Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
from the but-for-the-cops'-own-video dept
It's not often a citizen shoots at a cop and lives to tell about it. It's even rarer when they walk away from criminal charges. When it's considered "assault" to be anywhere in the general location of an angry cop, actual shots fired tend to be greeted with severe charges. Acquittals are unicorns in the court system, which largely tends to believe people who shoot at cops always have zero justification for their actions.
One black Minnesota resident has bucked the odds. Jaleel Stallings was arrested after he fired his gun three times at Minneapolis police officers during protests following the murder of George Floyd by Officer Derek Chauvin. Without further facts, one would assume Stallings was part of the problem, a violent protester willing to kill or injure police officers.
But the facts are in. And they are ugly. Stalling, represented by Eric Rice, was able to secure an acquittal thanks to some extremely damning body camera footage recorded by the officers he shot at. The footage was captured by officers in an unmarked van that were driving into areas "enforcing" curfew by shooting rubber bullets at random people on the street from the moving vehicle. That recording can be viewed here.
Deena Winter has an amazing write up of the recording's contents at Minnesota Reformer. It shows cops aggressively targeting people doing nothing more than violating a curfew order. The officers in the unmarked van trolled Lake Street, looking for victims to absorb their violent policing, apparently in retaliation for having to endure ongoing protests triggered by other violent actions by other violent cops.
Here's just a taste of what the recording contains:
Before the white, unmarked cargo van of the Minneapolis Police Department drove down Lake Street, an officer gave Sgt. Andrew Bittell his orders: “Drive down Lake Street. You see a group, call it out. OK great! F*** ’em up, gas ’em, f*** ’em up.”
Bittell turned to his SWAT unit in the van and said, “Alright, we’re rolling down Lake Street. The first f***ers we see, we’re just hammering ’em with 40s,” according to body camera footage described in court documents. He was referring to “less lethal” plastic projectiles sometimes called rubber bullets or 40mm launchers or rounds.
The SWAT team headed down Lake Street, trying to lure Minneapolis residents closer to the van so their shots could do more damage. Sgt. Bittell and his supervisor urged each other on, cheering on successful shots and expressing their disappointment when shots failed to connect. During this shooting spree, the SWAT team opened fire on a gas station owner and his friends who were helping protect the business from looters. They also shot a Vice News reporter who had his hands up and was shouting "Press" as the officers opened fire.
Eventually, the officers worked their (violent) way to Jaleel Stallings, who understandably thought he was being shot by violent non-cops:
About an hour later, three blocks to the west, they opened the sliding door of the van and began firing plastic rounds at people in a parking lot.
They hit Jaleel K. Stallings, 29, a St. Paul truck driver, who says he didn’t know they were cops because they were inside an unmarked white cargo van with the police lights off. He thought they were real bullets. And, he says he was mindful of warnings earlier that day from no less than Gov. Tim Walz that white supremacists were roaming the city looking for trouble.
Just as understandably, Stallings, a military veteran, returned fire with his fully legal pistol. He fired low towards the front of the van and dropped to the ground behind his truck. Almost immediately after firing, Stallings realized police officers were in the van. This realization was driven home by multiple officers swarming the man -- who was prone, face down on the ground with his pistol out of his reach, a move he made voluntarily when he realized the unmarked van was operated by the Minneapolis PD.
None of this mattered to the SWAT team, which greeted mistaken violence with deliberate violence. This was the end result of that violence:
Court documents describe bodycam footage that show he dropped his gun on the ground and lay face down, with his hands to the side above his head, as though he was surrendering.
He didn’t move for 20 seconds as the officers approached.
“You f***ing piece of shit!” Stetson yelled, and began kicking and punching Stallings in the head and neck, according to court documents.
Stallings didn’t move. He was trying to surrender and de-escalate the situation, he said in an interview.
Bittell began kneeing and punching Stallings in the stomach, chest and back. The beating went on for about 30 seconds — with Bittell and Stetson punching and kicking Stallings in the head, neck, stomach, chest and back.
Midway through the beating, Stetson told Stallings to put his arms behind his back, and after handcuffing him, Bittell sat him up and kicked him in the ribs as Stetson continued hitting him in the head.
In summation, from the Minneapolis Star Tribune report:
The beating left Stallings with several injuries, the lawsuit said: a fractured eye socket, bruising, trauma, paranoia and anxiety. He had also been shot in the chest with a marking round, which resulted in labored breathing, the suit said.
This was the other aftermath:
Following the May 30 incident, Stallings was charged with second-degree attempted murder, first-degree assault, second-degree assault and second-degree riot, among other counts.
That's how the state responded to provoked violence triggered by officers' unprovoked violence. Prosecutors offered him a plea deal that would have netted him a 13-year prison term but he fought the charges. Prosecutors kept trying to punish him for reacting to the PD's (unmarked) violent actions but the jury didn't find the cops sympathetic. They likely didn't find them believable either.
Back to Deena Wilson's coverage of this case, which also includes a detailed look at the contradictory testimony (you know… LIES) offered by SWAT team members, who had to do some hasty revisions on their sworn statements once Stallings' lawyer obtained body cam footage.
The complaint said officers “deployed one 40-mm round at Stallings” even though officers fired two rounds before Stallings returned fire.
Stallings “quickly ran away” and was handcuffed “after a struggle,” according to a press release issued by Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, who said Stallings was charged for “shooting at police officers amidst riots and protests” and “firing multiple shots at SWAT officers during riots.”
“None of the officers, nor Stallings, were injured,” the release said, even though Stallings’ bruised, scraped face on his mugshot clearly indicates otherwise, and he was taken to a hospital after his arrest.
[...]
Stetson acknowledged he never told the investigating officers he shot Stallings, or that he called him a “f***ing piece of sh**” and kicked him in the head four times.
“He had just shot at us; we needed to have full control over him before we do any sort of interview,” he testified.
Asked why he continued to beat Stallings even after both his hands were behind his back, Stetson said Stallings wasn’t complying with him.
“Again, emotions were high, I just shot — got shot at. I thought I was going to die.”
The testimony may have contained even more "contradictions" (it's pronounced "LIES") but the Minneapolis PD unanimously decided to stop creating incriminating evidence against itself.
About nine minutes after the shooting, the unit was ordered to turn off its body cameras.
Now, the Minneapolis PD is being sued for rights violations. The filing of this lawsuit [PDF] against these officers immediately followed Stallings' acquittal. If you think anyone covering this is giving you an overwrought depiction of these officers, their actions, and their attitudes, keep in mind these depictions contain direct quotes from police recordings… quotes like these (from Stallings' lawsuit):
After protesters moved away, Sgt. Bittell instructed officers to “wait” and “draw [the protesters] in.” He wanted protesters to come closer to the line of officers so that officers could shoot the protesters with 40mm rounds.
[...]
Officer Stetson fired a 40mm round and struck a distant civilian. Officers Stetson yelled “gotcha” at the civilian that he had struck. Other officers laughed and congratulated Officer Stetson. Officer Dauble gave Officer Stetson a fist bump.
[...]
Lt. Mercil mocked journalists who had been covering the protests. [...] Lt. Mercil expressed encouragement and approval to Officer Osbeck regarding improper use of force toward journalists and others.
[...]
Sgt. Bittell met Unit 1281 officers by their van. Sgt. Bittell told his team about their mission: “We’re rolling down Lake St. The first f***ers we see, we’re just handling them with 40[mm rounds].” Sgt. Bittell asked his team if that was a “good copy.” Unit 1281 officers responded with laughter and enthusiasm.
[...]
A Unit 1281 officer joked about “hunting” civilians that evening.
[...]
The officer complained that civilians were “p*****s” and explained that “[officers] get within thirty feet of [civilians] and they run.” Sgt. Bittell agreed and responded, “Exactly, you got to hit them with the 40[mm rounds].”
Blessed are the peacemakers, said Jesus. These officers aren't getting free pass to the better parts of the Kingdom of Heaven, however. These officers weren't trying to keep the peace. They were out joyriding, attempting to inflict pain in retribution for four nights of protests and looting. These officers willfully forgot what triggered the protests and violence, and decided it was their turn to inflict misery, forgetting that the constant infliction of misery over decades led to the flashpoint that made them (very briefly) feel like the underdogs.
While it's heartening to see Stallings acquitted by a jury of his peers, his lawsuit is far less likely to succeed. Even with all of their lies, the officers will likely be able to justify their actions with claims they feared for their safety -- a fear enhanced by four straight nights of often violent protests. What they may not be able to explain away so easily is their decision to continue beating an unarmed man who threw away his weapon and immediately surrendered to officers -- something captured by a nearby CCTV camera. The arrest may have probable cause backing it but the violence preceding the arrest isn't so easily explained.
And, so far, the officers involved in this rolling shooting gallery have yet to be disciplined by the Minneapolis PD, which means the department implicitly approves of officers using the streets of the city as a shooting gallery, especially if it allows officers to vent a little frustration and anger at the public's unwillingness to ignore yet another murder of an unarmed black man by white police officers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: jaleel stallings, minneapolis, police brutality, police shooting, swat team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Holy Fuck. That video doesn't even seem real.
Like, really, what the fucking fuck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long before someone preemptively lights up a group of police officers and says they “feared for their lives”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It has already happened. And it will keep happening, because much as police would love for people to forget it, police don’t acquire self defense rights with their badges, they have them because all citizens do - and all citizens have the same self defense rights. If a cop can lawfully use force in any given situation, then anyone can in that situation!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plummer_v._State
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lol. From the link you provided.
This was the rallying cry of the group Photography is not a Crime. "Badges don't grant extra rights" they would say, ignoring the countless statues and court cases that give cops extra rights.
Should they have those rights? Or course not. But your suggestion is idiotic and dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Should be:
". . . countless statues and court cases that give cops extra powers.
FTFY
Governments, and their agents, have powers. Individuals have rights. It is a very important distinction that you completely missed, here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Today you learned there are literally a law enforcement officer bill of rights on the books in multiple states. Even without that a LEO has vastly different RIGHTS in the course of being investigated for a crime. They also have additional rights afforded to them regarding off duty work and political participation compared to other government employees.
I get that people don't want the statement "badges grant extra rights" to be true, including myself, but it is. Claiming it's false only serves to ensure no one challenges those rights that definitely exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here the confusion is between rights and privileges, and it is completely intentional. The cops and their unions want people to think these absurd privileges are rights, when they are no such thing.
Rights are things that everyone has simply by virtue of being fully functioning people. Privileges are things that are granted to certain people by those in power.
Much like the difference between rights and powers, the difference between rights and privileges is very important. Without properly understanding these terms and their differences, and applying and using the terms appropriately, we cannot have meaningful discussions of these topics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's perfectly possible to have meaningful discussions on the topic without assuming a distinction between rights and privileges.
