BLM upset because cop didn't let crazy man stab him

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lyin' Steve]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wonder what any of these people would do if they had a gun and some crazy person with a knife got in a struggle with them.

Also way to condescendingly blame the police officer for being attacked.  I'm sure if he had left his gun in his car his interaction with the knife-wielding psycho would have turned out just fine.

[Suburbia]

BLM wants cops to be killed. Anyone who thinks BLM is a mainstream movement is joking themselves. I thought better of them.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Something something systemic racism something something trayvon martin something something straight white men.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not sanguine about the officer going in with his gun drawn, but under the situation described if he had to enter, having his gun drawn makes sense. The question is, did he need to enter, but that brief article has insufficient info to say for certain, tho it looks like he did.

[Wells]

Why does BLM make it so hard to support them? Maybe if they just focused on their (admirable) goals, we'd get something done, but the police officer seems perfectly justified in this scenario (unlike others) and there's no reason to criticize it. Are they blind? Or are they just trolling us?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Why does BLM make it so hard to support them? Maybe if they just focused on their (admirable) goals, we'd get something done, but the police officer seems perfectly justified in this scenario (unlike others) and there's no reason to criticize it. Are they blind? Or are they just trolling us?

     There are extremist elements that carry far too much currency in BLM. The good goals it has have to compete for attention with nutters calling for the police force to be abolished.

[KingSweden]

Why does BLM make it so hard to support them? Maybe if they just focused on their (admirable) goals, we'd get something done, but the police officer seems perfectly justified in this scenario (unlike others) and there's no reason to criticize it. Are they blind? Or are they just trolling us?

     There are extremist elements that carry far too much currency in BLM. The good goals it has have to compete for attention with nutters calling for the police force to be abolished.

This has, over time, become my general attitude. I think a lot of what they want to accomplish is important and some of the discrepancies in our criminal justice system need to be frankly, honestly and finally addressed, and that runs much deeper than just police shootings, which I view as just a symptom of a broader problem but a decent place to start since the argument is simple and easy for laypeople to understand.

It's too bad that the loudest voices tend to be the most extreme and BLM is often its own worst enemy and shoots itself in the foot unnecessarily.

[Hammy]

It's too bad that the loudest voices tend to be the most extreme and BLM is often its own worst enemy and shoots itself in the foot unnecessarily.

I agree but I think it's a bit flipped--the most extreme voices, even if tiny in number, tend to drown out the rest.

[Bacon King]

BLM wants cops to be killed. Anyone who thinks BLM is a mainstream movement is joking themselves. I thought better of them.

Something something systemic racism something something trayvon martin something something straight white men.

so did this forum become Stormfront and I just didn't get the memo or

[Cory]

BLM wants cops to be killed. Anyone who thinks BLM is a mainstream movement is joking themselves. I thought better of them.

Something something systemic racism something something trayvon martin something something straight white men.

so did this forum become Stormfront and I just didn't get the memo or

No, it just isn't RevLeft.

[dead0man]

I'm not sanguine about the officer going in with his gun drawn, but under the situation described if he had to enter, having his gun drawn makes sense. The question is, did he need to enter, but that brief article has insufficient info to say for certain, tho it looks like he did.

The knife guy had just left a Costco (or something) and the security tried to stop him for reasons that are unclear.  Knife guy put knife to his throat (this is all on video) and security gaurd backed off and the guy left the store.  Security guy calls cops.  The cops pull up in their car with the knife guy walking past them they start to get out as knife guy approaches, the driver is lunged at by knife guy, driver shoots him.

link to video

Like most of these, I don't know if the guy deserved to die, but I know what would have made him NOT dead.

[Lyin' Steve]

I'm not sanguine about the officer going in with his gun drawn, but under the situation described if he had to enter, having his gun drawn makes sense. The question is, did he need to enter, but that brief article has insufficient info to say for certain, tho it looks like he did.

The knife guy had just left a Costco (or something) and the security tried to stop him for reasons that are unclear.  Knife guy put knife to his throat (this is all on video) and security gaurd backed off and the guy left the store.  Security guy calls cops.  The cops pull up in their car with the knife guy walking past them they start to get out as knife guy approaches, the driver is lunged at by knife guy, driver shoots him.

link to video

Like most of these, I don't know if the guy deserved to die, but I know what would have made him NOT dead.

I'm sure BLM will have this guy's face on a poster in the middle of a blocked highway during rush hour as they chant about how the poor sweet innocent man was shot by a racist cop.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah let's not care about every time the police killed people for no reason because that one time they actually had a valid reason. Great logic guys.

[dead0man]

Yeah, that's totally what we're saying Tony


(and "that one time they actually had a valid reason", that can't possibly mean what it seems to mean, can it?)

