BF2S Forums Race relations thread

it was a main road. their property had a large gate that was vandalized. that is a problem. right opposite the property on the other side of the road was some significant local landmark in the history of slavery, some market or court house or something. i forget. that was why they were there.

the two lawyers walked out into the road and started pointing guns at people. that is also a problem, arguably of a different kind and degree.

if a horde of unruly BLM protestors were trying to sack and burn down their house, i wouldn't raise any complaint about self-defense. but self-defense has to be proportional and it has to concern imminent threat to your person. you don't get to point an assault rifle at a crowd of protestors because they bent the handle on your wrought-iron gate.

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-03 06:36:04)

I dunno, if 20+ angry people turned up on your doorstep and started smashing things would you be nervous or just wait and see if they started kicking down the door?

Half of American buildings probably have some slave content, I guess it should all just be burned down.

In the long run black Americans want to be dominant, there's blood in the water and they're seizing their chance.

Did they even try talking to the people first? Just politely asking them to not break anything probably would have worked. Did the people in the house have any bottled water or snacks to hand out to passers by? They kind of fucked up their lives by being confrontational instead of trying to be friendly.

Dilbert_X wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If I was worried about the danger from people walking down the street/sidewalk with cell phones, I certainly wouldn't confrontationally wade out into the middle of it with a handgun. How stupid can you get.

It's not a movie.

Apparently it was a gated community and everyone was trespassing.

Yeah well like I suggested, it's a gray issue. But I think the people bringing guns belligerently to the fore were highly more concerning than a stroll through a gated community.

From the ACLU flyer:

What about free speech activity on private property?
The general rule is that the owners of private property may set rules limiting your
free speech. If you disobey the property owner's rules, they can order you off
their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).

Dilbert_X wrote:

Apparently they didn't step off their property, which was up a private road in a gated community.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/co … e-n1232400

People shouldn't enter private property without permission, definitely not in America.

The protesters were being dicks.

I'm not sure what the particular rules and regs are for this particular gated community or (if applicable) HOA are, but I'm guessing that sidewalks were common property for members. Slightly different than someone breaking down your front door, I think. Even if security or police didn't want to deal with it, I don't think it was the homeowners' place to confront the protesters the way they did. Not a proportional reaction, and probably stupid if the homeowners did legitimately view the protesters as a threat.

uziq wrote:

how often would a photographer carry around their camera so that it looks like an assault rifle? is that configuration even possible in a carrying scenario? it's laid out on a bedsheet ffs.

I just thought it was funny considering the previous image.

It's grotesque someone would even own a home like that. Can you imagine the paranoid siege mentality of the people living in these gated monstrosities?

SuperJail Warden wrote:

It's grotesque someone would even own a home like that. Can you imagine the paranoid siege mentality of the people living in these gated monstrosities?

ironically they are personal injury lawyers, who i'm sure dilbert has spoken of as being the lowest of the low scum of the earth, etc.

now for some reason my comments are meant to answer for and excuse the behaviour of israel, too. what a burden!

even if they were on a private road, i don't think trespassing by walking through an open gate into a gated neighbourhood quite grants the right to threaten someone with a loaded gun.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Seen this image pop up here and there.

Saw that a couple days ago.  Wasn't sure what it was, but pretty sure what it wasn't: a rifle.

uziq wrote:

https://apnews.com/c2fc871ca4bb3d20995ab2334331d10b?utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

hollis what are these nice young upstanding officers of the law doing?

Looks like they're taking a picture.

HollisHurlbut wrote:

uziq wrote:

https://apnews.com/c2fc871ca4bb3d20995ab2334331d10b?utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow

hollis what are these nice young upstanding officers of the law doing?

Looks like they're taking a picture.

so you think it's okay for police who have killed people in chokeholds to joke and jeer about it in private, and take mocking photographs?

these are people entrusted with the lives and protection of citizens. i think you need to really stop and question what all your anal-retentive pedantry is for. because it sure as hell isn't in the interests of the public good, and reassuring the citizens that the police are there for their safety and protection. it seems like you're using the legal code to play sophistical games in order to acquit and protect your own cabal.

if a murderer took photographs of his victims, the crime-scene, etc., or gloated and bragged about his deeds, expressing the opposite of contrition and remorse, would it be held against him in a court of law? would it be an aggravating factor? really make u think

Last edited by uziq (2020-07-04 06:50:34)

why would someone respond with 'haha' to an image of three people standing together? where's the joke?

if you killed someone in a chokehold, and that was on your conscience, if you'd taken another human being's life, do you think you wouldn't be reminded of that act every time you put someone else in a chokehold, or laid hands on them? totally unconnected, right?

i guess amorality is the name of the game when Blue Lives Matter.

uziq wrote:

why would someone respond with 'haha' to an image of three people standing together? where's the joke?

Because it looks like the people in the photo are having a good time?  I don't know; I didn't say it.  But jumping to the conclusion that they are mocking something based on a reply from someone who wasn't even involved in the photo in the first place is a leap too far.

The chief, in so many words, called it tasteless.

But I guess let's ignore provided context and just call it an innocuous photo of three friends.

I don't really have any objections to them being fired, retrained, or at least confined to desk jobs. If their judgment is that dodgy, they shouldn't be interacting with the public.