Atlanta-area police shoot dead unarmed, naked African-American man

[KeepTalking]

Yes thug is coward speak for nigger. Blowing on a dog whistle for plausible deniability.

Thugs can be of any color.

In America they're mostly--but not all--black. Some are Hispanic.

In Mexico they're mostly Hispanic. But those that aren't are Black.

In Africa, they're mostly Black. My Mom says there's a lot of black people in Africa.

FIFY

 

[RavenSky]

Yes thug is coward speak for nigger. Blowing on a dog whistle for plausible deniability.

No, thug is the English word for violent criminal. Race does not enter into it.

It does when you and Loren use it

 

[Frikki]

Yes thug is coward speak for nigger. Blowing on a dog whistle for plausible deniability.

No, thug is the English word for violent criminal. Race does not enter into it.

So is it OK if I start calling you Thug, since you are an habitual criminal? Did you know that 50K slaves are imported to work in the sex industry? If someone pay to have sex with the is that person a rapist?

 

[laughing dog]

Yes thug is coward speak for nigger. Blowing on a dog whistle for plausible deniability.

Thugs can be of any color.

In America they're mostly--but not all--black.

And you wonder how anyone might think you are racist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, thug is the English word for violent criminal. Race does not enter into it.

It does when one only uses the term for people of one race and refuse to use to describe people of other races.

I don't see anybody refusing to apply it to certain races. I do see people refusing to use it as a generic replacement for "criminal", though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally, a Thug was a member of a group of professional criminals--robbers and assassins, who were devotees of Kali and who typically strangled their victims.

Later, it became a term to describe a ruffian or a hoodlum.

So far I will agree with you.

In common usage, it stands for a more traditional and offensive word to describe black people.

Here I disagree.

From the Urban Dictionary, it has a different connotation:

As Tupac defined it, a thug is someone who is going through struggles, has gone through struggles, and continues to live day by day with nothing for them. That person is a thug. and the life they are living is the thug life. A thug is NOT a gangster. Look up gangster and gangsta. Not even CLOSE, my friend.

As usual, Urban Dictionary isn't of much use. Struggles have nothing to do with whether someone is a thug or not. I will agree that thug != gangster. The defining characteristic of a gangster is membership in a fairly large criminal organization. While a gangster is likely to use violence on occasion it's not the routine use that marks a thug.

Based solely on their posting history, I would go out on a limb and say that for Loren and Derec--and others--that thug is a more socially acceptable term than the infamous N word and that they seem to associate being black, especially black and male with being a criminal. Maybe I've missed instances where they referred to white criminals as thugs.

There aren't a lot of white thugs but I'm sure you'll find some in the rural south.

- - - Updated - - -

Thugs can be of any color.

In America they're mostly--but not all--black. Some are Hispanic.

In Mexico they're mostly Hispanic. But those that aren't are Black.

In Africa, they're mostly Black. My Mom says there's a lot of black people in Africa.

FIFY

I have no idea of the distribution of thugs in Africa. The only criminals I encountered there were thieves.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, thug is the English word for violent criminal. Race does not enter into it.

So is it OK if I start calling you Thug, since you are an habitual criminal? Did you know that 50K slaves are imported to work in the sex industry? If someone pay to have sex with the is that person a rapist?

Where do you get the notion that he's a habitual criminal?


As for paying for sex with a slave--if it looks like she's not doing it of her own free will then I would call it rape. I would also call it rape by her slaver for each client she's forced to serve. (He forced her to do it, it doesn't matter if it was somebody else's penis involved.)

 

[Frikki]

So is it OK if I start calling you Thug, since you are an habitual criminal? Did you know that 50K slaves are imported to work in the sex industry? If someone pay to have sex with the is that person a rapist?

Where do you get the notion that he's a habitual criminal?


As for paying for sex with a slave--if it looks like she's not doing it of her own free will then I would call it rape. I would also call it rape by her slaver for each client she's forced to serve. (He forced her to do it, it doesn't matter if it was somebody else's penis involved.)

