Racism on parade part 2- cops, thugs, looting, Obama,& more

[Deleted]

Aug 25, 2014 22:13:06 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 25, 2014 19:01:55 GMT -5 frankq said:

And of course bring Zimmerman into it- another hero. He was clearly a murderer that created the situation- and if you think he isn't maybe you hire him He's in FL with you, your dumbass laws, and available for work- word has it he's got security experience.

Well, a jury that actually heard ALL the evidence unanimously disagreed with your view regarding Mr. Zimmerman.......But why should that matter to you?

Only people with a highly tuned penchant for ignorance would even consider trial by media.....Congrats

A jury found OJ not guilty too- so what?  He's just a murderer that FL did not convict as far as I am concerned- no point in revisiting it.   In fact he would have been toast in most states.  He's a murderer sure as Joe Horn is a TX murderer- and TX didn't even indict him.  Lots of murderers out there that got away with it.  Forget that loser.

The issue is whether or not Wilson is a murderer- suffice it to say a shitload of people have made their minds up one way or the other.  

According to what I could find, Joe Horn isn't actually a murderer. Murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a life. Apparently the legal system found his life taking to be within the confines of the law.

[mmhmm]

Aug 25, 2014 20:55:51 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I'll never say Rev. Sharpton is well-spoken...because he isn't.  But his words were words of coming together...figuring things out.  I read nothing racist in his words.  It sounded to me like a message of "nobody is perfect and we never will be, but we can strive to be closer to perfection than we are in this moment".  Its my opinion he was speaking of all races.  I see nothing racist in what he said. 

I've never thought he made any effort to be well-spoken. That's one of the reasons I don't care for the way he presents himself. When I hear him speak, it strikes me he's talking down to his audience. He's treating them like the only language they understand is street language. I give them more credit than that.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I couldn't agree more, mmhmm. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

And of course (now that the day of the funeral has come and gone) the greatest part of the "myth" that will not die, and the part of the myth that ties Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown together- is that there is an epidemic of White-on-black crime where white hispanics and cops are running around gunning down black youth for no other reason than they are black.

Of course the most serious threat to black youth is other black youth. By far.

And the reason this is news is precisely because it doesn't happen every day- it hardly happens at all. And of course in both the Zimmerman and Johnson cases- you have black youth of questionable actions at the time of their respective deaths.

If we're ever going to get past the racial divide in this country, the lamestream white-guilt, liberal elite media, and frankly the rest of us- are going to have to stop giving the small fringe "fuck the police" and "kill whitey" sub-culture in the black community so much attention, and to the extent they garner attention, it should be to illustrate the absurdity of some people the way the media occasionally covers some Klan march or animal rights whacko throwing paint on someone.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 25, 2014 22:47:42 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Aug 25, 2014 20:55:51 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I'll never say Rev. Sharpton is well-spoken...because he isn't.  But his words were words of coming together...figuring things out.  I read nothing racist in his words.  It sounded to me like a message of "nobody is perfect and we never will be, but we can strive to be closer to perfection than we are in this moment".  Its my opinion he was speaking of all races.  I see nothing racist in what he said. 

I've never thought he made any effort to be well-spoken. That's one of the reasons I don't care for the way he presents himself. When I hear him speak, it strikes me he's talking down to his audience. He's treating them like the only language they understand is street language. I give them more credit than that.

[EVT1]

Aug 25, 2014 22:41:54 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 25, 2014 22:13:06 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

A jury found OJ not guilty too- so what?  He's just a murderer that FL did not convict as far as I am concerned- no point in revisiting it.   In fact he would have been toast in most states.  He's a murderer sure as Joe Horn is a TX murderer- and TX didn't even indict him.  Lots of murderers out there that got away with it.  Forget that loser.

The issue is whether or not Wilson is a murderer- suffice it to say a shitload of people have made their minds up one way or the other.  

According to what I could find, Joe Horn isn't actually a murderer. Murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a life. Apparently the legal system found his life taking to be within the confines of the law.

You know exactly what I am saying.  Are you really going to be a moral relativist about it?   What he did was far worse than Zimmerman and he got a complete pass from the community.  What would you rather I call him?  Cold blooded killer? Neighborhood hero?  There are some people here that think he is.

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2014 1:15:58 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 25, 2014 22:41:54 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

According to what I could find, Joe Horn isn't actually a murderer. Murder is the ILLEGAL taking of a life. Apparently the legal system found his life taking to be within the confines of the law.

