You are very much more likely to be a victim of crime than to be a victim of police brutality. It's not even close.

And when it does happen that's no big deal for my fellow blacks brothers since those cops that kill us will blame us and face no consequences? You may never even hear about it unless a video goes viral. Obviously you haven't since it doesn't affect YOU! It's does affect me though! So your statistics mean nothing when you can put a face or life behind them.

Close may count in horseshoes, but not in the reality of LIFE!


The big question is, what causes the poverty? I've already outlined some very good solutions. You don't want to accept them since they involve an exercising of personal responsibility and can't be done by simply blaming someone else.

The definition of racism, being in control of the life of another because of skin color, easily found by zip codes. Racism is the oft used tool of the dominate race/class! That's the root of poverty, control the money. Ask your local slum lord how that works. Ask your local government what happens when you segregate poor people in one place especially by race.

No I don't accept your solutions, nor the premise they are based on. You don't accept mine either, so the discussion continues.

The third year tithe was used to support foreigners, the local synagogue and charitable purposes (poor) why else did God say pay the tithe so there should be food in my house, the other tithes were used for visits to the temple which was an annual requirement, it was consumed by the people, and the levites were supported by the offerings. You really do need to work on your lack of knowledge, there is a lot of false teaching associated with OT tithes and there is no such thing as a NT tithe so the discussion is moot, like so many here

1. Tithe to Levites. Num. 18:26. "Speak to the Levites and say to them: 'When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the LORD's offering.'"

So that is the first tithe, the inheritance which rightly belonged to the Levites since they received no land. It was their due, and they then took a tithe of that and gave it to the priests, the sons of Aaron. It is the tithe referred to in Malachi which they were not receiving and thus had to work, making them unable to properly tend to their ministry duties.

2. Dt. 14:22. "22 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/14-22.htm)Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/14-23.htm)Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the Lord your God always. 24 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/14-24.htm)But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the Lord your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the Lord will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/14-25.htm)then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the Lord your God will choose. 26 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/14-26.htm)Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice. 27 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/14-27.htm)And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own."

This tithe was to be consumed in a period of rejoicing and feasting every year.

3. Dt. 26:12. "When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied."

This was the every third year tithe which was dedicated to supporting the poor. That's why I said it amounted to about 3%.


You really do need to work on your lack of knowledgeThat good enough for you? It does not differ from what I said before. The part you are missing is that the first tithe was the inheritance of the Levites. They did not get land in the manner that the other tribes did, so they were to receive the produce of one acre out of every ten.

statistics mean nothingThe motto of all good liberal dems. "Ignore the facts! Just listen to our rhetoric."


The definition of racism, being in control of the life of another because of skin color, easily found by zip codes. Racism is the oft used tool of the dominate race/class! That's the root of poverty, control the money. Ask your local slum lord how that works. Ask your local government what happens when you segregate poor people in one place especially by race.No one is in control of your life but you. Stop whining. When a woman makes a decision to have three children out of wedlock, she increases the risk of poverty for all four members of that family. It is dumb and needs to stop, but you don't like it since you can't blame it on others and hence would have to accept responsibility.

When a woman makes a decision to have three children out of wedlock
She makes a decision to do this?

She makes a decision to do this?Well, it doesn't happen by accident. Most of the time it seems to require two people doing you know what. If the woman does not do you know what, then I'm pretty sure she will not become pregnant.

Well, it doesn't happen by accident. Most of the time it seems to require two people doing you know what. If the woman does not do you know what, then I'm pretty sure she will not become pregnant.
And if he keeps his pants zipped, it won't happen.

Exactly correct. So we can join together in a call for men and women to behave responsibly and prevent out of wedlock pregnancies??

And if he keeps his pants zipped, it won't happen. and if a woman keeps her legs closed it won't happen, endless argument as old as time and serving no purpose since human nature is self gratification

human nature is self gratification
And that's what each needs to do -- keep that gratification to oneself.

So again. "Can (we) join together in a call for men and women to behave responsibly and prevent out of wedlock pregnancies??

Exactly correct. So we can join together in a call for men and women to behave responsibly and prevent out of wedlock pregnancies??
That's what I taught my children. No "accidents". How about yours?

So is that a "yes"?

So is that a "yes"?
You mean we are to call from our front porches?

You mean we are to call from our front porches?

Well, of course, where else would you call out from

https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2020/06/04/20200603edsuc-a_s878x550.jpg?05b08a207071a7c1e6d482553e408d92802 80cf0

That's what I taught my children. No "accidents". How about yours?

Be grateful your children listened to you. Sometimes they don't.

So is that a "yes"?
You mean we are to call from our front porches?Once again, history repeats itself.

Police brutality leads to protests and riots. Yup! History repeats itself.

Yeah. The actions of one policeman led to hundreds and hundreds of businesses being destroyed. It didn't have anything to do with the pathetic rioters and the feckless mayors. As usual, with you, it's always someone else's fault.

Seems you would be open to stopping such actions that trigger such events.

Be grateful your children listened to you. Sometimes they don't.
Even if they hadn't listened, I would have continued to love them, and loved and accepted their partners and offspring unconditionally.

If one of my children either became pregnant out of wedlock, or fathered a child out of wedlock, I would certainly continue to love that child and support him/her and the infant as best I can, but I would not decide that having sex outside of marriage is actually OK. I would not accept his/her actions, and I would be clear with my child that those actions were outside the will of God. There is much more to love than hugs and kind words. Sometimes a backbone is needed.

If one of my children either became pregnant out of wedlock, or fathered a child out of wedlock, I would certainly continue to love that child and support him/her and the infant as best I can, but I would not decide that having sex outside of marriage is actually OK. I would not accept his/her actions, and I would be clear with my child that those actions were outside the will of God. There is much more to love than hugs and kind words. Sometimes a backbone is needed.
The deed has been done. You will "not accept his/her actions"-- but you will "love that child ... and the infant as best I can." Doesn't sound very loving, not with conditions attached. And scolding him and lecturing him about "the will of God" after the fact doesn't sound very loving, just very Old Testament-y.

You will "not accept his/her actions"-- but you will "love that child ... and the infant as best I can." Doesn't sound very loving, not with conditions attached. And scolding him and lecturing him about "the will of God" after the fact doesn't sound very loving, just very Old Testament-y.Read the end of the story of the woman caught in adultery and get back with me about it. To be silent about sin is as unloving as you can be. That's why I said that at some point you have to grow some backbone.

Read the end of the story of the woman caught in adultery and get back with me about it. To be silent about sin is as unloving as you can be. That's why I said that at some point you have to grow some backbone.
Your "love as best I can" is very off-putting. And I hope when you raise your virtual verbal whip against your sinful child, you'll use "I" statements. And before you do or say anything in reproof, read John 8:7.

https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2020/06/04/20200603edsuc-a_s878x550.jpg?05b08a207071a7c1e6d482553e408d92802 80cf0

the streets of NYC . Mayors wife yesterday said NYC without police would be Nirvana .

Your "love as best I can" is very off-putting. And I hope when you raise your virtual verbal whip against your sinful child, you'll use "I" statements. And before you do or say anything in reproof, read John 8:7.I read your text, and it is plainly very appropritate. So did you read the very last thing Jesus said to her??

"Off-putting"?? The best I can give is "off putting"? Hmm.

I read your text, and it is plainly very appropritate. So did you read the very last thing Jesus said to her??
What He said to her is also a message to all of us.

"Off-putting"?? The best I can give is "off putting"? Hmm.
With accusative "you" this and "you" that pronouncements while holding up a Bible in your right hand, yes, off-putting.

What He said to her is also a message to all of us.So he didn't just say, "Go on now, sweetie. Mommie loves you?"


With accusative "you" this and "you" that pronouncements while holding up a Bible in your right hand, yes, off-putting.I never mentioned the Bible which you seem to hold in disdain. And yes, the "you" is sometimes called for. That's where some backbone comes into play.

So he didn't just say, "Go on now, sweetie. Mommie loves you?
Use "I" statements, not "you" statements. Jesus told her,"I love you in spite of everything and want you to make a better life for yourself."

I never mentioned the Bible which you seem to hold in disdain. And yes, the "you" is sometimes called for. That's where some backbone comes into play.
Bwahahahahaha, "hold it in disdain." (Back to your shaming thing, I see.)

Nope, "you" is never called for in situations like that. That's just more shaming and has nothing to do with "backbone".

Jesus told her,"I love you in spite of everything and want you to make a better life for yourself."No, He didn't. Have you always had this terrible habit of just making things up and then putting it in quotes?


Nope, "you" is never called for in situations like that. That's just more shaming and has nothing to do with "backbone".Yes, it is called for. It's exactly what Jesus said. The subject "you" is understood. "You go and sin no more." Couldn't be plainer.

No, He didn't. Have you always had this terrible habit of just making things up and then putting it in quotes?
That's what "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her" means, "I love you." He didn't ask us to shape up before He died on the cross for us.

Yes, it is called for. It's exactly what Jesus said. The subject "you" is understood. "You go and sin no more." Couldn't be plainer.
Let's unravel this. Jesus was a Jew and knew only the Law. There was no Gospel yet. Thus, there was no love, only rules.

Yeah. Right. There was no gospel. I suppose you think that now that there's a gospel, then Jesus would say, "Go and sin a whole lot." Come on. Don't be ridiculous. You are quoting fantasies.

Mayors wife yesterday said NYC without police would be Nirvana .

She sure did.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-first-lady-chirlane-mccray-police-free-city-utopia-not-soon

...but not anytime soon

Even if they hadn't listened, I would have continued to love them, and loved and accepted their partners and offspring unconditionally.

Absolutely!

Yeah. Right. There was no gospel. I suppose you think that now that there's a gospel, then Jesus would say, "Go and sin a whole lot." Come on. Don't be ridiculous. You are quoting fantasies.
You are trying to mind read and failing miserably. Your conclusion is totally bonkers.

So much for unraveling. Remind me not to try to have a fruitful discussion with you again.

Do not try to have a fruitful discussion with me again, especially concerning why you "disagree" with abortion, or how the gospel was not here even when Jesus was here, or why we should tell people not to engage in foolish, sinful behaviors.

I'll add this. I tell the guys at the rehab center that if they are smart, they will have two or three people who love them enough to tell them when they are messing up. In the story of David and Bathsheba, one of David's men tried to tell him in a soft sort of way. What he really needed was someone who smack him upside his head and tell him to find something else to do. It is hard to overestimate the importance of those kind of people. Forget this psycho quackery. "You are doing something stupid! Stop!"

Do not try to have a fruitful discussion with me again, especially concerning why you "disagree" with abortion, or how the gospel was not here even when Jesus was here, or why we should tell people not to engage in foolish, sinful behaviors.

LOL, preachers (Or clergy, church officials) have no problem identifying sins and Jesus was a sinner according to the religion he was raised in, so while there was a gospel it was Jewish gospel, not Jesus's gospel. That came later.


I'll add this. I tell the guys at the rehab center that if they are smart, they will have two or three people who love them enough to tell them when they are messing up. In the story of David and Bathsheba, one of David's men tried to tell him in a soft sort of way. What he really needed was someone who smack him upside his head and tell him to find something else to do. It is hard to overestimate the importance of those kind of people. Forget this psycho quackery. "You are doing something stupid! Stop!"

Some respond differently to different approaches so one sizes doesn't fit all.

Do not try to have a fruitful discussion with me again, especially concerning why you "disagree" with abortion, or how the gospel was not here even when Jesus was here, or why we should tell people not to engage in foolish, sinful behaviors.
I disagree with abortion but abortion only for myself -- unless my OB has a very valid reason it must be done. My right to swing my fist, especially about abortion, ends where another's nose begins.

No one in Israel during Jesus' time on Earth had any idea of "Gospel". All was Law. Jesus condensed the ten "shalt not" commandments into the two greatest commandments of love.

There's a more effective, God-pleasing way to "tell people not to engage in foolish, sinful behaviors" than getting into their faces and preaching at them.

I disagree with abortionBut why?


There's a more effective, God-pleasing way to "tell people not to engage in foolish, sinful behaviors" than getting into their faces and preaching at them.Sometimes yes, but sometimes no.

What do you think of this? "3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and [d (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+5&version=NASB#fen-NASB-28459d)]I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh; so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

There are a number of plain, clear rebukes in the NT.

You go to the rehab centre, now that is no surprise, I was wondering what dope you have been smokin

Sometimes yes, but sometimes no.
Always no. No nose punching.

What do you think of this? "3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and [d (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+5&version=NASB#fen-NASB-28459d)]I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh; so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

There are a number of plain, clear rebukes in the NT.
I agree with Matthew Henry:
"[Christians] should walk circumspectly, for many eyes are upon us, and many mouths will be opened against us if we fall into any scandalous practice."

OK. I agree with Jesus and Paul. Look up the rebuke Jesus gave to Peter, and then look up the rebuke that Paul gave to Peter.

OK. I agree with Jesus and Paul. Look up the rebuke Jesus gave to Peter, and then look up the rebuke that Paul gave to Peter.
And that all has what to do with us?

He is talking about not being too religiously minded

And that all has what to do with us?It illustrates that your idea of never confronting people does not come from the Bible. The Bible is filled with confrontation which is frequently a very good thing. Not shouting and yelling or finger pointing, but a willingness to confront a person with the foolishness of his or her ways. To be silent or cream-puff soft is sometimes neither loving nor kind. Your views in that regard do not reflect the teaching of the Bible.

To be clear, I'm not ridiculing your beliefs. You are certainly entitled to them and I accept that. I'm simply saying that when you say we should never confront people and have those "you" conversations, you are not being consistent with the Bible.

