Yes, people have been settling scores with melee weapons since the dawn of man.  What separated civilization from savage law-of-the-jungle life was a system of government that stopped this.

The oldest rules of jurisprudence we have on record prohibit murder in the streets.

Saying law enforcement should let people settle scores in the street with knives is an end to civil society and takes us straight back into primeval life.

BLM isn’t against police violence, it’s against the order of civilization.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

16 thoughts on “BLM activist calls for absolute savagery”
  1. *stunned expression*

    I… what? WHAT? How… this wasn’t some bout of fisticuffs or a behind-the-school punch-up! Hello, assault with a deadly weapon! Murder!

    *garbled cursing*.

  2. Teenagers have been having knife fights for eons…

    Lord of the Flies was not intended as an instruction Manual.

    1. Gee… Shakespeare wrote about this… in “Romeo and Juliet.”

      Which was exasperated by authorities looking the other way.

  3. How nice.

    So, Captain Intellect is OK with how *I* will respond to the yout who threatens me with a knife?

  4. Wait till captain intellect gets assaulted with knife..
    hell hath no fury like a ass kicked liberal…. as Mr Smith once said

  5. Solution. 911 asks if the caller is a supporter of BLM. If they say ‘yes’, the police do not intervene and direct them to their local activist to solve the problem.

  6. BLM marchers have openly stated they support “black criminals”. They don’t care about the innocent, and never have.

  7. Send in the 5’2″ 95 lb social worker to explain to the “yoots” that “violence never solves anything.”🤬

  8. “Teenagers have been having … fights involving knives for eons…” — yes, but in civilized places that is no longer true. If you think this is still normal, you are not a civilized person and don’t live in a civilized place.

  9. And, again, the Black working and middle class, the folks who go to work every day, love and parent their children, who go to church, and seek better things for their children, are ground into the dust in the name of thugs who happen to be “melanin enhanced”.


  10. So shields and spears are ok? After all they have been around almost forever. I’ll just get 9-19 of my friends to make a mini phalanx and settle our problems. It’ll be good to give the neighborhood watch a bit of teeth.

  11. Teenagers have been having fights including fights involving knives for eons.

    True, but that hardly matters here. See above comments about dueling being obsoleted by civilized government filling the role of neutral arbitrators in disputes.

    But even if knife fighting were still legal, there’s one glaring problem with that statement: A “fight involving knives” requires that BOTH parties have knives.

    As far as I could see, there was only one knife present, and it was in the hands of the aggressor, who was attempting to stab two others who were trying to get away … and the wife informs me that one of them has died of her wounds in the hospital, so the aggressor succeeded with at least one. Additionally, the two non-aggressors were desperately trying to flee, which pretty clearly puts the kibosh in the “mutual combat” narrative.

    All told, this was not a “fight involving knives”. This was assault with a deadly weapon, a forcible felony the police are empowered and authorized to stop.

    We do not need police to address these situations by showing up to the scene & using a weapon against one of the teenagers.

    Maybe, maybe not. But the other option would have been to allow the aggressor to stab — and probably kill — her two immediately-intended victims and whoever else she might feel needs a few more holes. There’s no guarantee she would have stopped.

    Also, that aggressor was already “using a weapon” against the other two. Is that really that difficult to understand? Would they rather that behavior be stopped, or continue until … whenever?

    If it’s the latter, I’m sure that can be arranged, but then the police would be blamed for “doing nothing to stop it” — damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    I don’t know anymore why anyone would want to become or continue to be a police officer in or near any urban area.

    1. “I don’t know anymore why anyone would want to become or continue to be a police officer in or near any urban area.”

      Or at all, really. Rural areas have different issues, depending on the state; but they’re arguably getting worse too. (The drug pipelines, for instance.)

      1. Sure, but at least as a police officer in rural areas you can still usually count on some support from the community, even if your higher-ups are pro-criminal political hacks (and not all of them are). It’s not as good as it once was, but it’s not too bad, either; there’s still some respect for policing there.

        As a police officer in and near urban areas, it’s hostility all around — above, below, and to both sides — and any supporters you might have had are drowned out or cowed into silence and inaction by the mob. Even your union, which is supposed to defend you and your interests, is led by partisan hacks who will throw you under the bus at the first sign of trouble!

        So for now at least, I can understand wanting to be a police officer in rural towns. But I cannot for the life of me understand wanting to become or continue as an officer in urban cities.

Login or register to comment.