daunte wright shooting

[Brisketexan 105161]

Just now, dcar00 said:

how do you use a speeding camera improperly?

Point it at the neighbor's bedroom.....

[BabaYaga 15302]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't see only "one side" of this.  I really can't believe we are still having this argument.

Yes or no -- with respect to encounters with law enforcement nationwide, who is likely to have more of them, a generic black guy or a generic white guy?  You know the answer.  It's not like there's no data out there.

https://www.sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2020/06/racial_disparities_traffic_stops.php#.YHdRbehKiUk

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/02/california-police-black-stops-force

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/publications/criminal-justice-magazine/2020/winter/racial-profiling-past-present-and-future/

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2018/10/12/policing/

https://5harad.com/papers/100M-stops.pdf

 

And, I mean.... I could post 100 more.  This is a well-known, well-studied, and admitted issue.

Jesus Christ, I'm not even arguing with you about this.  You're back on one of your fucking soap box rants and nobody is saying the percentage is higher or lower.  We all know it's about 20% higher likelihood in the aggregate.  Nor is anyone saying the officer is innocent or that nothing needs to be done. .

What me and many others are saying is there are also ways and means to act when you get pulled over - white, black, or brown to help de-escalate potentially inflammatory scenarios.

[Brisketexan 105161]

6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus Christ, I'm not even arguing with you about this.  You're back on one of your fucking soap box rants and nobody is saying the percentage is higher or lower.  We all know it's about 20% higher likelihood in the aggregate.  Nor is anyone saying the officer is innocent or that nothing needs to be done. .

What me and many others are saying is there are also ways and means to act when you get pulled over - white, black, or brown to help de-escalate potentially inflammatory scenarios.

And you continue to intentionally ignore or stop short of the final conclusion: more frequent stops means more chances to fail to perform to the officer's satisfaction, which means more chances for a bad outcome.

Because the things you posted are true, a generic black person has a greater chance of having a negative outcome from a cop encounter than a generic white person does.  That's it.  That's the conclusion that the data supports.  A white person has to behave perfectly, not lose their temper, not make a mistake, X times.  A black person has to meet the same standard X plus 20% of X times.  That is an additional burden and risk placed on black people.  That is wrong, bad, and shitty.

Oh, and the collective data shows that the delta is a shitload more than 20%, but I'm not interested in quibbling with you about it here.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Brisketexan

[Nicole44 22069]

Was not aware a certain number of states do not allow an individual to hang things from the rear view mirror. Minnesota being one. Here you see masks hanging from mirrors all over. So an officer uses the air freshener or expired tags as a “pretext stop.” Which they claim is useful in preventing further crimes because they use that as a reason to search a vehicle or figure the odds are higher that the person will be found with guns or drugs or have a warrant I guess. 
 

we still don’t know why he was pulled over. He was on the phone with his mother and according to her mentioned air fresheners as to why he was being pulled over. We have heard he had a prior warrant but no idea what that was for. Some websites have said for a gun/fleeing police. Some have said weed. That Gannon guy is no longer employed (and his conference certainly was a colossal mess.)

How do police know they aren’t pulling over a serious hoarder? With the air fresheners I mean. I
 

It’s all a very sad deal. Another human being is dead. 

[Dahobbs 17626]

49 minutes ago, Murfdogg21 said:

Sounds like several of you should lobby state and local governments to change the laws, rather than ask police to not enforce some laws. 

I swear to god some of you are so fucking dense. That is exactly what we are saying. The solution to this problem is a two part process: (1) we change the laws where necessary (e.g., eliminate war on drugs), and (2) we change the method of law enforcement. Both of those things need to happen to address this problem.  And that second one doesn't mean asking the police "to not enforce some laws." It means changing how they enforce those laws (e.g., consistently, without need for escalation, avoiding stops or pursuits where unnecessary, eliminating no knock warrants, etc.). 

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus Christ, I'm not even arguing with you about this.  You're back on one of your fucking soap box rants and nobody is saying the percentage is higher or lower.  We all know it's about 20% higher likelihood in the aggregate.  Nor is anyone saying the officer is innocent or that nothing needs to be done. .

What me and many others are saying is there are also ways and means to act when you get pulled over - white, black, or brown to help de-escalate potentially inflammatory scenarios.

