Whodathunkit - Little Old Provo

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I didn't know that and would guess most people don't.

She wasn't white, and since the race of the shooter isn't known, there probably will be all sorts of speculation and assumptions made leading to angry protests on her behalf and armed counter-protests to keep the peace, and round and round we go.

 

Some remarks from the little girl's father:

Quote

An 8-year-old girl was shot and killed Saturday night in Atlanta near the Wendy’s where Rayshard Brooks died last month.

Police identified the child Sunday as Secoriea Turner.

Officers said they responded to a 911 call near University Avenue and I-75/I-85 around 9:50 p.m. The location of the shooting was in a parking lot across the street from the now burned-out Wendy’s, which has been occupied by demonstrators since Brooks’ death at the hands of an Atlanta police officer.

Officers said they responded to a 911 call near University Avenue and I-75/I-85 around 9:50 p.m. The location of the shooting was in a parking lot across the street from the now burned-out Wendy’s, which has been occupied by demonstrators since Brooks’ death at the hands of an Atlanta police officer.

Police said Turner was riding in a car with her mother and her mother’s friend when they exited the interstate at University Avenue. The driver tried to turn into the parking lot at 1238 Pryor Road when he was confronted by an “group of armed individuals” who had blocked the entrance.

“At some point, someone in that group opened fire on the vehicle, striking it multiple times and striking the child who was inside. The driver then drove to Atlanta Medical Center for help,” police said in a statement.

Police said the 911 caller told them they were heading to Atlanta Medical Center with the victim. The child died at the hospital.
...
Secoriya Williamson, Secoriea’s father, also spoke out.

“They say black lives matter,” Williamson said. “You killed your own this time. You killed a child. She didn’t do nothing to nobody.”

Bottoms said the crowd outside the Wendy’s had re-erected barriers that the city had already taken down. The family was trying to get around the barrier when the confrontation happened.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rajah Manchou]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your notice says she was shot by a group of black males.

I didn't communicate that very well. What I meant was until the shooter(s) are caught and found guilty, speculation and conspiracies about their race, political affiliation and motives will abound. People are already questioning why the notice says "dressed like a bounty hunter" ... what does that mean? What does a "bounty hunter" dress like and why would they put that in the notice? Like you said earlier, better to hold off on our judgements until we know the full story.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

BTW, cars rarely backfire anymore since fuel injection replaced carbs. You might have see such a thing in a movie , but probably not in real life. Mind you there are a lot of tuner cars around with crazy exhausts , but they don't sound like gun shots.

That occurred to me as well. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a late-model SUV backfire. I doubt many of the 20-somethings in the Provo mob are even old enough to know what a backfire is. 

[mgy401]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

[1]If shooting people as they flee is a violation of the law then you surely can understand why the BLM protestors are so upset that they are breaking laws to bring attention to their calls for justice for all those who have been shot in the back while fleeing.

[2]You may feel this question is a deflection, but since it was the spark that started the BLM movement that spilled into the streets in Provo last Monday, it absolutely is not: do you feel George Zimmerman should have been found guilty of murder for shooting Trayvon Martin?

1.  Not really.  An armed citizen can take down a proximate, direct threat to self or a defined third party, but he can’t go taking out a fleeing attacker just because the attacker *might* thereafter attack some other undefined victim.  Police, however, have both a duty to protect the public that a private citizen doesn’t have; and the training to identify what does or doesn’t constitute a threat to the public.

2.  Martin was not shot from distance as he was running away.  He was shot from less than 18”, in the midst of a scuffle resulting from his physically attacking Zimmerman, getting on top of Zimmerman MMA-style, and pounding Zimmerman’s head into the concrete sidewalk repeatedly.  Third-party witness testimony, and forensics, corroborated this.

If Trayvon Martin is the best example the BLM folks can think of to try to convince me that there’s a problem, then that leaves me with the impression that there must not really be *that* big of a problem.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

 If shooting people as they flee is a violation of the law then you surely can understand why the BLM protestors are so upset that they are breaking laws to bring attention to their calls for justice for all those who have been shot in the back while fleeing.

