• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.
The article you posted was written up by Shaun King

Another article where Mr. King doesn't have all the facts or just chooses to ignore them

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/08/22/nice-shaun-king-learned-facts-spouting-ignorance-just/

from the link,

Daniel Harris was not shot “almost immediately” while attempting to use sign language as the cop-hating columnist King asserts.
Daniel Harris, who has a history of resisting officers in both Florida and Connecticut, was shot and killed after struggling with Trooper Saunders after Saunders attempted to take him into custody “for a few minutes.”
There’s a world of difference between an innocent person with a disability being murdered for not being able to understand an officer, and a violent suspect with a history of resisting arrest being shot at the end of a multi-minute struggle with an officer after a high speed chase.
Once again, Shaun King is undone by even a cursory look at the known evidence.
 
Last edited:
Another article where Mr. King doesn't have all the facts or just chooses to ignore them

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/08/22/nice-shaun-king-learned-facts-spouting-ignorance-just/

from the link,

Daniel Harris was not shot “almost immediately” while attempting to use sign language as the cop-hating columnist King asserts.
Daniel Harris, who has a history of resisting officers in both Florida and Connecticut, was shot and killed after struggling with Trooper Saunders after Saunders attempted to take him into custody “for a few minutes.”
There’s a world of difference between an innocent person with a disability being murdered for not being able to understand an officer, and a violent suspect with a history of resisting arrest being shot at the end of a multi-minute struggle with an officer after a high speed chase.
Once again, Shaun King is undone by even a cursory look at the known evidence.

Did you read that blog post (yeah, blog post, not an accredited news outlet, just some dude with a computer)? The author didn't cite anything to substantiate his conjecture. The article he did link to, this one, also does not substantiate his extensive speculation.

The dude, who is obvious as pro-LE as Shaun is anti-LE, spun a tale about how this may have played out. That's all that was.

I didn't comment on the veracity of Shaun's article, myself. NYDailyNews is not a source I would ever use to prove a point (nor would I use BearingArms.com). But the assertion was that the story of a white guy getting killed by police was received by crickets, and that assertion is as false as the day is long.

*Yawns* I am so tired of this hypocrisy its almost sad. Black lives don't matter to black lives despite only being 24% of the population they've killed off 1000 more of their own than whites...It also annoys me when they pull shit like blowing up a gas station and people already are apologizing for it. Like the death of a thug is worth all this mayhem and destruction. Why aren't screaming raging over the deaths of innocently black childern slain at the hands of gang members? Or the innocent black person just walking by and happens to be dropped by a stray bullet? Why isn't BLM up in arms over that?
At this point its not ignorence is hypocrisy. You want us the white majority to acknowledge black lives matter...well how can I honestly do so when black people seem to not value life themselves? How can I take that point seriously if all they seem value is violence and destruction?
See honestly i can't because they obviously don't value life themselves.

You're like, 12, and you clearly don't pay attention to the black community. In every urban center, there are black-led community-based anti-gang programs. Shit, in the 90s, when things were truly out-of-hand, the Crips and the Bloods held summits to come to non-violence agreements. Addressing black-on-black violence is part of the BLM's campaign, but that's not the part that ever makes the news.

The black community is actively working on the problems within the black community. That doesn't mean that's the only problem they get to work on.

But it's a beyond-ridiculous talking point. Again, whites are responsible for 83% of white deaths, and yet, Radley Balko (a libertarian fucking hero, not that you'd know) has made police misconduct his life's work. He's spoken in front of Congress numerous times. He's written books. He writes for HuffPo and the Washington Post.

Is Ms. Libertarian unaware that the Libertarian Presidential candidate enthusiastically supports BLM? Ms. Libertarian tried to throw in my face that the President is black. But, "all they seem value is violence and destruction."

Just. Stop.
 
If 83% of white people murdered were killed by other white people, then what is the percentage of blacks killed by blacks?

Just a question I wanted to ask, I'm sure someone smarter than me knows the answer.

It's commonly stated at around 93%. The stat that stands out to me, is that black people account for 65% of all murders in the US.

That is a huge number for 12% of the population.

No idea what Megan's picture is about. Some people shouldn't be allowed near statistics.
I mean the creator of the meme.

100% of white people are killed by black or white people, or cops.

100% of black people are killed by white or black people, or cops.

I've said before that statistics prove that hispanic people are like saints. Apparently this applies to Asian people too? And middle eastern people.
 
Last edited:
@Podargus I read up on it a little bit last night when I asked the question because I was curious to see what kind of answers I'd get. Sometimes it's good to know the answer or at least part of the answer before you ask the question. I simply stay out of these debates simply because I'm not as fast with the answers or statistics as some, but I read, I definitely read.
 
@Podargus I read up on it a little bit last night when I asked the question because I was curious to see what kind of answers I'd get. Sometimes it's good to know the answer or at least part of the answer before you ask the question. I simply stay out of these debates simply because I'm not as fast with the answers or statistics as some, but I read, I definitely read.

That's more than some who are playing are prepared to do. :p
 
No idea what Megan's picture is about. Some people shouldn't be allowed near statistics.
I mean the creator of the meme.

lol, thank you for that. Although, I think the person to repost such a meme, or put stock in such a meme, should also fall under that umbrella. Just like guns, statistics are dangerous if you don't know how to use them.

