|
botany posted:It is loving hilarious to me that there are actual, real life people in this thread who, in a conflict between protestors and US cops, assume that it's the cops who are telling the truth. Anything that disrupts my world view disrupts everything I believe in. It's all I have left.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
So there's a ton of by the minute videos from a guy livestreaming from the other night that nobody's mentioned itt yet so if you want, just google up Kevin Gilbertt dapl. His video shows a small fire spring up spontaneously and then get snuffed out in seconds, it's not really possible to tell what started it. Details I hadn't heard mentioned so far include the materials of the bridge barricade - two burnt dump trucks parked nose to nose. I hadn't realized that they've been there for weeks and the authorities refuse to remove them. As Uglycat posted, what was going on that night was they had successfully hooked up one of the dump truck hulks and dragged it off the bridge and into the road, before the police and guard showed up in real force and began firing tear gas and using a water cannon directly on protestors when they got bottled up on the bridge. There were no fires on or near the bridge. Dead Reckoning posted:The majority of the pipeline is constructed on private lands and requires no federal permits. The ACoE has to approve construction at the 209 points where it crosses the waterways of the United States. The ACoE believes that they have met their obligation to review the environmental and cultural impacts of the project at these points. The ACoE also has to consult with affected native tribes. They are not required to act on the tribes' input. The Corps has demonstrated that they made a good faith effort to consult with the Standing Rock. quote:Washington, D.C. – Today, the Army informed the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Energy Transfer Partners, and Dakota Access, LLC, that it has completed the review that it launched on September 9, 2016. The Army has determined that additional discussion and analysis are warranted in light of the history of the Great Sioux Nation’s dispossessions of lands, the importance of Lake Oahe to the Tribe, our government-to-government relationship, and the statute governing easements through government property. Also there's the whole thing with private landowners also being walked over by their bullying style of using easements because the pipeline is supposedly some sort of necessary piece of public infrastructure and not a wholly private piece of construction. Uglycat posted:There is /not/ cohesive leadership.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Complaining about "legalism" is the last resort of people who have no legal argument for why their desires should prevail. I know you've been posting your drivel for years now and I'm unlikely to change that distorted version of reality you call your home, but for anyone else reading this: Complaining about legalism is an acknowledgement of the fact that there's a difference between morality and the law, and that the latter is supposed to encode the former. So when there's a conflict between morality and the law, it's supremely idiotic to accuse those on the side of morality of not having a legal argument for their position. That's entirely the point, you moron.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:If you take a look at photos of people who've been injured by flashbangs, like that kid in the crib a while back, flashbangs leave burn wounds. Potentially very severe ones. They don't blast open your arm down to the bone. Something else caused that and whether the cops were throwing lethal grenades or the girl had an explosive device, someone made a really bad decision. I don't know if you fully understand how concussion propagates though flesh. Broken upper arm bones and burst flesh from shoulder to elbow is fully consistent with a concussion grenade going off on the inside of the arm, according to medics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
I am seeing conflicting sources. Has the national guard deployed to standing rock or just police? Also concussion grenades are not flashbang grenades, correct me if I'm wrong but conc grenades are designed to kill/injure via overpressure (and have explosives in them), flashbangs are designed to disorient/stun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:I am seeing conflicting sources. Has the national guard deployed to standing rock or just police?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
So it seems MIGF has taken to drunk-spamming me with PMs - since putting him on ignore doesn't block pms, I'll have to settle for public shaming: gently caress off, you're either dumb or a sad gimmick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Flashbangs, tasers, CS, batons, rubber bullets, etc etc are also OK as they are less-lethal devices. If you're trespassing or starting fires on someone else's property (and there is no exception for wanting to stay warm or make tea) you're gonna get a response. Nice to know the deployment of chemical agents on unarmed civilians is OK in your book
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
MIGF PMed me a couple times with some dumb troll attempt. Some people have nothing better to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Nice to know the deployment of chemical agents on unarmed civilians is OK in your book CS is a chemical agent in the loosest definition and a pretty dumb thing to nitpick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Nice to know the deployment of chemical agents on unarmed civilians is OK in your book Yeah, it's awful how quick some people are to rationalize potentially deadly weapons against their fellow citizens. I'm willing to be he/she has never seen someone hit by a rubber bullet IRL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:CS is a chemical agent in the loosest definition and a pretty dumb thing to nitpick. Using tear gas in a war is literally a war crime under the geneva convention. The geneva convention just doesn't ban what you can do to your own citizens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:CS is a chemical agent in the loosest definition and a pretty dumb thing to nitpick. ughhhhhhh but it is a chemical right??? There's also suggestions that it's actually pretty damaging so I guess I wonder why you want to minimise the potential for harm here
