Black Lives Matter leader declares war on police - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Blog articles about news and current events.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Blogosphere Rules.
#15100141
jimjam wrote:I wonder if trump pees in the shower.

That's where your mind goes?

ckaihatsu wrote:These political *assholes* would obviously rather *ignore* the legacy of slavery and racism, and pretend that a level-playing-field somehow exists today, while racist police murder and violence go on, year after year.

The police are doing what they've been trained and paid to do by the urban Democrat political machine. None of this would be happening if the Democrats in political control weren't making it so.

ckaihatsu wrote:The Democrats are always glad to play-along without making any substantive changes to actual government policy. Some *local* reforms have been done, but at the federal level there is *zilch*:

For the most part, Federal level reforms wouldn't make any difference, nor are their substantial complaints against the FBI or US Marshalls being excessively violent on a racial basis--probably, because they don't enforce state laws. Police are typically enforcing municipal ordinance authorized by state law, or state law or regulation.

ckaihatsu wrote:Well, at worst it's *bad politics*, but I also don't think you're grasping the overall *situation*. 1000 killings every year, 100% preventable, and disproportionately against people of color -- what are the *outlets* supposed to be to *change* this situation?

What makes you think there are thousands of killings by white police officers against blacks? Or are you referring to black-on-black violence?

ckaihatsu wrote:Anyone who bemoans property damage over the clockwork loss of life at the hands of killer cops has their priorities messed up, and they need to reprioritize.

Oh, so you do think the police are routinely killing black people. There were 250 killings last year of blacks by police, and a a small percentage of them were wrongful or unlawful acts by the police. For the most part, they get it right and are just doing what the political class has ordered, trained and paid them to do; and where it involves blacks being killed by police, the most dense clusters of that activity occurs where the urban Democrat political machine is dominant: Los Angeles, Atlanta, Washington DC, Dallas, Minneapolis, Detroit, Portland, Seattle, etc.

ckaihatsu wrote:Maybe those businesses can get government bailouts -- like the settlements given to the families of the victims -- without criminalizing such political protest acts, because it looks like the U.S. (federal) government still isn't going to do jack shit about this preventable loss of life.

Well they should get government bailouts. The government has destroyed small businesses with excessive and unnecessary lockdown orders and then withholding police protection while encouraging rioters.
#15100145
ckaihatsu wrote:Well, at worst it's *bad politics*, but I also don't think you're grasping the overall *situation*. 1000 killings every year, 100% preventable, and disproportionately against people of color -- what are the *outlets* supposed to be to *change* this situation?

Most of the murders of Blacks in America are due to Black on Black crimes and defunding the police is just going to make that worse. Actually the true figures show that more Whites are Killed by police than Blacks.

ckaihatsu wrote:Anyone who bemoans property damage over the clockwork loss of life at the hands of killer cops has their priorities messed up, and they need to reprioritize. Maybe those businesses can get government bailouts -- like the settlements given to the families of the victims -- without criminalizing such political protest acts, because it looks like the U.S. (federal) government still isn't going to do jack shit about this preventable loss of life.

I think *your* head is in the sand.

You can think what you want, but the truth is that practically all the police are good public servants that protect the rights of all our citizens, even their right to protest. However, that does not include destroying or stealing other people's property. And it certainly does not include the murdering of police and other innocent business owners that just want to protect their property.

Also all four police officers have been charge and will be tried in a court of law for the death of "Big" George Floyd. Then the family can bring a wrongful death lawsuit in a civil trial to gain a truck load of money as some compensation.
#15100165
blackjack21 wrote:That's where your mind goes?


:lol: Lighten up Jack! You take yourself way too seriously. Suit yourself and blather on about "neoconservatives" while I concern myself with more important issues like whether trump pees in the shower. I, personally, think he does. Do You? :lol:
#15100166
blackjack21 wrote:
That's where your mind goes?


blackjack21 wrote:
The police are doing what they've been trained and paid to do by the urban Democrat political machine. None of this would be happening if the Democrats in political control weren't making it so.



