• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Need a Confirmation, Police in North Miami shoot black man assisting a patient

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Well,,,

An interesting thread!!!


If I were a Black Man, and a cop pulled me over, I'd consider it game over. He wants to kill me and I'm not just going to sit there and let it happen. Cops and their companion Courts have made it abundantly clear that it is open season on me, and they laugh all the way back home after killing yet another of me. I would have to be an absolute damned fool not to consider him an immediate threat to my continued life. That cop would not get a chance to bring his car to a stop before I pumped 30+ rounds of green and black tip .308 into his driver's side windshield. As soon as those lights come on behind me, he has advertised his intent to murder me with the knowledge that he'll get away with it. No different from a thug pulling a knife in a dark alley. The intent is known. Cops murder citizens of a certain demographic for bloodsport. The only way to survive is to kill them first. It's no longer a mere us-vs-them attitude. Cops have openly declared war. Let them experience the business end of that declaration. Give it back to them as hard as they dish it out. quote from ixtow
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
There is a huge difference between someone OCing in a holster while normally going about his business, and someone with a gun in hand (or so someone thought) behaving so irrationally that another person is trying to calm him and get him back to the nearby psych hospital.

did you watch the video of the Norman case last month or so? the judges on the panel are so stupid to believe that open carry means "walking around with a gun in your hand".
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
Let me set forth your attempt to put words in my mouth, and expound.

I'd be damn proud to shake the hand of a person shooting at murdering traitors who wear a badge and uniform.

Any old cop at random? No.

But, if you were part of a demographic that the cops were clearly targeting for bloodsport, you might see things differently.



somehow i don't think he's talking about them
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
did you watch the video of the Norman case last month or so? the judges on the panel are so stupid to believe that open carry means "walking around with a gun in your hand".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qKeJ6jd2Ak&app=desktop

This Norman?

Total BS arrest.

A judge yesterday told me he thought that my word "evil" in describing a .gov equaled abuse. I had to give him a lesson on the first amendment. And given that courts have used the same term in describing .govs for the same thing I was complaining about...
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qKeJ6jd2Ak&app=desktop

This Norman?

Total BS arrest.

A judge yesterday told me he thought that my word "evil" in describing a .gov equaled abuse. I had to give him a lesson on the first amendment. And given that courts have used the same term in describing .govs for the same thing I was complaining about...

yes this one. but did you watch the oral arguments from june or july? the judges literally thought open carry meant to walk around with a gun in your hand.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
History is filled with stubborn facts. Being from SC I am aware of what Patriots did to Loyalists in SC. There remains a Loyalist Plantation in my family. They put on a great July 4 picnic on the Black River.

The source you quoted has a certain tone, that seems to long to highlight every mis-step ever made in our history.

Still, there is no doubt that Loyalists were mistreated. The question is, was this ordered or orchestrated by the Revolutionary Congress or the military chain of command? Or are we talking about common rabble committing criminal acts?

When I write of those who waged the Revolution and how that war was waged, I write of what the government officials and military officers ordered; not of what every individual might have done. While the common soldier fought, had the war been lost I highly doubt the British would have engaged in mass executions of every volunteer in the army. Rather, we might expect that the signers of the Declaration, members of the Continental Congress, and some number of high ranking military officers starting with Washington and working down would have been subject to trial and execution for treason.

Were there terrorists and criminals among the colonists? Of course.

Did the Continental Congress or the Continental Army engage in a terroristic war? No. Guerrilla is a fair assessment. Terroristic is not.

Charles
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
The source you quoted has a certain tone, that seems to long to highlight every mis-step ever made in our history.

Still, there is no doubt that Loyalists were mistreated. The question is, was this ordered or orchestrated by the Revolutionary Congress or the military chain of command? Or are we talking about common rabble committing criminal acts?

When I write of those who waged the Revolution and how that war was waged, I write of what the government officials and military officers ordered; not of what every individual might have done. While the common soldier fought, had the war been lost I highly doubt the British would have engaged in mass executions of every volunteer in the army. Rather, we might expect that the signers of the Declaration, members of the Continental Congress, and some number of high ranking military officers starting with Washington and working down would have been subject to trial and execution for treason.

Were there terrorists and criminals among the colonists? Of course.

Did the Continental Congress or the Continental Army engage in a terroristic war? No. Guerrilla is a fair assessment. Terroristic is not.

Charles

you are, unfortunately, describing you perception from the victor's point of view of written history as well as using current definitions of terrorism.
quote:
It is important to look at the British definition of terrorism in the 18th century because we want to see if the actions of the colonists were considered terrorism in the eyes of the British and not our own eyes. The British did not have a definition of terrorism like ours today, but had a specific “code of conduct” to follow for civil and military affairs. Even though Britain didn’t have a definition of what a terrorist is there are parallels between what we do with terrorists nowadays and what the British did with deviant behavior during the American Revolution.

There are many examples in which the British dismissed the actions of the American government as deviant. They viewed the acts as something that didn’t conform to the norms of society. Society’s norms are usually defined by the most influential people; in this case it’s Britain because it was the most dominant/powerful nation in the world. The question is: Do these acts of deviance constitute terrorism in the eyes of the British? There are two acts of deviance that were predominant in the American Revolution that are closely related to the terrorism that we are facing today: the privateering of vessels to act as the American Navy and the tactic of Asymmetrical warfare.

Privateers were sanctioned pirates that were given authority by the Continental Congress. They would attack a British ship and steal its goods and split it amongst themselves as a way to deplete British supply lines.

Asymmetrical warfare is a type of fight in which one side, usually the weaker side, uses an unconventional type of warfare. The American Revolution was the first war in the modern era in which this style was used.

We cannot define the American Revolutionaries actions as terrorism but a deviant act. unquote
http://terroristvsfreedomfighter.blogspot.com/2011/10/was-american-revolution-act-of_03.html

a rose is still recorded as someone's freedom fighter to the victor...

ipse
 
Top