[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by LeatherFace

Why do people keep saying a person's criminal record if they have one is 'irrelevant' when its often VERY RELEVANT or at least it use to be until recently when looking someone's history was useful in seeing if that person had a pattern of bad behavior or criminality or if they were just a good person with no record.

Now that's somehow become 'irrelevant' because when you look closer at many people's records you find out they're not quite the angel you thought they were? Should we believe the media's portrayal of people and accept that without question? I was watching CTV news and how they reported the Jacob Blake shooting and all they said was 'UNARMED BLACK MAN shot 7 times in the back by police while trying to get to his vehicle where his 3 kids were'. And that's it. NOTHING ELSE.

Because none of that is relevant to the shooting. He could have served 30 years in jail for murder and just got out. It's not relevant. He could have punched a cop in the face. It's not relevant. The only thing that would be relevant if he did something that made him an immediate deadly threat, and he didn't.

Bad patterns of behaviour are irrelevant. Each interaction with cops is unique on it's own. If an all-around angel pulls a gun on a cop and gets shot, it doesn't matter how much of an angel he was. If someone with a criminal record the size of the state of Texas poses no lethal threat and gets shot by a cop while he's walking away, it doesn't matter how much of a criminal he was.

It's only relevant to people who want to justify the shooting in ways it cannot be justified. You're free to bring it up, but it doesn't matter. Either cops shooting people in the back is something you're ok with, and cops choking people to death when they're no threat to them is something you're ok with, or it's not.

Originally Posted by LeatherFace

I just find it interesting that many protesters and/or people who use them as cover to commit crime, violence and destruction WANT chaos, lawlessness and anarchy. They WANT the police and government to stay far away from them so that they can loot and destroy as they wish, BUT as soon as any civilians DARE to stand up against them to and try stop their madness, they magically DO CARE about laws again and how Ritterhouse was illegally carrying weapons and how he came from outside the state. They suddenly DEMAND that the police they hate so much 'do their job' and arrest him. That the justice system they despise so much to convict a person who got in their way of all their fun and killed a couple of them.

Protesters do care about laws. Do rioters and looters? No, but why confuse them? If every protester is no different than a rioter and looter, every white man is no different than a white supremacist.

The protests are entirely based around the demand that police officers do their jobs – properly. What that means is arresting an unarmed Black man without killing him or shooting him multiple times, it also means arresting a White shooter without killing him or shooting him multiple times. Police seem to regularly fail at half that.

Nobody deserves to be killed who isn't an immediate deadly threat. You understand that, right? Prostestors, Black people, White people, people defending property. An unarmed Black man with a warrant deserves to be treated the same as a White shooter carrying a gun at least.