BLM Begins "Campaign Zero"

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: In4ormant

Oh cool. The standard some to all false equivalence using anecdotes to try to prove that all of the members believe the same as a biased sampling of members shows. Standard discrediting propaganda.

You said "their", using the same false equivalence. "Their" movement. I merely pointed out your error. Anyone can use the same tactic. Don't get butthurt when it's turned on you.

Seems "they" don't have a clear message within "their" own divided ranks.

I at least used the word "some".

a reply to: UKTruth

Wait. Why you disagree with body cameras for police because of a knee jerk hatred of surveillance?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: In4ormant

Oh cool. The standard some to all false equivalence using anecdotes to try to prove that all of the members believe the same as a biased sampling of members shows. Standard discrediting propaganda.

So for BLM to be bad, 100% of its members must subscribe to extremest/racist beliefs. Its not enough that their leaders, founders and countless members are demonstrating that they do subscribe to these beliefs?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
That was un-holstered?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Wait. Why you disagree with body cameras for police because of a knee jerk hatred of surveillance?

Sort of, though it's not really knee jerk. I just don't believe there is a major problem with the police.
We have so much surveillance in the wrong places. Go where the problem is and use it to it's best effect if it is to be used.

a reply to: In4ormant

No, THEY do have a clear message. That's the point of this OP...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Or the gun that's tucked underneath your shirt

The gun that he was legally allowed and permitted to carry on his person? That gun tucked under his shirt?

You do not ccw a pistol on your lap. Also, as has been pointed out before on numerous threads, there is no 100% verification that he had a ccw/cpl permit. But based on the facts we have so far, which aren't too many yet, if he had a permit to carry, he fell asleep during his ccw class, or was stoned, which is also unlawful to legally carry. Oh he had drugs in the car too.


iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: In4ormant

Oh cool. The standard some to all false equivalence using anecdotes to try to prove that all of the members believe the same as a biased sampling of members shows. Standard discrediting propaganda.

So for BLM to be bad, 100% of its members must subscribe to extremest/racist beliefs. Its not enough that their leaders, founders and countless members are demonstrating that they do subscribe to these beliefs?

No, their entire message must be tainted. This isn't the case as proven by the OP. Some members may be bad, act out, or even racist, but their message is one of peace and cooperation. This reads that the majority of the members are peaceful and good people because that is the type of people those messages attract.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That was un-holstered?

So having an unholstered gun is a criminal offense warranting being shot to death then?

a reply to: UKTruth

If anything needs MORE surveillance, it's the police. Those are the people charged with protecting us. If we aren't allowed to watch their activities then abuse can run rampant. Last I checked, police draw their paychecks from the state. My tax money. That means they should serve the people's interests not their own interests.

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

sounds great except for the race representation nonsense. They should then get more people to join the police rather than making people hate them like enemies....if not those people will NEVER join the police force in their area.

They need to qualify and then do the job though....

But really, this is all BS. We didnt get here by accident.

Do these things though, sure.

If they werent a race centric organization started by Soros it would be different.

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Or the gun that's tucked underneath your shirt

The gun that he was legally allowed and permitted to carry on his person? That gun tucked under his shirt?

You do not ccw a pistol on your lap. Also, as has been pointed out before on numerous threads, there is no 100% verification that he had a ccw/cpl permit. But based on the facts we have so far, which aren't too many yet, if he had a permit to carry, he fell asleep during his ccw class, or was stoned, which is also unlawful to legally carry. Oh he had drugs in the car too.


iTruthSeeker

Keep on tacking on that victim blaming. So now being high is a criminal offense that warrants being shot to death? Do y'all even think about the # you are implying when you say these things?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

If anything needs MORE surveillance, it's the police. Those are the people charged with protecting us. If we aren't allowed to watch their activities then abuse can run rampant. Last I checked, police draw their paychecks from the state. My tax money. That means they should serve the people's interests not their own interests.

