Blue Lives Matter, Black Lies Shatter. Cops 1850% More Killed by Blacks Than Kill Blacks.

You didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again, one last time: Are you claiming a person is only armed if you see a gun? This is a yes or no question. The answer requires one word.

 

Not always. I mean, if a man has a gun in his pocket and never pulled it out, he's actually no different than an unarmed person. If an unarmed black man tries to run over a cop with his car, he may be technically unarmed but fully eligible for lethal force. The point is - not a fair comparison.

And cops are armed with guns so it's not a fair comparison for that reason too. I'm not saying a fair comparison can be made. Cops are doing their job, and the people they approach are all over the spectrum. It's not about whether cops die in the line of duty. It's about whether they use excessive force, and whether that excessive force is applied via racial profiling. If there is a problem like this, the problem is mostly in their training, not in them being racists. Cops need to know where the line is in protecting themselves and using excessive force. This varies by the norms of their department. Some norms will lead to more unnecessary deaths, like no-knock warrants. They may be understandably more afraid approaching a young teenage black male vs a little old lady, but that doesn't give them the right to pre-emptively shoot the black man as soon as he makes an unexpected move. The antidote to such natural fear is going to be training. You train so that your responses are automatic, efficient, and appropriate. Standardization of training, and evidence-based training, is necessary to minimize unnecessary deaths, both black and blue.

 

Why are you posting arrest statistics? Did ee. discuss this?

 

wait, you're saying a cop can and should shoot to kill someone just cause he thinks he has a gun even though he cant see it????

huh

 

Well then perhaps BLM needs to come up with a better argument than "unarmed black man killed by cop."

 

What? The links are in my post.

 

why not?

waaay too many unarmed black people have been killed by cops.

 

Sure I can. Can you?
The question asked in response to the thread title was:
What is the number for whites?
You response:
Please point me to the White Lives Matter website where they proffer flat lies about policing and the killing of White people due to systemic racism and we can start a conversation in a new thread
Now, granted, the question could have been sarcasm (sar·casm/ˈsärˌkazəm/noun 1) the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.) OR maybe it was rhetorical
(rhe ·tor·i·cal
/rəˈtôrək(ə)l/adjective relating to or concerned with the art of rhetoric. "repetition is a common rhetorical device" Similar: stylistic,oratorical, linguistic, OR verbal:expressed in terms intended to persuade or impress. "the rhetorical commitment of the government to give priority to primary education" Similar: extravagant, grandiloquent, magniloquent, high-flown, high-sounding, sonorous, lofty, orotund, bombastic, grandiose, pompous, pretentious, overblown, overripe, oratorical, turgid, flowery. OR (of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.)
Myself, I'm going with the last one......but you can't help yourself. You answered with your own rhetorical statement of the second meaning.
I answered your grandiose, pompous, pretentious rhetorical statement with a sarcastic slant by giving the website of all Right wing extremists sites. So what do you do, you double down on your rhetoric with a repeat show of your distain of BLM with you suggestion that their website lies about the killing of White people due to systemic racism.
Here is there website:
https://www.everyblm.com/?gclid=Cj0...GYvNj79vNJohs4mmizofOEcpGGCF0KboaAsImEALw_wcB

Please point out where the lies are that you seem to think exist. I'm truly interested as I'm sure everyone else on this thread is. Your the guy that always asks for links, citations, proof to back up what is said yet YOU never seem to be able to do the same.

 

Where in the link does it not prove the point.
You asked for a link and got one and you dismiss the information. On what grounds?

 

Ok, you won't answer the question, and you add fallacies to boot, attributing to me things I never argued. Duly noted.

Let's try it another way: YES OR NO. Is the person in this picture armed? YES OR NO. Those are the only two acceptable answers. I'll remind you that you argued a person is only armed if you can see a gun. SO if will, please... answer my simple. Is this man armed?

 

I gave it the time it deserved

 

Please provide a link the the White Lives Matter website. Thank you.

 

Concession accepted. You refuse to defend your position. Obviously because it is indefensible.

 

But you've already argued that if you can't see a gun, the person is unarmed.

 

You must have edited the post after I replied. There were no links in the post when I replied.

That said, why are you posting arrest statistics? Those do not substantiate your claims.

 

Your consession is accepted.

 

Cute. Still waiting for you to post that link the the White Lives Matter website. What's wrong? Can't find it?

 

i misspoke

 

Fair enough.

So you agree that a person can be armed and a police officer could approach that person and have no idea they had a weapon. That's good.

Here's how quickly things can go bad for a cop...



This incident must represent a real conundrum for Black Lies Matter: Which black life matters more? The good news: The officer survived this point-blank attack and the shooter was eventually captured and brought to justice. Win/Win. I presume the cop would have preferred not getting shot, however.

 

Didn't look. You know it doesn't exist. Why did you ask an intellectually dishonest question. That is your "debate" style. Ask for proof and ignore it. Never defend your position but answer with non-secquitor questions that are dishonest.
Consession accecpted.

 

Wow something to be proud of.

 

It was not an intellectually dishonest question. The other poster asked for statistics on White people shooting cops. Such statistics are irrelevant in a discussion about the fallacies and outright lies of Black Lies Matter. For those statistics to be relevant, there would have to be a similarly-situated social movement -- and corresponding website -- proffering similar fallacies and lies as Black Lies Matter. I shouldn't have to explain this. Please pay attention, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

Fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem: I am not the topic of this thread. A factual rebuttal addressing the topic would better support your "argument."

You did not offer any proof. Stop pretending you did. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to defend you racist voter ID position. You ever gonna give me an answer?

Fallacy. Be careful with open flames around that straw man.

NB: "Non sequitur question" is improper usage. Non sequitur is a noun, not an adjective. You can have a non sequitur, but you cannot have a non sequitur question as you state above. It is grammatically and logically incorrect.

 

Yes they do. With the exception of its expanded homicide tables, FBI UCR arrest data is one of only two sources for crime data broken down by race, the other being the National Crime Victimization Survey. That's why the DOJ uses both these sources it's in own reports requiring racial data.

 

It's completly dishonest. I have already pointed out that the other poster did not ask for statistics and was being sarcastic or rhetorical and IF it was neither your answer about this discussion being about the fallicies and lies of BLM is dishonest because your OP does not mention BLM. I shouldn't have to explain that yet I took the time to point that out to you and (as usual) you ignored it. It's also dishonest when YOU brought up lies and fallacies that you claim BLM make yet when asked to point them out on the BLM website you did not address it. It is also dishonest to say that the statistics (which were retracted btw) you posted in your OP are based on BLM and therefore there has to be a corresponding website. Statistics can be found at many sources.

False. You posted an opinion piece in you OP and have been defending that opinion, so this thread is about you and your opinion. I HAVE given factual rebuttals but you have not answered mine nor anyone else's. That is on you....and about you.

I did, with links. Try answering the proof. Saying I did not is just more of your dishonesty. It's really very sad.

It's not a straw man when it's a fact

And yet you still understood the meaning

 

I said violent crime.