Hillary to "Speak Directly to White People"!

[Anonymous]

So at the risk of venturing back toward the OP's original query/comment...
What's the big deal about Hillary saying "Maybe she could speak directly to white people?"
You don't seriously think she meant ALL white people, right - no of course not, she meant white people who are in denial that racial biases exist and/or white people who don't see a problem with the existence of racial biases.
So what's the big deal?

[Anonymous]

We need to be careful in ascribing racial bias for an action when it does not exist.

There were two incidents - one in Charlotte and one in Tulsa. It appears from the video that the Tulsa killing was wrong and likely had a racial component. On the other hand, in the Charlotte incident, the victim did indeed have a gun, presented a threat, and the shooter in that instance was black. In both instances, neither man obeyed police orders.

For some reason, the Charlotte incident - the one NOT based on racial bias - is the one where the riots and violence erupted. (Last count, I heard 20 officers injured.) The daughter of the victim is heard on tape saying, "they shot my daddy for being black" before she learned (apparently) that the shooter was black, too. Yet the Tulsa incident, which is pretty horrifying to watch on the video, did not result in riots (not that I'm hoping for them). Why? It seems that the black community is protesting the wrong incident.

Finally, as awful as this is - the Tulsa incident in particular - why can't people just do what the police say? I know black people are angry at cops, but acting defiantly and disobeying instructions exacerbates an already tense situation and increases the likelihood of bloodshed.

[Anonymous]

PCP was found in the car in Tulsa. If he was on PCP, that may explain his non-compliance with police orders. And before anyone tries to twist my words..in no way am I saying someone deserves to be shot for using PCP. I'm simply giving an explanation about why someone may not obey police orders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://ijr.com/2016/09/697757-hillary-blames-systemic-racism-for-tulsa-police-shooting-it-appears-something-else-was-in-his-system/?utm_campaign=ods&utm_content=crime&utm_medium=owned&utm_source=facebook&utm_term=ijamerica

Hillary is an idiot and divisive. Female police officer in Tulsa said the suspect was unresponsive to commands. PCP was found in the car of the suspect. If the autopsy reveals there was PCP in his system, officer Shelby is justified. People on PCP are dangerous and immune to non-lethal techniques as they're too much under the influence. Officer Shelby just wants to go home at the end of the, that's what most of us want. As a former LEO I support her.

That's what they said. You clearly have never seen someone on PCP. He would not have been acting like the man in the video. His hands were up. What more could she have been telling him. What didn't he follow? His car broke down. Damn, a black man's car can't break down?

Of course you support her. Her husband told her he looked shady from the helicopter. How can you tell from a helicopter?

She said she made a mistake and shot him instead of tasing him.

It's obvious you don't have LEO experience and you're nothing but a spoiled SAHM playing armchair cop.

When on PCP and acting like he did, non-lethal force doesn't work. Most cops have enough experience to see when someone is acting under the influence. I could usually tell right away, and tests proved me right.

Have you ever ridden in a helicopter? Obviously not. You get a very good vantage point of the situation and can see quite well what's going on.

NP. So in your experience people on PCP politely put their hands up and follow directions. I don't think you're making so strong an argument as you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So at the risk of venturing back toward the OP's original query/comment...
What's the big deal about Hillary saying "Maybe she could speak directly to white people?"
You don't seriously think she meant ALL white people, right - no of course not, she meant white people who are in denial that racial biases exist and/or white people who don't see a problem with the existence of racial biases.
So what's the big deal?

Because when a Muslim terrorist kills people, I don't hear the Democrats saying "I'm going to talk to Muslims" about the wrongdoing. To the contrary, everyone is bending over backward to tell us how Muslims are peace-loving and we shouldn't allow a few bad apples to taint our opinion. But when it's a white guy (or woman in the latest case), Hillary is saying how she's going to talk to whites - instead of saying, "now....just because a few white cops are bigots, we need to remember that whites are peace-loving people of whom we should not think badly. " No, there was an implicit message in her comments that whites are the bad ones and blacks are never to blame. It's divisive and a way to gin up the black vote, which she recently has been losing and desperately needs in order to win the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at the risk of venturing back toward the OP's original query/comment...
What's the big deal about Hillary saying "Maybe she could speak directly to white people?"
You don't seriously think she meant ALL white people, right - no of course not, she meant white people who are in denial that racial biases exist and/or white people who don't see a problem with the existence of racial biases.
So what's the big deal?

Because when a Muslim terrorist kills people, I don't hear the Democrats saying "I'm going to talk to Muslims" about the wrongdoing. To the contrary, everyone is bending over backward to tell us how Muslims are peace-loving and we shouldn't allow a few bad apples to taint our opinion. But when it's a white guy (or woman in the latest case), Hillary is saying how she's going to talk to whites - instead of saying, "now....just because a few white cops are bigots, we need to remember that whites are peace-loving people of whom we should not think badly. " No, there was an implicit message in her comments that whites are the bad ones and blacks are never to blame. It's divisive and a way to gin up the black vote, which she recently has been losing and desperately needs in order to win the election.

