Bolas

That's only partly true. You can still pretty accurately predict the financial class of a person by their skin colour. That is statistically speaking. I know stats can be used to mislead, but this one is pretty clear. That's not only racist, but an extremely degrading and untrue statement. Or are you one of those people that think the only non white people with money are drug dealers, musicians, and pro athletes? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Everyone in the US has the same rights now apart from the transgendered. That's the last DNA group still fighting for equality. Our current issues are class relations camouflaged as racial. A person's physical description is just that. Where we get into trouble is when people stop at the physical description and draw their conclusions and statistics from only that or when people go beyond the physical description but others take them back to physical descriptions. Inner city poor does not mean black nor illegal immigrants mean Mexicans. We need to look past a person's DNA. We should stop using it for statistics as it doesn't tell the accurate story. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It's not the same as someone being part of the police is a choice. Now if they added a DNA group like Irish police lives matter that would also be narrow focused and racist. When you include or disclude solely on DNA it's -ist. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

If that's true, it reinforces my original point: That statement is complete bullshit and could not possibly accomplish anything other than further division. Sort of like BLM can't accomplish anything other than further division as their whole focus and goals are racist. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That statement is complete bullshit and could not possibly accomplish anything other than further division. Fortunately, some people actually get it (see attached). I'm glad you could see through my sarcasm. It's not really possible to miss the sarcasm when a white man says "black lives are all that matter." The following exercise might help you understand my point: 1) Go to a black lives matter rally 2) Hold a sign that says "black lives are all the really matter in the end" 3) Make sure they know you're being sarcastic Observe how they respond. Based on BLM's past violence, riots, and looting are likely responses. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

That might work to kill cops, yes. The fact that criminals might do that does not mean it is OK to shoot unarmed kids walking home from school because they might be about to "shoot through their clothes." Cops have a tough, often thankless job. They often have to protect people who hate them from other people who hate them, and they have to put their lives on the line to do that. That means they have to err on the side of under-reaction, and use deadly force only when it is clearly and unambiguously needed to stop a threat to themselves or others. It's certainly not for everyone, and there's no shame in deciding that someone doesn't want to take those risks. One can hate the job another does but still respect the person doing it similar to hating the war but supporting the troops fighting. Even if one can't respect the police, it's still in their own best interest to comply. If one has to show their anger, use only their mouth but still may be best to avoid credible threatening statements. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Before you get too angry and start to feel all resentful, go listen to Billie Holliday sing "Strange Fruit". There is a long history of extra judicial killing of black men in America. Black people are simply saying "we aren't going to take it any more". If you can't understand that, it's because you have chosen not to. Was there a history? Yes but the targets weren't poor black people who were compliant but those that fought back or had the "gall" to try and better themselves though education, better jobs, etc. Flipping the script for a moment: let's assume the police are racists and want to do nothing more than "keep the black man down." If that's the case, why go after poor black criminals? They're already down. Wouldn't their racist effort be better served going after the black middle and upper-class? Let's stop grouping and tracking people by DNA: race, gender, orientation, etc. What matters is the factors that people have control over and can change: religious affiliation, citizenship status, criminal record, financial status, education, clothing, etc. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Terrorism? The use of fear to change the behaviour of a population? You said earlier in the thread that people should not feel free to challenge or refuse unlawful orders and searches from the police for fear of being shot. If the word terrorism is being bandied around so freely then is that not state sponsored terrorism? What I said was People can challenge unlawful orders unthreateningly initially but also need to realize that even if they think the officer is wrong, if the officer wants to detain/search/arrest them, it's going to happen. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

In the case of Alton Sterling the police had him completely pinned to the ground --the police had complete control of the situation --and they still shot him. This doesn't justify the actions of the two non peaceful people tonight in Dallas. But there is a reason why people are angry at cops and I don't think the cops are sensitive enough to that. Just watched the videos but would not say they had complete control plus he was armed. Will need to wait until investigation is complete. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

I believe the mostly peaceful protesters tonight were protesting one or more such incidents. Maybe these are different, but have yet to see any incident where the police just shot a person in full compliance. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Until the suspect actually reveals a weapon, yes, that is precisely what I am saying. So any criminal that wants to shoot a cop just needs to keep their weapon hidden until they're ready to shoot or better yet, just shoot through their clothes. Or if they want to attack a cop as long as they don't have a weapon that's fine. As an ordinary citizen your job is not to investigate, search, detain, and arrest people. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Rationally of course you are right. But viscerally I just feel much more anger when the police shoot an unarmed suspect. Sorry but that is just how I feel at a deep visceral emotional level. No crime makes me as angry as the police killing of an unarmed person. You do realize this is the same rationality all terrorism supporters use, right? Unarmed does not mean not dangerous. Just out of curiosity, do you have any examples of the police shooting a suspect that was in full compliance with their instructions? Any examples of the police shooting a suspect they knew was unarmed and not posing an immediate threat? If yes for either, what was the outcome for the officers? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