Well Derec is a habitual user of prostitutes, many prostitutes are slaves. Is Derec a thug?

 

[Toni]

Where do you get the notion that he's a habitual criminal?


As for paying for sex with a slave--if it looks like she's not doing it of her own free will then I would call it rape. I would also call it rape by her slaver for each client she's forced to serve. (He forced her to do it, it doesn't matter if it was somebody else's penis involved.)

Well Derec is a habitual user of prostitutes, many prostitutes are slaves. Is Derec a thug?

Regardless of whether Derec's prostitutes are slaves, prostitution is illegal where he lives. So, he's an habitual criminal. But to Derec, that doesn't matter because he disagrees with the law against prostitution. Much like the way that those who use pot or recreational drugs disagree with the laws against their use. And so on. Only Derec thinks that those who break drug laws are criminals and thugs but he himself is not because the law he breaks is wrong.

 

[Derec]

So is it OK if I start calling you Thug,

Sex among consenting adults is not violent and should not be a crime at all (regardless of what prudish theists and sex-negative feminists might think about it, and I use "think" loosely)

since you are an habitual criminal?

Being a client of a sex workers is not considered thuggery under any definition of the term actually.

Did you know that 50K slaves are imported to work in the sex industry?

Did you know that ant-sex work groups routinely exaggerate trafficking numbers?

If someone pay to have sex with the is that person a rapist?

Only if they have knowledge of that. I think people who traffic women against their will should be punished severely. However, I also think sex work between consenting adults should be legalized and treated just like any other service.

By the way, why are you so obsessed by this?

 

[Derec]

Regardless of whether Derec's prostitutes are slaves, prostitution is illegal where he lives. So, he's an habitual criminal. But to Derec, that doesn't matter because he disagrees with the law against prostitution.

What I would like to know is why you and Frikki are so obsessed about it?

Much like the way that those who use pot or recreational drugs disagree with the laws against their use. And so on.

Oh I agree that war on drugs should be ended. However, I am disappointed that many who oppose war on drugs do not likewise oppose the war on sex work.

Only Derec thinks that those who break drug laws are criminals and thugs but he himself is not because the law he breaks is wrong.

Anthony Hill was not a drug user. In fact, that was his problem - he went off his prescription drugs which caused the psychotic episode that cost him his life.

 

[Malintent]

Originally, a Thug was a member of a group of professional criminals--robbers and assassins, who were devotees of Kali and who typically strangled their victims.

That sounds right.. interesting...

Later, it became a term to describe a ruffian or a hoodlum.

uh huh.. cool.. cool.. I get that...

In common usage, it stands for a more traditional and offensive word to describe black people.

Wait, what? how we get here from there??

From the Urban Dictionary, it has a different connotation:

OHH.. the URBAN dictionary... Like in what black people call things? well duh.. everything is racist against black people, according to black people... who themselves cannot possibly ever be racist in anything they ever say... so, well, ya..whatever

 

[Toni]

In common usage, it stands for a more traditional and offensive word to describe black people.

Wait, what? how we get here from there??

By making it socially unacceptable for white people to call black and brown people the "N" word.

OHH.. the URBAN dictionary... Like in what black people call things? well duh.. everything is racist against black people, according to black people... who themselves cannot possibly ever be racist in anything they ever say... so, well, ya..whatever

So black people are the only people living in urban areas? Are the only people who speak in idioms within certain situations and among members of a particular group? I did not know that. I will have to let the people I work with know that.

 

[Toni]

What I would like to know is why you and Frikki are so obsessed about it?

It's not obsession to point out inconsistencies in how you view things and words you use to describe people and situations.

Some crimes you think are worthy of summary execution by police officer, providing your skin is black. Some crimes, including, I might add, drug use by black people, seem to merit being relegated to a special class of people you like to call 'thug.' Even suspicion of potential minor offenses merit the use of the term by you which you let yourself off the hook completely.

Much like the way that those who use pot or recreational drugs disagree with the laws against their use. And so on.

Oh I agree that war on drugs should be ended. However, I am disappointed that many who oppose war on drugs do not likewise oppose the war on sex work.

