• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Crime 12 Police Officers shot, 5 fatally, by snipers during BLM protest in downtown Dallas (Part 1)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone have that Snoop tweet? I see he's getting praise on TMZ facebook for coming out with a video saying violence is not the answer
 
That's funny, because MLK would definitely make that comparison himself.

Or did you think the whitewashed view of the Civil Rights Movement as kumbaya and walking around quietly was correct?

I highly doubt MLK would approve of Black Lives Matter.
 
The robot killing thing was a bit rough but we don't know what the shooter was saying, maybe he was treating to explode everyone. He did say he had bombs.
They had reached the "nobody else dies but the perp" stage of negotiation
 
It's basically a "we're reeeeeeally fucking mad so we're just gonna kill this dude right here" thing.

Civilians murdering random cops isn't even worth talking about because no one thinks it's a good idea. But the police overlooking due process and moving straight to execution is very worrying.

This is one of the least worrying contexts for that. When you have a mass terrorist attack, and somebody known to be part of the terrorist attackers is armed and threatening, I don't have many feels for putting kid gloves on.

'Execution' is not really the right word for killing a heavily armed combatant, in a terrorist attack that has already killed several people, where bomb threats have been made. It's not like the guy was kneeling down with his hands up, or was eating pop tarts or something.
 
They are trying to spin a racist hate crime into a mystery:

"We can't get into the head of a person that would do something like this. We negotiated with this person that seemed lucid during the negotiation. He wanted to kill officers, and he expressed killing white people, he expressed killing white officers, he expressed anger for Black Lives Matter. None of that makes sense," Brown said. "None of that is a reason, a legitimate reason, to do harm to anyone. So the rest of it would just be speculating on what his motivations were. We just know what he said."

His motivation looks pretty clear to me.

Edit: Forgot to include link!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/us/philando-castile-alton-sterling-protests/index.html
 
I highly doubt MLK would approve of Black Lives Matter.
Their message, he would.
But he'd lead the group and a large amount of the country in a peaceful movement that would receive the positive attention that would change more minds by far than tramping onto highways and shouting at people who have no problem with their cause.
 
There are over 750,000 police officers in the US and less than 600 times a year they kill someone. Even if all of those are unjustified I don't see that as a huge problem.

Then when BLM people say they don't see the killing of 5 police officers as a problem, you know why.
 
I highly doubt MLK would approve of Black Lives Matter.

You shouldn't put words in Martin Luther the King's mouth.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.

You can refer to that riot quote for what happens when you try and handwave that tension away.
 
It's wrong to silence legitimate criticism of police violence on the theory that it could *cause* more hatred of police. "Contributing to an environment" is a bullshit criticism, like saying that criticism of immigration is itself wrong because of the *fact* that it contributes to an environment of racial hostility. You can't let speech get hijacked by the fact that making such speech *causally* supports extremists, even if that's perfectly true, or we couldn't talk about anything. The question is whether the speech itself is acceptable.

If I was in support of silencing Obama, I would've agreed with the part about impeachment and imprisonment. I do not. He is in the highest office in the land and he chooses to use this position of power to scare Americans into thinking there is an epidemic of attacks on black people, which is absolutely untrue. He is never fair, impartial, or measured when he addresses this topic. He uses specific rhetoric to drum up fear and resentment in the African-American community, and he (in conjunction with all the others) does this to great effect, as we can see here. If I disagreed with you on the last bit, I wouldn't be so outspoken about Islam and its dangers. But the sitting president has to be more careful on account of his power and influence and the fact that he's supposed to serve all communities of people.
 
So the shooter was some Uhuru motherfucker that supposedly acted alone and had no terrorist ties. Okay.
 
May I ask what's objectionable about the idea that violence isn't the answer?

There is nothing wrong with saying violence is not the answer, but Snoop sure has no problem promoting violence and misogyny to sell albums.
 
This combined with the stats I posted from WaPo (below) indicates that blacks are not disproportionally killed by police when compared to whites and Hispanics. Nothing to see here folks, it's all a ruse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/

In 2015...

50% of the 990 people shot dead by police were white, 26% were black, 17% were Hispanic, and 7% were other.

84% were armed with a deadly weapon (including using a vehicle), 3% had a toy weapon, 9% were unarmed, and 3% unknown.

In 74% of cases, there was an "attack in progress".


A little over 200 black people were killed by cops last year...assuming that ALL of those were racist cops. You are still 10x more likely to die in your bathtub than getting killed by a cops for being black. But the narrative is, the police are out of control.
 
Their message, he would.
But he'd lead the group and a large amount of the country in a peaceful movement that would receive the positive attention that would change more minds by far than tramping onto highways and shouting at people who have no problem with their cause.


You shouldn't look up the Birmingham Campaign. That's pretty much exactly what they did.
 
The U.S. has 2.6 million Muslims.

A new survey reveals the dramatically changing face of religion in America, with the number of Muslims in the U.S. soaring 67% in the decade since the 9/11 attacks.


Data released Tuesday from the 2010 U.S. Religion Census shows Islam was the fastest growing religion in America in the last 10 years, with 2.6 million living in the U.S. today, up from 1 million in 2000.

which is a percentage of only 0.8 %.
Not even 1 %...

So he was right, you haven't been flooded with Muslims yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top