|
How are u posted:Reap what you sow you racist loving cops. Nice victim blaming, man.
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
How are u posted:Never said anything about supporting looting, but I can't help but smile when I see rocks thrown at cops. It's probably not very productive but holy poo poo must it be cathartic. It's not very nice to support violence against anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it is not exactly a mystery that the bulk of your posts in a thread about police brutality focus on the destruction of a convenience store Violence and destruction are bad. Agree or disagree? Popular Thug Drink posted:please stop quoting me
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i'm more concerned with the lives and bodily integrity of american citizens than i am with the balance sheet at the wawa, agree or disagree? Why black citizens, specifically?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But you're not upset about multiple things. You are upset about one thing, the one thing you choose to post about. You're upset about that poster. Why aren't you upset about police brutality?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Riots are bad. Violent protests are less legitimate than nonviolent protests. It is good that the police and national guard are going to restore order in Baltimore.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Radbot posted:In what way are they less legitimate? Innocent people get hurt during violent protests. That's what I mean. Also want to clarify that there is a distinction between less legitimate and illegitimate. pacmania90 fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Yes, and who is hurting the citizens again? In this scenario, it is the violent protestors.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It looks like more people are being hurt by the police, actually. This is something that the protesters are in fact protesting about. The police don't care if a protester is violent either, such as when they beat up a Baltimore Sun journalist on camera. The police, generally, are very violent because they know that the laws of the state are designed to protect the police from legal repercussions for their crimes. Do you have any examples of protestors getting hurt by the police?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
How do you arrest a small group of violent protestors within a larger group of peaceful protestors? Genuinely curious.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
that article posted:Police had broadcast a message that said "something like, 'This is no longer a legal assembly. This is no longer a peaceful protest,'" and warned people in the area they would be detained, Woods said. Do the police actually get to decide that, or are they just bullshitting? There isn't a curfew in place yet, as I understand it. I guess there is the problem of deciding what is and isn't a peaceful protest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
Skipping ahead several steps in my thinking, but it seems like the big issue is people not respecting the authority of police; not to say that they necessarily deserve it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I was asking about the civil rights movement. Do you make a distinction between "civil rights protestors were looters" and "civil rights protestors were branded as looters"?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
axeil posted:Why does it even matter if people are looting? It doesn't make the "hey the police are loving murdering us" argument any less correct. Do you view looting as a form of protest, or do you see it as incidental to the protests?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I'm fine if the argument is that white people loot so we should give black people equal opportunity to do so. I don't think anyone here is calling the looting a good thing. Could you show some evidence for that?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The entirety of the past few pages and all of Popular Thug's posts which boil down to "Calling looting bad somehow makes bad police look less bad" Quote an actual post saying that looting is good. Don't paraphrase it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Although the looters are ultimately responsible for their crimes, I think the police are partially responsible for creating the conditions that gave rise to the protests in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I think it's sad that white posters are cheering on black people looting on some masturbatory anarchist fantasies. One person is cheering on the looting and they're only doing it to piss you off. edit: There's been some pictures of people stealing toilet paper. Who loving steals toilet paper unless they're in a really bad spot? Are they really worth attacking? pacmania90 fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
OmanyteJackson posted:So like what do we do about this... Vote for Democrats in elections.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Parody Threads posted:Honestly the best thing would be to call people out on their stupid attention to the looting as opposed to the police abuse IRL. What does this actually accomplish, and why is it the best thing?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
OmanyteJackson posted:Ha. Good one. Vote... for Republicans???
