Charlotte Protests/Riots Discussion

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

I am not the one who supports the rioters. Liberals do. I am not the ignorant one.

 

 

Yes. Yes you are. By singling out a entire group of people, over and over, with no knowledge of those people, you are being by definition ignorant. 

[RaleighHeelsfan]

Yes, all rioters are low life garbage.

4 minutes ago, ricky_davis_fan_21 said:

Yes. Yes you are. By singling out a entire group of people, over and over, with no knowledge of those people, you are being by definition ignorant. 

 

[cjd5050]

1 minute ago, RaleighHeelsfan said:

Yes, all rioters are low life garbage.

All protesters are not rioters.  In fact, especially in Charlotte, the overwhelming majority of folks out were not doing anything other than expressing their concerns while protesting.  

Grouping all protestors together because you don't agree with the actions of a few is just as bad, just as dangerous and just as counterproductive as grouping all police officers together because of the actions of a few.  

Your tone is garbage.  

[RaleighHeelsfan]

2 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

All protesters are not rioters.  In fact, especially in Charlotte, the overwhelming majority of folks out were not doing anything other than expressing their concerns while protesting.  

Grouping all protestors together because you don't agree with the actions of a few is just as bad, just as dangerous and just as counterproductive as grouping all police officers together because of the actions of a few.  

Your tone is garbage.  

I said "all rioters are garbage"

Who said anything about protesters?

reading comprehension...vital

[RiverwoodCLT]

From Coast to Coast AM last night, it  was reported the gun Scott had was stolen.  He brought it from a guy who is in jail and  is charges with breaking and entering.

[grodney]

43 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

It is not probable that he had a gun.  It's a fact.  You may be in denial because there is not 4k video where you can zoom in and enhance like they do on TV shows...but he had a gun.  The gun has his DNA and Blood on it.  So does the ankle holster.  Beyond that, the gun has been confirmed stolen and the man accused of stealing the gun was interviewed and is on record stating he sold the gun to Scott.

As for the disconnect....you seem to want to leave out the important fact that Scott had a gun in your narrative.  You may want to suggest it's just probable he had a gun...but you would be wrong and contributing to the problem.  He had a gun.  It's a fact.  You may want to suggest Brown didn't assault a police officer but it's a fact that he did.

A large segment of our population seems to think laws don't apply to them.  A large segment of our population think it's OK to assault an officer or confront multiple officers with a gun in your hand.  A large segment of our population seems to think they do not need to respond to police orders and seem to indicate that the lives of police officers simply trying to do their job does not apply to them.  

 

You seem to have my take on the gun wrong.  I said "probably" in the "let's prove it first" court-of-law sense.  Yes, for our non-court purposes, he had a gun.  That's pretty obvious.

But that doesn't change anything I said.  Each shooting, on its own, needs careful examination.  Just because you have a gun and refuse to drop it, that's not license for a cop to shoot you, and you don't "have what's coming to you" as many are quick to say.  Your last paragraph is part of the disconnect I'm talking about.

[cjd5050]

42 minutes ago, grodney said:

You seem to have my take on the gun wrong.  I said "probably" in the "let's prove it first" court-of-law sense.  Yes, for our non-court purposes, he had a gun.  That's pretty obvious.

But that doesn't change anything I said.  Each shooting, on its own, needs careful examination.  Just because you have a gun and refuse to drop it, that's not license for a cop to shoot you, and you don't "have what's coming to you" as many are quick to say.  Your last paragraph is part of the disconnect I'm talking about.

I don't think it's a case of someone getting 'what they have coming to them' as I think that implies an inevitable outcome.  Clearly that's not the case here.  

But I disagree 100% that a refusal to drop a gun is not a reason for a cop to shoot.  To start, brandishing a gun shows a level of intent.  Then you have the refusal to drop the gun which presents an even greater level of intent.  This intent needs to be accounted for.  

Then you need consider the time it takes for someone to fire a gun.  Not just fire at a police officer but simply to discharge a gun.  Takes just an instant. 

Then you need to consider that where this incident happened not only had police around but multiple civilians. Hell, wasn't he there at the bus stop 'reading a book' and waiting to pick up a child?  The parameter was not secure, which is obvious by the video from his wife.  

Waiting even longer could have allowed him to fire off a random shot and kill either a police officer (unlikely but possible) or a civilian (a higher possibility) who is around the area and close enough for a bullet to reach them but not having an unobstructed view to try and protect themselves.  

So ya...you're wrong.  When you brandish a gun and refuse to drop it after being engaged by police gives the police every single right to stop an imminent threat to both the police officers on the scene and the law abiding civilians they are sworn to protect.  

You don't get to put other lives in danger without putting your own life at risk.  Period.

One of the most infuriating things for me is having the ability to comprehend the possible outcomes and know that errant gun fire accounts for so many deaths in civilian on civilian crime yet those that die, many times children, do not get the same outrange or calls for justice as a criminal like Scott.  That's the disconnect that you seem to have and the one I am talking about.

[grodney]

14 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

words words words words

See?  Disconnect.

 

[kermit]

3 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

Honest question.  Why should these protesters get a seat at the table?  

It's obvious they are upset and vocal but it's also been made clear they are unreasonable and unwilling to consider the facts.  In fact, beyond considering the facts that have shown a propensity to straight up make up bullsh*t to support their narrative. 

Swap "these protestors" with "contemporary Republicans" and this is an equally valid statement.

[NY+SC=NC]

It's truly a sad day when a person can't tell the hero from the villain. All I know is I personally will try my best to be a good person and align myself with good people to the best of my ability. Because this isn't about race, political parties, or sexual orientation. This is simply good vs evil. Question is, who's who?

[cjd5050]

34 minutes ago, kermit said:

Swap "these protestors" with "contemporary Republicans" and this is an equally valid statement.

I think a better way to phrase it is extreme voices on both sides are really the same.  Unproductive and should be ignored.  Centrists view both with equal amounts of contempt.  

I'll add that those who unable to see the problems on both sides of the spectrum are closer to the problem than the solution.  

1 hour ago, grodney said:

See?  Disconnect.

 

Willful ignorance is not a disconnect.  

[grodney]

4 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

 

Willful ignorance is not a disconnect.  

We disagree. That's not willful ignorance.  I have no interest in discussing the disconnect/disagreement..  I know it exists.  I know there's no point in me discussing it here.  (But you saying I'm "wrong" is pretty hilarious.  And telling.)

[cjd5050]

8 minutes ago, grodney said:

We disagree. That's not willful ignorance.  I have no interest in discussing the disconnect/disagreement..  I know it exists.  I know there's no point in me discussing it here.  (But you saying I'm "wrong" is pretty hilarious.  And telling.)

You obviously don't know and don't care to know the laws or procedures for law enforcement yet still want to claim something without these important considerations.  That's a lack of knowledge and information or...ignorance...willfully.   It's not hilarious.  It's sad.    

[grodney]

15 minutes ago, cjd5050 said:

You obviously don't know and don't care to know the laws or procedures for law enforcement yet still want to claim something without these important considerations.  That's a lack of knowledge and information or...ignorance...willfully.   It's not hilarious.  It's sad.    

oh my god.  yes, you're right.  sorry I said anything.  as you were.  

 

[kermit]

14 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

I think a better way to phrase it is extreme voices on both sides are really the same.  Unproductive and should be ignored.  Centrists view both with equal amounts of contempt.

I don't disagree, but centrists only get sh1t-on these days so why would any group aspire to be reasonable? We all opened this can of worms when we nominated Trump to be a major party candidate for the presidency, he is reaping substantial rewards for his ridiculous extremism. Given our collective response to Trump should we be surprised or dismayed when other groups mimic this behavior?

[cjd5050]

13 hours ago, kermit said:

I don't disagree, but centrists only get sh1t-on these days so why would any group aspire to be reasonable? We all opened this can of worms when we nominated Trump to be a major party candidate for the presidency, he is reaping substantial rewards for his ridiculous extremism. Given our collective response to Trump should we be surprised or dismayed when other groups mimic this behavior?

Not sure of the 'we' you're speaking to but it's also fair to point out that the primary reason that Trump is in the position he's in is due to Clinton getting the nod on the other side. Both are terrible and polarizing.  If either party had found a way to put up someone reasonable they would have run away with the election.