Did you miss the role of the cops is not to kill our own citizens. The role is to protect and serve all citizens equally. So why are white people so touchy about everything. Why is it wrong to talk to cops who are committing way too many unarmed black killings? You are selectively seeing what you want. Nobody can cure your selective blindness. Keep an open mind and read NYTIMES and Fox and CNN THEN make your opinion based on reason, fact and logic. Emotions are bad when you want to make good decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at the risk of venturing back toward the OP's original query/comment...
What's the big deal about Hillary saying "Maybe she could speak directly to white people?"
You don't seriously think she meant ALL white people, right - no of course not, she meant white people who are in denial that racial biases exist and/or white people who don't see a problem with the existence of racial biases.
So what's the big deal?

Because when a Muslim terrorist kills people, I don't hear the Democrats saying "I'm going to talk to Muslims" about the wrongdoing. To the contrary, everyone is bending over backward to tell us how Muslims are peace-loving and we shouldn't allow a few bad apples to taint our opinion. But when it's a white guy (or woman in the latest case), Hillary is saying how she's going to talk to whites - instead of saying, "now....just because a few white cops are bigots, we need to remember that whites are peace-loving people of whom we should not think badly. " No, there was an implicit message in her comments that whites are the bad ones and blacks are never to blame. It's divisive and a way to gin up the black vote, which she recently has been losing and desperately needs in order to win the election.

Don't you mean you don't hear Muslim Democrats saying, "I'm going to talk to Muslims"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://ijr.com/2016/09/697757-hillary-blames-systemic-racism-for-tulsa-police-shooting-it-appears-something-else-was-in-his-system/?utm_campaign=ods&utm_content=crime&utm_medium=owned&utm_source=facebook&utm_term=ijamerica

Hillary is an idiot and divisive. Female police officer in Tulsa said the suspect was unresponsive to commands. PCP was found in the car of the suspect. If the autopsy reveals there was PCP in his system, officer Shelby is justified. People on PCP are dangerous and immune to non-lethal techniques as they're too much under the influence. Officer Shelby just wants to go home at the end of the, that's what most of us want. As a former LEO I support her.

That's what they said. You clearly have never seen someone on PCP. He would not have been acting like the man in the video. His hands were up. What more could she have been telling him. What didn't he follow? His car broke down. Damn, a black man's car can't break down?

Of course you support her. Her husband told her he looked shady from the helicopter. How can you tell from a helicopter?

She said she made a mistake and shot him instead of tasing him.

It's obvious you don't have LEO experience and you're nothing but a spoiled SAHM playing armchair cop.

When on PCP and acting like he did, non-lethal force doesn't work. Most cops have enough experience to see when someone is acting under the influence. I could usually tell right away, and tests proved me right.

Have you ever ridden in a helicopter? Obviously not. You get a very good vantage point of the situation and can see quite well what's going on.

NP. So in your experience people on PCP politely put their hands up and follow directions. I don't think you're making so strong an argument as you think.

NP to this chain of quotes here.
That's not at all what I got from PP's post..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at the risk of venturing back toward the OP's original query/comment...
What's the big deal about Hillary saying "Maybe she could speak directly to white people?"
You don't seriously think she meant ALL white people, right - no of course not, she meant white people who are in denial that racial biases exist and/or white people who don't see a problem with the existence of racial biases.
So what's the big deal?

Because when a Muslim terrorist kills people, I don't hear the Democrats saying "I'm going to talk to Muslims" about the wrongdoing. To the contrary, everyone is bending over backward to tell us how Muslims are peace-loving and we shouldn't allow a few bad apples to taint our opinion. But when it's a white guy (or woman in the latest case), Hillary is saying how she's going to talk to whites - instead of saying, "now....just because a few white cops are bigots, we need to remember that whites are peace-loving people of whom we should not think badly. " No, there was an implicit message in her comments that whites are the bad ones and blacks are never to blame. It's divisive and a way to gin up the black vote, which she recently has been losing and desperately needs in order to win the election.

Don't you mean you don't hear Muslim Democrats saying, "I'm going to talk to Muslims"?

Yes, that would be a more accurate analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to be careful in ascribing racial bias for an action when it does not exist.

There were two incidents - one in Charlotte and one in Tulsa. It appears from the video that the Tulsa killing was wrong and likely had a racial component. On the other hand, in the Charlotte incident, the victim did indeed have a gun, presented a threat, and the shooter in that instance was black. In both instances, neither man obeyed police orders.

For some reason, the Charlotte incident - the one NOT based on racial bias - is the one where the riots and violence erupted. (Last count, I heard 20 officers injured.) The daughter of the victim is heard on tape saying, "they shot my daddy for being black" before she learned (apparently) that the shooter was black, too. Yet the Tulsa incident, which is pretty horrifying to watch on the video, did not result in riots (not that I'm hoping for them). Why? It seems that the black community is protesting the wrong incident.

Finally, as awful as this is - the Tulsa incident in particular - why can't people just do what the police say? I know black people are angry at cops, but acting defiantly and disobeying instructions exacerbates an already tense situation and increases the likelihood of bloodshed.

