Quite, and it isn't. There are plenty of other activist movements that tackle inner city gangs, gang violence, poverty, school programs etc. This is specifically about one issue. Makes sense to me. Different groups focus on different problems.

The concern is how willingly people are happy to dismiss the idea that many, if not all, of these issues where police have gunned down and killed unarmed people, are acceptable.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Neither person was displaying a weapon. In one incident the individual was physically restrained by two officers before discovery of a firearm. In the second the individual was in possession of a licenced, legal firearm and a carry permit, which he had reported to the officer on scene, just prior to the officer shooting him five times.

So their being armed is irrelevant to the actions of the officer opening fire.

If you think that's justified you're looking at exactly why some people think its just to shoot five police officers in response. They did this, so we can do that. The point everyone misses is that people are being killed in a manner that is unacceptable in any civilised society.

Only 39% of black males shot by the police were armed. That's a worryingly low figure that to me, and any sensible person, shows a complete lack of restraint and regard for lives by the Police.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Who said he wasn't a threat? That's your opinion from suburban England. You can't see if he was reaching for the gun in the video, the officer shouts, "he has a gun" if it was in his pocket, how did he know he was in possession of a gun? Maybe he just guessed... Maybe he thought... We'll taser him, and if that don't work we'll shoot him, and hope he has a gun on him.
The officer seems pretty upset at the end of the video.

The 2nd incident... Seems a little more dodgy... But even then the officer says he told the man not to move after he declared he had a (legal) firearm on him.

Like officers say... Comply and we both go home.

So how many people can they shoot before it gets above your tolerance threshold? Does it make a difference if you know any of them or are related to any of them? How about if it's you, would that still be ok because it was "rare"?

I have cops come up to me with hand-on-hilt on two occasions, both in the early hours of the morning. This was years ago, and I never thought anything of it until the recent highlighting of the unnecessary use of lethal force (and subsequent lying about it) by police. Now it gives me serious pause: I may be here now purely by dint of my skin colour.

Edited by Ray in Houston (13 Jul 2016 3.16pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

This about sums it up.

Attachment: 13669823_1123862744327312_4036848073299527944_n.jpg (42.24Kb)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

"To understand the lack of police legitimacy in black communities, consider the contempt in which most white Americans hold O.J. Simpson. Consider their feelings toward the judge and jury in the case. And then consider that this is approximately how black people have felt every few months for generations. It’s not just that the belief that Officer Timothy Loehmann got away with murdering a 12-year-old Tamir Rice, it is the reality that police officers have been getting away with murdering black people since the advent of American policing. The injustice compounds, congeals until there is an almost tangible sense of dread and grievance that compels a community to understand the police as objects of fear, not respect."
[Link]

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.