At the end of the day, there is no real way to know this particular number for any race, considering just roughly 65% of murders are solved in the U.S. The data contained in the unsolved subset is significant enough to throw any existing percentage.

However, the fact is, for ALL races, the vast majority of murder victims were killed by someone of their own race. This is a universal truth, and it makes the "black-on-black crime!" argument null and void.

The FBI statistics record declared hate crimes. Do they investigate all crimes that are declared so? Do they make the declarations?

We could start with Milwaukee. Were any "hate crimes" declared from the assaults on white people during that? Have the assaults even been reported beyond what we saw on youtube?

Dallas? The President has declared it a hate crime, but what about the prosecutor?

My observations. I could go digging, but I suspect I'll only keep proving my point.

No, please, dig. Again, I will ask, what (evidence) leads you to believe that a higher level of scrutiny would be applied when the victim is white? I am insistent about this because, with the U.S. being the context, your assertion is counter-intuitive.

Hate crime designation is difficult to achieve in general. But, as is well-documented, prosecutors have absolutely no compunction about charging blacks with hate crimes if their crimes qualify.

The racial breakdown and methodology of the FBI's hate crime data.

Although the racial prejudice that would drive a white person to commit a hate crime against a black person is the same tension that would drive a black person to commit a hate crime against a white person, James Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at New York University and the courts director for the Center for Research in Crime and Justice, confirms that the term goes both ways. "There's nothing unusual about applying hate crime laws to black defendants who harbor racist motivations against their victims. That's never really been controversial," said Jacobs told Broadly over the phone.

A Vice article about charging blacks with hate crimes.

If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter was targeting white cops and not just cops in general, yes, it will be classified a hate crime. But police officers are not a protected class, so it is imperative they prove he was targeting white cops.

As for assaults on whites during riots? Those are slam-dunk cases, if they can identify the perp. It's too early to tell about Milwaukee, though.

Your "point" is media-influenced speculation. It does not accurately portray what is going on in U.S. court systems. The courts don't give black people a pass for anything... much less hate crimes they may perpetrate.

If anything, the hate crime statistics will feature the same favoritism for whites that is so apparent throughout the justice system in general. White prosecutors would probably be less likely to bother pursuing hate crime designation for white crimes, except white people tend to do stupidly undeniable shit like draw swastikas and lightening bolts and stuff. It's harder for blacks to leave such easily prosecuted "I'm a racist prick!" calling cards. There's less insignia to express an anti-white sentiment. They could maybe draw a Saltine or something... :p
 
These aren't even "whites" and "blacks", Francyne. These were multiple off-duty COPS against a completely innocent man whose only mistake was attending a party... a mistake he and his company were trying to correct.

Find me in the history of America an example of cops doing this to a white man. One. You can't. You won't. Because cops don't do this sort of thing to our people. And, riots? You know what our people riot about? Fucking sports events. Every year, there's a riot in a city or on a college campus because some team won or lost this or that.

If you can read that and miss the point, it's because you want to.



Crickets? Not on Facebook, huh? Not in a city like mine, either. This story went viral. It was featured on my local news. The article you posted was written up by Shaun King (you know, that dude conservatives believe is a fake black). It's on CNN. It's on NBCNews. If you google "Daniel H" it is the first thing that comes up.

The fact that you think crickets about this story speaks to the bubble you've encased yourself in.

And, hate crimes? Yeah, let's take a look at that. By victim, below. Mind you, blacks are about 12% of the population, and whites are about 63%.

140415_hate_crimes_by_race_2259_8f2eb71bfa345ac0.jpg


You're not stupid, Francyne. It comes across quite clearly in your posts. But you are sheltered as fuck, and as an adult, if you don't work to correct that, research your points before you spout them, I'll just disengage. What choice do I have, if you are intent on swimming in willful ignorance?

When black lives matter, ALL LIVES MATTER.
Crickets... Meaning NO RIOTING. No police officers having bricks thrown at them, no one shot, nothing burned to the ground. That's what I meant by crickets.
 
100% of white people are killed by black or white people, or cops. 100% of black people are killed by white or black people, or cops.

You're stupid... you left out terrorists and Hispanics.


****Opps I take back...i didn't read the end yet...just went off half cocked there,

Sorry I take all that stupid shit back. Yes I do.
 
Last edited:
Right! Because, again, we riot about sports. Or pumpkins. Or running out of beer. Anything but fucking injustice. We're way too apathetic to riot about something that actually matters.


We should riot when a crackhead snaps his neck in a police van? We should riot when a convenience store thief, who tries to take a police officer's firearm, is justifiably killed? We should riot when a black cop shoots a black man who was pointing a loaded gun at him? Also...you are assuming that only white people are involved in sporting riots. This is not the case.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/19940318

_63483594_63480403.jpg
 
Last edited:
There are lies and there are people that will take advantage of others.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mp/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/

A day after a black activist was kicked and punched by voters at a Donald Trump rally in Alabama, Trump tweeted an image packed with racially loaded and incorrect murder statistics.

The image showsa masked, dark-skinned man with a handgun and a set of points, ostensibly about deaths in 2015:

  • "Blacks killed by whites -- 2%"

  • "Blacks killed by police -- 1%"

  • "Whites killed by police -- 3%"

  • "Whites killed by whites -- 16%"

  • "Whites killed by blacks -- 81%"

  • "Blacks killed by blacks -- 97%’
The image cites the "Crime Statistics Bureau - San Francisco"

Here is the image:

F-Vvag7xPOFj81AxWrRYIcgWkxfI-XcskVw50Dw5lXTAYv8B5Agb3K1qcUbEFFIAsmss2-GyZCorvd0rguxRcKRLHisVxz5ISq6ZqWIBmanhvr_MW8aFzf18GKfH19h0adcE8Pvc


None of the numbers are supported by official sources. The figures on black-on-white homicides and white-on-white homicides are wildly inaccurate. And, as several news organizations quickly noted, the "Crime Statistics Bureau" doesn’t exist. We looked for that agency as well and the closest we found in San Francisco were a number of crime scene clean-up services.

Interracial homicides

While the image references 2015, the year is not over, and no official numbers have been released. The latest data comes from the FBI for 2014. This table contrasts Trump’s figures with the official ones.


Trump Number FBI Number Error factor

Blacks killed by whites 2% 8% 4 times

Blacks killed by blacks 87% 90% Just a little off

Whites killed by whites 16% 82% 5.4 times

Whites killed by blacks 81% 15% 5.4 times

The most glaring inaccuracies have to do with white homicide victims. Trump cast blacks as the primary killers of whites, but the exact opposite is true. By overwhelming percentages, whites tend to kill other whites. Similarly, blacks tend to kill other blacks. These trends have been observed for decades.
 
Last edited:
We're way too apathetic to riot about something that actually matters.

So you're, in effect saying that if the subject matters then it's okay to burn and loot and call for people to kill others for whatever their belief is or is not. I personally believe that black lives matter, and do support them in whatever they think they want or need, but I cannot support anyone who condones or outright calls for people to burn and loot and riot. And they are doing that, we've seen the videos. They are not the people who want peace, those are people who want to be able to hurt others under the auspices of BLM.
 
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
In 2010 320,082 whites were victims of black violence versus 62,593 black victims of white violence.
With a population in 2010 197 million whites and 38 million blacks the violence rate of black on white is 25 times that of white on black. (849 per 100,000 versus 32 per 100,000.)

According to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, blacks are 3.1 times as likely as whites to end up in emergency rooms for drug abuse. This is nationwide information.

Missouri alone: black Americans are only 11.7% of the Missouri population but....

Blacks per capita commit 16.3 times the murders of whites/Hispanics.
Blacks per capita commit rape at 5 times the rate of whites/Hispanics.
Blacks commit per capita 22.2 times the robberies of Whites/Hispanics.
Blacks commit per capita 5.3 times the assaults of Whites/Hispanics.
Blacks per capita commit 4.6 times the burglaries of Whites/Hispanics.
Blacks per capita commit 3.95 times the thefts of Whites/Hispanics.
Blacks per capita commit 2.8 times the auto thefts of Whites/Hispanics.
Blacks per capita commit 3 times the arson offences of Whites/Hispanics.

It is even sadder when you consider these numbers are comparing one race (black) against TWO races (white and Hispanic)

These numbers are out of control and while there are some community centres and groups dedicated to lowering gang violence and criminal activities in their respected communities, it is not mainstreamed like BLM. Um, that in itself says a lot to people.
Plus the fact that a lot these organizations are targeted, so they don't/can't do as much as they would like too. Which is just sad.....
They certainly don't get the attention and funding that BLM has attained. Why is this? (Especially considering that a lot of, not all, the "victims" BLM has rioted for and lashed out in violence for, were proven to be violent criminals themselves, had a weapon, etc) They should have more media attention, more funding then this violent group!
I think if they did AND BLM joined them, BLM would hold a LOT more water. But demanding free shit, while committing a disproportionate Number of crimes, isn't the way to do it.
Prove you want to change these statistics! Prove that you recognize this as a problem and use your 100 million in donations to help find a solution!
But don't burn shit down because a criminal points a gun at a cop and gets his ass lit up.
 
Last edited:
So you're, in effect saying that if the subject matters then it's okay to burn and loot and call for people to kill others for whatever their belief is or is not. I personally believe that black lives matter, and do support them in whatever they think they want or need, but I cannot support anyone who condones or outright calls for people to burn and loot and riot. And they are doing that, we've seen the videos. They are not the people who want peace, those are people who want to be able to hurt others under the auspices of BLM.

For the entire existence of civilized human culture, rioting has been an unfortunately effective (nearly) last resort.

It's kind of how some women tell their husbands, "I don't want to yell and throw things, but you didn't listen the first eight times I asked nicely!" Not all the congressional testimony in the world has brought sufficient attention to these issues. Not all of the exposés, not all of the peaceful protests. Sometimes, the riot is the thing that works. And the government reinforces that fact. Only after riots did they make substantial changes in Baltimore, Ferguson...

Most people, be it on the individual level or as a faction of society, don't just continue to ask nicely forever, getting ignored forever. Eventually, a snap occurs. And, as this Wiki list of riots illustrates, these snaps have been occurring worldwide and forever.

