Never claimed they did, I only said that he was, as usual , a violent criminal.

Ok I'll bite.

As usual, like because is black?

Now you can write that you didn't say that (What ever that means.) Jou just meant that every black that was shoot recently was a criminial...

Do we really have to play those games over and over?

I thought I already explained: Another martyr for BLM turns out to to be a violent criminal, as usual.

One has to wonder why most of their protests tend to be for violent, degenerate criminals?
Perhaps it's because they're the ones who are actually being shot by the police...

Was Breonna Taylor a "violent, degenerate criminal?"



Or how about the 7-year old girl, Aiyana Jones, who was killed after a SWAT team threw a "flashbang" through the window, which landed on her as she was sleeping, burning her severely just before that SWAT team busted down the door and proceeded to put a bullet through her neck, killing her?



7-year-old girl accidentally shot by SWAT team
https://www.aclu.org/other/7-year-ol...shot-swat-team

But I guess that according to your special brand of "logic," unnecessary police violence isn't a problem in the US because it only happens to "violent, degenerate criminals," right? And according to you, if someone has a criminal record, then they deserve to be shot and killed by the police regardless of the circumstances?

Not all blacks shot are criminals, not all black shot are innocent. Just like with any other race. Frankly people on both left and right are part of the problem. Take things case by case and not make blanket judgments. I just don't see any solution to this. People are too tribal in their thinking.

People like me who are not tribal just feel lost between the two groups and the world in general

I know what you mean. Earlier today, I was thinking a lot about how extremely polarized people have become and how that generates binary thinking, which itself is a cognitive defect. It's like people are losing the ability to think clearly and logically because they're perceiving and judging everything through the lens of their cognitive biases. And indeed, that does apply to people on both the right and the left.

Whenever a black person is shot by cops in the US now, rather than considering the facts or evidence in each individual case, people are too quick to jump on one side of the spectrum and instinctively judge that that person either must have deserved it or that he must not have. And I blame the media for much of that because they are essentially exploiting people's rage and encouraging polarization and binary thinking, which in turn is encouraging irrational thinking.

This is desperately sad that two police officers have been shot in cold blood, and really highlights the consequences of distilling a deeply complex problem into a hashtag and taking a knee

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54137838

I don’t think anyone deserves to be shot, ever.

Well, I am generally not fond of guns, and I realize that sometimes the police use their guns when they shouldn't, but don't you think that sometimes it's necessary for the police to shoot someone in self-defense or to prevent someone from killing or wounding other (or more) people? For example, someone walking around a school shooting random students with an automatic weapon, etc.? How else are the police supposed to stop them from shooting people? Or in the case where someone draws a gun on a cop, don't you think a cop should be able to use his or her gun in self-defense?

I actually said ‘deserve’ to be shot.

Sorry, I guess I'm trying to understand what you mean. Do you think that if someone is walking around shooting random students at a school (for example), that they don't "deserve" to be shot by the police in order to be stopped?

I never said there weren't exceptions to the rule.

The problem for BLM is that most of their martyrs are going to to be violent degenerate criminals because these are the only people who are being systematically killed by police.

delete your account again, loz

And that... in bold... is where you are wrong.

Do you really not understand that you just contradicted yourself?

The "only" is the lesser thing thats wrong. Thinking that the police systematically kills people and being ok with that is wrong on a completely different level.

Won't someone think of the violent criminals?

You just don't get it. It's neither the police's right nor their job to judge or punish people.

As I said in previous post, I would probably have shoot too in some of the cases which were discussed here, too. According to the way I was drilled just two or three bullets. If I were trained to shoot till the gun is empty I would have done that.

But the fact that someone with a criminal record was shot shouldn't exempt me from a thorough investigation and consequences if justified.

But it is their right to apprehend people breaking the law and to defend themselves if necessary. You don't seem to get that.

Why do you think so

Deescalate as much as possible --> apprehend --> arrest. Defend yourself and others according to the threat, using the available tools and strategies learned. Thats, imho, their job in those situations.

And we need to also consider the legal system in the US where someone without money can be jailed until they go to court, be encouraged to plead guilty for a lessor sentence even if innocent. (with the threat that going to court will mean a much longer wait in jail and severe punishment). Many court appointed lawyers are unable to provide a proper defence because they are overwhelmed.

Sexual assault with a child could mean making love to a slightly younger partner. It could also mean raping a pre-adolescent. Just stating he was convicted of a crime doesn't actually mean he actually committed that crime. That is, not in the USA.

And this is the situation in England.