If you believe it is wrong to take aim at innocent civilians fleeing dangerous situations, or applying deadly chokeholds to bootleg cigarette salesmen, then surely you can understand the frustration spilling into the streets.

You may feel this question is a deflection, but since it was the spark that started the BLM movement that spilled into the streets in Provo last Monday, it absolutely is not: do you feel George Zimmerman should have been found guilty of murder for shooting Trayvon Martin?

I have not expressed any opposition here to the protests per se. Its the rioting, mob  behavior, crime, violence and terrorizing of uninvolved citizens that I don’t approve of. 
 

As I indicated earlier, I don’t think it’s OK for a cop to shoot a fleeing suspect who does not pose a threat. Nor do I approve of a member of a mob aiming at or shooting the fleeing victim of mob-engendered brutality. 
 

I’m not well acquainted with the the Trayvon Martin case, but from what posters are saying here, it is not an apt comparison. He was not shot while fleeing, but rather, while engaged in fighting with a law enforcement officer. 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Rajah Manchou]

24 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

1.  Not really.  An armed citizen can take down a proximate, direct threat to self or a defined third party, but he can’t go taking out a fleeing attacker just because the attacker *might* thereafter attack some other undefined victim.  

I don't understand this. Let's say the shooter shot and then fled the scene. Are you saying any armed citizen can't then go after the "fleeing attacker" because it is unknown if he'll harm someone else? This makes no sense, so surely I'm misunderstanding what you've said.

 

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

2.  Martin was not shot from distance as he was running away.  He was shot from less than 18”, in the midst of a scuffle resulting from his physically attacking Zimmerman, getting on top of Zimmerman MMA-style, and pounding Zimmerman’s head into the concrete sidewalk repeatedly.  Third-party witness testimony, and forensics, corroborated this.

Zimmerman was an armed citizen and was following Martin who was unarmed and walking home after buying snacks at a convenience store. Zimmerman called 911 and reported Martin as a "suspicious" person. 911 dispatch asked Zimmerman to stop following Martin, and at some point Zimmerman said "they always get away" and then said "he's running". A few minutes later Trayvon Martin was shot by Zimmerman.

From your scenario above, Zimmerman (an armed citizen) can't legally chase after an unarmed 17-year old boy just because the attacker is suspected of *maybe* thereafter breaking some law. Especially after 911 dispatch directly told him not to follow Trayvon. Trayvon was running from Zimmerman and would not have fought against Zimmerman if Zimmerman had not pursued him, with a gun. Had Zimmerman done what police dispatch requested Trayvon would have made it home safely. Trayvon's killing was unjust. 

By the way, this is not the only example "the BLM folks" have, there are many, but it is the one that sparked the BLM movement. 

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

II’m not well acquainted with the the Trayvon Martin case, but from what posters are saying here, it is not an apt comparison. He was not shot while fleeing, but rather, while engaged in fighting with a law enforcement officer. 

Zimmerman was not law enforcment, he was an armed citizen following and then pursuing a 17 year old black boy who was walking home from the convenience store. 911 dispatch asked ZImmerman to not follow Trayvon, but Zimmerman ignored law enforcement then said "he's running" and then chased after him. A few minutes later, Zimmerman shot Martin.

Trayvon had committed no known crime. He was simply walking home. Zimmerman, who was not law enforcement, willingly ignored law enforcement's requests to stop following Martin. Trayvon then ran from Zimmerman, Zimmerman pursued. There was a scuffle and Trayvon was shot and killed.

Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges. Then "the BLM folks" took to the streets.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:If you believe it is wrong to take aim at innocent civilians fleeing dangerous situations, or applying deadly chokeholds to bootleg cigarette salesmen, then surely you can understand the frustration spilling into the streets.

Part of the problem is a constant mischaracterization of some of these events. There was no deadly chokehold in the instance you are referring to. (But there was neglect on the part of the officers after the fact that led to the death.) 