Sure, there are people who take advantage of it. Those people have always existed. But, people see the institutional improvements brought about by riots, and they want that where they live. Most of them would really rather not have to.

These numbers are out of control and while there are some community centres and groups dedicated to lowering gang violence and criminal activities in their respected communities, it is not mainstreamed like BLM. Um, that in itself says a lot to people.

BLM is under no obligation to mainstream the issues whites feel are most important for them to mainstream. This would kind of be like men bitching about how the Susan G. Koman group focuses on breast cancer instead of heart disease. After all, heart disease kills more women annually than breast cancer, and by a fer piece. But, you know what? The victims of breast cancer and their families and supporters feel like breast cancer is a very important issue. The fact that they're not addressing heart disease as well should say nothing to people. The fact that BLM doesn't focus on black-on-black crime should say nothing to people.

As a woman, I don't like men telling me what my female-oriented priorities ought to be. They're not really in a position to speak. As a black person, I imagine I would be similarly disrespected by white people thinking they should be dictating my priorities.

So, as a white person, I don't. I have long recognized that police misconduct is a problem. I've been watching the trends, and it hasn't been getting any better. So, I support what's bringing attention to the matter, and nothing has brought attention to the matter like this in my lifetime.

But, it's beyond me being white and them being black. We are all human beings, so if one faction of humanity is behaving differently than the rest, there are reasons for it. Those reasons are never inherent to race. My concern, and the reason DIAF is always running around calling people racist, is that the white focus on these being black problems that blacks need to fix, instead of human understanding of these being human problems that we need to all work together to fix, does suggest a belief that these are problems inherent to race. And that's icky.
 
For the entire existence of civilized human culture, rioting has been an unfortunately effective (nearly) last resort.

It's kind of how some women tell their husbands, "I don't want to yell and throw things, but you didn't listen the first eight times I asked nicely!" Not all the congressional testimony in the world has brought sufficient attention to these issues. Not all of the exposés, not all of the peaceful protests. Sometimes, the riot is the thing that works. And the government reinforces that fact. Only after riots did they make substantial changes in Baltimore, Ferguson...

Most people, be it on the individual level or as a faction of society, don't just continue to ask nicely forever, getting ignored forever. Eventually, a snap occurs. And, as this Wiki list of riots illustrates, these snaps have been occurring worldwide and forever.

Sure, there are people who take advantage of it. Those people have always existed. But, people see the institutional improvements brought about by riots, and they want that where they live. Most of them would really rather not have to.



BLM is under no obligation to mainstream the issues whites feel are most important for them to mainstream. This would kind of be like men bitching about how the Susan G. Koman group focuses on breast cancer instead of heart disease. After all, heart disease kills more women annually than breast cancer, and by a fer piece. But, you know what? The victims of breast cancer and their families and supporters feel like breast cancer is a very important issue. The fact that they're not addressing heart disease as well should say nothing to people. The fact that BLM doesn't focus on black-on-black crime should say nothing to people.

As a women, I don't like men telling me what my female-oriented priorities ought to be. They're not really in a position to speak. As a black person, I imagine I would be similarly disrespected by white people thinking they should be dictating my priorities.

So, as a white person, I don't. I have long recognized that police misconduct is a problem. I've been watching the trends, and it hasn't been getting any better. So, I support what's bringing attention to the matter, and nothing has brought attention to the matter like this in my lifetime.

But, it's beyond me being white and them being black. We are all human beings, so if one faction of humanity is behaving differently than the rest, there are reasons for it. Those reasons are never inherent to race. My concern, and the reason DIAF is always running around calling people racist, is that the white focus on these being black problems that blacks need to fix, instead of human understanding of these being human problems that we need to all work together to fix, does suggest a belief that these are problems inherent to race. And that's icky.

Point-And-Laugh-Reaction-Gif.gif
 
For the entire existence of civilized human culture, rioting has been an unfortunately effective (nearly) last resort.

BLM is under no obligation to mainstream the issues whites feel it most important for them to mainstream.

The fact that BLM doesn't focus on black-on-black crime should say nothing to people .

These three comments completely ruined any point you were trying to make for me.
You in essence just explained how rioting, which has been done violently, is a effective tool that they are sooooo forced to use. o_O Because they snapped! Really?

Your second highlighted comment proves the fact that black lives matter ONLY when being killed by police... most take downs are completely justified, by the way. (Not all. Just like there are some white, Asian, Hispanic races that have been victim to unjustified police arrests and shootings ) BLM doesn't give two shits about the poor 3 yr old little baby caught in the drive by's. Or the poor college student who was walking along down the street, after taking 4 buses to get home, after working two jobs, but was murdered because he wore a red cap. Or The pregnant mom sitting in her car that was high jacked and shot in the head.
They only care about screaming victimization when it comes to police.
That they are not looking to even consider that the numbers/stats don't lie! PERIOD! Black Americans are systematically killing themselves and a disproportionate number of whites, that are actually being targeted and murdered. Not to mention the fact that they are vocalizing on social media to shoot and kill white people! And it's not one or two! It's ALL over and it's allowed to continue and BLM activates are not only supporting these posts/tweets/blogs/radio host but are also guilty themselves!
How is that for racism?

