Would it have any impact on my argument either way?
If you checked my DNA, there certainly would be African in it. Maybe enough to call me "black" in the south, it doesn't take much. That said, no, I don't check "black" on the census form.

I just believe it works best to exemplify the behavior you want from others, to lead by example rather than reaction, and treat others as you would have them treat you, not as they have treated you.

EDIT: I also think there's a huge difference between 'you shouldn't use that word, ever.' and 'you cannot use that word, ever, or I'll violently attack you.' I agree, white people shouldn't use that word or any derivation of it, and should expect blowback if they do, but if we want to live in a post racial society where people aren't discriminated against based on race, that means no one should use it.

Well, I had it drycleaned....when are you taking me out?

No, opportunity is not the same as evidence, but is an important part of making a case.

I'm pretty sure there was body camera evidence of him saying he was going to kill the guy during the chase (maybe a different case), but none of the shooting or aftermath from any officer's body camera. This is the uselessness of a camera they control, it should be always on, live streamed to a secured server, not with an on off switch and no backup.

Remember, the only evidence we know of that he's a drug dealer came from the same suspicious search. Once the cop has opportunity to plant evidence, the case is blown because it's reasonable to think they might have, so any conviction is out.

Once he shoots, there's no reason he should have anything else to do with the case (unless he was alone, but that's not the case here). Allowing the shooter to be the investigator is a clear conflict of interest and allows a suspect to investigate himself and tamper with evidence. Normal procedure would be for him to let others take over immediately and surrender his gun pending investigation....so there is no legitimate reason for the killer to be in the car.........

Edit: and how to explain he cop DNA on the gun but not the victim's? It makes no sense unless it's the cop's gun never touched by the victim and placed afterwards, otherwise it would at a minimum have his blood on it and logically his sweat and fingerprints inside and out.

The cops had reason to search, on camera, but not the shooter with his body cam turned off.

Newt
I do go to bed hatting you but then I think of you in that yellow dress then all is well.


Having a clear opportunity to plant evidence is not the same as planting evidence.

When was his body camera on? When was it turn off? You are making a reach that he turned it off to "plant a gun" . If this happened then yes I would have more suspicion towards the cop.

Other than facts you are speculating , pure conjecture of a planting of a gun. That does not hold up in court..

Ok

Black guy shoots me - a white drug dealer -- then plants a gun in my car .. but only evidence is a bystander showing the killer messing around in his back seat then goes to my dead body in the car and later a gun is "found" ... But no one see this planting -- DNA of only the black shooter found on the planted gun.

Yes in this case you might be convicted of planting a gun.. Or some other that would suggest that you planted the gun.

..........Only because there is no reason for the killer to be in the car...............


The cop had reason -- to search for weapons/ drugs / paperwork of the car etc. So not quite apples to apples.

Bob
You're so dishonest. You've said clearly that you go to bed hating me. ;-)

In the tape, I see the clear opportunity to plant evidence (with no other explanation for what he was doing retrieving something in his squad car after shooting him but before he's even removed from the car, and sitting in the victims car with his body camera off), which he hides from the cameras in his uniform instead of showing it off to bystanders in his hands, and when tested, the gun only had the officers DNA and fingerprints, and the victim wasn't wearing gloves, the cop was. No explanation given for any of that.
Edit: that's motive, means, and opportunity, and unexplained evidence with no other reasonable explanation.
Case closed.

EDIT: Given the exact same circumstances but a black citizen shooting another citizen, then performing the exact same hyper suspicious actions, you would absolutely, zero question in my mind, say it's incontrovertible that the black man murdered the other man and planted a gun and drugs to get away with it.

Funny, you and your side of the isle has spent at least 8 years in the streets over sour grapes, now you suddenly think you're reasonable and thoughtful....but you don't even understand the words.

If blacks were killing officers at the rate that officers are killing blacks, you would say they've declared open season on law enforcement...oh wait, you've already said that, even though cops actually kill 25 times more citizens than people kill cops, and by far most of those citizens are black.

Oh Bob. Trolling hard today I see.

The camera caught him retrieving and planting the gun...which had his DNA on it but not the victims, and cameras have repeatedly caught police unambiguously planting evidence and weapons....so I can only assume you are intentionally approving of police planting evidence if you say it shows them to be in the right. You wouldn't be alone, the judge said the same thing, it was a justified homicide because of course he thought the heroin dealer was armed, so shooting him and planting a gun was perfectly fine. (not sure how he supposedly knew it was a heroin dealer before the shooting, though)

You are accidentally correct, however. Even hard leftists CAN seem to grasp reality when shown it, unlike those who would simply pretend those videos don't exist....but don't trust your lying eyes, trust Rush. He's never lied to you.

Stockley was caught on camera retrieving and planting the gun, which only had his DNA on it.
He was acquitted today with the judge commenting "Finally, the Court observes, based on its nearly thirty years on the bench, that an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly."

