|
TheQat posted:http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/07/us-usa-police-wisconsin-lawmaker-idUSKBN0M30MR20150307 The president showing up to a Selma memorial but only begrudgingly acknowledging police violence protests is the most American thing I can imagine. Anyone who attends the Selma memorial but doesn't attend protests about current racist violence should be ashamed of themselves.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Is the concept of structural racism that pervades a group regardless of an individual member's specific racial makeup that hard to understand? Also this has been known and addressed at least 25 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGREnfgojkk quote:But don't let it be a black and a white one "But some of the cops were black too" is a facile red herring from people desperate to keep from talking about race.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:How should the police respond, other than force, if a prisoner decides not to return to his cell or refuses to surrender his hands for cuffing? Just wait until he feels like complying? How should a person respond if someone decides to sexually assault their friend?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:One of these things is not like the other. I am making fun of people who complain about withdrawal symptoms when they get thrown in jail. Would you make fun of a person who went into diabetic shock if the police didn't treat them as well?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:If they got diabetes because of an unquenching hunger for sweets, after the doctor told them that eating sweets would be a dumb idea because they're prone to diabetes, then yes, I would. Cool so you just derive pleasure from people suffering and dying because, in your mind, they deserved it for making bad choices. How about AIDS victims who had unprotected sex? Actually, you know what, I'm just going to leave this alone as you're either failing to conceptualize this incident as involving a real person who has feelings and a family just like you, or you're a sadist. Or you're just trolling. Either way the point of my example was that it's not, in fact funny when a group of people deny someone care and it leads to suffering and death, but any of the above reasons would mean it's not worth engaging you on.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Article about Raynette Turner: Can we just accept "criminals" and "thugs" as dysphemisms for black people at this point? Will the O.E.D. accept that first guy's post if as an example I submit it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So the narrative seems to be in the large "so long as the person was a criminal or did something illegal they deserve to die" now, every time something like this happens. Have I been blind and this many people have always summary execution in the street was acceptable, or is how often I'm seeing it now indicative of it being a growing sentiment? No, it's been a thing forever. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz. Texas actually allows you to use deadly force to recover stolen property, as seen in this case: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php , where a guy shot a prostitute to death over $150 and got acquitted. quote:Gilbert's defense team conceded the shooting did occur but said the intent wasn't to kill. Gilbert's actions were justified, they argued, because he was trying to retrieve stolen property: the $150 he paid Frago. It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said. And you can go back to public support for lynchings, hanging horse thieves, etc. Though Radish is right in that these incidents are becoming more visible.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Prostitute case is appalling but probably due to lack of victim sympathy. It sucks but if juries don't care about the victim they are more likely to aquit. If he had shot a cleaning lady over $150 he probably would have been convicted. Doesn't make it right but juries can be assholes. Oh for sure the jury had less sympathy for her because of her job. In fact if she had been a cleaning lady he may have been less inclined to shoot her. And while that's an explanation, it's not a justification; that the law exists and this guy was allowed to go free is enough evidence that some people are ok with killing people just because they break laws. That she was a prostitute is just a double burden on her: the crime of alleged theft, and the crime of being a prostitute. Though of course there are a lot of other issues at play re: the victim.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Right. But I honestly think it has less to do with texas's Wild West penal code bullshit and more to do with #hookerlivesdontmatter. Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. The Texas wild west penal code is going to end up disproportionally putting "unsympathetic" people at risk though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
Cole posted:The thousands of dollars in damages might be a reason. So exactly how much property outvalues a human life? If he was in a store at night relentlessly snapping q-tips would that be enough in losses to end his life to prevent, or...?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Once again. He was not shot for smashing cars. He was shot for his alleged behavior once law enforcement arrived. I wasn't trying to say that, I was just responding to Cole's argument about damage to property.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Cole posted:If you find where I said it was justified to shoot someone over thousands in damage, I will post a banme. Are you saying that lethal force is not justified to prevent damage to property? Like is that your position or is it something else? Cause if so, I agree. edit: and just to be clear I'm not saying that this is what happened in this case, I'm speaking in the realm of policy and legislation here.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Cole posted:Lethal force isn't justified when a guy is damaging property. But standing by watching a guy damage someone's property isn't right either. Ok, cool, thanks. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You as a civilian have a duty to retreat from a kid waving a gun around in the park, the cops have a duty to confront that person. It's not remotely the same situation. They don't have a duty to roll up on a kid and put bullets in him before asking a question or making a demand he could comply with. Heck, they even could have used the loudspeakers in their car.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Does anyone think that what the officer who shot Rice did should carry no legal penalty?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
criminal, but also civil
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:No, the law does not codify morality. Laws exist to manage the function of society, the relationship of citizens to the state and each other, and to protect our natural rights. The separation of church and state is an explicit denial of the idea that we should legislate morality. When California passed Prop 8, most people were disgusted, and rightly understood that using the law to enforce moral behavior rather prohibiting harmful behavior was wrong. I'm sure most of us think adultery is immoral, but I think most of us can also understand why it shouldn't be illegal. Being a citizen in a representative democracy means that you don't get to cross your arms and insist that the lawyers and government officials find a way to make the law comport with your feelings of right and wrong without wrestling with the consequences and full effects of what you propose. If you can't find a way to enact your beliefs without criminalizing conduct that should be legal, maybe you should reconsider whether or not your beliefs should be law that applies to all citizens. What are "natural rights"? And what behavior did he do that you think should remain lawful? Shooting people that hold things that look like guns in public?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Natural rights have been a fairly important concept in discussions of law and government for a while now. Sorry, I mean, what do you think our natural rights are? And if I walk into a Chipotle and see these guys, I should be able to shoot them, right?  edit: what if they're just holding steak knives? Sharkie fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Oct 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Life, liberty, property, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, self-defense, personal security, due process, etc. The usual stuff. Because I believed them to be a Dead Reckoning posted:imminent, deadly threat. So I should be able to shoot them, right? Dead Reckoning posted:A person simply having a gun isn't an imminent danger. A person moving to draw a gun or raise a rifle is. If either of those two moved to shoulder their rifle, you'd have a much stronger case for killing them in self-defense. The rifle on the right is "drawn." And his finger is a centimeter away from the trigger.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Going by the picture and context, your belief that two open carry dorks represented an imminent threat would not be reasonable. Why not? He's walking around a chipotle, holding a rifle, ready to shoot people. What if he flinches or makes an angry face at me or moves the gun slightly? Should I have to wait until he's already attacked in order to defend myself?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If a prisoner refuses to get on the ground, or allow themselves to be handcuffed, or return to their cell after being told, sheriffs are going to have to use force to make them comply. This is inherently an escalation, but it is necessary for their duties, because we don't live in a world where everyone can be reasoned into following lawful instructions, nor is it the job of the police to allow people to follow the law when they're good and ready. It would have been awesome if Tamir Rice had had any of these opportunities, unfortunately he was shot before he had the opportunity to comply with any lawful instructions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:He wasn't killed for failing to follow instructions, he was killed because the cop thought he was pulling a gun on him (so he says.) Putting aside for a moment the fact that the video doesn't seem to show this, if someone is holding an unholstered handgun, or if they move their hand towards their holstered handgun, then I should be able to shoot them, right? edit: This kid looks like he's pulling a gun, so I should be able to shoot him, right?  This guy looks like he's trying to pull a gun, so same thing, I should be able to shoot him.  And based on your statements I shouldn't face criminal charges for either. And of course rifles are exempt from this...if Tamir Rice was carrying a toy rifle, by your own statement, that wouldn't, or shouldn't, be cause for someone to fear for their life. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 07:12
|
|