Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the facts bear out that it was a justified and necessary shooting, hopefully with body cams, then certain groups can be held accountable for those that did the rioting and destruction in the name of race. The NAACP and UNCF can foot the bill with them being allowed to then seek reimbursement from any BLM organization that has assets available.
Guilt by association, no matter how thin?
This is the very thing many of us are complaining about. A police officer breaks the law and taxpayers are forced to pay for their lawlessness. Why is the idea that one should be held responsible for ones actions alone, so foreign to so many?
If someone is arrested for torching the police car I have no problem making them personally responsible for the costs of replacement. I fully support civil disobedience with the understanding that you have to be willing to accept any repercussions of those actions.
The same should be required of police officers. If you trample on someone's civil rights, it is you that should be personally held accountable.
Quote:
Good luck with that, unless they go right after George Soros. If it was clearly an unjustifiable police shooting, then the police pension fund can pay for the damages.
These people had better NEVER riot in on or near federal property because the feds would shoot them down like dogs with the media standing mute or even supporting it .
No facts excuse "unrest" such as setting fire to cop cars and a gas station, hurling bricks, and tossing around shards of glass from destroyed bus shelters.
Beyond the obvious danger, nothing drives home a point like fouling your own neighborhood.
Yeah and when that neighborhood lacks investment and has higher insurance rates? Racism!
The significance of this turn of events is important. It marks a shift from the assumption that law enforcement is acting in good faith to the assumption that law enforcement will kill and fabricate a false narrative.
This idea falls entirely in the lap of law enforcement and those who control law enforcement. Over and over we have seen officers lie and get away with it. When one is fired we see those pulling the strings reinstate them.
This is only going to get worse until we decide that no one is above the law.
This is the very thing many of us are complaining about. A police officer breaks the law and taxpayers are forced to pay for their lawlessness. Why is the idea that one should be held responsible for ones actions alone, so foreign to so many?
If someone is arrested for torching the police car I have no problem making them personally responsible for the costs of replacement. I fully support civil disobedience with the understanding that you have to be willing to accept any repercussions of those actions.
The same should be required of police officers. If you trample on someone's civil rights, it is you that should be personally held accountable.
This is the very thing many of us are complaining about. A police officer breaks the law and taxpayers are forced to pay for their lawlessness. Why is the idea that one should be held responsible for ones actions alone, so foreign to so many?
If someone is arrested for torching the police car I have no problem making them personally responsible for the costs of replacement. I fully support civil disobedience with the understanding that you have to be willing to accept any repercussions of those actions.
The same should be required of police officers. If you trample on someone's civil rights, it is you that should be personally held accountable.
I care less about the media.
Since when exactly does "civil disobedience" include looting and destruction of PRIVATE property or destruction of any property for that matter?
This is where your constant support and justification of these "protestors" fails miserably.
I wish people would quit trying to defend the indefensible.
It's an opportunity for the black thugs to steal from businesses who have nothing to do with the police shootings. Just face it people. Also, it reflects poorly on the black race at large.
Since when exactly does "civil disobedience" include looting and destruction of PRIVATE property or destruction of any property for that matter?
When other things fail.
Quote:
This is where your constant support and justification of these "protestors" fails miserably.
I wish people would quit trying to defend the indefensible.
So do I and then I would not have to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
such as setting fire to cop cars and a gas station, hurling bricks, and tossing around shards of glass from destroyed bus shelters.
