Pretext stops are a police custom for stopping black people ... Yes, police can pull you over for hanging an air freshener in your car

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
I never said they did. Whether the shooting was on purpose or an accident, the cop is facing charges and it will come out in court. What are you suggesting? Defunding cops? Disarming cops? Sending in social workers? Change the cop's rules if you want, but people will always make mistakes or break the rules and you'll have to settle it in court.

Some would argue that for all intents and purposes, much is "settled" when a person is actually shot.

I mean, it's kinda "settled" for Duante, no?
 

Texan

Active member
Some would argue that for all intents and purposes, much is "settled" when a person is actually shot.

I mean, it's kinda "settled" for Duante, no?
It's settled for Daunte, but the cop needs to face the justice system to answer for what happened. Whatever the bar is for police performance, there will always be people crossing that line due to ill intent, negligence, or a simple accident. Thats why we have courts.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
What is this abundance of reasonable evidence? That she said, "taser taser", shot him, then said, "Oh God I shot him.", and dropped the gun? All on body cam, and seen by millions? Shades of Rodney King. Just another unarmed Black man dead, and another White cop that did it. Right? Did I miss this abondance of factual evidence? Are you more interested in justice for the victim, or hoping to legally circumvent it?

Since 1968 until April 11th 2021, there have been a total of 172 unarmed Killings of Black Americans(including 26 unarmed Black American Females, and one unborn foetus), killed by White police officers(80%). 15 of these officers even went on to kill for a second, and even a third time. The signature excuse for many of these sociopathic cowards, is also their mantra. "I was in fear of my life.". And, over 90% of these cowards get away with it, to kill again.


The difference between us, is that I believe in justice. Not, "just us". I don't look at Blacks and other minorities as potential thieves, liars, murderers, criminals, or as being inferior beings. I look at them all as equal citizens, deserving of the same opportunities and protection under the law, without bias or prejudice, as I do.

You have stated that she should not be convicted of any crime, even though she shot and killed an unarmed human being. Are you saying that you believe that she did not commit a crime at all? Or, that if you simply say, "Oop, I'm sorry I made a mistake under pressure..", that you should not be accountable for your actions? I'm sure if the officer was a Black man, and the victim was a White female, you'd be singing a different tune. IMHO

And, if there IS a call for her to be convicted of a crime, IT WILL BE BECAUSE SHE ACTUALLY COMMITTED A CRIME!!! I get it. Paternal instincts kicking in. But if it were my child she "mistakenly blew away", she'd be dead.

There are many cases where there is a genuine fear for your life, and the use of deadly force is certainly justified. But, this is just not one of them.

Well, you had your say, & so did I. We both voiced our "Personal Opinions".

All said.....when the dust settles the State's Prosecution still has to convince the jury UNANIMOUSLY beyond a 'reasonable doubt' that she did exactly what you said she did, while the defense needs only to convince ONE (1) JUROR that the Prosecution failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt.....

That said.....here's a funny video that has a valuable message....enjoy:


Cheers...



..
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Well, you had your say, & so did I. We both voiced our "Personal Opinions".

All said.....when the dust settles the State's Prosecution still has to convince the jury UNANIMOUSLY beyond a 'reasonable doubt' that she did exactly what you said she did, while the defense needs only to convince ONE (1) JUROR that the Prosecution failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt.....

That said.....here's a funny video that has a valuable message....enjoy:



Cheers...



..
Thank you for the video. Really enjoyed it. Especially about riding with a White person. Sad that one group in society must adhere to a different set of rules, to stay alive in society. But hey, shit happens, right?

Because of her body cam, there is NO reasonable doubt if she killed Mr. Wright. That is beyond any reasonable doubt. Under the law, she is guilty of Manslaughter. The objective facts prove she committed Manslaughter. The only extenuating circumstances is that she didn't mean to do it. And, that it was only a tragic accident.

