"I'm a black ex-cop, and this is the real truth about race and policing" - Article

[buck008]

So you putting words in my mouth and jumping to your own false conclusions based on that somehow makes me wrong and you right. Yep sounds about right. /s

I didn't put a single word in your mouth. You said everything that I claim.

[Zephyr Storm]

Oh no no no, you aren't the arbiter of when someone else gets to speak or what to speak about. I am not done yet. Maybe you are, but I am not.




You jumped right into a white and black answer, and then accused someone else of the same fallacy. What do you mean, then?

And yet he later agreed that lethal force is necessary in the situations where it's justified. Which was the whole point. And I proceeded to ask him why he even said anything in the first place then.

And here you are now acting like......I don't even know what. Pushing some sort of opinion or agenda onto someone else because of someone else misconstruing what someone else said? Why are you even here again?

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't put a single word in your mouth. You said everything that I claim.

Uh huh. Ok. Next.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't put a single word in your mouth. You said everything that I claim.

Failing to understand what was being discussed or jumping to a conclusion about someone else's statement does not make what you claim correct however. Which is where you seem to be having the biggest problem in all of this. You are literally acting like you know what I was thinking in my head when you misinterpreted what was said in the first place. That's pretty laughable honestly.

[buck008]

And yet he later agreed that lethal force is necessary in the situations where it's justified. Which was the whole point. And I proceeded to ask him why he even said anything in the first place then.

And here you are now acting like......I don't even know what. Pushing some sort of opinion or agenda onto someone else because of someone else misconstruing what someone else said? Why are you even here again?

- - - Updated - - -



Uh huh. Ok. Next.

The point was exactly what I've been saying. You can't assume one side is automatically at fault or more likely to be at fault. It's really not my fault that you don't understand what criminal means. That's why I say I've not put one syllable of a word into your mouth.

- - - Updated - - -

Failing to understand what was being discussed or jumping to a conclusion about someone else's statement does not make what you claim correct however. Which is where you seem to be having the biggest problem in all of this. You are literally acting like you know what I was thinking in my head when you misinterpreted what was said in the first place. That's pretty laughable honestly.

I've conceded several times that you might not actually know what you were arguing. In that case, I certainly don't know what's in your head.

[Zephyr Storm]

The point was exactly what I've been saying. You can't assume one side is automatically at fault or more likely to be at fault. It's really not my fault that you don't understand what criminal means. That's why I say I've not put one syllable of a word into your mouth.

- - - Updated - - -



I've conceded several times that you might not actually know what you were arguing. In that case, I certainly don't know what's in your head.

Your whole argument came from the notion that you think that I think every criminal should be killed, regardless of situation. That's not even remotely true. I made a more generalized statement to try and make a point. That point is that criminals who are killed in situations where lethal force is necessary is ok, but then you have idiots and groups of idiots claiming that those killings are not justified because of something stupid like the race of the criminal.

Example: BLM movement who like to yell and stamp their feet because a black person is killed by a cop, even if the killing was justified because of the given situation. They will scream it's racist simply because the criminal was black, and ignore the fact that the criminal needed to be shot because of the situation they were a part of.

[buck008]

Your whole argument came from the notion that you think that I think every criminal should be killed, regardless of situation. That's not even remotely true. I made a more generalized statement to try and make a point. That point is that criminals who are killed in situations where lethal force is necessary is ok, but then you have idiots and groups of idiots claiming that those killings are not justified because of something stupid like the race of the criminal.

Example: BLM movement who like to yell and stamp their feet because a black person is killed by a cop, even if the killing was justified because of the given situation. They will scream it's racist simply because the criminal was black, and ignore the fact that the criminal needed to be shot because of the situation they were a part of.

So you're upset that a movement that was specifically created to address their perceived grievance of disproportionate killings of black people by the police are upset when a black person is killed by the police? I don't get upset when the NRA defends gun ownership after every mass shooting. You can say they are wrong, but you can't particularly be upset at a group for doing what they were created to do.

[Fojos]

So you're upset that a movement that was specifically created to address their perceived grievance of disproportionate killings of black people by the police are upset when a black person is killed by the police? I don't get upset when the NRA defends gun ownership after every mass shooting. You can say they are wrong, but you can't particularly be upset at a group for doing what they were created to do.

