DescentBB

I repeat, do you think this would have happened to a white citizen? If so, give me examples of such, or even similar from South Carolina, and I'll stand corrected.

Why, what’s the point, you will just change the qualifiers like you always do, whenever anybody gives you examples.

callmeslick wrote:I repeat, do you think this would have happened to a white citizen?

Would you be as outraged?

Vander wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I repeat, do you think this would have happened to a white citizen?

Would you be as outraged?

I'm not buying the outrage? I'm thinking posturing is the operative word here.

Vander wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I repeat, do you think this would have happened to a white citizen?

Would you be as outraged?

yes. And, were the rate of occurance even remotely close, would completely understand fear, frustration and anger within the white community.

callmeslick wrote:

Vander wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I repeat, do you think this would have happened to a white citizen?

Would you be as outraged?

yes. And, were the rate of occurance even remotely close, would completely understand fear, frustration and anger within the white community.

Would you like to share your numbers and sources for unlawful shootings by police broken down by race of shooter and victim? That is the data you must have at your disposal in order to reach your conclusions and make your claims.

Well, *if* there is any truth to them it is. Or are you just making stuff up again slick?

Only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I hereby propose the free guns for minorities initiative.

Will Robinson wrote:Would you like to share your numbers and sources for unlawful shootings by police broken down by race of shooter and victim? That is the data you must have at your disposal in order to reach your conclusions and make your claims.

Well, *if* there is any truth to them it is. Or are you just making stuff up again slick?

well, Will, it was repeated on about 4 TV news outlets last night that SC cops had shot at 209 people in the last 5 years. That alone is outrageous, almost spectacular in scope. Apparently 90% of those targets were black people. However, if you were wearing your reading glasses, I made NO conclusions about the frequency of white people, not having the data. I merely said I would have been just as outraged by a white guy being shot in the same fashion, and stated that IF the numbers were similar for whites, that community had every right to be angry and frustrated. I don't see any 'conclusions' or 'claims' in that statement of mine. Feel free to dance on around reality, Ginger.

Really slick? You made no conclusions?
You said it would NEVER have happened if the guy was white and then said you would stand to be corrected if the data showed white victims on par with black.

That is what normal people call coming to conclusions.

You are so full of yourself you spout off nonsense and when challenged you just deny it in full view of the evidence that proves you wrong.

You have clearly proposed the data supports your claims without having any data and then you try to hide behind the excuse that you didn't give specific numbers of white victims therefore you haven't drawn any conclusions about specific numbers.

If you decide to go down the statistics rabbit hole don't come back up with incomplete data either.
You will need to have the data on the ratio of black to white citizens encountered by police in pursuit of their duties.

The population may favor whites by a slight margin in that region but if the police are dealing with calls involving black people at much higher ratio than white then that will have to be factored in if you want to actually arrive at legitimate results.

Will Robinson wrote:Really slick? You made no conclusions?
You said it would NEVER have happened if the guy was white and then said you would stand to be corrected if the data showed white victims on par with black.

That is what normal people call coming to conclusions.

oh, the flow indicated you were referring to my response to Vander. Yes, I did make that assertion, and have yet to see any evidence my suspicions are incorrect.

Vander wrote:Only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I hereby propose the free guns for minorities initiative.

Yea...but what about the "good guys"?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Really slick? You made no conclusions?
You said it would NEVER have happened if the guy was white and then said you would stand to be corrected if the data showed white victims on par with black.

That is what normal people call coming to conclusions.

oh, the flow indicated you were referring to my response to Vander. Yes, I did make that assertion, and have yet to see any evidence my suspicions are incorrect.

Is that the standard that should be applied when accusing someone? The charge stands unless they can prove their innocence?

So in the context of this thread the hyperbolic narrative that fuels hatred and fear, perpetuating racial division, is legitimate unless someone can prove it isn't?
And once the evidence is gathered how does one go about getting the truth delivered to generations of children brought up with that false narrative ingrained into their character?