The fact that BLM doesn't focus on BLACK LIVES murdering BLACK LIVES , shows their card right there! Thank you for saying it.

In all the comments I see, No one is willing to admit that these crime/murder stats/numbers prove that black thugs (not the race as a whole) commit a unprecedented number of brutal crimes and are killing people (whites/Hispanics) at a rate which is up too 25 times more then whites victimize blacks. This is a fact. This is a major problem! Especially when you take into account the population!

But they want to scream black lives matter... Really? What about you stop systematically murdering yourselves and stop targeting white and Hispanic Americans!
Due to black Americans being proven to participate in more crime, they have more run ins with police! THAT is the only reason why on paper more blacks are arrested and charged! Period. Demographics! It's Not because cops just want to arrest black people for no reason,
Now I'm not saying there are not cases of blatant racism or police officers targeted a specific person based on thier history, that shit happens and you will always have these cases. But All BLM does is try so desperately to blur the lines, and when you come back with real numbers or you call them out on them misrepresenting "facts" they either get violent themselves or circle you for a witch hunt! This is dangerous!
To make a statement of fact you need to take into account ALL information! They don't! They purposely chant a false and misleading rhetoric! This is dangerous for ALL races and does NOTHING but CREATE that which they preach against. RACISM, HATE and FEAR...
Thank Jesus that more people are waking up every day. There are destroying themselves.

This fear needs to stop!! The proclamations to kill white people...needs to stop!
 
Last edited:
It seems, and is really unfortunate, that big power only address the demands of social justice and freedom the hard way: just when the pauperized masses start rioting and looting, social changes may happen. For instance, some time ago, when the constituted and legitimate central government decided to rise the taxes on tea on the colonies on America, some settlers decided to protest and threw the tea to the sea... and a large revolt started...

Power to the people.
 
Find me in the history of America an example of cops doing this to a white man. One. You can't. You won't. Because cops don't do this sort of thing to our people.
Are you familiar with Randy Weaver?

White separatist -- not supremacist; he didn't think he was superior to black people, he just didn't want to live with black people. That was a threat to the government, so an informant coaxed him into sawing a shotgun's barrel off at an illegal 17-3/4" length. Then LE arrested him, he saw the judge, and was released on his own recognizance with a court date.

On a date the courts were closed.

To make a long story short, an FBI sniper, firing from a position of concealment, and without announcing himself, shot and killed his dog, his 14-year-old son who, coming under fire, returned that fire as he ran for cover, and Mr. Weaver's wife Vicki, as she stood behind the door of their cabin armed with a deadly assault baby and grieved for her dead son.

Then taunted him as he was besieged.

--Al
 
the fact that black lives matter doesn't focus on black LIVES murdering black lives, shows their cards right there!

:banghead:

Okay, I'm bustin' out the crayons.

Here's the violent crime rate, of which, as you've repeatedly pointed out, black-on-black crime is a significant subset.

Violent_Crime_Rate.png


Kinda looks like it's getting dealt with, wouldn't you say?

That's because everyone cares about violent crime. EVERYONE. We all care, and the vast majority of us are doing our part to correct the issue. And, look! Success!

Meanwhile, the number of citizens killed by police is marching up and up and up and up, with no justification to be found anywhere. And who cares? Not nearly enough people. And that's why it continues it's march.

What do you want to bet that 2016 marks the first drop in the number of people killed by police since 2000? And it's because BLM has put eyes on the issue.

Are you familiar with Randy Weaver?

I'm quite familiar with the Ruby Ridge story, and you left out the shootout with the feds the day before the sniper arrived. While I believe the settlement to be appropriate for what happened, it's really not similar. If anything, it's proof the LE can be awful to everyone, so we should all care.

Mr. Weaver was not sodomized with a knife. Arguably he may have rather been. But, an individual approached at an Aryan Nations rally by a man posing as an illegal arms dealer is a little less sympathetic than a man invited to a police officers house party who was not combative with the individuals who approached him.
 
:banghead:

Okay, I'm bustin' out the crayons.

Here's the violent crime rate, of which, as you've repeatedly pointed out, black-on-black crime is a significant subset.

Violent_Crime_Rate.png


Kinda looks like it's getting dealt with, wouldn't you say?

That's because everyone cares about violent crime. EVERYONE. We all care, and the vast majority of us are doing our part to correct the issue. And, look! Success!

Meanwhile, the number of citizens killed by police is marching up and up and up and up, with no justification to be found anywhere. And who cares? Not nearly enough people. And that's why it continues it's march.

What do you want to bet that 2016 marks the first drop in the number of people killed by police since 2000? And it's because BLM has put eyes on the issue.



I'm quite familiar with the Ruby Ridge story, and you left out the shootout with the feds the day before the sniper arrived. While I believe the settlement to be appropriate for what happened, it's really not similar. If anything, it's proof the LE can be awful to everyone, so we should all care.

Mr. Weaver was not sodomized with a knife. Arguably he may have rather been. But, an individual approached at an Aryan Nations rally by a man posing as an illegal arms dealer is a little less sympathetic than a man invited to a police officers house party who was not combative with the individuals who approached him.

