Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "The Officer Tatum" channel.

  1. 44
  2. 43
  3. 35
  4. 33
  5. 32
  6. 21
  7. 20
  8. 17
  9. 17
  10. 15
  11. 13
  12. 13
  13. 12
  14. 10
  15. 10
  16. 10
  17. 9
  18. 9
  19. 9
  20.  @manifesting.inner.g  True history, huh? l learned all about slavery in school. About Jim Crow, the drinking fountains, the Poll Tax, Dredd Scott, the KKK....learned it all in school. That's history and it's true history. I learned it in the sixties. I also learned about the abolitionist movement, Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War that finally abolished slavery and I know the Civil Rights movement and Dr. Martin Luther King are also taught in school. So your comment is all just plain nonsense. Also, it's DEMOCRATS that are supporting CRT and Republicans that are against it. Why would Republicans be against "true history". The Republican Party was formed specifically to end slavery. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and Jefferson Davis was a Democrat. It was Democrat president, Andrew Johnson, that ended Reconstruction after the Civil War and the first black Americans elected to office, were also Republicans. Democrats fought to save slavery, voted against allowing blacks to become American citizens, didn't want blacks to vote and when blacks were able to vote, the Democrats were the beneficiaries of the thugish behaviour of the KKK who used fear to discourage the blacks from voting. The Democrats initiated Jim Crow, the Poll Tax and fought against the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, LAST YEAR, California Democrats wanted to repeal the California Civil Rights Act. Democrats did this. If anyone wants "true history" betrayed, it would be the Republicans. Yet they oppose CRT. Do you know why? Because, what the Democrats want taught and what CRT teaches, works to minimise the Democrats negative contributions to the history of black Americans. In other words, CRT is NOT "true history". It's an ideology, that's borne out of Marxism, that teaches perpetual division and it leads to the hatred and vitriol of the guy that's threatening that audience with a 1000 man army. That would seek to divide the family, of that woman, into racial camps....THAT'S your CRT. We don't want that division. That's why Republicans are against CRT.
    9
  21. 9
  22. 9
  23. 9
  24. 9
  25. 8
  26. 7
  27. 7
  28. 7
  29. 6
  30. 6
  31.  @dubnation5824  What incredible nonsense. Not one person in the NFL is a slave. Not one. They can leave the game any time they want and some have. They're not forced to play. Ever. They're doing what kids do in high school for fun in parks and empty lots and getting paid huge money for it so they can spend their lives in a life of ease and freedom. I see your problem. You are filled with envy. You're one of those guys that is continuously looking at everyone else's pile and hating them for having more. You're a Marxist, whose goal is to make sure that everyone has the exact same size pile and every assessment you make involves that comparison of assets. The one with the biggest pile, is automatically the bad guy. It's ideological obsession inspired by envy. You don't care about mitigating suffering, you want EVERYONE to suffer like you believe you're suffering. It's a rot that comes from within, a rot that inspires hate to the point that you believe that working hard and being of value to society is pointless because society is against you. You have no concept of the realities of life. You only see that others are better off than you and that pisses you off. It's a sad way to live and it wouldn't be so bad except it's people who live that way that have caused a great deal of suffering in the last 100 years. It's what drove the Soviet Union, Red China, Cambodia, Venezuela and the horror of what is now North Korea. Strangely, it drives you in such a powerful way that you can't even begin to see that the poor in the Western, Capitalist countries live better than people have ever lived in human history. All you know is that someone has more than you do.
    6
  32. 6
  33. 6
  34. 5
  35.  @johanvanderpants9363  You're trying to sugarcoat it and you know it. I'm not talking about 2A and you know that as well. He KNEW that he was in a dangerous situation and it wasn't his home. No, one that I know of, sleeps with a gun so readily available while sleeping and most of my friends support the 2A. You're doing everything possible to make it seem as if he was just an innocent. That meme about how he fed the poor, wanted to be minister, was turning his life around and nonsense like that. You're using the "He was within his 2A rights" as a defence, thinking that this is such a clever argument. It's not. It's pure gaslighting. They went with a no-knock warrant because they knew just how dangerous these guys were. It was all outlined in the warrant. They did it this way to prevent a neighbourhood standoff that could have killed a lot more people. They had every reason to believe that possibility and within seconds of entering the home, a gun was pulled. The officers had no time to ask who he was or why he was pointing a gun at them. They issued a no-knock warrant because they believed the situation could be extremely volatile and the first person they encountered upon entering the home did exactly what they feared would happen. However, they were prepared and the death count was held at one. Had his cousins been forewarned it could have been FAR worse. That's why the no-knock warrant. It was to overwhelm the occupants before it got to far out of control because they knew that they were dealing with people who were already out of control.
    5
  36.  @johanvanderpants9363  The fact that this was a volatile situation and that the police knew it, is validated by the 16 page warrant, outlining why they felt that it was necessary. However, the police can not carry out that warrant on their own say so. They had to present that warrant to a judge, who evaluates the evidence presented and decides on whether the no-knock warrant is necessary. This is some knee jerk action by the police. It took thought, the collection of evidence, the presentation of the credentials of the police officer involved and the signing off by a judge. The police don't want to have more people involved in the arrest than is necessary. It just makes it all more dangerous for themselves and for others. He was there. The police had no way of knowing that he was there and they weren't going to tip off the suspects by placing surveillance officers in the neighbourhood. This guy had to have known what his cousins were up to. They posted a lot of it all over social media. If the police had waited until the PERFECT situation that guaranteed no problems whatsoever, who knows how many those cousins would have killed in the interim. They're in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation and the best thing to do is to nip it quickly in the bud before the suspects kill even more people. You're living in dreamland if you think that the perfect time exists at all times. Instead of moaning about how he was so innocent, you should be telling people to be careful about who they associate with if they don't want to find themselves at the wrong side of a police altercation or even a gang retribution situation.
    5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 5
  41. 5
  42. 5
  43. 5
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56. 3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132.  @thelastcommenter7154  I never ONCE said CRT is fake. What I asked was why would the party, that fought against slavery and Jim Crow, want to cover up the details of slavery. That's the claim that proponents of CRT are claiming. "They are suppressing CRT because they want to hide the reality of slavery". Why would a party, that formed with the mandate of abolishing slavery, want to hide that slavery existed? It's illogical. Also, you never corrected anything. Not one fact or detail was given that could be used as a correcting point. People bog themselves down in details and forget the big picture. Also, I didn't google it. I guessed that year because I'd heard of the 1619 Project. I used common sense NOT Google. It seems rather disingenuous to claim that slavery and CRT could only be applied to America, when slave trades have been in existence for centuries. The African slave trade also took place in the Caribbean, South America, Europe and in the Middle East. Yet, you're only going to apply it to the US? Strange thing is, the US is the ONLY country that fought a Civil war, that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of it's own citizens and which brought to an end slavery in that country. That's also a part of history. The ones that brought the African slave trade (native Americans practised slavery too) to America, did so because of a history of slavery that went back thousands of years. In other words, it was nothing new OR unique to America. Also, it still doesn't answer why the Republicans would want to cover up their part in ending the African slave trade.
    1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1