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

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Welcome to the thread.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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

Because "admitting to shoving somebody on camera" is an indication of prior violent behavior, but OPENING FIRE ON UNARMED PROTESTERS isn't?

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

Which is exactly why everyone here -- except for Derec, apparently -- takes issue with your use of the term as a dog whistle.

 

[Malintent]

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

Welcome to the thread.

Thanks. I was just leaving.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because "admitting to shoving somebody on camera" is an indication of prior violent behavior, but OPENING FIRE ON UNARMED PROTESTERS isn't?

Because a violent mob is a threat even if unarmed.

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

Which is exactly why everyone here -- except for Derec, apparently -- takes issue with your use of the term as a dog whistle.

No. It's easier to call me a racist than to admit that the protesters were out of line.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Because a violent mob is a threat even if unarmed.

And an armed man acting in a deliberately threatening manner ISN'T a threat?

No. It's easier to call me a racist than to admit that the protesters were out of line.

It's VERY easy to (correctly) identify you as a racist when you demonstrate unshakeable conviction in the just action and moral character of these two guys:
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqDfN_eV7EY[/YOUTUBE]

This guy deliberately started a confrontation with the protesters and shot five of them.

THIS is how we know you're a racist. Because you express condemnation for the protesters and solidarity with the people who shot them; because you call the protesters "thugs" and have nothing but praise and excuses for the fuckheads who went to that protest with the EXPLICIT intent of starting a confrontation. You and Derec use the same language, the same rhetoric, the same justifications, the same mindset. You reveal yourself to be no different than the people who fired on those protesters... and the funny thing is, we know perfectly well WHY these two thugs did what they did.

 

[laughing dog]

Because a violent mob is a threat even if unarmed.

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

Which is exactly why everyone here -- except for Derec, apparently -- takes issue with your use of the term as a dog whistle.

No. It's easier to call me a racist than to admit that the protesters were out of line.

Whether the protesters were out of line is not relevant to the issue of your refusal to apply your same standards of "thuggery" to the white shooter as you do to the black victims of the shooting (whom you literally know nothing about). You cannot tell whether those victims did anything out of line because you don't know. Probably they did, but we don't know. On the otherhand, we do know what the shooter intended and what the shooter did.

 

[Derec]

To get back to the original topic of naked attackers, crazy naked people can be quite dangerous.
Nude man attacks Savannah-Chatham police, homeowner in apparent drug rage

The biggest difference between Brandyn Johnson and Anthony Hill is that the former's behavior was caused because he took drugs, while Hill's behavior was caused because he didn't take his.

Note that even though Brandyn was confronted by several police officers he managed to injure them before being subdued. Is it that outrageous then that a lone officer confronted with a similar threat would feel compelled to fire?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So the cops acted properly. Excellent.

 

[laughing dog]

To get back to the original topic of naked attackers, crazy naked people can be quite dangerous.
Nude man attacks Savannah-Chatham police, homeowner in apparent drug rage

The biggest difference between Brandyn Johnson and Anthony Hill is that the former's behavior was caused because he took drugs, while Hill's behavior was caused because he didn't take his.

Note that even though Brandyn was confronted by several police officers he managed to injure them before being subdued. Is it that outrageous then that a lone officer confronted with a similar threat would feel compelled to fire?

Yes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To get back to the original topic of naked attackers, crazy naked people can be quite dangerous.
Nude man attacks Savannah-Chatham police, homeowner in apparent drug rage

Yup--nude in public usually means some pretty strong drugs.

 

[Derec]

So the cops acted properly. Excellent.

You are missing the point. The only reason the cops here could afford to use non-lethal force is because there was several of them. And even then, they sustained injuries.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So the cops acted properly. Excellent.

You are missing the point. The only reason the cops here could afford to use non-lethal force is because there was several of them. And even then, they sustained injuries.

Interesting, so cops can't call for back up in the other cases?

 

[laughing dog]

So the cops acted properly. Excellent.

You are missing the point. The only reason the cops here could afford to use non-lethal force is because there was several of them.

You know that is the only reason because you have access to an interview with those officers? Please provide a link, so we can educate ourselves

And even then, they sustained injuries.

It is part of the job. According to your link,
"Several officers sustained injuries, ranging from minor to substantial. The officers were taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries."

Are you implying that should be permissible for the police to kill civilians in order to avoid possible non-life threatening injuries? Because I can see no other reason for that part of your response.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are missing the point. The only reason the cops here could afford to use non-lethal force is because there was several of them. And even then, they sustained injuries.

Interesting, so cops can't call for back up in the other cases?

And that backup arrives instantly by teleporter??

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Interesting, so cops can't call for back up in the other cases?

And that backup arrives instantly by teleporter??

This is again your fallacious assumption that there's some sort of time limit to how long a confrontation with police can last before the suspect transforms into a warewolf and goes on a vicious killing spree all over town, as if "follow the suspect but do not engage" is somehow impossible to do.

You're basically reasoning from fear: That the "criminal" poses an inherent danger and every second of his freedom is a hazard to the community; that he will necessarily make a destructive decision if he isn't stopped immediately; that if the police show any sign of weakness, a horde of BLM protestors will fall out of the sky and bludgeon them to death with sacks of stolen rolexes.

It's not hard, LP. If you don't have the advantage enough to take the suspect into custody or don't have a working taser for a non-lethal takedown, you tail the guy and maintain a perimeter until you do. It only takes a little bit of extra time and effort to be safe; the life you save could be your own.

 

[laughing dog]

And that backup arrives instantly by teleporter??

This is again your fallacious assumption that there's some sort of time limit to how long a confrontation with police can last before the suspect transforms into a warewolf and goes on a vicious killing spree all over town, as if "follow the suspect but do not engage" is somehow impossible to do.

You're basically reasoning from fear: That the "criminal" poses an inherent danger and every second of his freedom is a hazard to the community; that he will necessarily make a destructive decision if he isn't stopped immediately; that if the police show any sign of weakness, a horde of BLM protestors will fall out of the sky and bludgeon them to death with sacks of stolen rolexes.

It's not hard, LP. If you don't have the advantage enough to take the suspect into custody or don't have a working taser for a non-lethal takedown, you tail the guy and maintain a perimeter until you do. It only takes a little bit of extra time and effort to be safe; the life you save could be your own.

Especially in the case of an unarmed naked person.

 

[Elixir]

Especially in the case of an unarmed naked person.

Armed or not, naked or not, the use of lethal force reduces recidivism!

 

[ksen]

Especially in the case of an unarmed naked person.

Armed or not, naked or not, the use of lethal force reduces recidivism!

I don't think so since the cops keep doing it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And that backup arrives instantly by teleporter??

This is again your fallacious assumption that there's some sort of time limit to how long a confrontation with police can last before the suspect transforms into a warewolf and goes on a vicious killing spree all over town, as if "follow the suspect but do not engage" is somehow impossible to do.

The problem with all the call-for-backup answers is that they mean the criminals can just engage in violence and then leave with very little risk of getting caught.

Think back to the Indian Wars. Were the Indians really such rapists? No--they learned that when fleeing it was advantageous to stop and rape a woman. The troops would stop and aid her, letting them get away. You're trying to set up the same sort of situation.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem with all the call-for-backup answers is that they mean the criminals can just engage in violence and then leave with very little risk of getting caught.

Think back to the Indian Wars. Were the Indians really such rapists? No--they learned that when fleeing it was advantageous to stop and rape a woman. The troops would stop and aid her, letting them get away. You're trying to set up the same sort of situation.

Seriously, are you alright? Even for you, comparing calling for a back up to Native American raping women to slow down troops is really fucking unreal.