National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (and now ICE)

Blizzard said:
I don't have the time to post lengthy responses to your post but added some brief responses in bold.
Click to expand...
No worries. I appreciate the response.
Locksteady said:
1. It will almost always take more time for official police/dispatch 'narratives' to be disseminated to the media due to both reporting and official announcement regulations held by the LE department in question. Agreed. Not a question.
2. The media reporting and citing the claims of eyewitnesses does not constitute 'lying'.
If you're a journalist and not verifying facts before you report them, you need to state this and update your story once you do verify them. Not being forthright with info is lying. They didn't ever claim it was a fact. The reported what other people said and cited them. It is no one but the reader's fault for confusing a claim that the media outlet makes a point of citing to the source with media itself claiming it as a fact.
3. No seems to have made any claims as to what got Blake there in the first place. Multiple eyewitnesses reported what they saw occurring prior to the arrival of police. You've added your own unsupported premise (why he showed up) to the 'narrative'and then taken exception to it based on the assumption you inserted.
Untrue. From the first article link on the topic here:
George Floyd/National Protests
"More than 60 people were gathered following the shooting at the scene with several saying that the Black man was trying to break up a verbal altercation between two women shortly after 5 p.m. Nothing about this is negating my point. You claimed that the media was 'lying' about what brought him to the scene when the girlfriend's dispatch call was publicized. It doesn't demonstrate that he wasn't breaking up an altercation before the police arrived.
4. What Blake did to prompt his girlfriend's 911 call and what people said they saw him doing prior to police arrival are neither necessarily the same thing nor mutually exclusive, absent more information showing otherwise. OK, not sure what point your trying to convey here. The point is the fact she called doesn't establish that he wasn't breaking up an altercation when the cops came, particularly when it wasn't asserted that that is what brought him to his girlfriend's spot in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
Blizzard said:
Not too weird. Kenosha sits right on the border of IL. The kid's town of Antioch just happens to be on the IL side of the border a few miles away. To me the fleeing charge is silly; it's a short and reasonable drive. He simply went home.

I'm sure they'll try to make an example out of him. I don't know how the law reads in WI but a murder one charge seems overreacting based on what little I've seen so far.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation.
 
Devildoc said:
The media and law enforcement community (specifically DAs) seem to feed one another. DAs rush to seemingly overcharge before investigations are barely initiated, and the media are complicit in assigning guilt based on this fervor.
Click to expand...
Yup! It's alarming when the bureaucrats tasked with upholding our laws are subversive ideologues or in the pockets of our enemies. Might also explain why those affiliated with the far left are given so much leeway.
1598576800690.png
Minnesota's Attorney General and ANTIFA leader Luis Enrique Marquez.
 
Jaknight said:
It’s scary how once again the Media has presented a false narrative with regarding the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting. Already he is being presented as some white supremacist who was running around shooting people at pleasure smh. This also from CNN more charges brought up Kenosha shooting suspect faces more homicide charges
Click to expand...

It's about as accurate a narrative as the "the guys he shot were violent pedophile felons" narrative going around.

I don't give a damn about anything someone did prior to this incident, unless it was literally "I cant wait to shoot those subhuman commies" or "I can wait to light a fascist fuck on fire".

All that matters is what happened to lead to the shooting, and the shooting itself.
 
Cookie_ said:
It's about as accurate a narrative as the "the guys he shot were violent pedophile felons" narrative going around.

I don't give a damn about anything someone did prior to this incident, unless it was literally "I cant wait to shoot those subhuman commies" or "I can wait to light a fascist fuck on fire".

All that matters is what happened to lead to the shooting, and the shooting itself.
Click to expand...
Based on what I saw on the video it looks line it was self defense but I’m no lawyer. I also don’t know what led to him being chased by the first Rioter. However it seems only the ones who appear in the videos were shot or killed so the narrative of he already shot someone before the video footage doesn’t seem to hold water
 
Locksteady said:
3. No seems to have made any claims as to what got Blake there in the first place. Multiple eyewitnesses reported what they saw occurring prior to the arrival of police. You've added your own unsupported premise (why he showed up) to the 'narrative'and then taken exception to it based on the assumption you inserted.
4. What Blake did to prompt his girlfriend's 911 call and what people said they saw him doing prior to police arrival are neither necessarily the same thing nor mutually exclusive, absent more information showing otherwise.
Click to expand...

Not true. That's the exact same narrative I was told a few days ago, before I even knew about the incident. "Guy was breaking up a fight between two women and cops ended up shooting him." I was also told that the cops were there to break up that female fight Based on what? Based on lies.

