Domestic terrorist attack in Wisconsin

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I thought couldn't sink any lower than before.  I was wrong.

 

Just wait until he starts using racist canards.  

[Westside]

34 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Did I call him a hero?

 

He didn't even die?

 

You must be very disappointed. 

 

You're pathetic.

Would you be so forgiving if it was your daughter he savagely beat and raped? Would you still defend him?

[B-Man]

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

Yeah, all those cops were in mortal danger when 7 bullets went into a man's back. The cop who tried to execute a man is a hero to you because the victim was black.

 

It's sort of fun watching racists reveal themselves.

I generally don't think in overly simplistic terms like "hero" with few exceptions, though I can understand it might make the complicated a bit easier to digest for a person with a tendency toward intolerance, limited imagination and the lack of creative thought.  In this case, stepping back from the shots fired, I'd think the officers were heroic in that when the aggrieved party called for assistance, they responded with a clear understanding of the risk to themselves.    The reality is that most people, overwhelmingly, would not or could not respond much beyond offering opinions from the comfort of their own home well after the fact.   

 

Your characterization of my position reflects poorly on you.  It's the lazy person's approach to bigotry...to assume that since you lack the ability to see beyond your own limited experiences, anyone holding a differing opinion must therefore have nefarious intent.  From my perch, considering what we know and can see with our own eyes, changing the pigment of each involved party still reveals that there was a call, a response, an attempt to deal with it without violence, a rejection of the offer to resole peacefully, a struggle, an attempt to flee or secure a weapon, a weapon and the neutralization of the threat.  Putting myself in the shoes of the officer(s) involved, given all that transpired, the only way I would ever know the threat had passed was after the conflict was over.   If you, in a similar situation would choose the passive response, allow the other party to secure the knife, threaten you, maybe stick you in the stomach, certainly that is well within your rights.  You simply don't have the right to expect others to share the passive response.  

 

I have no idea why you're the lazy bigot, the intolerant human being who hides in the crowd yelling out insults and hatred for people not like you.  Maybe life treated you badly.  Maybe you caught a few bad breaks.  Maybe your parents taught you to be intolerant and you never manned up enough to strike your own way.  Maybe you're just naturally inclined to hate.  The good news is that you can change, you can grow, and you can learn.  It's never too late.  Or, you can continue to lob insults as you see fit, like the bully on the corner, but like most bullies, that activity is much more likely to reflect insecurity, weakness and pettiness on your part. 

 

In the end, I think the police officer who fired the shots is actually a victim.  It's possible, of course, that he set out to shoot someone that day.  That seems unlikely given that he didn't summarily fire at the suspect until after the scrum ensued and things got every dicey.  Using a rudimentary understanding of Psychology, it seems likely that the act of pulling his weapon and firing it into the suspect, regardless of the desire of the suspect to do him/his associates bodily harm, brings with it serious emotional baggage.   

 

God bless. 

[B-Man]

 

[Sig1Hunter]

21 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I generally don't think in overly simplistic terms like "hero" with few exceptions, though I can understand it might make the complicated a bit easier to digest for a person with a tendency toward intolerance, limited imagination and the lack of creative thought.  In this case, stepping back from the shots fired, I'd think the officers were heroic in that when the aggrieved party called for assistance, they responded with a clear understanding of the risk to themselves.    The reality is that most people, overwhelmingly, would not or could not respond much beyond offering opinions from the comfort of their own home well after the fact.   

 

Your characterization of my position reflects poorly on you.  It's the lazy person's approach to bigotry...to assume that since you lack the ability to see beyond your own limited experiences, anyone holding a differing opinion must therefore have nefarious intent.  From my perch, considering what we know and can see with our own eyes, changing the pigment of each involved party still reveals that there was a call, a response, an attempt to deal with it without violence, a rejection of the offer to resole peacefully, a struggle, an attempt to flee or secure a weapon, a weapon and the neutralization of the threat.  Putting myself in the shoes of the officer(s) involved, given all that transpired, the only way I would ever know the threat had passed was after the conflict was over.   If you, in a similar situation would choose the passive response, allow the other party to secure the knife, threaten you, maybe stick you in the stomach, certainly that is well within your rights.  You simply don't have the right to expect others to share the passive response.  

 

I have no idea why you're the lazy bigot, the intolerant human being who hides in the crowd yelling out insults and hatred for people not like you.  Maybe life treated you badly.  Maybe you caught a few bad breaks.  Maybe your parents taught you to be intolerant and you never manned up enough to strike your own way.  Maybe you're just naturally inclined to hate.  The good news is that you can change, you can grow, and you can learn.  It's never too late.  Or, you can continue to lob insults as you see fit, like the bully on the corner, but like most bullies, that activity is much more likely to reflect insecurity, weakness and pettiness on your part. 

 

In the end, I think the police officer who fired the shots is actually a victim.  It's possible, of course, that he set out to shoot someone that day.  That seems unlikely given that he didn't summarily fire at the suspect until after the scrum ensued and things got every dicey.  Using a rudimentary understanding of Psychology, it seems likely that the act of pulling his weapon and firing it into the suspect, regardless of the desire of the suspect to do him/his associates bodily harm, brings with it serious emotional baggage.   

 

God bless. 

I think we can put this thread to bed on this post. Very, very well put.

[DFT]

31 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I generally don't think in overly simplistic terms like "hero" with few exceptions, though I can understand it might make the complicated a bit easier to digest for a person with a tendency toward intolerance, limited imagination and the lack of creative thought.  In this case, stepping back from the shots fired, I'd think the officers were heroic in that when the aggrieved party called for assistance, they responded with a clear understanding of the risk to themselves.    The reality is that most people, overwhelmingly, would not or could not respond much beyond offering opinions from the comfort of their own home well after the fact.   

 

Your characterization of my position reflects poorly on you.  It's the lazy person's approach to bigotry...to assume that since you lack the ability to see beyond your own limited experiences, anyone holding a differing opinion must therefore have nefarious intent.  From my perch, considering what we know and can see with our own eyes, changing the pigment of each involved party still reveals that there was a call, a response, an attempt to deal with it without violence, a rejection of the offer to resole peacefully, a struggle, an attempt to flee or secure a weapon, a weapon and the neutralization of the threat.  Putting myself in the shoes of the officer(s) involved, given all that transpired, the only way I would ever know the threat had passed was after the conflict was over.   If you, in a similar situation would choose the passive response, allow the other party to secure the knife, threaten you, maybe stick you in the stomach, certainly that is well within your rights.  You simply don't have the right to expect others to share the passive response.  

 

I have no idea why you're the lazy bigot, the intolerant human being who hides in the crowd yelling out insults and hatred for people not like you.  Maybe life treated you badly.  Maybe you caught a few bad breaks.  Maybe your parents taught you to be intolerant and you never manned up enough to strike your own way.  Maybe you're just naturally inclined to hate.  The good news is that you can change, you can grow, and you can learn.  It's never too late.  Or, you can continue to lob insults as you see fit, like the bully on the corner, but like most bullies, that activity is much more likely to reflect insecurity, weakness and pettiness on your part. 

 

In the end, I think the police officer who fired the shots is actually a victim.  It's possible, of course, that he set out to shoot someone that day.  That seems unlikely given that he didn't summarily fire at the suspect until after the scrum ensued and things got every dicey.  Using a rudimentary understanding of Psychology, it seems likely that the act of pulling his weapon and firing it into the suspect, regardless of the desire of the suspect to do him/his associates bodily harm, brings with it serious emotional baggage.   

 

God bless. 

That’s about the best thing I’ve read on this forum.  Nicely done! 

[IDBillzFan]

5 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

Yeah, all those cops were in mortal danger when 7 bullets went into a man's back. The cop who tried to execute a man is a hero to you because the victim was black.

 

It's sort of fun watching racists reveal themselves.

 

So to stretch your way of thinking a little further,  you're clearly defending the guy who repeatedly sexually assaulted the woman who called 911 by giving her 'the ol' Biden'? Do you not believe all women anymore? Are you saying it's okay for men to phingerp[huck women against their will?

 

Wow. Pretty harrowing stuff, but probably not surprising for a person who pisses all over primary caregivers.

[ziltoid]

41 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Of all the vile things I've seen lately, why would they delete that?  

[Doc]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Just wait until he starts using racist canards.  

 

You already beat him to it.

[Taro T]

22 minutes ago, BeerLeagueHockey said:

Of all the vile things I've seen lately, why would they delete that?  

 

Please tell us that question is rhetorical.

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

You already beat him to it.

 

Fake news. 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Please tell us that question is rhetorical.

 

I'd like to hear the "excuse" given for taking it down.  We know the "why."

[Bakin]

14 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

You have a pretty warped view of justification.  Last I looked, resisting arrest doesn’t justify seven gunshots to the back.  

Are you being purposefully dim?

they didn’t shoot him 7 times for resisting arrest. 
they shot him because while resisting arrest, he went to his car to grab a weapon. Which he would have used to attack the police. 
why do you hate police so much?  They are trying to serve and protect our communities from scumbags like Jacob Blake. Their jobs are hard enough ... 

[Kemp]

19 hours ago, westside2 said:

Would you be so forgiving if it was your daughter he savagely beat and raped? Would you still defend him?

 

Blake has been accused of sexual assault.

 

Trump has been accused of sexual assault by MULTIPLE women. 

 

Would you be so forgiving if it was your daughter Trump raped? Would you still defend him?

 

Obviously,  you would.

 

But he's not black. 

 

 

17 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

So to stretch your way of thinking a little further,  you're clearly defending the guy who repeatedly sexually assaulted the woman who called 911 by giving her 'the ol' Biden'? Do you not believe all women anymore? Are you saying it's okay for men to phingerp[huck women against their will?

 

Wow. Pretty harrowing stuff, but probably not surprising for a person who pisses all over primary caregivers.

 

A lovely speech from someone who votes for a man who has been accused of multiple sexual assaults.

 

Seems like you believe women only if the accused is black.

[Kemp]

20 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

You have a pretty warped view of justification.  Last I looked, resisting arrest doesn’t justify seven gunshots to the back.  

 

He's black.

[SectionC3]

9 hours ago, Bakin said:

Are you being purposefully dim?

they didn’t shoot him 7 times for resisting arrest. 
they shot him because while resisting arrest, he went to his car to grab a weapon. Which he would have used to attack the police. 
why do you hate police so much?  They are trying to serve and protect our communities from scumbags like Jacob Blake. Their jobs are hard enough ... 

 

Hoax.  I don’t hate police.  I believe in the rule of law.  You should try it sometime.  It might result in you not get shot seven times in the back.  

[Nanker]

Hoax!

[B-Man]

[IDBillzFan]

5 hours ago, Kemp said:

A lovely speech from someone who votes for a man who has been accused of multiple sexual assaults.

 

Seems like you believe women only if the accused is black.

 

I've told you and everyone here a billion times, I did not vote for Trump. I know facts mess us the circuitry in your noggin, but it's simply the truth. I wrote in for SMOD, who is still my leading candidate for this year based on how close he is.

 

You, on the other hand, criticize Trump for his sexual assaults, but vote for the old, angry, white man with dementia who phingerphucked a young woman against the wall and against her will. Because we both know that's just the kind of casualty you're willing to accept to get Trump out of office.