Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?

Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.

Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...

have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.

Agreed. I'd note though the NBP are a completely different thing entirely than BLM. I'd put them more in the realm of some of some of the tamer white supremacist groups.
While they aren't up to the standards of the real KKK, they have similar tactics to the modern girly version, but being more lame-if possible. The actual BP has disavowed them.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?

Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.

Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...

have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.

NBPP aren't the same as BLM (although I agree with you that BLM isn't anything like the KKK.) BNPP is considered a hate group by the SPLC, but the SPLC considers basically all patriot groups like the Oathkeepers hate groups too, so I'm not sure it's appropriate to consider everything they claim without any critical analysis. To be clear, some of the groups they list are definitely hate groups, but some might not be. It seems like they rope a lot of pro-2nd amendment types into their hate group list.

Again agreed. They tend to have a very broad view of a hate group if it comes from the right.

Again, to be clear I don't in any way consider BLM to be a hate group, unless like me they hate vegetables with the white hot passion of a thousand burning sons, in which case they are my kind of guys.

 skyth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?

Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.

Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...

have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.

I'm not sure that it's morphing into anti-white, but rather it is being portrayed by certain people as being anti-white and has from the beginning. the whole 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough' thing comes to mind here.

I think part of the issue is that as a movement it is extremely loose. All you have to do to be a part of it is say you're a part of it. As such, there are definitely some anti-white and anti-police elements in the movement, but that certainly does not mean that the movement as a whole is anti-white (or even anti-police).

The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.

None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.

Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)

No one in the Klan of today does either, luckily.

 Hordini wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?

Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.

Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...

have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.

I'm not sure that it's morphing into anti-white, but rather it is being portrayed by certain people as being anti-white and has from the beginning. the whole 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough' thing comes to mind here.

I think part of the issue is that as a movement it is extremely loose. All you have to do to be a part of it is say you're a part of it. As such, there are definitely some anti-white and anti-police elements in the movement, but that certainly does not mean that the movement as a whole is anti-white (or even anti-police).

Well, BLM is intended to be anti-police in a certain sense. Since it is the police treatment of blacks that they pretty much have a problem with and what caused the movement to form. Of course, anti-police in this sense meaning that the police need to change what they are doing, not as in officers need to be killed.

nkelsch wrote:
The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.

None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.

Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)

With all the Black on Black violence and murder happening because someone is wearing the wrong color shirt, headband, or team gear, I think you might be missing something with your statement.

 skyth wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?

Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.

Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...

have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.

I'm not sure that it's morphing into anti-white, but rather it is being portrayed by certain people as being anti-white and has from the beginning. the whole 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough' thing comes to mind here.

I think part of the issue is that as a movement it is extremely loose. All you have to do to be a part of it is say you're a part of it. As such, there are definitely some anti-white and anti-police elements in the movement, but that certainly does not mean that the movement as a whole is anti-white (or even anti-police).

Well, BLM is intended to be anti-police in a certain sense. Since it is the police treatment of blacks that they pretty much have a problem with and what caused the movement to form. Of course, anti-police in this sense meaning that the police need to change what they are doing, not as in officers need to be killed.

The biggest challenge BLM has to overcome, is that they were an organization the grew from a flawed interpretation of an event. (aka, "Hands up, don't shoot" in Ferguson).

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

 skyth wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?

Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.

Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...

have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.

I'm not sure that it's morphing into anti-white, but rather it is being portrayed by certain people as being anti-white and has from the beginning. the whole 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough' thing comes to mind here.

I think part of the issue is that as a movement it is extremely loose. All you have to do to be a part of it is say you're a part of it. As such, there are definitely some anti-white and anti-police elements in the movement, but that certainly does not mean that the movement as a whole is anti-white (or even anti-police).

Well, BLM is intended to be anti-police in a certain sense. Since it is the police treatment of blacks that they pretty much have a problem with and what caused the movement to form. Of course, anti-police in this sense meaning that the police need to change what they are doing, not as in officers need to be killed.

The biggest challenge BLM has to overcome, is that they were an organization the grew from a flawed interpretation of an event. (aka, "Hands up, don't shoot" in Ferguson).

I'd put stuff like this higher up on the tier of challenges they have to overcome. As long as things like these continue to take place, they'll never be taken seriously.

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Spoiler:

 skyth wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
The NBPP is a black version of the KKK, so if the KKK where to announce that they were going to open carry, would it get the same press? I wonder if the NBPP would make the same "threat" for the DNC?

Let me know when the New Black Panther Party starts burning crosses and lynching people, and then maybe this statement will make more sense.

Really interested to see if the police union is going to walk that statement back...

have to agree. I see a lot of this "BLM = KKK" and while I dislike the whole BLM ( I think it's a group with good intentions that is morphing into an anti-whites movement), it's nowhere near the level of the KKK.

