SkyDekker

Who is saying it wouldn't be? The questions are around the actions that led to escalation. A car is replaceable, a life isn't.

Or, in the absence of the "A guy with a concealed weapon". The car thief would have just fled the scene without striking the woman. Because obviously he didn't have a gun. That he was in fear for his life and that led to his fevered actions in fleeing the scene. The post from wolfriverjoe re the dangers and financial costs associated with shooting someone. Needs to be front and center. Suppose the car thief has no money or assets and the woman is seriously injured by the fleeing thief's actions. Bring in some lawyers who discover the armed man has assets. Did you read what was posted? If I'm reading it correctly, the thief tried to run the woman down before the gun was pulled out. That is, the thief was confronted by someone not holding a gun, attempted to escape by running someone over (twice), then the citizen produced a firearm. And the idea that the interior of the car was ruined because the thief's brains were splattered all over it is sorta silly. If he was dead, he wouldn't be facing charges. I won't disagree that confronting thieves is often dangerous. It's not a good idea. This citizen will likely be dealing with this for a while. Lots of time and lots of money to get through it. Also, I did a quick search and found nothing that matches the story. Got a link? Did you read what was written...I have highlighted the time line to make it easier for you.

A guy with a gun turned theft into attempted murder and you call that a victory? Then you are surprised people would use a term like "gun nut"?

Weren't you the one who had a real problem with so called chain migration?

Ah yes, the magical Deep State and Qanon. That's plausible for sure.

The FBI, who never ever has had a Democrat as a director but has always been lead by a Republican is actively protecting a Democrat and illegally investigating and prosecuting a Republican. Somehow this all makes sense to you.

Those who complain about Russian meddling are traitors because the other side refuses to believe it? That makes sense.

They are likely low on funds to mix the non-reported funding with to launder it.

Bullshit. We see it in media coverage of shootings. We see it in how cases are handled. We see it in how people are approached and "investigated". List goes on and on. Don't need parity in rate to establish any of that.

Which is different than when a young white man pulls a gun out and kills someone. That is racism. Right. when you look at the black population in general and the black contingent of people shot by police, you see that the ratios are quite different. Some of that is racism, some of that is economic factors, some of it is other factors. There is a reason black people are over-represented in the poor community. I don't tend to believe it is because they are inherently lazy or stupid. It is significantly harder for a black person to get: Educated Employed Promoted Wealthy Many of the reasons why: racism. So yes, there are other factors at play. I mean sometimes a drunk person crashes a car for other reasons than being drunk. Yet, when it comes to trying to reduce people crashing while driving drunk, we tend to focus on the drunk part. Your arguments are, IMHO, akin to trying to point at the few other instances.

But why do cops feel that they have to be so much more careful when pulling over a young black man than a young white man? Even if the cop is black? You really think there is a one size fits all answer for that? How about cops just treat both the same?

The big difference is that the colour of your skin determines which level of stupidity will get you killed. That is what BLM tends to object to. Which is likely why you wouldn't see signage like that.

For fucks sake. Nobody is saying that. What people are trying to explain to you is that there are underlying reasons for much of that behaviour. Maybe some understanding from "the other side" is helpful in trying to keep young black men alive. You may not be racist, but the constant unwillingness to look at "the other side of the coin" is certainly a trait you share with racists.

Pence who installed Manafort and Flynn when heading up Trump's transition team.

Sometimes I wonder how many people say things like: Snowflake Toughen up suck it up cupcake just work harder Say it like it is hate political correctness etc. But then get bent out of shape when spoken to in a direct matter.

Let me guess, you are the one bringing logic and debate and those who are saying you are wrong are smug condescension. Did you ever think that maybe you are just wrong? Did that decisions making process take place as part of your logic?

Most people are able to make a distinction between conversations about race and racist conversations. Let's see if I can come up with an example you can grasp. It is the same difference between trying to discuss data surrounding gun ownership and stating the gun owners must have a small dick. Or talking about the state of education in the US and stating that Americans are generally stupid.

I think that clearly shows you have zero understanding of the dynamics at play. If you think every thing can be distilled down to one single event, without taking history into account you are a fool. You are further being disingenuous by now claiming this is a single event and nothing else should matter or be involved. yet you had no problem taking this one single event and use it as a "punchline" against a movement. I have a hard time believing that is just innocent misunderstanding and you don't know better. You are exhibiting the typical arguments and nonsense that a racist brings to the table.

Stealing isn't a crime either. Drinking and driving isn't a crime either. Shooting someone isn't a crime either. Hitting somebody isn't a crime either. Of course all those acts can be criminal, they just are called something else. That concept appears to be too difficult for the retards that follow Trump.

Of course if you have spent the previous 15 years being harassed by cops for really no other reason than being black, one might be nervous, worried, stressed, anxious when pulled over again. Guess what happens to people when they are stressed, worried, nervous and anxious? That's right genius, they act differently than they normally would. Your comments really show that you have not a single clue about what goes on.

I think the way you frame this issue is part of a bigger problem. First of all, morals has absolutely nothing to do with it. Secondly, after elementary school "Johnny did it too" really shouldn't be part of a conversation anymore. Lastly, just because you have done it to another country doesn't mean you would sit idly by while another country does it to you. Investigating what happened and shoring up defence would be a normal course of action. The US has assassinated plenty of foreign politicians in their history, does that mean they shouldn't try and prevent foreign governments from assassinating US politicians?

Go ahead and keep twisting reality like a balloon animal. It won't stop the slaughter. Or does it matter, since all the blood shed involves young black men? As the father of a young black man I think I have a pretty decent grasp on the reality he faces.

Why would you think that advocating for one things means you are ignoring another thing? Your argument is as silly as saying that white people can kill black people, because black people kill black people. Would you have made a comment similar to this if he had been killed by a drunk driver? Do you think that the Black Lives Matter movement is only related to murder? You seem to have a very basic understanding of racism and institutional racism. Your attitude is very similar to people who feel that black people shouldn't complain so much and that this is all their own fault.

He dedicated his life to convincing white people that black lives matter, but was shot, as are the overwhelming majority of black shooting victims, by a black man. How dare those uppity guys say something right....

It is a silly argument Trump supporters are using. It is akin to saying stealing isn't against the law. This, I guess, is technically true. However theft is clearly against the law. Just like drinking and driving isn't against the law. Driving under the influence is. The "collusion isn't a crime" argument follows the same line.