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Using tear gas in a war is literally a war crime under the geneva convention. The geneva convention just doesn't ban what you can do to your own citizens. America doesn't care about the Geneva convention regardless 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Imagine the worldview of a person who actually thinks stomping your own citizens with concussion grenades and gas is a cool and good thing. Preeeeetty edgy
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Imagine the worldview of a person who actually thinks stomping your own citizens with concussion grenades and gas is a cool and good thing. They are occupying land that doesnt belong to them (without the benefit of the US Cavelry)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Tias posted:So it seems MIGF has taken to drunk-spamming me with PMs - since putting him on ignore doesn't block pms, I'll have to settle for public shaming: Yeah he does that, I told him to go gently caress himself and he stopped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:America doesn't care about the Geneva convention regardless That is for sure, but the fact it's literally a war crime is a pretty good indication that some people take it quite seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:America doesn't care about the Geneva convention regardless Owlofcreamcheese posted:Using tear gas in a war is literally a war crime under the geneva convention. The geneva convention just doesn't ban what you can do to your own citizens. The convention refers to it as "riot control agents" and explicitly states that it does not ban its usage for domestic policing applications. Trying to run with "lol it's a war crime" in regards to riot control stuff is exceptionally loving stupid and misses that the purposes of the geneva conventions is greater in scope then "this is so horrible it can't even be used in war". Case in point: the use of hollow point bullets is banned under the geneva conventions. Why? Because they tend to maim rather than kill outright, which on the battlefield can lead unnecessarily long and agonizing deaths. Law enforcement on the other hand almost exclusively uses hollow point bullets. Why? because the tend to maim instead of outright kill, so they can take your rear end to the hospital and you might survive (they also tend to not overpenetrate and hit bystanders) Recoome posted:Nice to know the deployment of chemical agents on unarmed civilians is OK in your book 100% yes, completely okay, what the gently caress is wrong with you? XMNN posted:for further evidence that small charges of magnesium and perchlorate designed to produce a bright light and a loud bang can mutilate hands, why not visit your local hospital on or about your culturally appropriate date for getting really drunk and setting off shitloads of fireworks You idiots with the flashbang talk have no idea what you're talking about. Can a flash/conc cause that sort of damage? Potentially yes, but it requires very specific circumstances and it's extremely unlikely. Very small blasts that are normally not dangerous can be extremely damaging if the pressure wave is contained. This is why firecrackers blow fingers off when in a clenched fist but realistically would only cause severe burns/flesh wound in an open hand. The sort of damage evidenced in that photograph would be consistent with the worst case scenario of the grenade being pinned between the woman's arm and torso, which is possible but how does that even happen? With any sort of open space the blast from those devices is too small to cause any significant sort of blast wounds, which is why examples of wounds from them is usually bad burns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Trying to run with "lol it's a war crime" in regards to riot control stuff is exceptionally loving stupid and misses that the purposes of the geneva conventions is greater in scope then "this is so horrible it can't even be used in war". Case in point: the use of hollow point bullets is banned under the geneva conventions. Why? Because they tend to maim rather than kill outright, which on the battlefield can lead unnecessarily long and agonizing deaths. Law enforcement on the other hand almost exclusively uses hollow point bullets. Why? because the tend to maim instead of outright kill, so they can take your rear end to the hospital and you might survive (they also tend to not overpenetrate and hit bystanders) Care to provide a link to this "police are trained to shoot to wound" theory you have?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Care to provide a link to this "police are trained to shoot to wound" theory you have? They're not and that's not what I said
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:They're not and that's not what I said Oh, so they are being told to shoot to kill and are simply being handed bullets that hamstring them by being more likely to simply maim? Like there is a conspiracy to trick them? By undercutting their training?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:100% yes, completely okay, what the gently caress is wrong with you? Hahaha yes sorry gassing civilians is a cool and good thing, and only normal and not-unhinged people think that
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Oh, so they are being told to shoot to kill and are simply being handed bullets that hamstring them by being more likely to simply maim? Like there is a conspiracy to trick them? By undercutting their training? How about I just cede your stunning lack of understanding right now so we can skip the page of dumb non-sequiturs about police procedure and get to the point: are you actually suggesting hollow points aren't banned because of their overly injurious nature? Edit: also are you claiming the same Geneva convention you're trying to use as an argument doesn't explicitly states that tear gas is perfectly fine for police use? Edit 2: I'm also going to guess you don't understand that tear gas can be made in much higher concentrations that is used in riot control. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Nov 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
