Author Topic: [NEWS]War zone in Dallas, 11 cops shot during protest, 5 dead. suspects escaped  (Read 17026 times)

Every year ever except 2016: Police officers shoot blacks
2016: Black people shoot police officers
The roles are being switched round.

I noticed that one of the police officers killed just so happened to be a PoC, which is rather ironic for a movement called "Black Lives Matter". If Black Lives Mattered truly, blacks wouldn't be killed, definitely not by a black person.

Every year ever except 2016: Police officers shoot blacks
2016: Black people shoot police officers
The roles are being switched round.

I noticed that one of the police officers killed just so happened to be a PoC, which is rather ironic for a movement called "Black Lives Matter". If Black Lives Mattered truly, blacks wouldn't be killed, definitely not by a black person.
It doesn't matter, because he was still a cop, and we all know that all cops are corrupt, white tribals on the inside.

Doesn't matter. It's viewed pretty much incontrovertibly as an awful tragedy and you're the one advocating for more of it. Next time crack open a history book before you accidentally ask for more innocent people to get killed.

An equal amount of cops died today and more were injured so this is a worse tragedy. It should be the belligerents receiving casualties.

It doesn't matter, because he was still a cop, and we all know that all cops are corrupt, white tribals on the inside.
Black cops are like Oreos. They're black on the outside, but horribly white on the inside.

4 different times I've heard the scanner transfer to automatic gunfire, even right now as I type this christ this is really loving scary and I never care about these events but this is a seriously forgeted situation, turning this stuff off now.

I'm with you man
yep responding to the statement with a passive aggressive comment really validates your point.

You can kill someone by throwing a rock at them so yeah they should be shot at
if the person was throwing the rock to defend themselves, then no. If they were doing it in an act of aggression, then yes.

I'm sure those 11 cops who got shot in Dallas felt pretty dominant
don't see your point, getting shot and killed doesn't invalidate dominance. Feeling dominant isn't a bad thing either unless it's used to intimidate without cause and to just be a richard.

on that note I'm sure those 28 National Guardsmen felt pretty dominant opening fire into innocents who disagreed with their country's decision to continue invading a foreign country that had no relation to their own and doing so for profit and the war economy.

I mean, 'BLM' isn't an actual organization. The person in that picture is obviously tribal, but throwing out the slogan 'Black Lives Matter!' doesn't automatically group you in with this guy that likes to see cops get killed.
That is a good point, I was rather commenting on how the majority of the people who associate themselves with the movement are tribals rather than the movements ideals as a whole.

How is the "you're tribal" card already getting pulled? I'm willing to bet at-least one of those 11 officers were black.
blacks can be tribal against other blacks y'know... has nothing to do with a racism card.

Well I don't think the NG just opened up on random civilians. I think there was unacceptable collateral damage which happens a lot in violent protest situations but I still wouldn't blame the NG personally.
What you think doesn't matter, they were college students, not terrorists or some trouble makers, but college students who were killed/injured for displaying their beliefs and disagreeing with it's governments decisions.

An equal amount of cops died today and more were injured so this is a worse tragedy. It should be the belligerents receiving casualties.
one event doesn't cancel out the other you sick forget, people dying are people dying. "This is a worse tragedy" doesn't prove your point, it only displays how incompetent you are.

An equal amount of cops died today and more were injured so this is a worse tragedy. It should be the belligerents receiving casualties.
I don't follow your logic. Care to rephrase what you're saying here?

An equal amount of cops died today and more were injured so this is a worse tragedy. It should be the belligerents receiving casualties.
Yes, it was a worse tragedy. How does this relate to your argument?

FBI and ATF are involved now.

Looks like they're playing on Very Hard

FBI and ATF are involved now.

Looks like they're playing on Very Hard
i should not have found this amusing

if the person was throwing the rock to defend themselves, then no. If they were doing it in an act of aggression, then yes.

Thanks for explaining.

don't see your point, getting shot and killed doesn't invalidate dominance. Feeling dominant isn't a bad thing either unless it's used to intimidate without cause and to just be a richard.

I'd say using dominance to apprehend a dangerous criminal is a pretty good cause.

on that note I'm sure those 28 National Guardsmen felt pretty dominant opening fire into innocents who disagreed with their country's decision to continue invading a foreign country that had no relation to their own and doing so for profit and the war economy.
What you think doesn't matter, they were college students, not terrorists or some trouble makers, but college students who were killed/injured for displaying their beliefs and disagreeing with it's governments decisions.

Yea but they attacked the ng

Yea but they attacked the ng
Tell that to the 50% of the people murdered who were just walking to class.

Tell that to the 50% of the people murdered who were just walking to class.

Does further training in marksmanship and target identification not count as "militarization of police"?

Yea but they attacked the ng
Tell that to the 50% of the people murdered who were just walking to class.
not to mention I haven't seen a single thing saying that the students were being aggressive or violent towards them prior to the shooting so I'm pretty sure you just pulled that out of your ass.

Does further training in marksmanship and target identification not count as "militarization of police"?
what does that even have to do with what he responded with.

what does that even have to do with what he responded with.

Because I've been advocating the militarization of police. Before it turned into an argument about Kent State I guess.

Because I've been advocating the militarization of police. Before it turned into an argument about Kent State I guess.
Kent State is militarization of police, they're not two separate discussions