The Bible is filled with confrontation which is frequently a very good thing. Not shouting and yelling or finger pointing, but a willingness to confront a person with the foolishness of his or her ways. To be silent or cream-puff soft is sometimes neither loving nor kind. Your views in that regard do not reflect the teaching of the Bible.
This is 2020. Shouting and yelling and finger pointing are three of the very best ways to turn people off to the Gospel. Of course, silence and cream-puffery don't accomplish anything either. Gee, I wonder if you can guess what works. Hmm...

Shouting and yelling and finger pointing are three of the very best ways to turn people off to the Gospel.

1. Haven't suggested shouting, yelling, or finger-pointing. Stop making things up.
2. I'm not talking about the Gospel. I'm talking about people who are engaging in foolish behavior like the very action that started this exchange which was having multiple children out of wedlock.

1. Haven't suggested shouting, yelling, or finger-pointing. Stop making things up.
Making things up? Please reread what I said.

2. I'm not talking about the Gospel. I'm talking about people who are engaging in foolish behavior like the very action that started this exchange which was having multiple children out of wedlock.
And my question stands -- I wonder what would work to convince them to change this or any other behavior.

2. I'm not talking about the Gospel. I'm talking about people who are engaging in foolish behavior like the very action that started this exchange which was having multiple children out of wedlock.

I would hope you have more approaches than just confrontation, to go with your backbone that you imply only you have.

A lot of people have backbone. I've never implied otherwise.

What's your solution? Do you even consider it to be a problem?

What's your solution? Do you even consider it to be a problem?
I asked you first: "What would work best to convince them to change this or any other behavior?"

I asked you first: "What would work best to convince them to change this or any other behavior?"I assume you are talking about out of wedlock births. A few comments.

1. Maybe we should look at what worked sixty years ago. There was a general public opinion, reinforced by most people of influence, that becoming pregnant outside of marriage was a really bad idea. In most circles it was even considered to be immoral. And please don't come back with your anecdotal accounts of your teenage years. I don't care about stories. Numbers speak. Data speak.
2. What is our approach to rolling back racism, or smoking, or underage drinking, or DUI, or any one of a number of other moral issues? Is it not a prevailing public opinion that those things are either morally wrong or counterproductive?
3. It's going to take a lot of doing. We must first become settled as a culture that it is not a good decision. We've got to stop defending and even glorifying it.
4. Women need to begin defending themselves. Give a man what he wants outside of marriage which is there, in large part, to defend women??? Hxll no! Women should respect themselves more than that. Let the man step up and do his part by marrying the prospective mother of his child.
5. Men who father children out of wedlock and then do not at least support the mother and child should be held up to great disapproval by the public. Their behavior should be viewed as unspeakably scummy.
6. Women who sleep around should be viewed as immoral. Movies that glorify that behavior in men or women should be viewed as scummy.

See what I mean? It would take rolling back what has tragically happened the past fifty years. It won't be easy.

It would take rolling back what has tragically happened the past fifty years. It won't be easy.
How do you propose that gets done?

It starts with me raising my voice. It could continue with you raising your voice. We could try and sway public opinion. That's where this kind of thing always starts.

It starts with me raising my voice. It could continue with you raising your voice. We could try and sway public opinion. That's where this kind of thing always starts.
That doesn't work! You know darn well it only turns people off. Example: Are you listening to the protesters and asking them to give you more input as to how you can help?

You know how that works as many voices have already been raised on many issues, and still continue to weigh in. I don't think going back 50 years is a great idea personally, but as the founders have written forming a more perfect society starts with equality.

I agree. Our independence started with a protest and some died, yet the protests continued and grew to an armed war for liberty, and we moved to a civil war for freedom and equality, and the struggle continues for freedom, justice and more equality.

So no, I'm not going back because evolution and solution requires we go forward. Love support and education is my solution to how we treat the elderly, handicapped, children, and poor for whatever reason, and redress for past sins in recognition of the the struggle for promises denied, and cruelty, and atrocities committed.

How we reconcile our obvious differences to get to the solution that works for ALL is the big question.

That doesn't work! You know darn well it only turns people off. Example: Are you listening to the protesters and asking them to give you more input as to how you can help?Of course it does. Great social change always begins with highly committed people raising their voices. You say that because you don't want to raise yours. It's always easier to just let people suffer while the rest of us sit around and drink our coffee.

Tal, no one has suggested we go back to fifty years ago, but we can certainly learn from fifty years ago. What is your solution for a catastrophic 74% out of wedlock birth rate?

Of course it does. Great social change always begins with highly committed people raising their voices. You say that because you don't want to raise yours. It's always easier to just let people suffer while the rest of us sit around and drink our coffee.

I agree partially, but voices are raised after some social injustice or catastrophic event that has occurred. Change comes if those voices are listened too, and if that's not the case, then the voices get louder and cannot be ignored. Conflict is resolved in our system of government through the vote, and right now voters of one party are suppressing that vote to preserve power for a growing minority view and Georgia is a prime example of that suppression, and there are many others. The covid19 response is another, along with the voices in the street from police brutality, and injustice, which have reached a new high after years of not addressing the core issues.


Tal, no one has suggested we go back to fifty years ago, but we can certainly learn from fifty years ago. What is your solution for a catastrophic 74% out of wedlock birth rate?

I have stated all along that I don't go along with the out of wedlock label at all, that's a religious custom and tradition, and personal choice, but love and support and education are my tools to advance and help people achieve success after the deed is done. Heath care is a great part of that as mind, body, and soul regardless of race, creed, or skin color is a crucial need in underserved communities. That approach more comports with the words and promises of our founding documents and clarifies the goals and solutions contained within them, with a very thoughtful process codified in law.

I have stated all along that I don't go along with the out of wedlock label at all, that's a religious custom and tradition, and personal choice, but love and support and education are my tools to advance and help people achieve success after the deed is done. Heath care is a great part of that as mind, body, and soul regardless of race, creed, or skin color is a crucial need in underserved communities. That approach more comports with the words and promises of our founding documents and clarifies the goals and solutions contained within them, with a very thoughtful process codified in law.Short version. I will not raise my voice against the incredibly negative practice of out of wedlock births. I mean, someone might confuse me for a conservative!!

Sadly, people like to complain about what others do, and more rarely will address their own practices which, in this case, bears far worse consequences than anything any white racist is doing. It is much easier to simply complain. Oh well. Let's just ignore it and talk about health care. Too bad to see this being swept under the rug.

"Out of wedlock label?" Do you also not go along with the cancer label, or the college graduate label, or the married label, or with the dozens of other "labels" we use to describe what's going on in our culture? It's a simple descriptor.


Conflict is resolved in our system of government through the vote, and right now voters of one party are suppressing that vote to preserve power for a growing minority view and Georgia is a prime example of that suppression, and there are many others. Fake news.

Of course it does. Great social change always begins with highly committed people raising their voices. You say that because you don't want to raise yours. It's always easier to just let people suffer while the rest of us sit around and drink our coffee.
Hmm, the usual tap dancing by you. No, I don't raise my voice because I know people turn it off. I have better and more effective ways.

I was watching Fox and heard a commentator very forcefully telling her audience that the upsurge in COVID-19 cases is fake news, so just go out and party. Forget the masks and have fun!

Short version. I will not raise my voice against the incredibly negative practice of out of wedlock births. I mean, someone might confuse me for a conservative!!

I have explained that I disagree with that tenet of your religious practices, and traditions, custom and dogma, which use to be labeled with the word "bastard" which only hurt the child. I find that cruel myself so do not subscribe to those religious labels and attitudes, nor care if they are considered conservative or liberal.


It's what I've said all along. People like to complain about what others do, and only rarely will address their own practices which, in this case, bears far worse consequences than anything any white racist is doing. It is much easier to simply complain. Oh well. Let's just ignore it and talk about health care. Sad to see this being swept under the rug.

I just don't think that's true and the dynamics of racism, brutality, cruelty, and other atrocities are for more detrimental when combined with suppression and oppression of minority peoples. That's what's been ignored and swept under the rug here.


"Out of wedlock label?" Do you also not go along with the cancer label, or the college graduate label, or the married label, or with the dozens of other "labels" we use to describe what's going on in our culture?

I love it when you take a specific and seek to broaden it to unrelated issues. It's a lot going on in our society for sure but not all see it as a religious only subject.


Fake news.

Yeah right.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/voter-turnout-soared-georgia-despite-massive-primary-day-problems-n1230806

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/georgia-secretary-state-launches-investigation-after-unacceptable-voting-problems-n1228541


In order to raise all boats first you must possess a boat, but when the one you have is leaky at best, you concentrate on bailing rather than fixing the leak, after your boat has sunk, as it has for so many in this pandemic, you get a violent response as all the anger is focused and race seems to be the focus. Minneapolis seems to be progressing to an interesting outcome, abandoning the traditional police force model, I will watch these developments

Profound words that highlight the problems, I agree with Clete and the only fake news is by those that seek to ignore, dismiss and sweep it under the rug!

Hmm, the usual tap dancing by you. No, I don't raise my voice because I know people turn it off. I have better and more effective ways.I'm convinced you don't raise your voice because you don't care enough. It might make you look like an evangelical, so you find reasons that make your practice of doing nothing seem more comfortable.


I have explained that I disagree with that tenet of your religious practices, and traditions, custom and dogma, which use to be labeled with the word "bastard" which only hurt the child. I find that cruel myself so do not subscribe to those religious labels and attitudes, nor care if they are considered conservative or liberal.I didn't mention religion. I have talked about the welfare of the black community. Perhaps you ignore it because it doesn't fit your political narrative. If true, that is terribly unkind, especially if it's because you are concerned lest you be labeled a conservative.


I just don't think that's true and the dynamics of racism, brutality, cruelty, and other atrocities are for more detrimental when combined with suppression and oppression of minority peoples. That's what's been ignored and swept under the rug here.Swept under the rug? You can't turn on the news for two minutes without hearing it. Well, just ignore it. After all, it's much easier to simply complain about racism. That way a person doesn't have to call for self-discipline.

As to Clete's comments, you have to be able to explain how such a multitude of black Americans have managed to not only get a good boat, but to get several good boats with their own lake and marina to boot. How did that happen? Where are the black leaders willing to stand up and say, "If those people can be fantastically successful, then so can the rest of us. Let's get to work?" Where are they? If Obama can be elected pres TWICE, then I stop listening to all the nonsense about boats. Read Walter Williams' autobiography, Up from the Projects, and then get back with me with your excuses about boats.

I'm convinced you don't raise your voice because you don't care enough. It might make you look like an evangelical, so you find reasons that make your practice of doing nothing seem more comfortable.

You're convinced it's your way or no way because you cannot fathom another way.


I didn't mention religion. I have talked about the welfare of the black community. Perhaps you ignore it because it doesn't fit your political narrative. If true, that is terribly unkind, especially if it's because you are concerned lest you be labeled a conservative.


Everything you post is about the authoritative religion you espouse.


Swept under the rug? You can't turn on the news for two minutes without hearing it. Well, just ignore it. After all, it's much easier to simply complain about racism. That way a person doesn't have to call for self-discipline.


To survive and thrive during the unapologetic racist cruelty and atrocities heaped on us for 400 years in this country is a perfect example of self discipline and perseverance whether YOU acknowledge dismiss or ignore it or not!


As to Clete's comments, you have to be able to explain how such a multitude of black Americans have managed to not only get a good boat, but to get several good boats with their own lake and marina to boot. How did that happen? Where are the black leaders willing to stand up and say, "If those people can be fantastically successful, then so can the rest of us. Let's get to work?" Where are they? If Obama can be elected pres TWICE, then I stop listening to all the nonsense about boats. Read Walter Williams' autobiography, Up from the Projects, and then get back with me with your excuses about boats.

Now that's an exaggeration of fake news akin to "one drop of black blood....".

I'm convinced you don't raise your voice because you don't care enough. It might make you look like an evangelical, so you find reasons that make your practice of doing nothing seem more comfortable.
Funny! My church body has removed "evangelical" from church names because that word was stolen by the fundies to make them look more, what? reasonable? rational? religious? If you delve into the word's origins and original meaning, it doesn't fit them.

As far as not "raising my voice," I use (as I said) more effective ways. And the Internet has given me an even broader reach!

Everything you post is about the authoritative religion you espouse.More fake news.


To survive and thrive during the unapologetic racist cruelty and atrocities heaped on us for 400 years in this country is a perfect example of self discipline and perseverance whether YOU acknowledge dismiss or ignore it or not!I would agree with that except the silly part at the end about me dismissing or ignoring it.


Now that's an exaggeration of fake news akin to "one drop of black blood....".It's not an exaggeration in any way, but it makes it more convenient for you to be liberal dem if you pretend that is the case. If it's an "exaggeration", then I'm not sure how you explain this, a list which includes a man from a town of about 200 in Mississippi now worth over 500 million dollars. https://www.ranker.com/list/the-20-richest-african-americans/worlds-richest-people-lists


Funny! My church body has removed "evangelical" from church namesI imagine you did it because you no longer believe in evangelism. You don't raise your voice because, I think, you are afraid to. But I'll say this. If you are saying that you have found a different way to reduce the out of wedlock birth rate, then more power to you. I just suspect that's not what you're saying.

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB15lSW0.img?h=749&w=1123&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f&x=837&y=460

I imagine you did it because you no longer believe in evangelism. You don't raise your voice because, I think, you are afraid to. But I'll say this. If you are saying that you have found a different way to reduce the out of wedlock birth rate, then more power to you. I just suspect that's not what you're saying.
I didn't remove it; my church body is removing it!

Do you even know what the word means? It definitely doesn't mean to raise one's voice as fundies are wont to do with their bullhorns and shouting into the faces of those they consider lost and doomed to eternal hellfire.

Yep, my way includes -- and is not limited to -- reducing the out-of-wedlock birth rate.

Do you even know what the word means? Comes from the Greek word "euangelion" which means "good news". So evangelism is telling people the good news that they can receive forgiveness of sins, escape judgement for sin, and have a relationship with God through faith in Christ. Kind of like what John 3:16 says.


