You're new here. So I'll allow your mistake regarding the 98.2%.... this is a cbid number used when one is trying to point out that they are pulling a number out of their ass.

As for the rest... you're an idiot.

victor809 wrote:

Allow me to translate...

what Victor was trying to say is “welcome to the forums!”

HockeyDad wrote:

Speaking of misleading headlines. A burned building or two is not "the rape of that town".

The headline appears to be trying to juxtapose the daytime peaceful protests and the night time less peaceful protests.
In fact, that's literally the only two lines in the linked article.

Or to make it more clear... a person who gets their information from just the headlines of a news article is an idiot.

victor809 wrote:

Yes. And regardless of whether or not they are avoidable, they should not happen.

rfenst wrote:

tail was taking his life into his own hands when he said he was gonna ignore the local mandates to stay at home...

cop: Sir, get back in your house, now!

tail: nope...you're part of the arbitrary govt. over-reach that is taking away my freedom...pound snow...I'm going to grab a burger and a beer...

cop: stop, and put your hands behind your back...I'm warning you...STOP!!! bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang

delta1 wrote:

Dude... "implode"? CHAD was a occupy type movement. It didn't "implode". And it certainly wasn't the lack of cops that caused it to fail. It failed because that's what those things do. A bunch of starry eyed hippies think they can live all happy without the necessary support systems provided by the city. Eventually they get tired of sh$tting in portapotties. It was never going to last. Not because it was a "no cop zone" but because those are always limited by the attention span of the people involved.

And you think "visibility" is key? Meh. I won't argue that it has some effect. But that becomes a question of whether the presence of armed police reduces crime more than the presence of armed police increases the chance of someone being shot by the armed police.

As for your last sentence... I'm not sure what's more troubling, that you think non-compliance is valid reason to be dead, or that it's already happened, you just haven't seen it.

victor809 wrote:

just wanna toss this out there.

if one believes that the purpose of a police force is to prevent crime, one would have to be describing a police state, not a free society.
Without actually ever reading any stats in my entire life, I'm thinking that scenario exists in countries including, but not limited to, Russia, N. Korea, Iran...countries that I do not believe we want to emulate.

My buddy Joe (tail) mentioned that word "prevent" but many others have gone well past his use of the word to the point of concern for freedom loving Americans of conservative AND liberal mind sets in several threads.

frankj1 wrote:

Chad didn't simply end because the idiots got bored.

Sounds like you're saying people are killed by cops more often than crimes are deterred by cops. Even without the numbers you have to know the difference is in orders of magnitude. I mean, you have to know.

If I said it was a valid reason, please point it out. The common theme is a repeat criminal disobeying lawful commands. Validity has nothing to do with it. Just stating the facts.

tailgater wrote:

But the next video I see of a cop shooting someone complying with their demands will be the first.

tail wrote:

the implication of this sentence is that lack of compliance is what leads to being shot. This is literally making an excuse for the police shooting someone. "He was shot because he didn't do what they said". That is validating the action, regardless of your claim that it's tragic.

victor809 wrote:

But the next video I see of a cop shooting someone complying with their demands will be the first.

tailgater wrote:

here's the first...tragic...there may be videos of this...I remember this was a subject of a topic here awhile back


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver 

delta1 wrote:

I try not to blame the victim, but I will absolutely reveal where their actions helped to escalate the situation.

There is nothing you or I or BLM could do to prevent that shooting.
But if he listened to the cops demands he wouldn't have been shot.

Sometimes it's that simple.

tailgater wrote: