Infidel Dog

So what specifically are you recommending then? Social workers doing police work or better trained police? Decriminalizing certain crimes maybe? Legalizing which crime would have saved Rayshard Brooks.

BTW how did the mentally ill get into this? Rayshard did behave irrationally but I don't understand how a social worker would have stopped him from behaving the way he did. Would the social worker have gone to the McDonalds drive-thru late at night to wake him up, passed out in his car? Explain it to me.

Are you sure? Because wouldn't the social worker be the face the criminal sees as being in his way in your brave new world? Or is crime supposed to stop because a social worker is getting more money sitting in his office. Or if we just ignore crime does that mean it's gone?

Here's some interesting stats from 2016. I'm going to assume the sort of incidents where an officer is killed are the sort that inspire an officer to shoot the perp. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2016-statistics-for-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted-in-the-line-of-duty Social workers could stop those crimes the police were dealing with,, could they? How? Arm them maybe?

Here's a detail we either missed or hasn't been mentioned in the Brooks case. There were 2 officers. Which one had his taser stolen and which one shot. Why are we assuming we know the officer who shot knew it was a taser that was pointed at him? Running at night...in the heat of the moment. Edit: OK, pardon me...just reviewed the bodycam footage. One officer does cry out "He's got the fuckin' taser." Still...

Keeping things in perspective and showing why cops are inclined to shoot first: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-officer-shot-las-vegas-protest-paralyzed-71246536?cid=social_twitter_abcn Interesting that we hear about Rayshard Brooks before we hear about officer Mikalonis.

Love the title of this thread. Black humour but dead-on.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-police-officer-garrett-rolfe-fired-another-reassigned-after-rayshard-brooks-death Skip ahead to about 28:30 of the video below to see how the shooting happened.

I like the way if you try to go ghost with a VPN or a super secure browser like Tor or even a script controller like noscript Google will block you from all kinds of services (not just theirs) all over the internet and tell you it's for your security. If you don't let Google know what you're doing and who you are you're not secure, I guess. So sayeth the lord Google. Remember when Google's motto was "Don't be evil?" That turned into a joke real quick. I use that browser Brave sometimes. There's a bit of a learning curve but my next computer I'm going to switch there from Chrome, get a secure email like Protonmail and switch to a couple other services. The objective will be to try to disappear from Google. Google's YouTube will be a tough one to give up. Bit Chute and others are OK but they won't transfer to message boards. You can just do links.

https://conservativemedia.com/news/abolish-police-make-college-free-seattles-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-issues-list-demands/

There's a fascinating one HERE on how the anarcho-communists of BLM get financed by celebrities, the corporates and Soros style money managers through NGOs. It isn't just the sneaky redistribution of tax money acquired through a capitalist system that finances them. There's a noteworthy angle in the article on the hypocrisy necessary from celebrities and corporates to be bucking up.

1. Cuck is a word that has been redefined from its classic definition which is a shortening of the word 'cuckold' and refers to weak individuals who will allow their wives to be unfaithful out of weakness. Cuckery is my personal addition to the lexicon (should I TM it?). It refers to the trend of socially subjugating the weak-minded. Hey...this is handy. Somebody gave me the pictorial definition above. 2. Arresting criminals is fascist now, is it? 3. I want to see Cuck-wagon races at the Calgary Stampede.

Really? They haven't cut off the water and electricity yet? Well, that's a head scratcher. This institutionalized commie cuckery that's been inculcated into the minds of university kids going on to be bureaucrats and public officials is just baffling. Why do we tolerate it? At least turn the fricken water and electricity off, dummies. If there's a way to cut cable and wifi, do that. Cut the cord to civilization. Show them what their green dream, rainbow red in the head coalition, Utopia actually looks like. Put a wall up on the other side of theirs and when they want to come out throw them in the paddy wagon.

You know who "Chief" Chucky Adam reminds me of? This guy: Here's a link if you don't recognize him: https://militaryphony.com/2019/01/27/nathan-phillips-aka-nathan-stanard-u-s-marine-corps-vietnam-vet-blog-of-shame/ Wait...this one should do it: Nathan and Chief Chuck both know it doesn't matter what you say or how big the lie is. It's all in the production.

