You Can Be Pro-Cop and Pro-BLM

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

I'm talking about how we, as logical people, approach the issues.

LOGIC dictates that you don't manufacture 'victims' out of career criminals.

That's a start.

Ok. Can we still not agree with both sides and support both sides, without taking a partisan stance based on politics?

Nothing I said was political.

Not a WORD.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

From the BLM, all I've seen is hatred towards police.

Where is BLM supporting police?

That is irrelevant.

The point is that you can support our officers and still acknowledge the issues/complaints that a group like BLM may have.

I can't take BLM seriously.

They hold one standard for cops.
They don't hold the same standard for politicians who write the laws that cops enforce.
And they don't even follow the laws that the politicians write that the cops enforce.

I'm talking about how we, as logical people, approach the issues.

Do we have to take one side or the other? Can we not see the value in both?

What "sides"?

I don't see anyone for or promoting racist police or cops acting badly.

Can you point out where people are for bad cops?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

I'm talking about how we, as logical people, approach the issues.

LOGIC dictates that you don't manufacture 'victims' out of career criminals.

That's a start.

Ok. Can we still not agree with both sides and support both sides, without taking a partisan stance based on politics?

Nothing I said was political.

Not a WORD.

Can you agree that both sides have a logical grievance?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

From the BLM, all I've seen is hatred towards police.

Where is BLM supporting police?

That is irrelevant.

The point is that you can support our officers and still acknowledge the issues/complaints that a group like BLM may have.

I can't take BLM seriously.

They hold one standard for cops.
They don't hold the same standard for politicians who write the laws that cops enforce.
And they don't even follow the laws that the politicians write that the cops enforce.

I'm talking about how we, as logical people, approach the issues.

Do we have to take one side or the other? Can we not see the value in both?

What "sides"?

I don't see anyone for or promoting racist police or cops acting badly.

Can you point out where people are for bad cops?

Do you disagree that some police actions may have been biased, as much as some actions by BLM?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

From the BLM, all I've seen is hatred towards police.

Where is BLM supporting police?

That is irrelevant.

The point is that you can support our officers and still acknowledge the issues/complaints that a group like BLM may have.

I can't take BLM seriously.

They hold one standard for cops.
They don't hold the same standard for politicians who write the laws that cops enforce.
And they don't even follow the laws that the politicians write that the cops enforce.

I'm talking about how we, as logical people, approach the issues.

Do we have to take one side or the other? Can we not see the value in both?

What "sides"?

I don't see anyone for or promoting racist police or cops acting badly.

Can you point out where people are for bad cops?

The silence.

A particular group on ATS love to bash BLM, actually let me be frank, Black people. There are threads daily.

Where are YOUR threads denouncing racists cops? Where are YOUR threads denouncing crooked cops?

a reply to: neo96

LOGIC dictates that you don't manufacture 'victims' out of career criminals.

Who are career criminals?

Baloney! I suppose you're good all the time? There's no such thing as a person who all good or all bad. There are inbalances, of course, but there are no perfect people.

a reply to: introvert

I think if any police performed poorly or unprofessionally, they should be punished.

a reply to: Tsubaki

Where are yours?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

I'm talking about how we, as logical people, approach the issues.

LOGIC dictates that you don't manufacture 'victims' out of career criminals.

That's a start.

Ok. Can we still not agree with both sides and support both sides, without taking a partisan stance based on politics?

Nothing I said was political.

Not a WORD.

Can you agree that both sides have a logical grievance?

No.

What BLM supporters are trying to do is to cherry pick a FEW highly sensationalized 'news' events, and make victims out of what has largely been CRIMINALS with their lifestyle choices catching up with them.

RACISM has virtually been whiped out right up until Martin/Zimmeran and some folks spinning a false narrative to divide the people of this country.

As each year passed more, and more just in time for the election cycle.

And Introvert.

That's all it is, and issue to keep the current party in power because they can't run on their record.

Your free to do what you want.

Everyone can.

5 months from now BLM will vanish just like the TeaParty, and Occupy Wall Street.

'Astro turf' movements will pass on as nothing more than a foot note in modern American history.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

I think if any police performed poorly or unprofessionally, they should be punished.

So you can agree that BLM may have a reasonable grievance against police, if such "unprofessional" conduct has occurred?

And visa versa?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee
Black Lives Matter creates division in its name alone.

It SCREAMS us against them.

It should have been stopped before it began.

The movement of Equal Treatment does not need a name that SCREAMS division.

I agree. Can you not agree that we need to look at both sides and not dismiss their grievances outright?

They're gonna need to change their name and declare all lives matter if they want me to take them seriously.

Let's start with personal responsibility. All the recent headline cases of cop vs man who happens to be black (except the one with autistic patient), the man was a thug. He was not a positive contributor to society.

It amazes me how many can slam moderate Muslims for not speaking out more against radicals.

Where are the blacks speaking out against the "gangsta" culture. I'm listening.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

LOGIC dictates that you don't manufacture 'victims' out of career criminals.

Who are career criminals?

This guy for one.

Simple battery (dismissed) (Nov. 24, 1996) Simple battery – dismissed (Oct. 28, 1997)
Simple burglary of inhabited dwelling (May 5-15, 2005) request for arrest warrant Felony theft (May 5-15, 2005) request for arrest warrant Simple burglary (amended to illegal possession of stolen things – guilty plea) (May 24, 2005) Aggravated battery (amended to simple battery – guilty plea) (March 6, 2006) Simple criminal damage to property – guilty plea (March 6, 2006) Unauthorized entry of an inhabited dwelling (amended to disturbing the peace – guilty plea) (March 6, 2006) Expired driver’s license (March 21, 2008) Driver’s license issue (hard to read document) (2008) Domestic abuse battery – pleaded guilty (March 31, 2008) Illegal carrying weapons with controlled dangerous substance – pleaded guilty (May 29, 2009) Felon in possession of a firearm – dismissed (May 29, 2009) Contempt of court – (Aug. 10, 2009) – Guilty plea Fail to use seat belt (Feb. 5, 2014) Fail to renew registration (Feb. 5, 2014) Failure to comply with sex offender registration (Aug. 11, 2015) – Forfeiture Possession of a schedule 1 drug, (April4-5, 2016) – no conclusion Possession of marijuana first offense. (April 5, 2016) – no conclusion

Reality check

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: introvert

I think if any police performed poorly or unprofessionally, they should be punished.

So you can agree that BLM may have a reasonable grievance against police, if such "unprofessional" conduct has occurred?

And visa versa?

I don't care.

I don't base my opinion on what BLM thinks.

a reply to: neo96

No.

Then you have missed the point.

I've tried to offer an olive branch to both sides and to highlight the need for everyone to take an introspective glance.

Obviously, this thread has gone over your head.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee
Black Lives Matter creates division in its name alone.

It SCREAMS us against them.

It should have been stopped before it began.

The movement of Equal Treatment does not need a name that SCREAMS division.

I agree. Can you not agree that we need to look at both sides and not dismiss their grievances outright?

They're gonna need to change their name and declare all lives matter if they want me to take them seriously.

Let's start with personal responsibility. All the recent headline cases of cop vs man who happens to be black (except the one with autistic patient), the man was a thug. He was not a positive contributor to society.

It amazes me how many can slam moderate Muslims for not speaking out more against radicals.

Where are the blacks speaking out against the "gangsta" culture. I'm listening.

If you are stuck on the name, I cannot help you.

This thread was about recognizing all sides are wrong at one point or another. To dismiss either on such superficial grounds seems illogical.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

I'm talking about how we, as logical people, approach the issues.

LOGIC dictates that you don't manufacture 'victims' out of career criminals.

That's a start.

Ok. Can we still not agree with both sides and support both sides, without taking a partisan stance based on politics?

Nothing I said was political.

Not a WORD.

Can you agree that both sides have a logical grievance?

No.

What BLM supporters are trying to do is to cherry pick a FEW highly sensationalized 'news' events, and make victims out of what has largely been CRIMINALS with their lifestyle choices catching up with them.

This is a lie. As a Black man married to a White woman living in Texas, I will call you a liar.

I am not a career criminal.

I have been and continue to be profiled for no other reason than I'm Black.

I finally stopped #ing driving my goddamned GT-R unless I'm at the track.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Tsubaki

Where are yours?

Dallas Texas.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I did not ask if your opinion was based on what BLM thinks.

I asked if you think they may have a reasonable grievance in cases of unprofessional police conduct?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Annee
Black Lives Matter creates division in its name alone.

It SCREAMS us against them.

It should have been stopped before it began.

The movement of Equal Treatment does not need a name that SCREAMS division.

I agree. Can you not agree that we need to look at both sides and not dismiss their grievances outright?

They're gonna need to change their name and declare all lives matter if they want me to take them seriously.

Let's start with personal responsibility. All the recent headline cases of cop vs man who happens to be black (except the one with autistic patient), the man was a thug. He was not a positive contributor to society.

It amazes me how many can slam moderate Muslims for not speaking out more against radicals.

Where are the blacks speaking out against the "gangsta" culture. I'm listening.

If you are stuck on the name, I cannot help you.

This thread was about recognizing all sides are wrong at one point or another. To dismiss either on such superficial grounds seems illogical.

So, you consider a name that clearly SCREAMS division superficial.

There's a lot in a name.