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

[Crazy Eddie]

"certain white people"? A handful of white guys that brag beforehand about their intent to create a confrontation, who travel out of their own neighborhood to go to a rally they do not support, go there with guns, purposely get into the faces of rally organizers with the expressed intent of causing trouble... these "certain white people" are not "thugs" in your opinion.

You refuse to use it for ANY white people under ANY circumstances. You are correct that you do not use it as a generic term for "wrongdoer" - because you use it to only describe a certain "culture" of people (that you know nothing about except the color of their skin)

The people you just described are of a generic form of "troublemaker"...

Obviously. And the people they tried to make trouble AGAINST are best described as a generic form of "protestor."

Loren, however, considers the protesters to be "thugs" because they reacted violently. He does not consider the troublemakers "thugs" despite the fact that they escalated violence to deadly force at a small provocation.

In other words:

It is ignorant to imply 'thug' is a racial term...

Unless the term is being applied selectively and is used only when speaking of potential wrongdoers of a specific race.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The people you just described are of a generic form of "troublemaker"...

Obviously. And the people they tried to make trouble AGAINST are best described as a generic form of "protestor."

Loren, however, considers the protesters to be "thugs" because they reacted violently. He does not consider the troublemakers "thugs" despite the fact that they escalated violence to deadly force at a small provocation.

In other words:

It is ignorant to imply 'thug' is a racial term...

Unless the term is being applied selectively and is used only when speaking of potential wrongdoers of a specific race.

Being chased by a violent mob is not a "small" provocation.

 

[Arctish]

Being chased by a violent mob is not a "small" provocation.

Perhaps. But being told to fuck off by a handful of people you deliberately provoked, who then follow you to make sure you actually leave, is a small provocation, not grounds for resorting to lethal force.

Only a thug would try to intimidate people by showing up at a peaceful demonstration carrying an assault weapon, masked and in camouflage, in order to deliberately provoke them and "light a fire", and then shoot the unarmed protesters who stood up to him.

A thug, Loren.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Being chased by a violent mob is not a "small" provocation.

Perhaps. But being told to fuck off by a handful of people you deliberately provoked, who then follow you to make sure you actually leave, is a small provocation, not grounds for resorting to lethal force.

Only a thug would try to intimidate people by showing up at a peaceful demonstration carrying an assault weapon, masked and in camouflage, in order to deliberately provoke them and "light a fire", and then shoot the unarmed protesters who stood up to him.

A thug, Loren.

You are ignoring the fact that the protesters had already engaged in criminal violence against the guy. They were then chasing him. Ensuring he was leaving, or attempting to engage in more violence?

And there was no assault weapon involved.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps. But being told to fuck off by a handful of people you deliberately provoked, who then follow you to make sure you actually leave, is a small provocation, not grounds for resorting to lethal force.

Only a thug would try to intimidate people by showing up at a peaceful demonstration carrying an assault weapon, masked and in camouflage, in order to deliberately provoke them and "light a fire", and then shoot the unarmed protesters who stood up to him.

A thug, Loren.

You are ignoring the fact that the protesters had already engaged in criminal violence against the guy. They were then chasing him. Ensuring he was leaving, or attempting to engage in more violence?

As usual, you assume facts not in evidence or can you show that
1) anyone engaged in criminal violence against that asshat,
2) the same person(s) who engaged in criminal violence against that asshat then proceeded to chase him, and
3) the asshat fired at the same person(s) who engaged in criminal violence against him?

I am pretty sure you have ignored all those pesky details, just like you continue to ignore that this asshat had previously shown up and heckled the protesters, posted online video of his asshattery, and then attend the last rally armed and dangerous.

 

[Arctish]

Social media offering picture of men who went to protest 'locked and loaded'

In the glow of a vehicle’s interior light, the YouTube video shows two masked men as they cruise down Lyndale Avenue in Minneapolis one night last week. The driver, who identifies himself as “SaigaMarine,” doesn’t hesitate to make his agenda clear.

“We are locked and loaded,” he says, holding up a black 1911-style pistol. As he flashes the gun, he explains amid racial slurs that the men are headed to the Black Lives Matter protest outside Minneapolis’ Fourth Precinct police headquarters. Their mission, he says, is “a little reverse cultural enriching.”

“We’re gonna see if we can have ourselves a little look-see,” adds his passenger, who identifies himself as “Black Powder Ranger.”.....


