Thank you rioters...

[HeyYou]

I would love to know how burning down your own neighbourhood is supposed to help civil rights in America. That's gap I'm having a hard time getting across.

Yep. That one is a real head-scratcher. Never understood it myself.

 

Of course, I don't really get the whole "Black Lives Matter" thing either. They keep whining about cops shooting blacks, but, say absolutely nothing about blacks shooting blacks. (on a MUCH grander scale than the cops could even consider.....)

[AJStoner]

And I quote:

 

 

There is NO SUCH THING as 4th degree murder.

 

Um, ya, there sorta is, and I quote:

 

 

Others have covered the distinction between first degree (premeditated) murder, second degree and third degree (voluntary manslaughter), and what might be fourth degree (involuntary manslaughter) and fifth degree (vehicular homicide) murder sufficiently.

 

Yes, it is a legal term in the Justice System and is at times used.

 

Just like there is 4th Degree Assault

 

 

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the fourth degree if, under circumstances not amounting to assault in the first, second, or third degree, or custodial assault, he or she assaults another.

 

Have a good day!

Manslaughter is, by definition, involuntary or else it is 2nd degree murder. Vehicular manslaughter is a slightly lesser degree of manslaughter taking into account the inherent danger of motorized vehicles but that is clearly not what we are talking about and not "murder" which is ONLY 1st and 2nd degree murder. Murder requires intent.

 

Assault is a whole other thing and there are dozens of variations regarding assault charges to reflect the huge range of complicating and aggravating factors that may be involved but, again, not what we are talking about.

[DoctaSax]

 

I would love to know how burning down your own neighbourhood is supposed to help civil rights in America. That's gap I'm having a hard time getting across.

Yep. That one is a real head-scratcher. Never understood it myself.

 

Of course, I don't really get the whole "Black Lives Matter" thing either. They keep whining about cops shooting blacks, but, say absolutely nothing about blacks shooting blacks. (on a MUCH grander scale than the cops could even consider.....)

 

Criminals are gonna commit murder, but cops aren't supposed to kill innocent people.

[HeyYou]

 

 

I would love to know how burning down your own neighbourhood is supposed to help civil rights in America. That's gap I'm having a hard time getting across.

Yep. That one is a real head-scratcher. Never understood it myself.

 

Of course, I don't really get the whole "Black Lives Matter" thing either. They keep whining about cops shooting blacks, but, say absolutely nothing about blacks shooting blacks. (on a MUCH grander scale than the cops could even consider.....)

 

Criminals are gonna commit murder, but cops aren't supposed to kill innocent people.

 

Not all of them, or even most of them... are 'innocent'.....

[DoctaSax]

Not all of them, or even most of them... are 'innocent'.....

That's for a jury to decide. Due process is a thing, and capital punishment - if at all defensible - is meant for the most heinous crimes.

[HeyYou]

 

Not all of them, or even most of them... are 'innocent'.....

That's for a jury to decide. Due process is a thing, and capital punishment - if at all defensible - is meant for the most heinous crimes.

 

Trouble is, The Press. They jump on the stories were cops shoot black folks, because it is controversial, and it brings page views/ratings/whathaveyou. You'll notice that very rarely do you see the news covering a white person that was shot by a cop. Is it because the white folks aren't innocent? Or is it because it isn't as 'news-worthy' for them to cover it? Also, the press has their own motivations for HOW they cover the story. Michael Brown for instance. Sure, he was 'unarmed', however, he was also twice the size of the cop he threatened. Trayvon Martin? (shot, but, not by a cop.) The shooter was found not guilty because of self-defense. And the list goes on. And of course, they always show the dead guys high school year book picture...... which is generally NOT an honest representation of the 'victim'.

 

Now, George, on the other hand, REALLY did NOT deserve to die that day. And the cop is going to go to prison for it, and the others that were there will likely never work in law enforcement again, and may even get to serve some time as well.

