Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

1) We should be, because police misconduct--particularly lethal misconduct--should be addressed.

But, and this is the bigger point:

2) Is there a centuries-long history of discrimination against white people in this country because of nothing other than the color of their skin?

1.) We have yet to see all of the evidence in this case to make a determination that this was a case of police misconduct. All we really know for sure is that a black man was shot by 2 officers. Everything else is either 2nd hand knowledge or conjecture. Until the facts come out, we really have no idea if this was justified or and unjustified shooting incident.

2.) Without all of the fact of this case, what does this incident have to do with centuries of discrimination against any race? You have made the leap that this is a race issue due to the color of the skin of the cops and the suspect. (I say suspect because is was reported that he had 1 or more warrants out for his arrest). 

So my insinuating that this is a race issue minus any substantive proof, are you not projecting a racist opinion on the subject? And this is the reason for my question. Because of the races involved in this shooting, people have jumped directly to the conclusion that this is a race issue. Could it simply be that a person resisted arrest and then posed a threat to officers that then feared for their life? Or maybe they over-reacted, not because he was black but because he had just fought them off and said he was going for a weapon. 

But instead of looking simply at the facts that are known, we have people bringing up centuries of racism to explain what is going on. I would prefer that we allow the authorities to investigate, get the details out and then we can sit around and make judgments of people whom we have never met and know very little about. 

1) We should be, because police misconduct--particularly lethal misconduct--should be addressed.

But, and this is the bigger point:

2) Is there a centuries-long history of discrimination against white people in this country because of nothing other than the color of their skin?

We're posting on deaf eyes.

Yes, there has been, and it's slowly changing - probably starting with my generation of people. It's not like it used to be.

The segregation and suppression started by the Roosevelt administration has been going away since the early 1980's.

Education is the key, but we need to build mutual trust. They don't trust those of us who are trying to help, and there are many of us. I don't know how to fix that.

Come on, buddy. What centuries-long oppression of white people do you refer to? Please enlighten me. Don't give me the "Irish" or "Polish" line--that's not because of the color of their skin. Nor was it widespread, actual chattel slavery, 3/5, one-drop, Dred Scott, Jim Crow, lynching, redlining, restrictive covenants, etc., etc., etc.

And you're saying segregation and suppression of whom started by the Roosevelt administration? White people? Black people? Surely you're not arguing that the systemic, and government sponsored suppression of black people started with either Roosevelt administration.

Are you arguing that redlining was systemic oppression of white people because it denied black people entrance to white neighborhoods? That's a novel approach.

We're posting on deaf eyes.

Pot meet kettle. 

Wanted on a warrant, physically resisted arrest, went for a weapon in his car. All three things led up to the result. Had he complied with the lawful orders of the police, he would not have been shot.

Exactly your wasting your breath with that turd in a punch bowl

Sounds like shitty policing to me. 


How is it that multiple cops have so much trouble subduing these individuals?  It's as if they're not good at it or something. 

That is what I've been asking.  If they can't use a truncheon and can't use a choke hold, the next item aside from physical restraint is a Tazer, which often is insufficient, and the next item is a gun.

I have seen reports he had a knife in the car.  That does alter the equation some legally.

That is what I've been asking.  If they can't use a truncheon and can't use a choke hold, the next item aside from physical restraint is a Tazer, which often is insufficient, and the next item is a gun.

I have seen reports he had a knife in the car.  That does alter the equation some legally.

But the tasers in the movies always work perfectly...