I really don't understand what point you think you're making. It is just a non-sequitur to the discussion about injustice in law enforcement. It would be like responding to complaints that Boeing' airplanes keep falling from the sky with the observation that one could fly less. No fucking shit, but it completely misses the point: goddamn airplanes shouldn't fall from the sky. 

[lemonlime 5503]

34 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Or they could install speed bumps. 

yes.  They could.  My point is police are supposed to be there for public safety, not for revenue generation.  There is no reason to waste resources pulling people over for nonsense.  And if traffic stops are truly dangerous, as cops argue, send tickets.  This could all be done by mail.  Or not.  But there is no reason for police to be wasting resources and putting themselves in danger for expired plates.  Or even any traffic violations, unless they constitute a risk right then and there to the safety of others.

[lemonlime 5503]

35 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

how do you use a speeding camera improperly and properly?

Send out tickets with consistent policy.  Maybe warning first time, tickets thereafter.  And certain thresholds.  No ticket within 5 MPH of the speed limit.  Always ticket even if first time if more than 20 MPH over.  I don't know.  I don't work in traffic enforcement.  But come up with a consistent policy that is applied to everyone, not just who the cop feels like hasseling that day.

[BabaYaga 15302]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I really don't understand what point you think you're making. It is just a non-sequitur to the discussion about injustice in law enforcement. It would be like responding to complaints that Boeing' airplanes keep falling from the sky with the observation that one could fly less. No fucking shit, but it completely misses the point: goddamn airplanes shouldn't fall from the sky. 

The point about how to act or not in the presence of LEO's - such as not attacking them, trying to take their gun, or their car, or fleeing after being stopped.  

[WhatTheBuck 28791]

30 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Point it at the neighbor's bedroom.....

Grrrr. Sorry but I have to get all anal retentive on you here. Bluto didn’t have a camera. He was just a peeper. That doesn’t count. You can’t count the movie camera.

You might have used the Thora Birch topless window scene in American Beauty, but that would be a bad example too because she knew she was being shot by her love interest, she liked it, and was showing off. Nothing improper about that. Nothing at all.

[Dahobbs 17626]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

The point about how to act or not in the presence of LEO's - such as not attacking them, trying to take their gun, or their car, or fleeing after being stopped.  

Either this is a non-sequitur meant to distract from the injustices with our current law enforcement system or it is meant to imply that such injustices don't exist and it is the victims' fault. Neither is an acceptable response. 

[BabaYaga 15302]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Either this is a non-sequitur meant to distract from the injustices with our current law enforcement system or it is meant to imply that such injustices don't exist and it is the victims' fault. Neither is an acceptable response. 

LOL, how about neither.  An injustice first of all implies justice was not carried out.  I think her manslaughter charges bear this is not the case.  As for blaming the victim, are you saying had he simply allowed himself to be cuffed for his warrant and put into the back of the car would have garnered the same outcome as fleeing the scene of his arrest?

[dcar00 14306]

in this particular instance the guy had a warrant out for aggravated armed robbery.  I think they knew that before going up to the car(was the car his?) but not sure.  In my opinion it does change the dynamic if he tries to flee by getting back into the car.  they don't know what is in the car.  they only know he was unarmed when he was out of the car. 

 

[Carl Spackler 3487]

3 hours ago, UT_OB1 said:

Jesus fuck.  Reading is hard. People who watch for public safety on the roads as it pertains to speeding, stop lights, etc don’t need to be the same people who investigate thefts, murder, etc. They really don’t even need to be cops. 

Jesus fuck.  Thinking is hard.  "People who watch for public safety on the roads" are apparently never going to encounter citizens engaging in criminal conduct beyond mere traffic violations in your world.  They're never going to be called to intervene in any other type of situation, apparently.  They're never going to pull over someone for speeding or running a stop light who also happens to be an armed, dangerous fugitive, apparently.

Again, unarmed citizens dying at the hands of cops during patrol stops is unacceptable.  But the solution is not to disarm patrol cops.  That will simply open up a whole new can of worms.

