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

my2hands
my2hands Posts: 17,117
in A Moving Train
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
«13456

Comments

  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,846
    Protester is offensive. Please use the term "Non-unionized societal striker."
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,588
    Who's making excuses?

    I will add, white privilege does grant us the right to dictate terms!
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
    unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Go Beavers said:

    Who's making excuses?

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

    No such thing.
  • pjalive21
    pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    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
    mace1229 Posts: 9,846
    edited September 2016
    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
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    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.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,588
    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
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited September 2016
    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.
    Post edited by JC29856 on
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,846
    edited September 2016
    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"?
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
    PP193448 Here Posts: 4,282
    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...
    2006 Clev,Pitt; 2008 NY MSGx2; 2010 Columbus; 2012 Missoula; 2013 Phoenix,Vancouver,Seattle; 2014 Cincy; 2016 Lex, Wrigley 1&2; 2018 Wrigley 1&2; 2022 Louisville
  • Cliffy6745
    Cliffy6745 Posts: 34,030
    edited September 2016
    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
    mace1229 Posts: 9,846
    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
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    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
    muskydan Posts: 1,013
    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...

Categories