White Woman Goes on Shooting Spree, Yet Somehow Isn't Automatically Killed By Police

originally posted by: DrJunk
a reply to: Jamie1

Thank you for your input.

I am not interested in discussing this topic with you.

hahahaha.....

Why not just give us ONE bit of evidence of a causal relationship to support your claims?

Anyway.... I'll simply provide commentary about your indefensible claims.

The claims being made are causal in nature. I.e., what causes some people to get shot by police. Claims are made that the skins colors of the suspects and officers are the cause.

Those claims cannot be substantiated.

What can be substantiated are the actual causes for suspects being shot:

Here are some examples:

Pointing a gun at a cop who's telling you to drop your weapon will cause a person to get shot.

Resisting arrest will cause a person to be physically taken down by police.

Trying to take the gun from a cop and resisting arrest will cause a person to be shot.

Simply owning a store in Ferguson may cause your store to be burnt to the ground by criminals.

Readers will not that those accusing white cops of murdering black suspects because they're racist ignore the actual causes of the death.

a reply to: Jamie1

Thank you for your input.

I am not interested in discussing this topic with you.

originally posted by: DrJunk

If what you are saying is simply defined, please do so simply. You aren't. At all. You keep deflecting by bringing up Al Sharpton. Tell me, in your own words, what you mean, because I can't understand you so far.

I have already stated this. And provided examples.
I can't force you to understand it.

originally posted by: DrJunk
Al Sharpton means little to me, and I don't understand how you are comparing him to me.

Very odd that you come across as intelligent in race issues, yet can't grasp this.

originally posted by: DrJunk

I did? Care to quote that?

Give me a bit.
Or, is it like the whole "since you omitted" addressing something, you are therefore for it.

originally posted by: DrJunk

The Civil Rights Act disagrees with you.

Really?? So that governs peoples thoughts now??
WOW. You really have no understanding of the law.
Did you just do a Google search for "Racism"?

originally posted by: DrJunk

That's not exactly true, but I don't think you understand the difference between Objective and Subject Reality, so I am going to save the explanation on the difference.

Oh please, explain.

originally posted by: macman
I have already stated this. And provided examples.
I can't force you to understand it.

If that is the best you can do when trying to define a phrase, I guess we will have to move past it, because I certainly don't understand your efforts, though I do acknowledge you have tried.

Very odd that you come across as intelligent in race issues, yet can't grasp this.

Why? Why is this odd? Could you elaborate?

Give me a bit.
Or, is it like the whole "since you omitted" addressing something, you are therefore for it.

No. You made a direct claim about something I said. However, I would even entertain something you consider an "omission", for the sake of conversation.

Really?? So that governs peoples thoughts now??

Moving the goalposts. This is what you said.

Ummm yeah. Just because you don't agree with how someone exercises their rights, doesn't mean you get to deny them that right.

So, your jumping into "Thought Police" mode is unwarranted.

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: DrJunk

a reply to: Jamie1



Thank you for your input.



I am not interested in discussing this topic with you.

hahahaha.....



Why not just give us ONE bit of evidence of a causal relationship to support your claims?



Anyway.... I'll simply provide commentary about your indefensible claims.



The claims being made are causal in nature. I.e., what causes some people to get shot by police. Claims are made that the skins colors of the suspects and officers are the cause.



Those claims cannot be substantiated.



What can be substantiated are the actual causes for suspects being shot:



Here are some examples:



Pointing a gun at a cop who's telling you to drop your weapon will cause a person to get shot.



Resisting arrest will cause a person to be physically taken down by police.



Trying to take the gun from a cop and resisting arrest will cause a person to be shot.



Simply owning a store in Ferguson may cause your store to be burnt to the ground by criminals.



Readers will not that those accusing white cops of murdering black suspects because they're racist ignore the actual causes of the death.

and you ignore actual facts that corraspond to the cases mentioned.
i agree much with your list you made but you fail to understand the details of why a certain few cases have garnered public outrage
you can bury your head back in the sand now

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: deadeyedick



Look, it is clear that you don't understand the law.



