I hate finding myself with evidence that support's Derec's position

[Crazy Eddie]

but this article really bothers me. Look only at the URL for now.

Why do you hate that Loren?

Because I don't agree with your positions on race and gender.

Obviously you DO, since you consistently draw the same conclusions he does 90% of the time, just like you did in the OP.

Just because you don't like the IDEA of being a racist doesn't mean you're not one.

 

[Derec]

Obviously you DO, since you consistently draw the same conclusions he does 90% of the time, just like you did in the OP.
Just because you don't like the IDEA of being a racist doesn't mean you're not one.

Of course, I am not a racist either, just because I disagree with left-wing positions on racial issues.

 

[SimpleDon]

but this article really bothers me. Look only at the URL for now.

http://www.nbc12.com/story/33618000...t-question-why-employee-shot-killed-their-son

Based on the URL I was sure of the race of the family involved. That should not be, it shouldn't be possible to draw such a conclusion from the little bit of information presented in the URL. Giving the country (NBC is a US television network) and the fact the parents blame the victims for resisting shouldn't be enough to ID their race but it is.

BLM, fix your own house!

I read the story before, although not at this source.

I think that the BLM wouldn't approve of this boy attempting to rob the pizza shop but I don't think that they would believe that he should be killed for doing it either.

He was shot from behind in the head. He previously worked in this store. This will raise enough questions about the shooting for me to reserve judgment for now. I didn't read your source so maybe yours didn't include this information. Okay, I just read it and this information was in your story too.

Once again I have to admonish you. The BLM and the black community realize that blacks commit a disproportionate number of the crimes committed. This one of the main things that they are angry about. That they are disproportionately poor and that is why they are more involved in crime because the poor are disproportionately involved in crime. And lacking the surety that you and Derec parade here in song and deed that the poor are to blame for their own poverty probably because of genetics, they have no other option but to assume that is the result of more than 400 years of legal racism and the residual racism that they currently see everyday of their lives.

 

[laughing dog]

Obviously you DO, since you consistently draw the same conclusions he does 90% of the time, just like you did in the OP.
Just because you don't like the IDEA of being a racist doesn't mean you're not one.

Of course, I am not a racist either, just because I disagree with left-wing positions on racial issues.

True, that would not make one a racist.

 

[Derec]

I think that the BLM wouldn't approve of this boy attempting to rob the pizza shop but I don't think that they would believe that he should be killed for doing it either.

But getting shot (by police, bystander or would be victim) is occupational hazard of armed robbers and muggers. And some do justify such criminal behavior. Just think of the discussion we had in the How he gonna get his money?.
Bottom line is, loss of life for crimes like this is certainly unfortunate, but the person who used deadly force to stop an armed robbery did nothing wrong.

He was shot from behind in the head. He previously worked in this store. This will raise enough questions about the shooting for me to reserve judgment for now. I didn't read your source so maybe yours didn't include this information. Okay, I just read it and this information was in your story too.

So the parents think the shooting was personal but otherwise there is no evidence. There isn't any confirmation that he worked at that Pizza Hut, although if he had a beef with some of his former coworkers that would be even more reason for them to feel threatened by him. Ex-employee, feeling unjustly fired, coming to his former place of business is unfortunately hardly an unheard-of thing.
Where did you get "back of the head"? Also, from what distance was he shot? Just because the bullet hit his head does not necessarily mean the shooter aimed for it.

Once again I have to admonish you. The BLM and the black community realize that blacks commit a disproportionate number of the crimes committed.

Do they? If you listen to them, white people are the "problem population" who shoot blacks all the time, so that black people are afraid to leave their houses.
And on this board I have seen people disbelieve criminal statistics that show blacks committing 5-6x more homicides than whites on a per capita bases.

This one of the main things that they are angry about.

No, they are only angry when a black criminal is killed by a cop or a white(ish) person.

That they are disproportionately poor and that is why they are more involved in crime because the poor are disproportionately involved in crime.

Not necessarily.

And lacking the surety that you and Derec parade here in song and deed that the poor are to blame for their own poverty probably because of genetics,

While genetics possibly plays some role, I would place more direct blame on culture. Hip-hop culture places a great deal of emphasis on glorifying violent crime. Do you really think that has no influence?

they have no other option but to assume that is the result of more than 400 years of legal racism and the residual racism that they currently see everyday of their lives.

Or maybe hold criminals themselves responsible for criminal behavior. Michael Brown would not have been shot had he not gone for the cop's gun right after robbing that store. That was not the cop's fault. It was not the fault of Ferguson, Missouri, or US leadership.

 

[laughing dog]

Bottom line is, loss of life for crimes like this is certainly unfortunate, but the person who used deadly force to stop an armed robbery did nothing wrong.

