Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Shot While Black

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Shot While Black

    Some folks like to insist it doesn't happen despite the evidence, here's another incident of a man being shot because he's black: http://secondnexus.com/social/black-...41a52d0f601bf9


  • #2
    There is zero evidence that he was "shot because he's black".

    This looks more like an ND to me. I don't think there was an intention to fire at all. The investigation will tell. Of course, irresponsible people will proclaim this to be racially motivated absent a single bit of evidence.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      So who got shot? The autistic guy holding a toy truck or the black guy laying on the ground with his hands up? How's that not evidence?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
        So who got shot? The autistic guy holding a toy truck or the black guy laying on the ground with his hands up? How's that not evidence?
        The article said he was shot in the leg. Looking at the photo, his legs were next to the autistic man. I think we need much more information to even suggest he was shot due to his skin color.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post

          The article said he was shot in the leg. Looking at the photo, his legs were next to the autistic man. I think we need much more information to even suggest he was shot due to his skin color.
          So being next to someone is a crime worthy of being shot in the US now?
          I wonder just what it would take for you to see a shooting as unlawful.

          Here's a video about the difference between US and UK police.
          Please note even when someone pretends to fire a rocket at the Houses of Parliament the police are still less aggressive than they are in the US to someone who simply walks up to a cop and cracks a joke.



          The ending with the Guy Fawkes guy is bloody hilarious as the police are still polite and British as hell and laughing.
          Last edited by PeterUK75; 07-21-2016, 03:17 PM.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Article said there were 3 shots fired. Was he firing at the autistic man playing with his toy truck? Looks to me like we have a problem with the right people being cops.

            Trouble today, and its been like this for years, is that cops draw down on people much more often than they once did. Used to, pulling the gun out and pointing it at people was the last thing to do, not the first. Why would a cop pull a gun out, point it at an autistic man playing with a truck, or a man lying on the ground with his hands up in the air so as not to be shot? What's next? You get pulled over for speeding and the cops jump out and draw down on you, just in case you want to get in a gunfight with a cop?

            This cop isn't fit to police. Yet one wonders if he will be fired? Or just given a leave, and sent into another district to patrol? Perhaps we need to go back to the way police used to interact with the public? That is, you never draw down on someone unless the someone is pulling on you? Getting to where you cannot trust a cop with a gun. I think the problem is we have literally changed a civilian police force, into the military, and its not enemies the police are interacting with generally, but just citizens, americans.

            End the war on drugs, stop using cops as treasure hunters, and you would see less people killed by cops. But I guess owning another man's body is more important than saving lives. Drugs are not evil. The war on drugs is. A man using a drug is exercising a most basic freedom and right. And yet cops treat them, on behalf of the state, like serious criminals. Wonder when we evolve enough to end the insanity? I guess when the people who demand to own your body are no longer in any kind of power.

            If we are gonna have cops policing mentally ill people, housing them in jails instead of mental wards, and given the tremendous rate of autism today, something has got to change. I guess there was a reason we used to have a Commons, that housed and cared for the mentally ill? When Reagan worked on social security, to keep it afloat, he doubled tax paid in to SS. He then tried to find another way to reduce SS costs and cut down on the disability part , which sent mentally ill people to the streets. And we have had homeless people ever since. Just a couple years ago a group of cops unloaded on a mentally ill homeless man when he reached into his bag. This was the excuse needed to fill him full of lead from several guns. ;

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
              So being next to someone is a crime worthy of being shot in the US now?
              I wonder just what it would take for you to see a shooting as unlawful.
              Irrelevant questions. I did not make any commentary about whether it was a lawful shooting. I only pointed out that you have jumped to a great assumption proclaiming he was shot due to the color of his skin.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Why did any police officer have a gun out in that situationn at all??? Must have been that frightening toy truck.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                  Irrelevant questions. I did not make any commentary about whether it was a lawful shooting. I only pointed out that you have jumped to a great assumption proclaiming he was shot due to the color of his skin.
                  I think you'll find I said no such thing.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                    I think you'll find I said no such thing.
                    My bad! I mixed you up with JDJarvis