There you go again, telling people that they're adding their own spin on a story. Blizzard is not the only one who heard that BS if people were telling that to me the day after the incident.

Obviously some news outlets don't mind reporting whatever before the facts are in. Sounds just like "hands up don't shoot".
 
BlackSmokeRisinG said:
Not true. That's the exact same narrative I was told a few days ago, before I even knew about the incident. "Guy was breaking up a fight between two women and cops ended up shooting him."
Click to expand...
Please carefully reread the post, as it seems you're missing the central difference in the description you just gave (which matches the eyewitness claims that the media mentioned and cited) and what Blizzard stated the media 'lied' about.
BlackSmokeRisinG said:
There you go again, telling people that they're adding their own spin on a story.
Click to expand...
If you're still bothered about the previous discussion, I'd say this is neither the time nor place to bring it back up yet again. It would probably be more appropriate for you to message me directly if that is still fueling any residual animus in our board interactions, rather than risk derailing the thread again.

Ball is in your court for that, but as before I will again willfully refrain from resurrecting that discussion with you here and I encourage you to please join me in that.
BlackSmokeRisinG said:
Blizzard is not the only one who heard that BS if people were telling that to me the day after the incident.
Click to expand...
There is a small but important difference between the story you're defending having heard and what Blizzard used as his premise for accusing the media of lying.

Blizzard's claim that the media lied was set on his own projected premise that 'breaking up an argument between two women' was why 'he showed up' in the first place, when no one ever claimed to know why he was in the area in the first place. Breaking up a fight was just what people claim to have witnessed before the cops showed up, which says nothing about why he was originally there.

So, what Blizzard is claiming about the media lying is flawed on two front:

1. He took what eyewitnesses reported seeing and then, yes, added his own unsupported claim that that was why Blake 'showed up' in the first place - which is the only thing that would be at odds with the police report that indicated a different reason for why Blake was at his girlfriends prior to whatever the neighbors reported seeing.

2. Even if an eyewitness had in fact claimed that breaking up an argument between two women was why Blake was even over at his girlfriend's in the first place, that would make the eyewitness the liar, not the media that reported (and cited back to them) what eyewitnesses claimed to have seen and known about why he showed up.

The only grievance left to make at this point is about the fact that the media often tends to report the first available hearsay. I agree this can be a problem depending on what people -do- with that information, but the outlet cannot be faulted if they make a point of distinguishing that what they are reporting is hearsay from people claiming to be witnesses.

They met that measure.
 
Cookie_ said:
It's about as accurate a narrative as the "the guys he shot were violent pedophile felons" narrative going around.

I don't give a damn about anything someone did prior to this incident, unless it was literally "I cant wait to shoot those subhuman commies" or "I can wait to light a fascist fuck on fire".

All that matters is what happened to lead to the shooting, and the shooting itself.
Click to expand...

They did in fact have a history of violence and offenses against minors. That is not a false narrative; what is false is using it as justification because, as he could not have known that, it is not germane to the argument. That said, it ended up a public service killing. I hope of all the things he loses sleep over, that is not one of them. He's in enough hot water regardless of the fact that the dearly departed were booger-eaters.

The italicized and bolded is indeed 'the bottom line.'
 
Cookie_ said:
It's about as accurate a narrative as the "the guys he shot were violent pedophile felons" narrative going around.

I don't give a damn about anything someone did prior to this incident, unless it was literally "I cant wait to shoot those subhuman commies" or "I can wait to light a fascist fuck on fire".

All that matters is what happened to lead to the shooting, and the shooting itself.
Click to expand...

How far prior to the shoot do you consider important?
Antifa/BLM are making throwing incendiaries, that is part of the timeline, weather 30 sec prior or 24 hr prior. Not burning everything down in the days prior may have changed the actions of everyone involved.
Likewise his criminal past would be evidence of a violent nature, that demonstrated itself the night he used the "n-word" against black people, and dared someone to shoot him.
 

Similar threads

Marauder06
Now We're Adding Another $100 ***BILLION*** to the National Debt
Replies
7
Views
964
LimaPanther
LimaPanther
MikeDelta
Question regarding Special Forces UW & FID Training and Equipment (unclassified)
Replies
4
Views
2K
MikeDelta
MikeDelta
Marauder06
Veteran Perspectives On The GWOT, and What Comes After
2 3
Replies
40
Views
6K
Teufel
Teufel
Ooh-Rah
Enlistment to SOF - The ShadowSpear Way
Replies
1
Views
4K
Ooh-Rah
Ooh-Rah
Blizzard
What about Latin America and the Cartels?
6 7 8
Replies
141
Views
19K
amlove21
amlove21
Back
Top