3 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Of course, but how often does that happen when compared to a number of times Police are shot at, and return fire in self defense? I've never heard of anything like this happening. And again, that's a hypothetical situation. The chances of something like that happening once is undeniably low, and the chances of it happening often are virtually non-existant.

Okay how about, police attack protestors peacefully marching across a bridge.

6 minutes ago, Lundy said:

Okay how about, police attack protestors peacefully marching across a bridge.

The Police wouldn't attack them. This isn't the 1960's. The Police would only engage the protesters if the protest wasn't peaceful, or the protesters are breaking laws after being asked multiple times to disperse or move. Even if the Police were completely unjustified, doesn't warrant people to start shooting at them. This just brings us back to the discussion I had earlier on blocking the interstate in protest. 

Are you saying that if the Police in Dallas had been actively engaging the people trying to disperse them, that the shootings would have been justified?

9 minutes ago, Olanov said:

But what you literally said was if it's a police officer that got shot, you can guarantee it wasn't justified. You're already jumping to conclusions instead of relying to "there could be more to it". If it's your average Joe out of a uniform that got shot, only then there's more to it. You're automatically saying that the police are in the right.

I'm not saying that the Police are always in the right. I'm saying that there's a greater chance of the Police being right in a shooting than the suspect. I'm saying that if someone shoots the Police, there's a greater chance that it wasn't a justified shooting of that Police officer. The Police are public servants and they're held to a higher standard. When a situation occurs, of course I'm automatically going to empathize with law enforcement before the supposed victim until more evidence is released; unless it's an obvious case of excessive force. 

3 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

The Police wouldn't attack them. This isn't the 1960's.

What difference does a time period make? None, none at all...

All cops in the 60's must be power hungry pigs, and all cops nowadays are just angels and saints.

Edited July 8, 20169 yr by Lundy

1 minute ago, Lundy said:

What difference does a time period make? None, none at all...

Kinda does. Back then the Police would literally whoop someone's ass simply because they were black. Does it happen today, of course, but not on as big of a scale as it did back then. Rights were not as recognized back then as they are today. We're a different country today than we were back then, and we've gotten much better at recognizing people's rights. 

2 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Kinda does. Back then the Police would literally whoop someone's ass simply because they were black. Does it happen today, of course, but not on as big of a scale as it did back then. Rights were not as recognized back then as they are today. We're a different country today than we were back then, and we've gotten much better at recognizing people's rights. 

Sure, we have gotten better at that in particular, but society is still the same monster as it was before. That will never go away. You're literally saying one side, "cops can't do that anymore, not possible."

1 minute ago, Lundy said:

Sure, we have gotten better at that in particular, but society is still the same monster as it was before. That will never go away. You're literally saying one side, "cops can't do that anymore, not possible."

Nope, not what I'm saying at all. For a third time now, I'm simply stating that the chances of a Police officer being wrong in a shooting just aren't that high when compared to a civilian shooting a Police officer. 

1 minute ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Nope, not what I'm saying at all. For a third time now, I'm simply stating that the chances of a Police officer being wrong in a shooting just aren't that high when compared to a civilian shooting a Police officer. 

That's what you're saying to me right now. You're not stating that in your previous posts. You're literally saying they CAN'T do anything wrong, you literally said it. Before posting, just read what you typed out to yourself and think for a second if it's really what you want to say. It's stopped wars, ya know.

1 minute ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I'm not saying that the Police are always in the right. I'm saying that there's a greater chance of the Police being right in a shooting than the suspect. I'm saying that if someone shoots the Police, there's a greater chance that it wasn't a justified shooting of that Police officer. The Police are public servants and they're held to a higher standard. When a situation occurs, of course I'm automatically going to empathize with law enforcement before the supposed victim until more evidence is released; unless it's an obvious case of excessive force. 

When there have been numerous cases of police outright being able to falsify reports, leaving out details when it comes to screw ups, you're saying you still believe there's a greater chance they're correct? Just because someone has authority over another, doesn't necessarily mean they instantly become more credible. If an officer with a huge rap of UOS investigations, civilian complaints and the like releases a statement, you'd eat that right up cos he's a shield.

You're ready to outright guarantee if a cops get shot, it's not justified. Yet what if there was that case, what if there's been a case, where someone acted in manner of self-defence on the streets, but due to the police being the only people who lived to tell the tale, them backing each other up and falsifying a statement, you'd believe that the officers were in the right because in your mind, it's already guaranteed cos they're cops.

9 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Nope, not what I'm saying at all. For a third time now, I'm simply stating that the chances of a Police officer being wrong in a shooting just aren't that high when compared to a civilian shooting a Police officer. 

Yes it is what you were saying. You have now changed an absolute into almost an absolute.

People in any profession are at risk to be wrong, cops included. It doesn't mean all cops are horrible or anything like that, but police shootings have a chance of being wrongful, it's a simple fact.

From WaPo:  "The 5 percent of cases that are often second-guessed include individuals who police said failed to follow their orders, made sudden movements or were accidentally shot "

Even 5% should cause concern. If Police were not ever wrong that number would more than likely be only 1-2%. Failing to follow orders shouldn't result in a swat team shooting you. Let's all remember all those incidents of people reaching for their wallets and being shot.

And to add, just to convince you on how significant a number that 5% is, that is 59 people in 2015 alone, and only in cases where an investigation was suggested (the actual number of police shootings was 1186). Sure, many of them would be in prison if alive, but at least they would be alive.

The Problem out of all of this situation, which confuses me the most, I know you guys have your rights to firearms and all, and I'm not going to argue the need to have them, but why on gods green earth would you need a Sniper Rifle or some other form of a High Powered Rifle for defense, I mean c'mon, in what god damn situation are you going to need a rifle of that magnitude, because I can't think of one.

I know the ability to purchase weapons aren't going to change in America, but I really don't understand why people have the ability to purchase firearms such as a Sniper Rifle under the justification of Self Defense, it baffles me. A while back when I'd hear of a shooting in America, I'd spend a lot of timing watching it on the News, but it's literally at the point where it doesn't even phase me anymore, as it happens so often.

Yet, America stands their ground, let thou' keep their Sniper Rifles.

13 hours ago, IndianaisMyState said:

I dont get why NO ONE CALLED A POLICE OFFICER WHEN THEY SAW A GUY WALKING AROUND WITH A GUN!

Because you get these my rights people who harass and film police for checking on a man with a gun or rifle. Since it is legal many agencies have swayed away from it due to the current time of the bafoons running around on youtube to lawsuits for rights violations. Sickening. My opinion times have changed and so do laws and death penalties such as the chair to gas and such. Nobody should need to carry a assault rifle anyway in public.

2 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

Because they need weapons if the liberal government goes after them, which is absolutely fucking ridiculous. 

You are correct about the point where it doesn't phase me anymore. All that happens is I change my Facebook Photo for half a week, the government fails to address the issue, and then it happens over and over again. When France was attacked, there was outrage, there was change, when Orlando happened our government sat on the issue and the media profited off of it. The same will happen here. 

Rant below:

Spoiler

 

Guns are dangerous, they are not toys, you shouldn't need a sniper or a semi-auto to hunt or defend yourself. Handguns and shotguns should be the only guns allowed. A 14 year old ten minutes from my house was shot by his own father in a gun range. They were very careful around guns and knew gun safety. Even they have been effected by gun violence. The second amendment needs a second look, not from congress, the president, or the Supreme court. We need a unbiased group to actually go through and look at data from this country and other countries about guns. The amendment was not created with the 21st century in mind. It has gone from something necessary to create and maintain militias to something that gives everyone the chance to kill themselves or others, whether on purpose, or by accident.

I'm also absolutely sick and tired of Chicago being used as an example of how a gun free zone can't work. Ya want to know why it can't work. It would be because literally a mile from the city there are gun stores in Indiana an extremely pro-gun state that sell guns without looking at IDs. The police in Chicago maintain that 60% of the guns they pull off of the street are from Indiana. I'm so fucking tired of the mass killings, the police shootings, all of it in this nation. We are supposed to be role models for the world, we have quickly become a model of what not to do.

 

 

id like to point out that black lives matter group was founded by a white guy....just sayin

1 hour ago, thegreathah said:

Yes it is what you were saying. You have now changed an absolute into almost an absolute.

People in any profession are at risk to be wrong, cops included. It doesn't mean all cops are horrible or anything like that, but police shootings have a chance of being wrongful, it's a simple fact.

From WaPo:  "The 5 percent of cases that are often second-guessed include individuals who police said failed to follow their orders, made sudden movements or were accidentally shot "

Even 5% should cause concern. If Police were not ever wrong that number would more than likely be only 1-2%. Failing to follow orders shouldn't result in a swat team shooting you. Let's all remember all those incidents of people reaching for their wallets and being shot.

And to add, just to convince you on how significant a number that 5% is, that is 59 people in 2015 alone, and only in cases where an investigation was suggested (the actual number of police shootings was 1186). Sure, many of them would be in prison if alive, but at least they would be alive.