Fortunately, neither are relevant under this statute. But, hey stranger things have happened to circumvent justice(in the interest of justice, public sympathy, etc.).
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
.......Because of her body cam, there is NO reasonable doubt if she killed Mr. Wright. That is beyond any reasonable doubt. Under the law, she is guilty of Manslaughter. The objective facts prove she committed Manslaughter. The only extenuating circumstances is that she didn't mean to do it. And, that it was only a tragic accident..........
IMHO I think it may be more difficult case for the State's Prosecution than you seem to believe it to be......I think below, he's discussing a Minnesota Manslaughter Statute, as opposed to one you seem to be more familiar with......

Source: NEW YORK TIMES
...........Richard Frase, a professor of criminal law at the University of Minnesota, said the second-degree manslaughter statute is worded narrowly enough that the case might prove difficult for prosecutors to prove, noting that it requires them to show that Ms. Potter consciously took a chance of “causing death or great bodily harm.

“She thinks she’s firing a Taser,” he said of the former officer. “How can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she consciously took chances of at least causing great bodily harm?”............
With your open mind, does it sound remotely plausible?

What say ye?
 
Last edited:

Squire

Active member
@HBS Guy @DreamRyderX @Shellandshilo1956

Interesting article from a credible source.

The article is nonsensical. The article describes causes as "threats", "need for immediate action", "simultaneous efforts to communicate", "de-escalation attempts". There was no threat in this case and all of the other causes should not have required the drawing of any type of weapon.


"A “capture error” can occur when an infrequent action like drawing a Taser is non-consciously substituted by a similar, more familiar, and more practiced action—like drawing a firearm. Research has shown that people are particularly susceptible to this type of error when they are occupied by other mental processes. For police, these processes might involve time-compressed threat assessments, the need for immediate action, or simultaneous efforts to communicate—including verbal warnings and de-escalation attempts."
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
With your open mind, does it sound remotely plausible?

What say ye?
With an open mind, it is plausible to make shit sound good enough to eat. But this doesn't mean that eating shit is the right thing to do. Plausibility is NOT Truth. It is just an assumption that makes something seem reasonable and probable. It is NOT fact. At best, it is a distraction(twinkie defense). At worse, it is social injustice. Would you like to hear all the plausible reasons that support racism and bigotry, from White Supremacists? I wonder what the demographics of the jury will be?

IMHO I think it may be more difficult case for the State's Prosecution than you seem to believe it to be......I think below, he's discussing a Minnesota Manslaughter Statute, as opposed to one you seem to be more familiar with......
Because this is now a high-profile case, and a search for an excuse for killing an unarmed civilian, the defense must find a PLAUSIBLE reason to excuse/justify her actions. Their job is to obscure, distort, hide, and distract from the truth. This White female cop panicked under the pressure from a non-lethal threat. There was no conscious de-escalation made at all. She panicked so much, that she couldn't distinguish, by sight, shape, feel, or weight, the difference between her own fully-loaded gun, and her non-lethal taser. That would be like confusing your torch for your gun.

Whether her actions were an accident, or an excuse, she is still morally and legally culpable. What if she never said a word? Would that have made the outcome any different? I asked you both before, what if it were a Black female cop, that shot and killed your unarmed son coming home from his prom? Your silence was deafening! We certainly wouldn't be having this conversation, and you know it!

She is responsible for her actions, and ignorance is no excuse. But you are correct. There may be one White male on the jury, that is only looking for an excuse to let her go. If the defense is able to manufacture enough doubt, with these inventive, adjunct, coincidental, and conceived constructs, she will be set free. Just another armed confused White girl who just made a mistake. Everyone makes a mistake, right?? And, poor Daunte Wright was just a tragic victim of an act of God, right?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
@HBS Guy @DreamRyderX @Shellandshilo1956

Interesting article from a credible source.

A CREDIBLE SOURCE, Seth? Really? It is an institution that trains police officers, for Christ sake!!! Do you think that they just might have some hidden agenda for their take on this incident?


Don't you think that they just might want to distance themselves, from any questions referring to their training methodologies. We can use our common sense, and query just how many other cases of "unintended weapon selection" have occured, to justify this absurd, and convenient theory after the fact. Or, we can conclude, that this one-off incident has a rational and plausible explanation, because we are told that this incident has a rational and plausible explanation. HOW ABOUT BEING TOLD THAT THESE EXPLANATIONS ARE ALSO IRRELEVANT?!! Extenuating circumstances can disprove intent, but they can't justify an unlawful killing.

Another obvious problem we need to address is prevention. How do we insure that this one-off incident never happens again? Stop training officers on the use of their equipment? To force them to check which equipment they have selected to use? Since this training ain't gonna happen, lets just "baffle them with bullshit". That will always work. "Unintentional equipment selection"!! Give me a break. But, at least it does sound "girlish". IMHO

At least one sociopathic cop will be off the street, and where he belongs. The scary thing is, that this case would never have happened, if there WAS no public outrage against this coward's actions.


Since I could never watch the actual killing on the video, a few questions. Was the window of the car open, partially open, or closed before she fired? Was Mr. Wright shot in the head, or the body? Is it policy to shoot a taser at anyone operating, or trying to operate a motor vehicle? Is it policy to shoot a taser through window glass, or to aim for the head or neck regions? Finally, what was the non-lethal personal threat/fear that required the use of the taser?

Wonder what the next batch of deepities will be?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
A CREDIBLE SOURCE, Seth? Really? It is an institution that trains police officers, for Christ sake!!! Do you think that they just might have some hidden agenda for their take on this incident?


Don't you think that they just might want to distance themselves, from any questions referring to their training methodologies. We can use our common sense, and query just how many other cases of "unintended weapon selection" have occured, to justify this absurd, and convenient theory after the fact. Or, we can conclude, that this one-off incident has a rational and plausible explanation, because we are told that this incident has a rational and plausible explanation. HOW ABOUT BEING TOLD THAT THESE EXPLANATIONS ARE ALSO IRRELEVANT?!! Extenuating circumstances can disprove intent, but they can't justify an unlawful killing.

Another obvious problem we need to address is prevention. How do we insure that this one-off incident never happens again? Stop training officers on the use of their equipment? To force them to check which equipment they have selected to use? Since this training ain't gonna happen, lets just "baffle them with bullshit". That will always work. "Unintentional equipment selection"!! Give me a break. But, at least it does sound "girlish". IMHO

At least one sociopathic cop will be off the street, and where he belongs. The scary thing is, that this case would never have happened, if there WAS no public outrage against this coward's actions.


Since I could never watch the actual killing on the video, a few questions. Was the window of the car open, partially open, or closed before she fired? Was Mr. Wright shot in the head, or the body? Is it policy to shoot a taser at anyone operating, or trying to operate a motor vehicle? Is it policy to shoot a taser through window glass, or to aim for the head or neck regions? Finally, what was the non-lethal personal threat/fear that required the use of the taser?

Wonder what the next batch of deepities will be?
Yes, a credible source. I know of no other organization that does this research.

The instructional team at the Force Science Institute is comprised of a world-class team of physicians, psychologists, behavioral scientists, attorneys, law enforcement trainers, and other leading professionals. Our goal is simple, to provide an unbiased application and further study of existing scientific research associated with human behavior, dynamics, and performance as it relates to high-stress, rapidly unfolding encounters. Furthermore, to provide data, resources, and tools to individuals and teams tasked with fact-finding investigations for use of force encounters.

A partial list of their staff....

William J. Lewinski, Ph.D. - founder of Force Science Institute

Edward Geiselman, Ph.D.

John Azar-Dickens, Ph.D., PC

Robert Pettitt, Ph.D.

Christine Hall, M.D.

David W. Hines, M.D.

Ann H. Messer, M.D.

William P. Bozeman, M.D.

Gary M. Vilke, M.D.

Laura L. Scarry, JD

William J. Everett, JD


Shell, it sounds like you were a cop a long, long time ago. Back in the day, there was no research like this. This is modern, state of the art, objective research. It is fascinating.

As for your questions about the Duante Wright accidental shooting, I haven't watched the video.

I don't know where he was shot.

Policy is determined by each department, so I don't know if the officer's department had any policy about tasing someone behind the wheel of a car.

A Taser won't penetrate window glass.

In training you are told to avoid hitting the neck or above the neck. The target is supposed to be the mid-lower torso.

