texdravid wrote:

Absolutely none. I'm over 50 and grew up in the deep south. I'm South Indian, and darker than 90% of African Americans.
Unlike said African Americans, I have a difficult name to pronounce, have a completely different eastern religion, and I am in no way culturally American EXCEPT when I speak with an American accent.

I have driven a car since 1986, and have had 3-4 speeding tickets in my life. None of these encounters were in any way shape or form "hostile", "dangerous" or anything other than pleasant.

The fact that everyone now is scared to say is that the police by and large are great people who protect us and put their lives on the line every day, every hour. To say they have it out for dark people, blacks/latinos, Asians, Middle Easterners, is simply preposterous.

Now, if you misbehave, do drugs, wield a weapon, use said weapon(s) during a commission of a crime, or any number of crimes, don't expect the police to be nice to you or don't expect to get away with your behavior.

I'm so sick and tired of the anti-police idiocy in this country and the west. There is a reason that Indian-Americans or Chinese or Japanese do not have bad experiences with police or get shot by police or are killed by police. We overall, with very few exceptions, DO NOT BREAK THE LAW. We don't put ourselves in a position at 3 am to loiter at a street corner, acting suspiciously. We don't abuse drugs or commit petty street crime. And when we are stopped by the police, we are kind, straightforward, answer their questions, and go home to our families.

Don't break the law, then you won't have any bad interactions with the police. Plain and simple. Finally, there is no "epidemic" of white cop/black suspect shootings. Hardly. What is the reality? Cops shoot white suspects just as much as black suspects.

Social and familial ills in the American minority community are the prime culprit here, and no government intervention can cure that.

seb146 wrote:

They literally choose who dies and are not held accountable beyond "go sit in time out".

Braybuddy wrote:

seb146 wrote:

They literally choose who dies and are not held accountable beyond "go sit in time out".

Others get to decide which police officer dies too. Having got involved in another thread about US police shootings, I did some digging of own. Based on 2020 statistics. I found the following:

Based on race, the percentage of the population killed by police:
Black: 0.00057
Hispanic: 0.00028
White: 0.00018
Other: 0.00005
(Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585 ... e-by-race/)

Percentage of police killed by gunfire in line of duty: 0.00714.
(Source: https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2020)

So while blacks are twice as likely to be killed by police than hispanics, and three times as likely to be killed by police than whites, a police officer is twelve times more likely to be shot and killed than a black person.

seb146 wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

seb146 wrote:

They literally choose who dies and are not held accountable beyond "go sit in time out".

Others get to decide which police officer dies too. Having got involved in another thread about US police shootings, I did some digging of own. Based on 2020 statistics. I found the following:

Based on race, the percentage of the population killed by police:
Black: 0.00057
Hispanic: 0.00028
White: 0.00018
Other: 0.00005
(Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585 ... e-by-race/)

Percentage of police killed by gunfire in line of duty: 0.00714.
(Source: https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2020)

So while blacks are twice as likely to be killed by police than hispanics, and three times as likely to be killed by police than whites, a police officer is twelve times more likely to be shot and killed than a black person.

And Republican packed courts want everyone to have all the guns they want...

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Others get to decide which police officer dies too. Having got involved in another thread about US police shootings, I did some digging of own. Based on 2020 statistics. I found the following:

Based on race, the percentage of the population killed by police:
Black: 0.00057
Hispanic: 0.00028
White: 0.00018
Other: 0.00005
(Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/585 ... e-by-race/)

Percentage of police killed by gunfire in line of duty: 0.00714.
(Source: https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2020)

So while blacks are twice as likely to be killed by police than hispanics, and three times as likely to be killed by police than whites, a police officer is twelve times more likely to be shot and killed than a black person.

And Republican packed courts want everyone to have all the guns they want...

The "Republican packed courts" have nothing to do with that.... the US Constitution is to blame. If the US really wants to change that, there is a process to amend the Constitution and its not via a majority vote in Congress. The States have to ratify any amendment, Congress can only propose amendments and that requires 2/3s of both chambers.

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

And Republican packed courts want everyone to have all the guns they want...

The "Republican packed courts" have nothing to do with that.... the US Constitution is to blame. If the US really wants to change that, there is a process to amend the Constitution and its not via a majority vote in Congress. The States have to ratify any amendment, Congress can only propose amendments and that requires 2/3s of both chambers.

It is about how Republican judges interpret the Constitution. They always ignore the first four words of the Second Amendment.

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

The "Republican packed courts" have nothing to do with that.... the US Constitution is to blame. If the US really wants to change that, there is a process to amend the Constitution and its not via a majority vote in Congress. The States have to ratify any amendment, Congress can only propose amendments and that requires 2/3s of both chambers.

It is about how Republican judges interpret the Constitution. They always ignore the first four words of the Second Amendment.

So the SCOTUS is wrong in it's interpretation and you are right? Have you ever read the Federalist papers? Do you know what a militia was in 1776 and 1791? Hint, it was normal citizens not military. You dont have to like it, but it is what it is. Also remember, the Constitution doesn't give Americans rights, it outlines the inalienable rights Americans have and RESTRICTS the government from infringing upon them.

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

It is about how Republican judges interpret the Constitution. They always ignore the first four words of the Second Amendment.

So the SCOTUS is wrong in it's interpretation and you are right? Have you ever read the Federalist papers? Do you know what a militia was in 1776 and 1791? Hint, it was normal citizens not military. You dont have to like it, but it is what it is. Also remember, the Constitution doesn't give Americans rights, it outlines the inalienable rights Americans have and RESTRICTS the government from infringing upon them.

There is an actual definition of the word "militia" and not just giving everyone high power weapons to do with as they please. Republicans on the courts think all guns all the time is a well regulated militia. So, as far as that, goes, they are wrong.

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

It is about how Republican judges interpret the Constitution. They always ignore the first four words of the Second Amendment.

So the SCOTUS is wrong in it's interpretation and you are right? Have you ever read the Federalist papers? Do you know what a militia was in 1776 and 1791? Hint, it was normal citizens not military. You dont have to like it, but it is what it is. Also remember, the Constitution doesn't give Americans rights, it outlines the inalienable rights Americans have and RESTRICTS the government from infringing upon them.

There is an actual definition of the word "militia" and not just giving everyone high power weapons to do with as they please. Republicans on the courts think all guns all the time is a well regulated militia. So, as far as that, goes, they are wrong.

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

So the SCOTUS is wrong in it's interpretation and you are right? Have you ever read the Federalist papers? Do you know what a militia was in 1776 and 1791? Hint, it was normal citizens not military. You dont have to like it, but it is what it is. Also remember, the Constitution doesn't give Americans rights, it outlines the inalienable rights Americans have and RESTRICTS the government from infringing upon them.

There is an actual definition of the word "militia" and not just giving everyone high power weapons to do with as they please. Republicans on the courts think all guns all the time is a well regulated militia. So, as far as that, goes, they are wrong.

The milita was normal citizens. In those days, private citizens had all of the same weaponry of the military from guns to cannons. The point of the 2A was to keep the goverment in check.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... interps/99