It definitely doesn't mean to raise one's voice as fundies are wont to do with their bullhorns and shouting into the faces of those they consider lost and doomed to eternal hellfire.Never said it did.


Yep, my way includes -- and is not limited to -- reducing the out-of-wedlock birth rate.Why would you want to do that?

Comes from the Greek word "euangelion" which means "good news". So evangelism is telling people the good news that they can receive forgiveness of sins, escape judgement for sin, and have a relationship with God through faith in Christ. Kind of like what John 3:16 says.You had to google that, didn't you. *smirk* Btw, we're all going to be judged.

Never said it did.
Yes, you have. Often.

Why would you want to do that?
Being facetious, are we???

You had to google that, didn't you. *smirk* Btw, we're all going to be judged.Actually, only to make sure my spelling was right. I remember that word from my Greek class since our instructor made a really big deal out of it and wanted us to spell it "ev" rather than "eu". Don't recall why. At any rate, if you had ever studied Greek, then "evangelism" jumps off the page. It's a transliteration.


Yes, you have. Often.Find it. I have never said, "to raise one's voice as fundies are wont to do with their bullhorns and shouting into the faces of those they consider lost and doomed to eternal hellfire," or anything close to it. I don't use a bullhorn or shout into faces. I don't suggest others do.


Being facetious, are we???No. I am interested in your moral (or practical) reasoning for trying to lead women, in whatever manner, away from out of wedlock births. Why do you do that?

Find it. I have never said, "to raise one's voice as fundies are wont to do with their bullhorns and shouting into the faces of those they consider lost and doomed to eternal hellfire," or anything close to it. I don't use a bullhorn or shout into faces. I don't suggest others do.
Your post #306: "It starts with me raising my voice."

No. I am interested in your moral (or practical) reasoning for trying to lead women, in whatever manner, away from out of wedlock births. Why do you do that?
I almost fell off my chair when reading this. Why indeed!

I've also led many workshops to help people job hunt, fill out job applications and put together resumes, and be comfortable during job interviews (by roleplaying and with skits).

Post 306 read, "It starts with me raising my voice. It could continue with you raising your voice. We could try and sway public opinion. That's where this kind of thing always starts." We were discussing social policy, not the gospel. You know, that is perilously close to flat out deceit. You know full well I was not talking about preaching with a bullhorn. Shame on you. Very disappointing.


I almost fell off my chair when reading this. Why indeed!Did you almost fall off your chair because, as usual, you are afraid to answer the question?


I've also led many workshops to help people job hunt, fill out job applications and put together resumes, and be comfortable during job interviews (by roleplaying and with skits).I commend you. Really.

I wonder if the ever declining membership of your Lutheran Church has to do with your rejection of evangelism?

I wonder if the ever declining membership of your Lutheran Church has to do with your rejection of evangelism?
The declining membership is because it's too literal and conservative, stuck in its ways, and outdated in its approach to younger people. For those reasons and more, I long ago left it.

So you are no longer a Lutheran? You've been saying you are a Lutheran, but now you're saying you're not.

Just out of curiosity, what are your principles of hermeneutics when reading the Bible, in particular as it relates to when to take a passage figuratively or literally?

And you want to talk about Trump being dumb. Here's a new standard. "Seattle Mayor Durkan: CHAZ Has A 'Block Party Atmosphere," Could Turn Into "Summer Of Love'"

I wonder if the people in that neighborhood feel the same way?



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/12/seattle_mayor_durkan_chaz_has_a_block_party_atmosp here_could_turn_into_summer_of_love.html?fbclid=Iw AR3y3WNs7MLnsN3uVAmg4L8bC7wGYkZ2_fjKnhmu26BhduWgK3 _gBQEYP3E (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/12/seattle_mayor_durkan_chaz_has_a_block_party_atmosp here_could_turn_into_summer_of_love.html?fbclid=Iw AR3y3WNs7MLnsN3uVAmg4L8bC7wGYkZ2_fjKnhmu26BhduWgK3 _gBQEYP3E)

And you want to talk about Trump being dumb. Here's a new standard. "Seattle Mayor Durkan: CHAZ Has A 'Block Party Atmosphere," Could Turn Into "Summer Of Love'"

I wonder if the people in that neighborhood feel the same way?



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/12/seattle_mayor_durkan_chaz_has_a_block_party_atmosp here_could_turn_into_summer_of_love.html?fbclid=Iw AR3y3WNs7MLnsN3uVAmg4L8bC7wGYkZ2_fjKnhmu26BhduWgK3 _gBQEYP3E (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/12/seattle_mayor_durkan_chaz_has_a_block_party_atmosp here_could_turn_into_summer_of_love.html?fbclid=Iw AR3y3WNs7MLnsN3uVAmg4L8bC7wGYkZ2_fjKnhmu26BhduWgK3 _gBQEYP3E)

Let the locals handle there own business. No looting, no burning, no deaths or injuries. Occupy Wall Street lasted months.

Occupy Wall Street was confined to trespassing and vadalizing a public park and that was bad enough. These people are violating the rights of citizens who have their homes and their businesses in the occupied zone . It is completely different . They also have a right to have their life liberty and property protected . That is the primary function of government . Seattle has abdicated it's responsibilities as has the state .

Let the locals handle it!

Let the locals handle there own business. No looting, no burning, no deaths or injuries. Occupy Wall Street lasted months.I wonder if your response would have been the same if this had been handled by "Mayor Trump"?

Let the locals handle it.

since there is no police presence ;as a resident I would have no option but to "handle it " . If the occupiers are not subject to the law ,am I ?

If the occupiers are not subject to the law ,am I ?
That's a really good question.

Then there is this .... Dr. Deborah Birx, on a conference call with the nations governors disclosed that 70 c-19 testing sites had been destroyed during the Floyd peaceful protests, and there had been a resultant drop in testing. She said there will have to be a "scramble " to replace those sites because she believes cases of infections will spike in areas where the protests occurred .

What ? You didn't hear that as the lead story ?I bet you would've had this happened a week earlier when real peaceful protests by business owners who wanted to open up had destroyed the testing sites .

since there is no police presence ;as a resident I would have no option but to "handle it " . If the occupiers are not subject to the law ,am I ?

Same question I ask Tom, if the elite and elected and the badged and armed aren't subject to the law, then why am I?


Then there is this .... Dr. Deborah Birx, on a conference call with the nations governors disclosed that 70 c-19 testing sites had been destroyed during the Floyd peaceful protests, and there had been a resultant drop in testing. She said there will have to be a "scramble " to replace those sites because she believes cases of infections will spike in areas where the protests occurred .

Those darn criminal elements.


What ? You didn't hear that as the lead story ?I bet you would've had this happened a week earlier when real peaceful protests by business owners who wanted to open up had destroyed the testing sites .

Leaked to the Daily Caller is all I know, but for sure if it was business owners doing criminal acts we sure would have heard about it.

no concern then that the loss of the sites in the minority communities, and the risks the protests have as stated by both Birx and Fauci ,will give the virus a boost in minority communities ? More deaths will result from that than police brutality .

The only minority deaths that count are the ones lost at the hands of the police. Otherwise, no one seems interested.

Is it a subtle form of racism at work when a completely innocent white woman is shot and killed by a black police officer in Minneapolis (2019) and not a single person turns out to protest the shooting or burn a building, but when a black man is killed by a white officer the protests are large and turn violent?

Is it a subtle form of racism at work when a completely innocent white woman is shot and killed by a black police officer in Minneapolis (2019) and not a single person turns out to protest the shooting or burn a building, but when a black man is killed by a white officer the protests are large and turn violent?

But jl surely you know black lives matter and the death of a white woman is of no concern to a black

Here is the 'block party ''summer of love ' Mayor Durkan is talking about . If I'm a resident . I now have to put up with trespasser's noise 24/7 and the vandalism .This is what the good citizens of CHAZistan call their Communal Renewal and Art Program (CRAP)


https://external-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQCqz3b0da3ETq6t&w=540&h=282&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fext_tw_video_thu mb%2F1272088626734628864%2Fpu%2Fimg%2FybHFKs0BGC-VCTFy.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&fallback=news_d_placeholder_publisher&_nc_hash=AQBSU2KtS_vCK4ld
Now as a legitimate tax paying citizen of the community with all that implies (a compact with the government to protect my life liberty and property ) I know the idiot mayor won't do a damn thing about it ;and in fact approves the fact that the section of town has been invaded and occupied .The block party was clearly spray painting graffiti block by block . Get a closer look this is the future with a defunded police force.

no concern then that the loss of the sites in the minority communities, and the risks the protests have as stated by both Birx and Fauci ,will give the virus a boost in minority communities ? More deaths will result from that than police brutality .

I blame destructive behavior on destructive people no matter what it is they destroy, and reconcile the risks that protestors take the same way that states are choosing to reopen. We are all at risk because of our behaviors most fear driven.


Is it a subtle form of racism at work when a completely innocent white woman is shot and killed by a black police officer in Minneapolis (2019) and not a single person turns out to protest the shooting or burn a building, but when a black man is killed by a white officer the protests are large and turn violent?

The black officer was duly convicted,

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/02/minnesota-police-convicted-justine-damond/


According to data compiled by the Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/fatal-police-encounters-since-2000/502088871/), Noor’s case marks the first conviction out of 179 police-involved deaths in Minnesota since 2000.

Just in case the cable is out at your houses, we have another shooting in Atlanta to add more fuel to the fire.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/rayshard-brooks-death-atlanta-police-officer-fired-police-chief-steps-down/ar-BB15ronL?ocid=msedgntp

Here is the 'block party ''summer of love ' Mayor Durkan is talking about . If I'm a resident . I now have to put up with trespasser's noise 24/7 and the vandalism .This is what the good citizens of CHAZistan call their Communal Renewal and Art Program (CRAP)


https://external-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQCqz3b0da3ETq6t&w=540&h=282&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fext_tw_video_thu mb%2F1272088626734628864%2Fpu%2Fimg%2FybHFKs0BGC-VCTFy.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&fallback=news_d_placeholder_publisher&_nc_hash=AQBSU2KtS_vCK4ld
Now as a legitimate tax paying citizen of the community with all that implies (a compact with the government to protect my life liberty and property ) I know the idiot mayor won't do a damn thing about it ;and in fact approves the fact that the section of town has been invaded and occupied .The block party was clearly spray painting graffiti block by block . Get a closer look this is the future with a defunded police force.

You know how the process works in communities, the mayor, chief decide the course of actions. I know Tom, you prefer a more dramatic head knocking, guns blazing approach, send in the troops and gas 'em all. I prefer a more peaceful solution. Much more peaceful than the NJ guy shot while waiting for a tow truck and ends up being shot to death. Or being shot in the back in a Wendy's parking lot.

Or being shot in the back in a Wendy's parking lot. He resisted arrest after he failed a field sobriety test (after he had fell asleep on line at a Wendy's drive through ). He wrestled a tazer out of the hands of an officer ,ran and then turned to use the weapon on him .That is what the video shows (the officers body cam ;not the Wendy's cam .That is why he was shot. Are you saying the officer was wrong to defend himself ?
and the incident in NJ is on video to see what really happened . He wasn't innocently waiting for a tow truck .His car broke down when he was travelling 110 mph. At first he followed the officers instructions . But when the officer went to get him a protective mask he attempted to get into the drivers side of the patrol car. A scuffle ensued and that is when the officer fired at him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2178&v=pJ9P4DBChbQ&feature=emb_logo

He resisted arrest after he failed a field sobriety test (after he had fell asleep on line at a Wendy's drive through ). He wrestled a tazer out of the hands of an officer ,ran and then turned to use the weapon on him .That is what the video shows (the officers body cam ;not the Wendy's cam .That is why he was shot. Are you saying the officer was wrong to defend himself ?
What was the officer defending himself over? A black man RUNNING AWAY from him? And aren't cops trained how to wrest a taser out of someone's possession without shooting and killing him?

And had the man been white, how would the cops have handled this incident? (If you can't figure THAT out, I've lost faith in you.)

Is it a subtle form of racism at work when a completely innocent white woman is shot and killed by a black police officer in Minneapolis (2019) and not a single person turns out to protest the shooting or burn a building, but when a black man is killed by a white officer the protests are large and turn violent?

There's an obvious answer to your comment.

A white being killed by a black policeman is so rare that the Minneapolis citizens nevertheless let justice run its course. In this case, the officer was convicted of murder and sentenced to 12 and a half years in prison. The family of the Australian woman killed received $20 million from the city. There was no need for demonstrations and protests.

A similar case in the same area shortly before this one was that of a black man (Philando Castile) sitting peacefully in his car, acknowledging his ownership of a legal gun permit, who was shot seven times and killed. His passenger recorded it including the victim's words repeating he was not reaching for his gun. That video went viral as I'm sure you remember. The murderer cop was acquitted. Castile's family received $3 million from the city - a strong indication of a bad jury verdict.

The murder of a black man by a white cop is an occurrence too common to be ignored. Protests and demonstrations are an effective way to get attention - which has been successful in the current case globally - and to attempt to once and for all reform the criminal justice system in America - a system designed to disadvantage African-Americans.

Spare us your usual racist BS about wedlock and crime. These events are about deliberate judicial murder - so entrenched in police culture and police departments that the murdering police knew they were being taped on camera, and even that did not dissuade them from what they did.

What was the officer defending himself over? A black man RUNNING AWAY from him? And aren't cops trained how to wrest a taser out of someone's possession without shooting and killing him?

I don't know the procedures or training .I do know what I saw which was the black man running away until he turned around and pointed the taser at the cop . I expect there will be an investigation and given the atmosphere in the country I am not sure there will be a fair hearing .


And had the man been white, how would the cops have handled this incident? (If you can't figure THAT out, I've lost faith in you.)

all I can do in this case is cite facts to reply to your hypothetical
In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database.