But parents have raised reasonable concerns over whether he was involved in the armed robbery and whether this shooting was driven by other factors. They explicitly said they do not condone the robbery nor their son if he was engaged in the robbery. They are not blaming the police for the death of their son. In fact, they explicitly said the shooting should have been the responsibility of the police. And they are asking the police to investigate other angles. Which is both reasonable on the part of the parents and would be reasonable on the part of the police. Neither the parents' reactions or requests are remotely related to the BLM movement. And, in fact, the link does not mention the races of the victim or parents or anyone involved.

Unless you have a link that indicates otherwise, the BLM has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. None. Nor are the parents asking questions that people did not ask in these types of situations prior to the BLM movement. Yet we have the OP linking this situation with the BLM.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

but this article really bothers me. Look only at the URL for now.

Why do you hate that Loren?

Because I don't agree with your positions on race and gender.

Obviously you DO, since you consistently draw the same conclusions he does 90% of the time, just like you did in the OP.

Just because you don't like the IDEA of being a racist doesn't mean you're not one.

No. I think he almost always goes way too far.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

but this article really bothers me. Look only at the URL for now.

http://www.nbc12.com/story/33618000...t-question-why-employee-shot-killed-their-son

Based on the URL I was sure of the race of the family involved. That should not be, it shouldn't be possible to draw such a conclusion from the little bit of information presented in the URL. Giving the country (NBC is a US television network) and the fact the parents blame the victims for resisting shouldn't be enough to ID their race but it is.

BLM, fix your own house!

I read the story before, although not at this source.

I think that the BLM wouldn't approve of this boy attempting to rob the pizza shop but I don't think that they would believe that he should be killed for doing it either.

He was shot from behind in the head. He previously worked in this store. This will raise enough questions about the shooting for me to reserve judgment for now. I didn't read your source so maybe yours didn't include this information. Okay, I just read it and this information was in your story too.

Once again I have to admonish you. The BLM and the black community realize that blacks commit a disproportionate number of the crimes committed. This one of the main things that they are angry about. That they are disproportionately poor and that is why they are more involved in crime because the poor are disproportionately involved in crime. And lacking the surety that you and Derec parade here in song and deed that the poor are to blame for their own poverty probably because of genetics, they have no other option but to assume that is the result of more than 400 years of legal racism and the residual racism that they currently see everyday of their lives.

I didn't see that he was shot in the back of the head but that's irrelevant. This wasn't a one-on-one situation where a shot from behind makes it likely it wasn't self defense. Rather, it was a many vs many, someone that is facing away from you can still be a threat to others.

As for his having worked there--if I were in that position I would evaluate the threat as a lot higher because of that. Being able to tell the cops "the robber was Jack" is much more useful to them than giving the cops a sketch of the unnamed person. Thus the robber has a much greater incentive to shoot a witness that recognizes him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bottom line is, loss of life for crimes like this is certainly unfortunate, but the person who used deadly force to stop an armed robbery did nothing wrong.

But parents have raised reasonable concerns over whether he was involved in the armed robbery and whether this shooting was driven by other factors. They explicitly said they do not condone the robbery nor their son if he was engaged in the robbery. They are not blaming the police for the death of their son. In fact, they explicitly said the shooting should have been the responsibility of the police. And they are asking the police to investigate other angles. Which is both reasonable on the part of the parents and would be reasonable on the part of the police. Neither the parents' reactions or requests are remotely related to the BLM movement. And, in fact, the link does not mention the races of the victim or parents or anyone involved.

Unless you have a link that indicates otherwise, the BLM has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. None. Nor are the parents asking questions that people did not ask in these types of situations prior to the BLM movement. Yet we have the OP linking this situation with the BLM.

Why do you think that is?

"It's wrong, but....." isn't condemning the action.

And my point about BLM is the real danger to blacks is themselves, not the police.

 

[Derec]

But parents have raised reasonable concerns over whether he was involved in the armed robbery

I don't think they are disputing whether he was involved in the armed robbery.

and whether this shooting was driven by other factors.

I have addressed that. If he had a beef with other employees that would give them even more reason to fear for their lives.

They explicitly said they do not condone the robbery nor their son if he was engaged in the robbery.

Is there any doubt he was engaged in the robbery?

They are not blaming the police for the death of their son. In fact, they explicitly said the shooting should have been the responsibility of the police.

But police were not there. And in the meantime he could have shot somebody else. Shooting somebody who threatens you or others with a gun falls under "self defense".