FYI: North Carolina is an open carry state. Keith Scott can have a gun if he wants. And the officers serving the arrest warrant on another individual when they happened to see Keith Scott exiting his vehicle carrying a gun were in plainclothes so why would he immediately comply with the command of some seemingly random dude in everyday clothes telling him to drop his weapon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So at the risk of venturing back toward the OP's original query/comment...
What's the big deal about Hillary saying "Maybe she could speak directly to white people?"
You don't seriously think she meant ALL white people, right - no of course not, she meant white people who are in denial that racial biases exist and/or white people who don't see a problem with the existence of racial biases.
So what's the big deal?

Because when a Muslim terrorist kills people, I don't hear the Democrats saying "I'm going to talk to Muslims" about the wrongdoing. To the contrary, everyone is bending over backward to tell us how Muslims are peace-loving and we shouldn't allow a few bad apples to taint our opinion. But when it's a white guy (or woman in the latest case), Hillary is saying how she's going to talk to whites - instead of saying, "now....just because a few white cops are bigots, we need to remember that whites are peace-loving people of whom we should not think badly. " No, there was an implicit message in her comments that whites are the bad ones and blacks are never to blame. It's divisive and a way to gin up the black vote, which she recently has been losing and desperately needs in order to win the election.

Did you miss the role of the cops is not to kill our own citizens. The role is to protect and serve all citizens equally. So why are white people so touchy about everything. Why is it wrong to talk to cops who are committing way too many unarmed black killings? You are selectively seeing what you want. Nobody can cure your selective blindness. Keep an open mind and read NYTIMES and Fox and CNN THEN make your opinion based on reason, fact and logic. Emotions are bad when you want to make good decisions.

Hillary didn't say she was going to talk to cops. She said she was going to talk to WHITES. And the reason was to show black people that she's "on their side" to get votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to be careful in ascribing racial bias for an action when it does not exist.

There were two incidents - one in Charlotte and one in Tulsa. It appears from the video that the Tulsa killing was wrong and likely had a racial component. On the other hand, in the Charlotte incident, the victim did indeed have a gun, presented a threat, and the shooter in that instance was black. In both instances, neither man obeyed police orders.

For some reason, the Charlotte incident - the one NOT based on racial bias - is the one where the riots and violence erupted. (Last count, I heard 20 officers injured.) The daughter of the victim is heard on tape saying, "they shot my daddy for being black" before she learned (apparently) that the shooter was black, too. Yet the Tulsa incident, which is pretty horrifying to watch on the video, did not result in riots (not that I'm hoping for them). Why? It seems that the black community is protesting the wrong incident.

Finally, as awful as this is - the Tulsa incident in particular - why can't people just do what the police say? I know black people are angry at cops, but acting defiantly and disobeying instructions exacerbates an already tense situation and increases the likelihood of bloodshed.

FYI: North Carolina is an open carry state. Keith Scott can have a gun if he wants. And the officers serving the arrest warrant on another individual when they happened to see Keith Scott exiting his vehicle carrying a gun were in plainclothes so why would he immediately comply with the command of some seemingly random dude in everyday clothes telling him to drop his weapon?

The plain clothes dude didn't announce himself as a cop? That would make a big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to be careful in ascribing racial bias for an action when it does not exist.

There were two incidents - one in Charlotte and one in Tulsa. It appears from the video that the Tulsa killing was wrong and likely had a racial component. On the other hand, in the Charlotte incident, the victim did indeed have a gun, presented a threat, and the shooter in that instance was black. In both instances, neither man obeyed police orders.

For some reason, the Charlotte incident - the one NOT based on racial bias - is the one where the riots and violence erupted. (Last count, I heard 20 officers injured.) The daughter of the victim is heard on tape saying, "they shot my daddy for being black" before she learned (apparently) that the shooter was black, too. Yet the Tulsa incident, which is pretty horrifying to watch on the video, did not result in riots (not that I'm hoping for them). Why? It seems that the black community is protesting the wrong incident.

Finally, as awful as this is - the Tulsa incident in particular - why can't people just do what the police say? I know black people are angry at cops, but acting defiantly and disobeying instructions exacerbates an already tense situation and increases the likelihood of bloodshed.

FYI: North Carolina is an open carry state. Keith Scott can have a gun if he wants. And the officers serving the arrest warrant on another individual when they happened to see Keith Scott exiting his vehicle carrying a gun were in plainclothes so why would he immediately comply with the command of some seemingly random dude in everyday clothes telling him to drop his weapon?

The plain clothes dude didn't announce himself as a cop? That would make a big difference.

So theoretically civilians AREN'T allowed to have skepticism when some dude not in uniform walks up and announces "I'm a police officer" but cops ARE allowed to be skeptical when, say for instance, someone announces "I'm reaching for my wallet" - they can just blow them away anyway and if they're wrong...oh well. Gotta love it.

[Anonymous]

^^ so all the officers were plain clothed? Link?

[Anonymous]

"Putney said Vinson was in plainclothes with a police vest"

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/keith-lamont-scott-fatally-shot-n-c-cops-warned-repeatedly-n651846

I assume this means the bulletproof vests that says POLICE on them.