Active Users:373 Time:06/07/2025 02:33:12 PM
... was exactly that. - Edit 1

Before modification by Joel at 10/08/2015 09:46:22 AM


View original postBy refusing to be handcuffed for the crime he was committing he started the fight. Could they have arrested him less force? possibly but once the started to physically resist being arrested he was the one initiating violence.

PHYSICALLY GRABBING someone is not "initiating violence," but resisting the grab is? In terms of physical acts, which came first (i.e. was INITIAL)? In other terms, which was offensive, and which harmful? Trying to avoid physical captivity already initiated is "initiating violence"? The OED defines violence as "Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:" What such act did Garner EVER commit, "initially" or otherwise? He resisted such an act, but saying that justified additional ones is like a husband screaming, "WHY DO YOU MAKE ME HURT YOU?!" as he beats his wife to death.


View original post
View original postTamir Rice is totally innocent by virtue of being totally innocent: He did nothing wrong and the cops own video shows he made NO threatening movement, yet they opened fire so fast their squad car had not even stopped rolling. Then claimed they exited their vehicle and told Rice three times to raise his hands, only firing when they saw him reach into his waistband: Too bad NONE OF THAT BS ACTUALLY HAPPENED, as the cops own video shows. A 12-year-old can intentionally shoot someone, so his age would not automatically excuse him; his total innocence does. And yet: The murderers were acquitted, because they had badges.

Tamir Rice was a tragedy but he was lifting his shirt and the police had every reason to believe he was dangerous. How certain are you that the police did not use the PA system to tell him to put his hands up? You do know they have those right?

The chief said cops EXITED THE VEHICLE before warning Rice THREE TIMES, yet the video shows the car was still moving when the cop opened fire. How certain are you he warned the kid by PA outside the car THREE TIMES before it stopped moving? The video also shows he was shot BEFORE raising his shirt, which he did with BOTH hands (i.e. none was free to grab anything else.) All told, the video physically contradicts FIVE THINGS COPS SAID, including all their "justifications" for the shooting: Whom should we believe, the cops, or our lying eyes?


View original postThis case was tragedy which should and has been reviewed putting young officer in prison for making the wrong judgment in situation we the people asked him to risk him life by engaging a person he was told was an armed dangerous suspect would just be another tragedy. He was only out risking his life because we ask him to and now you want to tell that if he makes a mistake you will demand he go to prison? What makes that even more disgusting is the root of all this is racism and not the racism of the cops but the racism of the mob who wants to convict of of being white cop like all the white cops they hate.

Might as well start burning crosses and get a white hood.


The root of this particular case is probably the local force hiring a cop his academy instructor said was unfit to handle a firearm and probably always would be. But he was not legally incompetent even if emotionally so, and remains as legally liable for shooting any innocent person as everyone without a badge is. And outrage at a cop gunning down an innocent child does not make anyone a Klansmen ("inappropriate and emotionally charged words" indeed. )


View original post
View original postRodney Kings case has no conclusive evidence of why cops began beating him, but there is cause to believe he initiated it: But once a suspect is MOTIONLESS and UNCONSCIOUS, any threat he may have posed has ended, so clubbing him should too.
Sorry total BS. King never stopped trying to get up until the very end. More white cops sacrificed and the altar of he self hating beta male liberals who have never forgiven themselves for being born white and are to weak to accept the punishment they feel they are due and instead look for whipping boys to appease their guilt.

Trying to regain ones feet while being clubbed by a group of people is neither offensive nor threatening. Where was this "self-hating white beta male liberal" crap when I was defending the Confederate battle flag despite people (even a close friend) implying that automatically made me racist? This does not (or should not) have a darned thing to do with politics, but with morality and public safety, both of which are brutally violated by half a dozen cops brutally beaten an unarmed men nonstop for several minutes.


View original post
View original postTrayvon Martin was stalked and attacked but "stood his ground," as was his legal right in that state: So overcoming that attacker, getting on top of him and repeatedly slamming his head into the ground would have been equally legal and lethal had that attacker not shot Martin first. BOTH were legally entitled to kill each other the MOMENT that fight began, WHOEVER started it (and Zimmerman pursued Martin long enough to call the cops, end that call, then call back later.) So EITHER backing down short of the others unconsciousness or death would have invited his own legally justified death. Maybe LAPD should have beaten King in FL, where irrelevancies like neutralizing an attackers threat creates no duty to cease beating him. Stand Your Ground Laws: Escalating trivial fist fights to Mortal Kombat since 2005.™
I am not sure you got much the correct bedside the names. We don't know if Martin was casing house like Zimmerman stated but we do know he had been previously caught with burglary tools so the odds are not that long that he was doing what he was accused of.

As you say, we do not know either way, but the burden of proof is on his attacker to justify attacking him, and casing houses is not illegal even if Martin WAS doing it; it certainly does not justify phsyical assault.


View original postUsing inappropriate but emotionally charged words is sign of someone trying to hide from the reality that the facts don't support their argument. He was not stalked he was followed and we he noticed he was being followed by a "cracker" the young racist circled around and attacked the cracker.

Ooooh, Zimmerman "only" followed Martin through his neighborhood, continued after cops told him to stop, left his car and attacked him within sight of Martins house; STALKING is COMPLETELY different: How, exactly? Martin did not have to "circle around" and attack someone who had literally followed him all the way home; all he had to do was wait for Zimmerman to close in, which the record shows did not take long.


