Rhino
-
Posts
507 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Events
Homebrew Games
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by Rhino
-
-
4 hours ago, Link said:
Looking for the Archie Bunker in your neighborhood (or local police force) or lack thereof is cheap and easy. It’s less important or useful than examining the structure and policies that harm people of color more as a percentage of their share of the population than they harm white people in America.
This is true and all very well and good. We don’t need to say “Hey Cop (A) are you racist? (Y/N)” Obviously the answer is no every time. We all know it’s bad. That doesn’t mean that black people and other minorities are not disproportionately affected by police action, due to the class they disproportionately inhabit.
No, Cop (A) might not personally hate black people. Yet for some reason black people are most of those held and tortured in disappearing sites, and their neighborhoods are patrolled more. The Southern Strategy never went away and is far from dead.
Quite frankly, I don’t care if Michael Brown tried to grab Darren Wilson’s gun or not. Maybe he (or someone who looked like him) wouldn’t have allegedly stolen cigars and been a person of interest to the police in the first place, had he grown up with accrued generational wealth and quality education.
Is there a good source showing the amount of people who commit crimes and what their race is?
"Of the thousands held in the facility known as Homan Square over a decade, 82% were black."
Are 82% of crimes in Chicago committed by African Americans or is it really a disproportionate amount being taken to this facility?
-
6 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:
It's funny. I don't disagree. But when people make this same argument about guns for some reason the outcome is different.
One of my favorite bands! Well, they used to be. They kinda suck now. But I still love 'em.
Maybe the difference is the guns are already here. They're already manufactured and owned and can't be consumed like drugs can. The supply of guns is much more constant than the supply of drugs.
-
2 hours ago, Estil said:
For the reasons Dirk mentioned? Exactly how were the polls done wrong and how could they be done right? Use your noodle. Puzzle it out.
I didn't watch the video lol sorry. All I know is in the end, all the polls got it wrong except for the LA times. Whatever they did needs to be studied. Maybe the other polls didn't account for all the undercover Trump supporters. Maybe too many Democrats thought they had it in the bag and didn't think they needed to vote. Maybe Trump targeted the swing states better than Hillary. Who knows. Probably a combination of all of those.
-
5 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:
Incorrect, the investigation was a direct result of this case.
You can't possibly know what angle there is. That officer could be racist. You have literally no way of knowing.
Sure.
Sure. In this case, there was some distance in between the unarmed man and the cop. There WAS time to react and think.
No proof of this. It's totally possible he reached in to attack the officer, and the officer attempted to unholster his weapon and fire it.
Disagree.
Disagree.
Your opinion, not fact, and I disagree.
Why not? Why did he choose to take a life instead of reacting differently?
That's a silly suggestion.
I'll agree the officer could've fired the gun. If I'm a cop and someone is reaching inside my vehicle attacking me, I'm going to assume they might try and go for my gun. He didn't do something different probably because he feared for his life and thought he was about to die. What do you think he should have done differently, thinking from his perspective that he was just attacked moments earlier by Michael Brown when he reached into the officer's car?
-
Drugs should not be legal except for marijuana. Imagine making heroin legal. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Tons of people are alcoholics and die because of it each year. Imagine if you could just walk into Walmart and buy some heroin no problem. You'd have a lot more drug related deaths because of the easy access to them. Making them illegal makes them much harder to get and limits how many people are negatively effected by them. Drugs bring crime, money problems, violence, disease, death, family destruction, etc. They're horrible.
-
16 hours ago, Estil said:
No no no no no no no, polls can mean a lot and can be very valuable and useful...IF they are done right.
The 2016 polls certainly were not done right.
-
57 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:
They also investigated and found proof of systemic racial bias. So why are you choosing to believe the source when it fits your narrative, but not believe them when it doesn't? Or are you changing your stance and admitting systemic racism is alive and well in today's society?
You can't be sure of that. Especially since the department was found to have deep systemic racial bias.
Wrong for a few reasons. First, there are still many conflicting eyewitness reports. Secondly, you DO understand how our justice system often fails? Many innocent people are put on death row, put in jail, etc. I'm NOT saying Michael Brown was innocent. I am simply saying, our justice system fails over and over again. It's part of the systemic racism that you deny.
