How Can White Americans Be Democrats ?

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure they do, black kids end up in prison for simply stealing a pice of pizza. Did you ever hear of what it's like for ex-cops in prison?

three strikes law, a guy was sentenced to life for stealing a slice of Pizza in CA.

Yes, it does suck to be a corrupt cop in prison, where all the other victims of corrupt cops end up.

Oh, well.

He had a gun, that's why several witnesses called the police. The gun was identified because he traded for his cell phone with another kid. For crying out loud, it's right in front of you on the video.

Um, yeah, he's playing WITH A TOY, which he put back in his pants when the cop (fired from another PD for crying on a gun range) popped out of his car and shot him.

Gun was not his hand. He was not going for it.

The jury says you're wrong, the video expert says you're wrong, the FBI agent who heard the call and responded says you're wrong, and the forensic scientists who examined the scene says you're wrong. The gun could not have jumped out of his pants by itself. He was pulling the gun out when the cop realized it was indeed a gun, fired in self-defense.

You have zero common sense. Why would a cop shoot somebody that wasn't pulling a gun out on him? That would land him in prison for many years.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I'm definitely voting Democrat, because Pompeo the Republican said yesterday while in Poland, that he wants Poland to pay Jews Holocaust restitution.

Good work Republicans, you just gave up a bunch of American Polish blooded Trump voters for a bunch of American Democrat Jewish blooded Hillary voters.

RIP in Republicans, without the Polish vote, it's almost certain you won't be winning the Rust-Belt again.

 

[JoeB131]

The jury says you're wrong,

what Jury? This never went to a court, that's the problem.

He was pulling the gun out when the cop realized it was indeed a gun, fired in self-defense.

Except it was a toy and it wasn't in his hand. Not that this thug cop could have figure ALL THAT OUT in 1.6 seconds.

You have zero common sense. Why would a cop shoot somebody that wasn't pulling a gun out on him? That would land him in prison for many years.

First, you work on the assumption that a guy who was FIRED FOR CRYING ON A GUN RANGE really had "common sense". He was fired because his superiors realized he didn't, and was a danger to himself and others.

Secondly, cops shoot people all the time, and they mostly get away with it. Van Dyke shot a kid 16 times, on tape, and he only got six years.

Thankfully, the brothers beat the shit out of him in prison last week, so it's going to be a fun six years for him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

what Jury? This never went to a court, that's the problem.

The Grand Jury are the people who decide if a law was broken. In this case, they decided no law was. But in Dictator land, you don't go by laws. You go by how much you dislike an outcome, just like in the jungle.

Except it was a toy and it wasn't in his hand. Not that this thug cop could have figure ALL THAT OUT in 1.6 seconds.

Correct, because if it was a real gun, he'd be dead in 1.8 seconds. People with serious mental disabilities like OCD fixate on things that really aren't there. In this case, toy, as if he whipped out a nerf gun or plastic water pistol. This was a very realistic exact replica of an actual firearm where Tamir removed the fluorescent tip that helped distinguish that "toy" from the real thing. Your OCD precludes you from looking at reality which is that no officer in the entire country could have deciphered this "toy" from the real thing. People have robbed stores and banks with these "toys" and they go to jail as if they had a real gun.

Unless you are a firearms expert, and you have several seconds to examine this object being pointed out at you, it's impossible to tell it from a real gun. In spite of me repeatedly showing you the comparisons, your mental block stops you from admitting this was a real firearm to this officer.

Guns don't jump out of people's pants on their own. Somebody has to pull it out.

First, you work on the assumption that a guy who was FIRED FOR CRYING ON A GUN RANGE really had "common sense". He was fired because his superiors realized he didn't, and was a danger to himself and others.

Secondly, cops shoot people all the time, and they mostly get away with it. Van Dyke shot a kid 16 times, on tape, and he only got six years.

Thankfully, the brothers beat the shit out of him in prison last week, so it's going to be a fun six years for him.

Very smart. Each of them added years to their prison sentences and likely will be refused parole for their entire time in prison. You condone animal behavior which isn't surprising as a liberal.

 

[JoeB131]

The Grand Jury are the people who decide if a law was broken. In this case, they decided no law was. But in Dictator land, you don't go by laws. You go by how much you dislike an outcome, just like in the jungle.

The Grand Jury wasn't allowed to vote, and wasn't presented with key evidence like Loehmann being FIRED FOR CRYING ON A GUN RANGE. Since this entire case revolved around his judgment, not including it was a major ommission. It's like putting a klansman on trial and not mentioning his racism, ever.

Guns don't jump out of people's pants on their own. Somebody has to pull it out.

Right. Someone did.. Probably one of the cops "investigating".

Very smart. Each of them added years to their prison sentences and likely will be refused parole for their entire time in prison. You condone animal behavior which isn't surprising as a liberal.

everyone will have forgotten that in a few weeks... again, too funny this shitball getting a beating.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Grand Jury wasn't allowed to vote, and wasn't presented with key evidence like Loehmann being FIRED FOR CRYING ON A GUN RANGE. Since this entire case revolved around his judgment, not including it was a major ommission. It's like putting a klansman on trial and not mentioning his racism, ever.

Again, the Grand Jury is not like your trial jury. There is no voting. They decide whether charges are warranted or not. They decide if an indictment is warranted or not. That's all they do. You can only bring up evidence related to the incident, not what somebody did ten years ago or at the Waffle House. HIs judgement was not in question--only the incident. You can't charge somebody on judgment because no matter what your judgment, judgement is not against the law, only actions are.

Right. Someone did.. Probably one of the cops "investigating".

Sure, because the police who work that area had no idea a camera was on them and that forensic scientists would be investigating. It's one thing to lie to me, buy how can you lie to yourself? I find that amazing.

The video shows him putting the gun in his pants. The video shows his right shoulder shrugging upwards as if pulling the gun out of his pants. The gun is on the ground after the shooting. Or are you going to suggest the police made him shrug his one shoulder up before they shot him?

everyone will have forgotten that in a few weeks... again, too funny this shitball getting a beating.

Prison attacks are no different than assaults outside of prison. You are arrested again, go to court again, and are sentenced again. Nobody just forgets. I hope they enjoyed their beating for the extra five to ten years they may be sitting in jail.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, the Grand Jury is not like your trial jury. There is no voting. They decide whether charges are warranted or not. They decide if an indictment is warranted or not. That's all they do. You can only bring up evidence related to the incident, not what somebody did ten years ago or at the Waffle House. HIs judgement was not in question--only the incident. You can't charge somebody on judgment because no matter what your judgment, judgement is not against the law, only actions are.

Uh, guy, the grand jury was abused... the DA didn't take a vote on a bill of indictment. and heck, a judge ALREADY FOUND there were grounds for a trial, so there wasn't a need for a grand jury. This was an attempt by the DA to whitewash the incident.

Yes, the fact he is mentally unstable is really relavant to whether or not he showed good judgement when he started blasting a kid.

Sure, because the police who work that area had no idea a camera was on them and that forensic scientists would be investigating. It's one thing to lie to me, buy how can you lie to yourself? I find that amazing.

The video shows him putting the gun in his pants.

The video shows his right shoulder shrugging upwards as if pulling the gun out of his pants. The gun is on the ground after the shooting.

Because again, the cops put it there... there's no evidence he was reaching for the toy. Quite the contrary, that really doesn't even make sense. You hide the toy when the cops arrive and then pull it out?

Or are you going to suggest the police made him shrug his one shoulder up before they shot him?

I don't think "Shrugging" is a capital offense. At least not yet... I k now that you bigots missed the old days when they could abuse the darkies for that sort of thing.

Prison attacks are no different than assaults outside of prison. You are arrested again, go to court again, and are sentenced again. Nobody just forgets. I hope they enjoyed their beating for the extra five to ten years they may be sitting in jail.

Oh, I don't think the prison is going to be too keen on highlighting how badly they fucked up and let a high-profile prisoner get beaten up his first day there. Especially since none of the other prisoners other than Van Dick will testify against them. Heh, heh, heh...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Uh, guy, the grand jury was abused... the DA didn't take a vote on a bill of indictment. and heck, a judge ALREADY FOUND there were grounds for a trial, so there wasn't a need for a grand jury. This was an attempt by the DA to whitewash the incident.

Yes, the fact he is mentally unstable is really relavant to whether or not he showed good judgement when he started blasting a kid.

Joe, if a mentally retarded person got a hold of a gun and shot an intruder in his home, his mental state is not in question or against the law. He shot an intruder, and that's all that matters. It only matters if the shooting was legal or not.

The Grand Jury in the Rice case voted that the shooting was legally justified. That means given all the evidence, the GJ believed that the officer had acted in accordance with the law. You can't charge somebody for being within the constraints of the law in a shooting.

Because again, the cops put it there... there's no evidence he was reaching for the toy. Quite the contrary, that really doesn't even make sense. You hide the toy when the cops arrive and then pull it out?

