Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Standing during the Pledge or National Anthem


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

I don't know how I can make it any more clearer for you, man.

The police shootings wouldn't be HAPPENING, if people could follow the officer's instructions. 

And like I said, this even pertains to the cases such as in Tulsa and Officer Slager (think that's right) in SC, where the police shootings were unjustified. In other words, if Crutcher doesn't idiotically walk back towards his SUV (when he's given commands not to) and reach towards his vehicle, then there would have BEEN no shooting. Likewise in SC, if the suspect didn't start running away from Officer Slager, then, at worst, he's arrested. 

Yes, because instead of calling in for more back-up and chasing after a man that isn't exactly The Flash shouldn't be the first option over shooting him multiple times in the back.  Should everyone obey police orders?  Sure, but not everyone does.  And if they aren't a threat, they definitely shouldn't be shot for running away.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

I don't know how I can make it any more clearer for you, man.

The police shootings wouldn't be HAPPENING, if people could follow the officer's instructions. 

And like I said, this even pertains to the cases such as in Tulsa and Officer Slager (think that's right) in SC, where the police shootings were unjustified. In other words, if Crutcher doesn't idiotically walk back towards his SUV (when he's given commands not to) and reach towards his vehicle, then there would have BEEN no shooting. Likewise in SC, if the suspect didn't start running away from Officer Slager, then, at worst, he's arrested. 

"Do what I say and I won't murder you."

Seems reasonable.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

Yes, because instead of calling in for more back-up and chasing after a man that isn't exactly The Flash shouldn't be the first option over shooting him multiple times in the back.  Should everyone obey police orders?  Sure, but not everyone does.  And if they aren't a threat, they definitely shouldn't be shot for running away.  

 

I guess you missed the part where I said the shooting in SC was "unjustified"?

And again, you're making excuses for a criminal, while also missing the entire point I'm making 

The pro-criminal side refuses to accept that the actions of the people they're defending directly LED to their death. There's never any accountability. Ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

I don't know how I can make it any more clearer for you, man.

The police shootings wouldn't be HAPPENING, if people could follow the officer's instructions. 

And like I said, this even pertains to the cases such as in Tulsa and Officer Slager (think that's right) in SC, where the police shootings were unjustified. In other words, if Crutcher doesn't idiotically walk back towards his SUV (when he's given commands not to) and reach towards his vehicle, then there would have BEEN no shooting. Likewise in SC, if the suspect didn't start running away from Officer Slager, then, at worst, he's arrested. 

Your opinion is so simplistic and narrow-minded that I really think there's no hope for you when discussing this topic. 

1 minute ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

I guess you missed the part where I said the shooting in SC was "unjustified"?

And again, you're making excuses for a criminal, while also missing the entire point I'm making 

The pro-criminal side refuses to accept that the actions of the people they're defending directly LED to their death. There's never any accountability. Ever.

You saying their "unjustified" does nothing to dispel the notion that you've been suggesting all along about the officer/civilian dynamic.  You've been doing nothing but victim blaming from the jump and it's pathetic.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

I guess you missed the part where I said the shooting in SC was "unjustified"?

And again, you're making excuses for a criminal, while also missing the entire point I'm making 

The pro-criminal side refuses to accept that the actions of the people they're defending directly LED to their death. There's never any accountability. Ever.

If the suspect murdered the police officer instead of not complying with every order immediately, I doubt people would be "making excuses".

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

So stating facts is now "victim blaming".:rolleyes:

What facts?  Aware me.  Thanks. 

With Crutcher, you ARE justifying the shooting by saying that if he had not gone back towards his vehicle, etc.  This man was INNOCENT and unarmed.  But keep trying to move the goal posts with whatever point and passive aggressive statement you're trying to make. 

You've shown yourself, bud.  Over and over. 

Edited by RonArtest15
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ray-Ban Dan said:

I guess you missed the part where I said the shooting in SC was "unjustified"?

And again, you're making excuses for a criminal, while also missing the entire point I'm making 

The pro-criminal side refuses to accept that the actions of the people they're defending directly LED to their death. There's never any accountability. Ever.