Yes, I said as much earlier in the thread:


ckaihatsu wrote:
The Democrats are always glad to play-along without making any substantive changes to actual government policy. Some *local* reforms have been done, but at the federal level there is *zilch*:




And within the CBC [Congressional Black Caucus] there is a split over how forcefully to respond — and how much lawmakers are willing to battle the powerful Fraternal Order of Police on legislation to address police brutality and legal immunity given to law enforcement officials. Moderate Democrats may not find that legislation worth tackling without a commitment that the Senate will take it up and produce a law.

[...]

“This is a vexing issue,” he [McConnell] said. “If we could have figured out exactly what to do, I think we’d have done it years ago.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/0 ... sts-296826



viewtopic.php?p=15099411#p15099411



---


blackjack21 wrote:
For the most part, Federal level reforms wouldn't make any difference, nor are their substantial complaints against the FBI or US Marshalls being excessively violent on a racial basis--probably, because they don't enforce state laws. Police are typically enforcing municipal ordinance authorized by state law, or state law or regulation.



Just add anti-police-brutality statutes to a resuscitated version of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965


blackjack21 wrote:
What makes you think there are thousands of killings by white police officers against blacks? Or are you referring to black-on-black violence?



Here's the issue at-hand:



In 2019, 1,004 people were shot and killed by police according to the Washington Post, whereas the Mapping Police Violence project counted 1,098 killed.[3][4][5]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_br ... ted_States



---


blackjack21 wrote:
Oh, so you do think the police are routinely killing black people. There were 250 killings last year of blacks by police, and a a small percentage of them were wrongful or unlawful acts by the police. For the most part, they get it right and are just doing what the political class has ordered, trained and paid them to do; and where it involves blacks being killed by police, the most dense clusters of that activity occurs where the urban Democrat political machine is dominant: Los Angeles, Atlanta, Washington DC, Dallas, Minneapolis, Detroit, Portland, Seattle, etc.



So, empirical data aside, does your politics have any inclination to *reducing* or *eliminating* this entirely *preventable* death toll, going-forward?


blackjack21 wrote:
Well they should get government bailouts. The government has destroyed small businesses with excessive and unnecessary lockdown orders and then withholding police protection while encouraging rioters.



Okay, I'll say let's *extend* that bailout to *everyone*, particularly those who are homeless and/or unemployed, or recently made homeless and/or unemployed by COVID-19.


Hindsite wrote:
Most of the murders of Blacks in America are due to Black on Black crimes and defunding the police is just going to make that worse. Actually the true figures show that more Whites are Killed by police than Blacks.



Yes, but blacks are *disproportionately* killed by the police.

What's *your* proposal for reducing or eliminating the death toll of those at the hands of killer cops?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Anyone who bemoans property damage over the clockwork loss of life at the hands of killer cops has their priorities messed up, and they need to reprioritize. Maybe those businesses can get government bailouts -- like the settlements given to the families of the victims -- without criminalizing such political protest acts, because it looks like the U.S. (federal) government still isn't going to do jack shit about this preventable loss of life.

I think *your* head is in the sand.



Hindsite wrote:
You can think what you want, but the truth is that practically all the police are good public servants that protect the rights of all our citizens, even their right to protest. However, that does not include destroying or stealing other people's property. And it certainly does not include the murdering of police and other innocent business owners that just want to protect their property.



I think you're going off-topic here -- what about the *thousands* who have been killed, entirely preventably? How do we stop this ongoing killer-cop body count?


Hindsite wrote:
Also all four police officers have been charge and will be tried in a court of law for the death of "Big" George Floyd. Then the family can bring a wrongful death lawsuit in a civil trial to gain a truck load of money as some compensation.



Oh, so you're satisfied with just addressing *one case* out of thousands, with more deaths on the horizon.
#15100170
jimjam wrote:
:lol: Lighten up Jack! You take yourself way too seriously. Suit yourself and blather on about "neoconservatives" while I concern myself with more important issues like whether trump pees in the shower. I, personally, think he does. Do You? :lol:



I think history will record that event as the crowning *high point* of Trump's presidency.
#15100204

One response to the demands of protesters was legislation aimed at police brutality and racial injustice introduced this week by Democrats.

The legislation is the most expansive effort in recent years to address national policing practices at a federal level. But it faces resistance from Republicans, police unions and some local officials.

The sweeping bill includes a ban on chokeholds and the creation of a National Police Misconduct Registry "to prevent problem officers from changing jurisdictions to avoid accountability," according to a summary document.

"Banning chokeholds will help save lives and reduce harm starting now," Lopez said. "It seems to me that is a no-brainer."

At least 20 US cities and municipalities are starting to ban or have banned the use of choke holds, according to tally by CNN.

Those cities include Philadelphia, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, Miami, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Minneapolis, New York City, Denver and Houston.



Lawmakers target 'qualified immunity'

The federal legislation would take aim at the legal doctrine known as "qualified immunity," which shields law enforcement from lawsuits alleging they violated the constitutional rights of people.

The 40-year-old doctrine shields officers and government officials from accountability, according to critics. Supporters argue that it protects an officer's ability to make a snap decision during potentially dangerous situations.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said ending qualified immunity is a top priority for Democrats in any bipartisan talks that could occur.



https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/us/georg ... index.html
#15100351
ckaihatsu wrote:What's *your* proposal for reducing or eliminating the death toll of those at the hands of killer cops?

I think you're going off-topic here -- what about the *thousands* who have been killed, entirely preventably? How do we stop this ongoing killer-cop body count?

Oh, so you're satisfied with just addressing *one case* out of thousands, with more deaths on the horizon.

I don't accept your assertion of "killer Cops" to begin with. At times some cops make a mistake in carrying out their duties to serve and protect the public. In those cases in which someone gets killed, an investigation should be started to determine what happened and if normal police procedures were followed or not. Since each case is usually different, all cases should not be lumped together. Each case should be taken individually.

I suggest that public service announcements be made over radio and television periodically to remind everyone how to act respectfully when confronted with a police office. Such things as obeying orders given by the police, not resisting arrest, and certainly no struggling or fighting with the police. I believe that would help in preventing future persons being killed by police.
#15100391
Hindsite wrote:
I don't accept your assertion of "killer Cops" to begin with. At times some cops make a mistake in carrying out their duties to serve and protect the public. In those cases in which someone gets killed, an investigation should be started to determine what happened and if normal police procedures were followed or not. Since each case is usually different, all cases should not be lumped together. Each case should be taken individually.



But cops are just merely the functionaries of the *state*, so if we see a *pattern* of systemic racist police violence and killings then we can conclude that the government is allowing too many 'mistakes' on the part of its personnel. The government needs to change the policies that it uses for the operations of its police, so as to minimize / eliminate all of these killings, or else it should just admit that it *can't* fix this situation, for whatever reason, and should defund and disband this institution / department.


Hindsite wrote:
I suggest that public service announcements be made over radio and television periodically to remind everyone how to act respectfully when confronted with a police office. Such things as obeying orders given by the police, not resisting arrest, and certainly no struggling or fighting with the police. I believe that would help in preventing future persons being killed by police.



At the same time people don't need to be *subservient* to police officers because they don't automatically give up their civil rights just by *interacting* with cops. Cops should be trained to understand this, and that not every act of resistance or avoidance is automatically somehow a physical 'threat' that requires the use of deadly violence. Think of all the people who have been fatally shot *in the back*, meaning that they were physically moving *away* from the cops when they were killed by cops. Cops who kill = killer cops.
#15100616
ckaihatsu wrote:But cops are just merely the functionaries of the *state*, so if we see a *pattern* of systemic racist police violence and killings then we can conclude that the government is allowing too many 'mistakes' on the part of its personnel. The government needs to change the policies that it uses for the operations of its police, so as to minimize / eliminate all of these killings, or else it should just admit that it *can't* fix this situation, for whatever reason, and should defund and disband this institution / department.

Any government state needs to maintain law and order to prevent anarchy and to provide safety and security for the citizens of such state. I am not arguing that government policies can't be improved, but I do not accept the idea that we should defund and disband the Police or that that the majority of police are racist or killer cops..

ckaihatsu wrote:At the same time people don't need to be *subservient* to police officers because they don't automatically give up their civil rights just by *interacting* with cops. Cops should be trained to understand this, and that not every act of resistance or avoidance is automatically somehow a physical 'threat' that requires the use of deadly violence. Think of all the people who have been fatally shot *in the back*, meaning that they were physically moving *away* from the cops when they were killed by cops. Cops who kill = killer cops.

No one has asked for people to give up their civil rights, because that is why we have the judicial system of courts. However, when one is suspected of disobeying the laws by the police, they should cooperate with the police to insure they have the opportunity to assert their rights in a court of law. By using violence against the police, they should be prepared for a bad outcome. Taking an officers weapon and then shooting at the police while running away does not insure that the police will not shoot back. The goal of the citizen should be to stay alive to be able so assert those civil rights in the justice system. The best way to do that is to fully comply with the demands of law enforcement officers. Those that died refused to do that.
#15100719
Hindsite wrote:
Any government state needs to maintain law and order to prevent anarchy and to provide safety and security for the citizens of such state. I am not arguing that government policies can't be improved, but I do not accept the idea that we should defund and disband the Police or that that the majority of police are racist or killer cops..



Oh, so you'd rather see 1000+ killings of innocent people, by cops, every year, than to proactively address how to *stop* these entirely preventable killings.

Remember, the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again while expecting different results.


Hindsite wrote:
No one has asked for people to give up their civil rights, because that is why we have the judicial system of courts. However, when one is suspected of disobeying the laws by the police, they should cooperate with the police to insure they have the opportunity to assert their rights in a court of law. By using violence against the police, they should be prepared for a bad outcome. Taking an officers weapon and then shooting at the police while running away does not insure that the police will not shoot back. The goal of the citizen should be to stay alive to be able so assert those civil rights in the justice system. The best way to do that is to fully comply with the demands of law enforcement officers. Those that died refused to do that.



That's rather *glib*. I'll let *you* be the one to tell people this message of yours, but what's more at-issue here is the pattern of killings that *I* described, where someone is *running away* from cops and they get shot *in the back* by that cop, killing them.

Would you like to address *this* circumstance, with the aim of addressing *this kind* of killer-cop behavior, or do you think that this kind of violent and murderous police response is somehow appropriate?
#15100799
ckaihatsu wrote:Oh, so you'd rather see 1000+ killings of innocent people, by cops, every year, than to proactively address how to *stop* these entirely preventable killings.

Remember, the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again while expecting different results.

I believe you are exaggerating. Most of the people killed by police are only innocent because they were not proven guilty in a court of law. But outlaws have often been killed in the past by Peace Officers, because they refused to surrender.

ckaihatsu wrote:That's rather *glib*. I'll let *you* be the one to tell people this message of yours, but what's more at-issue here is the pattern of killings that *I* described, where someone is *running away* from cops and they get shot *in the back* by that cop, killing them.

Would you like to address *this* circumstance, with the aim of addressing *this kind* of killer-cop behavior, or do you think that this kind of violent and murderous police response is somehow appropriate?

In my own personal opinion, it appears to be appropriate under the circumstances. However, we will have to see what happens, since it may or may not be part of police procedures. I have never been a police officer, so it is difficult for me to judge what should be the correct action, according to the current police procedures. I have heard former police officers say that the fleeing suspect, besides being DUI, committed a couple felonies and was at fault, not the police officers, who were doing their duty.
#15100873
Hindsite wrote:
I believe you are exaggerating. Most of the people killed by police are only innocent because they were not proven guilty in a court of law. But outlaws have often been killed in the past by Peace Officers, because they refused to surrender.



Astounding -- so, because of your anecdote here, you're going to *ignore* the larger issue of 1000+ deaths per year at the hands of cops.

You're giving the *legal* and *functional* definition of 'innocent', which is the *working* definition that the state goes by, meaning 'not proven guilty'.

At *this* point, HS, I have to ask you: What warrants someone being summarily killed by a cop?

You set the bar *very* low, implying that if someone innocent / not-proven-guilty is simply *running away* from a cop, it's justified for them to be killed on-the-spot. Astounding.