It seems clear that, in this judges opinion, it's open season on accused drug dealers, armed or not. He should probably move to the Philippines with that attitude, where they approve of murdering the accused.

I wouldn't care if my DNA was 80% German or any other country, because I was born and raised in the USA, I'm an American and that will ALWAYS come first. Your allegiance lies with what you BELIEVE in, not with what's in your DNA. If you lie down and let your genes tell you how to act, then you'll lie down for just about anything.

Too bad that this is simply an ad and the people are all actors. It's simply not possible to tell from a simple DNA sample without comparison if someone has a German or Danish heritage. Things aren't always as they seem.

Dunno, some relatives really hate each other

I'd love to see my DNA ancestry so I can say nigger (sorry sorry sorry) without white guilt because it says I'm 0.3% Sub-Saharan African.

No rly tho, I'm English as far back as anybody has looked so I'm actually a bit worried that it would turn out that the DNA indicates that my family have been sitting on this island FOREVER. I want an excuse to travel the world to find my "roots", fuck Holidays in the UK, it had best tell me I'm a Slav with bits of African and, err, Turkish! Yeah, I want to see Istanbul. Give me a bit of Turk too please.

*quality idea to make comparative DNA compulsory. It would certainly screw with people that advocate separation by race. It's much harder to dehumanize people when you realize you are likely related.
*doublepromote

So...if a fetus is created from only female DNA, it would be sinless? Why aren't the church and all Christians pushing for cloning research then?

Even if it were possible, it would all be for naught once the first sin was committed. Adam didn't have a sin nature either until he committed sin.

you need infinity +1 rooms, and then you're moving into unreal numbers....not the place to be when trying to prove something is real.

You can talk to the mathematicians about it. I was only using that as a rough analogy to illustrate an idea. I can't say for sure how the mechanics of it worked, I only know that God considered it justice for all sin.

If he atoned for all sin, why is disbelief still a sin? All sin is either atoned for or not.

There is atonement for unbelief but there is something you have to do, which is repent and believe the gospel. If you're in court and the judge tells you that if you go and see the clerk and sign some paperwork he'll let you go free, and you refuse to sign the paperwork, he isn't going to let you out.

So...if a fetus is created from only female DNA, it would be sinless?
Why aren't the church and all Christians pushing for cloning research then? It's only logical that, if sin is only from the father, and that sin, untreated, leads to eternal damnation, there should be an all out push to eradicate it like polio, by removing the offending relatives....but there's not. It seems the church either disagrees with you, or has completely failed to consider the implications and responsibilities of that stance. Today, given funding and removing the stigma, it's totally possible to make all the female Jesuses one could ever ask for, complete with virgin births, that could start the new era of sinless humanity, removing any need for Jesus or God. ;-)

It's a Wonderful Life.

In my yute, they played it every Christmas because it was free from broadcast fees. (Interesting story, the early days of TV.... How life has changed.)

I imprinted like a little gosling on this movie. It fills my DNA.

By the way, there is a scene that has been cut from the original that I still miss. Cut for time, cut to make room for commercials as more and more commercials were broadcast.

I still miss it....

You're kidding, right?
Do I have to make a list? On every continent white people visited (if you can call showing up and not really leaving a visit) we fucked up the lives of a good portion of the people living there.
Sure, mankind has always been cruel, in every corner of the earth. However, white people are to murder, theft and slavery what Coca Cola is to refreshing diabeeetus (yes, that's how it's spelled). A fucking international enterprise whose traces can be found everywhere. On every fucking continent.
I hope we can agree on that. Otherwise, here's a short list: Gippsland Massacres, Nagasaki, Opium Wars, My Lai Massacre, fucking Iraq, Crusades, Apartheid, Herero and Namaqua genocide, that whole Columbus mess, Trail Of Tears and transatlantic slave trade (because why the fuck not?). Oh, my bad, I forgot the freaking Holocaust and starting 2 World Wars.
Who does this? Who? White people, that's who. Europeans and their descendants.
Would you like to argue that level of evil is genetic? I won't.
It's cultural. We europeans (and later our emigrated offspring) always thought we're better than everybody else, we had god on our side (and the Pope agreed!). Probably a leftover from the Roman Empire. And that's why everywhere we go, we steal, murder or occupy the shit out of every place. No other collection of ethnic groups has so much blood on their hands and it's not because we're worse DNA constructs than the others. All humans are capable of evil, it just takes a certain way of thinking to go that far.
Thankfully, we wrecked our own continent so badly during WW2, that we finally started to improve our ways. But here's the problem: we just started. We're far from being done.
Orban, LePen, Farage, Putin, Petry and last but not least Trump.

But Neanderthals didn't go extinct, they are able to spot the dna in the genes of Europeans/Asians so...