Three white nationalist protesters were charged after one of them shot a building.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/10.../23250654/

---

You totally aren’t grasping what he’s saying at all. It has nothing to do with the actual amendment, but the protesters trying to stop him from being able to exercise his right to free speech.

Like protesters have the ability to stop him.

You don't get it. Protesters aren't gonna stop him. They just egg him on. The guy lives for confrontation. He thrives on it. He hopes protesters come out in droves, because in his mind, that makes what he is saying relevant. The protests do nothing, but add to the problem. If people ignored him and pretend like he wasn't there and that his words didn't matter, he might fade away. Instead, people just wanna throw gasoline on the fire and proclaim they are doing it in the name of social justice. People are too thin-skinned it's just words from a demented mind.

---

Please only post links to credible news agencys. AOL has been defunct for ages.

---

 

Please only post links to credible news agencys.  AOL has been defunct for ages.

LOL I didn't even realize AOL was still around.  Ah the days of that dial tone and scratching noise as you connected to the world wide web.  Remember when you could pick up the land line phone and it would screw up the internet connection for your brother or sister?  Good times lol.

---

We learned in the Sunday School who made the sun shine through.  I know who made the moonshine too, back where I come from.

Please only post links to credible news agencys.  AOL has been defunct for ages.

Fox News and InfoWars should be excluded as well.

---

When people start throwing out %, I always ask should a person or individual be treated any different because their race commits or doesn't commit crimes at a different rate than other races?  I think they shouldn't be.  So when they say black people are only 13% yet the commit a disproportional amount of crime, it insinuates to me that it is cool if all the black people are treated the same way innocent or guilty as the tiny fraction of the population that commit the crimes.  Less than 1% of the black population commits these heinous crimes that are being referenced.  Lost in those numbers and %, something hard to quantify in an aggregate way, is what amount of those people weren't doing something that should have gotten them killed or were those people dealt with differently because of their race.  That is where the large % oversimplification fails, it cannot  describe anecdotally what is strictly anecdotal.  Also what is going unmentioned is the history and past transgressions that are seeped into the consciousness of segments of society.  That can't be ignored and is definitely a factor in the opinions of individuals.    
I disagree with the above conclusion on the individual level, if I have no criminal record but I look like someone who might, should I not fear being grouped with other people that do? Or worry about being profiled?

Uhhh... what?

The idea that all black people are treated "the same way" is another lie. Cops don't just going around treating black people like criminals. The statistics I provided don't indicate as much either. There is a misconception in the black community that white police officers are out to get them. I'll give a personal example. One night, it was raining, and I was called to a nice neighborhood where people complained that a white guy and a white lady were trying to break into cars. I get there and see a beat-up Mustang speeding out of the neighborhood almost as if it was fleeing something. The windows are tinted, so I can't see the driver when it passes.

Well, I get behind it and can see the silhouette of a man and one of a woman. One of the descriptors for the male was that he had a hat on. I can see a hat in the silhouette. I didn't need probable cause (reasonable suspicion would have worked), but I waited and saw that he was going 20+ mph, tinted windows, and couldn't maintain his lane. I stop him and and immediately see that they were black. I was going to cut them loose without even writing them tickets for all of the things they did. But first, I wanted to explain why they were stopped and ask if they saw anyone suspicious. I literally said (after telling them about the speeding), "I'm looking for two white people; have you seen them?" Their immediate response, "You pulled us over because we're black?" 

No amount of explanation would appease them. They were convinced. Despite me telling them I was literally only looking for white people, they were convinced I stopped them because they were black.

I can't say how many times someone will play the race card. I'd say it happens around 45-50% of the time. I've caught robbers, and they were absolutely certain I wouldn't take them to jail if they were white. 

That perception is a problem within the black community. That's something they need to work on. The media feeds into it, and no amount of community work from the police seems to fix it.

As for your opinion that any notable number of persons didn't deserve to get shot, I'd have to argue each situation case-by-case because there's no way you can use a broad brush to oversimplify such a statement.

---

Please only post links to credible news agencies.  AOL has been defunct for ages.

Are you saying no news on AOL is ever accurate, even if it is exactly the same information you see on "credible" websites?

---

Without commenting on their accuracy, I believe the protesters agree the numbers are disproportional, they disagree with the conclusions you reach from them, and the reasons they are disproportional.

Someone can disagree with it, but it doesn't mean they have a rational point.

It doesn't mean they don't, either.

The more violent encounters you have with police, the more likely you are to get shot. I'm not even sure their argument would allow them to disagree with my argument. In one poll, 73% of black Americans said police violence is a serious problem. I don't know how many times I pulled someone over for a traffic offense and they literally freak out thinking they're going to die. All the while, I've given them no reason to believe that to be a possibility. My point here is that if black Americans think violence is a serious issue with police, if they increase the number of encounters (violent encounters), then the natural response is to believe that they're increasing the chances of getting killed. How then can they disagree with my conclusion?

While I'm almost certain you won't read this because the President tells you if it's from the WP, it's fake news, but it addresses your point.

U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times larger than the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.

Police have shot and killed a young black man (ages 18 to 29) — such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. —175 times since January 2015; 24 of them were unarmed. Over that same period, police have shot and killed 172 young white men, 18 of whom were unarmed. Once again, while in raw numbers there were similar totals of white and black victims, blacks were killed at rates disproportionate to their percentage of the U.S. population. Of all of the unarmed people shot and killed by police in 2015, 40 percent of them were black men, even though black men make up just 6 percent of the nation’s population.

And, when considering shootings confined within a single race, a black person shot and killed by police is more likely to have been unarmed than a white person. About 13 percent of all black people who have been fatally shot by police since January 2015 were unarmed, compared with 7 percent of all white people.

As for your anecdotal "evidence", perhaps the people you pulled over were worried they were guilty of DWB.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Please only post links to credible news agencys.  AOL has been defunct for ages.

Fox News and InfoWars should be excluded as well.

By that standard, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC are out the door too.

---

Fox News and InfoWars should be excluded as well.

By that standard, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC are out the door too.

Not really. If I can watch some news organization without ever seeing them before and by the end of the shows I can guess which political affiliation the reporters belong to, it's biased. I can do this with regularity when it comes to Fox News, because they only preach one side and are blatantly unapologetic about it. I could only hit about 50% accuracy with the other news outlets.

---

Someone can disagree with it, but it doesn't mean they have a rational point.

It doesn't mean they don't, either.

The more violent encounters you have with police, the more likely you are to get shot. I'm not even sure their argument would allow them to disagree with my argument. In one poll, 73% of black Americans said police violence is a serious problem. I don't know how many times I pulled someone over for a traffic offense and they literally freak out thinking they're going to die. All the while, I've given them no reason to believe that to be a possibility. My point here is that if black Americans think violence is a serious issue with police, if they increase the number of encounters (violent encounters), then the natural response is to believe that they're increasing the chances of getting killed. How then can they disagree with my conclusion?

While I'm almost certain you won't read this because the President tells you if it's from the WP, it's fake news, but it addresses your point.

U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times larger than the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.

Police have shot and killed a young black man (ages 18 to 29) — such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. —175 times since January 2015; 24 of them were unarmed. Over that same period, police have shot and killed 172 young white men, 18 of whom were unarmed. Once again, while in raw numbers there were similar totals of white and black victims, blacks were killed at rates disproportionate to their percentage of the U.S. population. Of all of the unarmed people shot and killed by police in 2015, 40 percent of them were black men, even though black men make up just 6 percent of the nation’s population.

And, when considering shootings confined within a single race, a black person shot and killed by police is more likely to have been unarmed than a white person. About 13 percent of all black people who have been fatally shot by police since January 2015 were unarmed, compared with 7 percent of all white people.

As for your anecdotal "evidence", perhaps the people you pulled over were worried they were guilty of DWB.

Using the "percentage of the US population" is statistical fraud. Using "percentage of the US population" would result in finding a huge bias against men compared to women.

If you look at the percentage of those confronted for a felony, which takes into account the actual number of interactions between police and citizens, then whites are twice as likely as blacks to be shot by police. 

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

While I'm almost certain you won't read this because the President tells you if it's from the WP, it's fake news, but it addresses your point.

U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times larger than the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.

Police have shot and killed a young black man (ages 18 to 29) — such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. —175 times since January 2015; 24 of them were unarmed. Over that same period, police have shot and killed 172 young white men, 18 of whom were unarmed. Once again, while in raw numbers there were similar totals of white and black victims, blacks were killed at rates disproportionate to their percentage of the U.S. population. Of all of the unarmed people shot and killed by police in 2015, 40 percent of them were black men, even though black men make up just 6 percent of the nation’s population.

And, when considering shootings confined within a single race, a black person shot and killed by police is more likely to have been unarmed than a white person. About 13 percent of all black people who have been fatally shot by police since January 2015 were unarmed, compared with 7 percent of all white people.

As for your anecdotal "evidence", perhaps the people you pulled over were worried they were guilty of DWB.

I read that long ago, rj. That isn't new information. That unarmed number includes people that violently resist and are shot. You used Michael Brown of all people. You know, the guy that strong-arm robbed a convinced store and then physically assaulted a police officer. And he was only shot when he decided to turn around and charge him. Great example of "unarmed".

4% of police shootings are "unarmed" Americans. In 2015, 16 "unarmed" black men were killed by police. SIXTEEN. Let's assume for a moment that police were completely in the wrong here... this is an epidemic you'd have us believe is systematic racism against minorities? Out of the millions of police-to-citizen encounters, 16 "unarmed" black men were killed. Most of whom were fighting arrest.

However, I'll admit that it has happened. That is an issue with police negligence but definitely not a racial bias. The South Carolina shooting and the Florida shooting of the care taker come to mind.

As for your second comment, while you casually dismiss my "anecdotal" evidence, you nonchalantly use actual anecdotal evidence to support the notion that people think that DWB is an actual thing. I gave an actual example of me explained to a black couple that I was looking for a white couple, and they thought I pulled them over because they were black. I explained that to them. I explained everything. They didn't care. They undoubtedly thought they were stopped for DWB, but that's based on stupidity and willful ignorance.

---

By that standard, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC are out the door too.

Not really. If I can watch some news organization without ever seeing them before and by the end of the shows I can guess which political affiliation the reporters belong to, it's biased. I can do this with regularity when it comes to Fox News, because they only preach one side and are blatantly unapologetic about it. I could only hit about 50% accuracy with the other news outlets.

You're not really being honest about your observation, especially with MSNBC, NBC or CNN.  ABC News had gotten a little bit better, but the bias is still clear if you're looking for it.  CBS News reporting isn't bad, especially some of their investigative reports, but here's the thing.  It's all about what they report and what they don't.

I highly recommend reading Stonewalled by Sharyl Attkisson for some insight.  I have a digital copy if you're interested in borrowing it.  She is a former CBS News Washington correspondent.

Many people, especially millennials and people on the left have the idea in their minds that FOX News doesn't report fairly and that they are biased hard right.  While they are biased to the right, they pretty much report the news as it happens.  Just keep in mind, the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, etc. is NOT news it's commentary (much like Rachel Madcow on NBC).

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Not really. If I can watch some news organization without ever seeing them before and by the end of the shows I can guess which political affiliation the reporters belong to, it's biased. I can do this with regularity when it comes to Fox News, because they only preach one side and are blatantly unapologetic about it. I could only hit about 50% accuracy with the other news outlets.

You're not really being honest about your observation, especially with MSNBC, NBC or CNN.  ABC News had gotten a little bit better, but the bias is still clear if you're looking for it.  CBS News reporting isn't bad, especially some of their investigative reports, but here's the thing.  It's all about what they report and what they don't.

I highly recommend reading Stonewalled by Sharyl Attkisson for some insight.  I have a digital copy if you're interested in borrowing it.  She is a former CBS News Washington correspondent.

Many people, especially millennials and people on the left have the idea in their minds that FOX News doesn't report fairly and that they are biased hard right.  While they are biased to the right, they pretty much report the news as it happens.  Just keep in mind, the likes of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, etc. is NOT news it's commentary (much like Rachel Madcow on NBC).

That's the key statement, "if you're looking for it." I'm not. I just wanna hear what's going on in the world. If I watch Fox News, they slap you across the face with their blatant political views, even if you don't care how the reporters feel. I'm neither liberal or conservative, so I don't wanna know a newscaster's political leanings. I just want them to report the news. Unless I'm looking, which I'm not, I can rarely tell the political leanings of the reporters on the other networks. 

I know the difference between commentary and news. Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann are not news programs, they are simply news commentators. I'm only taking into account the actual reporters.

---

When people start throwing out %, I always ask should a person or individual be treated any different because their race commits or doesn't commit crimes at a different rate than other races?  I think they shouldn't be.  So when they say black people are only 13% yet the commit a disproportional amount of crime, it insinuates to me that it is cool if all the black people are treated the same way innocent or guilty as the tiny fraction of the population that commit the crimes.  Less than 1% of the black population commits these heinous crimes that are being referenced.  Lost in those numbers and %, something hard to quantify in an aggregate way, is what amount of those people weren't doing something that should have gotten them killed or were those people dealt with differently because of their race.  That is where the large % oversimplification fails, it cannot  describe anecdotally what is strictly anecdotal.  Also what is going unmentioned is the history and past transgressions that are seeped into the consciousness of segments of society.  That can't be ignored and is definitely a factor in the opinions of individuals.    
I disagree with the above conclusion on the individual level, if I have no criminal record but I look like someone who might, should I not fear being grouped with other people that do? Or worry about being profiled?

Uhhh... what?

The idea that all black people are treated "the same way" is another lie. Cops don't just going around treating black people like criminals. The statistics I provided don't indicate as much either. There is a misconception in the black community that white police officers are out to get them. I'll give a personal example. One night, it was raining, and I was called to a nice neighborhood where people complained that a white guy and a white lady were trying to break into cars. I get there and see a beat-up Mustang speeding out of the neighborhood almost as if it was fleeing something. The windows are tinted, so I can't see the driver when it passes.

Well, I get behind it and can see the silhouette of a man and one of a woman. One of the descriptors for the male was that he had a hat on. I can see a hat in the silhouette. I didn't need probable cause (reasonable suspicion would have worked), but I waited and saw that he was going 20+ mph, tinted windows, and couldn't maintain his lane. I stop him and and immediately see that they were black. I was going to cut them loose without even writing them tickets for all of the things they did. But first, I wanted to explain why they were stopped and ask if they saw anyone suspicious. I literally said (after telling them about the speeding), "I'm looking for two white people; have you seen them?" Their immediate response, "You pulled us over because we're black?" 

No amount of explanation would appease them. They were convinced. Despite me telling them I was literally only looking for white people, they were convinced I stopped them because they were black.

I can't say how many times someone will play the race card. I'd say it happens around 45-50% of the time. I've caught robbers, and they were absolutely certain I wouldn't take them to jail if they were white. 

That perception is a problem within the black community. That's something they need to work on. The media feeds into it, and no amount of community work from the police seems to fix it.

As for your opinion that any notable number of persons didn't deserve to get shot, I'd have to argue each situation case-by-case because there's no way you can use a broad brush to oversimplify such a statement.

Dude, re read my post you are debating point in which I agreed with you.

---

I know the laws regarding free speech on state funded campuses.
I'm talking about the irony and double-standard from many on the left who think free speech is all fine and dandy until some idiot with a myopic view of things wants to speak freely. Then it's protests and rioting galore to prevent said speech from being free, so to speak.

Have you ever read the First Amendment? It specifies there shall be no law prohibiting speech. Do I need to post a copy of the actual text to show you why FOS is permitted for guys like Richard Spencer?

There are laws against speech that incites violence and are not covered by the First Amendment. Google it.

---

While I'm almost certain you won't read this because the President tells you if it's from the WP, it's fake news, but it addresses your point.


As for your anecdotal "evidence", perhaps the people you pulled over were worried they were guilty of DWB.

I read that long ago, rj. That isn't new information. That unarmed number includes people that violently resist and are shot. You used Michael Brown of all people. You know, the guy that strong-arm robbed a convinced store and then physically assaulted a police officer. And he was only shot when he decided to turn around and charge him. Great example of "unarmed".

4% of police shootings are "unarmed" Americans. In 2015, 16 "unarmed" black men were killed by police. SIXTEEN. Let's assume for a moment that police were completely in the wrong here... this is an epidemic you'd have us believe is systematic racism against minorities? Out of the millions of police-to-citizen encounters, 16 "unarmed" black men were killed. Most of whom were fighting arrest.

However, I'll admit that it has happened. That is an issue with police negligence but definitely not a racial bias. The South Carolina shooting and the Florida shooting of the care taker come to mind.

As for your second comment, while you casually dismiss my "anecdotal" evidence, you nonchalantly use actual anecdotal evidence to support the notion that people think that DWB is an actual thing. I gave an actual example of me explained to a black couple that I was looking for a white couple, and they thought I pulled them over because they were black. I explained that to them. I explained everything. They didn't care. They undoubtedly thought they were stopped for DWB, but that's based on stupidity and willful ignorance.

Did you even read the statistics in the DWB link? They are not anecdotal.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I read that long ago, rj. That isn't new information. That unarmed number includes people that violently resist and are shot. You used Michael Brown of all people. You know, the guy that strong-arm robbed a convinced store and then physically assaulted a police officer. And he was only shot when he decided to turn around and charge him. Great example of "unarmed".

4% of police shootings are "unarmed" Americans. In 2015, 16 "unarmed" black men were killed by police. SIXTEEN. Let's assume for a moment that police were completely in the wrong here... this is an epidemic you'd have us believe is systematic racism against minorities? Out of the millions of police-to-citizen encounters, 16 "unarmed" black men were killed. Most of whom were fighting arrest.

However, I'll admit that it has happened. That is an issue with police negligence but definitely not a racial bias. The South Carolina shooting and the Florida shooting of the care taker come to mind.

As for your second comment, while you casually dismiss my "anecdotal" evidence, you nonchalantly use actual anecdotal evidence to support the notion that people think that DWB is an actual thing. I gave an actual example of me explained to a black couple that I was looking for a white couple, and they thought I pulled them over because they were black. I explained that to them. I explained everything. They didn't care. They undoubtedly thought they were stopped for DWB, but that's based on stupidity and willful ignorance.

Did you even read the statistics in the DWB link? They are not anecdotal.

So, no response to anything else?

The link is full of percentages that almost exclusively applies to the percentage and proportion to the population argument which is weak. As for my opinion, when the majority of violent crime happens in black neighborhoods, those neighborhoods receive the most attention from police. As a result, more minorities are stopped than their proportion to the population.

Have you ever driven through Lakewood, The Bluff, East Point, College Park, or Hopkins / Adair? I'd imagine you haven't or you have then you didn't slow down. These neighborhoods are almost exclusively black but beg for police. When the police come in, they're stopping mostly black people. Despite what you may believe, traffic stops for routine offenses is typically how police capture more hardened criminals.

Again, just because it's happened, it doesn't mean it's a standard practice. I don't doubt that a white cop has stopped a black man and did it because he's black. I've never heard another officer say or even indicate that they're stopping someone because they're black, but I've heard black officers say that find reasons to stop white men in mostly black neighborhoods. Of course, no one cares when that happens. 

I don't know what your point is with a Wikipedia link. It sources studies that just show blacks are disproportionally stopped, but we've already addressed all of that.

---

This is how CBS has kept its left-handed bias after Couric was forced out. Pelley did an admirable job of trying to bring things back to the center, but his style of journalism was never really suited for the evening news, and it showed in his ratings and eventual ouster.

---

Have you ever read the First Amendment? It specifies there shall be no law prohibiting speech. Do I need to post a copy of the actual text to show you why FOS is permitted for guys like Richard Spencer?

There are laws against speech that incites violence and are not covered by the First Amendment. Google it.

Meh, most of those laws are gutted by the Brandenberg Test on appeal. Very few people can be convicted of incitement, as it should be. Agitation for violence intended for political reform is a 1st Amendment right.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato