DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... 9 Dead in Waco, Texas, Biker Gang Shooting, Cops Say

I'm Toast. Uh, no offense...

I have heard violent White criminals around this are called thugs by the media, and in media reports when they interview people.

Out of all of the people I know, you know who the only ones I know who use the "n" word are?

Yeah, but that doesn't matter. Thug is a code word that white people apparently can't say without being labeled "racist". Only certain people are allowed to use that word, and the other word it, as I'm now finding out, means.

I'd love to get the official word on what words I'm allowed to use. Obviously, the n word is out, and I have no problem with that. However, it's used way to much. But, I guess if you end it with "a", as opposed to "er", it's just well and fine and dandy. Least, that's the way it's been explained to me.

Now, "thug" on the other hand......apparently that is another word white people can't use, even if talking about white people?

Of course it is. In fact, I prefer it when others are addressing me,,,

What is the point of this?

Yeah. For the record, I don't think "thug" was ever used to exclusively descript black people until recently. It seems like a pretty recent phenomenon that has only occurred in the past few years. So it would make sense in pockets of America, especially where major white crime is still a thing (Like Youngstown) use it non-exclusively. But, as a Nation, it's usually used to describe Black people. In the current day of tracking the media it's annoying that no one has done a study about this.

Personally, I never say the word. It doesn't have a good ring to it when describing other people.

Sorry, in your case I always thought it was Sire.

The point is that the word is used almost exclusively these days, at least in my part of the world, by those who claim its offensive nature.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/connotation

Thug has always meant a criminal who uses violence to me. If rappers want to call themselves that to gain cred for selling records that is their business but to me the word has no race connotation to it.

I was wondering how the bikers were allowed to stand around, smoke cigarettes, and use their cell phones.

Shouldn't they have been slammed to the ground, shot, pepper sprayed or something?

Didn't the police get shot at or feel threatened?

Is there really no double standard here?

170 folks locked up on $1 million bond. That's alot of folks.

18 still in the hospital, and most likely will be moved to jail when released.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/18/us/texas-biker-gang-brawl-shooting/

Look at the 40 second mark.... Maybe that's why? They cooperated, and sat down as instructed?

And yes, when police first arrived they got shot at AND returned fire. Possibility that 3 or 4 of the dead were from police firing.

It still presents a completely different picture than the reactions to other riots.

No cuffs? Cell phones? No rounding up and no mass hauling to jail without questioning?

You might as well give up, rock. I have, for the most part.

At some point, pointing out the obvious to make a point becomes pointless. People don't like pointing. Pointing is considered rude.

Get the point?

It's not like there were 100 weapons confiscated by the police. O wait 100 weapons were confiscated by police...

I would just like to point out (see what I did there?) that we have black folks rioting and burning stores, white and latino biker gangs shooting each other like it's the wild west, cops beating people in prisons and shooting unarmed people in the streets.. and we are on page 3 of arguing about the appropriate terms to call criminals of different races....

Did you miss my post about 170 people in jail on 1 million dollars bond each?

And a riot and brawl are 2 different things believe it or not.

And all of their vehicles are still in the parking lot, unable to be reclaimed by family members, etc. The whole place is being treated as a crime scene. They were loaded onto buses and hauled off to jail as fast as they could be processed. Do you understand why they had to do it as they do it? They can only intake at a certain rate, and it wouldn't be wise to have this large group of people who are internally hostile all congregated around each other. It's not like they shook their finger at them and said "bad... very bad... now go home and be a good boy." They're in jail with an impossible bond. I think the police are actually doing a fantastic job overall. I'm somewhat impressed.

Some thought I was making fun of something with this post, but I was not.

I was pointing out the wrongness of making excuses for bad behavior. It serves no one.

Sorry, I was one of them. I thought that was pretty good. Oh well carry on.

Different like biker and thug?

Yeah, it's like the term biker gang. If it's not white bikers, they just call it a gang to refer to blacks. When it's white people, they call them biker gangs so we know the difference. Like the Bandidos. No, wait, that doesn't work does it?

IMO, bikers as in the story, are thugs, but that is pretty much a given once they are identified as members of a biker gang or MC.

To me, a riot is an large group of people creating an unruly disturbance in public that causes damage to innocent persons and/or property.
Where a brawl is a physical altercation between 2 or more groups specifically targeting each other.

In Baltimore, had those folks began fighting each other in the streets, that would have been a brawl, not a riot.

But they were White?

Over 200 people were arrested in the Baltimore riots. You would think that a brawl leaving 9 people dead would end up the same way the Riots, where 0 murders occurred, were. Tear gas, cuffs, abductions and everything in between.

That said, I don't think the city did anything wrong, but speaks more to Baltimore's mishandling.

Why would you think that?? Seriously.

This was over withing a relatively short timeframe. The riots went on for what... days?

Slightly different situations entirely. In fact, except that some folks want to turn this into a race issue, they aren't even parallels to each other in any way.

My guess of why no tear gas an all that, is that it ended shortly after police arrive, it didn't go on for hours uncontrolled, and was isolated to one very specific location.

It could also be called a Battle in a continuing gang war could it not?

Most of the people in Baltimore were arrested for things like disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, vandalism, and looting.. not murder, attempted murder, shooting at police officers, etc.. They were also arrested in different areas for different reasons as riots grew violent in different areas over a period of days....

On one hand, you have rival gangs shooting at each other and trying to kill each other, nobody in the fracas was "innocent" so the cops shot at them when they were engaged...... in Baltimore you have innocent protesters intermingled with violent protesters and looters.... so the cops have to try to differentiate and separate them... the kid who famously walked up to the police line and threw a burning trash can at the cops, was he shot? If a gang member in Waco had even started to do that, he would have been shot...

the gang members were arrested for "organized crime."

Plus, didn't the cops kill 3-4 of the biker gang thugs?

In Baltimore - my memory isn't 100 %, but did cops kill anyone?

Breaking up riots with tear gas is one thing. Responding to what turned out to be a shoot out is a different thing.

Fair enough

As a former Biker Member I know what I'm talkin' bout.

I was WarLord of DNT (Dixie No Treads) for 3 years.

I gave it up. Too violent. And no one else ever joined my gang.

I even had a really cool gang anthem:

"Well, I'm D...N...T..., I'm dynomite, D...N...T..., and I would not fight, D...N...T..., I'm a power-load, D...N...T..., watch me explode."

So then, maybe you can help us out, were you a Biker or a Thug?

hey 1% does not mean you drink 1% whole milk

Another factor, in Baltimore, the anger/hatred/animosity was being directed at the police themselves, whereas in the aftermath of the shootout in Texas, there wasn't much (if any) animosity directed at the police.

Because they are tough enough to make someone else drink that crap?

But in fairness - in the baltimore situation - a guy died in police custody. (actually, I believe he died several days later in the hospital - BUT, the injuries apparently happened when he was in custody)

In Waco - the thugs (everyone happy now?) fought with each other, and when the cops showed up, some shot at the cops.

Hence, the no shooting in Baltimore - AND the cops shooting in Waco.