[Rajah Manchou]

3 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Part of the problem is a constant mischaracterization of some of these events. There was no deadly chokehold in the instance you are referring to. (But there was neglect on the part of the officers after the fact that led to the death.) 

I'll revise according to medical examiner's report and autopsy result: 

"Applying 'neck compressions', 'compressions of the chest', and 'prone positioning during physical restraint' to bootleg cigarette salesmen."

If there's something I missed in the reporting, please share.

[JarMan]

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'll revise according to medical examiner's report and autopsy result: 

"Applying 'neck compressions', 'compressions of the chest', and 'prone positioning during physical restraint' to bootleg cigarette salesmen."

If there's something I missed in the reporting, please share.

The subject weighed approximately 350 pounds and suffered from asthma. After the the initial confrontation involving the "chokehold" he was handcuffed and placed face down. Most people would have been fine in a similar position. Unfortunately the officers didn't respond to his complaints that he couldn't breathe. This sent him into cardiac arrest and he died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

The coroner was mistaken that the "neck compression" had anything to do with his death and this seems to have been included in the report for political purposes instead of valid medical reasons. Thus, a grand jury presented with all of the evidence, declined to indict.

The hold applied in that instance is not capable of killing somebody. If it was I would be dead thousands of times over and would have killed thousands of times over as in my 20-plus years of grappling experience I have been on both ends of that sort of hold countless times. The myth of the deadly chokehold is largely just that, a myth.

 

[Rajah Manchou]

5 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The subject weighed approximately 350 pounds and suffered from asthma. After the the initial confrontation involving the "chokehold" he was handcuffed and placed face down. Most people would have been fine in a similar position. Unfortunately the officers didn't respond to his complaints that he couldn't breathe. This sent him into cardiac arrest and he died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

The coroner was mistaken that the "neck compression" had anything to do with his death and this seems to have been included in the report for political purposes instead of valid medical reasons. Thus, a grand jury presented with all of the evidence, declined to indict.

The hold applied in that instance is not capable of killing somebody. If it was I would be dead thousands of times over and would have killed thousands of times over as in my 20-plus years of grappling experience I have been on both ends of that sort of hold countless times. The myth of the deadly chokehold is largely just that, a myth.

A 350 pound person with asthma is handcuffed, put in a neck hold and then placed face down. Excessive much? The man was 350 pound with asthma. He was selling cigarettes. Why not just put him in handcuffs? 🤔

5 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Thus, a grand jury presented with all of the evidence, declined to indict.

Another reason the BLM movement has gained such traction. Many feel there's been no justice.

5 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The hold applied in that instance is not capable of killing somebody. If it was I would be dead thousands of times over and would have killed thousands of times over as in my 20-plus years of grappling experience I have been on both ends of that sort of hold countless times. The myth of the deadly chokehold is largely just that, a myth.

I'm on holiday today, that's why I'm being so annoying and have too much free time to Google things.

From what I understand, some wrestlers claim that particular hold is illegal and/or deadly. Is there such a thing as an illegal chokehold in grappling?

In any case, one of the main reasons protestors are protesting is for reforms, so that accidental and unfortunate deaths, like this and many others, stop.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I just received an email from Shannon Ellsworth, a member of the Provo City Council.  It is apparently a group email, not one sent to me in particular.  It includes links to the upcoming City Council meeting on July 7, and also includes these remarks about the protests:

I am pretty frustrated by the tone and content of the above message.  I sent an email in response to it.

I resent the false equivalency.  She all but ignores the lawless and violent protesters, and instead focuses on complaining about private citizens choosing to defend themselves.  I happen to agree with the sentiment that there is some risk involved when private citizens publicly take up arms.  They are not trained.  There is no chain of command.  There are no rules of engagement.  However, Provo City utterly failed its citizens on Monday night.  The powers-that-be apparently let a violent mob take over the streets of Provo, let them accost and menace passing motorists, etc.  It is understandable, then, that local citizens were concerned of a repeat of the violence on July 1.