I was unaware of any 'war' on sex work. There's not even much of an effort to stop human trafficking, whether for sex work or not, whether involving minors or not.

Only Derec thinks that those who break drug laws are criminals and thugs but he himself is not because the law he breaks is wrong.

Anthony Hill was not a drug user. In fact, that was his problem - he went off his prescription drugs which caused the psychotic episode that cost him his life.

Going off of meds is not a criminal action. Going off antipsychotic medications --or even anti depressants -- is fairly common as a)most such drugs have some unpleasant side effects and b) people have a strong tendency to go off meds when they feel better, whether the meds are antidepressants, antipsychotics, even antibiotics, etc. That is not even addressing costs of medications, difficulty in getting medications, and so on. Anthony Hill's meds made it difficult for him to sleep, for one thing. That alone can disturb one's mental status.

Anthony Hill was threatening no one. He was clearly, clearly unarmed. He threatened no one--not physically, not verbally. He needed help. He was shot dead by an officer who lacked the training, the desire, the humanity to deal with the situation and instead saw: black man = deadly threat and killed him.

 

[Derec]

It's not obsession to point out inconsistencies in how you view things and words you use to describe people and situations.

Engaging in consensual sex between two adults is very different than assault and battery, robbery, stabbings etc. what the #BLM darlings who were called 'thugs' by me were all guilty of.

Some crimes you think are worthy of summary execution by police officer, providing your skin is black.

No crimes are worthy of summary execution. Police shootings are not executions though. And also it's not about their skin color, it's about what they did - like attacking the cop.
No matter how low-grade the crime you committed initially might be, if you attack a cop you stand a high chance of getting shot. White or black.
And yes, if I were to get stopped by police and attacked them my white ass would be subject to getting shot.

Some crimes, including, I might add, drug use by black people, seem to merit being relegated to a special class of people you like to call 'thug.'

No, not drug use. But dealing would be.

Even suspicion of potential minor offenses merit the use of the term by you which you let yourself off the hook completely.

Like what? I called Mike Brown a thug because he robbed a store and attacked a cop. I called Mario Woods a thug because he served time for a robbery and stabbed somebody the day he was shot. I called Jamar Clark because he had history of violent crime and committed a couple of them the day he was shot.
Who did I call a "thug" merely for "suspicion of potential minor offenses"?

I was unaware of any 'war' on sex work.

Police often do undercover stings to catch sex workers and their customers. Sex work is inexplicably illegal and France just made it illegal last year - not because of religion but because of radical feminism by the way, following the lead of illiberal countries like Sweden.

There's not even much of an effort to stop human trafficking, whether for sex work or not, whether involving minors or not.

There is too much effort on persecuting consenting adults and too little on genuine human trafficking, I have to agree with you there. But that does not mean there is not a war on sex work.

Going off of meds is not a criminal action.

Nobody said it was. But it's a potentially very stupid thing to do as it can cause psychoses.

Going off antipsychotic medications --or even anti depressants -- is fairly common as a)most such drugs have some unpleasant side effects and b) people have a strong tendency to go off meds when they feel better, whether the meds are antidepressants, antipsychotics, even antibiotics, etc. That is not even addressing costs of medications, difficulty in getting medications, and so on. Anthony Hill's meds made it difficult for him to sleep, for one thing. That alone can disturb one's mental status.

Then he should have seen his doctor about changing the meds or reducing the dose gradually. The VA hospital is not far away on Clairmont Rd. and he was a vet.

Anthony Hill was threatening no one. He was clearly, clearly unarmed. He threatened no one--not physically, not verbally.

The cop says otherwise. As far as having no weapon (other than "this is my rifle/this is my gun") unarmed does not mean not a threat, especially when in altered mental state.

He needed help.

I do not disagree.

He was shot dead by an officer who lacked the training,

To paraphrase you: lacking training is not a criminal action.

the desire, the humanity to deal with the situation and instead saw: black man = deadly threat and killed him.