Hindsite wrote:
In my own personal opinion, it appears to be appropriate under the circumstances. However, we will have to see what happens, since it may or may not be part of police procedures. I have never been a police officer, so it is difficult for me to judge what should be the correct action, according to the current police procedures. I have heard former police officers say that the fleeing suspect, besides being DUI, committed a couple felonies and was at fault, not the police officers, who were doing their duty.



So, according to you, a fleeing suspect with a DUI and a couple of felonies on their record is eligible for *summary execution*. You *really* think this is *appropriate*, and serves the public's interest for justice?
#15100981
ckaihatsu wrote:So, according to you, a fleeing suspect with a DUI and a couple of felonies on their record is eligible for *summary execution*. You *really* think this is *appropriate*, and serves the public's interest for justice?

As I understand it, Rayshard Brooks was on probation when he was found asleep and intoxicated at a Wendy’s drive-thru, and he probably feared going back to prison if he ended up being charged with DUI, which may explain why he assaulted the officers, took an officer's stun gun, and tried to make a run for it when police tried to arrest him. But that is still not a good excuse for his actions which led to his death when he fired the taser stun gun at an officer's head while fleeing. Lucky for the officer, the bastard missed.

Rayshard Brooks was tried in Clayton County and sentenced to seven years on the first count, with one year in prison and six on probation and 12 months for each of the other three counts.

A criminal on the run with a stun gun, which is considered under Georgia law to be a deadly weapon, was definitely a danger to anyone in the area, as well as society in general. With the flash and the bang from the taser stun gun that could have been mistaken for a firearm, the Police officer could have also believed that the fleeing suspect had another firearm, since they might not have searched him, from what I saw, before trying to handcuff the son of a bitch.

Yes I *really* think this is *appropriate*, and serves the public's interest for justice. What I don't think serves the public's interest for justice is for the police officers to be charged with any crime. This defintely appears to be a rush to judgment by the Black District Attorney because a White cop killed a Black person.
#15100993
My black friends treat me as an equal and tell stories of how they were called n***** from their first days at school in Southern red neck land. I find it somewhat disingenuous how distraught white boys are when they encounter black rage. Black humans were once harvested in Africa not unlike lumber, stashed in putrid quarters on ships, sent to America's burgeoning confederacy to be sold at auction like chord wood to the highest bidder. I doubt this disgusting behavior can ever be forgiven and forgotten …….. think about it. You reap what you sow Whittie.
#15101002
jimjam wrote:My black friends treat me as an equal and tell stories of how they were called n***** from their first days at school in Southern red neck land. I find it somewhat disingenuous how distraught white boys are when they encounter black rage. Black humans were once harvested in Africa not unlike lumber, stashed in putrid quarters on ships, sent to America's burgeoning confederacy to be sold at auction like chord wood to the highest bidder. I doubt this disgusting behavior can ever be forgiven and forgotten …….. think about it. You reap what you sow Whittie.


Feel better? Because that's what that's all about, right?

If we don't start forgiving, the cycle continues until it's an endless war of all against all.
#15101012
annatar1914 wrote:If we don't start forgiving, the cycle continues until it's an endless war of all against all.


Forgiving only works when most sides who can make a difference agree to do so. Otherwise, one side "forgiving" will be seen as a sign of weakness, and annihilation would follow.
#15101014
Patrickov wrote:Forgiving only works when most sides who can make a difference agree to do so. Otherwise, one side "forgiving" will be seen as a sign of weakness, and annihilation would follow.


To forgive and be forgiven isn't a call for suicide or pathetic virtue signaling (which often lacks in virtue), or ignoring the past history. It's about treating each other as human beings and resolving to try to do better in the future. If one side isn't willing to let go of the conflicts despite the other willing to talk about resolving the strife, than it is what it is, and one's life can go on without guilt and with a clear conscience.
#15101019
annatar1914 wrote:To forgive and be forgiven isn't a call for suicide or pathetic virtue signaling (which often lacks in virtue), or ignoring the past history. It's about treating each other as human beings and resolving to try to do better in the future.