It makes no sense that he was pointing it at cars either. It makes no sense that his mother didn't know he had that thing (not that she really cared). It makes no sense why he would trade his cell phone for a toy gun. None of it makes sense.

More than likely he hid the gun in his pants not realizing the police were there just for him. Perhaps he was trying to pull it out to show them it was not a real gun. Perhaps he wanted to tell his friends how he scared the shit out of the police because he was such a bad ass. Who knows?

I don't think "Shrugging" is a capital offense. At least not yet... I k now that you bigots missed the old days when they could abuse the darkies for that sort of thing.

I didn't say it was a capital offense. What I said is that the video showing him shrugging his shoulder upwards coincides with the officers account that he pulled out the gun. The fact that he was shot immediately after his shoulder went up.

Oh, I don't think the prison is going to be too keen on highlighting how badly they fucked up and let a high-profile prisoner get beaten up his first day there. Especially since none of the other prisoners other than Van Dick will testify against them. Heh, heh, heh...

Think the prisons don't have cameras? Like I said, when their sentence is up let's say in 2025 or so, and they have to sit there until 2030 because of the attack, they will be kicking themselves in the ass those next couple of years.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, if a mentally retarded person got a hold of a gun and shot an intruder in his home, his mental state is not in question or against the law. He shot an intruder, and that's all that matters. It only matters if the shooting was legal or not.

The intruder had no right to be in his home. Tamir had every right to play in that park with a toy.

The Grand Jury in the Rice case voted that the shooting was legally justified. That means given all the evidence, the GJ believed

But that's the problem, isn't it? They didn't vote. And they weren't presented all the evidence.

It makes no sense that he was pointing it at cars either. It makes no sense that his mother didn't know he had that thing (not that she really cared). It makes no sense why he would trade his cell phone for a toy gun. None of it makes sense.

Again, he was playing in a park. If it were a white kid with a toy gun, he wouldn't have been shot.

I didn't say it was a capital offense. What I said is that the video showing him shrugging his shoulder upwards coincides with the officers account that he pulled out the gun. The fact that he was shot immediately after his shoulder went up.

Guy, it took you longer to type out that sentence than Officer McWeepy took to jump out of the car and shoot that kid.

 

[JoeB131]

Think the prisons don't have cameras? Like I said, when their sentence is up let's say in 2025 or so, and they have to sit there until 2030 because of the attack, they will be kicking themselves in the ass those next couple of years.

They don't have cameras in the cells (which is where van Dick took his well-deserved beating), and really, they aren't going to put guys on trial for a fight in a prison.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Think the prisons don't have cameras? Like I said, when their sentence is up let's say in 2025 or so, and they have to sit there until 2030 because of the attack, they will be kicking themselves in the ass those next couple of years.

They don't have cameras in the cells (which is where van Dick took his well-deserved beating), and really, they aren't going to put guys on trial for a fight in a prison.

It wasn't a fight according to you, it was felonious assault. Sorry, but that's a crime even in prison. It's also on your prison record which the parole board uses to determine if you should be allowed to leave prison or not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The intruder had no right to be in his home. Tamir had every right to play in that park with a toy.

He had no right to pull a gun on a police officer. Nobody has that right.

But that's the problem, isn't it? They didn't vote. And they weren't presented all the evidence.

You don't know what was presented because all GJ transcripts are sealed.

Tamir Rice shooting justified, say expert reports, as grand jury process continues

Again, he was playing in a park. If it were a white kid with a toy gun, he wouldn't have been shot.

White people are much less likely to shoot at police officers than black. You really need to see somebody about the delusional way your mind works. You really think that by lying, others will eventually believe your lies.

 

[hazlnut]

A party that supports racial discrimination against whites, is supported by millions of whites ? Whaaat ? "I don't believe it" is what millions of people in other countries say. Here in America, though, we know it to be true. It (Affirmative Action) was formally and openly stated in the 2004 and 2008 platforms of the Democratic party.

2004 >> "the party "support affirmative action to redress discrimination and to achieve the diversity from which all Americans benefit."

2008 >> ""We support affirmative action, including in federal contracting and higher education, to make sure that those locked out of the doors of opportunity will be able to walk through those doors in the future"

The words "Affirmative Action" are not mentioned in the National Democratic Party platforms of 2012 and 2016, however the description of it, with goals to achieve diversity are mentioned. Seems like Democrats are becoming rather defensive about the idea of racially discriminating in order to stop racially discriminating.

There's an obvious reason why Democrats have removed the words "affirmative action" from their national platforms. Overwhelmingly, the American people oppose the concept. Almost two-thirds of Americans disagree with the June 2016 Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action, that allows public colleges to use race as a factor in their admissions decisions.

