Friendly Banter

Americans and their fascination with freedom. And their terrible policing. Banter.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

The Black panthers, had shoot outs with police, they tried to conduct bombings

You idiot.... Look up Fred Hampton. Most of that was COINTELPRO bs.

oceanhawk wrote:

They did set out to use violence. Walking around marching in black uniform clothing, carrying rifles.

That isn't setting out to use violence.... That is called forming a militia, which is protected under US law. Granted they did not have it recognised by the state, but the state would not have let them form a black civil rights militia anyway.

And using Violence to get civil rights for Blacks was an awful idea

GreatbigHippo wrote:

I am going to have to side with ocean for this. Black panthers, while definitely with honorable intentions, was often an unlawful organisation. No matter what your intentions are, if you are preventing the police from doing their jobs with threat of lethal force, you need to be stopped.

oceanhawk wrote:

So you are admiting they werent allowed to form a mitlia

oceanhawk wrote:

and they did have many shoot outs with police

oceanhawk wrote:

And using Violence to get civil rights for Blacks was an awful idea

Quasi-duck wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

I am going to have to side with ocean for this. Black panthers, while definitely with honorable intentions, was often an unlawful organisation. No matter what your intentions are, if you are preventing the police from doing their jobs with threat of lethal force, you need to be stopped.

They never prevented the police. They simply stopped brutality. Unless you think that is a part of the job.

oceanhawk wrote:

So you are admiting they werent allowed to form a mitlia

I didn't say that, I said they probably would not have been allowed because they were black.

oceanhawk wrote:

and they did have many shoot outs with police

No I didn't, Fred Hampton was murdered in a police assassination.

oceanhawk wrote:

And using Violence to get civil rights for Blacks was an awful idea

They didn't use violence.

"They didn't use violence."

Ah yes, nothing violent about forming an armed Militia.

GreatbigHippo wrote:

and who decided whether the cops were being brutal?

Not A Communist wrote:

"They didn't use violence."

Ah yes, nothing violent about forming an armed Militia.

Quasi-duck wrote:

GreatbigHippo wrote:

I am going to have to side with ocean for this. Black panthers, while definitely with honorable intentions, was often an unlawful organisation. No matter what your intentions are, if you are preventing the police from doing their jobs with threat of lethal force, you need to be stopped.

They never prevented the police. They simply stopped brutality. Unless you think that is a part of the job.

oceanhawk wrote:

So you are admiting they werent allowed to form a mitlia

I didn't say that, I said they probably would not have been allowed because they were black.

oceanhawk wrote:

and they did have many shoot outs with police

No I didn't, Fred Hampton was murdered in a police assassination.

oceanhawk wrote:

And using Violence to get civil rights for Blacks was an awful idea

They didn't use violence.

Miltias to exist must be reconqised by the state, a group using violence against federal and state burocrats doesnt seem to me like a worthwhile cause to back,

And there were a few shoot outs, not related to Fred Hampton

They did use violence, they tried to drive a wedge between blacks and whites, and how on earth would they make a better society, with equal rights

oceanhawk wrote:

Im sorry, but is a shoot out with police and the FBI not stopping brutality? and breaking the law?

oceanhawk wrote:

Miltias to exist must be reconqised by the state, a group using violence against federal and state burocrats doesnt seem to me like a worthwhile cause to back,

oceanhawk wrote:

They did use violence, they tried to drive a wedge between blacks and whites, and how on earth would they make a better society, with equal rights

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Im sorry, but is a shoot out with police and the FBI not stopping brutality? and breaking the law?

What shoot out? I'm on about patrols to make sure arrests are done properly.

oceanhawk wrote:

Miltias to exist must be reconqised by the state, a group using violence against federal and state burocrats doesnt seem to me like a worthwhile cause to back,

What violence?

oceanhawk wrote:

They did use violence, they tried to drive a wedge between blacks and whites, and how on earth would they make a better society, with equal rights

When?

oceanhawk wrote:

witnessla.com/lapd/2011/admin/…ootout-the-birth-of-swat/

Police raid, Panther raid, or police assassination attempt on Dec. 9, 1969? The first significant deployment of the LAPD's SWAT unit was on December 9, 1969, in a four-hour confrontation with members of the Black Panthers in a densely populated area of Los Angeles. The raid was problematic from the start, leading to a shoot-out in which Daryl Gates phoned the Department of Defense, requesting and receiving permission to use a grenade launcher. The Panthers eventually surrendered, with four Panthers and four officers being injured. All six arrested Panthers were acquitted of the most serious charges brought against them, including conspiracy to murder police officers, because it was ruled that they acted in self-defense.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

witnessla.com/lapd/2011/admin/…ootout-the-birth-of-swat/

Birth of SWAT debunked: According to the Historical Dictionary of Law Enforcement, the term "SWAT" was used as an acronym for the "Special Weapons and Tactics" established as a 100-man specialized unit in 1964 by the Philadelphia Police Department in response to an alarming increase in bank robberies

Police raid, Panther raid, or police assassination attempt on Dec. 9, 1969? The first significant deployment of the LAPD's SWAT unit was on December 9, 1969, in a four-hour confrontation with members of the Black Panthers in a densely populated area of Los Angeles. The raid was problematic from the start, leading to a shoot-out in which Daryl Gates phoned the Department of Defense, requesting and receiving permission to use a grenade launcher. The Panthers eventually surrendered, with four Panthers and four officers being injured. All six arrested Panthers were acquitted of the most serious charges brought against them, including conspiracy to murder police officers, because it was ruled that they acted in self-defense.

oceanhawk wrote:

Dont think shoot outs are okay in a populated area, do you?

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Dont think shoot outs are okay in a populated area, do you?

The police started it, so don't blame the Panthers.

paper wars wrote:

"Hey lets go cause a riot" is not the answer.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Dont think shoot outs are okay in a populated area, do you?

The police started it, so don't blame the Panthers.

Cos a group of armed people were planning on causing choas in the streets.. all so they could be treated equal in the streets...

Martin Luther King, was right, The Black panthers did more harm than good

paper wars wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Dont think shoot outs are okay in a populated area, do you?

The police started it, so don't blame the Panthers.

Though even with segregation and racism. "Hey lets go cause a riot" is not the answer. The people who actually made a difference were the non violent protesters; Marton Luther king jr be one of them.

oceanhawk wrote:

Cos a group of armed people were planning on causing choas in the streets..

Quasi-duck wrote:

All six arrested Panthers were acquitted of the most serious charges brought against them, including conspiracy to murder police officers, because it was ruled that they acted in self-defense.

Yeah but either way they didn't achieve much lol.

Not A Communist wrote:

Yeah but either way they didn't achieve much lol.

Guys, this is extreme proof of the CoW fourms..

we somehow cant stay On Topic, even on a thread for banter..