Zaac
Well-Known Member
You think the officers went to Google before they murdered him?Go to Google. In the search box type in the thug's name followed by "police record" and you'll get lots of links. It's not hard.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You think the officers went to Google before they murdered him?Go to Google. In the search box type in the thug's name followed by "police record" and you'll get lots of links. It's not hard.
Go to Google. In the search box type in the thug's name followed by "police record" and you'll get lots of links. It's not hard.
You don't know anything about how white people are being killed by police.
He could have a rap sheet 2 feet deep and it's STILL irrelevant to what the police officers did.
You immediately start talking about the officers rights and presumption of innocence. What about the rights of the dead man?
Pathetic attempt at deflection.
You don't think the thug's real background is irrelevant as an indicator of how he might have conducted himself. But, you think the white officer's background that you made up is relevant?
It's only the officer who is being judged by the public and only the officer who may be tried.
You're yelling racism, without evidence. You have no evidence of racism in this case. You have no evidence of racism in the big picture (blacks being treated differently by police). If you're going to name call, look into a mirror.
You're yelling racism, without evidence. You have no evidence of racism in this case. You have no evidence of racism in the big picture (blacks being treated differently by police). If you're going to name call, look into a mirror.
Was he being detained because of his past rap sheet? I didn't say anything about the white officers background.
Because another man was MURDERED.
I have not mentioned race in this thread. Not once. I think someone named Smyth is prejudiced.
You assume the white officer is racist, meaning you assume he has a racist background. Oh the joys of Liberalism, making up lies all day long and treating those lies as unassailable fact.
Smyth said:It's not murder. It's either justifiable self-defense (the thug was reaching for a gun) or a simple mistake (the officer wrongly thought the thug was reaching for a gun).
1) If you think the thug was murdered, then you necessarily think the officer had motivation to murder. If it's not racism, what do you think that motivation?
2) You're holding a noose, while running with a lunch mob that's yelling racism, and you're saying you haven't mentioned race.
If you've done any research, then you uncovered how many times Castile been pulled over or arrested? If you've done any research then you're familiar with his online writings? Or, does your research just consist of consuming media propaganda that he was warm and fuzzy?
The officer is presumed innocent until evidence to the contrary. And, sorry, his skin color doesn't cost him the presumption of innocence, at least to those of us who aren't racially prejudiced.
Philando Castile was a racist thug, and I have no trouble believing that he caused his own death by possessing a gun while being threatening toward the officer.
Prove you slander. If the victim were white and the officer black what would you response be?
I said it was "potentially" murder. I wouldn't even try to guess the motivation.
The officer acted in self-defense or made a mistake. It's not murder, not even if the officer were black and victim, as more frequently killed by police, white.
It's true racial prejudice to believe the office shot the thug out of racism.
Among the things she cited:
In the last decade black males made up 40% of all cop killers --though they are only 6% of the population.