Black Lives Matter is an honorable movement and is in no way racist

This isn't debatable. This point has been proven to be irrelevant. An officer can ask someone, anyone to get out of their vehicle. It has been litigated and decided.

 

I believe he's being disciplined because his conduct was caught on tape for all to see (particularly his superiors). I've seen cops and CO's get disciplined for cursing out detainees.

Guess who was bytch'n about Obama making that program... Black women. Lol...

 

Yes it is a myth as to how it is portrayed. As if it is exclusive to the black community. There is no such thing as solving black on black crime, that would be like creating a utopia where people just don't kill other people.

You can solve GANG related crime though.

Speaking about that I wonder why everyone runs to Sherman as the go to guy when his own teammate disagrees with him on this issue?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_tQjJHGEErU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

To Granville, if you are willing to listen to Sherman than you have to be willing to listen to Bennett too.

It really doesn't matter because the issue still stands. That was the point of quoting King there. Not that he supported militant groups and the riots. (He didn't.) That he understood where the anger was coming from and it was a warning quote that as long as their voices go unheard it will continue as it have been for years now.

Maybe more people will speak about Campaign Zero instead of BLM, it really doesn't matter though as long as the issue stands.

The people that protested in Ferguson are not the same ones that did so in Baltimore or any where else. Colbert was wearing a BLM wristband, the founders are not grand wizards. They created a slogan and hashtag and people ran with it. They are not directing masses of people and I bet most of the people that support it don't even know who they are.

I was only bringing in a quote, but I mentioned why it was relevant above.

He was no loved figure, maybe I'll go more in depth with it later though but it took awhile for people to understand where he was coming from.

 

That's very similar to saying that racism is a myth as to how it is portrayed. Is that something you believe as well?

 

Talking about race and crying wolf are 2 different things. What you might call the former in actuality is a lot of the latter. Richard Sherman is 100% correct when he says to the Black Community needs to get it's house in order before pointing fingers.

I read your comment about watching Michael Bennett's video. I did watch it before I posted Sherman's video. I'd hardly say the comparison of the ability to effectively articulate their point of view between those 2 men was equal.

 

This is simply not true. Once an officer returns to a vehicle with a ticket or warning, the person is constitutionally free to go and does not have to answer any further questions or requests. Any question the officer asks at that point are optional for the person to answer. They can not take any further action (such as detaining) without the person's consent.

He asked her a question "Why are you upset?" that was not investigatory - it was to inflame the situation and goad her into making a mistake. By law she did not have to put the cig out. She was actually free to go - she just didn't know it.

He violated her constitutional rights. His asking her to exit the vehicle was no longer allowable unless he had reasonable cause of another violation of the law was happening. There was not. He violated her rights.

 

And why do you think the black community's house isn't in order since you agree with Sherman...?

 

The difference is that racism is a defined word. Defined by the very existence of human history.

Black on Black crime was a term that has pretty much been made up. The media uses it to further divide people and paint black people as more violent.

So you are just going to ignore his point completely? Well that's not fair at all, if you want to talk about these things address the points and not just be selective in who you want to listen to and who you want to ignore.

I'm really confused though, Bennett spoke well and wasn't up there speaking slang. You just refused to even hear his point out which is the entire problem. You only want to listen when it makes you feel comfortable. I hope you are ready then to accept and agree with whatever Sherman says then because he also spoke out against policing and racism before. So I hope you listen to that then too.

Using Sherman's logic and yours, the white community also needs to get it's house in order since white on white crime is also such an issue.

As for Michael Bennett, I actually knew the guy and even insinuating that he's dumb or can't articulate his point well enough to even consider it is unfair.

But it's fine, if you want to listen to Sherman then let's listen to him.

So let's get to the bottom of this. Sherman IS NOT against BLM. He says as much quite clearly.

What he's saying that is different from his teammate Bennett is that he thinks black on black crime should be solved before addressing the policing issue. Sherman also thinks LE is an issue, as he's said it's something that he's dealt with his entire life.

What Bennett is saying is that's not right because there will always be black on black crime, as there has always been white on white crime. The issues are separate issues completely but if you listen to both of them in their entirety they both believe are behind the same thing. Bennett is just speaking up about the tired black on black crime excuse argument, because it is tired and a bit lazy if you ask me.

