re: This situation proves everything we have been trying to say since this whole BLM shite.....

quote:

---

Let's talk; I know that's difficult because we're clearly so far apart, but let's give it a go.

A white person being shot by a black cop, in my mind, does not immediately signify racism on the part of the black cop.

A black person being shot by a white cop, in my mind, does not immediately signify racism on the part of the white cop.

Cops have to shoot people. It's a tragic part of their job, and often leads to mental health issues. Very few people, even good people doing their jobs, are comfortable with the idea that they've killed someone, even if it was justified.

I do think that a black person being shot by a cop under the same circumstances would be more likely to be racism. We can get into why, but it has to do with very simple, and very deep societal and racial prejudices. This applies to cops of every race.

---

This is about the most rational statement I've ever seen from a political opponent on tiger droppings.



I would take exception to only one small part of your post -

quote:

---

black person being shot by a cop under the same circumstances would be more likely to be racism

---

I feel that 'more likely' is perhaps true - but so far down in probability that just uttering that 'possibility' is more prejudicious than ignoring it.

What is certain however, its that massive riots would ensue in that situation - and would be the driving factor for weeks, if not months. of 'analysis' on the MSM and stupid proclamations from race hustlers, and demands for statues all over the nation to be taken down, and streets to be renamed.

The unbalance in the reactions to this incident compared to past events that have caused so much disruption, destruction, and death is that major point to be taken from this tragedy.

This post is hilarious. So BLM is wrong and called an Anti-Police Terrorist Group for rallying against police who have killed black men who were at the time non-threatening to police, BUT they're ALSO wrong for not rallying for an Australian immigrant victim of a police shooting by an African immigrant cop? So what does that mean, what does that prove? That the group is Pro-Black, Anti-Police or both? When its been said its Pro-Black, we've been told by the right that this is untrue. Its simply Anti-Police, which the police is a group that also includes blacks. So now the right wing defined Anti-Police organization is wrong for not defending this female Australian victim after she was shot by this African immigrant cop, well that means that the organization just might not be Anti-Police right?

Let me hip you folks to something, most blacks don't want to see anybody die senselessly. We've seen too much of it to our own. We say, its sad what happened to someone like her, she did not deserve that and we believe that this cop should get what he deserves, no matter his race.

Next, Black and African are not the same. Maybe it is to you, but its like saying American whites and Italians, Irish or Jews were the same at the turn of 20th century. Two distinct groups within themselves. Let me hip you to something else, just like those groups around the turn of the 20th century I mentioned above, most African Americans and African Immigrants don't like each other or associate. There is dislike and denigration among both groups and have been for long periods of time.

American blacks are probably gonna be some of your last to defend African immigrants, sorry to shred your theory.

quote:

---

It's been all over CNN all day. The morning shows especially

---

They are covering the story, but has the word "racism" been mentioned in connection with it?

quote:

---

Shouldn't most somali migrants be somewhere like new York or other major eastern cities?

---

They congregate in the same city for support. Denver has a shite ton of ethopians. I always ask them what they think of the winters, and they say cold.

quote:

---

If this were to have been a black person killed it wouldn't get nearly the same amount of attention

---

Not sure how to respond to that - if you are talking about 50-60 years ago, perhaps there is some truth there.

But for the past generation - or two - any 'white on black' police action has been raised to the level of hysteria.

Perhaps you can clear up your statement - otherwise cannot even comment.

quote:

---

But if you consider yourself a major news network you should be held accountable or you should have to put for entertainment purposes only if you can't guarantee the truth. How hard is that to understand?

---

Actually, it's very hard to understand because we're not talking about Algebra here.

Moreover, I can be dishonest as frick and report NOTHING but factual data. Surely you realize that also?

The media can't cover everything. They could tell nothing but the truth and simultaneously be completely full of shite. I'm sure if you think about it for a second, you can see how easy that would be.

But, beyond that. Even to the "facts". I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of people who think things are "facts" that aren't "facts" or, even worse, there are a lot of people who honestly think things are "facts" but are quite simply wrong.

You would name a monitoring group to police up that? Good fricking luck. What do you do when the monitoring group concludes an incorrect "fact" and then punishes people for publishing correct "facts"?

Think man, think.