And they are asking the police to investigate other angles. Which is both reasonable on the part of the parents and would be reasonable on the part of the police. '

Any shooting should be thoroughly investigated. But they say they want the employee charged - that is not the same as waiting for outcome of an investigation. And even if it is true that he used to work at that Pizza Hut and had a beef with other employees, I do not see how that makes him any less of a threat when he robs the place.

Neither the parents' reactions or requests are remotely related to the BLM movement.

I did not say they were, did I?

And, in fact, the link does not mention the races of the victim or parents or anyone involved.

There are photos and video of the mother being interviewed. And at least some of Grace's victims would have been black too. The shooter himself might be - I don't think he was identified.
Btw, he looks very old for a 28 year old. Drugs?

Unless you have a link that indicates otherwise, the BLM has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. None. Nor are the parents asking questions that people did not ask in these types of situations prior to the BLM movement. Yet we have the OP linking this situation with the BLM.

Why do you think that is?

You'd have to ask Loren.

 

[Derec]

I didn't see that he was shot in the back of the head but that's irrelevant.

The mother said that he was shot in the head behind the left ear. That does not mean the shooter was standing behind him, more likely off to the side. But then again, the head can move relative to the body so that adds uncertainty.

This wasn't a one-on-one situation where a shot from behind makes it likely it wasn't self defense. Rather, it was a many vs many, someone that is facing away from you can still be a threat to others.

As for his having worked there--if I were in that position I would evaluate the threat as a lot higher because of that. Being able to tell the cops "the robber was Jack" is much more useful to them than giving the cops a sketch of the unnamed person. Thus the robber has a much greater incentive to shoot a witness that recognizes him.

Good point! I was thinking "armed robbery and workplace revenge shooting twofer", but what you say makes perfect sense! Robbing a place where you are known makes for an easy ID. Bottom line is, you just don't know for sure what an armed perp is going to do. He may not have any intention of hurting anybody but can you take that chance?

- - - Updated - - -

No. I think he almost always goes way too far.

In what way?

For example, if Michael Grace Jr. was white I'd have the exactly same opinion of his shooting.

 

[laughing dog]

But parents have raised reasonable concerns over whether he was involved in the armed robbery and whether this shooting was driven by other factors. They explicitly said they do not condone the robbery nor their son if he was engaged in the robbery. They are not blaming the police for the death of their son. In fact, they explicitly said the shooting should have been the responsibility of the police. And they are asking the police to investigate other angles. Which is both reasonable on the part of the parents and would be reasonable on the part of the police. Neither the parents' reactions or requests are remotely related to the BLM movement. And, in fact, the link does not mention the races of the victim or parents or anyone involved.

Unless you have a link that indicates otherwise, the BLM has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. None. Nor are the parents asking questions that people did not ask in these types of situations prior to the BLM movement. Yet we have the OP linking this situation with the BLM.

Why do you think that is?

"It's wrong, but....." isn't condemning the action.

And my point about BLM is the real danger to blacks is themselves, not the police.

There was no such "yes but" on the part of the parents.

Since you seem to tacitly admit this had nothing to do with the BLM, why bring it up at all?

 

[laughing dog]

Is there any doubt he was engaged in the robbery?

Apparently on the part of the parents there is.

But police were not there. And in the meantime he could have shot somebody else. Shooting somebody who threatens you or others with a gun falls under "self defense".

No one said they were. And if he was not threatening anyone - as the parents believe - then it was not self defense. Your response did not address the content of my post.

Any shooting should be thoroughly investigated.

So why not shut up with with speculations and justifications and wait until the investigation is done? Hmmmm

 

[Crazy Eddie]

but this article really bothers me. Look only at the URL for now.

Why do you hate that Loren?

Because I don't agree with your positions on race and gender.

Obviously you DO, since you consistently draw the same conclusions he does 90% of the time, just like you did in the OP.

Just because you don't like the IDEA of being a racist doesn't mean you're not one.

No. I think he almost always goes way too far.

And yet you still back up most of his conclusions on racial issues...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And yet you still back up most of his conclusions on racial issues...

No. I do not believe there are any appreciable racial differences. I think the issues that are usually attributed to race are cultural issues.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently on the part of the parents there is.

But police were not there. And in the meantime he could have shot somebody else. Shooting somebody who threatens you or others with a gun falls under "self defense".

If an armed robber (not disputed) has a gun out (I haven't seen any dispute of this. The fact the gun ended up on the ground makes it very likely it was in his hand) then you have a threat.

1) Do they have the ability to seriously harm you? Yes--the gun.

2) Do they have the opportunity to seriously harm you? Yes, he was clearly in handgun range.

3) Have they demonstrated an intent to harm? Armed robbery is an implicit death threat--give me money (or whatever else they're after) or I'll kill you, thus yes.

All the elements of self defense have been fulfilled.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

No. I do not believe there are any appreciable racial differences. I think the issues that are usually attributed to race are cultural issues.

Right. Derec assumes black people are inferior on account if their culture. You believe the culture that black people internalize is inherently inferior. Huge difference there!

 

[laughing dog]

No. I do not believe there are any appreciable racial differences. I think the issues that are usually attributed to race are cultural issues.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently on the part of the parents there is.

But police were not there. And in the meantime he could have shot somebody else. Shooting somebody who threatens you or others with a gun falls under "self defense".

If an armed robber (not disputed) has a gun out (I haven't seen any dispute of this. The fact the gun ended up on the ground makes it very likely it was in his hand) then you have a threat.

1) Do they have the ability to seriously harm you? Yes--the gun.

2) Do they have the opportunity to seriously harm you? Yes, he was clearly in handgun range.

3) Have they demonstrated an intent to harm? Armed robbery is an implicit death threat--give me money (or whatever else they're after) or I'll kill you, thus yes.

All the elements of self defense have been fulfilled.

As usual, you miss the point. The parents brought to light some allegations that, if true, shed a different light on the entire situation. Those allegations deserve to be investigated. So why not wait to see the outcome of the investigation before jumping to possible erroneous conclusions?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. I do not believe there are any appreciable racial differences. I think the issues that are usually attributed to race are cultural issues.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently on the part of the parents there is.

But police were not there. And in the meantime he could have shot somebody else. Shooting somebody who threatens you or others with a gun falls under "self defense".

If an armed robber (not disputed) has a gun out (I haven't seen any dispute of this. The fact the gun ended up on the ground makes it very likely it was in his hand) then you have a threat.

1) Do they have the ability to seriously harm you? Yes--the gun.

2) Do they have the opportunity to seriously harm you? Yes, he was clearly in handgun range.

3) Have they demonstrated an intent to harm? Armed robbery is an implicit death threat--give me money (or whatever else they're after) or I'll kill you, thus yes.

All the elements of self defense have been fulfilled.

As usual, you miss the point. The parents brought to light some allegations that, if true, shed a different light on the entire situation. Those allegations deserve to be investigated. So why not wait to see the outcome of the investigation before jumping to possible erroneous conclusions?

The parents' allegations don't pass the laugh test.

There's no way the employees could have caused the armed robbery to happen--how could the employees be doing it for revenge? As for why he was shot, I've already pointed out that recognizing him would give the defenders a much bigger reason to shoot than a simple armed robbery. Thus simply showing that the guy wouldn't have fired in an ordinary armed robbery (and how would you show that????) doesn't prove the shooting was of evil intent.

There's simply nothing to investigate.

 

[laughing dog]

No. I do not believe there are any appreciable racial differences. I think the issues that are usually attributed to race are cultural issues.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently on the part of the parents there is.

But police were not there. And in the meantime he could have shot somebody else. Shooting somebody who threatens you or others with a gun falls under "self defense".

If an armed robber (not disputed) has a gun out (I haven't seen any dispute of this. The fact the gun ended up on the ground makes it very likely it was in his hand) then you have a threat.

1) Do they have the ability to seriously harm you? Yes--the gun.

2) Do they have the opportunity to seriously harm you? Yes, he was clearly in handgun range.

3) Have they demonstrated an intent to harm? Armed robbery is an implicit death threat--give me money (or whatever else they're after) or I'll kill you, thus yes.

All the elements of self defense have been fulfilled.

As usual, you miss the point. The parents brought to light some allegations that, if true, shed a different light on the entire situation. Those allegations deserve to be investigated. So why not wait to see the outcome of the investigation before jumping to possible erroneous conclusions?

The parents' allegations don't pass the laugh test.

No, their suspicions are legitimate not laughable.

There's no way the employees could have caused the armed robbery to happen--how could the employees be doing it for revenge? As for why he was shot, I've already pointed out that recognizing him would give the defenders a much bigger reason to shoot than a simple armed robbery. Thus simply showing that the guy wouldn't have fired in an ordinary armed robbery (and how would you show that????) doesn't prove the shooting was of evil intent.

There's simply nothing to investigate.

Please try to focus. The parents suspect that the killer did not shoot in self-defense but for other reasons. The police should be investigate that suspicion. Otherwise a possible murderer will get away with his crime without even being charged.

 

[Derec]

Right. Derec assumes black people are inferior on account if their culture. You believe the culture that black people internalize is inherently inferior. Huge difference there!

SOME black people and SOME non-black people as well. Those that subscribe to destructive, crime glorifying culture. Note that those people are over-represented in these crime stories. Vast majority of black people don't rob pizza joints etc.