When are you going to address white on white crime btw?

 

They are not "free to go" until that ticket or warning has been issued, it never had the chance to be issued. Certainly you aren't trying to suggest that someone could just drive off as soon as the officer gets back to their car holding a ticket.

It's a really good thing you aren't in law because I'd hate to think there was someone out there giving that sort of ridiculous advice.

No one violated her constitutional rights and frankly, it's flat out stupid to think so.

In fact, I actually want you to try and drive off the next time a cop pulls you over before he issues you a ticket. Get back to me on how that works out. Tell him how you are free to go and how he's violating your constitutional rights.

 

It's been established that the founders of BLM have suspicious backgrounds. What do we see and hear from them but hostile rhetoric. All the reasonable ones have defected to the ALM movement... or should. From what we have seen of BLM, that is the only reasonable choice. It's okay to make distinctions about what is just and effective.

 

Trying to win by distraction? The BLM movement came to the forefront when a few of the Rams players came out to the playing field in mimicry of the lie that the BLM movement was promulgating about Michael Brown's "cooperation" with the police. It was a lie then; it's a joke now.

Funny thing is that "Hands up; don't shoot" is a very good advisory for future reference. BTW, did Trayvon Martin ever utter the infamous "hands up, don't shoot" line? I don't think so.

 

It's absolutely OK and good to make distinction. Broad brush is not making any distinction.

 

It came into being after Trayvon Martin. BLM is bigger than any one case. Racist try to tie it to one case to minimize the real injustice they are fighting. By saying it is only about Michael Brown and a criminal, they can undermine the whole purpose. This is racist at its finest. This is how you dismiss a movement to address legit concerns about race and power - you vilify it into something it is not - basically a really sick and twisted straw man. Your kind of folks did this to MLK too. Then they rewrite history to say they were behind him the whole time.

Actually once the cop has decided that it is just a warning and makes the decision to do that - she is free to go. It's not about issuing it's about the decision a cop makes. That is actually what the law is. Of course Sandra can not know she is free to go because she doesn't know the outcome, but the cop does know. Therefore at that point any questions he asks are no longer compulsory. The law actually acknowledges that the detainee can not possibly know this.

The bottom line, Sandra Bland didn't have to put out her cig, and she didn't have to get out of the car - of course she did not know this and could not have known this. That is the only thing that giving her the warning would have done, it given her the ability to know she could leave.

If a cop sees something else that gives him probable cause of a different offense he can make the person comply. But it is not compulsory if he does not have probable cause.

For instance, a cop can give you a traffic ticket, and then ask if the driver minded if he took a look at the trunk. If he then finds narcotics, he can arrest the guy. But if the guy said, "No I do mind" - the cop can't do anything at that point.

Again, it's not when he hands the citation over, it's when he writes and creates it.

 

LOL, so by all means, the next time you get pulled over, feel free to go once they start writing you a ticket or warning and just take off. I truly want you to do this and claim that it was your "constitutional right" to take off before you are handed a ticket or warning.

 

Did you even read what I wrote? Geez you are so dense.

 

And so I do; virtually everything I see about BLM is disturbing and does not generate empathy.

 

You do know that there are black people who do not stand with the approach and the attitude of BLM.... are they racist, too?

"(my) kind of folks?" Are you typing one-handed?

Trayvon Martin was no better an inspiration than Michael Brown would have been for the birth of this "movement."

 

Well, when you need a mid-80s Edmonton Oilers' worth of federal court wins and multiple acts of Congress to get public bathroom privileges after your great-grandparents were human tractors with no genealogy: to say nothing of the intervening century of eugenics professorships, marriage restrictions, primary voting bans and residential quarantines, you're probably going to stick together.

 

That's cause you can't get pass the action of a few and assign it to all. Confirmation bias yield broad brush.

 

You say "a few," but how are you going to prove that? Virtually everything we see is violent and hostile in nature. Calls for cop-killing.... fry 'em like bacon.... you are just willing to overlook so much.

If a violent arm has taken over the BLM movement then it is dead as far as legitimacy goes... might as well join the ALM.