Inclusive enough to include someone just waking up and reaching for their glasses? That’s like the ultimate inclusivity. Compared to that level of inclusiveness, a Universal Unitarian church looks like a Nazi country club.
Un Fucking Believable. They’re charging that piece of shit with murder, I read. It never ends. And people think Black Lives Matter is an unnecessary slogan. What utter buulshit.
Just yesterday I went and pulled a past quote from you to demonstrate with your own words that you were lying, and being a gutless weaselfuck, you ran away. I don’t feel compelled to keep going to any effort proving your deceit. Especially when everyone knows that you’re once again lying. Cowardly, racist and liar - quite the resume you’ve built for yourself.
And that’s the thing. Steophan clearly believes that the police are perfectly within their rights to charge into someone’s bedroom in the middle of the night and blow you away for the crime of reaching for your glasses.
Reasonable people don’t believe this is reasonable.
I thought Smapti believed that and Steophan was just trying to chastise us for being mean to Smapti.
I’m so confused! If a cop walked in here right now, I’d be a dead man!
Eh, both of them. They’re both fascist sociopaths.
Can we call them “sociofaps” ?
(I call trademark! - googling - dammit!)
Saw this video on how British police handle being attacked by a man with a knife: This is the terrifying moment man swings at police with huge knife - YouTube
That seems like an all-around better outcome than what we get in the US.
No, you didn’t prove any such thing, and quite clearly couldn’t do so. But keep accusing me of things that my posts clearly refute. It’s worked so well in the past, what could possibly go wrong? It’s not like you could look any stupider than you already do.
Yes, obviously. People who believe in democracy and justice, rather than violently opposing those things, are fascists and sociopaths. I’m not sure how you make the leap from me and Smapi supporting the right of people to challenge police actions in court and vote for politicians who will change laws they dislike to any form of authoritarianism or wish to harm people.
I’m quite sure that the first SS also said they believed in justice and democracy. Fascist is as fascist does.
In how many of those other cases was there video? Because in this case at least 4 other officers flat out lied to support the killer, and if there hadn’t been video they would all have gotten away with it. I’m sure that buried among those “hundreds of other shootings” are a dozen murders that the police got away with because of the culture of lying among the police force.
I asked you this before but you ignored the question–of all the people who have posted to this thread, do you think you could identify even one who would describe your stance as “believing in democracy and justice”? If not, why not?
Anyone who’s read my posts would know that I believe that. Those that don’t are being dishonest with themselves - and usually, they are those who don’t believe that the police should have the same legal protections as everyone else.
So since you can’t identify one, all respondents are dishonest?
There’s a lot of people in this thread being dishonest, mainly those who claim that they aren’t anti-police but want to give the cops less protection than other people.
Smapti hasn’t answered, but let me proactively agree with him: those three kids deserved to die and they are lucky they didn’t. First off, they ignored a lawful order from a policeman to stop their car. This obviously makes them criminals just like Tamir Rice - strike one. Second, the police officer has every reason to be afraid of imminent harm to life and limb. These kids were in a car with good tires, not stuck in a ditch between a light pole and and another police cruiser. In that case, they still would have deserved to die for being a threat, but as it was they needed to die with extreme prejudice! Strike 2. The only mitigating factor is their race. If they had been black, it would have been 3 strikes and they would be out of here!
I just saw this reply from Frylock to Steophan from a different thread, in Great Debates, which felt very familiar. I think Frylock’s post is much more insightful and well thought out than anything I would write. It’s just so perfectly applicable to Steophan in this thread as well.
Steophan, the “you’re a lying liar who is distorting my words and you need to read better” gambit only works if you don’t say it to EVERYONE you are talking to. When you do it your way, you make it too obvious that you’re the fuck-up who cannot even switch up his schtick to give a false veneer of believability.
By that standard, can you name one “honest” respondent?
I see Frylock and Hentor are addressing this issue more articulately, but I just want to cut to the chase.
It like if everywhere you go there’s a bad stink, maybe it’s your BO (or in this case, BS) that’s the problem.