[Antonio the Sixth]

(and "that one time they actually had a valid reason", that can't possibly mean what it seems to mean, can it?)

What does it "seem to mean"?

[dead0man]

It seems to mean you think that this is the only time a cop has killed somebody this year for a valid reason.  Of course it can't mean that, perhaps I just read it wrong.  It happens.

Like you seem to think that disagreeing with BLM here means we don't care when cops kill for no reason.  Perhaps you're just reading us wrong?  It happens.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm sure it happens some times. However, it's not a socially important issue and focusing on this kind of cases over those BLM rightfully denounces reflects seriously screwed up priorities.

[dead0man]

If this was the only time BLM did something like this you'd have a point.  But it happens a lot.  The argument that "it's a big organization with sh**tty or nonexistent leadership with a bunch of random loud moths regularly embarrassing them but the general purpose and overall goals of the group is a net good for society" is a much better angle than the one you seem to be taking.

[White Trash]

BLM wants cops to be killed. Anyone who thinks BLM is a mainstream movement is joking themselves. I thought better of them.

Something something systemic racism something something trayvon martin something something straight white men.

so did this forum become Stormfront and I just didn't get the memo or

Remember folks, anything that isn't ripped straight from Democratic Underground is "le literally Stormfront".

[Antonio the Sixth]

If this was the only time BLM did something like this you'd have a point.  But it happens a lot.  The argument that "it's a big organization with sh**tty or nonexistent leadership with a bunch of random loud moths regularly embarrassing them but the general purpose and overall goals of the group is a net good for society" is a much better angle than the one you seem to be taking.

I just don't see why anyone would make a big deal out of this except to discredit the broader message of BLM.

[Lyin' Steve]

If this was the only time BLM did something like this you'd have a point.  But it happens a lot.  The argument that "it's a big organization with sh**tty or nonexistent leadership with a bunch of random loud moths regularly embarrassing them but the general purpose and overall goals of the group is a net good for society" is a much better angle than the one you seem to be taking.

I just don't see why anyone would make a big deal out of this except to discredit the broader message of BLM.

Because BLM is making a big deal out of it.  See thread title.

I'm sure it happens some times. However, it's not a socially important issue and focusing on this kind of cases over those BLM rightfully denounces reflects seriously screwed up priorities.

So whenever an example proves you right it's a very important issue but whenever there's a counterexample it's "not a socially important issue"?
They're all under the same umbrella.  The issue is "racist cops shoot innocent unarmed black people", or as Kendrick Lamar put it, "every time you clock in the morning I feel you just want to kill."  Is it true?  The counterargument is that in many or most of these situations, there were extenuating circumstances where the cop felt that he had no other option but to use deadly force, leaving not a national epidemic but a few isolated cases, like Baton Rouge, where everyone agrees the officers committed murder.  Every time there's a case like this where BLM is angry angry angry that a man was shot but it's clear from the evidence that the officer felt he had no other choice, that contributes to the counterargument.

[Associate Justice PiT]

If this was the only time BLM did something like this you'd have a point.  But it happens a lot.  The argument that "it's a big organization with sh**tty or nonexistent leadership with a bunch of random loud moths regularly embarrassing them but the general purpose and overall goals of the group is a net good for society" is a much better angle than the one you seem to be taking.

I just don't see why anyone would make a big deal out of this except to discredit the broader message of BLM.

     It's part of a broader issue with the messaging of BLM, and the control that extremist elements exercise over it. This is hardly the first time that someone affiliated with BLM has done or said something that is, at best, counterproductive. Considering the influence of those extremist elements, there is a serious question to ask: is the organization in question an effective means by which the message we are describing can be advocated?

[RINO Tom]

Yeah let's not care about every time the police killed people for no reason because that one time they actually had a valid reason. Great logic guys.

Are you seriously implying cops murder more people in cold blood than they are forced to shoot in the line of duty?  Jesus Christ, dude.

[Bacon King]

No, it just isn't RevLeft.

Remember folks, anything that isn't ripped straight from Democratic Underground is "le literally Stormfront".

yeah I don't know what either of those things are guys but I do know racism when I see it

of course the cop in this instance had a right to self defense. that doesn't let you people get away with making objectively terrible claims like "durrrr BLM wants cops to be killed" or "hurrrr systemic racism isn't a problem and blah blah blah I'm an offensive moron". You don't get to sweep countless victims of police brutality and societal bigotry under the rug just because some BLM activists are saying stupid things and you feel like building a strawman out of it

I'm just doing my part and speaking up for the silent majority so y'alls vicious ignorance isn't allowed to go unquestioned and spread like cancer