Sanford_Son_Laughing.gif

[doublepost=1472186925,1472180675][/doublepost]
:banghead:

Okay, I'm bustin' out the crayons.

Here's the violent crime rate, of which, as you've repeatedly pointed out, black-on-black crime is a significant subset.

Violent_Crime_Rate.png


Kinda looks like it's getting dealt with, wouldn't you say?

This success is due primarily to the fact that the government has been locking up criminals for the past thirty years (three strikes laws, truth in sentencing etc...), something most "progressives" complain bitterly about, and virtually all "social justice activists" wish to curb. Incarceration works! A contributing factor is the extremely high rate of abortion among black women, and poor, white women. Margaret Sanger would be proud! ;)
 
It seems, and is really unfortunate, that big power only address the demands of social justice and freedom the hard way: just when the pauperized masses start rioting and looting, social changes may happen. For instance, some time ago, when the constituted and legitimate central government decided to rise the taxes on tea on the colonies on America, some settlers decided to protest and threw the tea to the sea... and a large revolt started...

Power to the people.


I think, at least in part, you could say that in the current US political climate, voting has lost its impact. The system is designed so that the people have no say in how they're represented.
[doublepost=1472190737,1472188595][/doublepost]
There are lies and there are people that will take advantage of others.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mp/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/

Megan's meme makes sense now.
[doublepost=1472195631][/doublepost]
lol, thank you for that. Although, I think the person to repost such a meme, or put stock in such a meme, should also fall under that umbrella. Just like guns, statistics are dangerous if you don't know how to use them

I agree. I was trying to be diplomatic. I don't know what came over me.

At the end of the day, there is no real way to know this particular number for any race, considering just roughly 65% of murders are solved in the U.S. The data contained in the unsolved subset is significant enough to throw any existing percentage.

However, the fact is, for ALL races, the vast majority of murder victims were killed by someone of their own race. This is a universal truth, and it makes the "black-on-black crime!" argument null and void.

I don't agree that it makes it null and void, ut I do agree that it is an important fact to consider. I admit that I have overlooked the unsolved rate in my statistic quoting.

But we do know that of the 65% solved, the figures (universal, as you say) are approx 83% white and 93% black. So it won't skew the data too much to suppose those figures apply to the unsolved 35%.

No, please, dig. Again, I will ask, what (evidence) leads you to believe that a higher level of scrutiny would be applied when the victim is white? I am insistent about this because, with the U.S. being the context, your assertion is counter-intuitive.

White guilt as a political tool seems counter-intuitive to me.

Hate crime designation is difficult to achieve in general. But, as is well-documented, prosecutors have absolutely no compunction about charging blacks with hate crimes if their crimes qualify.

The racial breakdown and methodology of the FBI's hate crime data.

A Vice article about charging blacks with hate crimes.

If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter was targeting white cops and not just cops in general, yes, it will be classified a hate crime. But police officers are not a protected class, so it is imperative they prove he was targeting white cops.

I've been doing some reading on the Dallas case. The prosecutor, the city, the state of Texas, are making lots of efforts to argue that it wasn't a hate crime. I've seen, and I'm sure you have, written statements of what he said to police during the standoff. I've seen his social media postings. This question is purely seeking your opinion. Why would Obama (you know that guy who supports BLM?) make a public statement declaring it a hate crime?
What is his motivation, do you think? Considering that the prosecuting DA has made declararions that she won't be pursuing it as a hate crime.

As for assaults on whites during riots? Those are slam-dunk cases, if they can identify the perp. It's too early to tell about Milwaukee, though.

Good point. Those hate crimes will probably never be processed by the courts. We've seen one young guy who was shot in the neck, but nobody apparently even saw the shooter. The people we see on video being attacked in their cars probably have no idea who got them either.

Your "point" is media-influenced speculation. It does not accurately portray what is going on in U.S. court systems. The courts don't give black people a pass for anything... much less hate crimes they may perpetrate.

I just don't accept that as true. Sorry. The political climate over there, which is reported by the dominant left media is all about white guilt now. The mindset is almost as bad as racism. It makes sense to me (from my obvioous position as a foreigner, I admit) that the judicial system is being cautious in this climate.

If anything, the hate crime statistics will feature the same favoritism for whites that is so apparent throughout the justice system in general. White prosecutors would probably be less likely to bother pursuing hate crime designation for white crimes, except white people tend to do stupidly undeniable shit like draw swastikas and lightening bolts and stuff. It's harder for blacks to leave such easily prosecuted "I'm a racist prick!" calling cards. There's less insignia to express an anti-white sentiment. They could maybe draw a Saltine or something...

This is kinda getting to my point. A member of a white supremacy group, is going to be charged for a hate crime against black people. A member of the Black Panthers, or other "Black Power" group, not neccessarily so. There needs to be more evidence.
 
Right! Because, again, we riot about sports. Or pumpkins. Or running out of beer. Anything but fucking injustice. We're way too apathetic to riot about something that actually matters.
No! There is no violent rioting because that is NOT what law abiding citizen do! Plus the fact law abiding citizens wait for FACTS to come to light... Then take action, if needed. Not run around like animals! Destroying the community and stealing and burning down peoples livelihoods in the process and targeting certain races!!