I do know what I saw which was the black man running away until he turned around and pointed the taser at the cop

The black man was too far from the pursuing cop for the taser to be effective - assuming it was even loaded. The cop shot him needlessly. That's obvious from the video. He should have just chased him.

The black man started the mess by refusing to be cuffed. But the shooting is an entirely different situation.


I expect there will be an investigation and given the atmosphere in the country I am not sure there will be a fair hearing .

I think it's pretty obvious the cop was in the wrong. Unfair would be if the cop's action was approved by the authorities.


In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database.

These statistical citations need to be analyzed. For example, blacks, 12.5 % of the population, are 25% of the killed. That's not to say some or all of them weren't righteous. Point being, much more context is required to determine whether the stats tell us anything of value.

I think it's pretty obvious the cop was in the wrong. Unfair would be if the cop's action was approved by the authorities.................The black man was too far from the pursuing cop for the taser to be effective - assuming it was even loaded. The cop shot him needlessly. That's obvious from the video. He should have just chased him. If I'm a cop I don't have the luxury of determining in a split second if the guy I'm chasing is pointing a taser armed or unarmed ,or another weapon at me . All I know is that he is pointing a weapon at me . So it is not clear the shooting wasn't justified .

If I'm a cop I don't have the luxury of determining in a split second if the guy I'm chasing is pointing a taser armed or unarmed ,or another weapon at me . All I know is that he is pointing a weapon at me . So it is not clear the shooting wasn't justified .

The taser flashed so I assume the guy fired it. I maintain the cop was too far so shooting the guy was not necessary. As to a "split second", this is the argument used by cops all the time. Second only to "I was in fear of my life". The juries love that one.

I think the cop was trigger happy. Time will tell, I hope.

If I'm a cop I don't have the luxury of determining in a split second if the guy I'm chasing is pointing a taser armed or unarmed ,or another weapon at me . All I know is that he is pointing a weapon at me . So it is not clear the shooting wasn't justified .
The cop knew it was his taser. As Athos mentioned, the distance between them was too great for the taser to do any harm to the cop. And yes, if you're a cop, you are (supposed to be) trained and ready to make split-second decisions. Otherwise, become a short-order cook or mail carrier instead.

all I can do in this case is cite facts to reply to your hypothetical
In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database.Those facts can be pesky things. Consider these.

Black people in the United States are more likely to be victims of violent confrontations with police officers (per capita) than their white counterparts. But let’s dive deeper into why this is. Statistically, minorities come to police attention far more than their population would suggest.


Black Americans make up about 13% of the population.
But according to the FBI, they account for about 50% of murders, and about 38% of all violent crime overall.

According to 2016 FBI data, black men commit murder 572.8% more than white men. Rapes are committed at a level of 146.1% greater, robbery at 617.9% greater, aggravated assault at 203.3% greater and violent crime in total at 263.6% greater. (JL. The obvious conclusion from this is that a black man is more likely to be engaged by the police in the commission of a violent crime than are others.)

A 2016 study (https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf) by Roland G. Fryer Jr., who is an economics professor at Harvard. He found that no racial bias could be detected in police shootings, in either the raw data or when accounting for controls. He also found racial bias was detected in lesser use of police force, but not deadly encounters. His recommendation?
“Black Lives Matter should seek solutions within their own communities rather than changing the behaviors of police and other external forces.” (JL. Described by Athos as "racist BS", but known to other people as "truth".)


https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/police-brutality-race-numbers/

Described by Athos as "racist BS",You never seem to get the point.

When discussing the police murdering unarmed blacks, you bring up unrelated info about crime that is not the point. It is obvious your attempt to change the discussion away from bad police actions is rooted in your racism.

We're all getting tired of your repeated BS and your avoidance of contributing anything to the issue being discussed - an issue so important that the entire world is commenting on it.

I prefer you just skip over whatever you see posted under my name and stop replying to me when the police killing of blacks is being discussed.

Otherwise, become a short-order cook or mail carrier instead. guess that will be plan B when the fools who want defunding get their wish . Hate to burst the balloon but what will replace them will be privately hired security rather than midnight basketball referees . Y'all gonna miss the cops .
I keep on going back to art references . In spaghetti westerns the people hate the sheriff and only tolerate him because he can do the job they don't have the backbone for.

guess that will be plan B when the fools who want defunding get their wish . Hate to burst the balloon but what will replace them will be privately hired security rather than midnight basketball referees . Y'all gonna miss the cops .
That wasn't what I was talking about, and you know it! I had said and was referring to poor training cops are apparently getting, "And yes, if you're a cop, you are (supposed to be) trained and ready to make split-second decisions. Otherwise, become a short-order cook or mail carrier instead."

fools who want defunding get their wish

They are using a mis-understood word. By "defunding" is meant defunding non-police activities and put them to mental health workers or social workers. One has actually promoted dismantling the police and starting over. She is a victim of her enthusiasm.


I keep on going back to art references . In spaghetti westerns the people hate the sheriff and only tolerate him because he can do the job they don't have the backbone for.

Spaghetti westerns are art????????? Perish the thought!

When discussing the police murdering unarmed blacks, you bring up unrelated info about crime that is not the point. It is obvious your attempt to change the discussion away from bad police actions is rooted in your racism.Your complete rejection of any discussion of what can be done to assist black America in moving forward can easily be interpreted as racism. Violent behavior by the police is far away from being the chief problem in that regard.

Your complete rejection of any discussion

Please go away.

I am here for discussion. I will be happy to avoid discussion with you if you are agreeable. Just let it be a two way street.

NY Times op-ed clears up 'Defund the police' confusion: 'Yes, we mean literally abolish the police'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-op-ed-clears-up-defund-the-police-confusion-yes-we-mean-literally-abolish-the-police

NY Times op-ed clears up 'Defund the police' confusion: 'Yes, we mean literally abolish the police'


https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-op-ed-clears-up-defund-the-police-confusion-yes-we-mean-literally-abolish-the-police
One voice in that piece:

"Anti-criminalization activist Mariame Kaba attempted to settle the debate with the op-ed, "Yes, we mean literally abolish the police ... The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police."

I disagree. Better vetting, psychological testing, and training would go a long way to solve the problem.

Better vetting, psychological testing, and training would go a long way to solve the problem.That might be, and I think it's a valid enough point, but my understanding is that many PD's around the country are having trouble just finding even fairly good candidates. Numbers are a problem, and all of this anti-police rhetoric will not make it any better.

They are using a mis-understood word. By "defunding" is meant defunding non-police activities and put them to mental health workers or social workers. One has actually promoted dismantling the police and starting over. She is a victim of her enthusiasm.

ask All Out Crazy if she thinks she is being misunderstood when she talks about defunding . Ask the protesters at CHAZistan what they mean by defunding . WE in NY went through this crap in the 70s . NYC was unlivable .

The way I see it ,the elected officials are embracing this because they know that they are going to be on shoe string budgets for a long time . Sandinista Bill wants to cut a billion dollars from the police budget . What he isn't telling you is that besides the lining of his wife's pockets ,that money is not going to shift to so called social services .


I disagree. Better vetting, psychological testing, and training would go a long way to solve the problem. aint going to happen . All these municipalities police forces have the same public unions that keep predator teachers in rubber rooms for decades rather than getting rid of them .

That might be, and I think it's a valid enough point, but my understanding is that many PD's around the country are having trouble just finding even fairly good candidates. Numbers are a problem, and all of this anti-police rhetoric will not make it any better.
Then PR also needs to be improved (especially with visits to and encouragement of high school and college students) with more hiring of PoC and women.

ask All Out Crazy if she thinks she is being misunderstood when she talks about defunding

AOC is a young woman who is very bright and very dedicated. In her early 30s I look for her to mature over the years - years in which she is almost guaranteed to be re-elected considering her constituency (my 'hood growing up).

An effective fund raiser, she has excellent leadership qualities which is a commodity sorely needed in Congress.


The way I see it

We all see it the way we see it. Time will tell.


All these municipalities police forces have the same public unions that keep predator teachers in rubber rooms for decades rather than getting rid of them .

Not all have the same, but unions have become a problem in the way some see no evil when their members are bad actors. This is especially true of the police unions. Another hurdle for good people to overcome. Nobody is saying it will be easy.

Not all have the same, but unions have become a problem in the way some see no evil when their members are bad actors. This is especially true of the police unions. Another hurdle for good people to overcome. Nobody is saying it will be easy. it is public union collective bargaining that brought us policies that purge personnel records of police misconduct. So they are the enemy of transparency .Do you think the AFL CIO will drop them ? Nah they will defend them.

That leads to the question .... will the Democrats that are the big beneficiary of public unions largess demand these reforms . doubtful .Lip service and deflection is all you will see of this reform movement once the protests peter down and they can deflect blame on Trump.

That leads to the question .... will the Democrats that are the big beneficiary of public unions largess demand these reforms

No. It will be like shooting themselves in the foot. To repeat, I never said it would be easy. Maybe a start with Citizens United would be in order.


they can deflect blame on Trump.

Trump needs no deflection of blame. He gets all he needs just by being Trump.

Then PR also needs to be improved (especially with visits to and encouragement of high school and college students) with more hiring of PoC and women.How's the PR looking right now?

Big difference between AFL-CIO, and a cops union. One is armed to the teeth and the authority to arrest and kill!

nope all police unions are affiliated with the AFL-CIO . AFL-CIO could drop the police unions in a second if they had real concerns about the police unions creating policies that protect cops who abuse their authority . They won't and the Dems who benefit from public union $$$$$$$$$ won't press it .

A distinction with a difference Tom, and we just don't know where this will go if public sentiments fueled by more "isolated" incidences keep happening. Not restricted to just cops either any more, and such outrage is as justified as the cruelties and atrocities that started them and keep it going.

such outrage is as justifiedThat's a really questionable statement. People were outraged in the Michael Brown incident. Stores were burned. Property was destroyed and lives were negatively effected, only to find out that the cop was actually in the right. And that was by no means an isolated incident. Remember Tawana Brawley and the innocent detective whose life was destroyed???

How about all those lives affected when the cops were wrong? Or those that witnessed those atrocities on tape, or worse, all the ones affected that weren't caught on tape? I mean terrorized and brutalized for jaywalking on a street with NO sidewalk???*

*See other thread.

In Atlanta we have video proof of a felony assault on a police officer while resisting arrest ;stealing an officer’s taser weapon and pointing the taser at officers & firing it at officers.

In Atlanta we have video proof of a felony assault on a police officer while resisting arrest ;stealing an officer’s taser weapon and pointing the taser at officers & firing it at officers.
What would have happened if he had been white?

What would have happened if he had been white? I gave you the stats already . Other than that I can't answer a hypothetical .

In Atlanta we have video proof of a felony assault on a police officer while resisting arrest ;stealing an officer’s taser weapon and pointing the taser at officers & firing it at officers.

Tasers aren't lethal weapons, and they knew he was drunk, unarmed, and until the cuffs came out cooperative. None of those is a reason to shoot the dude in the back twice. They had his car and ID, and knew where he lived (Down the street). Now the officer gets charged, dude is dead and that Wendy's is burnt. A phone call to his wife or relative would have made a big difference in that outcome.

In Atlanta we have video proof of a felony assault on a police officer while resisting arrest ;stealing an officer’s taser weapon and pointing the taser at officers & firing it at officers.

You left out the fact that the man was running away and was shot twice in the back, killing him. There's video proof of that also. It's called felony murder.

And we certainly appreciate your support of the local police.

And we certainly appreciate your support of the local police.

Unlike you, I don't support murderers.

And we certainly appreciate your support of the local police.

Your support of bad cops who commit murder and cruel atrocities is not appreciated at all. A fine example of Christian values.

Your support of bad cops who commit murder and cruel atrocities is not appreciated at all. A fine example of Christian values.You show me where I've done that and we can talk about it. Otherwise, you're just engaging in more of your sick fantasies.

You show me where I've done that and we can talk about it. Otherwise, you're just engaging in more of your sick fantasies.

The sick fantasies are all yours, pal. Own them.

You made a sarcastic comment about supporting the local police. That's where you've said it. So now talk about it.

Btw, haven't heard that expression - support your local police - since the now defunct John Birch Society. Are you a member?

Do you always have to copy? Have you no originality at all?

You haven't heard "support your local police" since the John Birch society? Really? What city in the wilderness do you live in??? Thankfully, there are people on the earth other than you.

https://www.amazon.com/support-police-bumper-stickers/s?k=support+police+bumper+stickers

A person would have to be stupid beyond belief to think that "support your local police" somehow equates to "support of bad cops who commit murder and cruel atrocities." It's idiotic. It would be the same as thinking that "support the military" is equivalent to supporting that small number who engage in war crimes.

You haven't heard "support your local police" since the John Birch society? Really?

Ah, so you DO belong? That explains an awful lot about you.


A person would have to be stupid beyond belief to think that "support your local police" somehow equates to "support of bad cops who commit murder and cruel atrocities." It's idiotic.

Too late. The idiocy is all yours. Trying to backtrack from the context in which you placed the comment is transparent to anyone reading. You have a tendency (previously noted) to do this sort of thing.


It would be the same as thinking that "support the military" is equivalent to supporting that small number who engage in war crimes.

LOL. Nice try. But you're overdoing it.

Ah, so you DO belong? That explains an awful lot about you.And in a similar fashion, I have concluded that you belong to the Communist Party of Russia. Well, one makes as much sense as the other.

Your conclusions are so stupid that it is does indeed make something transparent. VERY transparent. "I support the police." "Aha!" says Athos. "You are a member of the John Birch Society." "I support the police." "Aha!" says Athos. "You are admitting that you support bad cops who commit murder." It reminds me of some of the lines from the Pink Panther movies. It's so ludicrous that I'm laughing as I sit here typing this. And then it hits me. MORE YOUTH GROUP MATERIAL!! Thank you very much.

