You guys haven't figured out that Raletard thinks the ultimate argument is denying you have a point? That's like his trump card in every thread.
High profile cases pop up because video exists that puts into question the legality and procedures of the shooting. Talking about these things may help avoid them in the future. Equating reasonable talk to claims of "hunting blacks for sport" is patently ridiculous and does nothing to further legitimate dialogue. Creating false narratives is a disservice to the process.
Have you ever brought an original thought to a discussion here, or are you satisfied simply to stir the pot but add nothing to it?
So would responding to topics already on the table but I guess it's easier for some to create alarmist hyperbole or search out a dozen unrelated quotes, cut and paste them here and not tie them into prior claims.
Thanks for posting that, not sure why it wasn't referenced in the beginning. I also don't see how anyone could have a problem with anything in the clip, particularly the part about unknown motive at such an early stage.
Are you saying race has never been a factor in a police shooting? Are you saying they are all the same? Are you just giving a pass to all police, all the time?
The part about "not knowing the motive" was absurd and unnecessary and just fuels the fire that the President is a race baiter and all that. I like President Obama, I understand he gets a lot of criticism that is often undeserved but I believe the points are certainly valid here. A black man from out of town drives hours away to Baton Rouge, LA to gun down police officers a week after a police officer kills a black person in that town and a week long discussion of race ensues. Even if the President "didn't know" that this individual was a black separatist and was online saying the police need to pay in blood for the Alton Sterling death, the first statement everyone knew and it's pretty obvious what the motive was just from that. It would be one thing if he always avoided talk of motive. But he doesn't. Lets compare it to the President's comments after the Charleston, SC church shooting: After go on and on about guns, he states very clearly: "The fact that this took place in a black church obviously also raises questions about a dark part of our history. This is not the first time that black churches have been attacked, and we know the hatred across races and faiths pose a particular threat to our democracy and our ideals." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-remarks-on-fatal-shooting-in-charleston-s-c/ --- so basically a very similar situation in which not all the facts were known but it was clear race played a real factor in both shootings. And yet he stays clear away from it in one instance but has no problem going there with the other. WTF? The messed up thing is that he doesn't even have to go there with either. Just talk about how its a horrible tragedy and do like President's do and ask people to come together. People are calling him a race baiter- why even go there? why add the statement "we don't know the motive" when we do. its absurd and sometimes I wonder WTF they are thinking.
No. I'm saying it's inappropriate, and irresponsible for the people to stand up and claim race all the time without a shred of evidence suggesting that's why the person was killed. There are racist people and there are racist cops, no one is arguing that isn't the case. For leaders to stand up and cite race after every black guy gets killed by a cop is a big problem. It sets the narrative that the cops are killing these guys because race. I expect it from the media, but when people in positions of power follow through, it's very disturbing.
I see nothing wrong with declaring motive unknown before the motive is, actually, known. I cannot understand how doing this somehow becomes race baiting. It seems to me we don't gain a thing by rushing to judgement. Even as it appears he shot, even executed, cops there is more to that. We learn nothing useful in the future if we don't delve deeper to the root cause of the motivation. If you look up Charles Whitman and his shooting at the University of Texas, you might find a surprise in his motive.
then where were you saying these things about not rushing to conclusions when the President did so at Charleston? for that matter why don't you yourself walk that walk in regards to the Sterling shooting like Natsatoshi is saying.. The point about race baiting is this... I dont necessarily think the President is a race baiter but there are zillions who do. Why fuel that fire? Taking separate stances on racial motives in similar situations is the exact optics that lead to that perception.
We are in 100% agreement on your first paragraph, as well as the first sentence of your second. Where we seem to disagree is that you use the word "cite" where I would use the word "question." That, I don't see as a problem. I would hope that we never stop questioning all the facts surrounding every killing, police, or not.
They can question it all they want. In private. And if it turns out to be racially motivated or unjust then by all means talk about it. Until then they should stfu
I don't have a responsibility to respond to every topic and don't remember being involved in the discussion about the Charleston shootings at all. Once again, I don't favor anyone, least of all the president, rushing to judgement. But I also don't see anything that could be construed as race baiting and am trying to see how others do. What do you want me to say about Sterling, or Castile, for that matter? Two different scenarios, two different sets of facts, the only common thread is that each guy, apparently with a gun, died at the hands of the police. I'm not declaring anyone guilty or not guilty, I don't have enough information. No one else here has enough information either but that doesn't stop many, or even most from deciding, not just for themselves but for everyone else.
The Constitution encourages the President to race bait and make it sound like Cops are shooting blacks because they're black? Awesome. Please share that part of the constitution for everyone to see. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's a good idea. If Trump becomes president and questions Islam every time someone is murdered, would you defend that?