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:oh good, as if debating the ethics of burning down a cvs wasn't dumb enough now we've got reddit internet detectiving people just to finally put a pin in PurseGate 2015 Are you defending the City Paper?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i'm certainly not siding with reddit, the wonderful people who in in the midst of emotionally charged breaking events brought us excellent exposes on the real identities of the boston marathon bombers as well as the hidden power behind games journalism (feminists) I don't think it's a matter of "siding" with Reddit or not. The woman in the photographs wrote a post defending herself and posted it on Reddit. I don't think that means she's necessarily a Redditor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:im sorry if any redditors are offended that i think your community is garbage. please forgive me (don't mail pictures of dead cats to my parents) http://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/ Better tell those redditors that they're garbage, too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:So here is an honest question. Is there any way these issues could be dealt with that don't involve rioting that would be just as effective or more effective than rioting? Voting for someone who would enact change is probably the best way to do it, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Considering how little control people have over who runs for local office, this seems like a shoddy plan. Then run for local office yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Don't like the system? Then invest months of your time and thousands of dollars campaigning and fundraising against established, well-connected candidates for the chance of being able to enact some piddling change in your local jursidiction! If you're not willing to put forth the bare minimum of effort, I don't see how you're entitled to any kind of opinion about how things are managed. So what should we do, instead?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The fact that store owners can't shoot shoplifts who have been banned from the store if they trespass by entering the store again is a good thing. But that's wrong. Shoplifters have no special legal protections.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And yet shop owners can't shoot them for walking in the door even if they're trespassing because they're banned. Even if they're 100% that dude is going to steal some M&Ms again. I agree completely. What does your example have to do with the case in Nevada, though?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:People are arguing that if a shop owner said "well, his arm looked like a gun" before shooting the unarmed person criminally trespassing then the kill is completely justified and shouldn't be second guessed. It was second guessed though. That's why the case went to trial. We know now that the squatters were unarmed, but that's only with the benefit of hindsight. You can't hold Burgarello accountable for being wrong in his judgement of the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You can certainly hold him accountable for initiating a confrontation in which one person died and another was seriously wounded. He was perfectly within his rights to initiate the confrontation, regardless of the ultimate outcome. Additionally, the squatters escalated the situation, so they're also responsible for getting shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The squatters didn't escalate anything. They were prone and unarmed. Bursting in on sleeping people when it's too dark for him to tell a weapon from a flashlight and firing, and it's the unarmed sleepers who escalated things to violence somehow? The squatters did escalate the situation. The male squatter brandished something that might as well have been a gun at Burgarello.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This goes back to "you're not reasonably acting in self-defense if you instigate a confrontation when it's too dark to make out a weapon". You could argue that the squatters were actually the ones who instigated the confrontation in the first place by tresspassing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect Burgarello to solve homelessness in America before he is permitted to set foot in his own home.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:How did the squatters escalate the situation?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Do you know what the word escalation means? If they had pointed a gun at Burgarello, it would have been an escalation of the situation. A flashlight is the same thing as a gun when you're working with as much information as was available to him at the time of the incident.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That wasn't his home. It was an neglected building he owned. These people were not home invaders, they weren't violent, they didn't pose any threat to anyone. You're basing your argument on a bunch of unproven assertions. I think that's why you're coming to a different conclusion from me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Which assertion was unproven? That they weren't violent, that the posed no threat, and that Burgarello woke them up by "bursting in on them" ElCondemn posted:So if I'm understanding correctly, in the absence of information always assume the worst? Why even bother confirming a presence at that point, just shoot into the darkness any time you're spooked if that's how were playing it. There could be armed criminals with rifles trained on you in every shadow. If the squatters had pointed an actual gun at Burgarello, would you consider that to be escalation?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Woozy posted:"Property", not home. A home is a place you actually live and which you belong to as much as it belongs to you. There's nothing sacred about being the proud owner of a vacant and dilapidated duplex so there's no reason to allow that this idiot was "standing his ground" or whatever. The squatters arguably have more right to call it a home than the failed rentier who evicted them at gunpoint--they at least bothered to use it, albeit as a toilet. I feel that whether or not the property was "home" or not is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:Maybe that should mean that that's insufficient information on which to base a decision to kill someone. The squatters had plenty of opportunity to provide more information, though. At least according to Burgarello's version of events.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 04:24
|
|