He saw a psychotic, naked man charging him. Now I do agree the situation is tragic. I also think that a case can be made that the cop assessed the threat incorrectly and that a charge such as manslaughter might be warranted. But murder? What in hell warrants the charge of murder other than politically motivated action by a DA in an election year?

By the way, there is a similar thing that happened in Austin.
Investigators have tight deadline after David Joseph shooting

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes thug is coward speak for nigger. Blowing on a dog whistle for plausible deniability.

Thugs can be of any color.

In America they're mostly--but not all--black.

Good point... some of them are only HALF black.

It does when one only uses the term for people of one race and refuse to use to describe people of other races.

I don't see anybody refusing to apply it to certain races.

Other than yourself. It's again a glaring contradiction of your stated belief that the Jamar Clarke potesters were "thugs" but the people who SHOT them weren't. You expanded the definition of "thug" to include "people whose violent acts get posted on youtube" in order to handwave away the only significant difference that would explain the selective application of the label: to be a thug, one must be both violent and black. A violent white man cannot, in your mind, be a thug; you will invent ANY excuse for why his violence was justified.

In this case, the agitators who started the fight -- and later OPENED FIRE on the protesters -- were justified because apparently being shoved out of an area is equivalent to kidnapping which is almost as bad as murder. So by this logic:
Being shoved by niggers = attempted murder, therefore response is justifiable violence
Being shot by white people = self defense, therefore "thugs had it coming"

 

[laughing dog]

I don't see anybody refusing to apply it to certain races.

Look in the mirror. Crazy Eddie explains it in detail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thugs can be of any color.

In America they're mostly--but not all--black.

Good point... some of them are only HALF black.

It does when one only uses the term for people of one race and refuse to use to describe people of other races.

I don't see anybody refusing to apply it to certain races.

Other than yourself. It's again a glaring contradiction of your stated belief that the Jamar Clarke potesters were "thugs" but the people who SHOT them weren't. You expanded the definition of "thug" to include "people whose violent acts get posted on youtube" in order to handwave away the only significant difference that would explain the selective application of the label: to be a thug, one must be both violent and black. A violent white man cannot, in your mind, be a thug; you will invent ANY excuse for why his violence was justified.

In this case, the agitators who started the fight -- and later OPENED FIRE on the protesters -- were justified because apparently being shoved out of an area is equivalent to kidnapping which is almost as bad as murder. So by this logic:
Being shoved by niggers = attempted murder, therefore response is justifiable violence
Being shot by white people = self defense, therefore "thugs had it coming"

I consider thugs to be people who routinely use violence to get their way.

The protesters openly admitted to the illegal use of violence--something I very much doubt a non-thug would do. They're living in a culture where that is acceptable behavior.

The agitators, however, seem like idiots who were not expecting to be driven off by force and one of them got scared when they were being chased by a violent mob. While the one did use violence I don't get the impression that this was a normal thing for them to do.

Your description of the situation is wrong--he did not fire because he was shoved. He fired because he was afraid of what the pack of thugs chasing him would do if they caught him.

 

[laughing dog]

Good point... some of them are only HALF black.

It does when one only uses the term for people of one race and refuse to use to describe people of other races.

I don't see anybody refusing to apply it to certain races.

Other than yourself. It's again a glaring contradiction of your stated belief that the Jamar Clarke potesters were "thugs" but the people who SHOT them weren't. You expanded the definition of "thug" to include "people whose violent acts get posted on youtube" in order to handwave away the only significant difference that would explain the selective application of the label: to be a thug, one must be both violent and black. A violent white man cannot, in your mind, be a thug; you will invent ANY excuse for why his violence was justified.

In this case, the agitators who started the fight -- and later OPENED FIRE on the protesters -- were justified because apparently being shoved out of an area is equivalent to kidnapping which is almost as bad as murder. So by this logic:
Being shoved by niggers = attempted murder, therefore response is justifiable violence
Being shot by white people = self defense, therefore "thugs had it coming"

I consider thugs to be people who routinely use violence to get their way.

The protesters openly admitted to the illegal use of violence--something I very much doubt a non-thug would do. They're living in a culture where that is acceptable behavior.

