Page 41 of 46 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,230 of 1371

Thread: Happy now BLM?

  1. #1201
    You're not allowed to fly too low over a congested area.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  2. #1202
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    ...

    Why exactly did this prompt a police investigation?
    It was orchestrated by the same vile racist hate group of trolling football hooligans that were behind recent violence.

    I've no clue if the plane trip was legal. Probably wasn't under COVID laws at the very least.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  3. #1203
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    It was orchestrated by the same vile racist hate group of trolling football hooligans that were behind recent violence.

    I've no clue if the plane trip was legal. Probably wasn't under COVID laws at the very least.
    If this is the reason, and not Minx's point regarding aviation rules, I am still not entirely sure I understand. Do the police investigate any type of speech if they come from vile racist hate groups? If they handed out a pamphlet would that also require an investigation by the police?

    And again I really don't understand British COVID restrictions - why would a private flight, (in what looks like a one or two seater aircraft) violate COVID restrictions?

  4. #1204
    Only if the pamphlet broke the law.

    I was guessing but as it stands (and it keeps evolving) it's only legal to leave your home for a few valid reasons. Eg to go to work, to go shopping, to exercise etc

    To fly a plane carrying a banner isn't likely covered under any of them. Neither to be fair is protesting. However on another site I discuss politics on someone suggested the pilot etc were probably paid to carry the banner in which case that would be covered.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #1205
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    ...

    Why exactly did this prompt a police investigation?
    Gotten to the bottom of this.

    An investigation was prompted because there was a complaint. If someone complains the Police are duty bound to investigate.

    The investigation has already been closed. The Police have already said no law was broken.

    Someone elsewhere said that putting in a complaint is an old journalistic trick to make a story seem bigger than it is. The Police report they're investigating, makes the story seem big, then nobody bothers to report the results of the investigation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  6. #1206
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    If this is the reason, and not Minx's point regarding aviation rules, I am still not entirely sure I understand. Do the police investigate any type of speech if they come from vile racist hate groups? If they handed out a pamphlet would that also require an investigation by the police?

    And again I really don't understand British COVID restrictions - why would a private flight, (in what looks like a one or two seater aircraft) violate COVID restrictions?
    I didn't understand either. To fly those planes with banners is a profession I'd say. The slogan itself is offensive/racist only in a context that makes it so. Maybe flying over the stadium is considered a security risk?
    Congratulations America

  7. #1207
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    That isn't the point. If you push police back from communities where crime occurs you may decrease the number of police shootings of unarmed people but if at the same time you allow more homicides to occur in vastly greater numbers than lives lost in that first segment, was it worth it? Obviously we would like to reduce the number of people killed inappropriately by police. Breonna Taylor for example was an absolute fucking tragedy. However the way to reduce it isn't by rioting and disincentives for police trying to do their job.
    That is absolutely the way to do it. In fact, it's pretty much the only way to do it.

    A few weeks of protests have done more to advance the cause of police accountability than decades of trying to work within the system, where the only solution those enlightened centrists will countenance has been to add more rules and regulations which the police either work around or outright ignore, or giving them more training which they disregard and mock.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  8. #1208
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Most civilised nations manage to find a way for the Police to do their job without them shooting unarmed people.

    Indeed when the Police stop shooting unarmed people and concentrate on doing their job well instead, they can do their job better not worse.

    Nothing has worked short of rioting so it seems like rioting is the only option. Afterall you're the one always banging on supporting extrajudicial violence when it suits you, so why shouldn't others follow your example. Do you believe in the deterrent effect? If every time the Police murder an unarmed suspect there is a riot then that would be a major deterrent to the Police murdering unarmed suspects would it not?
    The man who was shot near Wendy's was not unarmed.
    He resisted, took police taser and while he was running he aimed taser towards police and police fired.
    Was it justified? Yes. If taser hits, the escaping man could take downed police gun and kill the police.
    It was self defense.
    I watched the bodycam video and Weindy's video.
    Are we talking about the same event?
    Freedom - When people learn to embrace criticism about politicians, since politicians are just employees like you and me.

  9. #1209
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    That is absolutely the way to do it. In fact, it's pretty much the only way to do it.

    A few weeks of protests have done more to advance the cause of police accountability than decades of trying to work within the system, where the only solution those enlightened centrists will countenance has been to add more rules and regulations which the police either work around or outright ignore, or giving them more training which they disregard and mock.
    If you support rioting for one cause you must support it also for causes you disagree with. So - what cause do you disagree with that you think rioting should be legal for?

