What is the point of bringing up the weed? Are you saying he deserved to die because he was smoking weed in the car? I fail to see the connection at all. He didn't deserve to die. That's all you had to say.
Then why are you ranting about black on black crime if black people already know about it? If you want to throw a rally to end black on black crime, I'm sure you can apply for a permit and have at it! No one is stopping you, and I'm sure your effort will be appreciated by the *** Movement. You should try it if it is such a big concern of yours.
So how does it work? Cops are then allowed to use illegal tactics to murder him, or were they supposed to use their training to subdue him and take him in? How many cops were on the scene? Three? Four? Why did he have to die? Did he threaten their lives? Did he have a firearm? He told them to leave, and that is reason enough that he was murdered? I'm trying to understand your logic.
They should start a movement if they feel this is a recurring issue, don't you think?
This is what "us guys....along with other **********" do? lol. I'm going to let that slide. But tell me....what does crime have to do with people who are sworn to protect and serve instead murdering and harassing? You have yet to explain why it is wrong to protest against police brutality due to the existence of black on black crime. Again, criminals are prosecuted. Police officers are not. There is something being done about crime, unless the crime is committed by police officers.
No. I expect them to do their job. Their job is not to murder. Their job is to protect and serve. The use of deadly force is appropriate under the proper circumstances according to their training. Now which of these situations that we've mentioned presented the right for police officers to use deadly force? I'd love to hear your answer.
Then why are you ranting about black on black crime if black people already know about it? If you want to throw a rally to end black on black crime, I'm sure you can apply for a permit and have at it! No one is stopping you, and I'm sure your effort will be appreciated by the *** Movement. You should try it if it is such a big concern of yours.
So how does it work? Cops are then allowed to use illegal tactics to murder him, or were they supposed to use their training to subdue him and take him in? How many cops were on the scene? Three? Four? Why did he have to die? Did he threaten their lives? Did he have a firearm? He told them to leave, and that is reason enough that he was murdered? I'm trying to understand your logic.
They should start a movement if they feel this is a recurring issue, don't you think?
This is what "us guys....along with other **********" do? lol. I'm going to let that slide. But tell me....what does crime have to do with people who are sworn to protect and serve instead murdering and harassing? You have yet to explain why it is wrong to protest against police brutality due to the existence of black on black crime. Again, criminals are prosecuted. Police officers are not. There is something being done about crime, unless the crime is committed by police officers.
No. I expect them to do their job. Their job is not to murder. Their job is to protect and serve. The use of deadly force is appropriate under the proper circumstances according to their training. Now which of these situations that we've mentioned presented the right for police officers to use deadly force? I'd love to hear your answer.
FOH!
Comment