Charlie Adam is an actor. He put on a show once before for what I'll call a Soros production. https://torontosun.com/2014/01/17/first-nations-chief-received-55000-from-tides-foundation/wcm/e63d8d29-9c48-4db6-ba64-9c782fb886f2 Would you like to see how phoney this guy actually is? You've seen the video with your own eyes. Read the description from the left wing Huffington Post on what he and the progs of huff po say happened then all you have to do is ask yourself what you believe - next year's Oscar nominee's performance or your lying eyes. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/adam-allan-rcmp-beat_ca_5edc16fcc5b64a0af20f21c0

Lately, I'm hearing the 2 sides described as those who believe in equality of opportunity versus those who believe in equality of outcome. The opportunity guys are about the rights of the individual and the belief they can decide what's best for them and theirs better than the government. That's not to say there shouldn't be any government but ideally no more than you need to keep a society functioning and anything more grudgingly. You can find what likes to be called classic liberals and what I'll call call classic conservatives on this side. And these two groups might not agree on everything but they can talk to each other. The equality of outcome guys believe in order to keep things fair equality has to be managed. More government is how you do it. And there doesn't seem to be a limit. This is where you find the "Progressives." The thing about 'Progressives' is they aren't actually progressive. Some classic liberals call them the 'regressive left'. I'm not sure that's accurate because you'll see them infiltrating and attempting to hijack both classic sides. Self identifying progressives don't actually fit the definition of politically "progressive" as commonly defined. If you'd like to see what I mean use the definition of progressive Wikipedia uses and find me a progressive. They don't exist. What you will find in the reality of the progressive movement, is identity politics. The balkanizing of society into perverted groups moving with twisted attempts at imagined equity, tribalistically chanting beliefs in their superior virtue, calling for a unified government management they believe must recognize their scattered priorities. They are prepared to dismantle what is out of some vague internalized belief in some vague external promise of Utopia on the other end with a benign all powerful government watching over them. I sometimes think of those calling themselves progressives as progressive socialists - even if they don't know it themselves. Other times I think of them as a virus currently infecting western society.

The videos are all really short. They might be worth checking out to give you an example of the kind of lame arguments you'll be facing when you ask for an example of systemic racism. Would you like a 'for instance?' And it might be just be me and a kind of ideological bigotry against progressive cucks but aren't these people delivering the videos total cringe? I watched the first few seconds of both the guy and the woman and just went 'i-hhhhh...' with a shiver right down to my gut.

You don't actually have to watch the videos. I tried a couple. I saw what I expected. You've already heard the arguments. Some of us have heard the counter-arguments. Lack of agency, Fatherless homes, Democrat maneuvering to create a voter plantation by creating a dependency of the weaker element of the culture on Democrat gifts. I imagine there's more. Here's the categories of the videos pretending they prove systematic racism of blacks. As I said, you most likely already know the arguments to most of them. Wealth Gap, Employment, Housing, Government Surveillance, Incarceration, Drug arrests, Immigration, Infant mortality

Glad you finally came around. Now let's talk about profiling. Profiling happens. You don't go too long in a day without profiling something. Let's say two different sets of police officers address two different calls on opposite sides of the city. The east side cops come up to the doorway to knock and a snarling dog comes around the corner. It's a pit bull. As the west side side cops approach their door a different snarling dog comes around the corner. It's a chihuahua. Which one is more likely to be shot? (But no, race-baiters I'm not saying all Blacks are pit bulls. I'm offering a simplified example to clarify what should be an obvious, general, human response mechanism.) George Floyd wasn't just black. He was 6 foot 6, acting erratically, most likely resisting arrest from what video footage is available, and had a criminal record. Was he profiled? Most likely but why are we assuming race was on the top of that profile? And if race did jump a notch on the profile list would the fact that a race representing 13% of the population commits 25% of police murders explain some of that. It wouldn't justify the excessive force used to subdue Floyd but it might help us to understand how the race factor could jump up a level on the profile list. Now before we were able to bring Boges to the rational understanding of what happened here he seemed to be telling us how blacks had a history of being persecuted and therefore their reaction to the Floyd shooting was understandable, even excusable. Apparently the Atlantic agreed with him so it had to be true. It would seem one-time Boges and the Atlantic agree that the historical profile they were using explained their particular POV and justified any resulting crime. I don't think so myself but that's what they seemed to be saying. And no, I don't think the excessive force used by Chauvin to subdue Floyd was excusable even though I understand how a complex and most likely flawed profile in Chauvin's head might explain his actions. I can't help noticing that nobody around today was responsible for any of this persecution of the black race. But I hear the Atlantic was able to sell assorted gullible, dhimi, cuck types on the idea historical profiling is a righteous justifier for radicals burning their city down causing suffering to the very people who were once historically persecuted. That's a race-baited historical profile and not a very convincing one. Profiling isn't always correct. Some might say it isn't often correct but it does happen and if we're going to judge it maybe we it should take these profiles apart rationally and judge what they actually might explain - if anything. They don't excuse anything in the Floyd case or the race-baited riots where an attempted excuse of a historic profile was offered up to justify them but it might help us understand more correctly how they motivate people.