  10. #1210
    Quote Originally Posted by ar81 View Post
    The man who was shot near Wendy's was not unarmed.
    He resisted, took police taser and while he was running he aimed taser towards police and police fired.
    Was it justified? Yes. If taser hits, the escaping man could take downed police gun and kill the police.
    It was self defense.
    I watched the bodycam video and Weindy's video.
    Are we talking about the same event?
    The taser had already been fired twice and was therefore used up, ie. not a threat.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  11. #1211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    If you support rioting for one cause you must support it also for causes you disagree with.
    No, I have already explained to you why this argument is dumb.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  12. #1212
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    If you support rioting for one cause you must support it also for causes you disagree with.
    No, I don't?
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  13. #1213
    Tossing sandwich while black = death sentence

    https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits...lawsuit-states
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  14. #1214
    Grand jury indicts three men in Ahmaud Arbery murder case:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/24/u...ent/index.html
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  15. #1215
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    No, I don't?
    Ah "Rules for thee but not for me" typical leftist response.

  16. #1216
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Ah "Rules for thee but not for me" typical leftist response.
    You've already been told. Now go sit in a corner, you dull-witted jackass.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  17. #1217
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Ah "Rules for thee but not for me" typical leftist response.
    If you agree with violence in self-defence, but don't agree with it when someone is trying to rob someone then you'll find you're in the same boat.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  18. #1218
    But Steely don't you understand he owned you so hard
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  19. #1219
    Fundamentally, yes, because he's got my quibbling about riots when the vast majority of what's happening is peaceful protest until such time as the police escalate the situation by attacking the crowd.

    Compare that to their conduct when people were protesting social distancing earlier in May if you want to see what "Rules for thee but not for me" actually looks like.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  20. #1220
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    If you support rioting for one cause you must support it also for causes you disagree with. So - what cause do you disagree with that you think rioting should be legal for?
    If you support blowing up buildings full of people for one cause

    https://images.app.goo.gl/Dphf81U5YP4sQzjZ6

    you must support it also for causes you disagree with

    https://images.app.goo.gl/2w7a7PPikG22eyjB7

    False syllogism. Your logic is faulty.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  21. #1221
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    If you agree with violence in self-defence, but don't agree with it when someone is trying to rob someone then you'll find you're in the same boat.
    Nice try but you know where you went wrong.

    When there is a political debate about what policies, rules and laws we should live by, each side should be heard. Before you sit down to play the game, each side should be adhering to certain standards generally mutually agreed upon. This is the basis of civil society. To say that only your side can do certain things is an affront to the political process and the very basis of civilization. We don't beat each other with sticks, we don't agree "might makes right" we debate, discuss and then vote.

  22. #1222
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    If you support blowing up buildings full of people for one cause

    https://images.app.goo.gl/Dphf81U5YP4sQzjZ6

    you must support it also for causes you disagree with

    https://images.app.goo.gl/2w7a7PPikG22eyjB7

    False syllogism. Your logic is faulty.
    Silliness. Do you support the use of violence in a societal policy discussion? Justifying riots for a political cause is basically saying if you don't like the results of democracy you get to cause physical harm to your opponents.

  23. #1223
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Silliness. Do you support the use of violence in a societal policy discussion?

    Justifying riots for a political cause is basically saying if you don't like the results of democracy you get to cause physical harm to your opponents.
    Supporting the destruction of buildings full of people in an act of war is saying nothing less than that the Two Towers were a legitimate target in extremist Islam's fight against the Great Satan. I am ashamed by your total lack of patriotism, much less morality.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  24. #1224
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Nice try but you know where you went wrong.

    When there is a political debate about what policies, rules and laws we should live by, each side should be heard. Before you sit down to play the game, each side should be adhering to certain standards generally mutually agreed upon. This is the basis of civil society. To say that only your side can do certain things is an affront to the political process and the very basis of civilization. We don't beat each other with sticks, we don't agree "might makes right" we debate, discuss and then vote.
    This isn't a "debate", this is about a group of people asking the state to actually follow the rules we all already agreed to and stop killing them.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  25. #1225
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  26. #1226
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    This isn't a "debate", this is about a group of people asking the state to actually follow the rules we all already agreed to and stop killing them.
    In tiny numbers. Being unarmed and getting killed by the police wouldn't even make the top 50 most common types of deaths. And in many cases when cases have gone to to trial either the grand jury fails to indict or the jury doesn't convict. Upset about a jury decision so you riot? That's not civilization. Besides if they were truly upset about the state doing this why aren't they protesting outside the homes of their local leadership? These cities have been controlled by Democrats often times for decades.

  27. #1227
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    In tiny numbers.
    Well hey, if that's what matters, the destruction caused by riots are also tiny numbers out of the whole. So I guess they don't matter either.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  28. #1228
    Y'all mfers killed hundreds of thousands and fucked up global security for two decades over a "tiny" number of people who were killed, so why change a winning formula?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  29. #1229
    Besides if they were truly upset about the state doing this why aren't they protesting outside the homes of their local leadership? These cities have been controlled by Democrats often times for decades.
    Black Lives Matter protesters kneel outside governor's mansion in Albany
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  30. #1230
    Much better idea than burning down an Auto Zone, a Wendy's and looting a Target.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •