Jump to content

White. Police. Officer. Screams. In. Pain !


Recommended Posts

Trumps. Terrorist. Mob. Attacks,,Capitol. Building. ,A. White. Police ,Officer. Screams In. Pain. As. Trumps. Terrorist. Mob. Crushes. Him.-He. Survived. The. Attack.  Another. White. Police. Officer. Died.  As,Racist. White. Police. Attack. Unarmed. Black. People..White ,Police  Watch. The. White. Terrorist. Attack. That. Killed. A. White,Police. Officer.  Some. News. Talkers.  Not. Calling. It ,Domestic. Terrorist..News. Ask. How. This. Happen. Where. Were,The,Police. National. Guard?  Tv. News. Will. Not. Talk. About,,Neo. Nazi. In. The. Military. ,Coast. Guard. ,National. Guard,In,Police. Uniforms. White. Police. Have. Been. Fired. The. ,Past. 12- Years. For. Being  Klan. Members. Neo. Nazi. Coast. Guard,Lieutenant. Was. Planning. Terror. Attacks,Was. Going. To. Kill,Black. People. ,He. Is. Behind. Bars. .There. Is. Fear. Of. More ,Terror. Attacks,News. Talkers. Mention. Dr.  King. Day. Or. ,Inagaration  Day. They Fear....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they showed that Caucasian officer briefly....

But their FAVORITE clip of that Insurrection and failed Coup attempt was the that Black police officer being chased up the stairs by that Caucasian mob.
They LOVE to show that brutha running and looking afraid and confused.


They'll show that clip over and over and over again and broadcast it around the world.

Black US Capitol Police officer hailed as hero for diverting pro-Trump mob  during riot


If there's anything they love more than seeing a Black man being chased by a mob of red-necks, it's a Black man IN UNIFORM with weapons STILL running and being chased by red-necks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The local radio station here said the brother was not running away but distracting the mob redirecting them away from the officials. They were saying that the brother deserves a medal.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

I've heard many people say that and I'm trying to figure out how they arrived at that conclusion based on what they saw in that video.
It's clear he was trying to discourage them from going further and trying to get away from them not trying to "direct" them in any particular direction.

Let me also say that I don't know what I would do if I were in HIS situation so I'm not trying to be too hard on the brother, however.....
Regardless of his INTENTIONS most people around the world who see this video will see it as a Black man in uniform RUNNING from a mob of angry White men.
Those are the visuals.
Most men around the world are going to see him as running.

At any rate....
Here's the video of what he was doing, you tell ME what it looks like he was doing:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time I watched the video.  I can tell what his is doing.  If I were to speculate it looks like he was communicating with fellow officers which is probably why he had back up at the end of the video. 

 

What happened next?

 

I think he was justified in drawing his weapon and firing on people who deliberately failed to comply with his instructions. He could only hope blasting a couple of people would have gotten the others to disperse, but shooting a couple of others may have had the opposite effect.

 

But I'm not in law enforcement what he did was probably what he was trained to do.  I'm not about to about to second guess him.  Again good reporting would have explained all of this.  I rather wait for that reporting.  Has any been released?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

 

 

If I were to speculate it looks like he was communicating with fellow officers which is probably why he had back up at the end of the video. 

 

That's fairly obvious the way he kept clicking on the radio.
However that's not ALL he was doing; he was also trying to keep them back while trying to get the hell away from them at the same time.

 

 

 

 


I think he was justified in drawing his weapon and firing on people who deliberately failed to comply with his instructions. He could only hope blasting a couple of people would have gotten the others to disperse,

 

You would think that.
Atleast based on OUR (not being trained police officers) reasoning.

Not only was it a large hostile crowd coming towards him and disobeying order but some of them had weapons on them and were threatening him. 

Some Caucasian officers have killed unarmed AfroAmericans for LESS than that.

 

He also had MACE which would have been a pretty good deterrent for most of them and probably would have kept them from advancing....not sure why he didn't use it.

 

 

 

 

 

he did was probably what he was trained to do.  

 

See, I'm not sure about that one.

Many officers are trained to NOT allow themselves to get put in a position where they are helpless and their weapons could be TAKEN from them and used either against them or someone else.  If he had a deadly weapon and refused to use it against those who WOULD use it against him or on someone else, and those people got him in a vulnerable or unconscious position who know what damage could result from that.

 

 

 


 Again good reporting would have explained all of this.  I rather wait for that reporting.  Has any been released?

 

You mean "good reporting" would have EXPLAINED IT AWAY.
Instead of letting us see the raw video of him retreating (for whatever reason) we would be getting the spin we're getting now that he was making a "strategic move" to direct them away from the Senators and how he deserves a medal for bravery.

 

Give me a break...lol.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again this is a consequence of the web, reporters say the Brother deserves a medal and you call it "spin."

 

When journalists can't be trusted at all, and people debate reality the republic is in jeopardy.

 

This is why so many people don't believe the election results, climate change, or the effecacy of the vaccine.

 

Things will get worse before they get better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

 

 

Again this is a consequence of the web, reporters say the Brother deserves a medal and you call it "spin."

 

The key word in your statement is "deserve".
They think he DESERVES a medal isn't a report of FACTS but a report of FEELINGS and DESIRES.
It's pretty much them giving their opinion i.e. their SPIN on it.

 

 


When journalists can't be trusted at all, and people debate reality the republic is in jeopardy.

 

And this illustrates the difference between your and my position.
You believe that others can GIVE you a more accurate assessment of reality than you can give yourself.

 

The only thing I expect for a "good" journalist to do is give me as many FACTS (not opinions) as they can muster up and then let me decide for myself how to feel about a situation.

 

 

 

 

 

This is why so many people don't believe the election results, climate change, or the effecacy of the vaccine.

 

Journalism or the lack thereof has nothing to do with the majority of those who deny these issues.  
Did the fact that they really DO believe in the truth of them but PRETEND not to in order to hide their true intentions -ever cross your mind?

In other words....

Did it ever occur to you that most of those who stormed the Capitol the other day claiming they did it because Trump was cheated out of the election REALLY DIDN'T BELIEVE IT AND KNEW HE LOST but were just looking for an EXCUSE to be violent and raise hell against?

Same with climate change.

Many people KNOW it exists but they deny it for various reasons that prove to be more beneficial to them like being paid NOT to admit to it...lol
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

The key word in your statement is "deserve".

 

True, that was the opinion of the morning drive time DJ here in Tulsa, based upon reporting.  Watch the latest 60 Minutes broadcast for the actual reporting.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

You believe that others can GIVE you a more accurate assessment of reality than you can give yourself.

 

Absolutely!  I was not there.  I do not know enough to provide context.  I have not done any research, interviewed witnesses, video the incident, nit have you what make me wonder why you think you know so much?

 

Yesterday I was talking to a woman in her 30's lamenting the changes on airline dining.  She said the food on airlines was crap.  I told her I'm talking about food on the airline before you were born.  She as "don't dismiss me." I could not help but do it because she was gonna argue with me about something I experienced and something she obviously know little about.

 

Again people get an idea in their head and they do not let go of it -- despite access to better information -- indeed the reject it.

 

1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said:

Many people KNOW it exists but they deny it for various reasons that prove to be more beneficial to them like being paid NOT to admit to it...lol

 

Hummm again this is not based upon any evidence, just your opinion to justify your world view.  I guess the LOL at the end illustrates that you don't really believe it yourself.   

 

Everything you've written is an example of the concrete thinking that @Delano described.  I see getting your to consider an alternative like climate change, the importance of journalism, a single race is completely futile...  

 

Changing your mind based upon better or new information is not a sign of weakness man.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Troy

 

 

True, that was the opinion of the morning drive time DJ here in Tulsa, based upon reporting. 

 

Yes, which is my point!

You're lauding reports laced with OPINIONS as an example of why we need professional journalism.
I'm using those SAME reports as an example of why we don't.

 

I don't need them to tell me whether the brother "deserves" a medal or not.  Just report what he did and show us the video and let US make up our minds as to what he deserves.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely!  I was not there.  I do not know enough to provide context.  I have not done any research, interviewed witnesses, video the incident, nit have you what make me wonder why you think you know so much?

 

I don't.
It's not about how much I don't know or do know because my issue with them isn't over who knows the most.
My issues with the mainstream media are:

1. Manipulating information about an event
2. Telling me how I SHOULD feel about an event.....i.e. telling us the brother "deserves" an award for his behavior.

 

If you know what happened, simply TELL ME THE TRUTH about it and MOVE ON to the next story.

I don't need you to stand there with a mike in your hand holding a 5 minute monologue about the motivation for the event, whether or not it will help Trump get elected, and who you think was behind it.

 

 

 

 

I could not help but do it because she was gonna argue with me about something I experienced and something she obviously know little about.
Again people get an idea in their head and they do not let go of it -- despite access to better information -- indeed the reject it.

 

image.jpeg.4ba85707cb6e6535353cc2ffbfbe2169.jpeg

 

Oh?

So NOW anecdotal reports are acceptable...lol.

 

After all these years of arguing with me over the relevance of anecdotal evidence, your story just made my point.
WITNESSING and EXPERIENCING events tend to be more reliable than simply believing reports from those who neither experienced nor witnessed them but are just PARROTING information (that often is inaccurate) they got from other sources.






Hummm again this is not based upon any evidence, just your opinion to justify your world view. 
 

Well, without providing any evidence  let me just ask the question....
Do you believe that some people who deny climate change actually DO believe in it but are being paid or otherwise compensated to push a certain narrative?






Everything you've written is an example of the concrete thinking that @Delano described.


Delano gives Tarot card readings and believes astrology will tell him the future...lol.

Anything OUTSIDE of his imaginary world will be seen as "concrete thinking" to him because being GROUNDED in reality is too "concrete".


On the flip side, the philosophical ramblings of those Caucasians he recently posted is likely an example of this "conceptual thinking" he so admires...lol.

 

 

 

 

 

Changing your mind based upon better or new information is not a sign of weakness man.
 

It is, if that information is false or comes from dubious sources.

If you believe everything people tell you, you'll get labeled as a sucka...lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

You're lauding reports laced with OPINIONS as an example of why we need professional journalism.

 

What I was trying to point out was that people can view the same information completely differently, in much the same way you and Danielle view trump differently. Why do you think that is?

 

3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

My issues with the mainstream media are:

1. Manipulating information about an event
2. Telling me how I SHOULD feel about an event

 

This is what Trumps says too.  This is why he has so many followers and this is why we need good journalism.  People who use social media as their primary news source will be confused and can easily draw completely different conclusions and THIS is the problem I'm lamenting. 

 

Does the following accurately explain your position @Pioneer1?

 

We are better severed getting raw information provided by the general public via social media for us to judge individually, than we are getting vetted, fact checked, thoughtfully reported information from trained journalists.

 

Journalists "spin" stories, tell us how to think, and we don't really need them.

 

Does that sum it up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

 


What I was trying to point out was that people can view the same information completely differently, in much the same way you and Danielle view trump differently.
 

I already understood this and agree with you; and going by that SAME LOGIC do you see the potential problem that arises when ALL your news comes from journalists who also have THEIR OWN views and style of presenting information?

We need alternative sources.

 

 

 


Why do you think that is?

 

Wishful thinking is part of human nature.

 

As far as me and @daniellegfny....
Our differing views can EASILY be explained by differing IQ's, lol.

 

 

 

 

 

This is what Trumps says too.  This is why he has so many followers and this is why we need good journalism.  People who use social media as their primary news source will be confused and can easily draw completely different conclusions and THIS is the problem I'm lamenting. 

 

JUST because Trump says something, doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Trump also says we need to support our families and protect the children...should we NOT support that or agree with it simply because Trump says it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does the following accurately explain your position @Pioneer1?

We are better severed getting raw information provided by the general public via social media for us to judge individually, than we are getting vetted, fact checked, thoughtfully reported information from trained journalists.
Journalists "spin" stories, tell us how to think, and we don't really need them.

Does that sum it up?


No, that view takes us to the OTHER EXTREME.

That sounds like a quote from one of those right-wing blogs.
 

I'm not against ALL journalism nor do I feel like journalism is the ONLY way to go...I prefer a BALANCE from multiple (including alternative) sources.

Start dismissing news you get from social media and pretty soon AfroAmerican news sources will be called in-credible and not worthy of consideration.  Only corporate owned mega-media outlets (half owned by am*zon and the other half by Wal-Mart the way things are going) will give you your ALL your news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2021 at 8:32 PM, Pioneer1 said:

journalists who also have THEIR OWN views

 

"Journalists" do not share their opinions.  That is done on the editorial and opinion pages.

 

It does not look like Trump or you understand the role of a journalist.  Trump believes journalist are tools to help promote his agenda --- the way Twitter was.  Anyone doing their job is simply "fake news."  I know Trump has used the media as a tool, but you don't have that power Pioneer, so what is your excuse for disparaging journalists?

 

What are these "alternative sources" are celebrating pioneer.  The alternative source I'd like to see would be a daily Black run newspaper, or at least a Black run weekly magazine.  All we have left is fluff or planforms that copy from other sources -- no serious independent reporting.

 

So I get you frustration.  I have regularly read the WSJ and the NYT and they are biased in ways that their editors can't appreciate.  The balance we need to not people sharing misinformation on social media. We need more Black journalists covering stories that are important to us in ways that we can use and we simply did not have that.

 

In my opinion, all things considered, we are worse off  today, in the social media age, than we were when Johnson publication was firing on all cylinders, we had powerful Black owned newspapers, Radio and TV programming.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

 

 

Journalists" do not share their opinions. 

 

No?

Post  a few (atleast 3) articles from respected "Journalists" and let us SEE if this is true.

 

 

 

 

Anyone doing their job is simply "fake news."  I know Trump has used the media as a tool, but you don't have that power Pioneer, so what is your excuse for disparaging journalists?

 

You're using Trump's despotic rants against any media that criticizes him as an excuse to legitimize corporate media and defend them again ANY criticism, even when it's warranted.
 

We say the mainstream media in the United States tends to be corporate owned and racist.  
Do THOSE criticisms also mean we agree with Trump?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The balance we need to not people sharing misinformation on social media. We need more Black journalists covering stories that are important to us in ways that we can use and we simply did not have that.

 

I agree with BOTH of those statements, however neither one of them are part of the argument.
This argument isn't about the need for Black journalism nor is it about promoting mis-information....it's about ALTERNATIVE SOURCES for information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, all things considered, we are worse off  today, in the social media age, than we were when Johnson publication was firing on all cylinders, we had powerful Black owned newspapers, Radio and TV programming.  

 

This is not the fault of social-media.
It's the fault of a deliberately DEFUNDED and DETERIORATING public educational system that doesn't educate AfroAmerican student as well as it did 50 and 60 years ago...and the fault of integration to a lesser extent because many of the good AfroAmerican journalists left Black publications for Caucasian ones.
 

Neither was caused by social media.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

This is not the fault of social-media.

 

The state we are in is not solely social media fault -- I never wrote that.  But it is clearly a factor particularly when you appreciate that it is major contributor to disruption the existing business models' (however flawed to providing news to the public).

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Post  a few (atleast 3) articles from respected "Journalists" and let us SEE if this is true.

 

Man that is easy.  Just reference any othe sources I said that I liked.

 

But for an example read the article from The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/15/biden-coronavirus-pandemic-covid-vaccination-plan it was the first article I pick upon visiting the website. 

 

It will be interesting to see how creative you get in you effort to extract an opinion from the article -- I'm sure you'll do it, because you have a creative mind and you'll do anything to defend a position LOL!

 

Here is the good thing. I have no idea who the writer, Jessica Glenza, is -- and I don't need to, because I trust the integrity of the publication and can assume everything is true.

 

With social media however, you must admit that you are FAR BETTER served presuming everything is a lie.  Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Troy said:

 

 

In my opinion, all things considered, we are worse off  today, in the social media age, than we were when Johnson publication was firing on all cylinders, we had powerful Black owned newspapers, Radio and TV programming.  

That opinion comes from not understanding we are in the age of sorting. The challenge is the current rise in censorship. There are thousands of Black Writers and Journalists out there. Many haven’t jumped on a bandwagon and write what they see. How you are seeing the results of activist journalism where the ideas aren’t meant to share the truth but mold it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy

 

The state we are in is not solely social media fault -- I never wrote that.  But it is clearly a factor particularly when you appreciate that it is major contributor to disruption the existing business models' (however flawed to providing news to the public).

 
Lol, you never wrote it, and I never ACCUSED you of writing it...even-Steven.

 

 

 

 

But it is clearly a factor particularly when you appreciate that it is major contributor to disruption the existing business models' (however flawed to providing news to the public).

 

Some would call that COMPETITION and consider it a GOOD thing!

 

 

 

 


With social media however, you must admit that you are FAR BETTER served presuming everything is a lie.  Wouldn't you agree?

 

No.
I prefer to take the MIDDLE GROUND and not assume one way or the other.
But when:

 

1. I get multiple reports of the SAME information from difference TRUSTED sources

and

2. That information in in harmony with logic and my common sense

 

....then I will be inclined to accept that information as true UNLESS/UNTIL it is proven otherwise.

 

 

 

Daniel also made a good point when he said:

"That opinion comes from not understanding we are in the age of sorting."

 

 

People have to learn to use their common sense and use logic when sorting through a variety of sources and reports.  The more people use these skills the better they get at determining the truth and accuracy of information instead of blindly accepting it simply because it came from a "professional journalist".

 

 

As for the article you referenced...I'll chop it up on another thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, daniellegfny said:

How you are seeing the results of activist journalism where the ideas aren’t meant to share the truth but mold it.

 

Again just because someone is published in the mainstream media does not make them a journalist.  People often confuse the commentary with journalism then use that commentary to deride actual journalism.  For example, virtually all I've seen coming out of Fox "News" is commentary.  People whose goal it is to "mold opinion" are not journalists.

 

4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

As for the article you referenced...I'll chop it up on another thread.

 

OK I await your diatribe against journalism 🙂 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:

Most of what you call "professional journalism" isn't as objective as you portray it to be.

 

I have no idea what you mean.  Can you give me one example of professional journalism that was not actually professional Journalism/

 

Your apparent definition of "objective" is pretty loose.  If the reporting reveals something that you do not like or disagree with you, like trump, call it biased or "fake news." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2021 at 2:05 PM, Troy said:

 

Again just because someone is published in the mainstream media does not make them a journalist.  People often confuse the commentary with journalism then use that commentary to deride actual journalism.  For example, virtually all I've seen coming out of Fox "News" is commentary.  People whose goal it is to "mold opinion" are not journalists.

 

 

OK I await your diatribe against journalism 🙂 

 

I don’t watch Fox News.

On 1/16/2021 at 3:41 PM, Pioneer1 said:

Troy

Not sure if I'd call it a diatribe, just a criticizm of the institution as it exists today.
Most of what you call "professional journalism" isn't as objective as you portray it to be.

I agree, but add it never was. It’s one of the myths social institutions push for sympathy and credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Troy

 

 

 Can you give me one example of professional journalism that was not actually professional Journalism/

 

That's an odd question because that's essentially asking me to provide an oxymoron for you.

 

It's not the job most "Professional Journalists" to tell the complete and unbiased truth.  
It's their job to do whatever they were HIRED to do by whoever they work for.

As long as they're doing their job properly they are being "professional" about it even if they're lying.

Like Hitler's doctors.
They were in the business of torturing and killing people.
They were professionals and did what they were trained to do, even though they lied and caused more harm than good.

 


 

Your apparent definition of "objective" is pretty loose.  If the reporting reveals something that you do not like or disagree with you, like trump, call it biased or "fake news." 


Then let me make it clear......
 

By "objective" I mean fair with no underlying motives or biases or prejudices.

 

If you focus on a particular statement that Trump made and say that Trump made a "racist statement"...that's objective.

On the other hand if you say in your article that Trump IS a racist and he made a particular statement....that may be true but it's BIAS and it has an underlying motive.


 




Daniel


I agree, but add it never was. It’s one of the myths social institutions push for sympathy and credibility.

Well that's a fact.
However the problem with you and other Conservatives acknowledging this FACT is that when it's AfroAmericans or Caucasian Liberals who made the same observations about the media and other institutions in this society...Conservatives and members of the Establishment routinely dismissed those concerns.

They would say things like,
"America....love it or leave it" 
or
"If you don't like our press....try saying the same things an a Banana Republic and see what happens to you".  

Now all of a sudden that the media is saying things about Trump the "press" is a problem and the media has lost it's credibility....lol.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...