.....Witnesses to the shootings said they confronted the men before they fired and forced them from the protest area. According to a video interview with two men immediately afterward, the group demanded that the assailants remove their masks. When they refused, a scuffle ensued. As the crowd began to push the men out, shots were fired.

http://www.startribune.com/social-media-offer-clues-into-shooting-suspects-motives/353411111/

Who are the thugs, Loren?

*hint* It's the guys wearing masks, going out to "stir shit up" in the "melanin-enriched communities" and shooting the unarmed protesters who stand up to them.

 

[Derec]

*hint* It's the guys wearing masks, going out to "stir shit up" in the "melanin-enriched communities" and shooting the unarmed protesters who stand up to them.

You are forgetting to add that these "protesters" were occupying a police precinct for weeks, all because a thug got himself shot by police.
More about St. Jamar Clark: Top Lawmaker Says Jamar Clark Should Have Been In Jail On Nov. 15

 

[laughing dog]

*hint* It's the guys wearing masks, going out to "stir shit up" in the "melanin-enriched communities" and shooting the unarmed protesters who stand up to them.

You are forgetting to add that these "protesters" were occupying a police precinct for weeks, all because a thug got himself shot by police.
More about St. Jamar Clark: Top Lawmaker Says Jamar Clark Should Have Been In Jail On Nov. 15

Arctish forgot lots of irrelevant information in the discussion whether the shooter also fits the definition of "thug". You forgot to mention the "top lawmaker" is Tony Cornish, a run of the mill Republican legislator and a former peace officer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are ignoring the fact that the protesters had already engaged in criminal violence against the guy. They were then chasing him. Ensuring he was leaving, or attempting to engage in more violence?

As usual, you assume facts not in evidence or can you show that
1) anyone engaged in criminal violence against that asshat,
2) the same person(s) who engaged in criminal violence against that asshat then proceeded to chase him, and
3) the asshat fired at the same person(s) who engaged in criminal violence against him?

I am pretty sure you have ignored all those pesky details, just like you continue to ignore that this asshat had previously shown up and heckled the protesters, posted online video of his asshattery, and then attend the last rally armed and dangerous.

1) How about paying a little attention to what's already transpired--namely, the video the protesters made when they admitted to.

2) We don't know. It doesn't matter anyway--they were attacked, they were then being chased.

3) Part of #2--again, irrelevant.

 

[laughing dog]

As usual, you assume facts not in evidence or can you show that
1) anyone engaged in criminal violence against that asshat,
2) the same person(s) who engaged in criminal violence against that asshat then proceeded to chase him, and
3) the asshat fired at the same person(s) who engaged in criminal violence against him?

I am pretty sure you have ignored all those pesky details, just like you continue to ignore that this asshat had previously shown up and heckled the protesters, posted online video of his asshattery, and then attend the last rally armed and dangerous.

1) How about paying a little attention to what's already transpired--namely, the video the protesters made when they admitted to.

How about you paying attention to the video the shooter and his friends made, along with their voluntary confessions?

2) We don't know. It doesn't matter anyway--they were attacked, they were then being chased.

That does not permit anyone to randomly fire at people.

3) Part of #2--again, irrelevant.

Of course you think it is irrelevant - the thuggish asshats are white. The shooter and his friends where looking to instigate trouble - they admitted it.

 

[Derec]

Arctish forgot lots of irrelevant information in the discussion whether the shooter also fits the definition of "thug".

Reminding people who these "protesters" (more accurately occupiers) were and why they were protesting/occupying is indeed relevant.

You forgot to mention the "top lawmaker" is Tony Cornish, a run of the mill Republican legislator and a former peace officer.

What does him being a Republican and peace officer have to do with the fact that he was on probation for a felony (threatening to set his girlfriend's place on fire, including dousing it in lighter fluid) and then committed another one (fleeing from police in a stolen car). Had the Minnesota officials not been overly lenient toward Jamar and had sent him back to jail he'd probably be alive today.

 

[laughing dog]

Reminding people who these "protesters" (more accurately occupiers) were and why they were protesting/occupying is indeed relevant.

Not to the issue of whether the shooter is also a thug.

What does him being a Republican and peace officer have to do with the fact that he was on probation for a felony (threatening to set his girlfriend's place on fire, including dousing it in lighter fluid) and then committed another one (fleeing from police in a stolen car). Had the Minnesota officials not been overly lenient toward Jamar and had sent him back to jail he'd probably be alive today.

It is as relevant as the who the protesters are. You are not fooling anyone.

 

[Arctish]

Reminding people who these "protesters" (more accurately occupiers) were and why they were protesting/occupying is indeed relevant.

