If you have a problem with a particular activist, then do indeed voice your opinion. But do you have a problem with one particular activist, or do you have a problem with all of them? For example, can you name a civil rights activist in the last 10 years who you find admirable? If not, then I would be skeptical of how fair minded you are on the subject.

One thing you have to realize is there is a coordinated effort by the media in this country to discredit civil rights activists. There always has been....

I find it funny how today everyone says Martin Luther King Jr. was such a great civil rights leader and they say "too bad today's black leaders are not more like him". What I find funny about this is that many of today's black leaders are the same people who were in MLK's organization and worked alongside him. Jessie Jackson is one example. The both of them were 99% similar in their objectives and the methods of achieving them. One of them simply died and is now viewed honorably as a "matyr" while the other has lived on and continued to be criticized by the media.

If you were alive back in the 1960s, you would remember that King was constantly criticized by the media and he too was accused of being a self promotor, opportunist, violence instigator, communist, and even a terrorist (by the FBI). It was only after he died that the mainstream media suddenly loved him. More likely they loved that he was now dead and could cause no more "trouble" (in their view).

http://web.commercialappeal.com/newg...s/mlk40368.jpg

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/onai...h/mlk/pic3.jpg

:iagree: and why is it that mistakes like these only happen to minorities, why?

I said who I have a problem with and I stated why. That's it.

How can you say that without knowing the facts? What happened to one being innocent until proven guilty? Maybe they were not justified, but I'd at least give the officers the opportunity to explain their actions.

To just reflexively say that too many rounds were fired, therefore the cops are wrong is indicative of ignorance of current gunfighting training. This is not the movies, where you shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand, or you shoot them in the shoulder, they drop their gun and give up with a scowl. Multiple rounds in vital areas, rapidly, until the bad guy is on the ground. That is how it is being taught to modern self-defense shooters. I can tell you that you will empty even a high-capacity magazine in a hurry if you have multiple targets, in that situation.

Ummmm ok, so its ok to go around and shoot as MANY bullets at a target in a car without seeing a gun? Um thats totally pathetic, end of story

So the fact that they were using a car as a weapon, had already struck a cop with it, and were continuing to aggressively drive is irrelevant?

I suppose I am wasting my time trying to get you to consider facts, rather than your initial knee-jerk reaction.

31 rounds from one cop is not justified....especially against an unarmed assailant.

Case in point, training is key and YES you can accomplish the task with few shots. Take last week at the Annapolis Mall in Maryland, an off-duty secret service agent goes to brake up a fight, one person pulls a gun and shoots the agent, the agent pulls his weapon and puts two (AND ONLY TWO) rounds in the persons chest. This is accurate and justified....31 rounds fired into a moving vehicle with 11 hitting one person is not IMO. If an officer is that inaccurate or stressed under fire, they should not carry a weapon. I usually back police actions, but not in this case under any cause.

Again, one already wounded secret service agent fires two rounds in a food court of a mall on Saturday night and hits the perpetrator TWICE.

In a brightly lit mall from a much smaller distance as opposed to 4:00a.m. on a dimly lit street in queens.

The situations aren't even remotely close.

Your analogy is like comparing throwing a coffee cup into your trash can vs. kicking a 45 yard field goal.

(don't mistake my disagreeing with your analogy with backing the cops, as i said back in the beginning of this thread, if the facts prove out negligence then prosecute 'em and send 'em away. BUT let's get the facts first.)

What I find is a horrible comment on our society is that this case is getting an incredible amount of press, yet the trial that started yesterday for the scumbag that assassinated 2 NYPD Detectives in 2003 is never mentioned.