The Black Lives Matter movement
#136
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,126












They could have just avoided trespassing, and a potentially deadly encounter, but no. Common sense isn't so common.
#137

If someone was walking across my garden as part of a protest, I'd probably stay inside, or perhaps go outside and talk to some people and ask them nicely to carry on but watch the flowers. I wouldn't ever, ever, consider waving a lethal weapon in their direction.
#138

Common sense would seem to say, don't think that threatening a crowd with a gun will calm the situation..... but I think this was more about making a statement than any protection. Excusing the action suggests acceptance of that statement.
#139
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,126












Tripe.... the use of justifiable force is acceptable in the UK as in the USA, but it is true that the casual carrying of weapons is prohibited. It's just the difference between "active" and "passive" defence - active defence seems closer to offence and the threat of lethal force moreso. In most states, a criminal trespass to land is defined by statute and constitutes a misdemeanor, therefore an armed response is as justifiable as threatening someone with a knife for littering. Equally, if the property is open to access, then a claim of trespass can be argued regardless of signage - just as posting a "beware of the dog" sign doesn't absolve the owner from responsibility.
Common sense would seem to say, don't think that threatening a crowd with a gun will calm the situation..... but I think this was more about making a statement than any protection. Excusing the action suggests acceptance of that statement.
Common sense would seem to say, don't think that threatening a crowd with a gun will calm the situation..... but I think this was more about making a statement than any protection. Excusing the action suggests acceptance of that statement.
You think, other people think differently and they are just as right as you.
#140
Banned










Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348












I don't think the resident lunatics will pay any attention to these inconvenient truths but this bloke has raised some really relevant points regarding the way in which the extremist left views black murders and racism.
6m 45s to 8m 46sec:
10m 27sec to 12m 6sec:
6m 45s to 8m 46sec:
Homicide is the leading cause of death for young black men aged 15-34....the concerns about race and racism are totally unattached to the degree to which black people are suffering...and yet there is virtually no concern from those on the left because....the way that many "progressives" think about race issues is a perpetrator-side concern which is if the perpetrators of the problem are white then it's worth talking about and if the perpetrators of the problem happen to be black then it's not worth talking about..."
...It's not like smallpox...we'll never wipe out racism 100%...
Last edited by paulry; Jun 30th 2020 at 2:07 pm.
#141
Account Closed
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 0


If I have to travel through rural America and know that I might have to ask directions, is it best to put on:
o A suit
o A bulletproof vest
o Full-blown riot gear
If I'm in America in my apartment and a bunch of armed guys in plain clothes burst in, do I:
o Shoot them
o Respectfully ask to see their warrant
If I'm in America in my own mcmansion/starter castle and I see some folks moving down the private road outside, do I shoot them if they are (multiple answers possible):
o Serfs
o Joggers
o Japanese tourists
o Plainclothed cops
If I'm in America and I come home to find my apartment door open, and I go inside and find an intruder, do I shoot him/her?
o Always
o Only if the intruder is male
o Only if the intruder is black
o Only if the intruder is male AND black
o Only on the third Tuesday of every month
o Only after checking that it's actually my own apartment
#142
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,126












I'm still confused about all this, but you sound clued up on these things so maybe you can help me out. (Please tick the most appropriate answer)
If I have to travel through rural America and know that I might have to ask directions, is it best to put on:
o A suit
o A bulletproof vest
o Full-blown riot gear
If I'm in America in my apartment and a bunch of armed guys in plain clothes burst in, do I:
o Shoot them
o Respectfully ask to see their warrant
If I'm in America in my own mcmansion/starter castle and I see some folks moving down the private road outside, do I shoot them if they are (multiple answers possible):
o Serfs
o Joggers
o Japanese tourists
o Plainclothed cops
If I'm in America and I come home to find my apartment door open, and I go inside and find an intruder, do I shoot him/her?
o Always
o Only if the intruder is male
o Only if the intruder is black
o Only if the intruder is male AND black
o Only on the third Tuesday of every month
o Only after checking that it's actually my own apartment
If I have to travel through rural America and know that I might have to ask directions, is it best to put on:
o A suit
o A bulletproof vest
o Full-blown riot gear
If I'm in America in my apartment and a bunch of armed guys in plain clothes burst in, do I:
o Shoot them
o Respectfully ask to see their warrant
If I'm in America in my own mcmansion/starter castle and I see some folks moving down the private road outside, do I shoot them if they are (multiple answers possible):
o Serfs
o Joggers
o Japanese tourists
o Plainclothed cops
If I'm in America and I come home to find my apartment door open, and I go inside and find an intruder, do I shoot him/her?
o Always
o Only if the intruder is male
o Only if the intruder is black
o Only if the intruder is male AND black
o Only on the third Tuesday of every month
o Only after checking that it's actually my own apartment

#143

Last edited by macliam; Jun 30th 2020 at 2:20 pm.
#144
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,126












Pray suggest the justification - as posted earlier "In most states, a criminal trespass to land is defined by statute and constitutes a misdemeanor" so actions against trespassers are normally subject to laws of self-defence. If the trespasser has not broken into the property and is not directly threatening either the property or its owner, then the owner has no justification to shoot and can be prosecuted if he does so, as even a proven act of trespass does not deprive the perpetrator of rights. The act of waving firearms at a crowd appears far more about making a statement than any claim to legal rights - and by justifying the action you are supporting that message. I do not suggest that all peoiple think as I do, but then, I'm not the one making false claims.
Eta: I'll make it easy for you: https://www.kmov.com/news/experts-examine-whether-it-was-legal-for-st-louis-couple-to-point-guns-at-protesters/article_ef18bb82-ba77-11ea-8432-2b81e9df592a.html
"making false claims"... lol
Last edited by anotherlimey; Jun 30th 2020 at 2:44 pm.
#145
#146