 

 

Nope, I've literally been saying the exact same thing this entire time. You have simply been misunderstanding me the entire time. This entire time I've been saying that the chances of a Police officer being wrong in their shooting is low when compared to someone shooting a Police officer. I've also said 90% of the time it's never right to shoot a Police officer, regardless of the circumstances. I'm not saying that the Police are perfect, I'm just saying that shooting a Police officer isn't acceptable under 90% of circumstances, there are just too many other ways to solve an issue with Police than to shoot them.

 

59 minutes ago, Ben said:

The Problem out of all of this situation, which confuses me the most, I know you guys have your rights to firearms and all, and I'm not going to argue the need to have them, but why on gods green earth would you need a Sniper Rifle or some other form of a High Powered Rifle for defense, I mean c'mon, in what god damn situation are you going to need a rifle of that magnitude, because I can't think of one.

I know the ability to purchase weapons aren't going to change in America, but I really don't understand why people have the ability to purchase firearms such as a Sniper Rifle under the justification of Self Defense, it baffles me. A while back when I'd hear of a shooting in America, I'd spend a lot of timing watching it on the News, but it's literally at the point where it doesn't even phase me anymore, as it happens so often.

Yet, America stands their ground, let thou' keep their Sniper Rifles.

 

 

Most Americans, including a good portion of gun supporters, are against owning an assault rifle and a sniper rifle. I just can't really see the need for someone to have an assault rifle.

 

1 hour ago, Olanov said:

When there have been numerous cases of police outright being able to falsify reports, leaving out details when it comes to screw ups, you're saying you still believe there's a greater chance they're correct? Just because someone has authority over another, doesn't necessarily mean they instantly become more credible. If an officer with a huge rap of UOS investigations, civilian complaints and the like releases a statement, you'd eat that right up cos he's a shield.

You're ready to outright guarantee if a cops get shot, it's not justified. Yet what if there was that case, what if there's been a case, where someone acted in manner of self-defence on the streets, but due to the police being the only people who lived to tell the tale, them backing each other up and falsifying a statement, you'd believe that the officers were in the right because in your mind, it's already guaranteed cos they're cops.

 

 

Yes, that is correct. I'm prepared to sit here and pick the side of law enforcement over the side of a criminal thug any day. Once evidence surfaces and the case becomes clearer, then I may change my opinion depending on the situation.

 

1 hour ago, Lundy said:

That's what you're saying to me right now. You're not stating that in your previous posts. You're literally saying they CAN'T do anything wrong, you literally said it. Before posting, just read what you typed out to yourself and think for a second if it's really what you want to say. It's stopped wars, ya know.

 

 

I don't recall ever saying that the Police can never do anything wrong. You've simply either misread or misunderstood what I'm trying to say. Maybe I mistyped what I was trying to say, but that's not what I'm saying at all, and that's not what I've been intending to say this entire time.

Edited July 8, 20169 yr by TheDivineHustle

There's a very reasonable discussion happening here (so far). Happy to see that.

3 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Yes, that is correct. I'm prepared to sit here and pick the side of law enforcement over the side of a criminal thug any day. Once evidence surfaces and the case becomes clearer, then I may change my opinion depending on the situation.

 

 

But right there you have already made up your mind. You can't call someone a criminal thug with literally zero evidence.

5 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

There's a very reasonable discussion happening here (so far). Happy to see that.

I know right! We haven't resorted to calling each other terrorists (yet).

9 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I don't recall ever saying that the Police can never do anything wrong. You've simply either misread or misunderstood what I'm trying to say. Maybe I mistyped what I was trying to say, but that's not what I'm saying at all, and that's not what I've been intending to say this entire time.

You've literally been saying it. Either you're avoiding it, or you need to really read what you type before you post it.

1 minute ago, thegreathah said:

But right there you have already made up your mind. You can't call someone a criminal thug with literally zero evidence.

That's right, you can't call someone a criminal thug with no evidence. The reason I made that statement is because I was referring to some of the past incidents between law enforcement and young black men where the suspect had a criminal record beforehand. Or the suspect had a weapon on them, or ran from the Police. When there's no evidence, I'm generally in favor of law enforcement from the get-go, but as time progresses I'll start to see who I want to "declare my allegiance" with.

5 hours ago, The Loot said:

Respond to this: why is Assata Shakur, a convicted cop-killing terrorist fugitive, idolized by BLM?

Respond to this: what in the world are you talking about? They have a quote of hers on their website of her promoting peace and love. Do you really think the average protesters is walking around idolizing cop killers? PLEASE do me a favor and go on the Dallas shooting hashtag and read all of the thousands of BLM protesters condemning the snipers and mourning the loss of the officers. Does that not count? 

2 minutes ago, Lundy said:

You've literally been saying it. Either you're avoiding it, or you need to really read what you type before you post it.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. That doesn't mean that the Police don't make mistakes, I don't see how you've made that connection.