And in a similar fashion, I have concluded that you belong to the Communist Party of Russia. Well, one makes as much sense as the other.

No comment on the context of your support the local cops statement? Diverting again?

You don't acknowledge the cruelties and atrocities by cops, so what should I think? You've never acknowledged the cruelty and atrocities of slavery, nor the affects after a few centuries? You do spend a lot of time complaining about black people and what they should do often enough, and chose to focus on the criminals and not the message of peaceful protests that have gone on for 20 straight days while criminality has gone down, so I cannot be alone in sick fantasyland.

You left out the fact that the man was running away and was shot twice in the back, killing him. There's video proof of that also. It's called felony murder.

Since when is it ok to grab a cops weapon and point and fire it at them ? He failed a sobriety test ; resisted arrest, punched the cop, escaped from 2 cops wrestling trying to control him , stole a taser and ran away with it .The video shows him running away and twisting back to the right to shoot at the cop 10 feet behind him. Hind sight is all 20-20 here .

You don't acknowledge the cruelties and atrocities by cops, so what should I think? You've never acknowledged the cruelty and atrocities of slavery,I've done so several times. I am a white southerner, but I have no romantic affection with the old Confederacy. I am glad the South lost the Civil War, and I am ashamed of those who participated in an unspeakably cruel and unjust institution. Now having said all of that, I know full well that you will come back in a few months and say, You don't acknowledge blah blah blah.


nor the affects after a few centuries?There we probably disagree.


You do spend a lot of time complaining about black people and what they should do often enough, and chose to focus on the criminals and not the message of peaceful protests that have gone on for 20 straight days while criminality has gone down, so I cannot be alone in sick fantasyland.I don't complain about black people. Yes, I point out the problems which are afflicting the black community which most people do not care to talk about. I have no problems with the protests, but when hundreds of businesses have been burned, then I cannot find it in myself to simply ignore it all. As I have said, if there is any justice in this world, your house or business will be next, and then you'll start to talk about it. I hope that never happens to you, but it would certainly serve a purpose.

Since when is it ok to grab a cops weapon and point and fire it at them ? He failed a sobriety test ; resisted arrest, punched the cop, escaped from 2 cops wrestling trying to control him , stole a taser and ran away with it .The video shows him running away and twisting back to the right to shoot at the cop 10 feet behind him. Hind sight is all 20-20 here .
Would he have been shot and killed had he been white?

Yes. White people are shot and killed by the cops far more often than are black people. Perhaps a better question would be, "Would he have been shot and killed if he had not resisted arrest, attacked two policemen, grabbed a weapon, and ran off like a maniac?"

Since when is it ok to grab a cops weapon and point and fire it at them ? He failed a sobriety test ; resisted arrest, punched the cop, escaped from 2 cops wrestling trying to control him , stole a taser and ran away with it .The video shows him running away and twisting back to the right to shoot at the cop 10 feet behind him. Hind sight is all 20-20 here .

All of that is true, but none of it justifies the cop killing him as he ran away. When you say "shoot at the cop" you mean with a taser, right? Not a firearm.

Yes. White people are shot and killed by the cops far more often than are black people. Perhaps a better question would be, "Would he have been shot and killed if he had not resisted arrest, attacked two policemen, grabbed a weapon, and ran off like a maniac?"

He should not have been, and the shooting was ruled a homicide by the coroner. tasers are not considered lethal weapons.

"...if he had not resisted arrest, attacked two policemen, grabbed a weapon, and ran off like a maniac?"
Ran off or run off?

Arghh! "Run off" would have been correct.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lawful-but-awful-atlanta-police-had-better-options-than-using-lethal-force-in-rayshard-brooks-shooting-experts-say/ar-BB15u4tm?ocid=msedgntp#image=3

Would he have been shot and killed had he been white? 3rd time you asked this . I give my same reply ... I can't answer your hypothetical . Stats say he would've been shot .

When you say "shoot at the cop" you mean with a taser, right? Not a firearm. ok then I'll give a hypothetical .He hits the cop with the taser and disables him long enough to grab the officer's firearm .

The only question is was it a lawful use of force ? I might suggest that Rayshard Brooks dictated the options . The cops could NOT release him on his promise to walk home and they could not let him get back in the car after he failed a sobriety test . Mothers against drunk driving might take issue with that . He is the one who resisted arrest . He is the one who punched the cop in the face .He is the one who wrestled the taser away from the cop . He is the one who began to flee . He is the one who continued to engage the cop by turning and firing the taser at the cop. When you talk about the cops options maybe you should consider what Brooks could've done differently . These officers did not escalate the situation, . Brooks did.

3rd time you asked this . I give my same reply ... I can't answer your hypothetical . Stats say he would've been shot .
ok then I'll give a hypothetical .He hits the cop with the taser and disables him long enough to grab the officer's firearm .
He wasn't next to the cop, and the chances of tasing the cop from that distance and while inebriated were not good. And the cops knew it was a taser, not a gun.

still no justifiable homicide

He wasn't next to the cop, 10 ft is close enough to get hit by a taser .


still no justifiable homicide

says the person who never walked a mile in cops shoes . You can have all the opinions you want about the shooting being justified .That's all it is ;opinion.

Here is what Georgia laws says about it .....
a person can use deadly force "if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person."

https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-3-21.html

The Atlanta policy manual (updated last week )states that an officer can use deadly force when "He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others."
http://www.djj.state.ga.us/policies/DJJPolicies/Chapter19/Attachments/DJJ19.3AttachmentA.pdf


Tasers are hand-held electronic stun guns which fire two barbed darts up to a distance of 21 feet, which remain attached to the gun by wires. The fish-hook like darts are designed to penetrate up to two inches of the target's clothing or skin and deliver a high-voltage, low amperage, electro-shock along insulated copper wires. (a 50,000 volt shock) . More than 500 people have been killed when tasers were employed in the US according to Amnesty International . So yes there is a threat that being shot by a taser can be fatal.
So the bottom line is that according to Georgia law it was completely justified and it followed the use of force policy guidelines .

10 ft is close enough to get hit by a taser .

"...or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person."

"...result in serious bodily injurySo why do cops carry them? I've seen videos of tasers being held against and released on an apprehended person's neck or other body part. Isn't carrying a gun sufficient?

The only question is was it a lawful use of force ? I might suggest that Rayshard Brooks dictated the options . The cops could NOT release him on his promise to walk home and they could not let him get back in the car after he failed a sobriety test . Mothers against drunk driving might take issue with that . He is the one who resisted arrest . He is the one who punched the cop in the face .He is the one who wrestled the taser away from the cop . He is the one who began to flee . He is the one who continued to engage the cop by turning and firing the taser at the cop. When you talk about the cops options maybe you should consider what Brooks could've done differently . These officers did not escalate the situation, . Brooks did.

Brooks was under the influence and no doubt he screwed up. We don't need a hypothetical here he grabbed the taser broke free and ran. Those fact are not in dispute and neither is getting shot in the back while fleeing. The onus is on the cops decision to shoot when he did. Shooting a guy in the back though is homicide and nothing justifies that. Now if he had capped a real shot off, that could be justified returning fire.

That just ain't what happened. I know cops have a tough dangerous job, and yes they make mistakes in the heat of the situations, a fatal one as in this case.

he grabbed the taser broke free and ran.
And why couldn't the police just let him run? They had his car, could have gotten it towed or at least moved out of the way. They knew who he was and where to find him, I'm guessing.

Yes. Let him run off with a Taser and possibly injure someone. That's a great plan.

Yes. Let him run off with a Taser and possibly injure someone. That's a great plan.
And they are so expensive too! (If they handled it right, they'd get their taser back again.) And he won't injure someone if he doesn't have a taser!

And no effort was made to help the guy.

He should have just called for back up at that point, and had some help, and charged the guy with a bunch of stuff. I can understand the cop not wanting a second physical confrontation since the first one didn't work out too well. He probably should have called for back up before telling him he would be arrested.

Yes. Let him run off with a Taser and possibly injure someone. That's a great plan.
Oh my, we can't allow him to run off with our taser, can we! Let's shoot him in the back instead!

"Oh my, we can't allow him to run off with our taser, can we!" says the woman who has zero experience with a taser or being a policeman.

"Oh my, we can't allow him to run off with our taser, can we!" says the woman who has zero experience with a taser or being a policeman.
Talking out of your backside again? You have no idea of my involvement with policemen.

You have no idea of my involvement with policemen.Not interested in your personnel life. 8D. At any rate, I'm certain you know nothing about tasers or the daily experience of being a cop since you would never have made such a careless statement if you did.

The guy passed the field sobriety tests and barely failed the breathalyzer, but they couldn't just let him walk home on a Friday night, just down the street? No he gets to spend the weekend in jail after talking to the cops for a half an hour. After seeing the new videos he wasn't drunk enough not to just walk home. Now what's wrong with that?

Not interested in your personnel life. 8D. At any rate, I'm certain you know nothing about tasers or the daily experience of being a cop since you would never have made such a careless statement if you did.

Now you hard core law and order conservatives are getting pretty sexist. There is no justification for shooting a guy running home in the back, with a taser or not! I think it's pretty dumb to think it is, like he didn't have better options, than murder. Yeah get rid of bad cops and dumb ones too.

Not interested in your personnel life. 8D. At any rate, I'm certain you know nothing about tasers or the daily experience of being a cop since you would never have made such a careless statement if you did.
Now you're egging me on to defend myself and tell you all about my experience with law enforcement. Won't work!

I just watched a video of the cop giving Brooks a sobriety test. The cop was trying every which way to antagonize him.

I just watched a video of the cop giving Brooks a sobriety test. The cop was trying every which way to antagonize him.

The cop was doing his job. he didn't read him his rights but he could have been in no doubt he was going to be arrested, therefore why did he resist?

We'll never know that Clete, since he's dead. He was wrong to resist wrong in everything that followed true enough, after failing to convince the officers to give him a break. I'm convinced though, that other much better options besides shooting him in the back were available to the officers. That's where that de escalation training should have kicked in. The coroner ruled it a homicide and that means charges could be brought and the rest is a court matter.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/medical-examiner-rules-police-shooting-of-rayshard-brooks-a-homicide/ar-BB15tHrq

Bad judgement on both sides.

Now you're egging me on to defend myself and tell you all about my experience with law enforcement. Won't work!I don't care if you defend yourself or not. Your comment told me all I needed to know.

Let him walk home??? After falling asleep in his car and blocking a restaurant drive through, and then being found to be drunk? No way. In my world, that guy's going to be arrested. But I'll tell you how this lunacy is going to end. When the Wondergirls and the Tals of this world call 911 and get a busy signal, or the cops show up but refuse to get involved, then all of this anti-police rhetoric, along with the false narrative of black men being persecuted by the police, will begin to end. I look forward to that day.

I'll predict now that the fired cop in Atlanta will never have to work again once he gets through suing the city of Atlanta. Murder charges? I can't imagine they will be able to make that stick.

the false narrative of black men being persecuted by the police,

In case there was any doubt about your racism, you have removed it once and for all with your statement above.

Amazing how you can make a sexist statement against WG re her knowledge about police when you yourself exhibit an ignorance about police procedure.

Add that to your clear self-indictment of your blatant racism. and you have lost all credibility here. Don't forget to put your statements in your little book.

Nobody calls a cop on a white guy jogging, sitting in a hotel lobby, or a Starbucks, or just sitting in a park. Nobody asks a white guy what he's doing in this neighborhood either. Cops don't profile or stop and frisk white guys either. Well they do but that's very rare, and isolated.

In case there was any doubt about your racism, you have removed it once and for all with your statement above.In case there was any doubt about your basic dullness, you have removed it with your statement above. I've said nothing racist. You just still have, as they used to say, "a burr under your saddle" about being shown to be practicing deceit in your Aquinas statement.

It really gets old having to deal with people like you. You don't like what someone says, then that's fine. Engage their comments. That's what we're here for, but we have reached the point where non-thinking people like you just like to toss terms around in the hope, I suppose, of trying to intimidate. You can forget that. No one like you is going to intimidate me.


Nobody calls a cop on a white guy jogging, sitting in a hotel lobby, or a Starbucks, or just sitting in a park. Nobody asks a white guy what he's doing in this neighborhood either. Cops don't profile or stop and frisk white guys either.How much you wanna bet that is not correct? If what you say is true, then show us the data. It's just crazy that you just blow off abortions and gay marriages as "rare events", but then want to act like there is some sort of epidemic of anti-black policing going on. I guess you would say, "Oh, hundreds of times the police are called to arrest a black man for jogging, or for sitting in a hotel lobby, or for sitting in a Starbucks Coffee shop." Well, that is not true, and the data is clear on that. To make matters worse, the police did not handle the man who was jogging, and the Starbucks incident was due to the man wanting free use of the restroom without buying any products. The abortion "clinic" I go to once a week (You know...where those "rare" abortions take place) has a building with restaurants across the street. There is a sign on the door. "Restrooms are for customer use only." That is not uncommon. So even your examples are nonsense.

1 million abortions in America out of 166 million women. RARE!

Using your logic, 10 unarmed black men killed by the police last year would be extraordinarily, fantastically, incredibly rare. In fact, 100,000 times more rare than an abortion.

I don't care if you defend yourself or not. Your comment told me all I needed to know.
And that is? (Love your veiled threats!)

Let him walk home???
He said his sister lived nearby. Why couldn't one of the cops have walked there with him, made sure his sister was home and then told her what had happened. He could have been ticketed and released to his sister.

He said his sister lived nearby. Why couldn't one of the cops have walked there with him, made sure his sister was home and then told her what had happened. He could have been ticketed and released to his sister.

That would have been to much like serving and protecting and everybody goes home safely. I'm sure it sounded reasonable until the officer said naw, your going to jail.