No, but you can be annoyed because they're ignorant morons creating a notion where black people feel like victims who have to take revenge when they're not.

[Zephyr Storm]

So you're upset that a movement that was specifically created to address their perceived grievance of disproportionate killings of black people by the police are upset when a black person is killed by the police? I don't get upset when the NRA defends gun ownership after every mass shooting. You can say they are wrong, but you can't particularly be upset at a group for doing what they were created to do.

You do realize that it actually causes a problem when said groups make it that much harder for police to do their job the way it needs to be done because they're afraid of being deemed racist with every little thing they do. That and they suddenly start getting put under a microscope for things that never should be a problem in the first place. And some of the more extreme members of those groups go out of their way to personally make things harder or attack the cops themselves in some form of misguided retribution.

But we should totally just ignore them and let them do as they please right?

[buck008]

You do realize that it actually causes a problem when said groups make it that much harder for police to do their job the way it needs to be done because they're afraid of being deemed racist with every little thing they do. That and they suddenly start getting put under a microscope for things that never should be a problem in the first place. And some of the more extreme members of those groups go out of their way to personally make things harder or attack the cops themselves in some form of misguided retribution.

But we should totally just ignore them and let them do as they please right?

I understand that you disagree with their point of view. I think it's hilarious that you are upset with a group for carrying on about the thing they formed to carry on about.

That being said, what are the police being put under a microscope for that isn't a problem? Personally, I think every time an officer shoots someone it needs to be taken seriously and investigated. I fully expect a great majority of those shootings to be legitimate. I think it's important that we hold the officers of the law to a high standard because they have such an important job. I also think it helps to remove the appearance of impropriety if we start from a position that is neutral, and not one that favors the police. Essentially, "innocent until proven guilty" goes both ways. The shooter and shootee should have the presumption of innocence until an investigation takes place.

In response to your final question, what do you propose we do? You talk to people, and you give your side of the issue. If you do so in a calm and respectful manner, you may actually find a meaningful discourse somewhere. Or you can just go around berating people and calling them idiots. Whatever suits your fancy, I suppose.

[Zephyr Storm]

I understand that you disagree with their point of view. I think it's hilarious that you are upset with a group for carrying on about the thing they formed to carry on about.

That being said, what are the police being put under a microscope for that isn't a problem? Personally, I think every time an officer shoots someone it needs to be taken seriously and investigated. I fully expect a great majority of those shootings to be legitimate. I think it's important that we hold the officers of the law to a high standard because they have such an important job. I also think it helps to remove the appearance of impropriety if we start from a position that is neutral, and not one that favors the police. Essentially, "innocent until proven guilty" goes both ways. The shooter and shootee should have the presumption of innocence until an investigation takes place.

In response to your final question, what do you propose we do? You talk to people, and you give your side of the issue. If you do so in a calm and respectful manner, you may actually find a meaningful discourse somewhere. Or you can just go around berating people and calling them idiots. Whatever suits your fancy, I suppose.

In a perfect world, sure.

Unfortunately we live in one that puts way to much stock into idiotic things like BLM.

[buck008]

In a perfect world, sure.

Unfortunately we live in one that puts way to much stock into idiotic things like BLM.

People put stock in all manner of things that I don't understand. I didn't say that they would suddenly change their mind and agree with you, I said you could have a meaningful discourse instead of shouting profanity at each other and talking in circles around an issue with no end in sight.

[Espe]

So you're upset that a movement that was specifically created to address their perceived grievance of disproportionate killings of black people by the police are upset when a black person is killed by the police? I don't get upset when the NRA defends gun ownership after every mass shooting. You can say they are wrong, but you can't particularly be upset at a group for doing what they were created to do.

Bingo.

Like I said in another thread, it's funny that all the gun nut zealots who tow the NRA line of "we need err guns ta overthrow them there tyrannical guvments" are suddenly so silent on the issue.

I wonder if we might get some meaningful gun control legislation passed finally.

[Flutterguy]

Nice story by the so-called ex-police officer.

[Ahovv]

Anecdotal, mostly irrelevant in the grand scheme. Additionally, Vox is an unreliable source considering the countless times they have manipulated data to portray a biased message.