Bolas 5 #26 December 6, 2015 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Laquan_McDonald#Laquan_McDonald QuoteShortly before 10:00 p.m., police were called to investigate McDonald at 4100 South Pulaski Road due to reports he was carrying a knife and breaking into vehicles in a trucking yard at 41st Street and Kildare Avenue. When officers confronted McDonald, he used a knife to slice the tire on a patrol vehicle and damage its windshield. McDonald walked away from police after numerous verbal instructions from officers to drop the knife. ... Toxicology reports later revealed that McDonald had traces of PCP in his blood. B&E, (weapon possession?), damaging police property, and on PCP. That's not what I'd call innocent.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #27 December 6, 2015 Not that I was referring to that case, but why the coverup all the way to the mayor's office and multi-million dollar payout? Given that he was never arrested and charged with anything, much less prosecuted, innocent until proven guilty, but by no way did he deserve to be slaughtered like he was. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #28 December 6, 2015 Not that I was referring to that case, but why the coverup all the way to the mayor's office and multi-million dollar payout? Given that he was never arrested and charged with anything, much less prosecuted, innocent until proven guilty, but by no way did he deserve to be slaughtered like he was. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #29 December 6, 2015 As far as Jakee's question and the definition of innocent agreed to, the fact he was not charged (because he was killed) is irrelevant. QuoteWhen did the police last beat and shoot an innocent black man? This does not meet the criteria of innocent. Will agree excessive force was used and the destruction of evidence makes it worse. In most all cases of excessive violence or shootings by officers vigilantism is the cause, not cold blooded murder.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #30 December 7, 2015 jgoose71 ... YOU are the first line of defense when things like this happen. Or you can cower and wait to take a bullet to the head while waiting for a real man to arrive....usually carrying a gun...YMMV But in UK, Paris, Gemany, etc... you gave away your right to self defense to the government. Hopefully your government doesn't turn on you, cops start abusing you, or whatever.... Absolutely! If only MLK and Rosa Parks and the rest of those civil rights agitators had realized that the only way to fight back against oppression is with a gun, maybe we wouldn't still have segregation and Jim Crow laws in the US. Silly pacifists never achieve anything. Or not. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #31 December 7, 2015 jakee QuoteAlso, I'm sorry you see a flaw in my OP. It's about sometimes having to take action when evil is in your face, like the Americans who stopped the mass shooting on the train to Paris. OK, so the thing that hasn't changed about the Democratic Party is that they take action, like the American and French people who stopped the shooting on that train. QuoteBut in UK, Paris, Gemany, etc... you gave away your right to self defense to the government. Wait, so the people on the train didn't defend themselves? This is getting confusing. The Democratic party always has been and always will be the party of big government who wants to subjugate the people. They were doing it then and they are doing it now. As for the train attack, the only reason a few frenchies got up and acted was because Americans lead the way. Otherwise they probably would have lied there waiting for a bullet to the head like they did in Paris."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #32 December 7, 2015 GeorgiaDon ***... YOU are the first line of defense when things like this happen. Or you can cower and wait to take a bullet to the head while waiting for a real man to arrive....usually carrying a gun...YMMV But in UK, Paris, Gemany, etc... you gave away your right to self defense to the government. Hopefully your government doesn't turn on you, cops start abusing you, or whatever.... Absolutely! If only MLK and Rosa Parks and the rest of those civil rights agitators had realized that the only way to fight back against oppression is with a gun, maybe we wouldn't still have segregation and Jim Crow laws in the US. Silly pacifists never achieve anything. Or not. Don Your conflating two issues. There is a difference between a protest and defending yourself. Back in the day, the NRA fought hard to ensure African Americans were able to exercise their 2A rights also. Democrats didn't like it because it meant they could defend themselves from a lynching. Or are you suggesting that a black man should just let himself be drug behind a truck? This thread is about standing up and defending yourself when needed, and not just sitting back and letting bad shit happen to you."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mistercwood 287 #33 December 7, 2015 jgoose71 As for the train attack, the only reason a few frenchies got up and acted was because Americans lead the way. Otherwise they probably would have lied there waiting for a bullet to the head like they did in Paris. Not only is that one of the more obnoxious statements I've seen in SC for a while, it's also patently false. The US does not have a monopoly on courage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attackYou are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #34 December 7, 2015 mistercwood*** As for the train attack, the only reason a few frenchies got up and acted was because Americans lead the way. Otherwise they probably would have lied there waiting for a bullet to the head like they did in Paris. Not only is that one of the more obnoxious statements I've seen in SC for a while, it's also patently false. The US does not have a monopoly on courage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attack Kind of sucks that I didn't hear to much about "Danom A." I wish he would have stood up and didn't want to remain anonymous. I stand corrected. At the same time, there are still lots of people who believe it's better to sit their and wait their turn to take a bullet to the head."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #35 December 7, 2015 QuoteThis thread is about standing up and defending yourself when needed, and not just sitting back and letting bad shit happen to you. Really? I thought you had posted something about a "Battle of Athens", in which a bunch of WWII vets staged an armed uprising to affect a political change in a small town in Tennessee. It seems to me that resisting political corruption is a very different situation than dealing with an armed terrorist who is trying to kill you on a train. By conflating the two, you seem to be arguing that armed rebellion is an appropriate way for people to express their dislike of political leadership. I have simply pointed out that it is possible to accomplish significant change by non-violent means. No-one has argued against defending oneself against an immanent threat, such as a terrorist attack. It's more than a little disturbing that a member of the US military cannot see the distinction between politics (albeit a corrupt small town political system) and a terrorist attack. It almost seems as if you are advocating armed rebellion as the most appropriate way to eliminate political perspectives you dislike so as to impose your own. FYI, Democrats are not terrorists. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,257 #36 December 7, 2015 QuoteThe Democratic party always has been and always will be the party of big government who wants to subjugate the people. They were doing it then and they are doing it now. Hey, any of you guys want to take this on? Anyone want to ask about the last time the democrats were shooting people to stop them voting? QuoteAs for the train attack, the only reason a few frenchies got up and acted was because Americans lead the way. Otherwise they probably would have lied there waiting for a bullet to the head like they did in Paris. You were there, were you? you have quite the warped view of the world.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #37 December 7, 2015 GeorgiaDonQuoteThis thread is about standing up and defending yourself when needed, and not just sitting back and letting bad shit happen to you. Really? I thought you had posted something about a "Battle of Athens", in which a bunch of WWII vets staged an armed uprising to affect a political change in a small town in Tennessee. It seems to me that resisting political corruption is a very different situation than dealing with an armed terrorist who is trying to kill you on a train. By conflating the two, you seem to be arguing that armed rebellion is an appropriate way for people to express their dislike of political leadership. I have simply pointed out that it is possible to accomplish significant change by non-violent means. No-one has argued against defending oneself against an immanent threat, such as a terrorist attack. It's more than a little disturbing that a member of the US military cannot see the distinction between politics (albeit a corrupt small town political system) and a terrorist attack. It almost seems as if you are advocating armed rebellion as the most appropriate way to eliminate political perspectives you dislike so as to impose your own. FYI, Democrats are not terrorists. Don While you see it as an insurrection I see it as using the 2nd amendment to protect the integrity of the process to bring accountability to the government. They didn't over throw anything. They just insured a fair and open count of the ballots. And as pointed out before, the state and federal governments were not going to help. If you read the details, this has gone on for several election cycles. All appeals for help were ignored. Which brings us back to the original question. How many beating would you take before you had enough? At what point would you take action, or has all since of standing up for something been bread out of you because you are "civilized" now? What would it take for you to protect yourself? Or are you of the mind set to sit back and take it? As for the rest of it, I would never advocate for the overthrow of our government. I've been around the world and I whole heartedly believe in American Exceptionalism. I believe in it because I've seen pretty much all other forms of government in action and they all suck compared to America. While America has it's problems, it's form of government is best equipped to deal with them. However, the Democratic front runner is the one that said her number one enemy is Republicans. You can't name half the country as your enemy and expect zero back lash. I'll work with anyone who will work with me, so maybe if she tones her shit down, we can come together. And be thankful that a lot of members of the military have take an oath to never follow any order that tells us to turn our guns on the civilian population. It's called standing up and doing the right thing and not "going along to get along.""There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #38 December 7, 2015 GeorgiaDon FYI, Democrats are not terrorists. Don Maybe yes and maybe no, I received this info in a private message. Quote In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States . In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States - who later died from the wound. In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States . In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States . In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States . In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant. In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office. In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office. In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen , TX . In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory. In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service. In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US ... In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant. In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech. In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others. In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people. In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis . In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT. As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. Sorry Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,141 #39 December 7, 2015 QuoteAs for the train attack, the only reason a few frenchies got up and acted was because Americans lead the way. Otherwise they probably would have lied there waiting for a bullet to the head like they did in Paris. lol, that's some funny shit. Quite a few Americans waiting to take a bullet to the head not too long ago. Can't believe you guys allow muslims to have guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #40 December 7, 2015 jgoose71The Democratic party always has been and always will be the party of big government who wants to subjugate the people. They were doing it then and they are doing it now. Yes.....but So are the other guys..... It just depends on which half of the the list of crap each side has divvied up to try and impose on us. Edit: I'd also say it's not the "party" (whatever that is in a nation that is supposed to be individuals), but it's the specific leadership and entrenched power brokers. The citizens that are advocates of either? I really do think they are well intentioned, just blinded by the sparkly rhetoric and their own biases. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #41 December 7, 2015 RonD1120 Sorry I look at your list and think the problem lies: disgruntlement fanatical mentalities mental illness ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #42 December 7, 2015 rehmwa ***Sorry I look at your list and think the problem lies: disgruntlement fanatical mentalities mental illness Of course, but I have to try and inject some humor once in awhile. I admit I'm not very good at it. Most folks don't seem to catch on. It's the younger generation and all that.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