Not your problem right? As long as they are loyal voters of your political fraternity they have served their purpose.
Well done.

attaboy, Will, you take some people's legitimate fears, anger and frustration and make it into some sort of twisted political narrative. Sad.

Just come out and say you're gay for Obama, will. come on.

callmeslick wrote:attaboy, Will, you take some people's legitimate fears, anger and frustration and make it into some sort of twisted political narrative. Sad.

Sorry slick but you haven't offered any evidence to show I'm wrong therefore using your own logic you don't have a legitimate point.

Travon Martin would be alive, the cops who killed Eric Gardner would have been sent to trial, hundreds of thousands of black people wouldn't have been turned away from job interviews, etc. etc. etc. if not for the blowback being generated by the hyperbolic narrative you and people like you use to exploit the black people here in America.

If you have any evidence to prove that isn't so then you can challenge it....otherwise 'it is known'.

Since you like challenges will, I challenge you with showing us the "hyperbolic narrative you" (meaning slick) exists here, as you have so charged him with. Times; dates; full context.

Ferno, based on the comments already in this thread I really don't think your question is legitimate. Or you are stoned....

So the song playing on that dash cam video. Is that ironic or is that coincidence? I get those confused.

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno, based on the comments already in this thread I really don't think your question is legitimate. Or you are stoned....

You mean the ones that don't exist? Sorry to disappoint, but I can see things quite clearly.

Vander wrote:Only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I hereby propose the free guns for minorities initiative.

Funny, the Detroit police chief proposed just that...other than free guns.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Really slick? You made no conclusions?
You said it would NEVER have happened if the guy was white and then said you would stand to be corrected if the data showed white victims on par with black.

That is what normal people call coming to conclusions.

oh, the flow indicated you were referring to my response to Vander. Yes, I did make that assertion, and have yet to see any evidence my suspicions are incorrect.

Gilbert Collar, a white, unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs was shot and killed Oct. 6, 2012, by Officer Trevis Austin, who is black, in Mobile, Alabama. Despite public pressure for an indictment, a Mobile County grand jury refused to bring charges against Officer Austin, concluding that the officer acted in self-defense.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z3WuIKbgVi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno, based on the comments already in this thread I really don't think your question is legitimate. Or you are stoned....

You mean the ones that don't exist? Sorry to disappoint, but I can see things quite clearly.

I'd have to be somehow invested with desire for you to be able to grasp the obvious in order to have been disappointed so there is really no apology necessary.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Really slick? You made no conclusions?
You said it would NEVER have happened if the guy was white and then said you would stand to be corrected if the data showed white victims on par with black.

That is what normal people call coming to conclusions.

oh, the flow indicated you were referring to my response to Vander. Yes, I did make that assertion, and have yet to see any evidence my suspicions are incorrect.

Gilbert Collar, a white, unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs was shot and killed Oct. 6, 2012, by Officer Trevis Austin, who is black, in Mobile, Alabama. Despite public pressure for an indictment, a Mobile County grand jury refused to bring charges against Officer Austin, concluding that the officer acted in self-defense.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z3WuIKbgVi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

well, I'd stand corrected, were this case in Alabama. Note you had to go to another state, 3 years ago for an example. That SHOULD tell you something but likely not.....

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Really slick? You made no conclusions?
You said it would NEVER have happened if the guy was white and then said you would stand to be corrected if the data showed white victims on par with black.

That is what normal people call coming to conclusions.

oh, the flow indicated you were referring to my response to Vander. Yes, I did make that assertion, and have yet to see any evidence my suspicions are incorrect.

Gilbert Collar, a white, unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs was shot and killed Oct. 6, 2012, by Officer Trevis Austin, who is black, in Mobile, Alabama. Despite public pressure for an indictment, a Mobile County grand jury refused to bring charges against Officer Austin, concluding that the officer acted in self-defense.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z3WuIKbgVi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

well, I'd stand corrected, were this case in Alabama. Note you had to go to another state, 3 years ago for an example. That SHOULD tell you something but likely not.....