Just the attempts to develop such a distinction is a huge body of philosophical work, and while those philosophical schools are the largest in the "western" world, they are the not largest in all parts of the world, nor the only ones available in the west. Even within those schools, there are significant differences in definition and application.
It still remains trivial to have policy conversations between all these groups... in large part because at a practical level, there are no differences between them. People in power "granting Bob the privilege to" looks exactly the same as "Bob having the right to" looks exactly the same as "Bob having the power to." Any opinion on which word should be used is merely your preferred philosophical interpretation, which (while it may be helpful in communicating your thoughts) is not required for discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yeah but
You are not allowed to be afraid of the police. After all what is there to be afraid of? They are the good guys, right? Right??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And they'd be completely justified, IMO. Whether that action is thusly deemed "legal" may be at question, but justified, nonetheless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean these guys were driving around in an unmarked van shooting people. Portland was afraid when cops abducted people in the same process, here someone did fire back and quite frankly since the cops fired first someone could assume they are not acting under the color of law or are simply fake cops.
Shooting at the wrong person (military with PTSD) you might have a van of dead cops before anyone knows what happened.
You should not need an existing court case to tell you it's illegal for cops to shoot random people for no reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/andrew-coffee-iv-found-not-000026621.html
Hopefu lly we’ll see more of these.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Republicans and 2nd Amendment fans now have a new figurehead to say that "Self-defense is not a crime".
They're either ignorant about the bullet they've just shot into their own foot or ruthlessly confident that the system will protect them regardless. They might have a point on the latter, given their track record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, they're ignorant, that's for fucking sure. They'll regret the living shit out of that verdict once some POC start showing up armed in their local Walmart to buy dish soap.
Then they'll use the 'fear for their lives' schtick.
And the cops? They'll just love getting used to POC carrying guns while driving and protesting just like all the white folks.
It's just like everything else with these morons - it needs to affect them personally before they're inclined to give a shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is different from the far right already treating every person of color as a potential threat how, exactly?
Not much difference here either. Cops already wield the "I feared for my life" excuse about as often as they go for their firearms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ "There’s only 3 national groups in the US for news.”
Like how rittenhouse was a neo nazi who shot black people?
Only that I don’t get any international coverage myself in general. I don’t exactly care much about international issues. Especially the majority Europe where I have no ties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Like how rittenhouse was a neo nazi who shot black people?"
There's a picture of Rittenhouse celebrating his exculpation with a bunch of Proud Boys, doing the classic white power hand sign.
And no matter how we slice it, Rittenhouse did obtain himself an AR-15, did travel quite a distance to a trouble spot, and did go in looking for people to shoot who would most certainly be black.
Those are the facts at hand, and at some point you're just going to have to accept that although we can't outright declare him a neo-nazi we can certainly declare him an adherent of white supremacy values based on his actions leading up to the shooting alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He went from his mother‘a town to his father’s. Auto help defend a local car company. And he was generally trying to help supply medical aid. Not shoot people.
He would wind up defending himself against 3 different white men.
That’s what the situation was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And he was generally trying to help supply medical aid. Not shoot people. "
In the US walking into a "riot" zone open carrying an AR-15 means that your choice is made; you will be shooting people. Your very presence makes people fear for their lives.
The first guy Rittenhouse tangled with was bipolar. With firearms involved, one of them was going to die.
The second guy was there with his girlfriend when he saw an agitated punk with a smoking gun running towards them. He tried to defend his girlfriend, died as a result.
The third guy saw rittenhouse shoot the second guy, intervened, and rittenhouse shot him as well.
At some point I think you need to realize that the responses of at least two of these victims was quite valid and merited.
Rittenhouse is, imho, the utterly worst sort of scum - someone who deluded himself into a hero complex, showed up with a firearm, and left two people needlessly dead as a result of his piss-poor judgment...and who has now become the living mascot of the US fascist movement. At best this is stupidity writ so large it breaks Hanlon's razor and become actual malice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If anyone had managed to get the gun away from the most kyle of kyles and actually got the police to respond, or self-defended Him to death, the entire story would be about the brave people who stopped a wanna-be mass shooter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"He went from his mother‘a town to his father’s"
Which wouldn't be such bad optics if there weren't numerous examples of black people being killed despite not having killed anyone, some of whom weren't even armed with actual weapons at the time they were killed. Even if you agree with the legal ruling, the fact that he was allowed to return home after the killings while so many other were not allowed to continue breathing is a problem in terms of gaining support.
All being equal, you might have a point, but given that I can immediately name individuals who were killed because they had a toy in their hands, yet Rittenhouse had actually killed people and he was allowed to return home by the same cops he'd been seen palling around with, is problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why people hate you you scum
Because if there's one thing likely to reduce the distrust of and hatred for police it's them driving around shooting at the public and treating it as a bloody sport.
Every last one of those assholes should have been fired on the spot(at a minimum) after the recordings were made available, the fact that they apparently haven't even been punished at all speaks worlds about just how abhorrent and corrupt the department is and highlights why people might have been a little unhappy with them and US police in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why people hate you you scum
Yeah, and then they should have been charged with a litany of crimes, like assault (possibly with a deadly weapon), battery, reckless endangerment, etc, and maybe even attempted murder.
Remember, these weapons they used are considered less -lethal. They are NOT non-lethal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why people hate you you scum
But they still convicted him of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Most of the laws restricting rights and eligibility for privileges (like professional licenses*) after someone has completed their sentence and been released from prison need to go away. If someone is still considered dangerous, they should still be in prison. If they have been let out of prison, they should (generally) have all their rights restored, including the right to vote and the right to possess effective means of self defense, ie firearms.