No, I read that.  It's irrelevant because while you acknowledge it's unjustified, you still come across as blaming the victim, imo.  Criminals still have rights, whether you agree with that or not.  And I'm sure one of their rights is not to be shot in the back by law enforcement when they are unarmed and running away and clearly no longer presenting a threat.

I'm not pro-criminal either.  I'm anti-death in cases where deadly force could clearly be avoided and the case in SC was one of them.  He should be held accountable for his crimes.  He added more crimes when he resisted arrest, assaulted the officer (fight/struggle with the taser).  He did not get to be held accountable for all of his crimes because he was shot in the back.

The officer could have just as easily called for back-up and tried to continue to pursue him.  Caught him at a later date/time.  His actions (running/fleeing) should not have resulted in death.  Again, should everyone follow police/law enforcement orders/instructions, YES, 100% they should.  But some won't and those that are no longer a threat, shouldn't be killed over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

So stating facts is now "victim blaming".:rolleyes:

Considering the officer had no problem with pulling out his gun and shooting an unarmed man in the back that was running away from him, there is no guarantee that he would still be alive had he stopped and not tried to flee.  It's not a "fact" that he would still be alive.  

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to clear a couple things up on the Scott/Slager shooting:  

- there is no evidence Scott ever went for Slager's taser. 

- Slager tazed Scott at some point. 

- After shooting Scott, Slager planted his taser near Scott's dying body to reinforce the lie he eventually told, that Scott had taken his taser and was running away with it. 

- Slager is just as much a criminal, or more, than Scott was.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

Just want to clear a couple things up on the Scott/Slager shooting:  

- there is no evidence Scott ever went for Slager's taser. 

- Slager tazed Scott at some point. 

- After shooting Scott, Slager planted his taser near Scott's dying body to reinforce the lie he eventually told, that Scott had taken his taser and was running away with it. 

- Slager is just as much a criminal, or more, than Scott was.  

I was just referring to that incident where they were struggling and you see a taser had been deployed and used.  Not indicating that Scott went for the taser.  IIRC in the video it picked up in the middle of the struggle where you could see the wire and taser gun with Scott breaking free and running away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth mentioning again - the rights of the police are also limited. Both the governments (fed,state, local) AND the court systems within have seen to that. 

Additionally I think that believing that these shootings would stop if every suspect complied with the officer's orders is both overly simplistic and extremely myopic to the individual shootings.  Plus, it's impossible to prove. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

In most of these cases,that has nothing to do with it. Like I said, if folks would follow instructions, these things wouldn't be happening. The truth hurts, I know.

man, you have no idea what you talking about.

4 hours ago, tshile said:

i find it interesting the ratings issue is being blamed on this...

i think there's something else going on.

people are dropping ESPN from their package in droves and it's not because of this.

there's been an idea going around that the NFL has peaked (in terms of ratings/ad revenue/interest.) the NFL itself has shown they saw a problem a few years ago when they started courting women (they've taped out the men market)

almost everywhere you look people dislike the direction the league is going on, people hate the commissioner, people are getting fed up with expensive TV packages and doing everything they can to drop them. season ticket/game attendance is down across the league.

just seems like something else is going on.

The NFL peaked after the Seattle/Green Bay incident, imo. Every bad thing that was taking place in the league showed itself that day.

I honestly believe its going to trend downward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I honestly believe its going to trend downward.

Maybe.

I'm hesitant to declare the NFL on the decline, because damn near anything could change that. The right team(s) become dominate, a few awesome prime time games, and they'd be back where they started (minus the ratings hit from the ESPN subscriber issue.)

If things actually got to the point where they noticed a trend they'll make changes. new commissioner, role back some rule changes, etc. I'd be on them figuring out a way.

The real interesting issue is with cord-cutters, because the NFL locked into a 10 year agreement on the TV deal right after the CBA and it prohibits them from providing a streaming service (a la MLB, who has a great service imo.) So they basically put themselves years away from being able to fight the cord cutting. The TV networks have paid their money, so financially it hurts the TV networks not the NFL, but bad ratings easy turns into a black mark on the league (see this article and its affect already) and at some point they'll start to care. Especially as they near time for a new TV deal.