I'm not sure that it's morphing into anti-white, but rather it is being portrayed by certain people as being anti-white and has from the beginning. the whole 'tell a lie often enough and loud enough' thing comes to mind here.

I think part of the issue is that as a movement it is extremely loose. All you have to do to be a part of it is say you're a part of it. As such, there are definitely some anti-white and anti-police elements in the movement, but that certainly does not mean that the movement as a whole is anti-white (or even anti-police).

Well, BLM is intended to be anti-police in a certain sense. Since it is the police treatment of blacks that they pretty much have a problem with and what caused the movement to form. Of course, anti-police in this sense meaning that the police need to change what they are doing, not as in officers need to be killed.

The biggest challenge BLM has to overcome, is that they were an organization the grew from a flawed interpretation of an event. (aka, "Hands up, don't shoot" in Ferguson).

I'd put stuff like this higher up on the tier of challenges they have to overcome. As long as things like these continue to take place, they'll never be taken seriously.

Yeah... that's pretty bad. "Pigs in a blanket, Fry 'em like bacon" chant is every where. They even had a "pork BBQ" event, outside of the Ferguson Police Dept a few times.

Or, even the constant derision over "All Lives Matters"... or, the whole, interrupt Sunday Brunch events:
http://gawker.com/blacklivesmatter-protesters-hit-whites-where-it-truly-1677554997
Which was ridiculously ironic as "Brunch" is huge in the St. Louis region. (we midwesterners of all race like to eat)

What I was driving at, was how BLM "came to be". It all started from the "Hands up, don't shoot" lie and went down-hill from there.

Relapse wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.

None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.

Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)

With all the Black on Black violence and murder happening because someone is wearing the wrong color shirt, headband, or team gear, I think you might be missing something with your statement.

There's more white on white violence than black on black violence

Relapse wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.

None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.

Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)

With all the Black on Black violence and murder happening because someone is wearing the wrong color shirt, headband, or team gear, I think you might be missing something with your statement.

And that justifies police illegal discrimination, overzealous policing and unjustified violence how? And what does it have to do with the generational income disparities and glass ceilings put up against classes of people? And Black on Black crime is somehow causing the educational disparities and judicial disparities we see which seem to be drawn along race-based lines?

That is absurd to compare the current valid issues facing minorities by our system of government and subtle racism in our society to say 'you don't get to tackle bigotry and discrimination until you are an educated, unified front and fix all your issues in your community first' and then when a group calls for 'unity of the black community' through the form of education and supporting black-owned organizations and businesses you label them as racists and hate groups as bad as the KKK.

nkelsch wrote:

Relapse wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.

None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.

Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)

With all the Black on Black violence and murder happening because someone is wearing the wrong color shirt, headband, or team gear, I think you might be missing something with your statement.

And that justifies police illegal discrimination, overzealous policing and unjustified violence how? And what does it have to do with the generational income disparities and glass ceilings put up against classes of people? And Black on Black crime is somehow causing the educational disparities and judicial disparities we see which seem to be drawn along race-based lines?

And... I don't think he typed that. You did.

That is absurd to compare the current valid issues facing minorities by our system of government and subtle racism in our society to say 'you don't get to tackle bigotry and discrimination until you are an educated, unified front and fix all your issues in your community first' and then when a group calls for 'unity of the black community' through the form of education and supporting black-owned organizations and businesses you label them as racists and hate groups as bad as the KKK.

The difficulty with that argument is that, there aren't protests about the level of BonB crime in inner cities which are geometric rates higher more great. While I agree, it looks like hypocrisy, especially when several of the key initial drivers were actually BG's and legally deserved to get wacked. To some it looks like BLM is defending criminals.

 Frazzled wrote:

The difficulty with that argument is that, there aren't protests about the level of BonB crime in inner cities which are geometric rates higher more great. While I agree, it looks like hypocrisy, especially when several of the key initial drivers were actually BG's and legally deserved to get wacked. To some it looks like BLM is defending criminals.

The problem is that any black male killed by the police is defined as a criminal because he got shot by the police to certain outspoken people. Heck, we even had someone here in the thread on the guy who got shot in MN saying he was a 'serial criminal' because he was pulled over 56 times.

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Relapse wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The thing that makes NBPP says revolution and violence are sometimes acceptable and necessary which makes a lot of people instantly uncomfortable (because a lot of people enjoy the benifit of the status quo). Still not the same as the KKK, but pretty much any group which won't submit to be 100% non-violent is instantly 'labeled' and lumped together even when there is nothing connecting them. Broad brushes.

None of these other groups which may advocate or resort to violence have anywhere close to the political power or backing the KKK had at the time. Back then, if you gave lip to a police officer, him, the judge and the mayor could put on hoods, murder you and then go back to their jobs with no consequences.