It is not an attack and shooting an officer would be murder.

It is a lawful arrest, probable cause was established.

Even reasonable suspicion allows LE to handcuff for detaining someone.

Neither require LE to announce what they are doing.

The only thing required is to advise the person of their Miranda Rights, only when someone is detained AND being questioned.



And the statement of DUIs is very much applicable. Drunks, more times than not, a prone to violent reactions then sober people.



It clear shows that different people require different angles.

it is clear that you will only say what allows for the continued pursuit of removing freedom from america. you are being PRO NWO
you are implying that no other coarse of action should have been taken and that the law is greater than human life.

originally posted by: DrJunk


If that is the best you can do when trying to define a phrase, I guess we will have to move past it, because I certainly don't understand your efforts, though I do acknowledge you have tried.

Well, if you don't get it now, you never will.

originally posted by: DrJunk
Why? Why is this odd? Could you elaborate?

I already have.
Time for you to do your own thinking, instead of playing dumb as a style of debate, when you try to bait someone in.

originally posted by: DrJunk

No. You made a direct claim about something I said. However, I would even entertain something you consider an "omission", for the sake of conversation.

So, since you didn't state it, you must agree with it.

originally posted by: DrJunk

Moving the goalposts. This is what you said.

Nope.
Civil Rights act does not govern people's thoughts.
You used the !st Amendment as your basis.
Nothing states that a person can't make racist statements. It is not illegal to do so.

originally posted by: DrJunk

So, your jumping into "Thought Police" mode is unwarranted.

That is what you pitch.
I'm not the one looking to control others and their thoughts. That is all you.

a reply to: deadeyedick

What in the hell are you talking about?

Really. You hop from something being illegal, being shown you are incorrect, now you are onto some NWO rant??

Come back to earth. It is nice. We have cookies.

originally posted by: macman
Time for you to do your own thinking, instead of playing dumb as a style of debate, when you try to bait someone in.

I'm not playing dumb. You just don't make sense. Sometimes it's to the point that I have to reread your sentences multiple times to understand the structure. Understand that when I am asking for clarification, I am addressing you in good faith. If you aren't interested in continuing the discussion in good faith, we can simply end it here. I don't really care either way.

So, since you didn't state it, you must agree with it.

Didn't you already try this tactic once before? If you are trying to make a point, I wish you would.

Nope.
Civil Rights act does not govern people's thoughts.
You used the !st Amendment as your basis.
Nothing states that a person can't make racist statements. It is not illegal to do so.

Racist thoughts aren't shooting black people at a rate 21 times higher than white people.

That is what you pitch.
I'm not the one looking to control others and their thoughts. That is all you.

Nope, just trying to get the cops to stop murdering black people.

originally posted by: DrJunk

I'm not playing dumb. You just don't make sense. Sometimes it's to the point that I have to reread your sentences multiple times to understand the structure. Understand that when I am asking for clarification, I am addressing you in good faith. If you aren't interested in continuing the discussion in good faith, we can simply end it here. I don't really care either way.

I can't help you understand what you don't get.

originally posted by: DrJunk

Didn't you already try this tactic once before? If you are trying to make a point, I wish you would.

Point already made.
When one refuses to answer as much as you do, much like when some repeats the question back, it means you have nothing.
My point has already been proven.

originally posted by: DrJunk

Racist thoughts aren't shooting black people at a rate 21 times higher than white people.

And neither was the Brown and Gardner incidents.
But, racist thoughts are the ground, no? I mean, without those thoughts, actions don't happen.

originally posted by: DrJunk

Nope, just trying to get the cops to stop murdering black people.

There was no murdering involved.

The Grand Jury and many other investigations have proved this.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: deadeyedick



What in the hell are you talking about?



Really. You hop from something being illegal, being shown you are incorrect, now you are onto some NWO rant??



Come back to earth. It is nice. We have cookies.

you did not show i was wrong but that you are ok with overlooking details when defending leo's
if someone continues to stretch the definition of the law depending on what the current case is that is excatly the same as one blindly defending criminals regardless of the facts. both of those arguments supports the nwo and ursurping american rights in order to claim justice falsely.

le does not have the right to attack an unarmed person that has not resisted or made any advancments and the people have the right to use deadly force defending against that. now someone that has committed dui is not at all the same as a man standing on the street. witnessing slurred speech and other drunken driving activites is probable cause but trying to arrest someone because someone else made a claim against them is not lawful or justifiable. perhaps if they searched him and founs smokes then givin him a chance to comply or resist then force is justified. the video can only truely be compared to a pack of coyotes attacking a deer. the problem is that we are supposed to be human somewhat.

one huge problem in that case is that they knew they would be dealing with him that day and they had access to his arrest record and should have seen the lack of violent resistance in his file. that would be clue number one

a reply to: deadeyedick

Your "Law and Order" understanding of the legalities within this are lacking. And look, I don't mean that out of disrespect. Most people still think that "9/10 of the law is possession", so I don't fault you.

There is nothing illegal in what happened with Gardner. It wasn't a choke hold even, as a choke hold removes the ability of air to travel into the lungs from the nose and mouth.
When this happens, this also removed the ability of speech, as talking requires air.
And choke holds are not illegal. They are ruled by individual departments.

Now, again, detaining, can entail anything from having someone stand to being handcuffed. When detained, lawfully, LE is allowed to restrain your movements. This only requires probable cause.

Arresting, requires reasonable suspicion. Detainment is lawful.

Both require Miranda Rights when questioning is added.

Neither require a LEO to announce anything before detainment.

Sooo...

a reply to: deadeyedick

Great review

originally posted by: macman
I can't help you understand what you don't get.

When it is your opinion that I am not understanding, you are the only person that can help me understand. If you can't, then no one can.

When one refuses to answer as much as you do, much like when some repeats the question back, it means you have nothing.

You've played this card already as well. I have answered your questions to the point of ridiculousness. Remember the bit about killing cats? Please make a point or move on.

But, racist thoughts are the ground, no? I mean, without those thoughts, actions don't happen.

So, apparently, you are okay with racists being police officers then? Interesting.

I really don't understand the point of continuing the conversation with you, as I don't think you are discussing any of this in good faith, and simply have an ax to grind for whatever reason.

Good day.

a reply to: DrJunk

Another Progressive leaves the sandbox.

Okay then.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: DrJunk

Another Progressive leaves the sandbox.

Okay then.

Thanks for your input.

I''m not interested in discussing this topic with you.

a reply to: macman

that is just how you interput the wording. the truth is that what matters is actions. if police attack a man without reason then they are wrong. i do not care how many laws are made to give rights to le's to attack citizens it is still wrong and goes against the founding of our country. laws can be interputed any which way but at the end of the day right is right and wrong is wrong. one does not have to be familar with any laws to recognize a murder taking place and thousands of words can be written about it but our eyes see the truth.

it is unlawful to kidnapp anybody. that goes for cops too and citizens have the right to defend including taking the life of a kidnapper.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: deadeyedick



Great review

lol that is just ramblings from gov. hit squad members. It is taking spin to a new level. there is middle ground here but neither side wants to take a step.
news flash every cop shooting is not racist and every cop shooting is not justified.

you are able to over look key points in defense of cases because you feel akin to the officers. That is understandable but there is always more than one way to get things done. my comment of taking onesided views will leed to more violence stands. it works both ways to further along the divide.

a reply to: deadeyedick

# drugs. You are not selling me any or are you having me conform to that belief. Preach to someone who will listen.

The stories are driving a wedge between the people. When people start rioting because they feel the need, you'll see exactly what the agenda is. Keep falling for it. I'll thrive in any outcome. I'll know for a fact, I had nothing to do with it. All of your race cards are revoked.