During ONE protest, 27 cops were injured after people threw molotov cocktails, fireworks, and rocks at the officers. One officer suffered a spinal fracture after a concrete block landed on his head.
Tell me when this has happened when a bunch of college jocks riot? Please tell me how many people were killed because of it, how many PO were injured? How many businesses were burned to the ground? How many people attempted MURDER by throwing MOLOTOV cocktails?
I'll be more then happy to read whatever article you can provide, there must be one, since you compared the two.
How can a certain race do this, but say they are against racism! They are and have lost credibility with anyone who does enough research to know that they have a sinister agenda and it has nothing to do with equality. I actually feel bad for the good/intelligent people who support them, because they are doing nothing but taking advantage of your humanity and they have no honor. Which is so wrong.
There are so MANY other groups geared toward true equality for all. So many others that genuinely push minority's to succeed through thier own empowerment!!
I.

By the way, any sports related riot in the USA (which black people joined) had nothing to do with targeting and shooting another race! There was a kid shot in the neck for craps sake Athena! Why? Because he is white! How you could even compare the two, is beyond reason and it just shows me how warped BLM can make ones views. They make certain people defend them even though what they do and preach goes against your moral judgement... And that is fucking scary!

As to your chart showing violent crime as a whole being on a steady decline, that has nothing to do with the stats of what races nationwide commit violent crimes.

We are talking about the numbers of violent crimes committed by each respective race, then comparing that to the national population for said race. That is what matters.
That is like comparing apples and oranges. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. But good way to try To deflect by saying "see crime is down! So what's the problem? Since its down then that proves black people are just being hunted down and charged needlessly!"

That is irrelivant to the topic....

But thank you for proving that since violent crime is decreasing, then that can only mean that the criminals responsible are being arrested and taken off the streets. SO that kind of goes against the whole idea that black people are being targeted and charged unjustly by police... If crime as a WHOLE is down then the correct people are being locked up
 
Last edited:
Look, I am trying my best to keep these forums open to all opinions, no matter how controversial. But when the comment is laden with ignorant, racist epitaphs (no matter the race) - the comment is going to get deleted.

We have always tried to give people an open forum to express their views without creating a safe space or echo chamber for any, one ideology. Please don't abuse it.
 
Last edited:
Don't you know that you can't agree with any points from any opposing side without being lumped in with either them? It's infuriating that grown ass adults (who were raised by mouth breathing hicks) feel that pointing out flaws, or the outright manipulation of the masses, means that you are giving the greenlight to racist douchebags. As I said in my reply that was deleted, they are bordering on severe cognitive impairment. That's big words for retarded.
 
Last edited:
White guilt as a political tool seems counter-intuitive to me.

Awwwww, Podargus, PLEASE don't be that guy.

Again, blacks are convicted more easily and sentenced longer. I'm not sure what part of that suggests "white guilt", but as someone who used to work in the criminal justice system, I saw zero evidence of white guilt. I remember having to sell sentences to black people that white people recently convicted of the exact same crime got probation for as though it was a good deal. I was quite sure we, as a site, had settled on the undeniable fact that blacks are routinely shafted in the U.S. criminal justice system.

I'm asking you what EVIDENCE there is that more scrutiny is applied when the victim is white - a question you have yet to answer.

I've been doing some reading on the Dallas case. The prosecutor, the city, the state of Texas, are making lots of efforts to argue that it wasn't a hate crime. I've seen, and I'm sure you have, written statements of what he said to police during the standoff. I've seen his social media postings. This question is purely seeking your opinion. Why would Obama (you know that guy who supports BLM?) make a public statement declaring it a hate crime?
What is his motivation, do you think? Considering that the prosecuting DA has made declararions that she won't be pursuing it as a hate crime.

Obama is on his way out, little more than a figurehead at this point. He was using the term "hate crime" in a figurative manner, and I don't necessarily disagree. But, when it comes to the letter of the law, securing a hate crime is, again, difficult... Especially in a state like Texas. You see, Texas kind of bites itself in the ass by making hate crimes especially difficult to prosecute. Mostly, they're protecting a white person's right to be a hood-wearing bigot. But, the tables occasionally turn, and you have to be consistent.

Not all of the officers killed were white. That makes the prosecutor's job exceedingly difficult. And, the defendant is dead, thus he has lost his right to... everything. The DA can't really pursue anything, given that fact. But, if she's not calling it a hate crime, it's only because she knows she'd have a hard time proving it in court.

Good point. Those hate crimes will probably never be processed by the courts. We've seen one young guy who was shot in the neck, but nobody apparently even saw the shooter. The people we see on video being attacked in their cars probably have no idea who got them either.

Now you're just being dramatic. Yes, the police have to investigate and find the individual responsible. In our new world of video everywhere, that's hardly an impossibility. But, yeah, they do have to find the person.

I just don't accept that as true. Sorry. The political climate over there, which is reported by the dominant left media is all about white guilt now. The mindset is almost as bad as racism. It makes sense to me (from my obvioous position as a foreigner, I admit) that the judicial system is being cautious in this climate.