Maybe it's just me who don't categorise the above as "forgiving", but I'd like to know if Member jimjam was also posting the word "forgive" with a different meaning from the above.
#15101029
jimjam wrote:My black friends treat me as an equal and tell stories of how they were called n***** from their first days at school in Southern red neck land. I find it somewhat disingenuous how distraught white boys are when they encounter black rage. Black humans were once harvested in Africa not unlike lumber, stashed in putrid quarters on ships, sent to America's burgeoning confederacy to be sold at auction like chord wood to the highest bidder. I doubt this disgusting behavior can ever be forgiven and forgotten …….. think about it. You reap what you sow Whittie.

More whites brought as slaves to North Africa than blacks to US

About slavery, do our mostly left-wing educators teach that slavery was not unique to America and is as old as humankind? As economist and author Thomas Sowell says:

“More whites were brought as slaves to North Africa than blacks brought as slaves to the United States or to the 13 colonies from which it was formed. White slaves were still being bought and sold in the Ottoman Empire, decades after blacks were freed in the United States.”

More whites brought as slaves to North Africa than blacks to US: Many truly forget history. In Africa, the slave trade was driven by indigenous Africans and Arabs centuries before the European got involved.

The African tribes were, as still today, divided in tribal structures.

At the time, they were sharply divided and fought each other, the victor taking slaves from the other tribe.

These slaves were then sold to the Muslim Arabs. Only later, the Europeans began travelling to Africa. It is, of course, a well-known historical fact.

The Arabs took the black slaves sold to them by other black Africans, out to the coast. For centuries, the slaves were brought to the Muslim Middle East.

Only later, as the need for cotton labour intensified in the Americas, the white man joined in on the trade and began buying slaves from the Arabs, who had been to the interior of Africa and bought them there.

https://www.hannenabintuherland.com/usa ... nd-report/

The White Slaves of Barbary North Africa and the Ottoman Empire

Hundreds of thousands of Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves in North Africa and the Ottoman Empire between the 16th and 19th centuries. These slave raids were conducted largely by Arabs and Berbers rather than Ottoman Turks. However, during the height of the Barbary slave trade in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Barbary states were subject to Ottoman jurisdiction and ruled by Ottoman pashas. Furthermore, many slaves captured by the Barbary corsairs were sold eastward into Ottoman territories before, during, and after Barbary’s period of Ottoman rule.

Circassians, Syrians and Nubians were the three primary races of females who were sold as sex slaves in the Ottoman Empire. Circassian girls were described as fair, light skinned and were frequently sent by the Circassian leaders as gifts to the Ottomans.

The Barbary Muslim pirates kidnapped Europeans from ships in North Africa’s coastal waters (Barbary Coast). They also attacked and pillaged the Atlantic coastal fishing villages and town in Europe, enslaving the inhabitants. Villages and towns on the coast of Italy, Spain, Portugal and France were the hardest hit. Muslim slave-raiders also seized people as far afield as Britain, Ireland and Iceland.

Turgut Reis, a Turkish pirate chief, ransacked the coastal settlements of Granada (Spain) in 1663 and carried away 4,000 people as slaves. In 1625, Barbary pirates captured the Lund Island in the Bristol Channel and planted the standard of Islam. From this base, they went ransacking and pillaging surrounding villages and towns, causing a stunning spectacle of mayhem, slaughter and plunder. According to Milton, ‘Day after day, they struck at unarmed fishing communities, seizing the inhabitants, and burning their homes. By the end of the dreadful summer of 1625, the mayor of Plymouth reckoned that 1,000 skiffs had been destroyed and similar number of villagers carried off into slavery. Between 1609 and 1616, the Barbary pirates ‘captured a staggering 466 English trading ships.’

In 1627, Pirates went on a pillaging and enslaving campaign to Iceland. After dropping anchor at Reykjavik, his forces ransacked the town and returned with 400 men, women and children and sold them in Algiers. In 1631, he made a voyage with a brigand of 200 pirates to the coast of Southern Ireland and ransacked and pillaged the village of Baltimore, carrying away 237 men, women and children to Algiers.

http://www.renegadetribune.com/the-whit ... an-empire/

What interests are those? He is an honorary US […]

If anyone wants to show an example of the IDF and […]

The tail has been wagging the dog.. Israel is a[…]

Candace Owens

She has, and to add gravitas to what she has said[…]