Pretty sure no one in the NBBP has that luxury. (or has ever had that power)

With all the Black on Black violence and murder happening because someone is wearing the wrong color shirt, headband, or team gear, I think you might be missing something with your statement.

And that justifies police illegal discrimination, overzealous policing and unjustified violence how? And what does it have to do with the generational income disparities and glass ceilings put up against classes of people? And Black on Black crime is somehow causing the educational disparities and judicial disparities we see which seem to be drawn along race-based lines?

And... I don't think he typed that. You did.

That is absurd to compare the current valid issues facing minorities by our system of government and subtle racism in our society to say 'you don't get to tackle bigotry and discrimination until you are an educated, unified front and fix all your issues in your community first' and then when a group calls for 'unity of the black community' through the form of education and supporting black-owned organizations and businesses you label them as racists and hate groups as bad as the KKK.

The difficulty with that argument is that, there aren't protests about the level of BonB crime in inner cities which are geometric rates higher more great. While I agree, it looks like hypocrisy, especially when several of the key initial drivers were actually BG's and legally deserved to get wacked. To some it looks like BLM is defending criminals.

There are plenty of local initiatives that work to decrease black on black crime in the cities. It's not like people in Chicago, for instance, don't care about all the murder that goes on in certain neighborhoods, it's just that the national media doesn't devote the time and effort to covering stuff like community centers and anti gang programs when they can just highlight the number of shootings or showcase a baby that was tragically gunned down in a cross fire, etc. I'm sure there's plenty of stuff that goes on in your area of Texas that I don't hear about because I'm thousands of miles away and your local news isn't that important on a national scale.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The difficulty with that argument is that, there aren't protests about the level of BonB crime in inner cities which are geometric rates higher more great. While I agree, it looks like hypocrisy, especially when several of the key initial drivers were actually BG's and legally deserved to get wacked. To some it looks like BLM is defending criminals.

The problem is that any black male killed by the police is defined as a criminal because he got shot by the police to certain outspoken people. Heck, we even had someone here in the thread on the guy who got shot in MN saying he was a 'serial criminal' because he was pulled over 56 times.

BLM started with Martin and Brown. Martin was killed because he was trying to kill someone else. Similarly Brown was trying to beat the police officer to death. They need to pick and choose their symbols better.

I'm sure there's plenty of stuff that goes on in your area of Texas that I don't hear about because I'm thousands of miles away and your local news isn't that important on a national scale.

No that can't be right, because if its news in taxes, its news in Da World!!!! :-)

"Texas, at least we're not Florida"
-our new state motto.

Martin was killed because he was chased after and murdered by an armed vigilante who then tried to blame it on Martin. However, the usual suspects appeared since he was black, he was automatically a criminal.

I don't think either would be dead if they were white and doing the same exact thing they did to 'deserve' to be killed.

 skyth wrote:
Martin was killed because he was chased after and murdered by an armed vigilante who then tried to blame it on Martin. However, the usual suspects appeared since he was black, he was automatically a criminal.

I don't think either would be dead if they were white and doing the same exact thing they did to 'deserve' to be killed.

I'm pretty sure that if's it was a white guy "grounding & pounding" at black dude... the black dude would be well within his rights to shoot the white dude...

Similarly, if a big white guy charges a black police officer, then that officer is well within his right to use his firearm.

So, I call BS on your hypothetical "if race was reverse, no one would be dead".

Obama also needs to watch which piles of gak he sticks his foot into. Comparing dead street brawling drug users to his imaginary son and sending representitives to funerals of criminals only stokes the troubles. Just out of curiosity, did he send any reps to the funerals of the cops?

 skyth wrote:
Martin was killed because he was chased after and murdered by an armed vigilante

Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.

who then tried to blame it on Martin.

Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.

However, the usual suspects appeared since he was black, he was automatically a criminal.

Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it. They did however (NBC looking at you) conflate Zimmerman with a white guy. When found out they coined the new phrase "white hispanic." if Zimmerman's name Zamora it would never have even made the local news.

I don't think either would be dead if they were white and doing the same exact thing they did to 'deserve' to be killed.

Strangely if I am trying to beat a police officer to death I do believe the cop if going to shoot me.

Strangely if some guy is trying beat my head into the ground I do believe I am going to empty the mag into their face. Also if you go for my pizza.

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Martin was killed because he was chased after and murdered by an armed vigilante

Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.

who then tried to blame it on Martin.

Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.

However, the usual suspects appeared since he was black, he was automatically a criminal.

Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.

It is as substantiated (heck, even more so) as your claims.

I don't think either would be dead if they were white and doing the same exact thing they did to 'deserve' to be killed.

Strangely if I am trying to beat a police officer to death I do believe the cop if going to shoot me.