 

Edited April 14, 2021 by Carl Spackler

[Dahobbs 17626]

1 minute ago, Carl Spackler said:

Jesus fuck.  Thinking is hard.  "People who watch for public safety on the roads" are apparently never going to encounter citizens engaging in criminal conduct beyond mere traffic violations in your world.  They're never going to be called to intervene in any other type of situation, apparently.  

 

I think he is saying that they shouldn't be called on to intervene in those situations. 

[Brisketexan 105161]

12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Grrrr. Sorry but I have to get all anal retentive on you here. Bluto didn’t have a camera. He was just a peeper. That doesn’t count. You can’t count the movie camera.

You might have used the Thora Birch topless window scene in American Beauty, but that would be a bad example too because she knew she was being shot by her love interest, she liked it, and was showing off. Nothing improper about that. Nothing at all.

Well, I mean....that's on him.  He wasn't very bright.  He had a 0.0 GPA.

And he ended up a senator, so I think that proves my point.  Or something.

[Carl Spackler 3487]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Pulling people over for speeding, tag violations, large air fresheners should be given over to meter maid types. Is there a danger the driver could shoot the meter maid? Yes but it will be much lower than armed police pulling them over.  Say the driver has outstanding warrants, is armed and willing to kill police. They still have little reason to shoot the meter maid, as that person is not going to arrest them, chase them, or get into an armed battle.

 

 

I have no problem with reducing the number or scope of violations that can result in cop/citizen interactions.  And I have no problem with completely revamping and revising procedures that cops observe and training that they receive in connection with those types of encounters.

[Carl Spackler 3487]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I think he is saying that they shouldn't be called on to intervene in those situations. 

And my point is that trying to create a bright line distinction between "people who watch out for public safety" (i.e., people who issue citations for speeding, running lights, people hanging shit on their rearview, etc.) and "people who investigate thefts, murder, etc." for purposes of being authorized to carry sidearms is useless and ridiculous.  Hell, if anything, the people who are "watching out for public safety" are more likely to encounter armed individuals in fluid, dangerous situations than the other group.   

[WhatTheBuck 28791]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, I mean....that's on him.  He wasn't very bright.  He had a 0.0 GPA.

And he ended up a senator, so I think that proves my point.  Or something.

I’ll admit that the guy who shot naked videos of Erin Andrews through the hotel door peephole exercised an improper use of a video camera.

But part of me wishes he had a better camera. 

[dcar00 14306]

9 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

I have no problem with reducing the number or scope of violations that can result in cop/citizen interactions.  And I have no problem with completely revamping and revising procedures that cops observe and training that they receive in connection with those types of encounters.

I'm really good with no tag violations as long as we get rid of yearly registration all together.  fucking scam.

[Dahobbs 17626]

6 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

And my point is that trying to create a bright line distinction between "people who watch out for public safety" (i.e., people who issue citations for speeding, running lights, people hanging shit on their rearview, etc.) and "people who investigate thefts, murder, etc." for purposes of being authorized to carry sidearms is useless and ridiculous.  Hell, if anything, the people who are "watching out for public safety" are more likely to encounter armed individuals in fluid, dangerous situations than the other group.   

I don't understand why that would be useless. It is just a specialization. Replace traffic cops with "traffic safety inspectors." They wouldn't be armed and their sole job would be to hand out tickets (although frankly I don't think actually handing them is out is necessary). They wouldn't be called on for violent or dangerous incidents. And their presence would be less likely to incite a violent reaction from a criminal because there would be no danger of them doing anything but issuing a traffic ticket. You can still have a regular armed police. But you'd have less of them and they'd spend less of their time doing mundane shit like that and hopefully more time training/preparing for their more dangerous work. 

I'm not saying that solution would 100% work, I'm just saying it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. 

[Nicole44 22069]

A little more information (FWIW):

Police body camera footage showed three officers around the car. When another officer attempts to handcuff Wright, a second officer tells him he's being arrested on a warrant. That's when a struggle begins, followed by the shooting. Then the car travels several blocks before striking another vehicle.

According to court records, Wright was being sought after failing to appear in court on charges that he fled from officers and possessed a gun without a permit during an encounter with Minneapolis police in June.