Regardless, there is still plenty of debate and you are not the authority to state otherwise. A cop shouldn't shoot an unarmed person. Period. A cop shouldn't shoot someone SIX god damn times if they are unarmed. The punishment for his crimes should not have been death. Why is an officer not trained to subdue? You want to bring up his height and weight? Shouldn't a trained officer know how to fire a non-life threatening subduing shot, if he be put in a situation where he feels he MUST fire to protect him and those around him? Nah, shoot the 18 year old boy 6 times. From a distance. Two shots were in the head. He really couldn't have taken the time to shoot him in the leg? Save his life? No grace under pressure? Bad training. Part of systemic racism.
It was wrong and he should not have died.
Really trying to understand your viewpoints here but I just don't get it. A cop should absolutely be allowed to shoot an unarmed person IF they fear for their life. All it takes is a scuffle to ensue, the unarmed perp grabs the cops' gun, and then fires and kills the cop with their own weapon. The unarmed perp is now armed. You also can't always know whether they are or aren't armed. There are countless horrifying videos of traffic stops gone wrong where one minute the person doesn't look like they're armed, then the next moment they have a gun and they're shooting at the officer. Michael Brown attempted to steal the cop's gun AND was charging him before the officer shot him. 6 shots is not excessive. Maybe 60, but not 6. The officer had cause and his life was in imminent danger. He had every right to shoot Michael Brown. Could he have done something differently, sure, but he didn't. Maybe he could've run away when Michael Brown charged him, but that's not what cops do.
-
14 hours ago, Gloves said:
I can read this one yep. Got some more info from it and I can see both sides now.
Still - I think at the core the issue really is, why would the self-defense be "shoot the teenager"? I can't help but feel like there's surely some other way for a 28 year old trained police officer could take to hand-to-hand and not kill a kid. Was Officer Wilson alone, or were other officers in the area? I'm just having trouble accepting that there was no way to deescalate without shooting.
Anyroad, seems it's been argued to death already and I'm surely not anywhere near prepared enough to make any arguments. Thanks for sharing info.
You're welcome. It's easy to second guess things after the fact and play Monday morning quarterback. Could he have done something differently? Maybe, but when it could be life or death and someone has already attempted to steal your weapon, deadly force should absolutely be on the table. Instances like this YouTube video are why some officers nowadays don't hesitate to use deadly force if they feel like their life is in danger. All it takes it 2 seconds and you're dead. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eSxuhZ3HdQo
Half joking, but I wonder how feasible something silly like a giant net gun would be. Tasers don't always work, guns are deadly force, pepper spray doesn't always work, but you shoot a giant net at someone and I don't think they're getting up too quickly. Maybe a sounds weapon? Idk, this is above my pay grade.
-
4 minutes ago, Gloves said:
Who fired the gun twice? Michael Brown?
I don't understand what happened, as all I know of the situation is what you've told me here.
No one knows for sure who fired the gun inside the car, at least I don't think you can prove who fired it since both Michael Brown and the officer had gunpowder residue on them. Can you read this article? https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/457049-time-to-retire-ferguson-narrative
"The report, issued in 2015, found that Officer Wilson's accounts were corroborated. He'd acted in self-defense. Brown, the report said, had reached into the police vehicle and grabbed Officer Wilson by the neck. And Brown appeared to be lunging toward Officer Wilson when Officer Wilson shot him in self-defense. "
-
18 minutes ago, Gloves said:
I did not; it's impossible to read due to it being behind a paywall. Despite my ability to pass the paywall without paying, the full article doesn't load regardless; likely it looks for user information existing in order to pass the remainder of the article beyond the first paragraph.
Putting news behind a subscription paywall is a good way to get me to not care what you say, especially when it looks like ads are there even if you subscribe.
That aside, and taking it at face value, I don't see the correlation between fighting with the officer, and attempting to take his gun. I'd still want to see video to make a judgement call on it.
Even BEYOND that, I'd argue you're being incredibly harsh to presume that a teen is to be expected to act rationally in a fight where the other side has weapons, else expect to be killed. Is it foolish to go for an officer's gun? Yeah, of course it is? Should the officer retaliate by taking said gun in hand and shooting the teen? Absolutely not. The suspect was unarmed, attempted to become armed, and was subsequently disarmed and then murdered for it. The officer should be expected to be able to EASILY apprehend a teen without resorting to shooting them.
I don't think you fully understand what happened. To break it down in a simple manner, Michael Brown reached into the officer's car and reached for his gun. The gun was fired twice. Michael Brown starts to run away, then turns around and charged toward the officer. This is when the officer shoots and kills Michael Brown.