I would welcome it. A decrease in attendance and TV ratings is probably the only thing that can cause a course correction for the league (I hate the morality police, the change the rules to encourage offense/scoring, the TNF every week, and quite a few other things this commissioner has had happen under his watch.)

Edited by tshile
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

I was just referring to that incident where they were struggling and you see a taser had been deployed and used.  Not indicating that Scott went for the taser.  IIRC in the video it picked up in the middle of the struggle where you could see the wire and taser gun with Scott breaking free and running away.

Understood. I just remembered there being a lot of confusion and argument in here about what happened prior to Slager shooting back when it just happened and we all saw the cellphone video. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

It's worth mentioning again - the rights of the police are also limited. Both the governments (fed,state, local) AND the court systems within have seen to that. 

Additionally I think that believing that these shootings would stop if every suspect complied with the officer's orders is both overly simplistic and extremely myopic to the individual shootings.  Plus, it's impossible to prove. 

 

They wouldn't stop completely, but I believe their numbers would go down.

It's also impossible to prove that they would have been shot, if they had followed officers instructions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

No, I read that.  It's irrelevant because while you acknowledge it's unjustified, you still come across as blaming the victim, imo.  Criminals still have rights, whether you agree with that or not.  And I'm sure one of their rights is not to be shot in the back by law enforcement when they are unarmed and running away and clearly no longer presenting a threat.

I'm not pro-criminal either.  I'm anti-death in cases where deadly force could clearly be avoided and the case in SC was one of them.  He should be held accountable for his crimes.  He added more crimes when he resisted arrest, assaulted the officer (fight/struggle with the taser).  He did not get to be held accountable for all of his crimes because he was shot in the back.

The officer could have just as easily called for back-up and tried to continue to pursue him.  Caught him at a later date/time.  His actions (running/fleeing) should not have resulted in death.  Again, should everyone follow police/law enforcement orders/instructions, YES, 100% they should.  But some won't and those that are no longer a threat, shouldn't be killed over it.

Again, I'm only saying in this case that the victim would still be alive had he followed instructions. That's not justifying the shooting in any way. Or "victim-blaming". It's stating a fact. A fact that is indisputable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

Again, I'm only saying in this case that the victim would still be alive had he followed instructions. That's not justifying the shooting in any way. Or "victim-blaming". It's stating a fact. A fact that is indisputable.

You can assume that they would still be alive had they not fled or had the other man not moved to his car door (with the windows up).  But that is all you can do is "assume", it is not a fact that they wouldn't have been shot had they listened.  

It's also, not a fact that they would have been shot regardless of obeying police instruction, but you are ignoring the fact that law enforcement has used excessive or deadly force wrongfully or after the person submitted in other cases.  

Statistically, black people are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement that white people.  There is a fact for you.  

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

Statistically, black people are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by law enforcement that white people.  There is a fact for you.  

But what does that statistic mean?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point being missed here, is that even if a suspect does not comply they still don't deserve to be shot in most cases.  Resisting arrest is not grounds for shooting a suspect.

 

You'll probably find many cases where the suspect was fatally shot after running, resisting, or not complying with orders.  Many of the times, the officers will draw weapons and then shoot with little protocol for other de-escalation.  That's the problem.  It should be protocol to simply let the suspect go before shooting them dead.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tshile said:

But what does that statistic mean?

 

Exactly what it states.  If you are black and have a run in with law enforcement that you are 2.5 times more likely to be killed than you would if you were white.  

I think @youngchew 's video he posted a while back, the experiment where they had a white male walk down the street with an AR-15 and how local law enforcement responded vs. a black male doing the same thing and how local law enforcement responded, pretty much sums it up.

 

 

 

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

Exactly what it states.  If you are black and have a run in with law enforcement that you are 2.5 times more likely to be killed than you would if you were white.

 

 

That doesn't mean anything thought.

It's a statistic with no context what so ever. You're using it to say that the color of skin is the factor, but that's not what the statistic says.

There's correlation and there's causation. When I ask what it means, and you reply with "Exactly what it states", I can't help but wonder if you understand that or not. Because that's not the answer.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...