A search of court records shows Wright had a minor criminal record, with petty misdemeanor convictions for possession/sale of a small amount of marijuana and disorderly conduct.
https://kstp.com/news/daunte-wright-doting-dat-basketball-player-slain-by-police-/6075344/?cat=1

 

[VABuckeye 2472]

Cop sees a minor moving violation, expired tags, etc.  Take a photo of the tags and send a ticket in the mail.  If the ticket isn't paid in 90 days report it to the credit bureaus.  There's no need for needless conflict on the side of the road or for putting lives at risk on the side of the road (including the cop who runs risk of being hit in many circumstances).

If there's a SERIOUS warrant out for the driver then call for backup and act accordingly.

[BabaYaga 15302]

27 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

And my point is that trying to create a bright line distinction between "people who watch out for public safety" (i.e., people who issue citations for speeding, running lights, people hanging shit on their rearview, etc.) and "people who investigate thefts, murder, etc." for purposes of being authorized to carry sidearms is useless and ridiculous.  Hell, if anything, the people who are "watching out for public safety" are more likely to encounter armed individuals in fluid, dangerous situations than the other group.   

Exactly this, as if LEO's can determine when and where threats will be?  Again, the gun is for their safety, not anyone else's.  Unarmed Mall Cops giving tickets.  Who the hell would stop for them?  And when drivers don't stop, then what?  A ticket in the mail?  Ok, assuming there are pics.  But pics of what, the radar gun?  We all know those can and will be challenged in a court.  

Or maybe, don't get a warrant.  Run from the cops.  And if a shitty cop makes a mistake, make an example out of them, lock them up and throw away the key.  This situational micro-managed nonsense is so stupid.

[TexasEd 8067]

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

Send out tickets with consistent policy.  Maybe warning first time, tickets thereafter.  And certain thresholds.  No ticket within 5 MPH of the speed limit.  Always ticket even if first time if more than 20 MPH over.  I don't know.  I don't work in traffic enforcement.  But come up with a consistent policy that is applied to everyone, not just who the cop feels like hasseling that day.

What if the woman driving has a nice rack?  Is that still allowed some leeway?  Pretty sure that's how my wife (no pics) keeps getting warnings.

[fattyflattie 4639]

12 minutes ago, VABuckeye said:

If the ticket isn't paid in 90 days report it to the credit bureaus

Serious post? 

[VABuckeye 2472]

Eh, it was the first repercussion that popped into my head.  A whole lot of people wouldn't want a possible ding on their credit.  Honestly, those that don't aren't worth going after because they might not even have two nickels to rub together.

Look at the traffic stops that were on LivePD.  A large number of the people pulled over were struggling to put a roof over their heads.  Paying a moving violation is that last thing on their minds.  It's just further down the money hole they're already in.

Edited April 14, 2021 by VABuckeye

[Dahobbs 17626]

16 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Unarmed Mall Cops giving tickets.  Who the hell would stop for them? 

99.999% of law abiding citizens. Although, again, I question the need for a stop in the first place. 

Quote

And when drivers don't stop, then what?  A ticket in the mail?  Ok, assuming there are pics.  But pics of what, the radar gun?  We all know those can and will be challenged in a court.  

Yes, mail a ticket. The "mall cop" that observed the speeder can submit an affidavit and testify in court if needed. Same as happens now. We can even add a penalty multiplier for evading the "mall cop" if needed.  

Quote

Or maybe, don't get a warrant.  Run from the cops.  And if a shitty cop makes a mistake, make an example out of them, lock them up and throw away the key.  This situational micro-managed nonsense is so stupid.

(1) Historically we've done a really bad job of making an example out of shitty cops. They haven't been fired. They usually haven't even been charged with anything. And our law generally gives them civil immunity for being shitty except in rare instances. Things are starting to move towards accountability precisely because we have been having these conversations and related protests. 

(2) You're conflating the broader discussion of injustice with the discussion of this particular instance (as you did in your prior post as well).  Running from the cops is stupid and a mistake. But that mistake doesn't deserve a death sentence. And it is still is unjust that minorities, particularly black ones, are disproportionately more likely to be put in a position of making a mistake that could end their life. 

