|
|
Post by X factor on Aug 21, 2014 14:13:41 GMT -5
One of two videos which kind of demonstrate the 'rage' inside of a few Officers that are trusted with weapons
In this video, Officer 'cracks' or something and begins threatening a bunch of reporters. If the Officer had raised his gun like that, at others as a civilian, charges would have been filed and they would of been arrested on the spot, but most Officers get immunity from such actions.
Not saying his job isn't hard and stressful but they shouldn't be hiring people who have such disdain, hatred and fear of the public they patrol.
Next video.
In this video, early on in protests, Officer verbally lashes out at Protesters and refers to them as 'Animals'.
This Officer was probably not use to deal with so many 'non whites' in a uncontrolled situation, as such again 'freaked out'.
I'm seeing a pattern here of fear and hostility from certain Officers towards certain citizens.
Again, they need to do a better job at phycologically profiling Officer candidates before bringing them onto force.
How can 'black' citizens have take comfort in Law enforcement when they're caught on tape openly spilling out what they really feel on the inside.
If a Officer thinks you're an 'animal'...why would the people he's referring to trust ever to give him a report, or trust his testimony in court and so forth.
And if a few Officers have been caught on camera 'slipping' is their disdain for 'blacks' and or other civilians prevalent throughout their ranks?
And could a reasonable person make the assumption that the Officer who confronted Mike Brown also felt like the other two cops above.
Admittedly the Officer in first video made no racial remarks, but still raised his weapon at civilian white reporters.
There is no feeling like having another human being raise a weapon at you, expesially when they're upset and irrational.
I'm sure those young reporters will be traumatized for a long time.
This will be a long trial and process so over the course we'll try to examine all sides of issues worth noting.
|
|
|
|
Post by X factor on Aug 21, 2014 14:36:35 GMT -5
Odd thing is is if another criminal had shot Mike Brown, no one would even care, would not have even made the front page news.
If Mike Brown had been walking home, and was shot up by a street tough, some rogue hood type, none of us would even know the guys name.
Which just gives me a conspiracy theory on why...never mind, that's for another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by X factor on Aug 21, 2014 19:36:03 GMT -5
4 eye witnesses wrote down or shared slightly different accounts of their time with Jesus, yet no one doubts their credibility
People in the media seem either dumb or disingenuous to me in that no one ever brings up 'meaty' stuff like this, accept here in the Zone.
Like the fact Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, all walked with Jesus, yet each gives slightly different account of events that occurred, or time lines ect, yet no one doubts their credibility (those who believe in the bible anyways).
I guess if the 4 who's testimony the Gospel was based on were in court today, it would be tossed out do to 'inconsistency'.
We all know 6 people can witness same event, yet describe it differently.
Six people can witness a car crash, yet describe it differently.
3 people can go on same vacation, yet describe it differently, but that doesn't mean since how each describes vacation that 2 must be lying and only one telling the truth.
Yet witnesses in trial will be treated in such a way by defense, and I suppose that's the defenses job.
|
|
|
|
Post by X factor on Aug 24, 2014 18:00:19 GMT -5
Pamela Smart trial of the 1980's One thing I notice, as I watch this HBO documentary about older trials, is that the cuter society perceives you, the different your 'guilt' is classified. The young man above, was 17 at the time, yet when you hear people describe them they use terms like 'Oh, but he was so cute' or 'Oh, but he was so innocent, could of been my own son or sibling' ect ect. And Pamela herself looked like a TV anchor babe. If you remember or read this link here...> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Smart the trial and conviction was over Pamela smart conspiring with three of her friends to kill her 24 year old husband. But the trial just had a different feel to it, as people sought to 'understand those involved', and even 'Flynn' the guy above, was portrayed as an innocent cute Teddy Bear'. This was the OJ trial back then, but of the 'White community'. Where everyone involved, although guilty, were narrated in a soap opera way. Now I'm not stupid and no why, cause it was a crime of 'passion' rather than one of random malicious violence. Also the people involved weren't into 'thug' culture, they all came from normal small town environment. But truth is, the more cute you are, or perceived by society, the more sympathy people, broader society, have on you. And cops are less likely to shoot you when you share their DNA, or raised in their own community where they know your Dad or Mom or Brother. But in urban areas that's not the case, many of the Police patrolling those areas are totally cut off from the communities they serve and is why those they deal with are often dealt with in such a cold callous manner. Younger white males are smart in that they know how to play to the mindset of society, they know how to 'spin' themselves as being, looking, appearing soft and innocent, while hacking into account and robbing people of millions. Black males, on the other hand, have embraced a very tough, rough looking, goblin thug image, which totally works against them in every way, accept maybe in adult films...  But by black males embracing this tough, ugly, rough, no feelings thug roles, their guilt is always assumed, rather than known....and works against them in the penal system and public.
|
|
|
|
Post by X factor on Aug 26, 2014 9:07:24 GMT -5
People who own nothing tend to riot more
If people could remove color from the equation, they could better see the types who riot and pilage during urban social unrest, and they would see that it's mainly composed of citizens who do not own any personal property themselves.
And again, if you remove color from equation, one can see those who live in areas where they own their own homes, property, are way less likely to riot since they have much invested in where they live.
People who feel they have nothing invested in where they live are always much more likely to riot and or loot.
It's much easier for most to simply look at color, and lump all people of African ancestry together in a negative light, while not pointing out that even within the generic color designation lies many differences.
A lazy racist or bigot doesn't attempt to make distinctions, and instead lumps all people of color together, and uses the lowest common denominator of behavior to stereotype all.
In other words a bigot cannot, nor do they want to distinguish the difference between a family of four, living a normal productive life, and a thug walking down street with wife better T-shirt on with 40 malt liquor in hand.
To a bigot, they're both 'black' as such both are hardwired to act and behave the same way in the bigots eyes.
All and all though I'm ready for this story to go away.
But if I must write about it, I prefer to do so in other ways, use the story to bring out other issues within this Ferguson event.
|
|
|
|
Post by X factor on Sept 9, 2014 19:29:23 GMT -5
This is the kind of blatant racial injustice Fox News and or Hannity will never tell you aboutblatant racist practices in Ferguson (link in red) Which also effect the whole 'Duh, blacks commit more crimes than others'...no wonder after reading this. It's all corrupt.
|
|
|
|
Post by X factor on Sept 26, 2014 21:28:12 GMT -5
Michael Brown, of Ferguson, got shot dead for doing a lot less than this guy.
The guy in video beats on two cops, and never once did they draw their guns.
He was bigger, older, stronger, and a much better fighter than Michael Brown of Ferguson, yet neither cop ever thought about drawing their weapons.
And people wonder why crime stats are so scewed.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by X factor on Mar 23, 2015 18:21:33 GMT -5
Once again, random criminal violence against others, is not the same as State sanctioned Police violence against citizens.
People who make stupid argument of 'Well duh, why are civil rights activist or other blacks, outraged over black on black violence and shooting', are 3 wits short of being dense.
State sanctioned police shooting unarmed citizens unjustifiably, and random street criminals shooting at other citizens are two totally different issues.
For one, when criminals shoot, kill, murder other people, they're brought to justice when caught, and that's the main reason why there's no 'outrage'.
Where as when Officer shoots citizen, justified or not, often in past, and present, officer gets off.
That's what outrages people.
It's only a civil rights issue when State or Government sanctioned Officers step on the liberty of others unfairly, not when gang members shoot at other gang members and or criminals.
Of course people are outraged about that, but crime has been around forever, every since Adam and Eve kicked out of garden.
Criminal on criminal crime has nothing to do with, it totally different than Government on citizen crime (perceived)...where government officials are more likely to get off, be justified by peers, the system, where as if citizen were to do the same, would be locked up and charged.
If you're honest you'll understand that, if political hack, never mind, return to Rush radio.
|
|