"This piece of legislation/agreement says/doesn't say that X is good/bad so therefore I am fine with shooting/stomping/gassing protesters with rubber bullets/chemical agents/grenades/jackboots"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Recoome posted:"This piece of legislation/agreement says/doesn't say that X is good/bad so therefore I am fine with shooting/stomping/gassing protesters with rubber bullets/chemical agents/grenades/jackboots" "This is bad because this legislation says it is, unless of course someone points out to me that that isn't what the legislation says in which case only fascists base their case for morality on legislation"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Hahaha yes sorry gassing civilians is a cool and good thing, and only normal and not-unhinged people think that Well it's what everyone was calling for during the militia occupation, if not outright calling for their murder. People here are giant hypocrites it turns out!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:only fascists base their case for morality on legislation i mean 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
I find it telling that the nation's police forces are more willing to use non-lethal and lethal force against unarmed protestors - than they are about actual armed rebels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:only fascists base their case for morality on legislation" I am accusing you of basing your morality off legislation so cool I guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Using tear gas in a war is literally a war crime under the geneva convention. The geneva convention just doesn't ban what you can do to your own citizens. Using hollow points and not advancing prisoners their regular financial stipend are actually war crimes under the GC, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China, since police aren't soldiers and vice versa. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I am accusing you of basing your morality off legislation so cool I guess I wasn't making a morality from legislation arguement I was countering one so cool I guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:I find it telling that the nation's police forces are more willing to use non-lethal and lethal force against unarmed protestors - than they are about actual armed rebels. I wish it was surprising, but you know how it goes with authoritarians. They're at their happiest when they can apply the maximum amount of remotely justifiable force to a target which is not a threat to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I wish it was surprising, but you know how it goes with authoritarians. They're at their happiest when they can apply the maximum amount of remotely justifiable force to a target which is not a threat to them. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Looking at my post I should have used "criminals" instead of "rebels". I apologize for whitewashing the militiamen even more than they already are also notice how easily the bundys got their message out to the media, while the DAPL protesters are still suffering a media blackout
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
https://www.facebook.com/paul.blumekmsp/videos/1115197865202714/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED The injured woman's father going over what happened and how it played out and why. Not the first time I've heard she got shot by rubber bullets a few times as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
botany posted:I know you've been posting your drivel for years now and I'm unlikely to change that distorted version of reality you call your home, but for anyone else reading this: Complaining about legalism is an acknowledgement of the fact that there's a difference between morality and the law, and that the latter is supposed to encode the former. So when there's a conflict between morality and the law, it's supremely idiotic to accuse those on the side of morality of not having a legal argument for their position. That's entirely the point, you moron. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:On the contrary, law and morality are orthogonal. The proper role of law is to define the relationship between citizens and the state/society, not to encode morality. Most people would agree that adultery is immoral, but far fewer think it should be illegal. Not everything immoral is illegal, and not every lawful action is moral. Complaining that the law does not prohibit someone from doing something you find morally objectionable is like complaining that you've been working out and eating right, but your car still doesn't go any faster. https://www.quora.com/Is-there-anything-legal-but-immoral
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:On the contrary, law and morality are orthogonal. The proper role of law is to define the relationship between citizens and the state/society, not to encode morality. Most people would agree that adultery is immoral, but far fewer think it should be illegal. Not everything immoral is illegal, and not every lawful action is moral. Complaining that the law does not prohibit someone from doing something you find morally objectionable is like complaining that you've been working out and eating right, but your car still doesn't go any faster. What? Of course a major purpose of the law is to encode morality and to influence people's ethical beliefs. I always get annoyed when progressives whine about conservative Christians 'legislating morality' when they really are complaining about conservative Christians legislating the wrong morality, in their opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
 Source - http://homebrave.com/home-of-the-brave//standing-rock-part-one
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 05:30
|
|