[hayden_horn 11362]

so, after watching the video, what exactly would happen if she successfully deployed the taser when he's rolling in the car?

sure, at that point he's disabled, but what if the jolt causes his foot to floor it? then what? what if the car careens out of control and hits someone else or a pedestrian? hell, even after she shot him he "drove" a couple of blocks before crashing the car. what's the best possible scenario if she successfully tazes him? she panicked. cops, especially 26 year vets, should not be mistaking a firearm for a tazer. 

once he's in the car, i think you got to let him go. it's your fault he's in there to begin with. grab him later, and you can get him with another charge of resisting arrest and evasion or whatever (though i'm not the biggest fan of stacking charges, to be honest), and revoke his bail.

and i could be wrong, but the warrant wasn't for the robbery, it was for missing a court date related to that robbery. i'm happy to be corrected if wrong. given that, and that the state has let him out of a bond, is it worth it to kill him over missing a court date? there was another article i read that he had his bail revoked for not keeping up with his probation officer, and running from cops in july after being seen with a gun. 

either way, he wasn't a good guy, necessarily, but he doesn't deserve to be dead, and in my opinion, the cop shouldn't be in a place to make that split second adrenaline decision. let him go. pick him up later. if cops spent more time detecting and doing police work (like, i dunno, rounding up mr wright before noticing he has an outstanding warrant because of expired tags) then police would be looked on more favorably. how many bullshit fishing expeditions did they engage in before hitting hitting a fish?

instead of doing that, find some bad guys and arrest them when they go for smokes or whatever. 

[Jkwellborn 6713]

People looking out for others safety don’t need a gun. We have people in the plant all the time looking for and pointing out safety issues, and they’ve never accidentally shot an operator or engineer. 
 
Moving vehicle safety officers don’t need a gun. Pull someone over, give them a ticket. If they run, write them a bigger ticket or call in the special weapons and tactics unit if you believe them to be an immediate danger to others on the road. 
 
There is zero reason tho have people with guns doing this work. Split the job and split the training. 
 

It’s not like people don’t beat or shoot the people giving simple traffic tickets.

[Nicole44 22069]

24 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

so, after watching the video, what exactly would happen if she successfully deployed the taser when he's rolling in the car?

sure, at that point he's disabled, but what if the jolt causes his foot to floor it? then what? what if the car careens out of control and hits someone else or a pedestrian? hell, even after she shot him he "drove" a couple of blocks before crashing the car. what's the best possible scenario if she successfully tazes him? she panicked. cops, especially 26 year vets, should not be mistaking a firearm for a tazer. 

once he's in the car, i think you got to let him go. it's your fault he's in there to begin with. grab him later, and you can get him with another charge of resisting arrest and evasion or whatever (though i'm not the biggest fan of stacking charges, to be honest), and revoke his bail.

and i could be wrong, but the warrant wasn't for the robbery, it was for missing a court date related to that robbery. i'm happy to be corrected if wrong. given that, and that the state has let him out of a bond, is it worth it to kill him over missing a court date? there was another article i read that he had his bail revoked for not keeping up with his probation officer, and running from cops in july after being seen with a gun. 

either way, he wasn't a good guy, necessarily, but he doesn't deserve to be dead, and in my opinion, the cop shouldn't be in a place to make that split second adrenaline decision. let him go. pick him up later. if cops spent more time detecting and doing police work (like, i dunno, rounding up mr wright before noticing he has an outstanding warrant because of expired tags) then police would be looked on more favorably. how many bullshit fishing expeditions did they engage in before hitting hitting a fish?

instead of doing that, find some bad guys and arrest them when they go for smokes or whatever. 

Very thoughtful post. I mostly agree with what you posted.
 

According to court records, Wright was being sought after failing to appear in court on charges that he fled from officers and possessed a gun without a permit during an encounter with Minneapolis police in June.

That’s what court records say according to most articles I have read. A human being is now dead. Nothing will bring his life back. Can only hope for the correct outcome in court. 
 

We can’t ask him wtf he was thinking trying to flee police a second time in less than a year. If the records are correct. Doesn’t mean he should be dead though. 

[DalTxHornFan 3108]

Great discussion.  Now do Ashli Babbitt and explain why she should be dead and also why the LEO trigger puller faces no charges.