I quote "Keep in mind that the force you use against the trespasser must be that which an ordinary and prudent person would consider reasonable. In many situations it simply involves calling the police. There are situations in which drawing or pointing your firearm may be a reasonable use of force, but I advise that you never draw or point your firearm unless you need to use deadly force, which means that there must be an imminent threat of deadly force against you."
Does this look like the owners are threatened? -

#147
Lost in BE Cyberspace










Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,126












I'm not interested in tweets - here's the legal advice for Missouri - https://www.uslawshield.com/unwanted-guests-missouri/
I quote "Keep in mind that the force you use against the trespasser must be that which an ordinary and prudent person would consider reasonable. In many situations it simply involves calling the police. There are situations in which drawing or pointing your firearm may be a reasonable use of force, but I advise that you never draw or point your firearm unless you need to use deadly force, which means that there must be an imminent threat of deadly force against you."
Does this look like the owners are threatened? -

I quote "Keep in mind that the force you use against the trespasser must be that which an ordinary and prudent person would consider reasonable. In many situations it simply involves calling the police. There are situations in which drawing or pointing your firearm may be a reasonable use of force, but I advise that you never draw or point your firearm unless you need to use deadly force, which means that there must be an imminent threat of deadly force against you."
Does this look like the owners are threatened? -

#148
Banned










Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348












But whatever. I have serious issues of my own with the "What We Believe" page. Ultimately, it's an attempt to play the identity politics card in several dimensions on the assumption that all those who has a grievance will unite against the establishment. Whatever one thinks of the different arguments, they are different arguments, and conflating them will be counter-productive.
Be that as it may, two points.
One, I don't believe that the millions who are marching under the BLM banner subscribe to this. Just because the manifesto was drawn up by a handful of people who may have been the original organizers and coined the slogan, it doesn't follow that millions of marchers share those views.
You said yourself (on 10 June) that you would take the slogan "Defund the police" at face value. Well, I think most people, marchers and sympathetic observers alike, take the slogan "Black lives matter" at face value, in the context of the undeniable depriving of black people's civil and basic human rights summed up by the video of George Floyd's murder.
One, I don't believe that the millions who are marching under the BLM banner subscribe to this. Just because the manifesto was drawn up by a handful of people who may have been the original organizers and coined the slogan, it doesn't follow that millions of marchers share those views.
You said yourself (on 10 June) that you would take the slogan "Defund the police" at face value. Well, I think most people, marchers and sympathetic observers alike, take the slogan "Black lives matter" at face value, in the context of the undeniable depriving of black people's civil and basic human rights summed up by the video of George Floyd's murder.
Two, who else is standing up for the rights of black people? It's all very well denouncing the Black Lives Matter "movement" (by whatever definition of "movement"), but what/who else is there out there doing anything of significance for black people's basic human rights? What are you doing, apart from sitting on the sidelines and sniping?
You're the classic "I'm not racist, but..." type. No, you're not one of the perpetrators. You're one of the large group for whom the complete sentence is "I'm not racist, but I can't be bothered to do anything constructive, either."
In as much as you do do anything, you're no different to the hardcore BLM advocates in that you're playing the identity politics game to the bitter end.
In as much as you do do anything, you're no different to the hardcore BLM advocates in that you're playing the identity politics game to the bitter end.
So what are you doing to help then?
Was it any different in the civil rights movement of the 1960s? Martin Luther King was an evangelical pastor; many activists at the time were marxists; there was a substantial body in favour of armed defence of the black community, such as the Black Panthers.
There was a lot of discussion at that time too, but the real impetus came from pairs of black and white (and Jewish) activists willing to board a Greyhound bus headed for the south. No doubt there were heated discussions between the different factions on the bus. But ultimately, what counted was that they got off the bus together at their destination and were beaten to a pulp by white supremacist thugs whilst the police stood by and watched - and TV cameras filmed. An image is worth a thousand words.
There was a lot of discussion at that time too, but the real impetus came from pairs of black and white (and Jewish) activists willing to board a Greyhound bus headed for the south. No doubt there were heated discussions between the different factions on the bus. But ultimately, what counted was that they got off the bus together at their destination and were beaten to a pulp by white supremacist thugs whilst the police stood by and watched - and TV cameras filmed. An image is worth a thousand words.
You and people like you are just hoping that this whole business can be talked to death and enough doubt sown. If the radical BLM activists sway the movement, you might get your wish. If not, don't count on it. Both sides are at equal risk of assuming that they will carry their identity base with them, but not everyone is willing to play the game. Too many people have a conscience and a TV set.
What things of substance would you like to see?
#150

For those on the wrong side of history, for the conservatives, its always "back then" was good to protest, was acceptable to protest, but not now, now is good, now everything is good, lucky to be born in a time of post-protest, the only time in history when protest is not needed. Its always good to ask yourself who would you have been at particular points of history. If you object now,you would have objected then, if you accept now, you would have accepted then.Its what it means to be conservative.That they look back at times when conservatism lost, is a good indicator that they are wrong. conservatives think every fight that they lost, that it was right that they lost, except the present one, they are sure that if they lose this one, this last one, then for sure the sky will fall.