One thing it tells me is only a liar or fool could be so sure of himself based on his assessment of such an incomplete data pool to presume to tell others what they SHOULD infer from it.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Really slick? You made no conclusions?
You said it would NEVER have happened if the guy was white and then said you would stand to be corrected if the data showed white victims on par with black.

That is what normal people call coming to conclusions.

oh, the flow indicated you were referring to my response to Vander. Yes, I did make that assertion, and have yet to see any evidence my suspicions are incorrect.

Gilbert Collar, a white, unarmed 18-year-old under the influence of drugs was shot and killed Oct. 6, 2012, by Officer Trevis Austin, who is black, in Mobile, Alabama. Despite public pressure for an indictment, a Mobile County grand jury refused to bring charges against Officer Austin, concluding that the officer acted in self-defense.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z3WuIKbgVi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

well, I'd stand corrected, were this case in Alabama. Note you had to go to another state, 3 years ago for an example. That SHOULD tell you something but likely not.....

Yes it tells me the left is only interested if it is white on black crime. All others need not apply. Three years ago, today...what difference does it make?

yup, pretty much the conclusion I figured you'd draw.....

The data isn't there to tell the story. The police don't report it consistently enough to be able to give a good perspective.

For example look at this article which tries to paint the picture.

They highlight the flaws in their own data pool...

The data, for instance, is terribly incomplete. Vast numbers of the country's 17,000 police departments don't file fatal police shooting reports at all, and many have filed reports for some years but not others. Florida departments haven't filed reports since 1997 and New York City last reported in 2007. Information contained in the individual reports can also be flawed. Still, lots of the reporting police departments are in larger cities, and at least 1000 police departments filed a report or reports over the 33 years.

But they don't even recognize the foundation of the attempt is flawed if they are trying to assign a prejudice toward blacks. You have to know how many times per day a cop interacts with any suspect, person of interest or a bystander to their actions.
In other words, a compilation of the data of daily encounters with the potential victim pool broken down by race.

Only then you can look at the numbers of people they shoot and come up with ratios based on race to see if they shoot blacks more readily than whites.

Now of course you can argue they encounter blacks more often due to some form of racial injustice. Fine, some of those arguments are quite valid, others are full of crap. But cops don't create those conditions and even if you accept all the arguments on face value you haven't proven cops prefer shooting blacks, only that blacks have been put in front of the police at the higher rate. The cops go where they are told to go.

On top of that there is a another factor. Cops get prejudiced toward the people they encounter because they are sent to deal with the worst of society. They can become prejudiced toward blacks not because of racism per se, not because they believe blacks are inherently criminal, but if the area they work has a higher representation of blacks than the ratio of black to white in the general population you will see the result of that play out in the net results of their work.

I have known many police officers who acknowledge this and consider it a negative effect of the job.
And they get jaded to the whole civil rights picture being painted by the media because it doesn't reflect 'their reality'. So there are lots of cops out there that actually ARE prejudiced against blacks to some degree. It is a natural programming thing resulting from experience, not a conscious racism thing.
So there very well could be a higher likelihood of being shot by a policeman if you are black.

Looking at that article I linked, based on their lame interpretation of what data they do have, they say a 20:1 ratio exists.
Is it just coincidence that black men are also faced with a similar 20:1 ratio of likely to be shot by another black male than a white male?
That seems to suggest the segments of the population that have a higher ratio of blacks represented also have a higher criminal activity component and the likelihood of being shot by another black man or by a policeman is similar for similar reasons.

I don't think comments like slick makes, that 'a white cop would never shoot a white man in the same situation' is valid or helpful. I think any cop has the potential to shoot any color person, justifiably or not, in "the same situation".
What that "situation" really is is the key...
The problem is the ratio of black people and white people living in the 'same situation' is not representative of the ratio of blacks and whites in the population at large.

The cops are 'the gun', why and at who the gun is being aimed gives us the results we see.

Here is an example of white cops on a white victim. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local ... 50951.html

Maybe it is black people and white people on horseback?

I saw that video this morning. It's either one of 2 things.

First interpretation, the police in general are becoming too frustrated or too aggressively trained to do their jobs properly in dealing with the general public. Why else would the cops in both these recent cases throw common sense out the window and go absolutely nuts and beat the crap out of some poor suspect they caught, or blithely shoot a fleeing, unarmed man in the back, then try to cover it up with planted evidence? Plus, I think the militarization of our police forces since 911 and the way they are being trained (more along military lines) may also have something to do with it as well.

Second interpretation, the modern pervasive presence of video cameras has started showing everyone the dirty side of normal police behavior when they think they won't be seen by the general public. Neither interpretation is very charitable.

yeah, TC, I'm seeing a lot of op-eds and other opinion pieces stating that our cops are the terrorists in our society. That is a sad commentary, and I'm not ready to embrace it, as a whole. Still, very disturbing to think that our police are viewed with that level of suspicion by all citizens.....

I think the technology has become a better mirror to show us who we are... 24 hour news, cell phone video, public display via social media of millions of us some of it with anonymity to shield us. Etc

As to the planting of evidence...
In the dash cam audio you hear the cop shout Taser Taser Taser followed by what sounds like the discharge of a taser. So prior to the cell phone video there may have been a scuffle that included the suspect bring tasered, resisting the effect, trying to take it etc.
You see what could be the taser on the ground where the cop shot from and he then moves it to the body after the shooting.
I think he moved it to create a scene that is supportive of the story he was going to spin but it's initial presence is probably legit.

Once the guy turned and ran shooting him was murder though and faking the distance wasn't going to save him unless everyone involved decided to cover for him...shots all in the back?

That video was pretty clear on HD TV. As the guy turned and ran from the officer, one Taser wire can be seen stretching and pulling from the officer's Taser, as if it was still embedded in the suspect's body. I can't find a good HD video online, but on TV, it showed up pretty clearly. Even ABC News circled it in freeze frame during the broadcast and made a comment. After that, the officer clearly drops his Taser and grabs his Glock to start shooting, never saying a word in warning. Then the officer walks over, checks the guy, then walks back, picks up his Taser and proceeds to surreptitiously drop it by the dying suspect before the other officers show up. He's a dirty cop and should be convicted of murder. If he isn't, it'll be another Rodney King incident all over again.

Okay will. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are correct and that it either snuck under my radar or Slick edited it before I saw it.

Do you have a record of it anywhere? Or can you actually quote the message?

Ferno wrote:Okay will. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are correct and that it either snuck under my radar or Slick edited it before I saw it.

Do you have a record of it anywhere? Or can you actually quote the message?

Ferno, do you remember the last time you insisted something I said was untrue and I provided you lots of evidence that what I described was in fact the way I described it? It was about IRS agents being armed, seizing assets, etc.
You disappeared from the discussion after still refusing to accept it...

So, no, Im not following you down that hole again.

Will Robinson wrote:

Ferno wrote:Okay will. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are correct and that it either snuck under my radar or Slick edited it before I saw it.

Do you have a record of it anywhere? Or can you actually quote the message?

Ferno, do you remember the last time you insisted something I said was untrue and I provided you lots of evidence that what I described was in fact the way I described it? It was about IRS agents being armed, seizing assets, etc.
You disappeared from the discussion after still refusing to accept it...

So, no, Im not following you down that hole again.

Oh, you mean the criminal investigation division? The department with police powers, who DON'T target ordinary citizens and instead deal with only high profile cases? Who go after people like the Tax Fraud Queen?

yeah, let us know when they start going after ordinary citizens.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Ferno wrote:Okay will. Let's say for the sake of argument that you are correct and that it either snuck under my radar or Slick edited it before I saw it.

Do you have a record of it anywhere? Or can you actually quote the message?

Ferno, do you remember the last time you insisted something I said was untrue and I provided you lots of evidence that what I described was in fact the way I described it? It was about IRS agents being armed, seizing assets, etc.
You disappeared from the discussion after still refusing to accept it...

So, no, Im not following you down that hole again.

Oh, you mean the criminal investigation division? The department with police powers, who DON'T target ordinary citizens and instead deal with only high profile cases? Who go after people like the Tax Fraud Queen?

yeah, let us know when they start going after ordinary citizens.

Like the ordinary citizens I already gave you examples of? Ok, this won't take long did it?
Now you know why I'll only lead you to water once. You can whine about being thirsty all you want I'm done.

Will Robinson wrote:Like the ordinary citizens I already gave you examples of? Ok, this won't take long did it?.

only two possible reasons for that.

they were A) not ordinary citizens [there goes your argument out the window] or B) you're lying by omission.

i'll wait for the requisite insults and gnashing of teeth now.

I guess you will see this as an insult because you are pathologically committed to your stubborn denial. But that is your problem.

The original comment I made was that the IRS had the power to seize assets without a trial (you insisted they don't) I also said they are authorized to carry weapons (you insisted they didn't).

Now today you have tried to pull a slick style move-the-goalposts by trying to stipulate a particular division of the IRS shall now be exempt from the evidence.
There was no such talk before. It wouldn't be relevant to the assertion I made about "the IRS". The IRS is the IRS. I never said the cafeteria workers at the IRS carry guns...I never said every IRS worker carries a gun. I said the IRS is authorized to use weapons and I said they can seize assets without the citizen getting to go to trial first. It was true then and it is still true today. You were wrong then and...

In fact I believe the first time you heard of any division within the IRS was when I linked you to their public case files on their web site, and corroborating LA Times articles describing one of the agents arrests as an example of an IRS agent who both carried a gun and seized assets without the citizen getting a trial first.

But anyway, here is a story of some "ordinary citizens" getting their assets seized without having a trial. I believe it is one of the examples I originally posted before and you then disappeared from the thread....We had all sorts of insults from you and blusterous denial and then once I provided you with evidence it was ***crickets***

Civil forfeiture is now one of the most serious assaults on individual rights in America. It allows the government to take cash, cars, homes and other property from people without ever convicting or even charging them with a crime. Worse, civil forfeiture turns the American principle of innocent until proven guilty on its head. To get their money back, Terry and Sandy must go to court against the full might of the Department of Justice to prove their innocence. In fact, the vast majority of civil forfeiture cases nationwide are never heard by a judge or jury because victims can seldom afford to fight the seizures.

Terry came to America from Iraq in 1970 to create a better life. He bought his grocery store in 1978 and, after more than three decades of hard work, the store has prospered, providing good food and great service to his neighbors. The Dehkos now employ about 30 people.

Federal law requires banks to report cash transactions in excess of $10,000 to the IRS. And it is illegal for a person to "structure" one's transactions — to break deposits up into lesser amounts — to avoid those reports. Structuring law, expanded by the Patriot Act in 2001, is now just one more way the government is collecting vast amounts of information about the private lives of everyday Americans. Officials claim that Terry and Sandy violated this law.

But it's not illegal to deposit lesser amounts of cash when one has a legitimate business purpose for doing so — and the government never bothered to ask why the Dehkos made their deposits.

Like most grocery stores, Schott's Supermarket gets cash every day from customers. Terry and Sandy make frequent cash deposits under $10,000 because it's safer to put their money in the bank than keep it in their cash registers — and their store's insurance policy only covers cash losses up to $10,000. But the government didn't investigate — it just skulked into the bank and seized the Dehkos' money. Nine months later, Terry and Sandy are still waiting for a hearing before a judge to contest the seizure.

From reality not Fernoland, specifically here

I think you're confused will. This isn't a debate. And even if it was and you did win, what then?