[Carl Spackler 3487]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

so, after watching the video, what exactly would happen if she successfully deployed the taser when he's rolling in the car?

sure, at that point he's disabled, but what if the jolt causes his foot to floor it? then what? what if the car careens out of control and hits someone else or a pedestrian? hell, even after she shot him he "drove" a couple of blocks before crashing the car. what's the best possible scenario if she successfully tazes him? she panicked. cops, especially 26 year vets, should not be mistaking a firearm for a tazer. 

 

Yeah, I mentioned earlier in this thread that if she intended to deploy the taser while he was behind the wheel, it would have been a problem had she done so.  Most agencies have policies against tasing in that type of situation.  I'm not sure if her PD had a specific policy against it, but common sense would dictate against it.  She messed up on multiple levels.

[Kyle 207]

29 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Great discussion.  Now do Ashli Babbitt and explain why she should be dead and also why the LEO trigger puller faces no charges.

Do we get to Say Her Name?

That loud screeching sound you hear is the CR doing a 180 @ 200 emotional mph.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Kyle

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 hour ago, Nicole44 said:

We can’t ask him wtf he was thinking trying to flee police a second time in less than a year.

I’ll take a guess. Because he didn’t give a fuck about the law.  There’s a saying.  I believe it’s fuck around and find out?  

[Jkwellborn 6713]

Yeah, I mentioned earlier in this thread that if she intended to deploy the taser while he was behind the wheel, it would have been a problem had she done so.  Most agencies have policies against tasing in that type of situation.  I'm not sure if her PD had a specific policy against it, but common sense would dictate against it.  She messed up on multiple levels.

I’d think most probably don’t have a policy against it. It makes too much sense in reality. But once they try to leave, that’s a justification to let the shoosting begin evidently.

[Steel Shank 9428]

'cause Huggies.

 

[52-80 19195]

5 hours ago, dcar00 said:

in this particular instance the guy had a warrant out for aggravated armed robbery.  I think they knew that before going up to the car(was the car his?) but not sure.  In my opinion it does change the dynamic if he tries to flee by getting back into the car.  they don't know what is in the car.  they only know he was unarmed when he was out of the car. 

 

Do they have a duty to apprehend someone with an outstanding warrant ?

Or should they have been casual and okay with letting him run because their original job was a traffic stop hence that was their only scope?

[52-80 19195]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I really don't understand what point you think you're making. It is just a non-sequitur to the discussion about injustice in law enforcement. It would be like responding to complaints that Boeing' airplanes keep falling from the sky with the observation that one could fly less. No fucking shit, but it completely misses the point: goddamn airplanes shouldn't fall from the sky. 

Malaysian airplane falls from the sky:

airplanes are unjustly targeting Malay passengers!  The aviation industry are killing people simply for being Malay!

 

that’s the sort of logic being employed here.

[immortal13 4059]

6 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus Christ, I'm not even arguing with you about this.  You're back on one of your fucking soap box rants and nobody is saying the percentage is higher or lower.  We all know it's about 20% higher likelihood in the aggregate.  Nor is anyone saying the officer is innocent or that nothing needs to be done. .

What me and many others are saying is there are also ways and means to act when you get pulled over - white, black, or brown to help de-escalate potentially inflammatory scenarios.

He likes to argue with himself sometimes

[Kyle 207]

12 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Malaysian airplane falls from the sky:

airplanes are unjustly targeting Malay passengers!  The aviation industry are killing people simply for being Malay!

 

that’s the sort of logic being employed here.

Did anyone answer where the national outrage is about Ashli Babbitt's murderer and why he hasn't been charged with murder? I missed the list of cities that burned, looteed, and murdered in response.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Kyle

[Brisketexan 105161]

Malaysian airplane falls from the sky:
airplanes are unjustly targeting Malay passengers!  The aviation industry are killing people simply for being Malay!
 
that’s the sort of logic being employed here.

If Malaysian airplanes crashed at a materially higher rate than other airplanes....might you have some particular concerns about what’s happening with Malaysian planes?

Goddamn, I cannot believe we’re still having this argument - the evidence is overwhelming. Black men are pulled over, detained, etc, at a disproportionately higher rate than whites. And every extra encounter is an extra chance for shit to go south. That’s a problem.

[Kyle 207]

14 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Malaysian airplane falls from the sky:

airplanes are unjustly targeting Malay passengers!  The aviation industry are killing people simply for being Malay!

 

that’s the sort of logic being employed here.

With all due respect ... logic requires intellectual positions based on data ... you know that gets you banned on here ... you have to go on emotional tirades fueled by fascist propaganda and unemployed twit influencers.

[Kyle 207]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If Malaysian airplanes crashed at a materially higher rate than other airplanes....might you have some particular concerns about what’s happening with Malaysian planes?

Goddamn, I cannot believe we’re still having this argument - the evidence is overwhelming. Black men are pulled over, detained, etc, at a disproportionately higher rate than whites. And every extra encounter is an extra chance for shit to go south. That’s a problem.

It's almost if you head is in the sand about crime rates ... there are days I actually think you've convinced yourself the biggest danger to black men is cops.

Edited April 15, 2021 by Kyle

[dcar00 14306]

It used to be Brisket for Mayor! but I think its Brisket for Police Chief! now.

[Brisketexan 105161]

Did anyone answer where the national outrage is about Ashli Babbitt's murderer and why he hasn't been charged with murder? I missed the list of cities that burned, looteed, and murdered in response.

Can you cite where we deem every police shooting as a bad shoot? Some are good shoots. Plenty are, actually. That was one of them. She was continuing to try to enter a secure area with hostile intent after being warned. She wasn’t running away. She wasn’t just disobeying a command. She was coming AT the cops and an area they had to defend. All of that said....there were several other instances in that attack where the cops absolutely could have fired and it would have been a good shoot....but they exercised some serious-ass restraint.

Anyone comes at a cop with hostile intent where they are defending a secure area may well get shot. Come AT a cop with a deadly weapon, including a car, and you might get shot. Come at the cops with a gun, you will likely get shot. We usually don’t criticize those shootings...because they aren’t bad shootings.

We don’t criticize cops for arresting someone for a warrant. We don’t criticize them for taking down someone busy attacking a victim, etc etc.

[Kyle 207]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Can you cite where we deem every police shooting as a bad shoot? Some are good shoots. Plenty are, actually. That was one of them. She was continuing to try to enter a secure area with hostile intent after being warned. She wasn’t running away. She wasn’t just disobeying a command. She was coming AT the cops and an area they had to defend. All of that said....there were several other instances in that attack where the cops absolutely could have fired and it would have been a good shoot....but they exercised some serious-ass restraint.

Anyone comes at a cop with hostile intent where they are defending a secure area may well get shot. Come AT a cop with a deadly weapon, including a car, and you might get shot. Come at the cops with a gun, you will likely get shot. We usually don’t criticize those shootings...because they aren’t bad shootings.

We don’t criticize cops for arresting someone for a warrant. We don’t criticize them for taking down someone busy attacking a victim, etc etc.

So you believe the Michael Brown shooting was completely justified? Jacob Blake? Breonna Taylor?

Edited April 15, 2021 by Kyle

[Dahobbs 17626]

20 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Malaysian airplane falls from the sky:

airplanes are unjustly targeting Malay passengers!  The aviation industry are killing people simply for being Malay!

 

that’s the sort of logic being employed here.

No, it isn't. Now, if Boeing sold planes that had a higher likelihood of being defective to Malaysian airlines, but your analogy would be on point. But sure, keep thinking your sophistry is clever. 

[Kyle 207]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

No, it isn't. Now, if Boeing sold planes that had a higher likelihood of being defective to Malaysian airlines, but your analogy would be on point. But sure, keep thinking your sophistry is clever. 

As usual the data doesn't lineup with your stupidity.

[gmr548 16584]

Did anyone answer where the national outrage is about Ashli Babbitt's murderer and why he hasn't been charged with murder? I missed the list of cities that burned, looteed, and murdered in response.

Hahahahahahahaha never go full aggy

[Kyle 207]

1 minute ago, gmr548 said:

Hahahahahahahaha never go full aggy

Regard ... first, you have to come up with a clever, original idea. Otherwise, you're a fucking fake follower like aggy and 12th man. second, you have to be self aware enough to realize the only jizz jar on this site is here -> https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/forum/17-cloak-room/