You don't need to apologize. I know young earthers. I've met denial that eclipses yours. ;)

Let me tell you about capitalism. It knows no color, no guilt. In the context of the media, it only knows ratings. And drama = ratings. It's why true crime does so well, as it happens. It gives the market what the market wants. And the market wants these police shootings. Look at all the discussion it's whipped up on this site alone! I can't easily run metrics here, but in my experience, police shootings have generated more posts than any other politicized topic. That translates into dollars for networks.

You know what doesn't? Black kids that go missing. That was a running joke on this site for a great many years. The way black suspects of crime are treated compared to white suspects. Intentionally or not, the media perpetuates the ambiguous boogeyman that is the black male.
When the media depicts "poor people", they display black people with weighty disproportion. And, with FOX's undisputed reign in the news world, it is without a ton of merit that one argues the mainstream media has a pronounced liberal bias anymore. That is a relic of the past. In fact, one university study has theorized that the media creates and/or exacerbates racial bias.

This is kinda getting to my point. A member of a white supremacy group, is going to be charged for a hate crime against black people. A member of the Black Panthers, or other "Black Power" group, not neccessarily so. There needs to be more evidence.

Yes, there needs to be evidence. That is how any civilized justice system works. It is not court bias that white supremacists tend to make it easier to convict them.

Association with a hate group has never been considered enough in and of itself, anywhere. Here in Washington, we recently had a white supremacist with brilliant and undeniable tattoo work kill three people and maim a fourth. He's not being charged with a hate crime, because it probably wasn't a hate crime.

In fact, you can assault some Muslims outside of a mosque while yelling that they're all terrorists, and you still don't get charged with a hate crime if hate didn't motivate the attack. And in 2009, a few cops got charged with covering up a hate crime in Pennsylvania. That chief actually went to prison.

But, overall, hate crimes are difficult to prove and rarely prosecuted. This angers all races (and other protected classes), which is one of the reasons I don't support hate crime legislation. It has the potential to be applied inconsistently, or downright insufficiently, which maybe spurs more resentment than the crimes themselves.
 
I'll be more then happy to read whatever article you can provide, there must be one, since you compared the two.

It happens in Seattle practically annually. However, it was so bad in '99, and it is essentially an annual occurrence, police are more prepared than other cities that have seen riots. Only, it's not college students. Anarchists, which are pretty exclusively young white people. Here's what happened this year. In fact, police were so illegally forceful in the '99 riots, they under-performed in the '01 riot, and they've got it pretty well balanced out, now. Long history of rioting in Seattle.

But, it's whites, so were you even aware of riots in Seattle? I'd bet the farm the answer is "no".

*You don't even see how you're being manipulated. But, we'll get to that.

We are talking about the numbers of violent crimes committed by each respective race, then comparing that to the national population for said race. That is what matters.

No, YOU are talking about the numbers of crime respective to each race, and that is not what matters, as I've been trying to explain. That is how you fall down the rabbit hole. That is what we popularly call not seeing the forest through the trees. You can get so focused on a very specific data set, that you ignore the big picture.

Which is precisely what you're doing. No one has contested that blacks are responsible for dramatically more crime, depending on the crime. That is very easily explained by poor education and dramatically higher unemployment rates. It's why crime is out of control in Alaska compared to Washington, despite fairly similar racial demographics and geography. Unemployment in Alaska is high, and education is poor. But no one's worked up about the hot goddamn mess that Alaska is, I guess because there are next to no black people.

My contention was that black crime is falling just like all other crime. So, it makes more sense to focus on the thing that isn't. This is basic. I work in manufacturing. We have common problems on the line. But if those common problems are trending in the right direction, we then turn our attention to the problem that is trending in the wrong direction, even if the incident of the problem trending well is higher than the problem that isn't. It's a board we meet in front of with a number of graphs representing issues from quality to safety to maintenance to attendance. If something is trending in the right direction, it gets placed in a translucent green folder on the board. If something is not, it goes in a translucent red folder. And the red folders get our attention.

Do you work? I'm not really sure why you are so damn resistant to this concept. It's been a mainstream tool in many business sectors for, like, ever. But, no, here you are, insisting they focus on the green folder. It blows my mind.

They are and have lost credibility with anyone who does enough research to know that they have a sinister agenda and it has nothing to do with equality. I actually feel bad for the good/intelligent people who support them, because they are doing nothing but taking advantage of your humanity and they have no honor. Which is so wrong.

Don't feel bad for me, lol. *As the famous historian, Daniel J. Boorstin once said, “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” You see the handful of unruly riots, and feel they carry more weight than the hundreds of peaceful protests (that, to be fair, the media doesn't report because there are no ratings to be had). Your own words betray you, the way they drip with disdain regarding black people's impact on your daddy's business, or general commentary on the shithole that is Baltimore. I will remind you again that I have spent time in Baltimore. To suggest, as you have, that an extended visit there will change my world-view only speaks to how limited yours is. I understand the last 100 years of economic history of Baltimore, its great decent into post-industrial modernism... And that unlocks a lot of answers.

It's bigger than race. All of this is bigger than race. But, because your average white person absolutely refuses to see it that way, that's where the struggle will remain. That's why BLM exists. Because ALM never did.
 
Back
Top