View original post I know the left wet themselves with how cute they thought they were being turning the stand your ground argument around but really they are the only ones impressed. First off it was the media not the defense who used that argument. Zimmerman was pinned to the ground so that law never applied and secondly it doesn't give the right to circle back and attack someone you don't like because if their color of their skin and certainly doesn't protect you from results of that decision. If the police had showed up before Martin was shot he would have been arrested and convicted of aggravated assault.

Why would Zimmerman being pinned to the ground make SYG any less applicable? Once Zimmerman attacked Martin, anything and everything Martin did in "self-defense" was legally justified, whether or not necessary to defense. That is, had Zimmerman lacked a gun and Martin bashed his skull to mush on the pavement, Florida law says that would have been 100% legal; he might have been arrested, as Zimmerman was, but just as assuredly never charged with a crime: Because he would not have committed one, "only" killed a man who was no longer a threat to him.


View original postWitness compared the beating he was giving Zimmerman to a UFC beat down. Zimmerman had wounds to his face and gashes on the back of his head where Martin was bouncing his skull off the concrete, the only wounds Martin had were from the bullet and the damage he did to his fist pounding on white crackers crazy enough to follow him.

Again: So what? All that proves is that Zimmerman is a lousy fighter; it certainly does not suggest MARTIN attacked anyone. Zimmerman stalking him for several minutes, continuing even after the operator told him to stop, and angrily muttering into his phone about "these assholes" DOES suggest Zimmerman attacked HIM. Inserting racial epithets into the mouth of a dead kid who cannot defend himself does not change that; that is another one of those "inappropriate and emotionally charged words." Frankly, calling slain children bigoted Klansmen in the false belief defaming them absent evidence exonerates their killers is reprehensible.


View original postMichael Brown was unarmed, distant and fleeing, so I must disagree with the Ferguson and DoJ conclusions the cops claim to feel threatened cannot be disproven. If Brown reached into his car and grabbed his gun, sure, he was threatened then: But not when Brown FLED. Sorry, when someone exits their vehicle and PURSUES another, they cannot plausible claim to feel "threatened."

Please support this or just admit you are full of shit. Seriously dude the physical evidence as well as all the credible eyewitness that Brown was not fleeing but coming back at the officer. It really isn't even close and believing otherwise puts your on the same level as holocaust deniers in terms of self induced ignorance to protect a deeply held prejudice.

Joel this argument is so stupid I have to suspect you are just trolling unless you really believe a police office does have not only the right but he responsibility to pursue a man who had just robbed a store and then attacked and attempted to disarm him. If you truly are that completely discounted from reality I suggestion getting meds and a good in patient program because of the many stupid argument I have seen on this issue that make them all seem rational.

Sure a cop is obligated to pursue a fleeing suspect: A cops BULLETS are not. Lethal force is only justified to resist lethal force; grammatically garbled ad hominems about my sanity cannot change that. If you think Brown fled from but then charged a cop who was already shooting at him, maybe I am not the one who needs meds.


View original post
View original post
And its corollary "Everyone from sleeping children to geriatric invalids can easily overpower people held to strict physical fitness standards, trained to not only defend themselves but SUBDUE OTHERS and armed with at LEAST two of their own forms of lethal force." Some recent examples:
I am on your side on all three of the examples you give (I actually referenced the third in another post on this thread), but the superior ability of one party in a fight does not justify his opponent, and restrict his right to win.


Another BS argument coming from the same people who claim police brutality when those other none lethal forces are used. It is really so hard to just see that in every media case the person hurt was the one whose poor decision lead them to this. Sorry I am not sure what your mommy our civics professor told but the first amendment does mean police have to take your verbal abuse and fighting them is not a heroic cause and sorry they they don't have to rick physical injury or death because your dumb ass decided to go down swinging. To many officers have been killed with their own weapon to allow that kind of idiocy to grow.


So... you are on my side in all three initial examples of my argument, but think it is BS? You said you live in Tyler, not Rusk, right? "... in every media case the person hurt was the one whose poor decision lead them to this"? Okay, hit me: What did "poor decision" did the SLEEPING CHILDREN maimed and killed by cops make that "led them to that"? Choosing to be born in a country so hopelessly divided along racial lines that NO ONE cares about INDISCRIMINATE police brutality except when they happen to share a particular victims race?

I will grant leftist cheerleaders this much: As much as it disgusts me to hear people say cops nearly killing infants and sticking the impoverished family with a million dollar medical bill is "not police brutality, because the cops admitted it," at least they do not automatically and INVARIABLY DEFEND CRIMINAL COPS just because of the victims race. Just as an exercise, are there ANY cases you unreservedly agree were police brutality against someone who happened to be black? Is the "liberal media" just consistently and inexplicably picking all the "worst victims" among blacks, despite unambiguously innocent ones? Or are blacks somehow just as inexplicably immune to the same brutality you concede cops have committed against whites?

Whatever your OWN political agenda obligates you to accept, yes, my "mommy" told me a great deal (but only within the very limited legally allowed extent) of what she learned working for both the Texas prison system and attorney generals office long enough to retire with full benefits. Race does not make a darned bit of difference except insofar as disproportionate minority poverty and common Southern racism allows immoral law enforcement officers an even freer hand to indulge the same sadism they just as gleefully inflict on white citizens when they can. Again, that does not implicate all nor even most officers: It simply necessitates far greater accountability for those who ARE complicit.


Return to message