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

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Investigate how? There would be no evidence at all unless he talks.

He was in a position where he had a perfectly legal reason to pull the trigger, no possible physical evidence would show that he really pulled it because of personal hatred.

 

[Underseer]

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!

The linked article does not mention the BLM. The situation (robber shot by an employee) is not a police shooting. So what is the connection of this story to the BLM?

BLM is a bunch of African-Americans asking to not be murdered.

Loren found a black person who did something bad, therefore BLM is wrong to ask to not be murdered. Clearly, random black people deserve to be executed in the streets, and it is completely wrong for them to complain about it. Loren just proved that it is wrong for them to complain about it. They should thank us for murdering them, but they are obviously ungrateful. [/conservolibertarian]

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Investigate how? There would be no evidence at all unless he talks.

Unless you witnessed the tragedy and saw everything, and know all the people involved and all of the interactions, there is simply no basis for your conclusion.

He was in a position where he had a perfectly legal reason to pull the trigger, no possible physical evidence would show that he really pulled it because of personal hatred.

You don't know any of that - the victim could have been leaving the Pizza Hut with his back turned.

Why not let the police do a thorough investigation in order to make sure this was not a murder? Or do you approve of letting possible murderers go free?

Of course, all of this is tangential to my point that none of this has anything to do with the BLM. Yet you felt the need to tie this to the BLM. Hmmm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The linked article does not mention the BLM. The situation (robber shot by an employee) is not a police shooting. So what is the connection of this story to the BLM?

BLM is a bunch of African-Americans asking to not be murdered.

Loren found a black person who did something bad, therefore BLM is wrong to ask to not be murdered. Clearly, random black people deserve to be executed in the streets, and it is completely wrong for them to complain about it. Loren just proved that it is wrong for them to complain about it. They should thank us for murdering them, but they are obviously ungrateful. [/conservolibertarian]

What you are missing is that the biggest cause of an African-American being murdered is their own criminal culture, not the police.

I'm saying attitudes like we are seeing from the parents here are a lot more dangerous to the African-American community than the police are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Investigate how? There would be no evidence at all unless he talks.

Unless you witnessed the tragedy and saw everything, and know all the people involved and all of the interactions, there is simply no basis for your conclusion.

He was in a position where he had a perfectly legal reason to pull the trigger, no possible physical evidence would show that he really pulled it because of personal hatred.

You don't know any of that - the victim could have been leaving the Pizza Hut with his back turned.

Why not let the police do a thorough investigation in order to make sure this was not a murder? Or do you approve of letting possible murderers go free?

Of course, all of this is tangential to my point that none of this has anything to do with the BLM. Yet you felt the need to tie this to the BLM. Hmmm.

If there was something like that the police would already have noted it. The fact that the shooter isn't in jail says that the positions support self defense. If it's actually murder there's nothing to see other than what's in his head.

 

[Arctish]

If there was something like that the police would already have noted it. The fact that the shooter isn't in jail says that the positions support self defense. If it's actually murder there's nothing to see other than what's in his head.

Your argument is circular.

You're saying the fact that the shooter isn't in jail means that the shooting was self defense, and we know it was self defense because the shooter isn't in jail. But we don't know if the police investigated the possibility the guy's death was a murder.

You can't base conclusions on what the cops found when you don't even know that they looked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there was something like that the police would already have noted it. The fact that the shooter isn't in jail says that the positions support self defense. If it's actually murder there's nothing to see other than what's in his head.

Your argument is circular.

You're saying the fact that the shooter isn't in jail means that the shooting was self defense, and we know it was self defense because the shooter isn't in jail. But we don't know if the police investigated the possibility the guy's death was a murder.

You can't base conclusions on what the cops found when you don't even know that they looked.

No. I'm saying that the fact that the shooter isn't in jail shows the dead guy wasn't doing something like heading out the door when he was shot.

 

[laughing dog]

If there was something like that the police would already have noted it. The fact that the shooter isn't in jail says that the positions support self defense. If it's actually murder there's nothing to see other than what's in his head.

