Baerboxer

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is nothing in the statement ‘Black Lives Matter’ that negates the fact other non Black lives matter.

 

 

That's true, grammatically speaking.

Now, therefore, if Black Lives Matter to these protesters, why aren't they protesting at the murder of a retired black police captain by a looter? Or the massive black on black killings in Chicago for instance?

Perhaps it should be renamed - Black Lives Matter when killed by Whites?

22 hours ago, Jingthing said:

They're over 100 years too late, but better late than never.

So what are they going to do? Send a critical letter to the current white nationalist president? 

Have you seen who the council members include?

Brazil, Libya, Venezuela, Sudan, Indonesia : all impartial bastions of human rights, democracy, freedoms - 555!

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

"Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said she had accepted the prompt resignation of police chief Shields.

 

"I do not believe that this was a justified use of deadly force and have called for the immediate termination of the officer," Bottoms said at an afternoon news conference.

 

I'd say that it isn't cause to be killed, after all TASERs are touted as being a non lethal weapon.

 

Let's hope the officers involved face the full rigour of the law and let the courts decide.

 

So if you were an officer in Atlanta, and a drunk driver who failed a breath test, suddenly turned violent while being arrested, fought with and escaped from the officers, stealing a taser and running off, turned and aimed something, which might be the taser, might be a gun he had, you'd do what?

Remember you have a split second to decide and your life might depend on the call you make?

If the drunk driver had a gun, and shot the police, would you be calling for him to face the full rigour of the law too?

2 hours ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

Yes the police officer should be charged with 2nd degree murder.

Wendy's get burned down, why?, what is the great excuse to do that?

  Crazy America. How is that for a reason?

Geezer

2nd degree murder - your're joking? Did you watch the video? How about a non biased, non political, real investigation before deciding on any charges?

34 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

Sorry but he got what he deserved. No normal person does that and then expects to live. In this case black - white - purple - yellow rainbow color, he deserved to be shot and killed. 

If you decide to violently resist lawful arrest you have to expect the worst.

11 minutes ago, loong said:

He was not killed for falling asleep in his car. Don't be so ridiculous!

He was apparently drunk and asleep behind the wheel of his car, so obviously anybody that he may have possibly killed (black or white) while drunk driving didn't concern him.

The officers attempted to take him into custody, but he escaped. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the officers were concerned of being judged as using too much force and that is why he managed to escape. He turned and pointed something at the officers. That is why he was shot, not for sleeping. The officer may well have thought that the guy was aiming a gun at him, who knows.

Seems to me that they were a bit quick to fire the officer. There should be an unbiased investigation first.

 

A totally sane common sense post based on reality.

But the politically correct won't like that. They don't do reality.

8 hours ago, OZinPattaya said:

Well, at least the real problem has been addressed. A white female police chief has been replaced by a black police chief. Should definitely solve whatever issues may present themselves in the future. I mean, she was a white person, and she was the police chief. Obviously the only option here is resignation.

Meanwhile the young black female Mayor decrees he must be sacked immediately. How dare he use his weapon to defend himself when a person, over the drink drive limit, violently resists arrest, grabs a taser of an officer runs turns, and aims what might be the taser or could've been another weapon.

So the deceased's family think that if someone beats up the police and runs there's no right to shoot them!

I watched the video. He was clearly slurring his words when woke up and had been out celebrating. Failed the breath test, which he took peacefully, then decided to fight and run. Why did he suddenly decide to resist arrest? What was he afraid of? If he'd been cuffed and gone quietly he'd be alive.

What their seems to be is a growing idea black people should now be above the law, especially if being enforced by white officers. This is being pandered too by patronizing politicians and so called celebrities. 

I trust the police union will be wanting to discuss the summary dismissal by a black Mayor of a white officer - as she may be racist.

3 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

Glad we can agree that any violence against the Police such as what yesterday was by a howling, rabid mob. 

You could also add that the mob last week and this week that attacked the police were made up of people who couldn't really care less about fighting racism or protecting statues. 

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Glad you finally admit there was not an attack on London.

 

The reasons for yesterdays thuggery by the far right have their roots in a much more prejudice laden philosophy

Big difference. The "far right thugs" were a combination of genuine protesters, those not agreeing with vandalizing statues and public property, football hooligans looking for a fight, and hard core racists. Most would have no more idea about politics, political ideologies and agendas than Mickey Mouse.

The "far left thugs" from last week and yesterday were neo-Marxist, anarchists, socialist workers and similar groups very in tune with specific political ideologies and agendas looking to cause trouble, chaos and stir up insurrection. Dismantling law and order is a key tool. Extreme left political groups that have seized power have shown racism and bigotry and are far from tolerant, democratic, and do not allow protest or freedom of speech. 

So it's football hooligans and racist thugs against organized political extremists looking to further their brand of political oppression on society. 

13 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Regarding the violence at the BLM demo:

 

"The mayor, who is in charge of the Metropolitan Police, put out a statement yesterday condemning the violence and said “this vital cause was badly let down by a tiny minority who turned violent and threw glass bottles and lit flares, endangering other protestors and injuring police officers”.

 

Whether that is sufficiently blunt is debatable, but it is not correct to say that he was silent about the events of the day.

 

But you are right - the vast majority of people tend towards the centre. The fact is that they showed up at the BLM march and they stayed away yesterday. 

Interesting quote - thanks for posting. Source?

I think it's a great example of political twisting; trying to turn a negative message into positive. The careful choice of "vital cause" and "tiny minority". 

The vast majority of people condemn racism, and police brutality. Just as they condemn bigotry, criminal activity and thuggery. Extreme political parties, of all ideologies, have traditionally fared badly in the UK. 

Form what I see on social media, many people who would normally fit in that vast majority classification are becoming more motivated in their desire for law and order and less willing to be tolerant of the fringe extremists. This could have some serious consequences. Waking a sleeping giant does not always get the result you want or think.

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

As I said there were acts of idiocy, nothing compared to yesterdays thuggery mind, but it was not an 'attack' on London.

 

Protests were expected yesterday, not an attack. However the BLM, to prevent violence threatened by those claiming they were coming to 'defend statues', called it off.

 

The right did not and when found could not do as they wished, launched attacks on police

 

Go figure eh...

Hmmm. Firing fireworks at police officers and assaulting them.

If carried out by extreme left wing groups you call it idiocy. If carried out by extreme right groups/football hooligans you call it thuggery.

I don't differentiate criminal actions based on the political beliefs of those carrying them out. 

You and Mayor Khan apparently do.

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 Man defending men defending Churchill's statue from literally nobody while giving nazi salutes and attacking police officers - you couldn't make it up. 

 

Unfortunately, just as the BLM movement, which has neo-Marxist sympathies and believes change is achieved through violent revolution, protests get hi-jacked by numerous extreme left wing groups intent on violence and causing as much chaos as they can; so those protesting against damaging statues get their protest hi-jacked by extreme right wing groups looking for an opportunity to instigate racial hate and violence.

Those wishing to genuinely protest peacefully against racism, albeit only one small segment of it, and those wishing to stop the defiling of public property, get swallowed up by the extremists.

What is disgusting, and worrying, is the blatant bias shown by certain politicians, like the dubious Mayor Khan. Not a word of condemnation of the previous week as extreme left wing groups caused damage and attacked the police injuring many. But this week very quick to label anyone who won't bow down to those extreme left thugs as extreme right. All the usual hypocrisy expected from him. He dismisses criticism of the left vandalizing statues and causing damage as "understandable". Let's see if he dismisses violent reaction to them as equally understandable.

This is not going well. British people are tolerant, and have been for generations. But, they also will only take so much <deleted>. Labour learned nothing from their last General Election performance. Nothing at all.

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

In layman's terms, a far right protester. Hence the description in the article.

Just like Mayor Khan, the lying hypocrite with tunnel vision, says, all who oppose the violent left and their vision of society must be labelled far-right eh?

Any proof or do you believe the press all the time?

3 hours ago, twocatsmac said:

London’s mayor the infamous Sadiq Khan, extreme Muslim and anti British, anti American, supporter of numerous anti Semitic terror organisations always calls white protesters, opposition politicians “extreme far right” 

Nothing new here. 

True. And made zero comments about the far left and it's attacks on police, statues, and property the week before.

He's all you said and a lying scumbag too.

18 hours ago, J Town said:

Censorship rarely works. HBO recently removed "Gone With The Wind" so of course I had to download it and see what the deal was. Yes, it was horribly racist, but to remove it? I remember when the idiots tried to remove all videos with the twin towers in them (for instance, the opening scenes of The Sopranos). Good luck with that.

All of the films of that era and the decades close to them presented a very rosy picture of society and history. 

Are they all gonna be banned because some far left political extremists say so?

18 hours ago, J Town said:

Censorship rarely works. HBO recently removed "Gone With The Wind" so of course I had to download it and see what the deal was. Yes, it was horribly racist, but to remove it? I remember when the idiots tried to remove all videos with the twin towers in them (for instance, the opening scenes of The Sopranos). Good luck with that.

You can watch Birth of the Nation on YouTube!

That should get all the politically correct tools blood pressure rising!