Summations Only

Which parts were incorrect?

Which parts were incorrect? You didn't give a single fact related to these cases, it was all hypothetical. Do you even KNOW a single fact related to these cases, have you read ANY of it? Do you know what the grand jury in the case of Michael Brown discovered from the witnesses? Compare that to the lies that they are marching in the streets about. When you have a fact or two let me know.

So you cannot tell me which parts were incorrect?I wasn't discussing facts related to these cases. I was explaining to you what the "Black Lives Matter" charge actually means.You've misunderstood their message. I was trying to help you understand it.

When you say 'they' who do you mean? Everyone who is black? Is that even remotely like the comment that I labelled racist? Or was it your blanket statement about what the black community cares about that I called you out on? Why is it during your complaints that you don't repeat that statement but instead drag about a bunch of other stuff that I did not object to.It's because you're not a martyr for truth or some kind of anti-PC warrior. You're a liar who is pretending to be the offended party. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"Everyone who is black?" What is the matter with you? Bad case of PC, really bad. No, all the protestors who are marching because they think the cops killed people because they are racist.\Here's a NICE story as an antidote to this mess: cop helps shoplifter

What's the matter with me? Nothing.When you say the 'black community' you do indeed refer to 'everyone' who is black. At this point I've given you every opportunity to defend or explain your racist remark and you just ducked yet another. I recall a similar inability to face a post in which you called all non-American ebola victims 'people who cannot help anybody' despite the fact that most of the care workers who died were African.

Your complete lack of self awareness continues to astound me.

On the other hand, your contentless ad hominems don't surprise me at all.

I was referring to the protestors who have been given a lie about what happened. You seem to have confounded different things I said with each other.

You assume the cops committed a crime because you haven't bothered to check the facts. The protestors believe they committed a crime because they are buying the lies too. The cops committed no crimes, which you would know if you did check the facts. Brown, Garner, Rice, check the facts. I've spelled out the situations here, too bad you aren't interested in knowing anything about the reality.

Just saw this. Of course you misread that too, par for the course here, anything to accuse me of something it seems, even if you do it unconsciously. The discussion was about who should get the experimental drug they had in very small quantities, and my opinion was that the care workers should get it. I said nothing about race, you added that on your own. There were plenty of black care workers who would have qualified for it and I said nothing to exclude them, I even had them in mind when I said what I said, but of course you would reach for the most evil construction on what I said.PC can practically be defined by the effort to find racism in somebody's opinion. Or homophobia, or xenophobia or any of the PC hot button accusations. In most cases it needs to be invented, but there seem to be many here who are very good at that. Take words out of context, or just don't stop and think, go with the first evil thought you have.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm going to answer this post after all.. They would if he had committed a crime. but you seem to be having a terrible time distinguishing the contexts here. The cop didn't commit murder as you are assuming, he killed someone in the performance of his duty. Yet you treat the criminal act and the cop's act as identical. This is the whole problem here. In the cases discussed here two of them were terrible accidents, not crimes, not racism, accidents, and this is clear enough from the known facts that a trial hardly seems warranted. If some kind of negligence was involved, make your case, but as I've watched the videotapes and heard the facts I don't see it. Nevertheless negligence is not racism and it is not criminal intent. If it's prosecutable, then it should be prosecuted, but I haven't seen anything yet that makes that case.The other case was clearly the cop's acting in self-defense, yet you and the protestors seem to be treating this big thug of a black guy, who had just robbed a convenience store, as some kind of innocent victim. When the cop came to arrest him, he reached into the police car and tried to take the cop's gun, got shot in the arm in the attempt, then he walked away as the cop was trying to arrest him, then lunged at the cop and got himself shot. If there is some room for interpreting the facts differently there is not a lot of room. Yet the protestors have bought the lie that Michael Brown was the innocent victim of racism, and you are supporting that lie. Except, as I said, if you had learned some of the facts of the cases here, what was presented to the grand jury in the Michael Brown case for instance, that would show that your description is just a fantasy and the reality is that officer Wilson killed Brown in self-defense. There was enough witness evidence presented to make that determination. There is no cause to accuse the cops of inventing this, it came from the witnesses. There is nothing to bitch about but that doesn't stop the Sharptons from whipping it up. Again you are comparing a criminal act with a cop doing his duty and maybe making a mistake or doing it in self defense. This is THE problem with the whole protest thing, this confusion of contexts. Of COURSE you try to hold CRIMINALS responsible for their crimes, but the cops in these cases are NOT guilty of crimes. Except as I keep saying this scenario is a total fantasy in these cases. It is NOT what happened. And to know what happened you need to spend some time learning about the cases. Garner's death was tragic but it wasn't racism, and again there was a black supervisor on the scene who should have called off the guys holding him down but she didn't, yet the white cop gets held responsible for his death. Have you bothered to consider this? It was a horrible accident in any case, not racism, not any kind of criminal intent on the part of the cops. Stupid to protest such a thing, stupid and criminal to protest it.Michael Brown was killed as he lunged at the cop after trying to take away his gun. PLEASE stop treating Michael Brown as the victim of Darren Wilson, that's really really stupid.Tamir Rice was killed because the cops thought he was armed and dangerous. That was the saddest case of all, but it was a horrible accident. You want to go burn down a town because of a cop who was scared of what he thought was a loaded gun? I would hope there could have been other ways of dealing with that situation so that the innocent boy hadn't been killed, but racism? No. Criminal intent on the cops' part, no. Negligence or some other failure of duty, I don't know, but not a cause for protest as if it was a crime.So I hope I've answered your question about what was factually wrong in what you said.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not at all. I'm assuming only one thing: a cop killed someone.And I've gone over a lot of the facts in these cases. Remember, I'm in St. Louis right now. The guy sitting across from me owns a house in Ferguson.I've spoken with people who live there. I've heard more than you've gotten of the internet. But this isn't about the specifics of those cases, that's why I'm ignoring them. This is part of why you are misunderstanding the "Black Lives Matter" thing. Its not about the particulars in any one of these cases.That's why the specifics of these cases don't matter to me explaining to you what the "Black Lives Matter" thing actually means.And that's why you can't understand that its not about protesting the death of one black person.Which should be obvious, as you point out: there's no protest when a black guy shoots another black guy in a gang fight.So, again, ignore the specifics of these cases that you've been talking about and take a broader view of the entire situation.Here's what people mean by "Black Lives Matter":When a black man kills another black man, everybody knows that it is wrong. The police investigate the crime, hunt down the perpetrator, arrest them, put them on trial and then throw them in jail. There is no question about this.When a cop kills a black man, they don't even put him on trial. People generally assume that it was the black man's fault, there really is no investigation of the crime (Well, I mean, the police are investigating their own potential crimes that they have committed, and well what do you know, they are just incapable of finding the evidence that they were wrong), the cops do not go on trial and nobody is held responsible. That is the problem that people are bitching about.Its not just about a black person dying, its about not even trying to hold someone responsible for it.The police care more about protecting their own officers than they do about justice. That's happening because the black lives don't matter to them.Regardless of whether or not you agree with "Black Lives Matter", at least get it right what they are complaining about. Because this is certainly not what they mean:

quote:

---

It seems that Black Lives only really matter to the black community when a white cop was the cause, even in his attempt to stop a criminal or when it was a complete accident, but not when black criminals are the cause,.

---

When black criminals are the cause, justice gets served. Nobody has to march the streets just to get a trial.When cops are the cause, you simply cannot get a trial if they don't want you to. There is definitely something wrong with that.And that is regardless of race.

Unfortuantely, you spent all your time discussing the particulars of the cases you have been talking about.I wasn't talking about the cases that you have been talking about.You've completely missed my point. I was explaining what "Black Lives Matter" means. The meaning of that is independent of the particulars of these cases. This is a terrible misunderstanding of yours.The trial is where you determine if the cop committed a crime.Part of the problem that "Black Lives Matter" is bringing up is that these cops did not go on trial.How can you determine if they committed a crime if they did not go on trial? The people who are being accused of a crime are the ones who are in charge of gathering the evidence against themselves.Is it any wonder that they just can't seem to gather enough evidence to put themselves on trial?Don't you think maybe a third party should be in charge of that? Not true at all. That is not how the grand jury process works. What was found was there was not enough evidence to press charges.But the problem is that prosecuter is on the cops side. If he doesn't want to press charges against the officer, then there is nothing anybody can do to get this cop to go to trial.So no, we don't know that he did not commit a crime. The question was never actually addressed. The prosecuter failed to present enough evidence to go to trial. Whether or not that was on purpose we do not know. We are not capable of determining that, and that is a problem that needs to be addressed. As I keep saying: what I wrote is a general statement and does not have anything to do with the cases you are talking about.The particulars of the cases you have been discussing are irrelevant to the explanation of what "Black Lives Matter" means.Can you understand that or not? The cops have not gone to trial yet so we do not know if they were guilty of any crimes. The grand jury process does not determine the guilt of a crime.Do you understand that? And as I keep saying: ignore these cases. What I am explaining to you does not depend on the particulars of these cases.

You can't just assume a cop committed a crime, and in most cases a trial is not needed to determine that he didn't, which is the case here. You HAVE to address these cases, these are the ones the protest is about. Or no you don't I guess, you can continue with your false idea about it since you like it so much.