A Taser may be used to counter active physical resistance to arrest or physical assault.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
IMHO I think it may be more difficult case for the State's Prosecution than you seem to believe it to be......I think below, he's discussing a Minnesota Manslaughter Statute, as opposed to one you seem to be more familiar with......

Source: NEW YORK TIMES

With your open mind, does it sound remotely plausible?

What say ye?
Manslaughter is a given. She is guilty of killing Mr Wright.

It was not involuntary, as we call it here, she was deliberately trying to intimidate and whatever else..? pulling a Taser when there is no threat, just a refusal to obey, ( and who could blame him? ) is bad enough. To then pull out her service weapon and shoot the guy.. who as far as I can see, wasn't doing anything requiring these actions by the police in the first place, is just murder. Negligence and fear do not excuse these actions.

She should charged with both manslaughter, and murder.... to what degree its not up to me.

By the way did you all get THE NAME of Mr Floyd's convicted MURDERER.?

CHAUVIN. Do you think that is an assumed name. ? I wonder, given it's associations.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Yes, a credible source. I know of no other organization that does this research.

The instructional team at the Force Science Institute is comprised of a world-class team of physicians, psychologists, behavioral scientists, attorneys, law enforcement trainers, and other leading professionals. Our goal is simple, to provide an unbiased application and further study of existing scientific research associated with human behavior, dynamics, and performance as it relates to high-stress, rapidly unfolding encounters. Furthermore, to provide data, resources, and tools to individuals and teams tasked with fact-finding investigations for use of force encounters.

A partial list of their staff....

William J. Lewinski, Ph.D. - founder of Force Science Institute

Edward Geiselman, Ph.D.

John Azar-Dickens, Ph.D., PC

Robert Pettitt, Ph.D.

Christine Hall, M.D.

David W. Hines, M.D.

Ann H. Messer, M.D.

William P. Bozeman, M.D.

Gary M. Vilke, M.D.

Laura L. Scarry, JD

William J. Everett, JD


Shell, it sounds like you were a cop a long, long time ago. Back in the day, there was no research like this. This is modern, state of the art, objective research. It is fascinating.

As for your questions about the Duante Wright accidental shooting, I haven't watched the video.

I don't know where he was shot.

Policy is determined by each department, so I don't know if the officer's department had any policy about tasing someone behind the wheel of a car.

A Taser won't penetrate window glass.

In training you are told to avoid hitting the neck or above the neck. The target is supposed to be the mid-lower torso.

A Taser may be used to counter active physical resistance to arrest or physical assault.
I said "credible" source Seth, Not "credentialed" source. Which of these experts in police training, is the expert in "How to avoid Unintentional Weapon Selection Confusion"? And, what is the name of this training course? Or, is this just a self-serving deepity for the moment? Although it is irrelevant how many other police training institutes there are, how do these experts suggest that we prevent this from happening again? Limiting weapon selection training, to avoid confusion?

You are correct I was on the force a long time ago. We only had a nightstick, our cuffs, a gun, a radio, two speed-loader pouches, and our trusty maglight on our belt(and maybe a throw-away). That's it(no cell phones, pepper sprays, or tasers). The rest was all initiative, creativity, trial and error, confidence, guts, and a lot of bullshit luck. Claiming a weapons selection confusion error, would be the biggest laugh in the station. Especially since the term comes from so-called experts, who probably never worked a day on the streets. Anytime I hear "modern, state of the art...", my ass starts to pucker. I have no doubt that the research is truly fascinating, but experience will always be the mother of all inventions. And, if this modern research is producing autocratic, technocratic, emotionalist, characterless, herd thinkers, then I prefer those good old days. Unarmed killings were indeed a rarity back then. Respect was gained through character, NOT from the body count.

Common sense, not training, tells me that you don't shoot a taser through any glass window. Common sense, not training, tells me that you don't shoot a person in the head or neck with a taser. Had he been shot in the head or neck, it meant that she was aiming at his head or neck, or that the window was only partially open. Had the window been completely closed, she would NOT have fired, what she thought was her taser. Assuming this is how she was trained.

I think he was shot in the chest.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I said "credible" source Seth, Not "credentialed" source. Which of these experts in police training, is the expert in "How to avoid Unintentional Weapon Selection Confusion"? And, what is the name of this training course? Or, is this just a self-serving deepity for the moment? Although it is irrelevant how many other police training institutes there are, how do these experts suggest that we prevent this from happening again? Limiting weapon selection training, to avoid confusion?

You are correct I was on the force a long time ago. We only had a nightstick, our cuffs, a gun, a radio, two speed-loader pouches, and our trusty maglight on our belt(and maybe a throw-away). That's it(no cell phones, pepper sprays, or tasers). The rest was all initiative, creativity, trial and error, confidence, guts, and a lot of bullshit luck. Claiming a weapons selection confusion error, would be the biggest laugh in the station. Especially since the term comes from so-called experts, who probably never worked a day on the streets. Anytime I hear "modern, state of the art...", my ass starts to pucker. I have no doubt that the research is truly fascinating, but experience will always be the mother of all inventions. And, if this modern research is producing autocratic, technocratic, emotionalist, characterless, herd thinkers, then I prefer those good old days. Unarmed killings were indeed a rarity back then. Respect was gained through character, NOT from the body count.

Common sense, not training, tells me that you don't shoot a taser through any glass window. Common sense, not training, tells me that you don't shoot a person in the head or neck with a taser. Had he been shot in the head or neck, it meant that she was aiming at his head or neck, or that the window was only partially open. Had the window been completely closed, she would NOT have fired, what she thought was her taser. Assuming this is how she was trained.

I think he was shot in the chest.
My LE career began in 1974 in the Army Military Police for 3 years. My duty gun was an old Colt 45 that looked like it had been around since WW2. Our only other weapon was an old wooden baton. Portable radios were only carried by supervisors or certain special assignments.

A year and a half after the Army I was hired by a CA Sheriff’s Department. We carried revolvers with speedloaders. When I joined a municipal police agency in Oregon in the early 80s, we carried a revolver and Mace, but the Mace was almost never used because it usually contaminated the suspect AND the officer.

Eventually we carried all the modern equipment - pepper spray, ASP baton, Tasers, and Glock pistols.

But my default reaction to physical resistance was to “go hands on”. In my career I pepper sprayed one person. I never struck anyone with a baton. I threatened to a few times to good effect. I used it as a pry tool a few times to force a prone suspect’s hands from his front to his back (very effective). I was present for a number of Taser uses, but I was not the one pulling the trigger on the Taser.

I was not alone. All of the older officers were the same way. The younger officers were much quicker to draw and use a Taser, for example.

The Force Science Institute has done extensive research into how our brains react to sudden, rapidly evolving, dangerous events. As I said, it is fascinating. They also explain how the brain causes us to develop habits - how it builds habits neurologically. They use their own research combined with thousands of true life examples. FSI’s mission is not to defend or excuse illegal or malicious behavior. Their research is objective, not biased. Perhaps the greatest purpose they serve is to help make LE training better so that tragedies like the Daunte Wright/Kim Potter incident don’t happen.

Before you criticize or dismiss FSI, you ought to explore their website.

Seth
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
I was not alone. All of the older officers were the same way. The younger officers were much quicker to draw and use a Taser, for example.

Firstly, i want to say that from observing you over the time i've known you, Seth, i fully believe that you were a level-headed and humane policeman. I wish more cops were like you.

But what you said there struck close to strongly held belief of mine regarding the crime waves in various predominantly black neighbourhoods and the horrifying murder rate in those communities and that is ... they've locked up all the older black guys a decade or so ago, massively for rather trivial crimes white people walk away from.

We temper as we age ... and those on the ground doing the best work for at risk kids are men and women who have personal experience; who know exactly what they're talking about. For no smaller reason than they've earned their stripes in the underbelly and garner respect. More compellingly because they speak truth and can relate to these kids. But so many of them are rotting away in prison. So very many.

And the high number of single black mothers is too often blamed on black men being allegedly irresponsible and ignoring the high incarceration rate.

It seems incredibly counterproductive to me to have so many possible agents of good decaying in prison cells. What of rehabilitation? Is that simply a forgotten concept in incarceration over there? Is the aim merely punitive?