You know exactly what I am saying.  Are you really going to be a moral relativist about it?   What he did was far worse than Zimmerman and he got a complete pass from the community.  What would you rather I call him?  Cold blooded killer? Neighborhood hero?  There are some people here that think he is.

I prefer the term "realist"... as in one that deals in reality. Morality aside, his killing was deemed to not be in violation of the law. That's reality.

Morality and the law aren't always the same thing. That's reality.

Maybe this will help:



Was their deaths morally wrong? Probably (neither you nor I was there, so there's no 100% guarantee that we know ALL the facts).

[djAdvocate]

Aug 26, 2014 5:15:33 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 26, 2014 1:15:58 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

You know exactly what I am saying.  Are you really going to be a moral relativist about it?   What he did was far worse than Zimmerman and he got a complete pass from the community.  What would you rather I call him?  Cold blooded killer? Neighborhood hero?  There are some people here that think he is.

I prefer the term "realist"... as in one that deals in reality. Morality aside, his killing was deemed to not be in violation of the law. That's reality.

Morality and the law aren't always the same thing. That's reality.

Maybe this will help:



Was their deaths morally wrong? Probably (neither you nor I was there, so there's no 100% guarantee that we know ALL the facts).

what portion of the law exists outside of morality?

[resolution]

Aug 26, 2014 9:59:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 26, 2014 5:15:33 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I prefer the term "realist"... as in one that deals in reality. Morality aside, his killing was deemed to not be in violation of the law. That's reality.

Morality and the law aren't always the same thing. That's reality.

Maybe this will help:



Was their deaths morally wrong? Probably (neither you nor I was there, so there's no 100% guarantee that we know ALL the facts).

what portion of the law exists outside of morality?

Civil Forfeiture is a good starting point. www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/philadelphia-civil-forfeiture-class-action-lawsuit/

[djAdvocate]

Aug 26, 2014 11:03:12 GMT -5 resolution said:

Aug 26, 2014 9:59:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what portion of the law exists outside of morality?

Civil Forfeiture is a good starting point. www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/philadelphia-civil-forfeiture-class-action-lawsuit/

don't get me wrong.  i think anything that involves consent should be legal.  but are you saying that there is no moral framework for that law?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 23, 2014 9:57:40 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Real classy officer.  

Police officer brands Ferguson protesters 'rabid dogs'

A police officer in Missouri was suspended Friday after he voiced his contempt via Facebook of protesters condemning the fatal shooting of a black teenager by a white police officer.

The police department in Glendale, another St Louis suburb, said Friday it had suspended one of its officers who expressed contempt for the Ferguson protesters on his Facebook account.

Matthew Pappert was the latest police officer from the St Louis area in three days to be suspended for questionable conduct amid the Ferguson protests.

"I'm sick of these protesters. You are a burden on society and a blight on the community," wrote Pappert in one of at least five posts that went up since Sunday.

"These protesters should have been put down like a rabid dog the first night," he added.

In a reference to the Boston Marathon bombing, he also wrote: "Where is a Muslim with a backpack when you need them."

Police officer brands Ferguson protesters 'rabid dogs'

Yep. Gotta love government.  Notice it's "suspended" not fired- and it will probably never be fired.

[Green Eyed Lady]

He'll be fired.  It's semantics.  I'm pretty sure there is a process you have to go through to fire a police officer.  They can be fired immediately for some things - like law violations.  But this?  It's not that cut and dried.  He will be fired, but not until after all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.  It's just like someone being put on "administrative leave" or a "desk job".  They take them off the streets as an immediate response and then go to work on something more permanent. 

As far as his remarks, this is one of the main issues I have with the press.  He did not call or brand anybody a "rabid dog".  He did imply they were acting like rabid dogs, but that's not the same thing.  For example, if I tell my sister to quit acting like baby, I'm not calling her a baby but simply stating she acting like one.  Its the statement about the "Muslim with a backpack" that is way more offensive to me.

[resolution]

Aug 26, 2014 12:11:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 26, 2014 11:03:12 GMT -5 resolution said:

Civil Forfeiture is a good starting point. www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/08/26/philadelphia-civil-forfeiture-class-action-lawsuit/

don't get me wrong.  i think anything that involves consent should be legal.  but are you saying that there is no moral framework for that law?

It seems completely immoral to me that the police can confiscate money and property for their own use without having to charge the owner with any crime. There are quite a few examples of people stopped for speeding that had their vehicle searched and cash confiscated with no evidence of any crime and no charges ever filed.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 26, 2014 14:57:42 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

He'll be fired.  It's semantics.  I'm pretty sure there is a process you have to go through to fire a police officer.  They can be fired immediately for some things - like law violations.  But this?  It's not that cut and dried.  He will be fired, but not until after all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.  It's just like someone being put on "administrative leave" or a "desk job".  They take them off the streets as an immediate response and then go to work on something more permanent. 

As far as his remarks, this is one of the main issues I have with the press.  He did not call or brand anybody a "rabid dog".  He did imply they were acting like rabid dogs, but that's not the same thing.  For example, if I tell my sister to quit acting like baby, I'm not calling her a baby but simply stating she acting like one.  Its the statement about the "Muslim with a backpack" that is way more offensive to me.

I'm sick and tired of the "process".  Have you ever benefited from the "process" or do they just decide, for whatever reason, you're no longer needed and let you go?  It's time for AT WILL, NON-UNION public servants.  This person has expressed open, vicious contempt for his employer- THE PEOPLE.  Tell me where you can do that and stick around for some "process"?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 26, 2014 16:05:51 GMT -5 resolution said:

Aug 26, 2014 12:11:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

don't get me wrong.  i think anything that involves consent should be legal.  but are you saying that there is no moral framework for that law?

It seems completely immoral to me that the police can confiscate money and property for their own use without having to charge the owner with any crime. There are quite a few examples of people stopped for speeding that had their vehicle searched and cash confiscated with no evidence of any crime and no charges ever filed.

let me try again: i think this law should be stricken from the books.

but are you saying you can't find any moral reasoning behind it?

[Green Eyed Lady]

Aug 26, 2014 16:11:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 26, 2014 14:57:42 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

He'll be fired.  It's semantics.  I'm pretty sure there is a process you have to go through to fire a police officer.  They can be fired immediately for some things - like law violations.  But this?  It's not that cut and dried.  He will be fired, but not until after all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.  It's just like someone being put on "administrative leave" or a "desk job".  They take them off the streets as an immediate response and then go to work on something more permanent. 

As far as his remarks, this is one of the main issues I have with the press.  He did not call or brand anybody a "rabid dog".  He did imply they were acting like rabid dogs, but that's not the same thing.  For example, if I tell my sister to quit acting like baby, I'm not calling her a baby but simply stating she acting like one.  Its the statement about the "Muslim with a backpack" that is way more offensive to me.

I'm sick and tired of the "process".  Have you ever benefited from the "process" or do they just decide, for whatever reason, you're no longer needed and let you go?  It's time for AT WILL, NON-UNION public servants.  This person has expressed open, vicious contempt for his employer- THE PEOPLE.  Tell me where you can do that and stick around for some "process"?

I think the "process" started out as a good idea, but like many things, ended up not being so great in practice.  I don't disagree.

However, don't get me started on the "his employer - the people" stuff.  Makes me crazy and I already have a headache!    

[frankq]

The issue is whether or not Wilson is a murderer- suffice it to say a shitload of people have made their minds up one way or the other.

Of course they have and that's the real problem here. People are absolutely sure they know what happened, even though they haven't seen the facts of these cases and weren't there. Like I said...pure ignorance.

[mmhmm]

Aug 26, 2014 18:23:47 GMT -5 frankq said:

The issue is whether or not Wilson is a murderer- suffice it to say a shitload of people have made their minds up one way or the other.

Of course they have and that's the real problem here. People are absolute sure they know what happened, even though they haven't seen the facts of these cases and weren't there. Like I said...pure ignorance.

There have been a few who have said they don't have enough information to start pointing fingers. I'm one of them.

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2014 9:59:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 26, 2014 5:15:33 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I prefer the term "realist"... as in one that deals in reality. Morality aside, his killing was deemed to not be in violation of the law. That's reality.

Morality and the law aren't always the same thing. That's reality.

Maybe this will help:



Was their deaths morally wrong? Probably (neither you nor I was there, so there's no 100% guarantee that we know ALL the facts).

what portion of the law exists outside of morality?

That question probably should have it's own thread as generally as it's asked.

BUT.... as it relates to this specific topic of this specific thread... Some people believe that killing is wrong (immoral) for ANY reason... even self defense. The law states specifically that killing is legal in self defense or (in some states) as punishment for murder.