Are you under the delusion that the police arrest people before they finish an investigation? As Arctish pointed out, your argument is circular.

And, I am still waiting for an explanation of how this situation is related to the BLM movement.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Loren, if you hate it every time you agree with Derec, you must be very depressed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If there was something like that the police would already have noted it. The fact that the shooter isn't in jail says that the positions support self defense. If it's actually murder there's nothing to see other than what's in his head.

Are you under the delusion that the police arrest people before they finish an investigation? As Arctish pointed out, your argument is circular.

In a self defense situation if it doesn't look like self defense you're going to be in jail. After all, to claim self defense you are conceding that you did the act.

And, I am still waiting for an explanation of how this situation is related to the BLM movement.

No, I've already explained. You just ignore such details.

Loren, if you hate it every time you agree with Derec, you must be very depressed.

It is this specific case I'm bothered about--I think he goes far beyond a race-blind position but what we have here is a clear case of a very undesirable pattern from blacks.

 

[laughing dog]

In a self defense situation if it doesn't look like self defense you're going to be in jail. After all, to claim self defense you are conceding that you did the act.

Repeating a circular argument does not make it less circular. Without an investigation, any "concession" is based on incomplete information,

No, I've already explained. You just ignore such details.

I should have been more precise. I apologize. So here goes -
I am still waiting for a rational explanation of how this situation is related to the BLM movement. Because "When have you seen one of these stories from any other race? " is not a rational explanation even though it is a very revealing one. Just like your "deduction" of the race of the victim and the family.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Are you under the delusion that the police arrest people before they finish an investigation? As Arctish pointed out, your argument is circular.

In a self defense situation if it doesn't look like self defense you're going to be in jail. After all, to claim self defense you are conceding that you did the act.

And, I am still waiting for an explanation of how this situation is related to the BLM movement.

No, I've already explained. You just ignore such details.

Loren, if you hate it every time you agree with Derec, you must be very depressed.

It is this specific case I'm bothered about--I think he goes far beyond a race-blind position but what we have here is a clear case of a very undesirable pattern from blacks.

You most often agree with Derec. So what's going on with you saying you don't? I know Derec is not very popular here and that wouldn't be fair of you to try to not be associated with his reputation while very clearly you agree with him most of the time. In any case, I am not sure why you brought your own feelings in the op for people to discuss.

More importantly, an anecdote doesn't make a pattern, nor even does a group pattern negate the possibility that another group also has the pattern. So far Derec posted one case with some kind of commonality and you've posted another. That doesn't qualify as anything except talking trash.

Moreover, parents (and other people in a close circle to someone behaving badly) typically will start off in denial. This is because of psychology (the stages of grief). Denial is the first stage. Blaming someone else (or partially blaming someone else, i.e, minimizing the actions) is simply one of many forms of denial or partial denial. EVERYONE does it in periods of grief in one way or another except perhaps for people with no consciences or feelings.

That means the most reasonable expectation is that both white parents and black parents will have some kind of denial. I posted an example of such denial by the White mother of a serial killer. While it was not exactly the same, it was still a form of denial.

Now, could one possibly find slightly different frequencies of persons in different socio-economic classes of exactly HOW they form denial (when they all, across all groups DO), yes I suppose that is theoretically possible. For example, suppose in the time of slavery in the US, forms of denial centered around putting some blame on masters for things when they had no involvement and suppose masters when in denial may have blamed slaves. It's not an especially profound observation to point specifically at the slaves and point at their "culture" ranking them while being ignorant or non-thinking with regard to what different groups have in common. In fact, it's pretty dumb. And it's dumb for other reasons as well, which I will not even get into.

And that is really the real reason I think you have issues with yourself. You know you are drawing a detestable conclusion but you can't figure out why. So in this specific case you detest yourself for the biased conclusion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You most often agree with Derec. So what's going on with you saying you don't? I know Derec is not very popular here and that wouldn't be fair of you to try to not be associated with his reputation while very clearly you agree with him most of the time. In any case, I am not sure why you brought your own feelings in the op for people to discuss.