This is the intelligent way to behave. But stupid behavior on the part of a suspect is not a license for the police to commit murder. Except they don't have a way to tell stupid behavior from threatening behavior in the milliseconds they have to decide until after-the-fact. Are you suggesting that police just assume any threatening behavior is just stupid behavior and take their chances? The police should express their condolences to the community and the suspect's mother, however any apology would be more of a "sorry that it happened" with an explanation why they shot. If the investigation proves that the officer was following their procedures, they should not apologize for that. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It's not just wrong, it's cold blooded murder. Additionally, actions like this are just going to make police more likely to shoot someone for noncompliance of instructions given and possibly threatening actions. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

The police in this country have to stop murdering young black men. Period. While what happened in Dallas tonight was wrong, the police in this country should be first and foremost apologizing for their role in murdering young black men and only secondarily focusing on their own losses. It's a socioeconomic issue, not race. http://abc7.com/1416666/ When the police tell you to do something, do it, and do it slowly. There will be time to argue legality of the charges/search/stop later. Best case scenario for not obeying their instructions? Additional charges for resisting arrest. We all know the worst case... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

It's for the church goers. They are used to eating flesh and drinking blood - so that is ok. Nipples are bad, mmmmkay. So religion is once again to blame for our violence problems... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

You mean like George Zimmerman? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Speaking of freedom of speech, have you ever watched a horror movie on a basic cable station edited for TV? They edit the curse words out and remove the nudity but keep all the blood, gore, and violence. Who are they doing this for? The children? "Remember kids, nudity and cuss words are bad, but gore and violence are okay." Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Sounds more like an issue with corrections/incarceration than firearms.What do you suggest? Torture? Cutting off hands? Gouging out eyes? Don Didn't suggest anything. Just pointing out the problem is not the tools, but the users. Perhaps in addition to mental health reform, corrections/incarceration reform discussions are also needed especially for repeat offenders. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Sounds more like an issue with corrections/incarceration than firearms. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Yep. They used education and increased the penalties for violators because they focused on the behavior, drunk driving, and not the tool, car control. Had they chosen to focus on car control like they do gun control, most likely certain colors of cars, body styles, and accessories would be banned "because they look dangerous" and would have greatly impacted many people who did not drive drunk. Meanwhile the drunk drivers would either ignore the car restrictions or if it got to the point where the cars were banned (because the only reason what they're doing isn't working has to be they haven't banned enough), would just keep driving drunk using other modes of transportation such as motorcycles, lawnmowers, zambonis... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Are you suggesting that if there was a legal repeal of the 2nd amendment people would become murderous criminals? If they can become murderous criminals that quickly, shouldn't they be prevented form owning guns in the first place? No. Criminals, murderous and non murderous would become much bolder as ALL law abiding citizens would be unarmed. Expanded police services would be needed. Current gun owners that are currently fully law abiding would either become defenseless or become criminals just from a law change. The black market for arms would be greatly expanded increasing chances for currently banned weapons and criminsls restricted from owning weapons to get one. Guns wouldn't go away, they'd just go underground. Google prohibition and it's impacts long after being repealed. Ah ok. Yes, fully agreed. It would take quite some time before any positive benefits would arise. If they ever did... Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

recognize: 1 - The 'no fly - no buy' crowd are advocating for a subjective removal of people's rights (travel, and property ownership). Impacting mostly brown skinned people and visitors from other countries 2 - Trump wants to restrict travel and immigration based on nothing but subjective critieria. Impacting mostly brown skinned people and visitors from other countries and these people THINK they are on opposite sides - bah, they are just fighting over who's right they want to trample on and how. Most of the time they want to trample the same rights and are just arguing over how to spin it Politics is a freaking tragedy and comedy all at the same time. So you see no difference between US citizen rights and foreign citizen rights? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Are you suggesting that if there was a legal repeal of the 2nd amendment people would become murderous criminals? If they can become murderous criminals that quickly, shouldn't they be prevented form owning guns in the first place? No. Criminals, murderous and non murderous would become much bolder as ALL law abiding citizens would be unarmed. Expanded police services would be needed. Current gun owners that are currently fully law abiding would either become defenseless or become criminals just from a law change. The black market for arms would be greatly expanded increasing chances for currently banned weapons and criminsls restricted from owning weapons to get one. Guns wouldn't go away, they'd just go underground. Google prohibition and it's impacts long after being repealed. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Only if you want to see some results in a few decades. Other then that, don't repeal it and continue to see multitudes of mass shootings. The results would be felt far faster than a few decades, just not the results you think. This is a violence/terrorism issue, stop focusing on the tool. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.