Police shooting in Atlanta aka "Sir, this is a Wendy's drive-through"

[Metaphor]

It turns out that it was two white women that set the Wendy's on fire.

There seems to be a lot of outside supremacist agitators using BLM and protests for cover causing trouble.

What? Are you saying no white person actually supports BLM?

 

[laughing dog]

The victim was shot in the back as he was trying to flee from the police. [

He also shot the Taser while fleeing.

He was literally trying to run away from the police, not toward them, and he did not pose an imminent threat to the safety of the officers. In your zeal to defend a trigger-happy cop who chose homicide over doing his job and pursuing the fleeing suspect, you are trying to warp reality into an apologetic narrative that fits your ideology; that police can do no wrong.

He was doing his job. Violence was initiated by St. Rayshard.

If you think the police officer's job is to kill people who pose no lethal threat, you are very sadly mistaken.

 

[laughing dog]

That's what the prosecutor said, that it was used twice.

And even if it wasn't, so what? Let him run away, he's not going far. They have his ID.

They could have easily caught him and easily charged him for dui and assault et al. But no, instead, since the dipshit rager Rolfe gets mad, someone had to die for it.

And, rager Rolfe might have injured or killed some innocent bystander with his lousy aim.

 

[repoman]

[removed blind link and unexplained hashtags]

 

[Derec]

That's what the prosecutor said, that it was used twice.

Did he? I only saw one shot on the video.

And even if it wasn't, so what? Let him run away, he's not going far. They have his ID.

No. He claimed he could not find it.

They could have easily caught him and easily charged him for dui and assault et al. But no, instead, since the dipshit rager Rolfe gets mad, someone had to die for it.

I do not think it would have been that easy. Also, had he used the taser against an civilian, police would be blamed for letting him get away. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Derec]

https://twitter.com/culturewarusa/status/1273431756478300160

Worst thing is, if he had a gun and had defended himself against the racist fucks who attacked him, he'd be blamed and perhaps even charged with "murder".

 

[Derec]

And, rager Rolfe might have injured or killed some innocent bystander with his lousy aim.

Lousy? He put two on the target.

 

[Derec]

So for all y'all (like southernhybrid) who don't believe Rayshard Brooks had a record because MSM was silent about it, here's the man himself talking about it:

 

[Jayjay]

Did he? I only saw one shot on the video.

I think the other shot was when they were tussling on the ground, as seen in the dashcam footage. But I could be wrong and couldn't find it right now to verify.

No. He claimed he could not find it.

He later found it and brought it to the cop in the car when he was typing Brook's info on the computer.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e-hNOkY9klY

So one cop stepped on his shoulders and the other kicked him.

Instead of applying aid.

What a couple of pieces of shit.

People who are hero-worshipping these criminal thugs are cocksuckers.

 

[Jokodo]

Charges are being filed against the officer who killed Rayshard Brooks. The prosecutor explained in great detail why what happened was against the Atlanta Police force rules.

This is a racist farce on part of Paul Howard!
The police officers were merely defending themselves against the violent criminal Brooks.

We all know Paul Howard would not be filing any charges had the dead guy been a white guy named Raymond Brooks.

No, we don't know that. Wet have indeed no reason to believe it.

What we do have reason to believe it's that y you would agree with the decision to charge thre courts had the suspect been white.

Because there is someone with a known history of applying different standards to members of different races, and it's not Paul Howard.

 

[Derec]

No, we don't know that. Wet have indeed no reason to believe it.

Yes, we do. This whole thing is very racialized if you haven't noticed.

What we do have reason to believe it's that y you would agree with the decision to charge thre courts had the suspect been white.

No I would not. I would, however, point to the hypocrisy and the fact that there were no riots and no fast food places were burned.

Because there is someone with a known history of applying different standards to members of different races, and it's not Paul Howard.

Jarhyn?

 

[ruby sparks]

Even now, he would not have been charged had the perp been white. But blacks are the more equal animals these days.

Paul Howard has served a racist farce today.


I hope he beats the charges and then sues Howard for malicious prosecution.

I would guess that some will see that as awful, and some will see it as overall fair enough, in the wider scheme of things, and some may see it as a bit of both. But there does seem to have been a bit of a sea-change.

I see it as awful. It will embolden bad guys like Brooks to attack police knowing police will be reluctant to use full force to defend themselves, giving the perps tactical advantage. The blood that will inevitably be spilt in the coming years are on people like Howard and Bottoms. Weak-ass weather-wanes both of them!

I can see both sides in this case. Imo, it's not the equivalent of the George Floyd killing, or even the Arbery killing (which wasn't police anyway). Brooks chose to fire a stolen taser at a cop's head from fairly close range. That, to me, is very serious, the more I think about it and the closer I look at the footage. I'd still prefer a policing system where people who do that don't need to end up shot dead, and I totally believe that is possible, but in the cuurent, real world of the USA, Brooks' actions led to him being shot.

And I can see both sides of the wider picture. I at least partly agree with you on at least some of your points. The media portrayal of almost all black victims as 'gentle giants' and the like is at least an interesting phenomenon. It's a stereotype and a caricature. As I said before, I think the reasons why the media do it are probably complicated and nuanced. Are there noticeable differences depending on which network one is watching, I wonder? Gotta be, I'm thinking. The topic would make for an interesting thread all of itself, imo. It's a phenomenon deserving of being deconstructed.