I agree with Derec that antidiscrimination efforts have gone way too far and now cause harm rather than prevent it.

More importantly, an anecdote doesn't make a pattern, nor even does a group pattern negate the possibility that another group also has the pattern. So far Derec posted one case with some kind of commonality and you've posted another. That doesn't qualify as anything except talking trash.

This is simply the most recent example of the pattern. It's been talked about on here before.

Moreover, parents (and other people in a close circle to someone behaving badly) typically will start off in denial. This is because of psychology (the stages of grief). Denial is the first stage. Blaming someone else (or partially blaming someone else, i.e, minimizing the actions) is simply one of many forms of denial or partial denial. EVERYONE does it in periods of grief in one way or another except perhaps for people with no consciences or feelings.

Except this isn't denial. He's not denying that his son did the robbery. He's just saying that the son needed money, the robbery is excusable and that his getting shot for it was murder, not merely the risks of his action.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I agree with Derec that antidiscrimination efforts have gone way too far and now cause harm rather than prevent it.

You also agree with Derec on your shared visions of police entitlements to shoot black people dead, inferior black "culture," Israel politics, the "regressive" left, and just about everything else.

More importantly, an anecdote doesn't make a pattern, nor even does a group pattern negate the possibility that another group also has the pattern. So far Derec posted one case with some kind of commonality and you've posted another. That doesn't qualify as anything except talking trash.

This is simply the most recent example of the pattern. It's been talked about on here before.

I wrote that it's been talked about on here before in the paragraph you are responding to. It's been discussed once before. That's not a pattern.

Moreover, parents (and other people in a close circle to someone behaving badly) typically will start off in denial. This is because of psychology (the stages of grief). Denial is the first stage. Blaming someone else (or partially blaming someone else, i.e, minimizing the actions) is simply one of many forms of denial or partial denial. EVERYONE does it in periods of grief in one way or another except perhaps for people with no consciences or feelings.

Except this isn't denial.

Yes, it is. You are over-simplifying denial and its application to various pieces of a narrative.

He's not denying that his son did the robbery. He's just saying that the son needed money ...

So to you, he's denying that maybe it was not about money that was needed.

...the robbery is excusable ...

So to you he's denying that the robbery was inexcusable.

...and that his getting shot for it was murder,...

So to you he's denying that it wasn't murder.

...not merely the risks of his action.

Same thing.

AGAIN, if you go back and look at the post I made about the White mother of the serial killer, the mother was in denial that he was a danger to society, even though she knew he committed the crimes. So she thought he could live with his grandparents. Her denial was about his conscience, not his criminality. You are over simplifying how denial by parents works.

 

[laughing dog]

Except this isn't denial. He's not denying that his son did the robbery. He's just saying that the son needed money, the robbery is excusable and that his getting shot for it was murder, not merely the risks of his action.

This simply counterfactual nonsense. The parents explicitly said they did not condone their son's actions - which explicitly means it is not excusable. The parents explicitly said it was the job of the police not the employee to do the shooting which means they explicitly recognized his actions were risky. The parents explicitly laid out why they thought this shooting might be murder. Whether or not those allegations turn out to be facts is not relevant to the issue that the parents have made a reasonable and understandable plea. Yet in the face of those realities, you persist in your bogus conclusion and counterfactual interpretations.

In addition, as a number of posters in this thread have pointed out, the race of the individuals in question is irrelevant - white parents as well as black parents often behave in the same fashion. Yet you continue to pretend this is somehow a racial thing linked to the BLM.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except this isn't denial. He's not denying that his son did the robbery. He's just saying that the son needed money, the robbery is excusable and that his getting shot for it was murder, not merely the risks of his action.

This simply counterfactual nonsense. The parents explicitly said they did not condone their son's actions - which explicitly means it is not excusable. The parents explicitly said it was the job of the police not the employee to do the shooting which means they explicitly recognized his actions were risky. The parents explicitly laid out why they thought this shooting might be murder. Whether or not those allegations turn out to be facts is not relevant to the issue that the parents have made a reasonable and understandable plea. Yet in the face of those realities, you persist in your bogus conclusion and counterfactual interpretations.