Strangely if some guy is trying beat my head into the ground I do believe I am going to empty the mag into their face. Also if you go for my pizza.

It is as substantiated (heck, even more so) as your claims.

I made no claims that were contested. It is uncontested that Martin attacked Captain Loser. Further the jury did not convict.

I bet they wouldn't have even stopped him if he wasn't black.

He was walking in the middle of a 4 lane road blocking traffic and IIRC the call came in about him choking the store owner, so yes, they generally do.

Same as Martin. The guy who murdered him wouldn't have even looked twice at him if he wasn't black.

good chance you are right. You don't get to kill someone for looking at you though, even if its Captain Loser.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, this is why you don't use these two. Plenty of cases of real abuse-unfortunately.

 Frazzled wrote:

It is as substantiated (heck, even more so) as your claims.

I made no claims that were contested. It is uncontested that Martin attacked Captain Loser. Further the jury did not convict.

I bet they wouldn't have even stopped him if he wasn't black.

He was walking in the middle of a 4 lane road blocking traffic and IIRC the call came in about him choking the store owner, so yes, they generally do.

Same as Martin. The guy who murdered him wouldn't have even looked twice at him if he wasn't black.

good chance you are right. You don't get to kill someone for looking at you though, even if its Captain Loser.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, this is why you don't use these two. Plenty of cases of real abuse-unfortunately.

o

There was a call about Brown along with a video that later came out, showing him roughing up someone who maybe weighed 100 lbs during the course of a theft from a convenience store.

 Frazzled wrote:

It is as substantiated (heck, even more so) as your claims.

I made no claims that were contested. It is uncontested that Martin attacked Captain Loser. Further the jury did not convict.
.

Actually, it was contested that Martin attacked the idiot. That the jury didn't convict him doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty as all heck. Martin IS a good example of why BLM....As he was considered a suspect by the idiot just because he was black. Then the idiot started a fight, started losing, so like the coward that he was, he blew Martin away.

And the idiot started chasing Martin even after being told not to. That IS starting a fight. I don't care what the laws are.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Martin was killed because he was chased after and murdered by an armed vigilante

Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.

who then tried to blame it on Martin.

Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.

However, the usual suspects appeared since he was black, he was automatically a criminal.

Cites evidence that appeared no where in the record. You should have brought this to the attention of the DA. They sure could have used it.

It is as substantiated (heck, even more so) as your claims.

I don't think either would be dead if they were white and doing the same exact thing they did to 'deserve' to be killed.

Strangely if I am trying to beat a police officer to death I do believe the cop if going to shoot me.

Strangely if some guy is trying beat my head into the ground I do believe I am going to empty the mag into their face. Also if you go for my pizza.

 skyth wrote:

Actually, it was contested that Martin attacked the idiot. That the jury didn't convict him doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty as all heck. Martin IS a good example of why BLM....As he was considered a suspect by the idiot just because he was black. Then the idiot started a fight, started losing, so like the coward that he was, he blew Martin away.

And the idiot started chasing Martin even after being told not to. That IS starting a fight. I don't care what the laws are.

You know, none of what you state as fact is actually fact. The prosecution attempted to prove it as fact, and failed miserably.

Actually, it was contested that Martin attacked the idiot.

ok. Fair point. Please cite where it was disputed by whom that Martin attacked. No witness supported your statement, nor did the evidence.

That the jury didn't convict him doesn't mean that he wasn't guilty as all heck.

True. It does not support guilt however.

Martin IS a good example of why BLM....As he was considered a suspect by the idiot just because he was black.

And then he attacked the guy. and then he died. Moral of the story, don't attack fat half Cubans in the rain. They can't fight so they'll just shoot you.

Then the idiot started a fight, started losing, so like the coward that he was, he blew Martin away.

Supported by literally no evidence whatsoever. You're wrong. The aliens came and gave them a probe. Zimmerman had to shoot him to save the world. Hey my argument has as many facts as yours does.

And the idiot started chasing Martin even after being told not to. That IS starting a fight.

You have an interesting, but completely illegal view of the definition of battery.

I don't care what the laws are.

Clearly. And thats part of the problem. Pick better cases. There are many out there.

Frzz, please show me a better case so we can all rally around it and agree that BLM has a point. I want to see ti so we can shutdown the thread, stop arguing, and realize that what they are concerned about is happening.

 Easy E wrote:
Frzz, please show me a better case so we can all rally around it and agree that BLM has a point. I want to see ti so we can shutdown the thread, stop arguing, and realize that what they are concerned about is happening.

A bunch -again unfortunately.
Just the ones in the big spotlight:

-Freddie Grey: somehow died in police van.
-Walter Scott: shot in back ON CAMERA
-Philando Castile: CHLer shot by overzealous officer while sitting in car