Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

George Floyd Protests and Riots

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by owl View Post
    Absolutely some police reform is needed but the cry is to defund the police too. That probably is going to hurt the minority community more than anyone.
    You and I agree more often than you might think. I disagree with this line though. Police reform is real and is being talked about. The extremists talk about defending the police. They are in the minority and that is not really what folks want. I have yet to see one person (even my most liberal of friends) say police departments should be 100% cut.

    I am surprised the right has not jumped on this movement. Someone was talking about ire departments that got fed up and went privatized (is that a word?) back in the day and if you didn’t pay a “fee” to the FD they would not respond to a call. I could easily see someone making an argument fo are private police department where you pay into it. would that be a mess

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      It is now being taken over by world views that do not mesh with what made the country great. Bad ideas that have been tried time and time again throughout the history of mankind are being raised by a bunch young, ignorant people who never learned this because the public schools indoctrinated them.
      I like you and I agree with you (more than you might realize) but this post could not sound more “get off my lawn” if you tried. Not trying to be an but its true.

      You mentioned above how you don't expect anyone to agree with you but you think people should listen to the police or they “get what they deserve”. Look, I have immediate family members (not to mention aunts, uncles, and in laws) who are LEO’s. Some like the body cameras and other newer policing, some hate it. But old school policing is old school for a reason. It wont work going forward. Cell phones are here. Body cameras are here. Taking out your billy club and striking someone because they talked back to you wont be tolerated. Those things are not going away/not going to change

      Comment


      • An old article about Thabo Sefolosha.

        http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/sto...-rights-symbol

        Comment


        • Originally posted by owl View Post
          Absolutely some police reform is needed but the cry is to defund the police too. That probably is going to hurt the minority community more than anyone.




          You and I agree more often than you might think. I disagree with this line though. Police reform is real and is being talked about. The extremists talk about defending the police. They are in the minority and that is not really what folks want. I have yet to see one person (even my most liberal of friends) say police departments should be 100% cut.

          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++

          Exactly what line in my statement are you disagreeing with?

          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

            Yes, lets do this. Let me flip the question. Why is that, BlueNGol

            4. A Caucasian male, 20 years old, was sitting in his car in a college parking lot. A LEO pulled up and turned the lights on. He talked to the male and asked if he would do a FST. The male refused. The LEO asked him to blow. He did. He blew a .18. KEEP IN MIND HE WAS SLEEPING IN HIS CAR, NOT DRIVING. The LEO walked him to his dorm room, told him to sleep it off, and told him how stupid it was to fall asleep in the driver seat. Why was this? You tell me.

            What do all of these have in common? What is the one difference in the four above examples?

            I could tell stories like my old boss from the secret service who was racing his car (stupid, yes) in college and was the only one charged. With a felony. For reckless driving. He has to explain it every time he goes through a background check or gets a new assignment. Why was this? You tell me.

            I could go on and on but its late at night and I am tired. I think its obvious to see a theme. Whether you want to acknowledge it exists is up to you.
            We could all come up with a string of stories and we still wouldn't know how bad racism is with the police. It is all anecdotal. Let me focus on one of yours that seems to have upper-cased emphasis.

            A friend of mine (a white, fit, yuppie looking male) was sleeping in his car outside his apartment (at Purdue) with the keys in the ignition. It was a short driveway but still he was not on public property. An officer saw him there, yanked him out of the car, roughed him up, arrested him and put him in jail. There is no way he fought back. This happened in November of 1988 and he was 22 at the time. Did the officer hate on him because he was a college boy? Who knows? Was it unfair to him? I think so because he really wasn't caught operating the vehicle. He may well have gone out to drive but decided it wasn't a good idea. I really don't remember that detail but I do remember he would not have been busted had he simply not had the keys in the ignition.

            Point being, it depends on the cop and it's not that clear cut. Could you imagine what would have happened to my friend if he had resisted arrest, smacked the dude in the mouth and grabbed a taser and ran. I think there's a very good chance he would be dead today. And that dude is whiter than me. Speaking of...my dad is mostly American Indian and he looks it. Black hair, red skin. He's never had an issue with the cops because he's not out gang banging and talking back to them. I don't know. I am sure there is some of what you are saying. All I am saying is that the full picture needs to be considered and there needs to be some shared reflection among all of us. At present, the argument is completely one-sided and I've already heard one side of it. There is a substantial amount of hypocrisy going on until that full conversation is had.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

              I will agree there are corrupt LEO, as in all lines of work. Many of these guys are not saints. But one unfortunate truth is that you need some of these bad boys to wear a badge because there are not enough choir boys to do the job. You can try to eliminate the bad eggs but at some point you will get broad resistance from good cops who find the micromanagement and judging and risk of it all, just isn't worth it. So no, there is no utopia. I never claimed that. No Virginia, there is no Santa Claus.

              But the goal should always be that everyone obeys the police and never resists. I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with that and instead prefers to accept chaos over it. The fact is, you wouldn't need so many cops, especially the bad ones, if people would just behave themselves.

              As for the different treatment and uncomfortable conversations, let's go. I believe it's true that blacks are treated differently. There is animosity between the police and the black community. That we know. But why is that vapacerfan?

              I hear people say the police are just racist. Yes, there will be cases where that is true. But it's not true generally.

              Or is it that police don't like a bad attitude and bad acts. Hmmm. Isn't that what happened in Atlanta that night? There was no way they would have done that had he not busted 'em up. Doesn't justify it but I don't think race had a thing to do with that incident. It was what he did.

              Or is it that police feel threatened for the very reason that there is a higher degree of crime in certain neighborhoods, often where POC live. We know this is true purely from the homicide rates. Is that racism or common sense survival. You tell me.

              Or is it that cops are hated and protested against by the community yet the black on black murder rate is 30 times higher than cops killing blacks. It's hard to see through the thick cloud of hypocrisy when BLM never talks about those far higher numbers. Do that and they may just get an enormous amount of support across the board.
              Not that individuals (individual officers in your case) are racist, but the entire justice system is systemically racist. The historical legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and how it's legal and policy codification has created significant disparities for communities of color. This systemic bias contributes to implicit bias in the society at large.

              The issue with "black on black" crime is poverty is a significant factor in crime (in all groups). Blacks live in poverty at much higher rates. Impoverished communities are more highly policed and blacks who are arrested tend to do jail time and more jail time that whites for similar crimes. Here is the intersection of (at least) the wealth and criminal justice disparities.

              The notion of "black on "black crime also serves to divert attention from the legitimate systemic disparities. It also is another narrative to criminalize blackness. Most crimes committed are against the same race. Most crime against whites is committed by whites. The same with crime against blacks. If the average white community were policed as aggressively and endured similar social disadvantages as black communities, many more whites would be arrested.

              The argument that BLM would get more support if it added "black on black" crime to its priorities is like saying once the black community owns their criminality we'll actually consider holding police accountable when they commit crime against blacks. Essentially, it's saying I'm okay with inequality and injustice and silence as it relates to how our criminal justice system has operated for centuries.

              Example: we just got national anti-lynching legislation passed in light of this crisis. People have been trying to get that done since at least the 19-teens. So just how just, equal, and compassionate has our system been? You would think anti-lynching would have been part of the Civil Rights Act, now over 50 yeas ago.
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post

                I like you and I agree with you (more than you might realize) but this post could not sound more “get off my lawn” if you tried. Not trying to be an but its true.

                You mentioned above how you don't expect anyone to agree with you but you think people should listen to the police or they “get what they deserve”. Look, I have immediate family members (not to mention aunts, uncles, and in laws) who are LEO’s. Some like the body cameras and other newer policing, some hate it. But old school policing is old school for a reason. It wont work going forward. Cell phones are here. Body cameras are here. Taking out your billy club and striking someone because they talked back to you wont be tolerated. Those things are not going away/not going to change
                That post was less about LEO and more about how young people want to take their budget and hand it to "the people", for example, free housing, free food, free whatever. That is NOT the American way at all and never has been. The US has always been a nation with a higher degree of independent people than most other nations in the world. The reason is that it was founded by risk takers and there has been a culture of depending on oneself rather than being dependent on the government that has slowly but surely slid away over the decades.

                I will not get into my personal details, but I understand the difference between those in need and those who are able. The latter needs to get off their azz and make the best of it. There are actually people in need who need them to do that. Need being people who are mentally ill, mentally retarded, the aged, the blind, the ill (e.g. cancer). Those are the people my heart goes out to. The rest of the people need to step up and own it. If you can drive a car, get married, hold a job...heck if you can tie your shoes, count yourself very lucky and stop whining about it. The reason I have these views are because I have people extremely close who actually are in the need category. I see right through and have very little pity for people who are so much better off.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                  Not that individuals (individual officers in your case) are racist, but the entire justice system is systemically racist. The historical legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and how it's legal and policy codification has created significant disparities for communities of color. This systemic bias contributes to implicit bias in the society at large.
                  I disagree that the entire justice system is racist. The vast majority of people are trying their best every day to administer fair justice. Many are risking their lives. Really, I support you having your opinion, but the assertion is offensive to many people and you will not get agreement on that. With some exceptions like the incident in Minneapolis, they are essentially dealing with the current state of our society, not creating its reality.

                  As for slavery and Jim Crow, the past was undoubtedly dark. It did create long term disparities. But it was generations ago. Affirmative action in its various forms were developed over many years and ultimately enacted into law in the mid 1960's, 55 years ago. Quotas in higher education and government contract set asides have been around for decades now to help level the playing field. For at least the last 25 years if you are black and working for a major corporation looking for a promotion, I can tell you from experience you have an advantage. If you are seeking to get into law school, you actually get in with a lower LSAT score. If you compete on government contracts in Indiana, you get a 15% margin over the competition. The laws if anything have flip flopped. Seriously, it is a wide path to success. People just need to buy in, but there is a lack of trust.

                  Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                  The issue with "black on black" crime is poverty is a significant factor in crime (in all groups). Blacks live in poverty at much higher rates. Impoverished communities are more highly policed and blacks who are arrested tend to do jail time and more jail time that whites for similar crimes. Here is the intersection of (at least) the wealth and criminal justice disparities.
                  Instead of saying "impoverished" communities are more highly policed, I would say police go where the crime is. We can discuss why crime is there, but it is irrational to say that police presence creates crime or is the reason people commit the crimes they do to get arrested. They get arrested because they broke the law.

                  As for it being due to poverty, I agree with that. But why is there poverty? You have to keep peeling the onion.

                  It sure isn't due to a lack of opportunity in the US. Asians are making a killing, with a higher median income than whites. The reason there is poverty is because some people make poor choices. Maybe they have a problem with substance abuse. Maybe they decided to sell drugs instead of get a real job paying less...and suddenly they have a felony and cannot get a good job. Poor choice. Maybe you decide you don't want to take responsibility for your family, people suffer and the problem repeats itself. Another poor choice. A child without a father is a child that starts life WAY behind other people and that does lead to a cycle of poverty. It almost guarantees problems. And no, dad does not have to commit crimes and be sent to prison.

                  I would have more sympathy if I did not see people claw their way out of it....and other people make poor choices and make a mess of their lives. My mother and father lived on the streets as teenagers. My father is of mixed race and was on the street at 17. My mom is white and was actually 16 living with a friend. I don't even want to go into the horrific circumstances of their plight. The difference is, they made the right choices. They have been very successful and retired comfortably. My niece, in contrast, had a golden spoon in her mouth from the day she was born. She was put through private school in Carmel, grew up in a mansion, had a full ride through college until she dropped out. The fact is, she liked drugs, drinking and whoring around more than she wanted to succeed. Fortunately, she's beginning to turn that around but facts are facts. It's about choices. You either take responsibility or you make excuses.

                  Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                  The notion of "black on "black crime also serves to divert attention from the legitimate systemic disparities. It also is another narrative to criminalize blackness. Most crimes committed are against the same race. Most crime against whites is committed by whites. The same with crime against blacks. If the average white community were policed as aggressively and endured similar social disadvantages as black communities, many more whites would be arrested.
                  Nobody's attention is diverted. We hear the message loud and clear. We can walk and chew gum at the same time and people need to step out of denial. I respect the substance of the protests. I totally agree there needs to be changes. Chauvin needs the death penalty. Choke holds should be banned. I would support money being diverted from policing to mental health services. I support more training for police officers and firing officers who have enough complaints against them. There are areas of agreement. But it has to be a two-way street and a dialogue rather than the monologue we've been listening to for the last few weeks. This will have to be a team effort and if an honest conversation about the issues is to be had, there has to be some shared reflection and accountability.
                  Last edited by BlueNGold; 06-19-2020, 10:38 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                    We could all come up with a string of stories and we still wouldn't know how bad racism is with the police. It is all anecdotal. Let me focus on one of yours that seems to have upper-cased emphasis.
                    Most is anecdotal. A lot is not

                    Could you imagine what would have happened to my friend if he had resisted arrest, smacked the dude in the mouth and grabbed a taser and ran. I think there's a very good chance he would be dead today.
                    Yet there are videos floating around Twitter and other SM sites that show Caucasian males pointing rifles at police and living to talk about it. There is one big difference is those scenarios. Sure we could argue the only difference is the police officer but if that was the case you would not have protesters that stemmed from how normal that is for POC.



                    with the cops because he's not out gang banging and talking back to them.
                    Was Breonna Taylor out gang banging? What about John Crawford?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by owl View Post
                      Exactly what line in my statement are you disagreeing with?
                      The part I quoted “Absolutely some police reform is needed but the cry is to defund the police too. That probably is going to hurt the minority community more than anyone.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        I disagree that the entire justice system is racist.
                        The justice system in the United States is broken. It is especially broken if you are a person of color.

                        This is not me saying that. This is LEO who have come out and said that. This is lawyers. Districts attorneys. Defense lawyers. Judges. Politicians. Etc.

                        I am not willing to say the entire justice system is broken. Admittedly our system is a lot better than other countries. However ours is far from perfect and it’s definitely different if you are a person of color (or money, but a topic for another thread)

                        As for it being due to poverty, I agree with that. But why is there poverty? You have to keep peeling the onion.
                        Socioeconomic class most definitly comes into play, which I have said more than once. Of course, even then you see POC versus Caucasian treated differently.

                        Comment




                        • Dani Fernandez

                          @msdanifernandez
                          ·
                          12h
                          They shot him 7x in the back as he ran away. He was working as a security guard at an auto body shop. Police pulled their guns on him and he ran because he was rightfully terrified. He was 18. Andres Guardado

                          Quote Tweet

                          CBS Los Angeles
                          @CBSLA
                          · Jun 19

                          3:03
                          UPDATE: Family members say Andres Guardado, the security guard fatally shot by an LASD deputy in Gardena today, was 18 https://c

                          Comment



                          • Memo Torres@el_tragon_de_LA
                            · 9h
                            Replying to @el_tragon_de_LA
                            UPDATE: came to speak with the manager. Andres ran down the driveway, got on his knees and put his hands behind his head. Then 1 Cop shot him in the back 7 times. They broke all the cameras and took the DVR, which they pulled a warrant for after the fact. Video of this coming

                            Memo Torres@el_tragon_de_LA
                            The Family of Daniel Hernandez, another person killed by police, can to support. I spoke with Daniel’s sister, Marina Vergara who says, (paraphrasing) ~ I see BLM, we support it, but where is all the raza? This is an issue that affects both of us and raza isn’t coming out enough!

                            2,232
                            2:31 AM - Jun 20, 2020

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X