According to a Gallup poll conducted over June 29 through July 2, 2016, 70 percent of Americans say merit should be the only factor in college admissions. That number has stayed relatively stable over the last 12 years.

Poll finds surprising American opinions on affirmative action

In California, Democrats HAVE used the words Affirmative Action in their state platform >> "California Democrats will > Encourage, support and defend voluntary, and mandatory affirmative action measures aimed at enhancing equality in employment, education, and business opportunities;"

So with all this discrimination where non-whites are the beneficiaries, and whites are the victims, why do white Democrats support it ? Does Nancy Pelosi think it's OK for her many sons, daughters, and grandkids to be victims of this racist discrimination, when applying for college, for college financial aid, job hiring, job promotions, business loans, etc, ?

Storm front is here.

 

[protectionist]

Storm front is here.

You have nothing to say about the topic. Fair enough.

 

[protectionist]

This is what is too fuking hilarious.

Republican police will shoot a black child for carrying a toy or just walking down the street.

But here, white Dylann Roof is arrested for shooting to death 9 people. And yet, look how polite they handle him. About the only time white shooters are killed is when they commit suicide. Innocent blacks aren't given that choice by Republican infected police.

"Republican police", wow. HA HA HA. Is this gonna be a new liberal catchprase to replace "white supremacist" or "conspiracy theorist"

 

[protectionist]

Police shot an 11 year-old black child with a toy gun without a word. Just pulled up, jumped out and "bang", the kid was dead.

That's not how it was, and you know it.

 

[protectionist]

What you did is give me a list of people who made unnecessary moves in front of a police officer causing them to react. After all, every police shooting of an unarmed person has one thing in common. Try to guess what that is.

HANDS NOT VISIBLE.

 

[JoeB131]

It wasn't a fight according to you, it was felonious assault. Sorry, but that's a crime even in prison. It's also on your prison record which the parole board uses to determine if you should be allowed to leave prison or not.

Okay, you keep telling yourself that those bad old darkies are going to be really punished for beating up a racist cop.

You don't know what was presented because all GJ transcripts are sealed.

Good point. Too bad we didn't have an open trial, isn't it?

Oh, wait, that would involve accountablity.

He had no right to pull a gun on a police officer. Nobody has that right.

1) Wasn't a gun.
2) He didn't pull it.
3) I can cite a whole bunch of cases where white trash pulled guns and didn't get shot, like those nutters out west who follow Bundy...

White people are much less likely to shoot at police officers than black. You really need to see somebody about the delusional way your mind works. You really think that by lying, others will eventually believe your lies.

White people get treated differently than blacks. Do I need to show you the video of the two people walking around with assault rifles again?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good point. Too bad we didn't have an open trial, isn't it?

Oh, wait, that would involve accountablity.

Most cases go to the grand jury. This one no different. Grand juries only interrogate the person in question. They are not allowed to have a defense lawyer. The entire process is tilted against that person. They are not allowed to object to anything, not allowed to be cross examined, not allowed to have lawyers select jurists.

In other words, if a grand jury can't find anything wrong, nobody can.

1) Wasn't a gun.
2) He didn't pull it.
3) I can cite a whole bunch of cases where white trash pulled guns and didn't get shot, like those nutters out west who follow Bundy...

1. It was an exact replica of a real gun and the officer had no way of knowing.
2. He had to pull it or it wouldn't have landed on the ground.
3. Not all people who have a gun get shot by police. It's based on the threat assessment, not race.

White people get treated differently than blacks. Do I need to show you the video of the two people walking around with assault rifles again?

Do I need to point out again that the black guy was dressed like a thug, in a high crime area, dreadlocks, and the white guy was in a low crime white community, dressed in a polo shirt, clean shaven and perfect hair like he was about to take a picture for a magazine?

 

[JoeB131]

Most cases go to the grand jury. This one no different. Grand juries only interrogate the person in question. They are not allowed to have a defense lawyer. The entire process is tilted against that person. They are not allowed to object to anything, not allowed to be cross examined, not allowed to have lawyers select jurists.

But that was the problem. The prosecutor here ACTED like a defense lawyer, and NOT an advocate for the victim here. It was a perversion of the process. I'm sorry you don't get this. Or don't want to because.. racism.

Do I need to point out again that the black guy was dressed like a thug, in a high crime area, dreadlocks, and the white guy was in a low crime white community, dressed in a polo shirt, clean shaven and perfect hair like he was about to take a picture for a magazine?

Oh, i see, it wasn't about "race", it was about the "Dress Code"

Look out its, the ..