 

 

Now, I don't know about you, but, if I see someone as a threat, I am going to deal with that threat as I deem necessary. If that means putting a couple slugs center mass, so be it. That's what you get for attempting to do bodily harm to a man with a gun. I worked law enforcement in the military, until my security clearance came thru, then I worked "Security of Priority Resources". Basically, bombers loaded with nuclear weapons. Law enforcement was no fun. Domestic violence calls were never good, and even stopping some guy walking somewhere he shouldn't be could get WAY to exciting. Working security, it was easy by comparison. If you saw someone that was somewhere they shouldn't be, shoot them. End of story. (the military takes security of nuclear weapons VERY seriously.)

 

Pretty much what is happening now, with the protests, riots, looting, etc, has the politicians all up in arms, looking for some action to take, to make it appear that they care, and that they are "doing something about it." Unfortunately, what they are doing is making the situation WORSE. Our police are already overworked, and underfunded. So now we are going to cut their budgets even more? So we can send unarmed "de-escalation specialists", or counselors into harms way?? Unarmed?????? That's downright laughable. Those folks are going to have an EXTREMELY high attrition rate. Be it through them getting killed, or the snot knocked out of them one to many times...... For 90% of what cops do, these folks are going to be woefully unprepared.

 

Look at what is happening in Baltimore..... The cops got a thorough drubbing about the fellow that died in their custody. Within the week, the cops STOPPED doing those things the public was complaining about. Crime pretty much tripled. Arrests were down, traffic citations were down, assaults and violent crime went up. And why did that happen? Because the bad guys knew the cops had their hands tied. They could do pretty much anything they wanted, and if the cops DID get involved, it was a lot like the Ghetto Lottery. They could scream and cry "police brutality", and here would come the NAACP, BLM, and a few other acronyms, saying what great people they were, and how they would never do anything wrong......

 

And I STILL want to know why BLM seems to think it is perfectly acceptable for blacks to kill blacks, but, should a white guy, or a cop shoot a black, it's time to burn the city to the ground. Blacks are overwhelmingly the victims of other blacks... But that seems to be just fine..... I don't get it. No one seems to think that particular little tidbit is worth even a mention on the news.

[Striker879]

 

 

Not all of them, or even most of them... are 'innocent'.....

That's for a jury to decide. Due process is a thing, and capital punishment - if at all defensible - is meant for the most heinous crimes.

 

Trouble is, The Press. They jump on the stories were cops shoot black folks, because it is controversial, and it brings page views/ratings/whathaveyou. You'll notice that very rarely do you see the news covering a white person that was shot by a cop. Is it because the white folks aren't innocent? Or is it because it isn't as 'news-worthy' for them to cover it? Also, the press has their own motivations for HOW they cover the story. Michael Brown for instance. Sure, he was 'unarmed', however, he was also twice the size of the cop he threatened. Trayvon Martin? (shot, but, not by a cop.) The shooter was found not guilty because of self-defense. And the list goes on. And of course, they always show the dead guys high school year book picture...... which is generally NOT an honest representation of the 'victim'.

 

Now, George, on the other hand, REALLY did NOT deserve to die that day. And the cop is going to go to prison for it, and the others that were there will likely never work in law enforcement again, and may even get to serve some time as well.

 

 

Now, I don't know about you, but, if I see someone as a threat, I am going to deal with that threat as I deem necessary. If that means putting a couple slugs center mass, so be it. That's what you get for attempting to do bodily harm to a man with a gun. I worked law enforcement in the military, until my security clearance came thru, then I worked "Security of Priority Resources". Basically, bombers loaded with nuclear weapons. Law enforcement was no fun. Domestic violence calls were never good, and even stopping some guy walking somewhere he shouldn't be could get WAY to exciting. Working security, it was easy by comparison. If you saw someone that was somewhere they shouldn't be, shoot them. End of story. (the military takes security of nuclear weapons VERY seriously.)