But when you spoke of the exuberance of rookie cops, i thought how pear shaped the whole system of policing would be if you removed the old guard. The cooler heads, as you say. It's probably safe to say the old guard had their own moments when they were rookies.

The example, i think, applies widely.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Firstly, i want to say that from observing you over the time i've known you, Seth, i fully believe that you were a level-headed and humane policeman. I wish more cops were like you.

But what you said there struck close to strongly held belief of mine regarding the crime waves in various predominantly black neighbourhoods and the horrifying murder rate in those communities and that is ... they've locked up all the older black guys a decade or so ago, massively for rather trivial crimes white people walk away from.

We temper as we age ... and those on the ground doing the best work for at risk kids are men and women who have personal experience; who know exactly what they're talking about. For no smaller reason than they've earned their stripes in the underbelly and garner respect. More compellingly because they speak truth and can relate to these kids. But so many of them are rotting away in prison. So very many.

And the high number of single black mothers is too often blamed on black men being allegedly irresponsible and ignoring the high incarceration rate.

It seems incredibly counterproductive to me to have so many possible agents of good decaying in prison cells. What of rehabilitation? Is that simply a forgotten concept in incarceration over there? Is the aim merely punitive?

But when you spoke of the exuberance of rookie cops, i thought how pear shaped the whole system of policing would be if you removed the old guard. The cooler heads, as you say. It's probably safe to say the old guard had their own moments when they were rookies.

The example, i think, applies widely.
Thank you for the compliment, and for once, I don’t disagree with you.

Strangely enough, it was Joe Biden who fought against school desegregation in his home state and who championed his crime bill that locked up tens of thousands- perhaps hundreds of thousands - of black men for those minor offenses, mostly possession or sales of drugs, while it was Satan himself, aka Trump, who supported and signed legislation giving amnesty to all federal prisoners who were in the federal prison system for those same non-violent offenses.

Oh yes, the old guard was once just a bunch of wide-eyed rookies at first, full of exuberance, but having no experience. We made our mistakes. But we had our old guard to correct us and set the example, and we learned from them.

It’s a tough profession to start as a young adult and to stay with all the way to retirement. I retired from it when I was 53 which seems to be close to when most cops retire. My fellow LE retirees regard us as survivors. I still work at age 65, but as a trainer. My days of going to bar fights, family fights, vehicle pursuits, car crashes, working swing and graveyard shifts and being at work on Christmas are all behind me now.

I miss it sometimes, though.

Thanks again.

Seth
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Did any of my comment inspire you to be partisan, Seth?

I think the problems with institutionalised racism go deeper than any one administration.

I was hoping for something more constructive than that from you.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Did any of my comment inspire you to be partisan, Seth?

I think the problems with institutionalised racism go deeper than any one administration.

I was hoping for something more constructive than that from you.
Mothra, clearly, racism in the U.S. was institutionalized ... in our past. In the present, however, I just don't accept that notion.

Not that racism doesn't exist in certain quarters. It does of course, and it is not confined to only white people.

But in the vast majority of America, institutionalized racism is a thing of the past.

Words from North Carolina's first black Lt. Governor Mark Robinson ....

“Am I to believe that black Americans who have overcome the atrocities of slavery, who were victorious in the civil rights movement, and who now sit in the highest levels of this government cannot figure out how to get a free ID to vote?,” Robinson said at the hearing. “That we need to be coddled by politicians because they don’t think we can figure out how to make our voices heard?”

“The notion that black people must be protected from a Free ID to secure their votes is not just insane, it’s insulting,”
he said. Robinson, whose mother grew up during the Jim Crow period, criticized the comparison between Jim Crow and Georgia’s voting laws.

“It’s not the same thing, not even close,” Robinson said when asked whether Georgia’s voter registration laws are akin to Jim Crow. “Not even on the same scale, not in the same arena.”

“This doesn’t have anything to do with justice,” he said. “This has everything to do with power.”


Words from Utah Rep. Burgess Owens, who is black ...