Ideally, imo, what is needed are fair and balanced perspectives, that don't overly or excessively lean one way or the other. In that scenario, the underlying issues around racism and police behaviour in general would be fully acknowledged and not minimised (as they often are by one 'side'), and blacks, for example, would not be automatically made into innocent victims and heroes either (as they often are by the other 'side').

It's actually a very simple recipe, and imo a very useful maxim. Namely, try to always see and acknowledge both sides of almost everything, as much as you can. The more people can do that, the better for everyone, imo.

 

[ruby sparks]

I know it's only an internet meme, but still:

 

[Metaphor]

I know it's only an internet meme, but still:

View attachment 28243

Except one of them is mistaken, isn't he? Presumably, that number was painted in a specific context. If it's a car space, the orientation will be obvious from the orientation of the numbers around it.

This cartoon is a visual representation of "my truth". No. Truth isn't subjective.

 

[ruby sparks]

Except one of them is mistaken, isn't he? Presumably, that number was painted in a specific context. If it's a car space, the orientation will be obvious from the orientation of the numbers around it.

This cartoon is a visual representation of "my truth". No. Truth isn't subjective.

Unlike that meant-to-be-simple little illustration (which could in theory have been the way a rope fell on the ground, or a snail trail or something like that, in which case, no, one of them is not necessarily wrong and the other right), most issues to do with human behaviours and interactions are very complex and multi-faceted indeed, and usually involve multiple valid considerations on both sides, and often some of the 'other side's' considerations are not easy to appreciate from one side. It's not so much that truth is subjective, it's that it's often very complicated, and that it can easily be perceived subjectively, and/or simplistically.

So I basically disagree with you.

It's not always the case, of course, not by any means. But it can be quite common, especially when it comes to the more intractable controversies, such as the one here, or indeed many sociopolitical issues.

I'm not saying I'm a paragon of virtue or that I can see other's issues how they see them. I know for sure I'm definitely not capable of being either of those (you'd only have to ask my long-suffering wife, lol). I just believe it's beholden on intelligent, rational people to at least try, to make an effort, even if one makes mistakes or finds oneself unsure, lost in ambiguity or uncertainty, because that isn't necessarily a bad place to be. To me it's arguably and literally the most important thing about trying to be a rational skeptic, which I am very proud to try to be, because I value it so much. The alternatives are not pretty at all, imo.

 

[Metaphor]

Unlike that meant-to-be-simple little illustration (which could in theory have been the way a rope fell on the ground, or a snail trail or something like that, in which case, no, one of them is not necessarily wrong and the other right),

They can both be wrong, certainly. And if one of them said "if you treat where you are standing as the base of the number, it looks like a six, but if you treat the base from where I'm standing, it looks like a nine", and the other person agreed, they could both be right.

Consider this incident:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/cond-nast-assistant-quit-ceo-gave-her-elements-of-style-2020-6

The executive assistant said the gift of the book "struck her as a microaggression". The left's narrative is that if a minority says they've been the subject of a racist microaggression, then we must accept their word. Do you think that's fair?

It is my experience that it's the hard left that refuses to participate in perspective-taking, or indeed, any questioning of subjective experience at all. "The judge's decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into".

 

[laughing dog]

I know it's only an internet meme, but still:

View attachment 28243

Except one of them is mistaken, isn't he? Presumably, that number was painted in a specific context. If it's a car space, the orientation will be obvious from the orientation of the numbers around it.

This cartoon is a visual representation of "my truth". No. Truth isn't subjective.

Perhaps the specific context was to make people see that it was either a six or nine.

 

[Metaphor]

I know it's only an internet meme, but still:

View attachment 28243

Except one of them is mistaken, isn't he? Presumably, that number was painted in a specific context. If it's a car space, the orientation will be obvious from the orientation of the numbers around it.

This cartoon is a visual representation of "my truth". No. Truth isn't subjective.

Perhaps the specific context was to make people see that it was either a six or nine.

If it were a piece of philosophical street art and that was the intent of the artist, then they're both wrong. It's neither a six nor a nine.

 

[ruby sparks]

Consider this incident:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/cond-nast-assistant-quit-ceo-gave-her-elements-of-style-2020-6

The executive assistant said the gift of the book "struck her as a microaggression". The left's narrative is that if a minority says they've been the subject of a racist microaggression, then we must accept their word. Do you think that's fair?

It is my experience that it's the hard left that refuses to participate in perspective-taking, or indeed, any questioning of subjective experience at all. "The judge's decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into".

We could look closely at individual instances and try to unravel them, yes, and you may well have a point about that one. I have not looked closely into it.

But I strongly, strongly disagree with you in identifying lack of perspective as being something only the hard left is guilty of, or even any 'side'. That is really, demonstrably and obviously just bollocks, Metaphor. Sorry. I know it's what you think, but it just is rubbish. It's not even something I'm interested in convincing you otherwise about, it's that uncontentious. I don't mind if you hold that view. It's your life you have to live and you can choose your own perspectives, and good luck to you. I pretty much am not that interested in changing your mind.

Ffs one would only have to read the patterns of posting of some posters on this forum to see that it's nonsense.

Including yours, which imo are among the most myopic!