-
16 minutes ago, Gloves said:
I'd not believe anything here without video, frankly. Washingtonpost, left leaning, right, or otherwise.
I'd want to know at the least who is making the original claim that he was going for the officer's gun. And if it's the officers on the scene making the claim, it's an untrustworthy one.
There's also this article. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html
"The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots"
-
8 minutes ago, Gloves said:
I'd not believe anything here without video, frankly. Washingtonpost, left leaning, right, or otherwise.
I'd want to know at the least who is making the original claim that he was going for the officer's gun. And if it's the officers on the scene making the claim, it's an untrustworthy one.
Did you read the article?
"Wilson and other witnesses stated that Brown then reached into the SUV through the open driver’s window and punched and grabbed Wilson. This is corroborated by bruising on Wilson’s jaw and scratches on his neck, the presence of Brown’s DNA on Wilson’s collar, shirt, and pants, and Wilson’s DNA on Brown’s palm. While there are other individuals who stated that Wilson reached out of the SUV and grabbed Brown by the neck, prosecutors could not credit their accounts because they were inconsistent with physical and forensic evidence, as detailed throughout this report."
-
3 minutes ago, Gloves said:
Ah so just words? Is there video?
There's supposed to be body cams right?
That I don't know. I believe every police jurisdiction is different on whether or not they have to have body cams.
-
12 minutes ago, Gloves said:
I'm not familiar with this case; what is the source on that he reached for the cops gun?
"Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun. "
You know it's legitimate too because it's the Washington Post saying it. Historically they're a very left leaning news source.
-
11 minutes ago, Gloves said:
I'm not familiar with this case; what is the source on that he reached for the cops gun?
There are several other sources too. I can find more if you'd like. Imo, this is one of the most misunderstood cases of all time.
-
4 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:
He was unarmed...
Source? The Justice Department found systemic racial bias in the department where the officer who murdered Brown was placed. What is your proof that racism was not a factor?
But he reached for a cops' gun...
-
6 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:
It's hard to say. Did he reach for the gun? Apparently. Did he get it and murder the cop with it? No. Did the cop then proceed to shoot him 6 times? Yes. Seems excessive. My opinion is that teenager did not need to die that day.
The Justice Department did an investigation into the Ferguson Police Department afterwards and found a PATTERN OF SYSTEMIC RACIAL BIAS. This is a FACT which cannot be denied. So if you don't believe it, you then don't believe in the Justice Department.
So, do you believe the Justice Department was RIGHT to not press charges against the officer but WRONG when discovering a pattern of systemic racial bias in the police department? Because if so, you are picking and choosing. You can't have it both ways.
When someone reaches for your gun, you have every right to shoot them, end of story. Don't be a f*cking moron and reach for a cop's weapon. It's that simple.
-
6 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:
I don't give a shit. It's funny to say "don't trust the news" and then share a news link a sentence later. Hence the "lol". I laughed. Humor. Lighten up.
I said to look it up and do your own research. If you do that, and what you find still backs up what the media says, then of course you can then trust what the news says (well trust as much as you can trust the news these days lol). What I'm getting at is don't accept things at face value initially.
-
6 hours ago, Silent Hill said:
Here's the full context of Rhino's comment, since you're really efficient at quoting out of context:
"Never accept anything the news says about these events at face value. Always look it up yourself and do your own research. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/"
I understand where you find the irony in this, but with the full context of his comment, it's clear that the Michael Brown case was falsely outlined by people (BLM/Media) initially. And even though the facts have come out, many (including Link just yesterday) are still referring to this case as an example of police brutality against black people and/or systemic racism, which is just flat-out false.
Thank you. He's doing what the media does all the time. Quote only a certain part, leave out the rest, and twist the story.
-
7 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:
lol
Don't accept the news without first doing your own research. Don't accept stories when they first come out because journalists have gotten extremely sloppy lately. They simply want to rush their story and be first without checking on the veracity of the story.
-
16 hours ago, Estil said:
Texas might be a swing state in the future but for right now that's very wishful thinking. I must say RCP is really playing it safe on their electoral map...that is, they're giving both guys very little in the way of safe/likely states and much more in the way of toss-ups...201 to be exact!
Remember it's the electoral votes that count, not the overall popular vote. Just like how in baseball you don't necessarily win by getting the most hits and fewest errors and in football you don't necessarily win by getting the most yards of offense and/or giving up the fewest yards on defense.