“The American Dream, getting to the middle class depends on having an ID, depends on being able to travel and getting on an airplane, going to school, all kinds of things. This is true bigotry, it is the soft bigotry of low expectations where all of a sudden black people can’t do what every other race, every other culture does.”

The soft bigotry he speaks of comes from the left.

More so than at any time in our history, blacks and latinos can succeed and live well in this country, as equals in every way. My view is that the overwhelming majority of Americans see us as just Americans, all of whom deserving of an equal opportunity to succeed and be happy and respected.

It is the political left that wants to perpetuate a racially based crisis in this country ... endlessly if they can, because they imagine political advantage by so doing. In my opinion, this will continue for a time, but eventually it will lose its luster, and when that happens the political left will move on to something else. To believe that the political left has a noble motivation in all of this is very naive, in my opinion.

The media is also complicit, btw. That includes Fox and all the liberal mouthpieces like CNN and NBC. Sadly, we don't have journalism anymore. We have major media that is married (often times literally) to political Washington, and that is a shame.

If I could, I wish I could tell people in other countries to be skeptical of what you read and see in the news about this country. There are two sides to every story, and, too often, you all are not told the other side of the story.

Seth
 

Squire

Active member
Blacks in the GOP have no possibility of advancing or even staying in the GOP without taking a knee to white supremacy. They are profiting from uttering and publishing words that please their white GOP masters.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Mothra, clearly, racism in the U.S. was institutionalized ... in our past. In the present, however, I just don't accept that notion.

Not that racism doesn't exist in certain quarters. It does of course, and it is not confined to only white people.

But in the vast majority of America, institutionalized racism is a thing of the past.

Words from North Carolina's first black Lt. Governor Mark Robinson ....

“Am I to believe that black Americans who have overcome the atrocities of slavery, who were victorious in the civil rights movement, and who now sit in the highest levels of this government cannot figure out how to get a free ID to vote?,” Robinson said at the hearing. “That we need to be coddled by politicians because they don’t think we can figure out how to make our voices heard?”

“The notion that black people must be protected from a Free ID to secure their votes is not just insane, it’s insulting,”
he said. Robinson, whose mother grew up during the Jim Crow period, criticized the comparison between Jim Crow and Georgia’s voting laws.

“It’s not the same thing, not even close,” Robinson said when asked whether Georgia’s voter registration laws are akin to Jim Crow. “Not even on the same scale, not in the same arena.”

“This doesn’t have anything to do with justice,” he said. “This has everything to do with power.”


Words from Utah Rep. Burgess Owens, who is black ...

“The American Dream, getting to the middle class depends on having an ID, depends on being able to travel and getting on an airplane, going to school, all kinds of things. This is true bigotry, it is the soft bigotry of low expectations where all of a sudden black people can’t do what every other race, every other culture does.”

The soft bigotry he speaks of comes from the left.

More so than at any time in our history, blacks and latinos can succeed and live well in this country, as equals in every way. My view is that the overwhelming majority of Americans see us as just Americans, all of whom deserving of an equal opportunity to succeed and be happy and respected.

It is the political left that wants to perpetuate a racially based crisis in this country ... endlessly if they can, because they imagine political advantage by so doing. In my opinion, this will continue for a time, but eventually it will lose its luster, and when that happens the political left will move on to something else. To believe that the political left has a noble motivation in all of this is very naive, in my opinion.

The media is also complicit, btw. That includes Fox and all the liberal mouthpieces like CNN and NBC. Sadly, we don't have journalism anymore. We have major media that is married (often times literally) to political Washington, and that is a shame.

If I could, I wish I could tell people in other countries to be skeptical of what you read and see in the news about this country. There are two sides to every story, and, too often, you all are not told the other side of the story.

Seth
No Seth. While black people are still locked up at a disproportionate rate, often with hefty sentences for trivial matters you know full well white people walk from all the time; while black people are still overrepresented in low socio-economic statuses; while black people are profiled by the police to the point they are murdered ... you still have institutionalised racism in your country.

Don't think i'm being in any way superior. Australia has it too. We're appalling. I'm deeply ashamed of my country for it's general race relations.

But it's there too. And like us, you blame them for it.
 
Top