About Police Shootings (in America, Duh)

soz i failed ta that quote thing

Wescli Wardest wrote: As much as many will dislike what I have to say, I feel that Trump being in office will be a catalyst for change. Change is often painful and uncomfortable, but it can lead to growth and development which I think we need. We, the US, seems to have stagnated a bit; become ridged in our thinking, politics and positions.

Like I said a second ago, change is painful. But, with a catalyst we, the people, can voice the change we want and have a real chance to shape and mold a better future.

If Miss Clinton gains the Presidency I feel things will continue as usual.

I am not found of either candidate. And I think neither of them will lead the country to a more positive future. But with one of them, he is just hot-headed and radical enough to spur the people in to action and create the change we need. I do not see Trump as being the change we need, but rather a common agitator that will spur the people into action.

I agree that a disruption of the status quo is needed for change... BUT which is theoretically more beneficial: keeping the status quo in the moment until a positive catalyst comes along, or allowing a negative catalyst to create violence in the name of change? Would a country benefit more from a quiet evolution towards social progress, or a revolution?

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm not saying that's my opinion. I was asking Lightstrider if that was what he (she? I don't know your gender ) was saying in his (her?) post.

I was trying to understand and clarify what was already written.

I personally think that Trump's anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, pro-gun, and so-called "real talk" behaviour is deplorable, and quite frankly the worst thing that could happen in the upcoming election is for America to vote him in. He is the "greater evil" in the race to the White House. I believe that having him in power would only encourage more violence to be perpetrated in American society, not just in the police force, but in the population in general.

Actually the doctrine specifies that you must defend the way of Jediism. As aspects of Islam are in direct opposition to what Jediism stands for, it is in fact correct to oppose Islam or parts of it. Not just Islam though. You should be fair and equally opposed to non-islamic anti-jedi ideas. Or not be a Jedi.

Wescli wrote: As much as many will dislike what I have to say, I feel that Trump being in office will be a catalyst for change. Change is often painful and uncomfortable, but it can lead to growth and development which I think we need. We, the US, seems to have stagnated a bit; become ridged in our thinking, politics and positions.

Congress tho.
Also it looks to me like things are becoming increasingly polarised. They're both extremists, and so are their opponents and proponents. I think this may get worse, the feminist SJWs are going to go batshit insane if Trump goes into office. Good thing is Trump might be mad enough to have them shot on sight.

If Miss Clinton gains the Presidency I feel things will continue as usual.

I'm pretty sure it's Mrs Clinton, and that's part of why it'll be just as usual. Literally the same family will be in the white house yet again.

ren wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm not saying that's my opinion. I was asking Lightstrider if that was what he (she? I don't know your gender ) was saying in his (her?) post.

I was trying to understand and clarify what was already written.

I personally think that Trump's anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, pro-gun, and so-called "real talk" behaviour is deplorable, and quite frankly the worst thing that could happen in the upcoming election is for America to vote him in. He is the "greater evil" in the race to the White House. I believe that having him in power would only encourage more violence to be perpetrated in American society, not just in the police force, but in the population in general.

Actually the doctrine specifies that you must defend the way of Jediism. As aspects of Islam are in direct opposition to what Jediism stands for, it is in fact correct to oppose Islam or parts of it. Not just Islam though. You should be fair and equally opposed to non-islamic anti-jedi ideas. Or not be a Jedi.

And if a Muslim comes up to me and starts talking smack about Jediism, I *will* defend it. As I would with anyone who insults my faith. But Islam and other faiths are not inherently attacking Jediism by existing. We're not on a crusade to take down any belief that isn't compatible with our own, but to promote harmony and cooperation. And violence begets violence.

In response to Miss_Leah,

Even in Gandhi’s peaceful revolution there was suffering, physical violence (police brutality) and a long drawn out struggle which caused a lot of Indians to suffer. I cannot think of one time in history that has had any level of significant change where the people did not suffer…

As much as we may not like it, violence is a part of the natural order. Human nature does not lead me to believe that the society as a whole is even capable of such a thing. Not yet at least.

Keep in mind, these are just my opinions based on a lifetime of one person’s experience. I could be completely wrong.

Miss_Leah wrote:

ren wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm not saying that's my opinion. I was asking Lightstrider if that was what he (she? I don't know your gender ) was saying in his (her?) post.

I was trying to understand and clarify what was already written.

I personally think that Trump's anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, pro-gun, and so-called "real talk" behaviour is deplorable, and quite frankly the worst thing that could happen in the upcoming election is for America to vote him in. He is the "greater evil" in the race to the White House. I believe that having him in power would only encourage more violence to be perpetrated in American society, not just in the police force, but in the population in general.

Actually the doctrine specifies that you must defend the way of Jediism. As aspects of Islam are in direct opposition to what Jediism stands for, it is in fact correct to oppose Islam or parts of it. Not just Islam though. You should be fair and equally opposed to non-islamic anti-jedi ideas. Or not be a Jedi.

And if a Muslim comes up to me and starts talking smack about Jediism, I *will* defend it. As I would with anyone who insults my faith. But Islam and other faiths are not inherently attacking Jediism by existing. We're not on a crusade to take down any belief that isn't compatible with our own, but to promote harmony and cooperation. And violence begets violence.

People who "talk smack" about Jediism or "insult" the faith are irrelevant, and protecting the faith does not involve them. Jedi should not feel insulted, and informing the misinformed isn't defense, but sharing.
People who promote ignorance over knowledge, blind obedience over wisdom (to use tenets as an example) are a different story, and opposing that is defending the faith. Nothing to do with defending Jediism's imaginary honour or defending a Jedi's feelings as these are supposed to be imaginary as well.

ren wrote: People who "talk smack" about Jediism or "insult" the faith are irrelevant, and protecting the faith does not involve them. Jedi should not feel insulted, and informing the misinformed isn't defense, but sharing.
People who promote ignorance over knowledge, blind obedience over wisdom (to use tenets as an example) are a different story, and opposing that is defending the faith. Nothing to do with defending Jediism's imaginary honour or defending a Jedi's feelings as these are supposed to be imaginary as well.

It's far more useful to encourage harmony, serenity, peace and knowledge in the people who we have contact with on a day-to-day basis than to shout to the world at large "I'm against this!!!!!!" Whatever your "this" may be. It's the difference between opposing something negative and encouraging something positive:

"Where you tend a rose, my lad, a thistle cannot grow"

documentary about car jacking in newark, new jersey, from the perspectives of the people who do the jacking i.e. the thieves

for those who dont know
"car-jacking" means pointing a gun at someone (usually a firearm is used but not always) and taking their car from them directly; this is not stealing a car from a parking lot or from someones drive, this is using force to take the car from them personally

theres something of a "we do this because we dont have any other choices" theme in the docu

i am not endorsing that theme, i am only sharing the docu as one glimpse into one segment of people who commit one particular kind of crime

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmH6d839Ytk


crime and poverty in Chicago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAA3aQt4AGQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TPucQHtHZs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwytoxMuk4U

guy
"im walking, dont harm me"

cop
"ok"

guy
"keep your word"

cop
"now!"

dead

I completely agree that police brutality is real.

But it's a symptom, not the root problem.