The electoral vote as of now has Biden winning handedly. Not saying that can't change and is definitely how it will be 4 months from now, but he's got it locked down for now. Trump has a ton of work to do.
-
17 hours ago, NESfiend said:
Biden is the 2 to 1 favorite in Vegas. Are you offering the 2 to 1 or even money?
Even money
-
3 minutes ago, Doctornick said:
This one's gone in under 7 days for sure.
Disagree. I think if anything it'll be healthier than the other one.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, ZeldaFreak said:
Damn, never thought I'd see you two, of all people, settle this like gentlemen. Honestly really happy to see this.
In addition to what you guys have said, I will add that I think it might help a bit if you didn't treat everyone who disagrees with you like an idiot. Now, this is just my opinion (So if you get pissed off at what I'm saying here, attack me, not Link) but it seems like you... almost have a lack of respect for people with differing opinions than you, as if you look down on them. (Constantly calling people who simply disagree with you a troll, talking to them as if you know more than they do, etc) and I think doing that drives away healthy discussion, and instead just promotes people shouting at each other without actually accomplishing anything. Nobody in that previous thread was legitimately trolling you (At least if you and I have the same definition of what a Troll is) a lot of people just disagreed with you. Some people might've been a bit more respectful about voicing their disagreement than others, but nobody, at least initially, was going out of their way to piss you off.
Now, perhaps I'm completely mistaken on this and you already think this way (In which case, I apologize, and feel free to correct me) but I think it might help a bit to see people who disagree with you not as somehow lower than you, but as someone who just sees things a little differently than you do. To treat people you disagree with as your equal, as hard as I know that can sometimes be with the way our brains are wired. Whenever someone disagrees with me on something, I try my best not to look down on them or assume the reason they disagree with me is because I know more than them, and they're just a complete idiot. I try to understand why they think the way they do, then explain why I think the way I do, and we go from there. I personally find that approach to respectful discussions about differing opinions accomplishes a lot more on both sides than the approach many people have to politics.
Hell, I'd say this goes for everyone who ends up participating in this club, not just Rhino. I'd very much like it if we could get off on the right foot here, and learn from the mistakes we made with the previous thread, so that this place can live on, and we can prevent this club from ever becoming the dumpster fire that the previous thread ended up becoming.
I hear what you're saying. I will only treat people like idiots if they're idiots and their viewpoint can very clearly be discredited. Many issues are extremely complicated and comprise so many variables that you cannot pinpoint one cause to the problem or one solution. For those issues, there are no idiots because there is no one answer. However, for instances like Ferguson and the Michael Brown case, there are idiots because you can now see what truly happened vs what the media and certain groups initially wanted you to believe.
I respect everyone equally and do not look down on anyone. We are all equals. I do not care if your viewpoints or opinions differ from mine, and am open to hearing you out. It is healthy to discuss differing viewpoints and to hear each side.
-
1
-
American Politics / Current Events Thread
in threads
Posted
I guess you were talking about me so I'll address @Silent Hill post below. You want to know what causes crime in most areas? Like @Silent Hill said, many factors. It's likely a combination of historical suppression of giving minorities rights to wealth such as to be able to buy land or a home. It's also probably some of what @Silent Hill said. I think drug use plays a large roll in crime ridden areas for any race. You have drugs, you have addicts, you have addicts, you have people who need more drugs, you have people who need more drugs, you have people who can no longer work sober, you have mass unemployment, you have people needing ways to get money, you need money, you steal stuff to sell it. Once drugs are introduced, families get torn apart, which can lead to a lack of a 2 person household. Culture and personal decisions could play a role too. Buy a house vs rent an apartment forever. Go to college or not. If you can't pass on wealth, it's really hard for the next generation to do well. You want to get wealth? Buy a house. It's the single biggest way to pass on wealth.
I lold pretty hard at this. It's amazing how people can preach equality and justice and then turn around and be like that b!tch deserved to die.
All you clowns laughing at people dying from COVID-19 or thinking people deserve it need to grow the f*ck up. This is not a f*cking game or joke. This is a serious pandemic killing an average of over 1,000 Americans every day, and far more globally. Every f*cking day. It sucks. At this rate, there will be over 250k dead Americans by the end of the year from this virus. Put a f*cking mask on, stay inside as much as possible, stop f*cking throwing parties and seeing your friends and going on vacation, and shut it all back down because guess what, the dark reality is no vaccine is coming for another 6-12 months.