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                      Irrelevant questions. I did not make any commentary about whether it was a lawful shooting. I only pointed out that you have jumped to a great assumption proclaiming he was shot due to the color of his skin.
                      I agree with you. I even doubt the guy was shot due to the color of his skin. It more than likely is due to being paranoid due to the recent murder of cops, a fear for his life, that he brought with him to the scene, and the tremendous change in police policy on when a gun should be pulled and pointed at citizens. For instance, for over 40 years here where I live, there was never one instance of a cop killing an unarmed person. And I know my area very well, as we are a smaller rather than larger community. Not a single black was ever killed here, back when we had riots during the civil rights era, when blacks and whites(northern whites who came to register black voters) in my own area, by the police during these riots. No people were killed here at domestic violence calls, nor traffic stops, nor even when they were doing a call at some beer joint full of bullet proof drunks. NONE. And yet we have had many cops killing blacks here in just the last year. And the cops were not being shot at, in a single instance here where I live when citizens were killed. So, by George, clearly when a gun is pulled an pointed, that policy, has undergone a tremendous change, and all over this nation. For instance, if someone here in the past had been brandishing a knife, that person would not have been shot and killed, unless he was literally charging an officer. Now, if the person, who could be mentally ill, does not drop the knife immediately, and takes even one step in the direction of a cop, he will be unloaded on. This is not right folks, it just is not right. And yet, it is our reality. Police are too willing to kill people, where that just was not the case here where I live. But it sure is now. And this is an area that demands to be changed. Cops have always had dangerous jobs, but people also voluntarily want to be cops. The line on when to shoot someone has been moved too far, from what it used to be. So, we should expect cops to shoot and kill today, for the bar is so much lower. I do not hear anyone talking much about this fact. Why? All I hear is one side defending the cops and the other side blasting the cops, with no discussion of the change in police policy that is in part driving these deaths.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                        I agree with you. I even doubt the guy was shot due to the color of his skin. It more than likely is due to being paranoid due to the recent murder of cops, a fear for his life, that he brought with him to the scene, and the tremendous change in police policy on when a gun should be pulled and pointed at citizens. For instance, for over 40 years here where I live, there was never one instance of a cop killing an unarmed person. And I know my area very well, as we are a smaller rather than larger community. Not a single black was ever killed here, back when we had riots during the civil rights era, when blacks and whites(northern whites who came to register black voters) in my own area, by the police during these riots. No people were killed here at domestic violence calls, nor traffic stops, nor even when they were doing a call at some beer joint full of bullet proof drunks. NONE. And yet we have had many cops killing blacks here in just the last year. And the cops were not being shot at, in a single instance here where I live when citizens were killed. So, by George, clearly when a gun is pulled an pointed, that policy, has undergone a tremendous change, and all over this nation. For instance, if someone here in the past had been brandishing a knife, that person would not have been shot and killed, unless he was literally charging an officer. Now, if the person, who could be mentally ill, does not drop the knife immediately, and takes even one step in the direction of a cop, he will be unloaded on. This is not right folks, it just is not right. And yet, it is our reality. Police are too willing to kill people, where that just was not the case here where I live. But it sure is now. And this is an area that demands to be changed. Cops have always had dangerous jobs, but people also voluntarily want to be cops. The line on when to shoot someone has been moved too far, from what it used to be. So, we should expect cops to shoot and kill today, for the bar is so much lower. I do not hear anyone talking much about this fact. Why? All I hear is one side defending the cops and the other side blasting the cops, with no discussion of the change in police policy that is in part driving these deaths.
                        Very true. This is exactly what is worth discussing. I have pointed out that I think this call for 'racial dialogue' is insulting. As if white people are not aware that the lives of black people are important as well - and need to be preached to and scolded by narcissists who can never hear enough apologies for the past. A past that happened before most of them were even born. If we are going to discuss the problem lets talk about the actual issue at hand.

                        Now, the police are not federalized - though many liberals would like to. This is a local issue. A friend of mine recently retired after 30 years on the force (in a small city) and never fired a single shot on duty. In fact, he only pulled his gun three times. So this is an important question. Are police forces training their officers to pull their gun quicker - in situations where they had not been likely to introduce a gun in the past? We need someone who can answer this question.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SupPackFan View Post
                          .... A friend of mine recently retired after 30 years on the force (in a small city) and never fired a single shot on duty. In fact, he only pulled his gun three times. So this is an important question. Are police forces training their officers to pull their gun quicker - in situations where they had not been likely to introduce a gun in the past? We need someone who can answer this question.
                          I asked that question earlier, why were there any police officers pointing a gun at anyone in that situation? When did the general public become the opposition to the police?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post

                            I asked that question earlier, why were there any police officers pointing a gun at anyone in that situation? When did the general public become the opposition to the police?
                            When people started ambushing policemen.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                              When people started ambushing policemen.
                              The police have been pointing guns at people for little or no reason way before the recent attacks against the police so I don't think you can blame that at all and the number of police that have been as you say "ambushed" is tiny and hardly means all the police in the US need to act like everyone is a potential cop killer at all times.

                              In the situation of this topic there was zero need for weapons to be drawn.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X