Not to the issue of whether the shooter is also a thug.

Exactly.

Everything in the video Allen Scarsella and his friends posted shows him to be a thug, and everything in Loren's definition of a thug fits Scarsella. And yet, both you and Loren are fighting against applying the thug label to him and his fellow shit stirrers, apparently because Scarsella is white.

What does him being a Republican and peace officer have to do with the fact that he was on probation for a felony (threatening to set his girlfriend's place on fire, including dousing it in lighter fluid) and then committed another one (fleeing from police in a stolen car). Had the Minnesota officials not been overly lenient toward Jamar and had sent him back to jail he'd probably be alive today.

It is as relevant as the who the protesters are. You are not fooling anyone.

Whether or not Jamar Clark was a thug is a separate matter. His bad acts don't excuse and can't conceal the bad acts of others.

Scarsella is a thug. A white, Confederate flag flying, shit stirring thug.

 

[Malintent]

in this context, thug means "person threatening violence". color never came into it. that is the fact you are sorely missing.

Color never comes into it until one examines the color of the person being called a "thug", which, with the posters in question, is always a black person. Show me one, just one, instance of any of these people calling a white person a "thug", and your point just might be valid. That is what you are sorely missing.

.. then your issue is with the people, not the term. If a racist PERSON only calls people of a certain race, "dumb dumbs", it does not make the term "dumb dumb" a racist term. A term a racist uses while being racist is not automatically racist itself. If it did, then I guess the inverse would be true. The word "nigger" is no longer racist, since black people call each other it. If a word is immediately a racist word just because a racist uses it, then I guess a word that was a racist word, is no longer a racist word if used in any other way any number of times.

 

[KeepTalking]

Color never comes into it until one examines the color of the person being called a "thug", which, with the posters in question, is always a black person. Show me one, just one, instance of any of these people calling a white person a "thug", and your point just might be valid. That is what you are sorely missing.

.. then your issue is with the people, not the term.

Agreed. I am well aware that the word "thug" can be used without racist connotation. I am also aware that it is often used by certain people as a racist dog whistle.

If a racist PERSON only calls people of a certain race, "dumb dumbs", it does not make the term "dumb dumb" a racist term. A term a racist uses while being racist is not automatically racist itself. If it did, then I guess the inverse would be true. The word "nigger" is no longer racist, since black people call each other it. If a word is immediately a racist word just because a racist uses it, then I guess a word that was a racist word, is no longer a racist word if used in any other way any number of times.

"Thug" as a racist word is not a case of just one, or even a few, people using it in a racist context. It has become a racist dog whistle for a large number of people who are using it in an attempt (a poor attempt, but an attempt nonetheless) to not appear racist. It gives them cover simply because it can be used in a non-racist context, but you will never see them using it in any context that is not racist. It may be a bit harder to spot than the use of "nigger", but if you are aware of who is using it, and in what context, it is not all that difficult.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not to the issue of whether the shooter is also a thug.

Exactly.

Everything in the video Allen Scarsella and his friends posted shows him to be a thug, and everything in Loren's definition of a thug fits Scarsella. And yet, both you and Loren are fighting against applying the thug label to him and his fellow shit stirrers, apparently because Scarsella is white.

What you continue to miss is that my definition can't be based on a single incident of violence. We have no indication that he committed any other violence.

We do, however, have an indication of other violence on the part of the protesters--they freely admitted to criminal violence on camera.

- - - Updated - - -

.. then your issue is with the people, not the term.

Agreed. I am well aware that the word "thug" can be used without racist connotation. I am also aware that it is often used by certain people as a racist dog whistle.

Agreed--some people use it in a racist fashion. That doesn't make it a racist term, however.

"Thug" as a racist word is not a case of just one, or even a few, people using it in a racist context. It has become a racist dog whistle for a large number of people who are using it in an attempt (a poor attempt, but an attempt nonetheless) to not appear racist. It gives them cover simply because it can be used in a non-racist context, but you will never see them using it in any context that is not racist. It may be a bit harder to spot than the use of "nigger", but if you are aware of who is using it, and in what context, it is not all that difficult.

We shouldn't simply abandon words to the racists when they try to use them as dog whistles.

 

[arkirk]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/10/us-usa-police-georgia-idUSKBN0M60CI20150310

The officer encountered the man, who was not wearing any clothes, in the parking lot, Alexander said at a conference published online by local broadcaster Fox5.

Alexander said the man ran at the officer, who backed up and ordered the person to stop before shooting him twice. Police did not find a weapon at the scene, he said.

