These two situation aren't the same!
(twitter.com)
Comments (22)
sorted by:
So they WANT cops to shoot to kill?
They just want white people dead.
Pretty much. The mentality is that every police interaction must go exactly the same. If a black person gets slammed face first into a radio car during a traffic stop than everyone must get slammed face first into a radio car at traffic stops.
I am honestly surprised he didn't get shot.
If the cop is pointing a gun at you, even if their reasoning is ridiculous, calling their bluff is not a smart move. "I thought he was going for a gun" is all the cop would have needed to say to justify it.
It's almost like a prior record of behaviour, convictions and so on is used in judgement of people on an individual basis and race or religion has no bearing.
Imagine defending a rapist...
It's almost as if people aren't all the same and make different choices based on the circumstances -- how shocking.
So, did she want him to be shot, just for the sake of "equality?"
That'd be my comment if I used Twitter. We also don't know what initiated the encounter -- which *does matter. And much like with Blake, we don't see what led up to this.
Unsurprisingly, there were no weapons found and the guy never got physically violent with the officers like Blake did.
Always whining about "whataboutism's" but never hesitating to use them to claim their virtue points. It's always a different set of rules for others. Let's be fair too, if the cop felt threatened he could have used force; that's the reason they're trained to use their discretion. A cop choosing to take the risk should be something they're advocating for.
What a world.... seriously.
Where they called because of him? Was he wrestling with the cops?
That's because he didn't have a knife.
I'll also bet that that guy didn't say he was gonna kill the cops, and also didn't say he was gonna kill the cops, the cops knew this was his car and not someone else's, and that this guy probably hadn't been fighting that cop.
eh...
There is no way to discern the actual events, and the accepted narrative is a useful bludgeon.
Yeah, but the woman in question has a memoir called "More Than A Wolf Whistle" so there's that. You're right, though. The narrative is that she recanted, even though she and an eye witness to the interview this info came from both deny it.
It isn't out of the ordinary to go write a book of your fictional victim narrative. I haven't read it, and I'm not saying she wasn't assaulted, but the real details are lost now.
It won't be released until her death. Only her and Till know what happened that day, and we aren't going to hear Till's side. I suspect the apple didn't fall far from the tree with him. Either way, her memoir will be the most clarity we'll ever get on the situation.
I kinda think you and u/TentElephant are both missing the point. It doesn't even really matter what people think Till did. What matters is what his killer, JW Milan thought Till did.
Milan thought it was wolf-whistling. At least some kind of sexual harassment between Till, and a family member. Milan decided he would go to wherever Till was at, kidnap him, tie him up, and drive him around the woods to 'scare him'. According to Milan, Till didn't seem to be scared by this and spent most of the time talking shit to his kidnappers. So they drove him to a cliff to scare him further. Till kept talking shit. So Milan and an accomplice beat the holy hell out of him with wood and razor wire. Again, all still according to Milan, Till kept saying he wasn't intimidated by them, and even added that he had slept with white women before. So Milan pistol whipped the shit out of his skull. Milan decided that he would ask Till one more time if he had "been with a white woman before". Till said yes. Milan shot him in the face, and dumped his body off a cliff into a river. IIRC.
Again, importantly, this is according to Milan: the man that admitted to killing him.
The primary reason that Milan decided to kill Till, according to Milan, is because Till wouldn't say that he hadn't slept with a white woman before, and because Till was "filled with hate".
Since that is the reason why Till was murdered, it simply doesn't matter what Till had actually done. If it wasn't harassment, then Milan simply didn't know... and he killed him anyway for what amounted to a completely unrelated reason. Whatever the encounter was between Till and the woman really had no significant bearing on why Milan killed him.
Milan killed Till, by his own admission, because Till wasn't scared or intimidated by him.
No one is defending the actions of Milan. The point is, modern perception is that he was the original good boy who dindu nuffin.
Yep. The same group of women that like baiting men into fighting are the same group that go for these "progressive" politics because they want to feel like they're the center of attention.
I think you are correct for what that is worth but not to actual killing us, just to humiliate and dominate.
They are going to divide with the promise of you get preferential treatment cause you are black or gay or whatever and when they get full power they will keep them around with small attentions while they get in policies for women while men will get the shaft. Not just white men but all men will get screwed unpleasantly. The end point in my opinion is going to be drugs or hormone treatments to boys to keep them docile and preferably dumb while they keep all the power under the guise of ending "toxic masculinity".