Stop lying. You give them benefit of doubt. You always defend them even when they're wrong.
No, I do not. Please stop spreading that falsehood.
Here's example of me comparing police shootings of unarmed Black men to lynchings.
I am "analogizing" the killing of unarmed black men by police officers under questionable circumstances today with the lynchings that took place during the Jim Crow era. The essence of a lynching is the execution of an individual accused of a criminal offense without a judicial pronouncement.
The term "lynching" is not the point. You can replace the "lynching" with the phrase "unjustifiable killings." The point is that Blacks should not forego protesting injustices committed by law enforcement simply because we commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
If a cop pulls me over because I'm Black, I shouldn't excuse it just because he's more likely to get lucky by pulling over Black people.
Remember this thread y04185?
Deputy Sheriff Kills Suspected Shoplifter In Front Of Two Small Children https://onnidan1.com/forum/index.php?topic=70582.0
You argued throughout the thread that the police officer was justified is shooting the woman.
I argued the police officer was not justified in shooting the women.
Here is an example of the exchanges:
Had she not stolen anything we would not have this thread. Had she kept her word and not entered a Walmart again we would not have this thread.
She should have stopped when the deputy told her to. Her father is wrong about her being perfect. Thieves aren't perfect. If she drove off the way it's described in the article it is justified.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
y04185, I think Tennessee v. Garner is clearly relevant to this discussion.
The case stands for the proposition that a law enforcement officer is justified to use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping only when the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I'm not buying
“I think it knocked him off balance and, in fear of his life and being ran over, he discharged his weapon at that point,’ said Thomas Gilliland, Harris County Sheriff’s Office.
Sounds like a cover your arse explanation to me.
Now, that I have clearly demonstrated that I have not always sided with the police, will y04185 apologize?