There may occasionally be situations where exceptions to this are warranted, but this should be the default baseline.
*Whether professional licenses should exist at all is a separate topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is why people hate you you scum
Bravo!
Exactly. The right to vote should not go away at all though. You should be voting from prison.
As for your firearm:
—thanks for staying at our jail. Here’s your shoes, laces, wallet, watch, long gun, phone, hand gun, shirt, … you weren’t wearing pants when you came in.—
I mean: seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is why people hate you you scum
"Exactly. The right to vote should not go away at all though. You should be voting from prison."
This actually screams out for clarification - because the disenfranchisement of voters in the US is one of the biggest contributors to the democratic deficit.
Where I live prisons take pains to ensure that convicts are involved in the political process and encouraged to vote. The reason, as it was explained to me, is that should an unjust government come to power the very first people to be sent to prison will be those trying to reverse that course.
Disenfranchising convicts is the first step a dishonest government can strip all political power from its adversaries. And in most elections that can be a tie-breaker. Especially so as if, in the US, the prison population is in the millions.
Meanwhile the usual fears of convicts voting - decriminalizing violent or repulsive offenses of various kinds - is never and never has been a threat in the first place, because you'll never see a situation where the vast majority of people will ever find, say, trafficking acceptable. Not even most convicts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is why people hate you you scum
Sounds good to me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is why people hate you you scum
"Sounds good to me!"
Well, yeah, but the party you normally keep arguing for tends to be the one with a solid decades-long record against every last thing you say "sounds good"...and that just keeps confusing me.
I do have some understanding that in the US you get to choose between the bought-and-paid-for sock puppet or the monster, but you seem to persistently pick the ones who don't even pretend to represent what you keep bringing up as your values.
Take voter disenfranchisement, for instance. Republicans in leading positions have as much as outright asserted that the real reason they do it is to make sure inconvenient people can't vote against them. That in itself is an outright condemnation of the democratic process as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then go convince your conservative brethren to join you, Trumpist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, I don’t know all that many. But class anyone who disagrees with you alt right so nothing I can do about your warped perception of existence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
. You’re correct. There’s zero evidence of my involvement in any conservative group. Let alone influence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I did not expect any sign of honest reading comprehension from your demented ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, thanks. I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bringing the PD into disrepute?
Somewhere there's supposed to be disciplinary action taken against police officers who bring themselves and their service into disrepute. Evidently it's not in existence in this city ... oh well, must be one of those comforting myths told in ancient legends of ancient times, in the Golden Age ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bringing the PD into disrepute?
Citizen oversight boards are more or less incapable or lack the power to do fire people or much less do anything in most poor communities.
Even trying to establish one in a poor community gets laughed at 95% of the time since its the rich who make the rules here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad he missed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too bad he missed
Equally, too bad someone wasn’t on overwatch on the bar roof with a longarm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only the Kenosha murders happened mote like this instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What murders? Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because of a corrupt judge that basically gave the jury no choice but to acquit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I suggest you watch the actual trial footage and not the pure lies of MSNBCNN.
They threatened him with deadly force and he defended himself. Period.
None of those “shot with his hands in the air” fake news happened. Even the surviving defendant admitted to being shot while pointing the gun directly at him.
It was clearly a justifiable reaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just tiresome but a bore as well
"fake news happened"
Yes yes, everything you don't like is fake news. Also them kids need to be getting off your lawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not just tiresome but a bore as well
Like I said. Go watch the trial video for the truth. Not what some news station misreports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
CNN and msnbc both claimed he shot a man with his hands up. Trial video confirms false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"MSNBCNN"
I know you think that you're being clever when you refer to the things outside of your admitted Murdoch echo chamber when it comes to gathering news, but you just reveal yourself to be a dickhead who can't deal with the multitude of national and international sources that have nothing to do with the 2 networks you decided to hate.
Even when you occasionally stumble across something true to parrot, the use of language you have tends to announce that you should be ignored anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There’s only 3 national groups in the US for news. (MS)NBC, CNN, and FoxNews.
Local and semi local is just that, local. I have no idea what’s on your tv screen.
OAN is on what, one service? So I don’t count that.
And since CNN and MSNBC tend to parrot each their other the combo name fits. MSNBCNN vs FoxNews.
It’s not necessarily clever. Just works.
As for international sources… I don’t live there. I live here. So I definitely don’t know what you are watching or reading unless it’s one of the two stations I do. NHK, KBS. Neither of which care about US news all that much.
And almost never cover it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There’s only 3 national groups in the US for news. (MS)NBC, CNN, and FoxNews."
Weird, you picked 3 TV stations, yet there's way more outlets than that in the US, both on TV and elsewhere, and they're not even consistent within themselves (Fox local coverage can be very different to its national talking heads, while CNN's international coverage can be very different to domestic coverage). It's almost as if you came up with a silly name to pretend that everyone you disagree with is the same, even though they're objectively not.
Is this one of those situations where you claim that everyone's a secret democrat plant to avoid discussing more than 2 positions?
"It’s not necessarily clever. Just works."
Yeah, it's definitely not clever, but it only "works" in the sense that it announced that you're a partisan player who doesn't care much for facts or nuance. It doesn't work when you deal with people who think like adults who understand nuance
"As for international sources… I don’t live there. I live here"
Yes, which is partially why you're so misinformed in general as you have decided that you don't need other points of view. You can sometimes get a lot out of international news outlets if they decide to break down a specific issue without the standard types of bias and presumption that colours local media. Ditto the other way around, if Fox is telling you something about an international issue, you can usually debunk their spin quite quickly by looking at local news stories to the issue.
"Neither of which care about US news all that much."
So? I can pick international outlets that heavily focus on US issues, especially when they are of international interest. Is your random sampling of 2 Asian networks meant to prove something about the entirety of international coverage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lostcause has declared several times his backwars belief that the less care an outlet has for correcting inaccuracirs, the more reliable it must be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, no, I haven’t. That would make me a firm of supporter of MSNBC and WaPo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you actually said is that that dmeentia makes you a support of Breitbart over WaPo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Demeentia?
Maybe æ, I could see.ia. Î.
But ee? ę even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And who started the deadly force game by having a rifle in his hands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want to talk about "who started it" you should go all the way to the source: the Kenosha cop Rusten Sheskey who shot Jacob Blake, as part of an ongoing pattern of cops using deadly violence, mostly against Blacks, with little or no justification, and also with little or no accountability. You can read about it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It was clearly a justifiable reaction."
What it was is a travesty...but not for any of the reasons currently being debated.
Here's what Reuters has to say about it:
It basically follows that if an american picks up a firearm and walks off looking for someone to shoot, finds such a person and then shoots them the prosecutor will be facing the bizarre issue of more often than not having to prove a negative.
Because no matter what actually happened it's over as soon as the defendant can say they "feared for their life" and make the jury believe that.
Rittenhouse could have walked towards those men screaming "I'm gonna kill ya <N-word> GOOD!!" and still walked away scot free as long as he could successfully make the claim that he was feeling threatened.
The opposite would hold true, of course. The men he killed could have walked away the same way, for the same reason, with the same claim. Although given both statistics and that courtroom in question I'm not positive that a black person would have as good a chance of doing so.
There is no reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse took an AR-15 and walked into a hot zone full of angry black people with the intent to find and kill some "bad guy". And in any other country with proper self-defense law and gun regulations that would have settled it.
The issue here is that in the US it's just legally accepted that if two armed people meet both parties will escalate what would have been an angry exchange of words into gunfire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, and he would do that to white men aiming weapons at him why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Uh, and he would do that to white men aiming weapons at him why?"
For the example i was trying to make; to be more scary. My point being that no matter who starts something US self-defense laws end up with the chilling outcome that when two parties, armed, confront another or one party, armed, is within arms reach of the other, any death will likely be written off as justified - no matter what led up to that confrontation.
Because self-defense laws, and even worse, the castle doctrine, hang the absolute exculpation of murder on the surviving party being able to make a jury believe they feared for their life and nothing else.
Meaning that if you want to kill someone just draw a handgun and approach them. If they react in any way you can interpret as hostile...simply gun them down. They might have been reaching for your weapon or a firearm of their own.
THAT is why this trial is a travesty. Rittenhouse is likely an absolute moron overly enamored of authoritarianism and violent solutions, judging by his background and the events leading up to the shooting. In any other nation he'd have gotten stuck with a rap sheet an arm long, beginning with the idea that in most normal territories of law an excited or upset-looking young man with a rifle running around in public would in itself be considered a rampage killer in the happening because in normal life that shit simply doesn't occur.
This whole farce is just yet another US "only in america" event, complete with a courtroom where the judge appears like they cut him out of a dark comedy show given the antics he pulled.
Now Rittenhouse is an absolute hero to the Proud Boys and the alt-right and whether he was a white supremacist from the start or not no longer matters - because he no longer has the viable option of removing him from his new "friends" without endangering himself. He's become the ultimate useful idiot of the alt-right and ensured the only friends he'll ever be able to obtain will be coming from that circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except nobody on either side is black.
Nobody involved in the case was black.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Important to note: Rittenhouse went to Kenosha during a Black Lives Matter protest, fearing that it would turn into a deadly riot. The only lethal violence that night came from him.
Kyle Rittenhouse killed two people in an act of vigilante violence. If the people he killed were truly breaking the law that night, they should’ve received a trial, not an extrajudicial execution from a teenaged vigilante. And now he gets to be the poster boy for violent right-wing vigilantism—with all the media attention and grifting that implies—while two of his victims get to be dead and the third gets to deal with the aftermath of that shooting for the rest of his life.
And every white ally of Black protesters gets to wonder if their own safety is in peril.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I get it. It’s only good to kill super duper rich people or people that have more than you do right?
Pointing a gun at someone is a deadly threat. If you don’t want to die don’t point a gun at another person. Especially one with a gun.
If you want me to feel bad that psycho right wing nutters got shot for pointing a gun at someone… not going to happen.
The old adage of point gun—get shot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I get it. It’s only good to kill super duper rich people or people that have more than you do right? "
It really isn't good to kill people at all.
"Pointing a gun at someone is a deadly threat. If you don’t want to die don’t point a gun at another person. Especially one with a gun. "
So any armed society is one where every person lives in a mexican standoff?
You do realize that with Rittenhouse toting an AR-15 around anyone could similarly have gunned him down like a dog and claimed - truthfully - that they feared for their life?
I'm pretty sure that whether Rittenhouse was or wasn't a white supremacist or violent vigilante before the shootings is by now academic. With the Proud Boys adopting him as a mascot every friend he'll ever have in life and every circle he'll ever move in will make sure that he's one of them now.