 

Pretty much what is happening now, with the protests, riots, looting, etc, has the politicians all up in arms, looking for some action to take, to make it appear that they care, and that they are "doing something about it." Unfortunately, what they are doing is making the situation WORSE. Our police are already overworked, and underfunded. So now we are going to cut their budgets even more? So we can send unarmed "de-escalation specialists", or counselors into harms way?? Unarmed?????? That's downright laughable. Those folks are going to have an EXTREMELY high attrition rate. Be it through them getting killed, or the snot knocked out of them one to many times...... For 90% of what cops do, these folks are going to be woefully unprepared.

 

Look at what is happening in Baltimore..... The cops got a thorough drubbing about the fellow that died in their custody. Within the week, the cops STOPPED doing those things the public was complaining about. Crime pretty much tripled. Arrests were down, traffic citations were down, assaults and violent crime went up. And why did that happen? Because the bad guys knew the cops had their hands tied. They could do pretty much anything they wanted, and if the cops DID get involved, it was a lot like the Ghetto Lottery. They could scream and cry "police brutality", and here would come the NAACP, BLM, and a few other acronyms, saying what great people they were, and how they would never do anything wrong......

 

And I STILL want to know why BLM seems to think it is perfectly acceptable for blacks to kill blacks, but, should a white guy, or a cop shoot a black, it's time to burn the city to the ground. Blacks are overwhelmingly the victims of other blacks... But that seems to be just fine..... I don't get it. No one seems to think that particular little tidbit is worth even a mention on the news.

 

 

Pretty straightforward in my eyes Hey. Nobody promotes (or even mentions) stuff that doesn't advance their own agenda Many will actively look to hide or discredit things that harm the narrative they are trying to push.

 

Spin doctoring has been around for centuries, perhaps even longer than that.

[DoctaSax]

And I STILL want to know why BLM seems to think it is perfectly acceptable for blacks to kill blacks, but, should a white guy, or a cop shoot a black, it's time to burn the city to the ground.

It's just not BLM's purpose to decry violence between African-Americans. Your argument is like saying that climate activists aren't doing enough about poverty. Doing something about poverty is someone else's job, they're doing the climate thing. Also, cops are held to a higher standard of conduct than criminals are. That is only right.

 

Burning the city to the ground... Race riots and riots following police killings are as American as apple pie. They happen at least every decade. If you think this is bad, the year '67 alone had almost 160 race riots. This reoccurrence points to a systemic failure: nothing ever changes. But even Homeland Security claims that most of the violence and looting is perpetrated by 'opportunists'. Ie the same guys who start looting when there's a power outage. BLM could do a better job of disavowing violence in its nameh, for sure, but I doubt the people doing it would take much notice.

[HeyYou]

 

And I STILL want to know why BLM seems to think it is perfectly acceptable for blacks to kill blacks, but, should a white guy, or a cop shoot a black, it's time to burn the city to the ground.

It's just not BLM's purpose to decry violence between African-Americans. Your argument is like saying that climate activists aren't doing enough about poverty. Doing something about poverty is someone else's job, they're doing the climate thing. Also, cops are held to a higher standard of conduct than criminals are. That is only right.

 

Burning the city to the ground... Race riots and riots following police killings are as American as apple pie. They happen at least every decade. If you think this is bad, the year '67 alone had almost 160 race riots. This reoccurrence points to a systemic failure: nothing ever changes. But even Homeland Security claims that most of the violence and looting is perpetrated by 'opportunists'. Ie the same guys who start looting when there's a power outage. BLM could do a better job of disavowing violence in its nameh, for sure, but I doubt the people doing it would take much notice.

 

Isn't it? Doesn't the very title "Black Lives Matter" flatly state they are concerned about this? Should they change their name to "Black lives only matter when they are killed by cops?"

[DoctaSax]

"The police should be more racially balanced in its killing" just doesn't make for a catchy slogan. I don't get why people can't help themselves from deconstructing it with tangential arguments. "All lives matter", for instance, because they insist BLM means "only black lives matter". That's either willfully misreading things, or a problem with comprehending rhetoric. "You spent a lot of time whining about this dream you've had, but what is your vision for race relations in the country, Dr. King?" Speaking of, the one thing that bugs me about BLM is a lack of solid leadership. But then, there's none to be found anywhere else either.