Well I am guessing book and release isn't murder.
Agreed...but liberal cities have been changing which crimes they hold you for pretty drastically.
I don't think it's something like murder or rape....theft? Dunno. Indecent exposure? Dunno. I think it's fair to assume it's non-violent.
I would also guess they purposely placed that person with 3 men for the express purpose of having them beat them up, probably because the cops were of that type. Training of police and who is allowed to join the force is a whole other topic though.
It's definitely written a certain way to lead to that conclusion....and it's certainly possible.
I think it's safe to assume that he placed that person there on purpose. I have to imagine they have policy that dictates otherwise.
But could there be other reasons? If they got booked, they got printed, they got a criminal record check. If they had a history of messing with children? Beating women? Those could be reasons.
How about this....one of the apprehending police was black and this person dropped an a-bomb? Possible.
None of this makes this treatment justified....but I hate that this is the news now. Let's assume motives, let's assume victimhood, let's get the reader outraged.
It's Nick Sandman all over again. It's creating a culture that I'm beginning to despise.
Think of that story, that picture, and you know how it was depicted. MAGA wearing Trump loving white boy is jumping in the face of ancient native American activist who peacefully plays the drum...because he hates that the genocide his ancestors committed didn't finish them off.
If I had suggested that perhaps a racist hate group of black hebrew Israelites were the instigators, this kid just stood up for himself, and the native American inserted himself into the situation for reasons unknown....
I'd have been laughed at.
We don't have to assume motives and viewpoints to get the news. The news definitely wants us to though.
This beating gives the left media something to use to keep their agenda going. They may pretend to be outraged, they aren't, not unless they have also fallen into the same lies.
If a person being beaten was an outrage as you said, all the other beatings done in jail would get equal air time. A regular man or woman isn't of any use to them (unless they are some other kind of other minority) so no they don't get news coverage.
Here's the weird thing. I can tell people understand they aren't really being reasonable with this stuff. I've only really begun to figure out how to deconvert atheists from it though.
The whole point is to make the trans movement appear much larger than it is. Like its common place with a huge amount of hate and violence aimed towards it. That is far more useful to them. News keeps the general populations minds on it because they know we are far more interested in other things like our jobs, paying our bills, looking after our kids etc and trans issues would slip off our radar if not pushed. So out comes some more news to keep people talking. They do the same with race, find something to whip people into a frenzy over rather than actually tackling the real issues.
Then come an election they can pull out their oppression cards rather than focusing on things that really matter such as illiteracy rates and how that has a big impact on crime and poverty. Much easier to make a speech on trans issues with a whipped up crowd then tackle illiteracy and actually look hard at schools, especially inner city ones.
I'd argue it's even worse than that....yes, you can say that the rational self interest of these identity groups are aligning themselves with the Democratic party to benefit from it.
I tend to think that when people tell you who they are....then you should believe them. There's a certain arrogance that comes from the person saying "I'm a Marxist" and believing it won't hurt their movement one bit. It's not a dog whistle...it's a bullhorn to every other Marxist. They're literally proving that the people supporting them not only don't know anything about Marxists....they don't care.
It's a signal to all other Marxists.
When someone says that they are using concepts from "Critical Race Theory" but they say they aren't teaching "Critical Race Theory"....they're literally pointing out "these people have no idea what a critical theory is".
I had a guy, no joke, say that the "critical" meant critical thinking. I told him (because I knew he was a communist, he's admitted it openly) that I could quote one of the guy's who came up with "critical theories" aka critical pedagogy on the difference between a critical theory and a traditional theory...and told him that we can then talk about which one employs critical thinking.
He left the thread.
I've always known about Marxism, if not every version of it, but I didn't know much about critical theory. Now I'm just trying to figure out how to present this stuff to Christians lol.