First of all nobody cares about the daytime protests. although there's a lot Democrat hypocrisy there if you factor in the lack of social distancing. But it's more the night time riots, of violence, vandalism and looting rational people object most to. Irrelevant to what? Statistics are very relevant to disproving the idea there is "institutionalized racism." Not only can one notice that there is no actual proof of institutional racism but one can see the real mechanics of what is offered up as support for the fallacy. Blacks are not violently persecuted in a way that other races are not. Such cases of excessive police violence against black are random, rare, not distinguishable by race and any claim of disproportionate persecution by race is neutered by the fact blacks are more likely to be involved in a violent confrontation with police. They are committing more violent crime even when you factor in their smaller demographic. But if you want to emotionalize individual events - White Daniel Shaver was on his knees with his hands up begging police not to shoot when they shot him. Justine Diamond was a white lady in her pyjamas. Tony Timpa was a white guy gasping for air, telling police he couldn't breath. According to the Washington Post there were 19 cases like that of police killing whites last year. There were only 9 cases of police killing blacks. So knowing that and the fact that over 50% of violent murders are committed by the black 13% of the population let's reconsider the hyper-emotionalized case of Breona Taylor. Taylor was in what the police considered "a drug-house." She was with her boyfriend. The police had a warrant. There are conflicting statements as to whether they announced their presence. Taylor's boyfriend shot first. He was licensed to carry. Taylor was caught in the following spray of gunfire. Tragic, but how does it show institutional racism? If she's black then possible excessive force is racism, but if you're white like Tony Timpa (who also couldn't breath), Daniel Shaver (shot on his knees with his hands up) or Justine Diamond (shot by a police officer of a different race in her pyjamas) it doesn't. Is that your point?

The facts don't say blacks are "more violent therefore they deserve to be killed." They say blacks are far more statistically likely to be involved in violent crime and therefore far more likely to get into a violent confrontation with police. Police killings of blacks are rare but less likely than police killings of whites, even when you factor in the fact they make up a smaller percentage of the population.

Show me why the below is factually incorrect or just admit it and move on: https://www.unz.com/article/the-manufactured-crisis-of-police-racism/

I deny racism with facts. If reality offends you that's not my problem. If you believe you have some evidential support for systematic reasons explaining the vastly disproportionate violent crime committed by blacks produce it. Either that or just admit you don't have it and we can write it off as just another thing you'd like to believe. One more time...whites such as Tony Timpa, Daniel Shaver, and Justine Diamond were slaughtered by the police. It isn't just blacks.

Blacks don't just commit more crimes they commit more violent crimes. A vastly disproportionate amount by demographic or any other criteria you'd like to mention. As a result they find themselves in more violent confrontations with the police - often with black officers. Institutionalized racism against blacks doesn't exist. Show me how it does. Don't pose like you have factual support for something if you don't. If dinosaurs are reasoning with facts and the New, New Normal is running on out-the-butt reasoning sign me up as a T Rex. And even if there was factual support (which there isn't) for "institutionalized racism" the riots are happening in areas run by Democrats, sometimes (as in the riot-ridden cases of Baltimore and Minneapolis run by black police chiefs) so explain that.