I also resent the offensive implication that people who disagree with violent mobs taking over the streets of Provo are, somehow, indifferent to or complicit in "intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination."  She should try telling that to the citizens who were attacked in their vehicles Monday night, particularly to the motorist who is currently recuperating from an attempted murder attempt on him by a rioter at Monday's protests.  

This city council member is creating a false dichotomy.  Nobody is opposed to lawful, peaceful protests.  We are opposed to violent thugs taking over the streets of Provo, and the Provo City Police Department standing idly by while citizens and motorists are accosted and menaced.  None of this has anything to do with "intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination."  Citizens can be both opposed to these things *and also* opposed to unlawful, violent protests taking place with the apparent blessing of the powers-that-be of Provo City.  

Provo City let rioters run rampant in downtown Provo on June 29, and a man was nearly murdered in the process.  Other passing motorists were also accosted and threatened.  None of that has anything to do with "intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination."  It may have a lot to do with the political leadership of Provo City giving lawless thugs carte blanche to take over the public streets and attack passersby.  I am appalled that I actually have to explain these things to a public servant.

Her closing remarks ("black lives to matter...") are also pretty obnoxious.  As far as I know, nobody who showed up on Wednesday evening gave any indication that they think black lives don't matter.  

I am increasingly disappointed with the leadership of Provo City.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Very eloquently stated. 
 

One glaring omission I see: no expression of concern for the victim of the attempted murder, no word on his condition, progress toward recovery, etc. 

Also, why is this one member of the city council writing the letter? Is she speaking for the city? The letter doesn’t indicate so. She doesn’t even have direct supervision over the police department. Why didn’t the mayor write? And it doesn’t appear your questions were adequately addressed. 
 

I agree with you about tone. The letter seems defensive, belligerent, accusatory of armed citizens who came to help. Scarcely any attention given, on the other hand, to the mob-related offenses. 

Smac, I searched up Shannon Ellsworth on Google. See here and here.

The youngest member of the Provo City Council, she's a somewhat recent college graduate and more recently an MBA student. The vibe I get is that she's something of an activist, anxious to position herself as having a progressive attitude with regard to "being a voice for those who are different from her." That could account for the tone and emphasis -- perhaps even a political dynamic -- in the group email you received from her.

Also, do I remember correctly that you sent a copy of your letter to members of the city council in addition to the mayor? I'm thinking she might have responded on her own initiative by sending you a copy of  the group email without having necessarily checked in with the mayor or the other members of the city council. Perhaps this won't be the only response you receive from Provo City.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[JarMan]

3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

A 350 pound person with asthma is handcuffed, put in a neck hold and then placed face down. Excessive much? The man was 350 pound with asthma. He was selling cigarettes. Why not just put him in handcuffs? 🤔

No. You have the order wrong. He was wrestled to the ground using a perfectly safe hold. Then he was handcuffed on the ground. That's how you put someone who is resisting into handcuffs.

6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Another reason the BLM movement has gained such traction. Many feel there's been no justice.

One reason they feel there is no justice is because stories like this are misrepresented. When the story is that an unarmed man was killed with a chokehold people are expecting some sort of charges against the officers. A truthful telling of the story would have prevented much of the hysteria that followed.

10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

From what I understand, some wrestlers claim that particular hold is illegal and/or deadly. Is there such a thing as an illegal chokehold in grappling?

First thing to know is that there is a technical difference between a "choke" hold and a "strangle" hold. A choke restricts breathing. (Like if you were choking on something you were eating.) No police department trains their officers in the use of chokes. In fact, a deadly choke is almost impossible to apply with bare hands. Humans simply don't have the strength to compress the trachea to the point that the other person stops breathing. There are instances of people in police custody dying from choke holds but these are usually when an officer has used an instrument such as a baton or flashlight to apply the force.

