|
Dead Reckoning posted: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. Nice work justifying extreme police brutality. Just because it's legal doesn't make it good, friend,
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
The sooner y'all realize that Dead Reckoning and jarmak are either cops, directly related to cops, or just cop fetishists specifically, the sooner y'all will realize what position they're arguing from. It never fails: the cops can do NO WRONG in their eyes. None.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
LiterallyTheWurst posted:The IED factory can be found at Tipi #7, just past the Dress Barn and opposite the Kroll's Kitchen. ND journalists are notorious for not rocking the boat, so I expect this IED claim will be published and taken at face value by most ND residents. Dalrymple is such a loving putz. Seriously, what has he done for the state aside from reduce restrictions on oil companies? Even his name is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:The sooner y'all realize that Dead Reckoning and jarmak are either cops, directly related to cops, or just cop fetishists specifically, the sooner y'all will realize what position they're arguing from. Being directly related to cops is no excuse. Both my parents are/were cops, a close friend is a cop, I still call cops on their bullshit and numerous problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Dalrymple is a huge piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
You guys realize that unless you want to count out all less-lethal options, CS isn't usefully distinguishable right? Just giving me your word that getting hit with a less-lethal chemical agent is morally worse than whatever other less-lethal thing you'd prefer doesn't give me a reason to take you seriously. The CWC bans CS use against uniformed militaries (but not for use by soldiers or cops against civilians) specifically because in the fog of war it may be mistaken for the deployment of lethal nerve gas, thus inviting an escalated response. I doubt the protestors have some VX sitting around waiting to be used if they mistake CS for something deadly so that danger doesn't exist here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:33
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Honestly though none of this is going to matter in a month or two. Construction is going ahead on the water crossing. The time to stop it would've been back in 2005 by ruling better in Kelo v. New London before Energy Partners eminent domained ~500 lots of land for this project. But since the liberal justices on the court almost unanimously decided that the government must know best, we got the ruling that we got. That, and the reservation's leadership actually returning the Corps calls more than once in a blue moon for two years. It's over and it's been over for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You guys realize that unless you want to count out all less-lethal options, CS isn't usefully distinguishable right? Just giving me your word that getting hit with a less-lethal chemical agent is morally worse than whatever other less-lethal thing you'd prefer doesn't give me a reason to take you seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:You guys realize that unless you want to count out all less-lethal options, CS isn't usefully distinguishable right? Just giving me your word that getting hit with a less-lethal chemical agent is morally worse than whatever other less-lethal thing you'd prefer doesn't give me a reason to take you seriously. The CWC bans CS use against uniformed militaries (but not for use by soldiers or cops against civilians) specifically because in the fog of war it may be mistaken for the deployment of lethal nerve gas, thus inviting an escalated response. I doubt the protestors have some VX sitting around waiting to be used if they mistake CS for something deadly so that danger doesn't exist here. I am still glad that you are perfectly okay with gassing civilians
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I am still glad that you are perfectly okay with gassing civilians If the cops can't let the protesters through, what is the alternative to what they're doing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If the cops can't let the protesters through, what is the alternative to what they're doing? Its gotta be "always let the protesters win and do whatever they want without resistance". I feel for the girl missing big chunks of her arm but they are in the "stupid" section of the venn diagram between noble peaceful protest and effective armed revolt. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
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. "Law encodes morality" doesn't mean "everything immoral must be illegal", since "this should be illegal" and "this is immoral but shouldn't be illegal" are both moral judgments. The fact that we don't make adultery illegal encodes our collective feeling that adultery is not bad enough to send somebody to jail for. Of course we still think it's largely immoral, which is why it's legally relevant in divorce proceedings and character assessments during witness questioning etc. The relationship between the citizenry and the state is defined by a hell of a lot more than just laws, though of course those are part of it as well since we have moral stances on what being a citizen/state entails.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Its gotta be "always let the protesters win and do whatever they want without resistance". A lot of people mistaking being passionate and committed for being in the right ITT, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Here's an easy one for you to parse: if we assume that police were justified in the use of less-lethal weaponry against protestors, how do you justify the lack of any significant number of arrests? Remember, this is a bunch of people in the middle of nowhere, so they aren't going to run six blocks then suddenly be normal pedestrians. Further, if propane tank based IEDS are in use as claimed by the local Sherrif's spokeswoman, why is the BATFE not crawling down their necks? Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Here's an easy one for you to parse: if we assume that police were justified in the use of less-lethal weaponry against protestors, how do you justify the lack of any significant number of arrests? Remember, this is a bunch of people in the middle of nowhere, so they aren't going to run six blocks then suddenly be normal pedestrians. Well. There have actually been quite a few arrests at various times. TLDR of the article - at least 141 protesters arrested in an action at the end of October. This Huffpo article from mid november cites about 40 people arrested in another incident. I'm sure there are more than that quick search turned up. So IDK what you'd consider a significant number of arrests, but there have been arrests. But that aside, there are at least a couple of things to keep in mind I think. 1) Until they tresspass / wreck things / assault the police line the protesters aren't legally speaking doing anything wrong. 2) It's a bunch of people in the middle of nowhere. If you arrest them you have to take them somewhere, then pay to hold them, pay to feed them, pay to process them, etc. If you TRY to arrest them you risk turning a clash into a battle. It's probably better from a law enforcement POV, where possible, to just keep them off the line until they go back to camp. Liquid Communism posted:Further, if propane tank based IEDS are in use as claimed by the local Sherrif's spokeswoman, why is the BATFE not crawling down their necks? This article I linked earlier mentions the BATF is out there investigating so idk, apparantly they are?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:A lot of people mistaking being passionate and committed for being in the right ITT, IMO. More like some kind of neo-noble savage racism. "They're indians fighting THE MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
silence_kit posted: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. botany posted:"Law encodes morality" doesn't mean "everything immoral must be illegal", since "this should be illegal" and "this is immoral but shouldn't be illegal" are both moral judgments. The fact that we don't make adultery illegal encodes our collective feeling that adultery is not bad enough to send somebody to jail for. Of course we still think it's largely immoral, which is why it's legally relevant in divorce proceedings and character assessments during witness questioning etc. The relationship between the citizenry and the state is defined by a hell of a lot more than just laws, though of course those are part of it as well since we have moral stances on what being a citizen/state entails. Jarmak posted: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)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
For one thing, hollowpoints will kill the gently caress out of you and are good for home defence because they don't pierce 3 walls as easily as full metal jacket and go into your sleeping daughter. Sorry for a TFR derail but i didnt notice that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You can't have it both ways. If you are defining morality as any preference for one policy or course of action over another, rather than judgements based on concepts moral good and bad like most people use the word, then you are redefining it beyond all usefulness. Unless you are saying that insistence of native peoples' right to their land has the same moral value as a local noise ordinance. yeah no thats nonsense
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's kind of my point, really. I'm not denying that people have tried to use the law to push a moral agenda in the past, I'm saying that is a bad thing when people do, whether they are conservative Christians or hardcore leftists. A major purpose of the law has always been to push a moral agenda though, to tell people how to live their lives and to influence people's perception of right and wrong. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That's kind of my point, really. I'm not denying that people have tried to use the law to push a moral agenda in the past, I'm saying that is a bad thing when people do, whether they are conservative Christians or hardcore leftists. Laws pushing morality can be good and they can be bad. Let's not pretend that they're always bad. Anti-miscegenation laws and public accommodation laws are both laws that push morality. The former is clearly bad, the latter is clearly good. On the more specific topic of native peoples' rights to their land, it's hard to fall back on "well the law says..." because in this case, the law is broken and also strained by the context that surrounds it (conquest, residential schools, crushing poverty, urban relocation, etc...). The law has historically been structured to wipe out what remains of the indigenous population, whether that is through direct violence or the weight cultural indoctrination. The intent and effect of the legal structure has historically been to reduce native peoples to a historical curiosity. Until this changes, you can't use the legal structure to defend actions taken against native people. The legal structure is designed to oppress these communities, and they're justified in resisting oppression.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Never thought I'd see people having to explain that the law is not inherently moral in TYOOL 2016, but some people are just that dense. Laws are written, passed, and enforced by people, who have their own agendas. Of course their laws reflect that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I am still glad that you are perfectly okay with gassing civilians DeusExMachinima posted:Just giving me your word that getting hit with a less-lethal chemical agent is morally worse than whatever other less-lethal thing you'd prefer doesn't give me a reason to take you seriously. Anyway if the protestors are moving onto someone else's private property, what should the cops do, in your estimation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Anyway if the protestors are moving onto someone else's private property, what should the cops do, in your estimation? Umm so you are saying that if we can't gas the protesters then we can't do anything about them???
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
OK, so it sounds like you're not opposed to less-lethal force as a principle. I'm asking why, if you're in a situation where that level of force is justifiable in the first place, should less-lethal chemical be considered immoral compared less-lethal electricity/blunt force/LRAD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Anyway if the protestors are moving onto someone else's private property, what should the cops do, in your estimation? Deescalate, initiate dialogue
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
botany posted:Deescalate, initiate dialogue Basically this I'm pretty against using disproportionate force against unarmed non-violent protesters to begin with, also it's suggested that CS gas has long-term side effects so I guess it's not as benign as some people make it out to be. if you ask me whether I'm against in on principle, I'd have to ask whether you need to be shooting rubber bullets/grenades/gas/water cannon in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Basically this There has been a lot of documented violence by protesters, tho..
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Alright that's a little more understandable than "ALL GAS IS A WAR CRIME" and I agree that some of the poo poo cops have done, particularly with rubber bullets, is over the line and is part of a larger (bad) trend. But short of deciding all property is theft and going full communism now, there's no getting around the fact that the protestors will, given the chance, try to peaceably interfere with construction by sitting on equipment, etc. and a minority will actively try to damage poo poo. You can and should try to talk them down but if they eventually decide the answer is "no" and they're going to do what they've gotta do, there's going to be conflict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:There has been a lot of documented violence by protesters, tho.. Show me a documented source with video or pictorial evidence that isn't "police say." I'll wait.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Show me a documented source with video or pictorial evidence that isn't "police say." I'll wait. I noticed that police now claim they found a pierced propane canister (which, as anybody who's familiar with propane knows, means that it couldn't have exploded). But why do they keep claiming that they found rocks and saying they're commonly used in molotovs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Naw he's right there is plenty of documentation of the protestors engaging in violence... It's super easy to find it, just look on stormfront, breitbart, bearingarms.com (this one's good, they go full-out TFR on what kind of tear gas launchers the police used and ignoring the fact that all witnesses say it was a thrown object.) I don't know what kind of communist drugs you're on but I know if I see glass jars, propane canisters and motherfucking rocks at a campsite, I know there's something fishy going on. Why else would those commonly found camping supplies and rocks be there, at a site where people commonly camp, in the wild, where there are rocks in the ground.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
the aclu has weighed in
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
umm excuse me but if we aren't able to use disproportionate force on unarmed protesters, we might as well just let them walk all over us 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Think about what you say before you say it. I really wonder what the reaction would be if police responded to protests entirely in kind, as in throwing rocks and mollys back at people (not saying the water protectors did this). Getting poo poo on by CS or LRAD is less likely to kill you than blunt trauma or fire.Avenging_Mikon posted:Show me a documented source with video or pictorial evidence that isn't "police say." I'll wait. Are we forgetting that the vehicles the water protectors tried to move were burned by some of their number?* It's pretty weird to see pro-cop pieces can't rush to mention that fact fast enough, and I almost never see the origin of these burnt vehicles mentioned in anti-pipeline articles. Confirmation bias in action I guess. *This should not be taken as an endorsement for the cops punishing everybody for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Think about what you say before you say it. I really wonder what the reaction would be if police responded to protests entirely in kind, as in throwing rocks and mollys back at people (not saying the water protectors did this). Getting poo poo on by CS or LRAD is less likely to kill you than blunt trauma or fire. Yep, those are clearly the only two options
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
I approached that bridge at night, about a month back. My people stayed back - Jacob, a 13 year old Lakota friend, stayed back and filmed using my camera. I went with my flashlight on my own face, and with sage in the other hand. I walked until the megaphone addressed me. "Turn around, go around the barricade, and head south on the bridge or we will use less lethal force." I shouted to Parler, asking to speak with the CO. They repeated the messaged, cutting me off as I was speaking. I repeated myself again, and this time they said "If you do not /stop talking/, turn around...." At that point, I turned around and walked away - there was no strategic advantage to getting shot there. The Oglala Women poked holes in Custer's ears, because he would not listen. I call that bridge 'The Turret', on account of the fact that it's a gun that won't parler. Today, we built another makeshift bridge to turtle hill. It's been peaceful and calm. Camp's as big as I've seen it. I think I've been here 3 months now. We're fasting, at Wounded Knee Kitchen. Jane Fonda's somewhere nearby serving a feast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
^^^ Don't mean to be rude but you're referring to parley, right? "parler" is the french form of the word so I assume you're from up north eh?botany posted:I don't know what kind of communist drugs you're on but I know if I see glass jars, propane canisters and motherfucking rocks at a campsite, I know there's something fishy going on. Why else would those commonly found camping supplies and rocks be there, at a site where people commonly camp, in the wild, where there are rocks in the ground. Also this link explains why they collected rocks as evidence - someone wrote on them. http://www.ksfy.com/content/news/Authorities-investigating-explosion-by-DAPL-protesters-in-North-Dakota-402527026.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Think about what you say before you say it. I really wonder what the reaction would be if police responded to protests entirely in kind, as in throwing rocks and mollys back at people (not saying the water protectors did this). Getting poo poo on by CS or LRAD is less likely to kill you than blunt trauma or fire. What if the police just didn't use violence?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Think about what you say before you say it. I really wonder what the reaction would be if police responded to protests entirely in kind, as in throwing rocks and mollys back at people (not saying the water protectors did this). Getting poo poo on by CS or LRAD is less likely to kill you than blunt trauma or fire. Why are you so quick to defend the brutal and disproportionate police actions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2016 01:13
|
|