Graphic video released of police killing another black man in cold blood

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Who, perhaps beyond HH, is calling the police murderous, evil racist pigs bent on killing black people?

Is it not legitimate to ask whether police and policing tactics demonstrate a bias against black people and if this is an example of it?

Is it not further legitimate to ask whether the police tactic of shoot first and ask questions later is appropriate in this and other cases?

Is it not also legitimate to ask whether the shoot first tactic is perhaps more prone to be employed with the perp is black?

More broadly, is it not legitimate to ask whether the police doctrine of overwhelming and/or deadly force is appropriate to be employed so frequently or when risk is perceived, as opposed to other possible policing tactics/doctrines?

By creating this straw-man argument, you're avoiding dealing with the obvious questions that this tragic event, and many more like it, raises.

These are all very good questions that get obscured by the likes of Highland Homie. That's is one of the many reasons I maintain that those who approach this issue with his attitude do the people they are purporting to help more harm than good.

 

[fishonjazz]

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

^Have you been searching for a thread to plug that into for a long time?

I think you picked the wrong one.

 

[fishonjazz]

^Have you been searching for a thread to plug that into for a long time?

I think you picked the wrong one.

Yes
And yes

 

[One Brow]

These are all very good questions that get obscured by the likes of Highland Homie. That's is one of the many reasons I maintain that those who approach this issue with his attitude do the people they are purporting to help more harm than good.

I think that the level of anger these behaviors engender needs to be clearly, unequivocally expressed, and if it makes other people uncomfortable, that can be a good thing. When you react calmly, people have a tendency to ignore the reaction entirely. It's much harder to say a behavior is not important when you see the anger it causes in people. The participation in this discussion would probably be a lot smaller if not for HighlandHomie's initial, angry post; I've see a few posters chime in that often stay out.

 

[Yell42]

Likewise, if a woman is stupid enough to dress in tight, revealing clothes, or anything that makes her looks like a tramp in public, she should expect to be treated like a tramp.

Yep. He got exactly what he deserved

So a woman dressed like a slut poses the same danger to the public as someone waving a gun around

What a stupid comparison buddy

 

[moevillini]

I think that the level of anger these behaviors engender needs to be clearly, unequivocally expressed, and if it makes other people uncomfortable, that can be a good thing. When you react calmly, people have a tendency to ignore the reaction entirely. It's much harder to say a behavior is not important when you see the anger it causes in people. The participation in this discussion would probably be a lot smaller if not for HighlandHomie's initial, angry post; I've see a few posters chime in that often stay out.

You can certainly express strong, angry feelings without the kind of name-calling and labeling that Highland Homie often uses. It is ugly and can completely obliterate other opinions he may be trying to express.

To me, he often gives the impression in his posts that he cares more about name-calling than making a valid point about the issue.

 

[Gameface]

You can certainly express strong, angry feelings without the kind of name-calling and labeling that Highland Homie often uses. It is ugly and can completely obliterate other opinions he may be trying to express.

To me, he often gives the impression in his posts that he cares more about name-calling than making a valid point about the issue.

Not only does his name calling diminish the point he's trying to make it also demonstrates how little consideration he gives to the responses he receives, as any simple disagreement typically results in him labeling the person a racist or whatever other insult he decides to throw around.

 

[HighlandHomie]

You can certainly express strong, angry feelings without the kind of name-calling and labeling that Highland Homie often uses. It is ugly and can completely obliterate other opinions he may be trying to express.

To me, he often gives the impression in his posts that he cares more about name-calling than making a valid point about the issue.

Yeah because I'm not called names, sent vile reps/PMs by posters for my initial opinion. That's okay though.

 

[Gameface]

Yeah because I'm not called names, sent vile reps/PMs by posters for my initial opinion. That's okay though.

I haven't sent you vile PMs or reps (haven't given a single rep, positive or negative, since my return) or called you vile names, yet you still include me in your generalized condemnations.

 

[HighlandHomie]

I haven't sent you vile PMs or reps (haven't given a single rep, positive or negative, since my return) or called you vile names, yet you still include me in your generalized condemnations.

Yeah, I've already admitted I post irresponsibly and like an *******. The meat and potatoes of the issues I present, I'm still passionate about and still stand firmly behind. Me being an idiot and unjustifiably calling a dissenter a racist doesn't change the fact Mike Brown was wrongly killed, and that the Ferguson PD and Missouri's gov grossly mishandled everything about the case from the start.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yeah because I'm not called names, sent vile reps/PMs by posters for my initial opinion. That's okay though.

I haven't called you anything, except maybe attention whore once, nor have I sent PMs or reps of any kind your way. Yet you use unrelated threads to spread the complete racist ******** about me. But stick to your troll shtick it is definitely getting you the attention you want.