybe point me to those ones, the ones you were making reference too.

Well, maybe if you read my comment, you'd understand that I didn't say anything about "finding anyone here who thinks that's okay."  The point is that if necessary change is the objective, looting, burning, destructing and beating is not the way to accomplish it.  They all go hand in hand these days.

Maybe some people can understand but not condone the looting and destruction of property but not the assault on an elderly man (like you have obviously implied as a cheap shot). The two don't have to go hand in hand.  

I, for one, think that anyone that condones looting, destruction of property, or assaulting innocents is an asshat deplorable.

But you condone armed men murdering those looters. 

That's pretty fucked up.

No, I am not condoning murder.  I condone people stopping looters and protecting themselves and their property by whatever means they need to do so.  You condone looting, that’s fucked up.

Is that not murder or am I missing something here? Is there a law in the USA that allows you to sit in front of a business and shoot people that potentially are going to loot it? Even if they are in the act of looting are you really just allowed to mow them down? Serious question as I really have no clue how the law works. Like if a guy throws a brick through a window can you really just shoot them down if they are going in grabbing a bag of Doritos and leaving? 

It is not the same as murder.  And in the legal sense, there is a huge difference in trying to “kill” someone and trying to “stop” someone.  And yes, there are laws in the US that allow people to use firearms to protect their private property.  They are different state by state.  I cannot think of any rights people have to loot places or burn places down...

We don't know whether that was their property. And it didn't look like buddy was protecting any property when he was walking through the streets with an assault weapon. Then shooting the people trying to disarm him.

That’s a fair way of spinning things, but the shooter is going to argue that he was being attacked and fired in self defense...disarming or “trying to take his gun”?  I’ll sit back and eat popcorn while the lawyers drool over this question.

What business was that guy protecting? You're the one spinning without any facts.

And care to apologize for saying I condone looting. And implying I'm a deplorable asshat?

Everything that I’ve read has stated that he was with a group protecting businesses, but all of the news isn’t in and it’s early in the investigation.

Fair enough, if you do not condone looting, then you are not a deplorable asshat, but still reiterate that if you do...you are.  Don’t you agree?

Great apology.

dignin

static111 said:

Nothing to see here... 
https://twitter.com/davidastinwalsh/status/1298574800500269056?s=21
https://twitter.com/berniebromanny/status/1298509857134465025?s=21

Jesus, that's some fucked up shit.

Ledbetterman10

static111 said:

Nothing to see here... 
https://twitter.com/davidastinwalsh/status/1298574800500269056?s=21
https://twitter.com/berniebromanny/status/1298509857134465025?s=21

I guess we can add this to the cycle that I posted earlier...

-Unarmed black man resists arrest
-Cops fail in deescalating situation, end up shooting black man
-Protests begin
-Riots and looting begin
-Violent militant types show up and add to the chaos
-Police, vilified by the public and not backed by local officials, welcome the violent militant types

Sad state of affairs. But that's what it's coming to for these cops. I don't know who this Dan O'Donnell is or how accurate this may be, but if this is true, this is type of shit that leads to cops throwing up their hands and welcoming the "help" of militant assholes...

https://twitter.com/DanODonnellShow/status/1298615279505870849?s=20

static111

Ledbetterman10 said:

static111 said:

Nothing to see here... 
https://twitter.com/davidastinwalsh/status/1298574800500269056?s=21
https://twitter.com/berniebromanny/status/1298509857134465025?s=21

I guess we can add this to the cycle that I posted earlier...

-Unarmed black man resists arrest
-Cops fail in deescalating situation, end up shooting black man
-Protests begin
-Riots and looting begin
-Violent militant types show up and add to the chaos
-Police, vilified by the public and not backed by local officials, welcome the violent militant types

Sad state of affairs. But that's what it's coming to for these cops. I don't know who this Dan O'Donnell is or how accurate this may be, but if this is true, this is type of shit that leads to cops throwing up their hands and welcoming the "help" of militant assholes...

https://twitter.com/DanODonnellShow/status/1298615279505870849?s=20

Or you know the cops could stop killing black people, then things would never get this far.

Ledbetterman10

static111 said:

Or you know the cops could stop killing black people, then things would never get this far.

Or you know black people could stop resisting arrest, then things would never get to the point of escalation. Jacob Blake was wanted on a sexual assault charge. And no, I'm not saying he deserves to be shot for that. And I do think the cops should've had him subdued before he could even walk around the front of his car to the drivers' side door. But if you want to play the one-thing-leads-to-another game, it all starts with him being charged with sexual assault, then not cooperating with the police during the arrest. 

dignin

Ledbetterman10 said:

static111 said:

Or you know the cops could stop killing black people, then things would never get this far.

Or you know black people could stop resisting arrest, then things would never get to the point of escalation. Jacob Blake was wanted on a sexual assault charge. And no, I'm not saying he deserves to be shot for that. And I do think the cops should've had him subdued before he could even walk around the front of his car to the drivers' side door. But if you want to play the one-thing-leads-to-another game, it all starts with him being charged with sexual assault, then not cooperating with the police during the arrest. 

I don't know much about it, did they know who he was and that he was wanted for sexual assault and we're they trying to arrest him before they shot him? Honest questions.

static111

Ledbetterman10 said:

static111 said:

Or you know the cops could stop killing black people, then things would never get this far.

Or you know black people could stop resisting arrest, then things would never get to the point of escalation. Jacob Blake was wanted on a sexual assault charge. And no, I'm not saying he deserves to be shot for that. And I do think the cops should've had him subdued before he could even walk around the front of his car to the drivers' side door. But if you want to play the one-thing-leads-to-another game, it all starts with him being charged with sexual assault, then not cooperating with the police during the arrest. 

This from another thread.  A statement from the victims sister.  Try looking at it from this POV.   

https://twitter.com/ArlanWasHere/status/1298427121023348736?s=19

Ledbetterman10

dignin said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

static111 said:

Or you know the cops could stop killing black people, then things would never get this far.

Or you know black people could stop resisting arrest, then things would never get to the point of escalation. Jacob Blake was wanted on a sexual assault charge. And no, I'm not saying he deserves to be shot for that. And I do think the cops should've had him subdued before he could even walk around the front of his car to the drivers' side door. But if you want to play the one-thing-leads-to-another game, it all starts with him being charged with sexual assault, then not cooperating with the police during the arrest. 

I don't know much about it, did they know who he was and that he was wanted for sexual assault and we're they trying to arrest him before they shot him? Honest questions.

Just going by this BBC report, it says...

"Court records show there was an active arrest warrant against Mr Blake, related to charges of sexual assault, trespassing and disorderly conduct. But it is unclear if police were aware of this at the time of his shooting."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53909766

So that, and the 22-second video is all we can really go on at this point.