Using your logic, 10 unarmed black men killed by the police last year would be extraordinarily, fantastically, incredibly rare. In fact, 100,000 times more rare than an abortion.

So we're both blowing smoke over nothing. Okay!

And that is? (Love your veiled threats!)Threat?? No threat there, but there is an acknowledgement of your never ending tactic. "Oh! You are pressuring poor ole me. Well, you won't get an answer now, mister!" If you want to say something, then say it. If you don't, then at least don't blame it on someone else.

DUI offenders don't get the courtesy of a walk home. I applaud the policemen for deciding to arrest him. People caught drinking and driving get no sympathy from me.


So we're both blowing smoke over nothing. Okay!Except, of course, that I should be entitled to about 100,000 times more smoke than you. But I'm glad to hear you say that all of your excitement about BLM amounts to just "blowing smoke".

I've said nothing racist.

Your very own quote - own it - "...the false narrative of black men being persecuted by the police " That line is right out of the racist playbook. More and more disproven by the ever-increasing number of videos being made available almost every day now, and by the testimony of so many black men and women of substance - both from ordinary folks and from professionals. In the face of such proof, your denials are idiotic.


being shown to be practicing deceit in your Aquinas statement.

This is getting old, but when you have nothing, you come up with anything.


You don't like what someone says, then that's fine. Engage their comments.

That's exactly what I do and have done. The insult and shaming prize is all yours alone.


No one like you is going to intimidate me.

You're easily intimidated. Clearly shown by your nastiness in lieu of cogent reasoning. The very fact of your bringing up intimidation is a "tell" - one of many you reveal in so many of your posts.

You don't WANT to be intimidated, but you know what they say about a leopard and its spots......

Your very own quote - own it - "...the false narrative of black men being persecuted by the police " That line is right out of the racist playbookSheer stupidity. "I disagree with you, so you must be a racist!" Is "Sieg Heil!" coming next?


This is getting oldYeah. The truth is wearing you out. It was one of the most pathetic instances of flat out lying I have seen in a long time. You got called on it and it still grinds on you.


You're easily intimidated. Clearly shown by your nastiness in lieu of cogent reasoning. The very fact of your bringing up intimidation is a "tell" - one of many you reveal in so many of your posts."Cogent reasoning?" Well, if I point out that the data does not support the idea of a persecution of black men by the police (and it does not), you immediately cry, "Racist!" Is that your idea of cogent reasoning, or of engaging a person's comments?

Intimidation? No little man like you can do that.

Sheer stupidity. "I disagree with you, so you must be a racist!" Is "Sieg Heil!" coming next?

The sheer stupidity is all yours. "Sieg Heil" is an another interesting choice of words of yours.


flat out lying I have seen in a long time. You got called on it

Isn't this the sort of thing you just objected to? You disagree - ergo lie.


I point out that the data does not support the idea of a persecution of black men by the police (and it does not), you immediately cry, "Racist!"

There are statistics (data) and there are statistics. They can be used to prove anything. What you need is to work on getting the truth at ground level. You learned nothing for those 17 years. (If they are real). Start listening to the people talking about the black experience - not lifeless statistics.


Intimidation? No little man like you can do that.

It's already been done. Sorry.

We're all still waiting for your answer to the question.

According to JL, there is no racism! Slavery was just a way of life and nothing personal. I wonder how he would have fared after 400 years of beatings rapes and being sold, forced into hard labor for the civilized Christian white masters and then going through Jim Crow in the poor a$$ south after the Civil War, or the terror of being lynched and spit on by the town fathers who loved hoods and cruelty to keep those ex slaves in there place. Like it was our fault we were freed. It's the black mans fault the south is poor, and racism is doesn't exist. You say you spent 17 years in the inner city, and know what the black man needs to make it huh, and stop complaining about conditions when all we have to do is change it and raise ourselves up, when everybody in the south is poor too, but only the black people are poor because they won't listen to a white man telling them what to do.

Obviously those poor white folks ain't listening to you either. 'Cept on Sundays for a few hours and some good old lemonade. Wonder if your tune would change if your skin were different?

"Sieg Heil" is an another interesting choice of words of yours.Yeah. Funny how it immediately came to mind when reading your Nazi-like post. It amounts to, "He doesn't agree with us. We must silence him!"


Isn't this the sort of thing you just objected to? You disagree - ergo lie.Nah. You were just lying. Simple case of getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.


There are statistics (data) and there are statistics. They can be used to prove anything. What you need is to work on getting the truth at ground level. You learned nothing for those 17 years. (If they are real). Start listening to the people talking about the black experience - not lifeless statistics.I knew it was just a matter of time before you posted that. It's the eternal plea of those who cannot support their arguments. "You can prove anything with statistics." No, actually you cannot, but you can establish the truth. Your little anecdotal stories are NEVER allowed as data in any serious presentation. You would be laughed out of the classroom.

This is so funny. Not 24 hours ago, on this thread, I posted what I copied below. In it I predicted that you would come back in a few months and rehash the whole thing. It didn't even take a day! That's what I hate about these discussions. It's always the same garbage. "You don't agree with me, so you like slavery, you deny racism, you support murdering cops, it's all the fault of the black people," and on and on the nauseating crap goes. It's the "blah, blah, blah" of my post from yesterday. You have nothing to say, so you lie about what I've said.


From yesterday: "I've done so several times. I am a white southerner, but I have no romantic affection with the old Confederacy. I am glad the South lost the Civil War, and I am ashamed of those who participated in an unspeakably cruel and unjust institution. Now having said all of that, I know full well that you will come back in a few months and say, You don't acknowledge blah blah blah."

Thank you for validating what I posted. So completely predictable!!

Predictable that you would in some way make it about you, and make sure only you can be right, and that makes everybody who disagrees, or offers their own views, wrong. Takes a strong backbone to stomach your logic sometimes my friend. 8D

You have to admit. You just walked right into it.

Have to be right? I put data in front of you. If it's wrong, then show that it is.

I did, but you must have missed it. Getting old ain't easy.

therefore why did he resist? That Clete is almost always the case in these cases of cops killings . I can't speak of shared experiences . But what I was taught was to respect the police and if ever they stopped me to do what they said ;and if I thought they were wrong in any way ,to tell it to a lawyer or a judge. I got pulled over a few times when I was younger . The first thing I would do is put on my flashers ;and turn on the dome light ;and put my hands on the dash board where they were clearly visible . Then I would follow the cops directions ... if he asked for my license I would tell him it was in my pocket and asked permission to remove it . If he asked for my registration and insurance I would tell him they were in the glove compartment and I would ask permission to get them . If he told me to get out of the car I would . If he shined a flash light in my car I did not tell him he had no right to do that . If he physically searched my car I let him do it and did not demand to see a warrant . If I got a ticket I would accept it without objection. I got a ticket one time for speeding when I was not speeding.I contested it in court ;not on the street .

I knew it was just a matter of time before you posted that.

You did?


Your little anecdotal stories are NEVER allowed as data in any serious presentation.

What "little anecdotal stories"?

You did?Utterly predictable. You have no stats, so you discount their importance. Common.


What "little anecdotal stories"?Remember this? "Start listening to the people talking about the black experience - not lifeless statistics." Not to remind you that between the two of us, I'm the one with 17 years of actually working in minority communities as compared to your 17 milliseconds.

"Lifeless statistics." That made me laugh.


I did, but you must have missed it. Getting old ain't easy.You haven't posted squat in the way of data.

That Clete is almost always the case in these cases of cops killings . I can't speak of shared experiences . But what I was taught was to respect the police and if ever they stopped me to do what they said ;and if I thought they were wrong in any way ,to tell it to a lawyer or a judge. I got pulled over a few times when I was younger . The first thing I would do is put on my flashers ;and turn on the dome light ;and put my hands on the dash board where they were clearly visible . Then I would follow the cops directions ... if he asked for my license I would tell him it was in my pocket and asked permission to remove it . If he asked for my registration and insurance I would tell him they were in the glove compartment and I would ask permission to get them . If he told me to get out of the car I would . If he shined a flash light in my car I did not tell him he had no right to do that . If he physically searched my car I let him do it and did not demand to see a warrant . If I got a ticket I would accept it without objection. I got a ticket one time for speeding when I was not speeding.I contested it in court ;not on the street .

Tomder, everything you say here makes eminent good sense. Nobody is denying that. The guy should not have resisted, no matter how (or even if) he was badly handled. Apparently, he was cordial, passed the tests except for the breathylyzer (.101 barely DUI), but when the process which should have lasted a few minutes lasted for over half an hour, the guy felt misused. He struck out. Bad on him. Go to jail. Do not pass go.

It's the next few minutes that has the world in an uproar. The shootercop was shot at with a non-lethal weapon. The Georgia rules (as I understand them) were not to use lethal force unless the cop's life (or bystanders' lives) were in danger. That was clearly not the case. Two bullets in the back. Homicide.

Note: the black police sergeant defended his cop's actions. If you saw the interview, it was an excellent example of a cop defending his own, even tho the sergeant is black. His defense was poor. In court, a lawyer would destroy him.

As I'm sure you know, cops often act badly in black neighborhoods. More so than in white ones.

As I'm sure you know, cops often act badly in black neighborhoods. More so than in white ones.Is there data for that?

The Georgia rules (as I understand them) were not to use lethal force unless the cop's life (or bystanders' lives) were in danger.

Athos read the police policy again .... the cops life doesn't necessarily have to be in danger .

"He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others."
http://www.djj.state.ga.us/policies/...ttachmentA.pdf (http://www.djj.state.ga.us/policies/DJJPolicies/Chapter19/Attachments/DJJ19.3AttachmentA.pdf)

Getting zapped with 500 volts can result in serious bodily injury .
The rules, and if he acted within the guidelines appears to be a technicality in this case . He is already prejudged . What this cop needs is a John Adams representing him. Adams represented the 8 Brit soldiers who were charged in the Boston Massacre .He took on the case because he believed that the case against the soldiers wasn't as clear cut as the people of Boston wanted him to believe they were .

Getting zapped with 500 volts can result in serious bodily injury .

And yet, aren't they used fairly readily by police?

Athos read the police policy again .... the cops life doesn't necessarily have to be in danger .

"He or she reasonably believes that the suspect possesses a deadly weapon or any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury and when he or she reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or others."
http://www.djj.state.ga.us/policies/...ttachmentA.pdf (http://www.djj.state.ga.us/policies/DJJPolicies/Chapter19/Attachments/DJJ19.3AttachmentA.pdf)

Getting zapped with 500 volts can result in serious bodily injury .

Thanks for posting that. I heard differently - my mistake.

However, I would question "...likely to result in serious bodily injury..." I think that was highly unlikely considering Brooks was running away from the cop. Under those circumstances, there was no need to shoot him.

WG brings up a good point. The use of the taser is designed NOT to result in serious bodily injury. That's the whole point with those devices.

As to his being prejudged, we'll see tomorrow what he is charged with. It's hard not to prejudge the cop since the video is there for all to see.

WG brings up a good point. The use of the taser is designed NOT to result in serious bodily injury they are designed to disable . As l mentioned ;Amnesty Int estimates there have been 500 deaths from the use of tasers in the US.

they are designed to disable .
So why didn't another cop tase Brooks when he was only ten feet away? Why kill him?

Let a jury decide. The deed is done and yes he is part of the process now, and a guy is dead. If it weren't for the videos though, the normal thing is stall it in red tape with a long investigation that gets it off the front page and off the news and dismissed without further ado and the cop gets his back pay. Of course expect his work record to be revealed and all the bad stuff if any Brooks ever did, but if a court of law is the only way to hold a cop accountable so be it. Makes a hard job harder, but if we end up with better cops then great.

I have to tell you though, and no knock on anyone, but a society that can allow kids to be massacred in schools and do nothing about it, is a society that can minimize anything and ignore it. That's the only way I can explain some of the things this country has gone through and put up with, and that's not a good thing at all. Seems the struggle continues. The rug we sweep stuff under has to be packed with crap by now.

So why didn't another cop tase Brooks when he was only ten feet away? Why kill him?
The Socratic method gets boring after a while . I made my case on the issue .


Of course expect his work record to be revealed I have no doubt that will be the cop's biggest weakness.


but if a court of law is the only way to hold a cop accountable so be it.
He was fired without a hearing . What else can be done except a court if you are looking for justice ?


but a society that can allow kids to be massacred in schools and do nothing about it, is a society that can minimize anything and ignore it. Well that is a different topic completely a non sequitur to the discussion. I have answers to school shootings which are no doubt different than yours .

another unnecessary death, you have to wonder do black people have a death wish? they figure very high on the offenders list

another unnecessary death, you have to wonder do black people have a death wish? they figure very high on the offenders list

It's always been that way. It takes an act of congress and nothing short of a war to change that. Minorities have been protesting and speaking out against the inequities, cruelty, injustices and atrocities for a century since the Civil War Clete, and all on deaf ears, excuses, and unsolicited advice (Seen here!), and gotten even more suppression, oppression, and outright dismissal.

Despite all that minorities still press forward.

It's always been that way. It takes an act of congress and nothing short of a war to change that. Minorities have been protesting and speaking out against the inequities, cruelty, injustices and atrocities for a century since the Civil War Clete, and all on deaf ears, excuses, and unsolicited advice (Seen here!), and gotten even more suppression, oppression, and outright dismissal.That's absolutely a load of garbage. You must have been asleep the past sixty years. The biggest challenges facing the black community now are internal, not external. It's the same old story. Given the choice between taking responsibility for our own actions and blaming someone else, most people will take the second choice since it is far, far easier.

LOL, you have proved yourself to be part of the problem by using your mouth, instead of your ears. I suppose its hard to hear with your head stuck knee deep in dufus a$$, and explains why you spew crap, but let me ask how you hold your nose?

