|John Holmes Motherfucker |
"Slimy" is such a unpleasant word. They claim it was a mistake, which would only make them stupid as shit.
It's worse than stupid as shit to me. The "original" video uploader in the description's YT link misinterpreted the words, as did I, the first time I saw it. It sounded like "We won't stop so kill a cop," at least twice. The original uploader is the one as stupid as shit, but he gets a bit of a pass because he or she's not the news, just some dickhead with a youtube account. Editing out the rest of the chant and only using the clip where it sounds most like "so kill a cop" is pure fucking evil, and the worst examples of journalistic ethics I think I've ever seen.
It's "We won't stop (repeat) we can't stop (repeat) [un]til killer cops (repeat) are in cell blocks (repeat)." Since they were working off the original video in the description, they had all that to work with. But they edited it down to the one that sounded most like what we all thought we heard.
It doesn't surprise me that Fox gets duped by an edited video, or what they want to hear. It also wouldn't surprise me if this kind of sentiment actually had been expressed somewhere, considering we've seen it expressed on this site.
Ah, now I understand.
Yeah, there's no way this was an honest mistake. This is pure fucking evil.
|infinite zest |
Holy shit that's 5 for evil. To me, "'til" does sound a bit like "so." At first I predicted a sort of Ice-T mentality like Cop Killer, which does say, and I quote:
"This next record is dedicated to some personal friends of mine, the LAPD. For every cop that has ever taken advantage of somebody, beat 'em down or hurt 'em, because they got long hair, listen to the wrong kinda music, wrong color, whatever they thought was the reason to do it. For every one of those fuckin' police, I'd like to take a pig out here in this parkin' lot and shoot 'em in their mothafuckin' face."
and people have the right to be fucking pissed right now. But these protests have been the opposite of violence for the most part. Brinsley had a history of mental illness and does not represent the community, who will still turn to police officers when they need them.
The Great Hippo
Also, the number of police officers who are shot and killed in the line of duty is much, much lower than the number of people shot and killed by police officers. If your goal is to reduce the amount of people being shot and killed *overall*, it seems like your focus should be on the police.
Of course, if your goal is to merely make sure the *right* people get shot and killed, then it makes a lot of sense when you demand that we stop shooting at the police -- rather than the police stop shooting at us.
Nerve stapling for everyone but me and the other Chosen is the only answer and all y'all motherfuckers know it.
If the Drones want to Riot, they know what they'll get.
According to the Washington Post, there is no reliable data on how many civilians are killed by cops every year. So I'm curious where you get this data, Hippo.
I think my favorite type of internet commenter is the type that triumphantly posts an article that "proves their point" without reading (or possibly understanding) it.
From your own fucking article:
- Number of police killed in a year (2012, but given that this number has been decreasing in recent years, this inaccuracy actually helps Team Bootlicker):
- Estimates of number of police murders in a year:
400 (from tiny fraction of departments participating in data collection)
83 (SINCE MICHAEL BROWN'S DEATH)
I may be wrong, bootlicker, but all of those numbers are at or approaching an order of magnitude above 48.
TL;DR: You're a fucking idiot who doesn't have the intellectual capacity to formulate an argument.
Friends, friends, please. You are both correct. There is no reliable data on how many civilians are killed each year. The precise totals are unknown, and perhaps unknowable. What's more, the estimates cited in Mr Spike's "own fucking article" do not appear to make any independently verifiable distinctions between "justified" and "unjustified" shootings - the "400" number, for example, is apparently derived from self-reported cases in which officers had good reason to shoot the suspect. I think we can all agree that cops do sometimes have the right to use deadly force, yes? Legitimately justifiable homicides should not count against the police.
It is also true that all the estimates look bad for the state; even the most generous of them places the number of civilians killed by cops at roughly ten times the number of cops killed by civilians. If even but a tenth of those murders was unjustified, then that would place the burden of blood squarely at the feet of the state.
The Great Hippo
@spikestoyiu: By comparing the number of police shot and killed with the number of reported 'justifiable homicides' by the police. Since it's reasonable to presume the number of reported 'justifiable homicides' will be lower than the number of actual homicides, the fact that 'justifiable homicides' is *already* larger than the number of police shot (by several magnitudes!) is a rather big red flag.
Then compare that to factoids like the number of fatal police shootings in Britain this year (0), or Canada (13, I think?), and you start to get a very clear picture of what the problem is: Our police are trained to kill us rather than protect us.
I don't know why people keep furthering the myth of a police officer as a big dangerous, noble job. You're more likely to get killed delivering pizzas or logging than being a police officer.
that 13 in Canada was too fucking many in my opinion. The R.C.M.P has had some absolutely horrible race issues with natives here, quite possibly the only reason it's not talked about here is that so far there hasn't been a native M.L. King to wake the whites up, hopefully that is something that will change soon.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|