"If you want me to feel bad that psycho right wing nutters got shot for pointing a gun at someone… not going to happen. "
In this case, looking at the background of the two people killed...turns out both of them had a long history of mental illness. Why Rosenbaum was there that day no one knows. Anthony Huber was there with his girlfriend when he saw what looked like a guy with an AR-15 running towards them, tried to protect the people behind him, and died due to misunderstanding a punk kid on an adrenaline high after shooting someone with an armed assailant...eh, I can understand if he thought it was do-or-die time, even if all he had on him was a skateboard to swing.
The third guy was a paramedic on site who just watched rittenhouse gun down a guy who was apparently trying to defend their girlfriend. Again, a bloody misunderstanding, but at least that guy lived.
None of these people were visibly armed.
What this farce tells us is again just that one thing; That you can murder at will in the US as long as you can claim you were afraid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I understand it’s not something you’re used to.
A slung rifle is generally not threatening. Not to us. Nor is one herald at the ‘low and ready’ position.
In both cases firing would be reactionary. Not primary. But the time you lift it into position an assailant already has first chance and more.
Both positions are completely defensive.
This is opposed to the standard state you see in movies or news of police here: the ‘high ready’ position with the barrel pointed forward and down. Or the ‘target ready’ with the barrel straight forward.
Also, AR15cv, this is not an automatic. There’s no spray n pray. This is a manual single fire rifle with self eject-and-load.
And your retelling of the events matches the misreporting of the news. Not the events told by witnesses on both sides during the trial.
In two cases Rittenhouse was walking, not running, when he was threatened. In the third he was trying to run AWAY from the threat.
Do I think he should have been there? Probably not the best judgement.
But he did what he thought was best for his community that evening. And this is the result of that choice.
But again, the protesters weren’t completely innocent either. Arson, vandalism, criminal destruction, theft, … there was reason for protection of property.
The three people he shot were shot because they actually threatened his life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, not to fuckwit conservatives with a boner for the Second Amendment…
…and I thank you for proving my point.
It wasn’t his fucking community. He didn’t fucking live there.
The only violence that resulted in harm to people that night was Kyle Rittenhouse killing two people and wounding a third. If people were breaking the law that night, they deserved to be arrested and tried in a court of law, not gunned down by a teenaged vigilante who had no fucking business being there that night.
It wasn’t his property.
You might be able to get away with some semblance of a self-defense explanation for the first killing. But the other two men were responding to what they likely saw as an active shooter threat. To blame them for their own deaths/injuries because they were likely trying to stop someone they believed was an active shooter from killing more people is so far beyond the pale that I have to wonder if you’re the judge who helped acquit Rittenhouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
His father did.
Yep. I aware of your opinion everyone should just lay down and ignore any threat property and possessions.
He was asked to be there, and he was there for that reason.
Uhhuh. Aure. Then why did nobody say as such in the trial. Not even the prosecutor came up with that for any real justification for pointing a gun at someone.
And the not to us comment: referring to Americans.
SDM is not from the US.
And people like you who have an absolute few of anything bigger than a piece of paper used for defence are a tiny tiny minority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In Wisconsin, if you kill someone with a weapon as a direct result of another crime the charge is automatically felony murder regardless of the circumstances. Since the judge dumped the weapon-charges for Rittenhouse that meant felony murder was off the table which gutted the prosecution's case. That in turn allowed the defense to claim that Rittenhouse only defended himself and the law regarding a valid self-defense hinges entirely on the defendants mental state (ie fear for his life) - which by all evidence was "scared shitless" for Rittenhouse.
The question you should ask yourself is "why did the judge dump the weapon-charges for Rittenhouse" and "how would the case have turned out if he hadn't"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignore it? No. But act like property needs to be protected with far less fervor as one might protect human life? Abso-fucking-lutely. When buildings burn, they can be rebuilt; when a life is taken, it can’t be brought back. (Not that I expect someone who fetishizes property rights like you do to care about that difference…)
I thought you said he was there to be a medic, not to be a “defender of property”.
Well, one of the two men who did respond to Rittenhouse after his first killing was dead, so…that might’ve had something to do with it.
Doesn’t make that justification any less plausible.
I am an American. And if I see someone with an AR-15 outside of a gun club or a firing range—regardless of the context of that sighting—I’m going to assume they’re out to do harm and act accordingly (which, in my case, means “run and/or hide as best I can”). If I see someone walking down the street or walk into a coffeeshop with a goddamn assault rifle—and I don't give a fuck if it’s slung on their shoulders or back—I’m getting to somewhere safe before (and yes I recognize the irony in my saying this) calling the goddamn cops.
Not every American is involved or enamored the culture/fetish of guns. Not every American sees someone with a gun and immediately thinks “he must be a good guy or else he wouldn’t get to have a gun in public”. Some of us see guns for what they are—a tool with the sole purpose of making killing things easier—and try to avoid being near people who have them (including the cops) as much as humanly possible. That you would say all or even most Americans are unafraid of guns is a sign of either ignorance, hubris, or intentional trolling.
You really don’t get why people fear guns, do you.
A gun is a tool that exists for a single purpose. A gun gets that purpose done with frightening speed and destructive accuracy. A gun makes killing easier to the point where it’s point-and-pull, no questions asked.
A gun doesn’t ask you if your kill is morally righteous in the eyes of the law of the land. A gun can’t stop you from killing someone, including yourself. A gun won’t prevent needless death by stopping itself from working in specific contexts.
We have prescription drugs that are more heavily regulated than the sale of guns. We have medical procedures that are more heavily regulated than the sale of guns. Someone who is legally barred from owning a gun (regardless of why) can still buy a gun through legal channels and get away with it if they know when and where to buy said gun.
And you think people who fear guns do so because of their size or the noise they make?
No, we fear guns because of 60 people dying and over 400 people injured by gunshots in Las Vegas. We fear guns because of nine people dying in a church because of one racist asshole. We fear guns because of Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, the Pulse nightclub, the Tree of Life synagogue, Fort Hood (where even the goddamn military couldn’t stop an active shooter from killing 13 people), Aurora, Virginia Tech, and the D.C. sniper killings.
We fear guns because they’re readily available to any whackjob that wants one with next-to-no real oversight in who gets to own them and how many people those guns can kill in a short amount of time. We fear guns because we see politicians actively fight against regulating the sale, ownership, and even the manufacture of tools that exist only to make killing easier. We fear guns because people like you are okay with a country where gun ownership is an inalienable human right and access to medical care is an expensive-as-fuck privilege instead of the other way around.
Keep telling me you’re an American conservative without telling me you’re an American conservative, Lozenge. Every denial you make in that regard is undercut by literally everything else you say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your still the minority in view. And the response wasn’t initially to you, but to a non-us resident.
An no, I’m not a conservative. I’m a morally and socially liberal libertarian who likes guns and government and despises the god and race aspects of conservative politics.
That I’d prefer to to tax the source and not the recipient? Doesn’t make me any more conservative. Frankly, less.
And that I don’t run and cower at the site of a firearm says I have a slightly better outlook for people in general than you apparently do.
Your delusion that eliminating legal gun sales will stop gun violence is just that. Delusional.
I a country this big with this much uncontrolled border where you can illegally enter and exit so easily: criminals will get their guns regardless of laws.
I’d rather be safe than sorry. Or dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like you’re a centrist-leaning conservative, then. Makes me wonder why you ever voted for a racist, sexist, fascism-enabling idiot like Trump.
A gun is a tool with a single (and lethal) purpose. If someone can fire a gun, someone can kill—even by accident. Hence why I try to stay as far away from people with guns as I knowingly and purposefully can while in public: Even the mythic “good guy with a gun” could kill me without meaning to.
Three things.
I never said “eliminating gun sales would stop gun violence” and you can’t show where I did.
I never said “I want to eliminate all legal gun sales” and you can’t show where I did.
And while I hate to do the borrowed opinions thing, The Weekly Sift has a damn good take on how to craft a modern Second Amendment that doesn’t take the Super-Dee-Duper Hyper Ultra Leftist (Turbo Champion Edition [& Knuckles {Featuring Dante from the Devil May Cry Series}]) route of “ban all guns plz” you probably think it would because of the author’s left-leaning biases. (The follow-up to that article is worth checking out, too.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have no problem with logical regulation.
Nobody needs a 30 round magazine. Or 20. Not even in the battlefield. Let alone stalking bears or dear.
And if you didn’t do it in the first 10 shots you have the wrong tool (or plan).
Because 20 rounds from a 9mm in a raging black bear is going to give you a pissed off bear.
And I’ve always supported the ban on civilian ownership of actual automatic weapons.
But the idea of going after an ar-15, an m16, or m4?
Principal hunting rifles along with sporting and defence.
Idiots that want to ban things should go after auto load hand guns.
Look, history!
The short barrel is a weapon designed entirely for killing people.
A 40• or 45 revolver will stop a lion or even a bear. A 20? Not so much.
America has a lot of dangerous wildlife. And a fair amount just outside of those urban population centres that house the majority of the population on a tiny percentage of the land.
Regulation needs of o be conscious of reality.
Out side of the city people hunt. People have wild life. Real, legit reasons for firearms.
There also needs to be a reasonable grace period in disarmament. If, as was exampled, Chicago chose to ban all firearms residents should be afforded time to leave and go elsewhere. Not turn over day one.
Figure those two things out and it’s all good to me.
Let’s skip the whole far right cry of not being over-run by a tyrant government. While I fully believe that is, and was, a prime intent: we’re past that idea in tech today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"A slung rifle is generally not threatening. Not to us. Nor is one herald at the ‘low and ready’ position. "
How about one in the hands of an agitated punk running right at you with the rifle solidly held in both hands right after shots had been heard? With your s.o. right behind you?
"Also, AR15cv, this is not an automatic. There’s no spray n pray. This is a manual single fire rifle with self eject-and-load. "
Tell you what, if at night I see some kid running right at me with a device with the profile of an AR-15 I'm not going to make any assumptions whether the device in question is a functional firearm, or capable of burst or sustained fire. I'll act as if my life is under threat. If cover is too far off I might decide my only shot to live is to do unto him before he does unto me. Quintessentially american. The one and only reason Rittenhouse is alive today is because liberals tend not to bear quite as many guns.
"The three people he shot were shot because they actually threatened his life."
Sure, because running up to a guy clenching a firearm, in a visible state of agitation is somehow not him threatening their lives.
I keep saying this; US self-defense laws are deranged. If both parties are armed those laws are nothing more than a quick way to make sure the survivor - whoever it may be - walks away without going to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things.
That rhetorical gimmick will not work on me, Trumpist.
Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, was armed with only a plastic bag full of various toiletries, socks, and some papers.
Anthony Huber, the second man shot by Kyle Rittenouse, was armed with only a skateboard.