Your doubt is unwarranted. And your conclusion about their "culture" has no basis in fact or logic.

The agitators, however, seem like idiots who were not expecting to be driven off by force and one of them got scared when they were being chased by a violent mob. While the one did use violence I don't get the impression that this was a normal thing for them to do.

Of course not - they are simply white racists.

Your description of the situation is wrong--he did not fire because he was shoved. He fired because he was afraid of what the pack of thugs chasing him would do if they caught him.

Your explanation glosses over the following facts:
1) the shooter came to the protest armed, and
2) the shooter came to the protest to insult the protesters.

People who do not think it is okay to use violence do not carry guns around. Sorry, according to your definition, the white shooter was a thug.

 

[Arctish]

Good point... some of them are only HALF black.

It does when one only uses the term for people of one race and refuse to use to describe people of other races.

I don't see anybody refusing to apply it to certain races.

Other than yourself. It's again a glaring contradiction of your stated belief that the Jamar Clarke potesters were "thugs" but the people who SHOT them weren't. You expanded the definition of "thug" to include "people whose violent acts get posted on youtube" in order to handwave away the only significant difference that would explain the selective application of the label: to be a thug, one must be both violent and black. A violent white man cannot, in your mind, be a thug; you will invent ANY excuse for why his violence was justified.

In this case, the agitators who started the fight -- and later OPENED FIRE on the protesters -- were justified because apparently being shoved out of an area is equivalent to kidnapping which is almost as bad as murder. So by this logic:
Being shoved by niggers = attempted murder, therefore response is justifiable violence
Being shot by white people = self defense, therefore "thugs had it coming"

I consider thugs to be people who routinely use violence to get their way.

Yes, you do. And also people you suspect have used violence to get their way on some unspecified prior occasion, or might have seriously considered it, or might someday resort to it. But not if they're white. That much is obvious.

The protesters openly admitted to the illegal use of violence--something I very much doubt a non-thug would do. They're living in a culture where that is acceptable behavior.

The guys who brought guns to the protest openly admitted their intent to incite violence in their online postings prior to their arrival that night. The one who shot 5 unarmed people openly admitted doing it. They are also living in a culture where intimidating blacks, liberals, muslims, illegal immigrants, etc. by demonstrating their willingness to use the weapons they carry is acceptable behavior, especially among their racist, Confederate flag waving peers and fanboys.

The agitators, however, seem like idiots who were not expecting to be driven off by force and one of them got scared when they were being chased by a violent mob.

The agitators weren't being chased by a violent mob. They were being told to fuck off, that no one wanted to put up with their shit, and escorted away to ensure they actually left. They went there to start a fight, but it wasn't much of one until Scarsella opened fire. And even then, the 'mob' as you call them, didn't attack.

Not only were they expecting an angry reaction to their presence, they intended to provoke it as indicated by texts they sent talking about their plans to "stir shit up", and the video they posted online before they went to the protest that night. Also the fact they had made prior appearances at the protests, armed and wearing masks and camouflage, where they attempted to bait the protesters into taking violent action against them, speaks volumes about their intentions, as does their plan record themselves that night.

BTW, one of the charges against Scarsella has been upgraded to first-degree assault due to the evidence of premeditation.

The fact you think it was the armed agitators in masks and camouflage, going to the protests night after night to "stir shit up" and “make the fire rise” who were the ones being intimidated speaks volumes about you ability to spot 'thugs'.

While the one did use violence I don't get the impression that this was a normal thing for them to do.

But you don't get the impression it was normal for the gun-toting instigator of the violence to resort to violence because...

he's white.

Your description of the situation is wrong--he did not fire because he was shoved. He fired because he was afraid of what the pack of thugs chasing him would do if they caught him.

He went to the protest with his buddies, not just looking for a confrontation but intending to create one, and wound up shooting unarmed people escorting him away. He is a thug, by all common definitions of the word.

You can't see it, probably because the glare of his whiteness is blinding you, but if you look straight at the facts and don't get distracted by the color contrast between him and his victims, you will.