I guess we can add "being naked" to the list of capital offenses for black men.

I think blackness had a lot to do with the officer's decision to shoot the man. It looks like the officer was afraid of black men and this guy being naked could only be seen as a black man...no hoodies here! The cop was so afraid he forgot his Taser. Oh well, it was scary and this guy was crazy...maybe on drugs...guess he better just shoot first and ask questions later. Being black is the ultimate offense, followed by being naked and unarmed, followed by experiencing a psychotic break...time to shoot. Police need to get their policies in better order. They actually even scare dressed white men and women today with their propensity to shoot to kill and administer punishment beatings in the process of arrest.

 

[KeepTalking]

Exactly.

Everything in the video Allen Scarsella and his friends posted shows him to be a thug, and everything in Loren's definition of a thug fits Scarsella. And yet, both you and Loren are fighting against applying the thug label to him and his fellow shit stirrers, apparently because Scarsella is white.

What you continue to miss is that my definition can't be based on a single incident of violence. We have no indication that he committed any other violence.

We do, however, have an indication of other violence on the part of the protesters--they freely admitted to criminal violence on camera.

- - - Updated - - -

.. then your issue is with the people, not the term.

Agreed. I am well aware that the word "thug" can be used without racist connotation. I am also aware that it is often used by certain people as a racist dog whistle.

Agreed--some people use it in a racist fashion. That doesn't make it a racist term, however.

"Thug" as a racist word is not a case of just one, or even a few, people using it in a racist context. It has become a racist dog whistle for a large number of people who are using it in an attempt (a poor attempt, but an attempt nonetheless) to not appear racist. It gives them cover simply because it can be used in a non-racist context, but you will never see them using it in any context that is not racist. It may be a bit harder to spot than the use of "nigger", but if you are aware of who is using it, and in what context, it is not all that difficult.

We shouldn't simply abandon words to the racists when they try to use them as dog whistles.

No, but we should call people out on it when they use the words that way, Loren. And that is all we are doing here on this forum.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you continue to miss is that my definition can't be based on a single incident of violence. We have no indication that he committed any other violence.

We do, however, have an indication of other violence on the part of the protesters--they freely admitted to criminal violence on camera.

- - - Updated - - -

.. then your issue is with the people, not the term.

Agreed. I am well aware that the word "thug" can be used without racist connotation. I am also aware that it is often used by certain people as a racist dog whistle.

Agreed--some people use it in a racist fashion. That doesn't make it a racist term, however.

"Thug" as a racist word is not a case of just one, or even a few, people using it in a racist context. It has become a racist dog whistle for a large number of people who are using it in an attempt (a poor attempt, but an attempt nonetheless) to not appear racist. It gives them cover simply because it can be used in a non-racist context, but you will never see them using it in any context that is not racist. It may be a bit harder to spot than the use of "nigger", but if you are aware of who is using it, and in what context, it is not all that difficult.

We shouldn't simply abandon words to the racists when they try to use them as dog whistles.

No, but we should call people out on it when they use the words that way, Loren. And that is all we are doing here on this forum.

No. You are asserting that we are using "thug" as a dog whistle based on faulty evidence.

 

[KeepTalking]

What you continue to miss is that my definition can't be based on a single incident of violence. We have no indication that he committed any other violence.

We do, however, have an indication of other violence on the part of the protesters--they freely admitted to criminal violence on camera.

- - - Updated - - -

.. then your issue is with the people, not the term.

Agreed. I am well aware that the word "thug" can be used without racist connotation. I am also aware that it is often used by certain people as a racist dog whistle.

Agreed--some people use it in a racist fashion. That doesn't make it a racist term, however.

"Thug" as a racist word is not a case of just one, or even a few, people using it in a racist context. It has become a racist dog whistle for a large number of people who are using it in an attempt (a poor attempt, but an attempt nonetheless) to not appear racist. It gives them cover simply because it can be used in a non-racist context, but you will never see them using it in any context that is not racist. It may be a bit harder to spot than the use of "nigger", but if you are aware of who is using it, and in what context, it is not all that difficult.

We shouldn't simply abandon words to the racists when they try to use them as dog whistles.

No, but we should call people out on it when they use the words that way, Loren. And that is all we are doing here on this forum.

No. You are asserting that we are using "thug" as a dog whistle based on faulty evidence.

We are asserting it based on the only information we have about the posters, the posts they make in this forum. It is the fault of the posters if their posts portray them as something they feel they are not.