In addition, as a number of posters in this thread have pointed out, the race of the individuals in question is irrelevant - white parents as well as black parents often behave in the same fashion. Yet you continue to pretend this is somehow a racial thing linked to the BLM.

When someone says "It was wrong, but..." they aren't condemning it.

 

[laughing dog]

When someone says "It was wrong, but..." they aren't condemning it.

Failure to condemn is not excusing the action, so you claim is logically and factually false. Up to this point, your argument has no factual or logical basis.

I am still waiting for a rational explanation of how this situation is related to the BLM movement.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

BLM is a bunch of African-Americans asking to not be murdered.

Loren found a black person who did something bad, therefore BLM is wrong to ask to not be murdered. Clearly, random black people deserve to be executed in the streets, and it is completely wrong for them to complain about it. Loren just proved that it is wrong for them to complain about it. They should thank us for murdering them, but they are obviously ungrateful. [/conservolibertarian]

What you are missing is that the biggest cause of an African-American being murdered is their own criminal culture, not the police.

With which BLM is not overly concerned, since solutions for crime culture already exist and are being implemented -- to the fullest extent possible -- by the black community and partnerships with local government. That is, in other words, a totally different can of worms.

BLM is concerned with the murder of black people by the police departments that are supposed to be part of the solution. The inner cities have enough problems with armed, trigger-happy thugs menacing the populace, so having the police ALSO behave as armed trigger-happy thugs magnifies the problem tremendously.

I'm saying attitudes like we are seeing from the parents here are a lot more dangerous to the African-American community than the police are.

"Attitudes" do not magically take on physical form, pick up a pistol and then shoot people for no good reason. "Attitudes" do not panic and gun people down because they "feared for their lives." "Attitudes" do not become angry and violate people's civil rights just to prove a point.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This simply counterfactual nonsense. The parents explicitly said they did not condone their son's actions - which explicitly means it is not excusable. The parents explicitly said it was the job of the police not the employee to do the shooting which means they explicitly recognized his actions were risky. The parents explicitly laid out why they thought this shooting might be murder. Whether or not those allegations turn out to be facts is not relevant to the issue that the parents have made a reasonable and understandable plea. Yet in the face of those realities, you persist in your bogus conclusion and counterfactual interpretations.

In addition, as a number of posters in this thread have pointed out, the race of the individuals in question is irrelevant - white parents as well as black parents often behave in the same fashion. Yet you continue to pretend this is somehow a racial thing linked to the BLM.

When someone says "It was wrong, but..." they aren't condemning it.

"It was wrong of him to rob that store, but he should have at least had a chance to surrender to law enforcement first."

"It was wrong of him to steal that candy bar, but ten years in prison is not a fair sentence."

"It was wrong of him to call you 'nigger' but that that doesn't excuse you and your friends breaking both of his kneecaps."

"It was stupid of her to take a ride from a total stranger, but that doesn't mean she's to blame for getting raped."

"It was wrong of that officer to escalate the encounter by becoming agitated and acting out of anger, but that doesn't excuse the suspect's failure to obey his commands!"

All of the above statements are logically equivalent: The first action is undesirable, but does not justify the consequence. This is a basic logical precept that most people call "fairness." Consequences, like rewards, should be equivalent to the action taken regardless of who performed the actual action.

You make exceptions to this basic concept of "fairness" on a regular basis. Derec does it in the case of women, cops and black people. You do it in the case of cops and black people. You are chagrined, for some reason, that you agree with his worldview on two out of three points, but you continue to excuse that worldview without examining it further.

I invite you to consider the following statement: "It is wrong for black people to commit crimes, but that doesn't mean black people as a group deserve to die."

 

[Derec]

"It was wrong of him to rob that store, but he should have at least had a chance to surrender to law enforcement first."

"It was wrong of him to rob that Pizza Hut, and while he does not deserve to die for it, he puts himself in danger of getting killed by engaging in armed robbery"