Las Vegas shooting: Gunman 'identified as 64-year-old white male'

First topic message reminder :

The Las Vegas gunman who killed at least 20 people and injured more than 100 when he opened fire on a music festival has been identified as a 64-year-old white male, according to ABC News.

Police earlier announced the suspect had been identified as a "local man" but stopped short of naming him.

Las Vegas Sheriff Joseph Lombardo said a manhunt was underway for a person of interest, believed to be his roommate, identified as Marilou Danley.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/las-vegas-shooting-gunman-identified-police-white-male-mandalay-bay-casino-strip-a7978241.html


More white terrorism

Are you now trying to say that the BNP aren't 'far right'/fascists... or that 'far right'/fascists aren't Nazis... or that Nazis aren't 'far right'/fascists...!?


Or are you now saying that the BNP aren't 'far right', fascist or Nazis...!?





Because earlier you said I should read this book to 'understand' the BNP... that labelled the BNP as all 3 of those things...


https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-British-Fascism-Extremism-Democracy/dp/041546501X


Here is a comment review of book...


'Where this book succeeds is in tying together narrative history, survey and statistical evidence, and interviews gleaned from BNP activists themselves. It gives us both a sense of context and continuity. New British Fascism is not only essential for understanding how a bunch of neo-Nazis became a political force; it hints at the real political challenges we collectively face. This excellent analysis is grounded in evidence.' - Anthony Painter, Sunday Review

The BNP are Far Right Fascists
The Italian Far Right Fascists under Mussolini were not Nazis.

Does this help. (wait for Tommy to fall into my trap)

So why are you avoiding my questions Tommy?

I will give you a clue?

Its down to me making you look a tad thick again.

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:https://farleftwatch.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/about-national-socialism-and-bnp-socialism/

What is that?

Something that has no clue to politics and made its own biased poor political view to distance itself from the reality of Far right ideologies?

Just like those who defend Islam eh Tommy?

You do realise, that the more extreme right wing Islam is followed politically, the more Muslims and non Muslims will lack human rights?

Here...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:


What is that?

Something that has no clue to politics and made its own biased poor political view to distance itself from the reality of Far right ideologies?

Just like those who defend Islam eh Tommy?

You do realise, that the more extreme right wing Islam is followed politically, the more Muslims and non Muslims will lack human rights?

Here...

And?

Didge wrote:I just read through Tommy's apologist link

Priceless

It negates history and any understanding of Nazism

It goes off words. Like Nationalism and Socialism, as if these words are the politics of Nazism

All anyone needs to understand and learn about Nazism, is read its history in practice.

It then claims only a small fringe people would follow such beliefs.

That really had to be the poorest claim made, as it failed to understand how many German people, let alone many Europeans bought into the idea of Nazism. Throughout Nazism.

Priceless

Here...

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


All I see is a load of contradictory answers there Dodge...!!!


So just to recap for us... the BNP are 'far right'/Nazis/fascists because...!?

Do you?

Yes lets recap Tommy

Where did I say the BNP were Nazi's?

Lets start with that..

In answer to your question here above...!





Seems you not only have the intelligence of a goldfish... but the memory span of one too...!!!


Most amusing...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:


Do you?

Yes lets recap Tommy

Where did I say the BNP were Nazi's?

Lets start with that..

In answer to your question here above...!





Seems you not only have the intelligence of a goldfish... but the memory span of one too...!!!


Most amusing...!!!

PMSL

Where in the above is there anything that I said that was wrong?
The BNP are Not Nazi's but are far right fascists.

And

Lets see how long it takes for the penny to drop.....

But you were arguing about BNP and Nazis earlier...!!!


And you posted a book link, (to read to be able to 'understand' the BNP), that was full of references of BNP being 'far right', fascist and Nazi... as well as 'extremist'...!!!


Make your mind up... instead of making it up as you go along...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:But you were arguing about BNP and Nazis earlier...!!!


And you posted a book link, (to read to be able to 'understand' the BNP), that was full of references of BNP being 'far right', fascist and Nazi... as well as 'extremist'...!!!


Make your mind up... instead of making it up as you go along...!!!

Did I?

Show me where I said the BNP are Nazi's?

Show me in the book I gave you a link to, where it says the BNP are Nazi's?

I love it when you are in a hole and are desperate to misdirect

Already have...


See above...


Your replies to this article I posted...

https://farleftwatch.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/about-national-socialism-and-bnp-socialism/


Where you argued that it was wrong to try to disassociate these from each other...

Tommy Monk wrote:Already have...


See above...


Your replies to this article I posted...

https://farleftwatch.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/about-national-socialism-and-bnp-socialism/


Where you argued that it was wrong to try to disassociate these from each other...

Hilarious

So you cannot post a single post I made to back your false claim

Priceless

Oh dear, has Tommy seen his error yet?



Night everyone

Will catch up tomorrow.

Those idiots in the NRA, and the extremist "concealed carry" and "open carry" offshoots, often like to claim that 'self defence' should be a legitimate excuse for law-abiding citizens to be able to carry guns wherever and whenever they feel like it...

Often claiming that they could be a first line of defence against mass shootings, serial killers and criminal elements..

Yet,  not once has a brave and heroic "concealed carry" citizen managed to take down a killer in any of these 'mass shooting' incidents over there in the US --  so far it has either been by their own hand, or by a cop or a security guard.          

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Those idiots in the NRA, and the extremist "concealed carry" and "open carry" offshoots, often like to claim that 'self defence' should be a legitimate excuse for law-abiding citizens to be able to carry guns wherever and whenever they feel like it...

Often claiming that they could be a first line of defence against mass shootings, serial killers and criminal elements..

Yet,  not once has a brave and heroic "concealed carry" citizen managed to take down a killer in any of these 'mass shooting' incidents over there in the US --  so far it has either been by their own hand, or by a cop or a security guard.          

About 5 miles from where I am sitting. I could post plenty more stories. This one just took place in my home town recently.

A "good Samaritan" with a gun killed an active shooter who may have been gearing up for a deadly rampage at a Texas sports bar Wednesday night, police said.

When 48-year-old James Jones walked inside the Zona Caliente Sports Bar, started yelling and then allegedly shot and killed Cesar Perez — a 37-year-old restaurant manager who'd attempted to calm him down — Arlington police said witnesses were afraid they would be next.

In addition to the gun used to kill Perez, police say Jones had another semiautomatic pistol and two knives on him. The serial number on the second gun had been scratched off, and Jones did not have a gun license, police said.

"He definitely had the capacity, if he wanted, to commit further violence and potentially kill other patrons in the business," Arlington Police Lieutenant Chris Cook told NBC News, adding that it did not appear that the shooter knew his victim.

An armed "good Samaritan" — as the Arlington Police labeled him — happened to be eating at the restaurant with his wife. A concealed carry permit holder, he told her to get down on the ground and then shot Jones in the back.

"I don’t think the shooter even knew where the rounds were coming from because he started shooting at the front door," Cook said, who described the scene as "chaotic."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/good-samaritan-kills-active-shooter-texas-sports-bar-police-n755136

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Those idiots in the NRA, and the extremist "concealed carry" and "open carry" offshoots, often like to claim that 'self defence' should be a legitimate excuse for law-abiding citizens to be able to carry guns wherever and whenever they feel like it...

Often claiming that they could be a first line of defence against mass shootings, serial killers and criminal elements..

Yet,  not once has a brave and heroic "concealed carry" citizen managed to take down a killer in any of these 'mass shooting' incidents over there in the US --  so far it has either been by their own hand, or by a cop or a security guard.          

About 5 miles from where I am sitting. I could post plenty more stories. This one just took place in my home town recently.

A "good Samaritan" with a gun killed an active shooter who may have been gearing up for a deadly rampage at a Texas sports bar Wednesday night, police said.

When 48-year-old James Jones walked inside the Zona Caliente Sports Bar, started yelling and then allegedly shot and killed Cesar Perez — a 37-year-old restaurant manager who'd attempted to calm him down — Arlington police said witnesses were afraid they would be next.

In addition to the gun used to kill Perez, police say Jones had another semiautomatic pistol and two knives on him. The serial number on the second gun had been scratched off, and Jones did not have a gun license, police said.

"He definitely had the capacity, if he wanted, to commit further violence and potentially kill other patrons in the business," Arlington Police Lieutenant Chris Cook told NBC News, adding that it did not appear that the shooter knew his victim.

An armed "good Samaritan" — as the Arlington Police labeled him — happened to be eating at the restaurant with his wife. A concealed carry permit holder, he told her to get down on the ground and then shot Jones in the back.

"I don’t think the shooter even knew where the rounds were coming from because he started shooting at the front door," Cook said, who described the scene as "chaotic."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/good-samaritan-kills-active-shooter-texas-sports-bar-police-n755136

Too little, too late. I'm sure that Perez would thank him, if he were still alive.

How did Jones get the gun and the semi-automatic in the first place?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

About 5 miles from where I am sitting. I could post plenty more stories. This one just took place in my home town recently.

A "good Samaritan" with a gun killed an active shooter who may have been gearing up for a deadly rampage at a Texas sports bar Wednesday night, police said.

When 48-year-old James Jones walked inside the Zona Caliente Sports Bar, started yelling and then allegedly shot and killed Cesar Perez — a 37-year-old restaurant manager who'd attempted to calm him down — Arlington police said witnesses were afraid they would be next.

In addition to the gun used to kill Perez, police say Jones had another semiautomatic pistol and two knives on him. The serial number on the second gun had been scratched off, and Jones did not have a gun license, police said.

"He definitely had the capacity, if he wanted, to commit further violence and potentially kill other patrons in the business," Arlington Police Lieutenant Chris Cook told NBC News, adding that it did not appear that the shooter knew his victim.

An armed "good Samaritan" — as the Arlington Police labeled him — happened to be eating at the restaurant with his wife. A concealed carry permit holder, he told her to get down on the ground and then shot Jones in the back.

"I don’t think the shooter even knew where the rounds were coming from because he started shooting at the front door," Cook said, who described the scene as "chaotic."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/good-samaritan-kills-active-shooter-texas-sports-bar-police-n755136

Too little, too late.  I'm sure that Perez would thank him, if he were still alive.

How did Jones get the gun and the semi-automatic in the first place?

I don't remember now. I'm not sure it was ever mentioned in any of the stories.

It was too little too late for Perez, but not all of the other people in that sports bar.

That was my point. If you stop someone before they get to kill a bunch of people, it's not a national or international story. It creates a situation where only limited numbers of shootings are analysed. It's the same thing that happens with auto accidents vs plane crashes.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Too little, too late.  I'm sure that Perez would thank him, if he were still alive.

How did Jones get the gun and the semi-automatic in the first place?

I don't remember now. I'm not sure it was ever mentioned in any of the stories.

It was too little too late for Perez, but not all of the other people in that sports bar.

That was my point. If you stop someone before they get to kill a bunch of people, it's not a national or international story. It creates a situation where only limited numbers of shootings are analysed. It's the same thing that happens with auto accidents vs plane crashes.

You avoided my final question: 'How did Jones get the guns?' At some point every one of those guns had to be bought and registered. If we had strict gun laws, they would have been stopped at the original point of sale.

That's how we do it with military-grade weapons, and no one seems to mind. After all, it does say ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." suggesting that the amendment protects our right to possess military-grade weapons. Yet I see very few tanks on the freeways, and fewer still, private FA-18 in the skies.

Why not compromise on guns?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I don't remember now. I'm not sure it was ever mentioned in any of the stories.

It was too little too late for Perez, but not all of the other people in that sports bar.

That was my point. If you stop someone before they get to kill a bunch of people, it's not a national or international story. It creates a situation where only limited numbers of shootings are analysed. It's the same thing that happens with auto accidents vs plane crashes.

You avoided my final question: 'How did Jones get the guns?'  At some point every one of those guns had to be bought and registered.  If we had strict gun laws, they would have been stopped at the original point of sale.

That's how we do it with military-grade weapons, and no one seems to mind.  After all, it does say ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." suggesting that the amendment protects our right to possess military-grade weapons.  Yet I see very few tanks on the freeways, and fewer still, private FA-18 in the skies.

Why not compromise on guns?

I told you I don't know how he got the guns, it's in the first line.

We don't make lists of gun owners in Texas, so we may never know how he got them.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You avoided my final question: 'How did Jones get the guns?'  At some point every one of those guns had to be bought and registered.  If we had strict gun laws, they would have been stopped at the original point of sale.

That's how we do it with military-grade weapons, and no one seems to mind.  After all, it does say ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." suggesting that the amendment protects our right to possess military-grade weapons.  Yet I see very few tanks on the freeways, and fewer still, private FA-18 in the skies.

Why not compromise on guns?

I told you I don't know how he got the guns, it's in the first line.

We don't make lists of gun owners in Texas, so we may never know how he got them.  

He wouldn't have gotten the guns, if they weren't already out there. Remove them all, and no one has them.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I told you I don't know how he got the guns, it's in the first line.

We don't make lists of gun owners in Texas, so we may never know how he got them.  

He wouldn't have gotten the guns, if they weren't already out there.  Remove them all, and no one has them.

Yes, if you confiscate them all their wont be any.

Of course, the number of gun deaths will rise dramatically during the confiscation process.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

He wouldn't have gotten the guns, if they weren't already out there.  Remove them all, and no one has them.

Yes, if you confiscate them all their wont be any.

Of course, the number of gun deaths will rise dramatically during the confiscation process.  

That's a chance that any cop must take, when enforcing the law. The bad guys will die too.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, if you confiscate them all their wont be any.

Of course, the number of gun deaths will rise dramatically during the confiscation process.  

That's a chance that any cop must take, when enforcing the law.  The bad guys will die too.

Kind of like the useless drug war eh?

Why would the number of gun deaths necessarily rise, during the confiscation process?

Just a wonderment really.

eddie wrote:Why would the number of gun deaths necessarily rise, during the confiscation process?  

Just a wonderment really.

There are 100 million or so gun owners. Lets say 1% of them decide they are not going to give them up. That's a million people who will shoot back if they were to try to confiscate their guns.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Why would the number of gun deaths necessarily rise, during the confiscation process?  

Just a wonderment really.

There are 100 million or so gun owners. Lets say 1% of them decide they are not going to give them up. That's a million people who will shoot back if they were to try to confiscate their guns.  

You think that many people would commit a crime - worst case, murder of a policeman - just to hold on their gun? That would be utter madness to do that.

It's really simple to get rid of all the guns. Five easy steps to perfect safety.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There are 100 million or so gun owners. Lets say 1% of them decide they are not going to give them up. That's a million people who will shoot back if they were to try to confiscate their guns.  

You think that many people would commit a crime - worst case, murder of a policeman - just to hold on their gun?  That would be utter madness to do that.

I thought you had been to Texas?

Tell me, when us colonialists were shooting redcoats, was that a crime?

Maddog wrote:


It's really simple to get rid of all the guns. Five easy steps to perfect safety.

I've seen this before actually. It's excellent.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:


It's really simple to get rid of all the guns. Five easy steps to perfect safety.

I've seen this before actually. It's excellent.

It explains how perfectly simple the process is, combined with the how it's probably impossible any time soon.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's a chance that any cop must take, when enforcing the law.  The bad guys will die too.

Kind of like the useless drug war eh?

Xactly, only we relax laws on drugs, clamp down on availability of guns.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Kind of like the useless drug war eh?

Xactly, only we relax laws on drugs, clamp down on availability of guns.

Then you are still going to have to kick some doors in, Gestapo style.

Best to just let free people be free. I know it's scary.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Xactly, only we relax laws on drugs, clamp down on availability of guns.

Then you are still going to have to kick some doors in, Gestapo style.

Best to just let free people be free. I know it's scary.  

We'll leave it to the police. It's not a military problem.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Then you are still going to have to kick some doors in, Gestapo style.

Best to just let free people be free. I know it's scary.  

We'll leave it to the police.  It's not a military problem.

Is there a difference between the two anymore?

Have you seen the weaponry the cops use now. They are better equipped than many of our soldiers in Afghanistan.

It's the Republicans idea of smaller government.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We'll leave it to the police.  It's not a military problem.

Is there a difference between the two anymore?

Have you seen the weaponry the cops use now. They are better equipped than many of our soldiers in Afghanistan.  

It's the Republicans idea of smaller government.  

Yes, but it's not a bad thing. The police are effective, but a lot less dangerous because they are decentralized.

With a guy like Trump, you want to see the military stand down. They've got nuclear weapons, and that's not good.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Is there a difference between the two anymore?

Have you seen the weaponry the cops use now. They are better equipped than many of our soldiers in Afghanistan.  

It's the Republicans idea of smaller government.  

Yes, but it's not a bad thing.  The police are effective, but a lot less dangerous because they are decentralized.  

With a guy like Trump, you want to see the military stand down.  They've got nuclear weapons, and that's not good.

Yeah, the police are doing an excellent job.

How many Americans have they killed this year?


And with a guy like Trump, do you really want to disarm the citizens?

It makes little sense to bitch about him being a Nazi, while you want to round up all the weapons.

G4

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, but it's not a bad thing.  The police are effective, but a lot less dangerous because they are decentralized.  

With a guy like Trump, you want to see the military stand down.  They've got nuclear weapons, and that's not good.

Yeah, the police are doing an excellent job.

How many Americans have they killed this year?

And with a guy like Trump, do you really want to disarm the citizens?

It makes little sense to bitch about him being a Nazi, while you want to round up all the weapons.

Trump doesn't figure into the gun debate. If Trump, president of the US, wants to start shooting citizens, your little 2nd Amendment pee-shooters won't do any thing. He has nuclear weapons, fgs, not to mention FA-18's and aircraft carriers. The notion that the 2nd Amendment protects us from a tyrannical government is laughable.

The police are problematic in that they want to shoot black men. But that's a separate issue, and a part of the Black Lives Matter crusade. I'm merely saying that these little tiffs involved in this so-called terrorism, are police matters. Whether ISIS or al Qaeda, they don't pose a challenge that calls for a military response.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, the police are doing an excellent job.

How many Americans have they killed this year?

And with a guy like Trump, do you really want to disarm the citizens?

It makes little sense to bitch about him being a Nazi, while you want to round up all the weapons.

Trump doesn't figure into the gun debate.  If Trump, president of the US, wants to start shooting citizens, your little 2nd Amendment pee-shooters won't do any thing.  He has nuclear weapons, fgs, not to mention FA-18's and aircraft carriers.  The notion that the 2nd Amendment protects us from a tyrannical government is laughable.

The police are problematic in that they want to shoot black men.  But that's a separate issue, and a part of the Black Lives Matter crusade.  I'm merely saying that these little tiffs involved in this so-called terrorism, are police matters.  Whether ISIS or al Qaeda, they don't pose a challenge that calls for a military response.

Why do you talk such racist shit?

So now black, Latino, white and Asian cops want to shoot black people? When whites are shot more by Police?

Again why is it hardly any Asians are shot by the Police in the US if its down to racism?

I will tell you why, as less are involved in crime.

If more people within an ethnic group are involved in crime, in a country that has high murder rates, with a gun culture. This leads to a higher number of people ending up shot by the Police. Where many are involved in the act of crimes, make threats to the Police or activelly shoot at them.

Where mistakes more occur is due to fear, a fear brought on by the gun culture and high crime in the US. Also mental health will play a factor, as its known a number of those shot by the Police unarmed have mental health issues.

People like you make racism worse. There is no doubt a very small number of shootings could be racially motivated, but those are rare to say the least. The Police are involved in millions of stops and arrests they make without ever even firing a shot in anger. Clearly some cops have fear take over them in a situation and make poor mistakes, that lead to some innocent people dying.

Are you talking about Black Lives Matter? Your head is in the sand; it is a response to racism.

You can't deny it...not if you look around you. Police relish killing black men. It's part of the deep, psychological alienation and fear that white people have of blacks. Dylann Roof came closest when he said they were raping “our women and are taking over our country.”

That's in the back of all white policemen whenever they confront a black man. And then, they know that no white jury will ever convict them, because they face danger every day! License to kill.

Original Quill wrote:Are you talking about Black Lives Matter?  Your head is in the sand; it is a response to racism.

You can't deny it...not if you look around you.  Police relish killing black men.  It's part of the deep, psychological alienation and fear that white people have of blacks.  Dylann Roof came closest when he said they were raping “our women and are taking over our country.”

That's in the back of all white policemen whenever they confront a black man.  And then, they know that no white jury will ever convict them, because they face danger every day!  License to kill.

Black lives matter are essentially a racist group, that instill hate and hype up anger, based on a shooting before any facts have come to light on an incident. It fails to understand the gun culture and fails to tackle the cause of problems. Like what leads many people into crime. The problems stem here.

You invoke yet again bullshit, where if police relished shooting black people, then hundreds of thousands would be shot and killed each year, based on the number of Blacks activelly involved in crime. Like I said millions of people no matter whether black or white are involved in criminal activity and are stopped and arrested by Police each year without any shot fired in anger. Proving what you are saying is essentially a load of racist bullshit.

This is why people like you make racism worse, as you hold such a poor view on the Police never understanding what they have to deal with on a daily bases. They go into every single situation they are called to the scene of, under a climate of fear. As many Police officers are also shot and due to the fact many people are armed. Many are shot at and threatened. You ignore this. Now again this leads to climate of fear. You want to stop this climate of fear, you need to tackle the problems of what leads to crime and the gun culture itself.

Didge wrote:Black lives matter are essentially a racist group, that instill hate and hype up anger, based on a shooting before any facts have come to light on an incident. It fails to understand the gun culture and fails to tackle the cause of problems. Like what leads many people into crime.

White police are essentially a racist group.  That's the point.

I ask you: who started it?  Blacks were slaves when it started.  Black Lives Matter is merely a contemporary response to the same thing that has gone on for centuries.  White, racist police are the problem.

We indulge them.  Juries let them off.  But we all know inside, what Officer Michael T. Slager was doing.  To disbelieve what is right there before our eyes is a fiction that helps us minimize cognitive dissonance.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Black lives matter are essentially a racist group, that instill hate and hype up anger, based on a shooting before any facts have come to light on an incident. It fails to understand the gun culture and fails to tackle the cause of problems. Like what leads many people into crime.

White police are essentially a racist group.  That's the point.

I ask you: who started it?  Blacks were slaves when it started.  Black Lives Matter is merely a response to the same thing that has gone on for decades.  White, racist police are the problem.

We indulge them.  Juries let them off.  But we all know inside, what Officer Michael T. Slager was doing.  To disbelieve what is right there before our eyes is a fiction that helps us minimize cognitive dissonance.  

Which as seen your first point is a load of clap trap.
As why is it thousands of white Police officers arrest black criminals without shooting or killing them?
Slavery ended 150 years ago and to go off this shows how badly you are living in the past.
You are also neglecting the fact the Police is made up of whites, blacks, hispanics, asians etc.

Now this year alone 766 people have been shot by the Police
360 were white
173 were black
124 were Hispanic
27 were other
82 unknown

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/

So where is all the Hispanic and white lives matter or do the 484 shootings by the Police on both ethnic groups not matter?

So where is all the news coverage of these deaths?

Where is all the protests?

You see, when its broken down, you simple do not want to look at the facts and where Blacks are shot, you poorly and immediately invoke racism before any investigation. That is sheer ignorance on your part

Now of these shootings 435 had guns and 120 knives. Of those shot and killed by the Police 180 had mental illnesses.

Now you want to look at the number of blacks involved in murders and violent crimes?

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

Hence the problem is tackling poverty, decriminalizing drugs and tackling the Gun culture in the US. You need to tackle what leads people into crime. Police need better training on understanding mental heath issues also.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Black lives matter are essentially a racist group, that instill hate and hype up anger, based on a shooting before any facts have come to light on an incident. It fails to understand the gun culture and fails to tackle the cause of problems. Like what leads many people into crime.

White police are essentially a racist group.  That's the point.

I ask you: who started it?  Blacks were slaves when it started.  Black Lives Matter is merely a contemporary response to the same thing that has gone on for centuries.  White, racist police are the problem.

We indulge them.  Juries let them off.  But we all know inside, what Officer Michael T. Slager was doing.  To disbelieve what is right there before our eyes is a fiction that helps us minimize cognitive dissonance.

have a watch of this quill

a BLACK BLM activist protesting police shooting unarmed black men undergoes police training and.....................................................shoots an unarmed man of colour

and the follow up interview



it sure took the shine off his halo

Didge wrote:Slavery ended 150 years ago and to go off this shows how badly you are living in the past.

No it didn't.  Today we have systemic racism, vestiges of former slavery.  It's still with us, barely hidden.

And we have shields for racism like you, who pretend to be sympathetic, but "don't like the ways of them uppity black fellers."  In other ways, you can believe in reform, but just don't say anything.

Didge wrote:You are also neglecting the fact the Police is made up of whites, blacks, hispanics, asians etc.

All operating under the white man's orders.