Sure, but being accountable to the people does not mean we need to record everything they are doing.
The police are there to stop crime and keep the public safe. They are a line of defence against anarchy and blaming or focusing on them is just plain wrong in my opinion. The so called 'systemic' problem is not with the police it's in society. Why is it that black people are on average poorer and live less well in densely populated areas, have more broken families and thus higher crime rates? What s going on? I guarantee you that if that problem is solved and opportunity is created and living standards improved, crime would drop and all this police nonsense would go away.

We're focusing on putting a sticking plaster on a gaping wound.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No but common sense says it is if you just got pulled over and you reach for it, then you might get shot. It's not complicated. Oh hey did you see the unarmed white guy that got shot while running from the police, unarmed? I'm assuming you'll make
A thread on the injustice of white people and the cops.

a reply to: UKTruth

I have many answers to your questions and quite a few of them circle back around to the police, prosecuting attorneys, a prison system that encourages recidivism instead of rehabilitation, and the war on drugs.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

If anything needs MORE surveillance, it's the police. Those are the people charged with protecting us. If we aren't allowed to watch their activities then abuse can run rampant. Last I checked, police draw their paychecks from the state. My tax money. That means they should serve the people's interests not their own interests.

There you go again with your broad inculsions. If your gonna use it then it has to work both ways. You can't lump all cops together because of a few bad ones and then say a few bad BLM members don't represent the group as a whole.

You can't change the rules for your own purposes and then not allow anyone to play the game by those same rules.

Just stop.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can say the exact thing about cops, but, you would never admit to that.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No but common sense says it is if you just got pulled over and you reach for it, then you might get shot. It's not complicated. Oh hey did you see the unarmed white guy that got shot while running from the police, unarmed? I'm assuming you'll make
A thread on the injustice of white people and the cops.

I suggest you read this source with an open mind:
Aren’t more white people than black people killed by police? Yes, but no.

It gives statistical backings as well explanations for a lot of the black community's grievances with police.

a reply to: TheAmazingYeti

1) don't enforce petty crime laws? Or just enforce them less? I feel like breaking the law is breaking the law, but okay.

2) lets play that out: a community oversight board has to have some degree of knowledge and education as far as the legality of conduct. Poof, there goes any claim to an unbiased board, because for some people the simple fact that they've been educated on the finer points of law means they're on LE's "side" now. An oversight board is great, but it's a complete non-starter if those who sit on the board are completely ignorant as to the laws around use of force. It can work, but there will still be people who claim the board is biased. Also, unless you want a slew of lawsuits because after a use of force incident the officer stops being paid, that's probably gonna continue. Kinda hard to take punitive action (which a suspension without pay is) when there's no finding of wrongdoing yet.

3) as it should be

4) see point number 2

5) no agency can help who applies for the job and meets the criteria. Short of ONLY recruiting certain people and refusing to accept applications from others, this won't work until people are applying.

6) great idea, so long as nobody, whether officer or victim, has their privacy violated. For some reason people seem to think they have a "right" to watch a live feed of a juvenile rape victim being interviewed. That one perplexes me even more than thinking they have a "right" to watch an officer take a dump.

7) training costs money.

8) great idea. Though civil forfeiture does things like buy body cameras (like my agency did) and provide training that the budget couldn't otherwise pay for. It's not all used on Ferrari speed enforcement vehicles

9) nah. Whatever civilians have, the police will have a response for. You can thank columbine, north Hollywood, and now Dallas for that. Riot gear looks the way it does for a reason. I'd rather have riot gear and no hugs than no riot gear and bricks to the head.

10) unions are gonna union. Until somebody figures out how to change the mentality of unions everywhere, they are what they are.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Common sense would tell a person who has been pulled over 50 times by the police to not drive with a loaded firearm in your lap. That is ignorant. Blatantly ignorant. I guess he was to high to know. I mean, that is what the passenger said they just have a little weed.

Like I stated earlier, if they had balls and wanted to make a difference, they would go confront the Crips or the Bloods in Chicago...or Baltimore...or LA. No, instead the BLM stops traffic. A LOT getting accomplished there.