A strangle hold (or carotid restraint) doesn't restrict breathing. It compresses one or both of the carotid arteries that carry blood to the brain. If held tightly enough for anywhere from a few to several seconds it will cause unconsciousness. This is what police are trained to do. This is not a deadly hold unless held for a long time after the person loses consciousness. It is safe and is regularly used in judo, jiu-jitsu, and mma competitions. Usually the person being strangled will tap to signal defeat and the hold is immediately released. Sometimes the person doesn't tap and goes unconscious. I have personally been strangled unconscious and have personally strangled people unconscious. I've witnessed it happen easily over 100 times in competitions. There are literally thousands of documented cases of people being "choked" unconscious going back to the 1800's. I don't know of a single death that has ever resulted.

Here is a video of one of my teammates choking out his opponent a few years back. You can find thousands of videos like this on youtube.

 

31 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

In any case, one of the main reasons protestors are protesting is for reforms, so that accidental and unfortunate deaths, like this and many others, stop.

I simply want to point out that sometimes the narrative is misleading to stoke fear and resentment. But I support reasonable police reforms that will make people safer.

[Rajah Manchou]

16 minutes ago, JarMan said:

No. You have the order wrong. He was wrestled to the ground using a perfectly safe hold. Then he was handcuffed on the ground. That's how you put someone who is resisting into handcuffs.

That hold is not the way that officer was trained to bring someone down. It was banned by NYPD. The officer that used it to bring down Eric Gardner was fired. 

50 minutes ago, JarMan said:

One reason they feel there is no justice is because stories like this are misrepresented. When the story is that an unarmed man was killed with a chokehold people are expecting some sort of charges against the officers. A truthful telling of the story would have prevented much of the hysteria that followed.

What part of "an unarmed man was killed with a chokehold" is untruthful? Garner was unarmed, the hold was strong enough to cause internal damage to his neck and eyes, and the hold was banned by NYPD.  

I think what you're getting at is that we should state clearly that this is a case of: "an unarmed overweight man with several medical conditions was killed after police brought him down, and subsequently failed to intervene as he went into cardiac arrest. For the record, the hold used to bring him down was banned by NYPD and did cause internal damage to the neck, potentially contributing to the cause of death."  

 

Quote

Here is a video of one of my teammates choking out his opponent a few years back. You can find thousands of videos like this on youtube.

There are a few wrestlers and MMA types that claim the hold placed on Gardner is deadly, and that it is not a permitted wrestling hold. Are they wrong? I honestly don't know, just trying to understand since there seems to be misinformation out there about "chokeholds".

53 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I simply want to point out that sometimes the narrative is misleading to stoke fear and resentment.

That I certainly understand, but the problem in this case and the case of George Floyd and many others is that the video speaks for itself. We can all watch the video and reach out own conclusions. I watch the video and I can see for myself: an unarmed man, seemingly guilty of nothing serious being taken down by a banned hold around the neck and held down even as he says 11 times that he can't breathe. The officers didn't let up even though at least one witness standing by asked them to "let up, he's already down". This is, in my opinion, unjust.

For those that haven't seen the video.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The hold applied in that instance is not capable of killing somebody...The myth of the deadly chokehold is largely just that, a myth.

An article from way back in 1993 when NYPD clarified a 1985 order banning "choke holds":

"The New York City Police Department has issued an order banning the use of choke holds, the restraining maneuvers that cut off the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain and have been blamed in the deaths of suspects here and around the nation ...

... New York City has not trained police cadets in the use of choke holds for at least 10 years, Chief Timoney and other experts said, and their use here has been less controversial and apparently apparently less widespread than in Los Angeles. In that city between 1977 and 1982, 16 people died in cases in which the choke hold was used -- twice as many as in the 20 other largest police departments combined, said James J. Fyfe, a professor a professor at Temple University in Philadelphia and a former city police officer who has studied police brutality ...

... "Basically, stay the hell away from the neck," he said. "That's what it says."

Edited July 6, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[rodheadlee]

On 7/4/2020 at 12:29 AM, Rajah Manchou said:

To prove there was an armed citizen at the protests exercising his second amendment right to defend himself?