[resolution]

Aug 26, 2014 16:34:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 26, 2014 16:05:51 GMT -5 resolution said:

It seems completely immoral to me that the police can confiscate money and property for their own use without having to charge the owner with any crime. There are quite a few examples of people stopped for speeding that had their vehicle searched and cash confiscated with no evidence of any crime and no charges ever filed.

let me try again: i think this law should be stricken from the books.

but are you saying you can't find any moral reasoning behind it?

I find it to be immoral the way it is currently implemented, so in my view it would fall into the Law circle that is outside of the Morality circle.

No doubt some use the moral reasoning that if the money was the result of crime, it should be confiscated so that the criminal doesn't benefit. The law falls short by allowing police to confiscate money without due process and with no connection to crime.

RichardInTN had a more pertinent example that is more related to the thread.

[EVT1]

Aug 26, 2014 16:11:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 26, 2014 14:57:42 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

He'll be fired.  It's semantics.  I'm pretty sure there is a process you have to go through to fire a police officer.  They can be fired immediately for some things - like law violations.  But this?  It's not that cut and dried.  He will be fired, but not until after all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.  It's just like someone being put on "administrative leave" or a "desk job".  They take them off the streets as an immediate response and then go to work on something more permanent. 

As far as his remarks, this is one of the main issues I have with the press.  He did not call or brand anybody a "rabid dog".  He did imply they were acting like rabid dogs, but that's not the same thing.  For example, if I tell my sister to quit acting like baby, I'm not calling her a baby but simply stating she acting like one.  Its the statement about the "Muslim with a backpack" that is way more offensive to me.

I'm sick and tired of the "process".  Have you ever benefited from the "process" or do they just decide, for whatever reason, you're no longer needed and let you go?  It's time for AT WILL, NON-UNION public servants.  This person has expressed open, vicious contempt for his employer- THE PEOPLE.  Tell me where you can do that and stick around for some "process"?

Yep- the cops have a good union.  Funny a large lot of them are very right wing, but don't mess with their union.

If I said some shit like that on camera with a work uniform on or, really even if a higher up saw it, it would be termination on the spot.

But that last part was a firing level offense- wishing some terrorist would explode a bomb and kill people that are expressing their views, in their neighborhood, on their streets.  Nobody like that can remain in a public safety position.  The public is not 'the enemy', it is the boss. 

[EVT1]

Aug 26, 2014 18:37:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 26, 2014 9:59:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what portion of the law exists outside of morality?

That question probably should have it's own thread as generally as it's asked.

BUT.... as it relates to this specific topic of this specific thread... Some people believe that killing is wrong (immoral) for ANY reason... even self defense. The law states specifically that killing is legal in self defense or (in some states) as punishment for murder.

Who thinks killing is wrong in self-defense?  I have heard about zero people claim that in my life.

Might have to make a thread to discuss it- but take the Horn case- where someone exits their home with a shotgun with intent to shoot thieves before they get away, and does so in their backs- that is in no way is self-defense- that is murder- no matter what a bunch of TX assholes have to say about it. He got away with it because he shot some illegals committing a crime- judge, jury, executioner.  He wasn't defending anything other than a bag full of garbage our society thinks is worth something if it is pressed into fancy shapes. 

[Green Eyed Lady]

Aug 26, 2014 21:16:30 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 26, 2014 16:11:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I'm sick and tired of the "process".  Have you ever benefited from the "process" or do they just decide, for whatever reason, you're no longer needed and let you go?  It's time for AT WILL, NON-UNION public servants.  This person has expressed open, vicious contempt for his employer- THE PEOPLE.  Tell me where you can do that and stick around for some "process"?

Yep- the cops have a good union.  Funny a large lot of them are very right wing, but don't mess with their union.

If I said some shit like that on camera with a work uniform on or, really even if a higher up saw it, it would be termination on the spot.

But that last part was a firing level offense- wishing some terrorist would explode a bomb and kill people that are expressing their views, in their neighborhood, on their streets.  Nobody like that can remain in a public safety position.  The public is not 'the enemy', it is the boss. 

Actually, the public isn't the boss.  My boss is my boss.  According to that logic, only people who pay taxes are the boss?  What about those on welfare?  Do they not get to boss?  And do I get to boss them since I pay taxes that contribute to their welfare checks.   This stuff about, "I pay your salary." is a bunch of bologna.  I pay some of my salary, too, and I'm not my boss. 

[Deleted]

Aug 26, 2014 21:41:04 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 26, 2014 18:37:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

That question probably should have it's own thread as generally as it's asked.

BUT.... as it relates to this specific topic of this specific thread... Some people believe that killing is wrong (immoral) for ANY reason... even self defense. The law states specifically that killing is legal in self defense or (in some states) as punishment for murder.

Who thinks killing is wrong in self-defense?  I have heard about zero people claim that in my life.

Might have to make a thread to discuss it- but take the Horn case- where someone exits their home with a shotgun with intent to shoot thieves before they get away, and does so in their backs- that is in no way is self-defense- that is murder- no matter what a bunch of TX assholes have to say about it. He got away with it because he shot some illegals committing a crime- judge, jury, executioner.  He wasn't defending anything other than a bag full of garbage our society thinks is worth something if it is pressed into fancy shapes. 

I can't specifically name names, but it's a major belief of pacifism.

[EVT1]

Darwinism trumps pacifism.   People can try that 'turn the other cheek' shit if they want- as I child I believed that and learned quickly it was not going to work.  There may be times it is the prudent option but if this world teaches us anything your personal morals or values will not save you from the monsters.  I guess it is where we draw the line- if I run up on someone carting my TV out of my house- I am not going to shoot them- and the only thing I can be sure of is if I do shoot someone- it will be because I am in actual fear for my life. 

[Green Eyed Lady]

Aug 26, 2014 22:02:10 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Darwinism trumps pacifism.   People can try that 'turn the other cheek' shit if they want- as I child I believed that and learned quickly it was not going to work.  There may be times it is the prudent option but if this world teaches us anything your personal morals or values will not save you from the monsters.  I guess it is where we draw the line- if I run up on someone carting my TV out of my house- I am not going to shoot them- and the only thing I can be sure of is if I do shoot someone- it will be because I am in actual fear for my life. 

I pretty much agree with all of this.  I would never hurt anyone over a TV.  To me, it's not even a close call.  However...and there is a big "however"....if that person is entering my home and I don't KNOW that all he wants is my TV....he's in deep trouble.  It's an easy call to make when you know the outcome.  When you don't?  Not so much.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 26, 2014 18:37:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 26, 2014 9:59:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

what portion of the law exists outside of morality?

That question probably should have it's own thread as generally as it's asked.

agreed.  so should your Venn Diagram. 

BUT.... as it relates to this specific topic of this specific thread... Some people believe that killing is wrong (immoral) for ANY reason... even self defense. The law states specifically that killing is legal in self defense or (in some states) as punishment for murder.

there is the rub.  SOME people.  so, clearly, SOME people think that killing is RIGHT under some circumstances, right?

so, that would mean that the law is a reflection of the moral positions of SOME people.  personally, i think that is interesting.  don't you?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 26, 2014 21:41:04 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 26, 2014 18:37:38 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

That question probably should have it's own thread as generally as it's asked.

BUT.... as it relates to this specific topic of this specific thread... Some people believe that killing is wrong (immoral) for ANY reason... even self defense. The law states specifically that killing is legal in self defense or (in some states) as punishment for murder.

Who thinks killing is wrong in self-defense?

Jesus.  Gandhi.

next?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 26, 2014 21:44:55 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Aug 26, 2014 21:16:30 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Yep- the cops have a good union.  Funny a large lot of them are very right wing, but don't mess with their union.

If I said some shit like that on camera with a work uniform on or, really even if a higher up saw it, it would be termination on the spot.

But that last part was a firing level offense- wishing some terrorist would explode a bomb and kill people that are expressing their views, in their neighborhood, on their streets.  Nobody like that can remain in a public safety position.  The public is not 'the enemy', it is the boss. 

Actually, the public isn't the boss.  My boss is my boss.  According to that logic, only people who pay taxes are the boss?  What about those on welfare?  Do they not get to boss?  And do I get to boss them since I pay taxes that contribute to their welfare checks.   This stuff about, "I pay your salary." is a bunch of bologna.  I pay some of my salary, too, and I'm not my boss. 

GEL- you are a very good poster.  just wanted to say that, in case nobody else does.

[Green Eyed Lady]

That was very nice of you.  Thank you.  I enjoy our debates.  You are a gentleman even when you don't agree.