I think speaking out is a form taking responsibility, and I'm sure you agree with that. Not saying there are not internal challenges, but every race has those since no race is an absolute monolith, but the external challenges are huge, as I and others have been saying. Its not ducking responsibility, so much as refusing the long standing cry for help.

We don't need bible advice as we have endured on FAITH thus far already, so try listening by remove your head from dufus A$$! His racist antics should not be yours. I will just note the number of white people you have liberated from the same boat black people are stuck in.

The powerlessness of poverty.

When you have no answers then you get ugly. Always predictable. Anyone who can't acknowledge the enormous changes of the past sixty years is stupid beyond belief. It's that willfully blind and whiny approach that gets old. If you're looking for someone to feel sorry for you, and that is likely, then look elsewhere. To have the amazing opportunities inherent in living in this country and then walk around whining and complaining all day long is something I do not care for.

You've been drinking the kool aid far too long.

When you have no answers then you get ugly. Always predictable. Anyone who can't acknowledge the enormous changes of the past sixty years is stupid beyond belief. It's that willfully blind and whiny approach that gets old. If you're looking for someone to feel sorry for you, and that is likely, then look elsewhere. To have the amazing opportunities inherent in living in this country and then walk around whining and complaining all day long is something I do not care for.

You've been drinking the kool aid far too long.

You don't handle disagreement well, do you? "...stupid beyond belief. willfuly blind, whiny approach..." So typical of you.

Who's drinking the Kool-aid now?

You don't handle disagreement well, do you? "...stupid beyond belief. willfuly blind, whiny approach..." So typical of you.I can handle disagreements. I don't care for the whiny approach. "I can't respond to your statement, so I'll just make a vulgar comment." Where I live, a comment like that can get your arse whipped and rightfully so. Making those comments over the relative safety of the internet strikes me as cowardly and ignorant.

If someone chooses to ignore the great strides made in this country in racial equality over the past sixty years, then that person is indeed stupid and willfully blind. BTW, I did not say that was true of Tal. I simply said it as a general statement. He will have to decide if the shoe fits. I think he has better sense than to believe that.

Ever get around to deciding what your religious beliefs are?

Where I live, a comment like that can get your arse whipped and rightfully so. Making those comments over the relative safety of the internet strikes me as cowardly and ignorant.

Let me get this straight - you say that "comments over the relative safety of the internet strike you as cowardly and ignorant. Where you live, comments like that can get your arse whipped and rightfully so." Nice Christian sentiment. Do you have a verse in the Bible where Jesus commands his followers to "whip their arses"?

I had to smile at that unwitting description of yourself, a description that defines YOU to a T. But you are not admitting that, are you? No, I didn't think so.

You are threatening others from the very safety you denounce and which you yourself are hiding behind. Do you ever censor what you post so as not to appear as a complete moron? No, I didn't think so.

There is not a doubt in my mind that in real life you are a woos and afraid of your shadow. That is almost always true of people who threaten anonymously. Where I live, that would not be cause for whipping you. It would only be cause for pity.


If someone chooses to ignore the great strides made in this country in racial equality over the past sixty years, then that person is indeed stupid and willfully blind.

When you insist on bringing this up in the face of the brutal treatment blacks have historically received at the hands of police (and racists I might add) and insist on ignoring what is currently happening as this country is trying to come to grips with people like you, then the stupidity and blindness is all yours. Own it!


BTW, I did not say that was true of Tal.

You implied it, of course. But tal needs no defense from me. He is quite capable of handling folks like you, as we have seen over and over.


Ever get around to deciding what your religious beliefs are?

Wow - talk about a non-sequitur! My religious beliefs have developed over my lifetime. Something you would do well to consider so you can get off that spot you've been stuck on since childhood.

In any case, my religious beliefs are none of your business. If I thought for a minute your question was honest, I'd be only too happy to discuss my beliefs with you or anyone. Since I know your question, like others you have asked, is designed only to find fault and criticize whatever doesn't coincide with your beliefs, the better part of wisdom is to decline your villainous invitation.

My religious beliefs have developed over my lifetimeThat made me laugh. "My religious beliefs are none of your business." Fine with me. I knew you wouldn't do it. Easier to criticize from the dark. To post your own beliefs would require some backbone.

You were wrong about me making a threat. I threatened no one. Just made a very accurate observation. The rest of your post was just more of the usual blah, blah, blah.

As for the achievements of the civil rights movement, to ignore and make light of the gains achieved at the price of the blood of brave individuals might be fine for you, but I still consider it to be both stupid and intentional blindness, so I won't participate in that. The Voting Rights Act was never passed. The Civil Rights Act was never passed. Martin Luther King never lived. Ten of thousands of minority individuals were never elected to public office. Have it your way.

That made me laugh. "My religious beliefs are none of your business." Fine with me. I knew you wouldn't do it. Easier to criticize from the dark. To post your own beliefs would require some backbone.
If he told you, then you would do what? (I can already smell your answer.)

Probably nothing. I just think that anyone so quick to heavily criticize the religious beliefs of others, and not to mention him being one who jumps up and down in sheer anger when someone else does not answer his question as quickly as he thinks that person should, might want to have the courage to post his own beliefs, But it's fine with me. Like I said, I figured he wouldn't do it, and he's right in saying that it's none of my business. I'm good with it. It's kind of like why you disagree with abortion.

It's kind of like why you disagree with abortion.
And why do I?

I knew you wouldn't do it.

Then why did you ask?


Easier to criticize from the dark.

I have never criticized anyone's religious beliefs with one exception. YOURS! And basically one false doctrine of yours - the existence of people suffering torture eternally in hell. It comes from a sick mind.


To post your own beliefs would require some backbone.

Not at all. All I have ever said about my beliefs is that I would not discuss them with you. "Backbone" - strawman.


You were wrong about me making a threat. ......The rest of your post was just more of the usual blah, blah, blah.

No I wasn't. You made it very clear. You backtrack badly.

The "rest of my post" had some home truths you didn't like, didn't it? Your "blah, blah, blah" reply is one you've used before when you can't answer.


As for the achievements of the civil rights movement, to ignore and make light of the gains achieved at the price of the blood of brave individuals might be fine for you, but I still consider it to be both stupid and intentional blindness, so I won't participate in that. The Voting Rights Act was never passed. The Civil Rights Act was never passed. Martin Luther King never lived. Ten of thousands of minority individuals were never elected to public office. Have it your way.

I truly hope people are following you here. The hypocrisy of your position reeks. Soon you'll be telling us that African-Americans have it better than poor people in Africa so African-Americans should be grateful. That's a common thread of the argument from your ilk.

When you have no answers then you get ugly. Always predictable. Anyone who can't acknowledge the enormous changes of the past sixty years is stupid beyond belief. It's that willfully blind and whiny approach that gets old. If you're looking for someone to feel sorry for you, and that is likely, then look elsewhere. To have the amazing opportunities inherent in living in this country and then walk around whining and complaining all day long is something I do not care for.

You've been drinking the kool aid far too long.

I love Kool-Aid. It's my beverage of choice. I also love it when you try to spew the crap you get from the dufus arse and pass it off as honest thoughtful discussion. I have continued to express the struggles of my people and the great contributions to building this great nation you enjoy, yet deny minorities that same enjoyment, so if all you gleaned from that is whining and complaining then that only proves yet again, your failure, or inability, or unwillingness to simply LISTEN.

Doesn't really matter because if history is any indication the struggle will continue, no matter the opposition or challenges. Doesn't matter how you take it, or do about it either. Wise to be thoughtful though of your words and actions because you might have to eat the MOFO's!

If my words provoke you to whup some a$$ though, I highly suggest you refrain from trying such foolishness, or at least bring a bat! Not that it would do you any good, or keep me from LMAO...some more! For sure you do better just enjoying the donuts.

Then why did you ask?To make your lack of backbone clear.


And basically one false doctrine of yours - the existence of people suffering torture eternally in hell. It comes from a sick mind.My beliefs come from the words of Christ. If you are saying He has a sick mind, then I don't know what to say to that.


All I have ever said about my beliefs is that I would not discuss them with you.I agree. That's all you've ever said. It would take courage to say more, or in your case to say anything at all. But like I've said. If you don't want to post it, then don't do it. Fine with me.

Nice try at dodging your disregard of the courageous achievements of the Civil Rights era. Won't work, but nice try.

Now to be clear, if a person wants to say that we still a ways to go in civil rights, then I would agree with that. To say, as as was said earlier, that we have made no progress at all is simply ridiculous and completely discounts what those CR pioneers were able to accomplish. I won't participate in that.

Officer charged with felony murder, partner to testify for state!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/officer-who-shot-rayshard-brooks-charged-with-felony-murder/ar-BB15CkiF?ocid=msedgntp

Not sure what "felony murder" is, but I can't see that they will get a conviction. I guess we'll see.

Officer charged with felony murder, partner to testify for state!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/of...?ocid=msedgntp (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/officer-who-shot-rayshard-brooks-charged-with-felony-murder/ar-BB15CkiF?ocid=msedgntp)
Like I speculated ;it will be decided in the courts . Do you think Garrett Rolfe will get a fair hearing ? I'm sure given the passions in the aftermath that he will argue he cannot get a fair jury of peers and will petition to change venues .

Not sure what "felony murder" is, but I can't see that they will get a conviction. I guess we'll see.
tal's link explains felony murder. The article also notes, "Brooks was holding a stun gun he had snatched from officers but was 18 feet, 3 inches away when he was shot by Garrett Rolfe and was running away at the time."

The DA said that Brooks posed no threat because the Taser after two uses had no more charge left, and its against police policy to shoot a fleeing subject with a taser or gun, and they have videos of the cops celebrating then kicking Brooks and failing to call for medical assistance for two and a half minute. Its all contained in the article or go here.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=felony+murder&docid=13820292372759&mid=309BE4FCA643C2492124309BE4FCA643C2492124&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

he will argue he cannot get a fair jury of peers and will petition to change venues .Yeah. I would think so.


they have videos of the cops celebrating then kicking Brooks and failing to call for medical assistance for two and a half minute. Its all contained in the article or go here.If that's true, then it sure changes things.

To make your lack of backbone clear.

I repeat, why did you ask about my religious beliefs? Nobody is buying the backbone crap. Are you afraid to tell the truth? Don't worry - nobody will whup your arse for telling the truth.


My beliefs come from the words of Christ.

No, they don't. They come from a verse in a book - a verse badly translated almost 2,000 years ago by the sainted Jerome and repeated ever since.


If you are saying He has a sick mind, then I don't know what to say to that.

Here's what to say - "I'm sorry for passing on untruths about hell. Please forgive me. I'll try to do better from now on".


I agree.

Good. You agree. (Another topic). Now, once more, WHY do you want to know my religious beliefs?


That's all you've ever said. It would take courage to say more, or in your case to say anything at all.

That's all I've ever discussed HERE. Courage is not required - my religious beliefs are hardly the stuff of courage. You just say that because you're angry. You need to control that anger.


If you don't want to post it, then don't do it. Fine with me.

First, you want my religious beliefs. Now you don't want my religious beliefs. Which is it? I think you're a bit confused.


Nice try at dodging your disregard of the courageous achievements of the Civil Rights era.

The only dodging is in your fevered brain. The Civil Rights era has not been the topic here.


Now to be clear, if a person wants to say that we still a ways to go in civil rights, then I would agree with that.

To be clear, that has not been an issue here except when you bring it up in an attempt to avoid the present police-black confrontations.


To say, as as was said earlier, that we have made no progress at all

I don't recall anyone here saying that.


I won't participate in that.

Is that a promise?

I await the reason you asked for my religious beliefs.

No, they don't. They come from a verse in a book - a verse badly translated almost 2,000 years ago by the sainted Jerome and repeated ever since.Now if you can just talk the vast, vast majority of NT scholars into going along with you in their translations, you might make some progress.

Look, you want me to agree with you on a ridiculous (my view) idea about the translation of the Greek aionios. I'm going with the hundreds of NT scholars, far smarter, more professional, and experienced than you, and their translation of the word. And when I do, then I find that I'm in agreement with the words of Jesus which is my goal in all things. Not complicated and very reliable. You don't like that and it gets you irritated. That's regrettable.

I asked you for your religious beliefs to see if you would have the courage to state them. You don't. Like I said, if it bothers you so much, then forget it. Not a big deal. I suppose you have reasons for being secretive and you have a right to it. I didn't realize it was such an act of Congress for you to state your beliefs.

Getting mixed signals on some of this. From ABC News.

"Howard said that Brosnan has since decided to testify on behalf of the state. But in a statement sent Wednesday evening, Brosnan's attorney, Don Samuel, said that the officer has not agreed to testify."He will continue to tell the DA or the GBI [Georgia Bureau of Investigation], or any other investigator what happened. But he is absolutely not guilty of any crime and will not plead guilty and has not agreed to be a 'state's witness,'" the statement said.
Also, there was no mention of any laughter by the officers or of celebrating.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/da-announce-charging-decision-rayshard-brooks-shooting-death/story?id=71296413&cid=clicksource_4380645_4_three_posts_card_hed

Getting mixed signals on some of this.
Please reread tal's post #469. Plus, as I posted earlier, the cop's very prolonged horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test would have caused me to punch him in the gut.

I asked you for your religious beliefs to see if you would have the courage to state them.

No, you asked because you wanted to know what they are. Courage has nothing to do with it. That's just something you made up. I think I know what your reasons are. You will simply dismiss anything I have to say re religion if my beliefs are sufficiently distant from yours. You're an open book.


if it bothers you so much, then forget it.

It bothers me not a whit. That's why I repeated the question of WHY do you need to know my beliefs. You have now denied twice explaining your question - the "courage" business is just so much nonsense, and you know it. I think you have realized you're on shaky religious ground and have decided to avoid the situation.


I suppose you have reasons for being secretive

You ask for my beliefs, I ask why, and you call that SECRETIVE?

.You will simply dismiss anything I have to say re religion if my beliefs are sufficiently distant from yours. You're an open book.
And you must have been watching how he treats me and how he makes fun of or disrespects any personal revelations I've made.

And you must have been watching how he treats me and how he makes fun of or disrespects any personal revelations I've made.

Yes, I have and all the others he disrespects. In some ways, I feel sorry for him. He's very insecure and strikes out at anyone who disagrees with him. If he would only listen........

Time for Rachael.

If you don't like talking with me, then talk with someone else. There is no good reason to think Paul was a homosexual or that he was persecuted for being homosexual. There is no good reason to think that "homosexual" in the Bible means something other than "homosexual". There is no good reason to think that eternal means something other than eternal. Now you two believe otherwise. Fine with me. I don't begrudge you your beliefs, but neither will I accept them simply because you advocate for them. Believe and let believe. If you don't want to hear, then don't ask. If you ask, then don't whine about getting an answer. But if if I am asked, then you will get the best answer I can come up with. I have nothing to hide.

If you don't like talking with me, then talk with someone else. There is no good reason to think Paul was a homosexual or that he was persecuted for being homosexual. There is no good reason to think that "homosexual" in the Bible means something other than "homosexual". There is no good reason to think that eternal means something other than eternal. Now you two believe otherwise. Fine with me. I don't begrudge you your beliefs, but neither will I accept them simply because you advocate for them. Believe and let believe. If you don't want to hear, then don't ask. If you ask, then don't whine about getting an answer. But if if I am asked, then you will get the best answer I can come up with. I have nothing to hide.
But you don't talk or discuss with us. You try to one-up each of us!

Then you throw in a put-down or derogatory comment. Why shame someone with a different POV from yours?

Then you throw in a put-down or derogatory comment. Why shame someone with a different POV from yours?You mean like you just did? And do you remember saying that shaming is OK if it's true, as in the case of "fat" Trump?

I don't mind the conversations with you, but you know what you're going to get from me. I'm not going to fall all over myself to agree with your non-biblical, liberal views. You are welcome to them, but I find the support for them to be completely uncompelling. Neither of us will convince the other, so let's just drop it. Talk to someone else if you need to.

Utterly predictable. Liberal mayor and liberal sportswriter change their tunes when it's their own homes that are threatened.

A Washington state mayor was fine with the Black Lives Matter protests that followed George Floyd’s death in police custody.
But that was until vandals damaged her home, according to reports.
Now, Mayor Cheryl Selby of Olympia refers to the protests as “domestic terrorism,” according to The Olympian. “I’m really trying to process this,” Selby told the newspaper Saturday, after the rioters’ Friday night spree left her front door and porch covered with spray-painted messages. “It’s like domestic terrorism. It’s unfair.

Another BLM supporter, ESPN writer Chris Martin Palmer, who commented “Burn it all down,” when retweeting a photo of a Minneapolis building in flames in late May, had a different reaction when rioters came close to his house, The Sporting News reported (https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/espn-nba-reporter-tweets-george-floyd-protests/1eefhr1gpdx791oxlllizoun9i). “Get these animals TF out of my neighborhood,” Palmer wrote. “Go back to where you live.”

That's what it's going to take. Let a few of these starry-eyed liberals stand on the street and look at the burnt out remains of their home or business, and their tune will change in a hurry. I loved the mayor's comment. "It's unfair." Well, was it "unfair" when it was someone else's home or business being burned???

https://www.breakingnewstime.com/washington-state-mayor-now-calls-blm-protests-domestic-terrorism-after-her-home-vandalized/

It just shows that there are many like you that can't separate legit activism for a legit cause from criminal behavior, and it becomes a blur. I can understand that, but then neither can be resolved. I suspect from what you have written you were more than willing to dismiss the legit activism though, and the criminality just makes it that much easier.

One death by police affects the whole family for years, well after its been dismissed and ignored by everybody else. You don't just get over it and go back to normal. You certainly cannot just brush it under a rug, and say it doesn't exist either.

One of the most important things we learned from the DA press conference yesterday was there were other similar cases of misconduct trapped in the court pipeline by the corona virus. Until the courts reopen, nothing can move forward and be resolved or justice rendered. That's a lot of families suffering through this delayed process in one place at the same time.

that there are many like youWho think that burning and looting are wrong? Yep. They are like me now. They weren't last week. You'll change too when "legit activism" comes to your neighborhood like it did theirs.


You don't just get over it and go back to normal. You certainly cannot just brush it under a rug, and say it doesn't exist either.It seems to me that's exactly what you do in the thousands of cases a year in which the person is merely killed by a non-cop, or in the hundreds of thousands of abortions a year. So how are you different from your own description?


One death by police affects the whole family for years,Yes it does, just like a 5 year old being murdered in a drive by shooting in which the shooter is never apprehended affect the family for years as well. The difference is that you don't want to be bothered about that case.

I just think it's not either/or. We can talk about both black on black crime and bad cops.

https://external-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQC6GmfkOJvWaB6A&w=540&h=282&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcomicallyincorrect.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F06%2F03-covid-rally-la-600-1200x630.jpg&cfs=1&upscale=1&fallback=news_d_placeholder_publisher&_nc_hash=AQAMNq5TdgLY9x0j

Who think that burning and looting are wrong? Yep. They are like me now. They weren't last week. You'll change too when "legit activism" comes to your neighborhood like it did theirs.

EVERYBODY said burning and looting is wrong, and THAT'S what was visited on the neighborhoods, NOT legit activism! Not being able to tell the difference is YOUR problem, and that ADDS to the bigger problem! Just an excuse NOT to listen to the legit activist.

I shouldn't have to constantly explain the DIFFERENCE to you, and conclude you don't want to listen to the legit activist in the first place. I already knew that.


It seems to me that's exactly what you do in the thousands of cases a year in which the person is merely killed by a non-cop, or in the hundreds of thousands of abortions a year. So how are you different from your own description?

Don't like the way I separate the different issues and approach a solution? It's easier for me to take small bites than wolf a whole lot of stuff down. Very different from NOT acknowledging and understanding a problem and seeking a solution.


Yes it does, just like a 5 year old being murdered in a drive by shooting in which the shooter is never apprehended affect the family for years as well. The difference is that you don't want to be bothered about that case.

How do you know that?


I just think it's not either/or. We can talk about both black on black crime and bad cops.

So can I just a may need an additional sentence or paragraphs to separate my different views and ideas on DIFFERENT subjects.

EVERYBODY said burning and looting is wrong,Oh no they did not. Even in that article, the ESPN writer APPROVED of the destruction in Minneapolis. It wasn't until they approached his house that he changed his tune.


Don't like the way I separate the different issues and approach a solution?You don't approach any solutions at all for b on b crime or abortion. You never have.


How do you know that?Here's one. There are many out there. Took all of three minutes to find this one. https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article211083954.html

Or here. https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/06/us/chester-boy-killed-shooting-trnd/index.html


So can I just a may need an additional sentence or paragraphs to separate my different views and ideas on DIFFERENT subjects.I eagerly anticipate you writing about your great concern for b on b crime or abortion. It won't be heard from BLM for sure.

I don't doubt that you are concerned about the thousands of black Americans murdered every year, or all Americans for that matter, but you never post about it. That's strange to me.

Strange that you missed my opinions on those subjects. We had quite the disagreement at the time.

About abortion? Yes. B on B crime? I don't think so, but perhaps.

Poverty breeds gangs and is confined to certain zip codes. We called it street crimes back in the day. They still do.

Fatherless families breed poverty. Fatherless families breed gangs. It's exactly why the epidemic of out of wedlock births needs to be minimized. True for all races, by the way. It's a national problem.



In other news, this would be interesting. "Messages call for NYPD July 4th strike to protest anti-police climate."


https://www.foxnews.com/us/nypd-july-4th-strike-police

Fatherless families breed poverty. Fatherless families breed gangs. It's exactly why the epidemic of out of wedlock births needs to be minimized. True for all races, by the way. It's a national problem.

So we ignore the high divorce rates in the mix and blame poverty on just out of wedlock births. We ignore the systemic racism, because it doesn't exist and is just a minority excuse. Still the question remains how do you stop out of wedlock births and what do you do after the deed is done?




In other news, this would be interesting. "Messages call for NYPD July 4th strike to protest anti-police climate."


https://www.foxnews.com/us/nypd-july-4th-strike-police

Too much to ask a cop to not murder folks because they aren't above the law? This will be interesting.

So we ignore the high divorce rates in the mix and blame poverty on just out of wedlock births. No.


We ignore the systemic racism, because it doesn't exist and is just a minority excuse. What systemic racism? I'm not denying it doesn't exist, but just want to know exactly what it is you are referring to.


Still the question remains how do you stop out of wedlock births. Great question. Maybe we should ask why they are many times higher now than in 1960.


Too much to ask a cop to not murder folks because they aren't above the law? This will be interesting. Yeah. That would be the 0.001% who do that. The other 99.999% don't, but you trash them all anyway. It is my fervent hope that Seattle defunds the police so people who believe what you believe can see what results from it.

No.

[QUOTE]What systemic racism? I'm not denying it doesn't exist, but just want to know exactly what it is you are referring to.

I can go with what YOU think exists. Does that include redlining, gentrification, or voter suppression?


Great question. Maybe we should ask why they are many times higher now than in 1960.


I would rather ask how YOU intend to stop out of wedlock children, and what you do after the deed has been done.


Yeah. That would be the 0.001% who do that. The other 99.999% don't, but you trash them all anyway. It is my fervent hope that Seattle defunds the police so people who believe what you believe can see what results from it.

I have never trashed a good honest cop.

Does that include redlining Already illegal.

gentrification You call that systemic?

voter suppression?Might need to find some to make that one stick.


I would rather ask how YOU intend to stop out of wedlock children, and what you do after the deed has been done.Sad that you think it's only on me. Kind of illustrates your total disconnect. At any rate, the first step would be to decide nationally that out of wedlock births are really a bad idea. That deadbeat dads should be shamed. That the traditional husband/wife marriage is what we will honor. That's what worked in 1960.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining AND https://www.thoughtco.com/redlining-definition-4157858 There is MUCH MORE!

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/gentrification-american-cities-racial-inequality-segregation-research-brief/ AND https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/10/gentrification-kills-race-inequality-and-the-death-of-american-cities/

You need look no further than Wisconsin, and Georgia so far this year for those tactics, and I will add Iowa as a perfect examples for voter suppression.

Yeah those good old 60s when abortions and gays were in the closet and out of site, and the government was making acid. Dude! Really the 60's was that great. No thanks, I ain't going back.

That's your solution to out of wedlock children and shaming after the deed is done works for you, and I'm the one that's disconnected?

So we ignore the high divorce rates in the mix and blame poverty on just out of wedlock births. We ignore the systemic racism, because it doesn't exist and is just a minority excuse. Still the question remains how do you stop out of wedlock births and what do you do after the deed is done?

Come on tal, you know systemic racism doesn't exist, we are all different and we have different points of view. Minorities make excuses until they are absorbed into the mainstream. I expect you are one of those who thinks there should be no discrimination against a released prisoner and yet they have just been released from a crime academy and many of these belong to a minority. It is not being a minority that placed them there but when they graduate they add to the problem and the reason why society doesn't accept them




Too much to ask a cop to not murder folks because they aren't above the law? This will be interesting.

bad attitude, cops don't murder people because they are above the law, cops "murder" people because they are like everyone else afraid and thoughtless

Come on tal, you know systemic racism doesn't exist, we are all different and we have different points of view. Minorities make excuses until they are absorbed into the mainstream. I expect you are one of those who thinks there should be no discrimination against a released prisoner and yet they have just been released from a crime academy and many of these belong to a minority. It is not being a minority that placed them there but when they graduate they add to the problem and the reason why society doesn't accept them[

Minorities can't afford bail, or a good lawyer, but curious how you would know about systemic racism in America? You don't have a lot of minorities in Aussieland do you? You been watching dufus ads again?


]bad attitude, cops don't murder people because they are above the law, cops "murder" people because they are like everyone else afraid and thoughtless

Not just the murders, but the rousting, even rich black guys are subject to rousting. I got no use for bad cops. Afraid and thoughtless doesn't cut it either.

Yeah those good old 60s when abortions and gays were in the closet and out of site, and the government was making acid. Dude! Really the 60's was that great. No thanks, I ain't going back.No one has suggested we do that.

So yeah, let's just keep on with a 74% out of wedlock birth rate for black Americans. In Tal's world, that's just wonderful. We'll just do as you suggest and do nothing. Just keep your head buried in the sand. Let's not try and tackle the really significant problems. We'll just keep working on those 15 cop murders a year and ignore the fact that there were 18 murders in just one weekend recently in Chicago. Yeah, and we can adopt Tal's plan to just ignore the disasters taking place in our families. Yes, that'll work real well.

It would really help if you would bother to read your own links. "The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which explicitly prohibited racial discrimination, put an end to legally sanctioned redlining policies like those used by the FHA."

That's why I provide a couple of links of how modern day redlining works which hasn't been prosecuted or regulated to any meaningful degree, and has spread well beyond just housing. All those things I cited before is a part of the systematic and institutional racism that you don't deny exists.

Minorities can't afford bail, or a good lawyer, but curious how you would know about systemic racism in America? You don't have a lot of minorities in Aussieland do you? You been watching dufus ads again?

while a lower percentage of the population our minorities are just as vocal, we have the indigenous, always vocal about something, we have the somalis, a real street gang problem there, we have disaffected youth, just as you do. What we don't have is widespread poverty, so we differ from you in that way, or a huge prison population, but it is growing. we have kiwi's, they get here and can't fly back, but what differs is our approach



Not just the murders, but the rousting, even rich black guys are subject to rousting. I got no use for bad cops. Afraid and thoughtless doesn't cut it either.

Yes well the cop thing, you see we don't have that here