His puny little pistol has nothing on these guys.
 

That depends on what caliber and if  guys are wearing vests  and the accuracy of the shooter

[Amulek]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

You may feel this question is a deflection, but since it was the spark that started the BLM movement that spilled into the streets in Provo last Monday, it absolutely is not: do you feel George Zimmerman should have been found guilty of murder for shooting Trayvon Martin?

Having listened to hours and hours of depositions, reviewed all of the available evidence, and watched every single minute of the trial*, I can say without a doubt that George Zimmerman should not have been found guilty of murder. It would have been a challenging case even for manslaughter, but murder (even second degree murder)? Not even close. 

 

*Seriously, if you haven't watched the trial then you've really got no idea how completely clear-cut the decision was based on the facts.

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As a general principle, should protesters be allowed to hem in a motorist and forbid him from leaving, to bang on his car, hurl objects at it, vandalize it, menace the occupants, etc.?

(Edited and changed because I didn't like my tone. Sorry for that.)

No, that is violence, and I am not in favor of violent protest. Civil disobedience needs to be non-violent.

What do you think of civil disobedience? Is it ever justified? Can non-violent protestors block streets and protest without permits?

Edited July 6, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If that were what these protests are about, the number of black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police.

This is a huge false equivalency. There is a massive difference between a criminal civilian killing another civilian and an agent of the state killing a civilian. The state is responsible for its agents, and those agents aren't punished for their criminal acts. That's the problem -- it is state sanctioned murder.

[MiserereNobis]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

What does a "bounty hunter" dress like

 

[Storm Rider]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a huge false equivalency. There is a massive difference between a criminal civilian killing another civilian and an agent of the state killing a civilian. The state is responsible for its agents, and those agents aren't punished for their criminal acts. That's the problem -- it is state sanctioned murder.

I thought it was the fact that Black lives actually matter. If life matters so much, why wouldn't the most attention be paid to where the most lives are lost?  

On the flip side, it really does seem to be state-sanctioned murder that is the problem, but only when a white police officer is involved. When it is a officer of color, everyone seems to look the other way and just not talk about it.  It is a bit of farce when they say Black lives matter when they actually mean Black lives matter only when a white police officer is involved.  BLM has an agenda and it is not about protecting Black lives. 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Having listened to hours and hours of depositions, reviewed all of the available evidence, and watched every single minute of the trial*, I can say without a doubt that George Zimmerman should not have been found guilty of murder. It would have been a challenging case even for manslaughter, but murder (even second degree murder)? Not even close. 

*Seriously, if you haven't watched the trial then you've really got no idea how completely clear-cut the decision was based on the facts.

The question we're discussing is not if it is justified to shoot someone that you might be scuffling with, but whether or not it is justified to pursue someone who is fleeing. 

Trayvon had committed no crime and was running away from Zimmerman who was following him based on Zimmerman's personal (and questionable) suspicions, with a gun. We don't know what happened next, but I'm pretty certain that if Zimmerman had done what law enforcement had asked him to do (i.e. stop following the boy and leave the policing to the police), Trayvon Martin would not have been shot.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If that were what these protests are about, the number of black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police.

 

 

The number of Mormons shot by other Mormons dwarfs the number of Mormons who are shot by BLM protestors, so let's all just go home.

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

 

 

The number of Mormons shot by other Mormons dwarfs the number of Mormons who are shot by BLM protestors, so let's all just go home.

It seems to me that the first step in trying to solve a problem is to characterize it accurately.  I can see that we're beyond rational discussion here, so I'll bow out.  Thanks.

[Rajah Manchou]

Just now, Kenngo1969 said:

It seems to me that the first step in trying to solve a problem is to characterize it accurately.  I can see that we're beyond rational discussion here, so I'll bow out.  Thanks.

Exactly how I felt when I read "black people killed by other black private citizens every year dwarfs the number of black people who are killed by police"