Gaige Grosskreutz, the third man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse—and the only one to survive being shot by Kyle Rittenhouse—was armed with a gun, but he had seen Rittenhouse shoot at least Huber, if not both Rosenbaum and Huber, and believed Rittenhouse to be an active shooter (which he technically was).
The two men killed by Kyle Rittenhouse that night were not armed with guns. How, precisely, were either of them a deadly threat to someone armed with a fully-loaded AR-15?
None of the three men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse managed to injure him with a gunshot of their own—including the only one of the three known to have been armed with a firearm that night. None of them were known to be right-wingers/conservatives, either. Meanwhile, Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people, which resulted in two deaths, and he has become the newest victim-hero of the right-wing mediasphere because of that violence (and only that violence).
Once more:
Kyle Rittenhouse went to Kenosha during a Black Lives Matter protest, fearing that it would turn into a deadly riot. The only lethal violence that night came from him; he killed two people in an act of vigilante violence. If the people he killed were truly breaking the law that night, they should’ve received a trial, not an extrajudicial execution from a teenaged vigilante. Now Rittenhouse gets to become the poster boy for violent right-wing vigilantism—with all the media attention and grifting that implies—while two of his victims remain dead, the third gets to deal with the aftermath of that shooting for the rest of his life, and every white ally of Black protesters gets to wonder if their own safety is in peril.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even if a homicide is found to be justified as those were, it's still the intentional killing of one human by another. That is, by definition, murder even if no crime has been committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Definitions vary, but generally murder is defined as an illegal killing. So a killing in self defense for example is not murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh hey, the Governor was right!
"warnings earlier that day from no less than Gov. Tim Walz that white supremacists were roaming the city looking for trouble."
Of course these poor misunderstood officers will remain on the job & be returned to the job due to a stupid contract provisions.
They lied, and lied, and lied.
They turned off their cameras, but if you look at what they were willing to do ON camera you should be terrified what they are willing to do when no one is looking.
I get it cops are human & get frustrated but they are supposed to be professionals, not good ole boys tagging darkies under the cover of night so they can hoot & holler about how awesome they are.
Pity we can't make all of the appeals courts have to watch this & ask them to explain how they would apply QI so we could rule them unfit for their job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's obvious who the real p*****s are
*The officer complained that civilians were “p****s”
Time and again, the police prove what pathetic and despicable cowards they truly are, not to mention petty cruel assholes. I always have to say in these kinds of posts--they should change their uniforms to pink tutus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's obvious who the real p*****s are
But... then these sorts of people would refuse to become police officers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"....Gov. Tim Walz that white supremacists were roaming the city looking for trouble."
Turns out he was not wrong. Turns out they were in unmarked vans shooting people with "40s" and beating them up..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aliens
Before the ubiquitous use of camera aliens were flying around everywhere and the police never wrong.
Therefore aliens invented cameras to deflect the heat on them.
To do: make a body camera with no off button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should be a felony...
...for a police officer on duty to intentionally turn off, disable, or cover a body camera.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It should be a felony...
It should. But for many reasons, not possible. If the officer in question takes a bathroom break it's not good to force them to have an active camera on their person at the time. And so on. They are supposed to switch them on whenever the officers are heading into a situation.
But the news was leaked a long time ago now that one of the first things police rookies get taught by their seniors and mentors on the force is how to make a bodycam disabled while making it look like the damn thing failed of natural causes. Statistically surprising that so many killings and accidental deaths of suspects take place when mysteriously not a single camera in the squad was switched on.
And failing all else whether the footage is even released or processed in any way largely rests on the department itself. In some states such footage is specifically exempted from freedom of information requests. Because of course it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACAB
As usual. There is no such thing as a "good cop". None.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACAB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops are the superpredators Hillary Clinton warned us about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a few policy fixes that would work
a few things that need to be done at the federal level.
BLUE LIES MAFIA POLICYADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE:
any time an officer is placed on administrative leave it will be UNPAID leave.
ONLY if laws, policy, civil rights, and/ or rules have NOT been violated, then they will be eligible for back pay.
IF ANY laws, policy, civil rights, and/ or rules have been violated, then NO back pay.
PENDING INVESTIGATIONS:
if an officer is being investigated for ___. the investigation whether pending, started or ended will be considered "OPEN" if they quit before any discipline is handed out. also they will NOT be able to move on to the next agency over until pending case is resolved.
BODY CAMS:
ALL law enforcement police, FBI, DEA, CBP, ICE and any other law enforcement agency shall have and use body cams.
body cams will be turned on prior to an incident or as soon as possible and are to NOT be turned off, muted or paused until after the conclusion of the incidence.
USE OF FORCE:
MANDATORY MINIMUMS OF 2X the max. shall be enforced upon conviction.
CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD:
shall replace internal affairs. it shall have full investigative powers.
LOCALE DAs/ POLICE:
will not be able to decide if police are not charged for there crimes.
POLICE UNION(S):
shall only be limited to negotiating pay, leave time, vacation, sick leave, benefits. anything else is NON-NEGOTIABLE.
TRAINING:
there shall be a 2yr training program. then when hired the first 2yr period is probation with no gun. then the next probation period is a year with gun after they prove themselves to be responsible. so in total it would require 5 yrs. to go from training to fully certified.
DISCIPLINE/ COMPLAINT RECORDS:
any and all complaints (founded and unfounded), discipline, suspensions shall be placed in a national database. these records are to be held from training to 20yr after retirement and/or death.
.........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a few policy fixes that would work
And civil lawsuits to be paid by their pensions instead of the taxpayer. Watch them police each other after one of those losses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BLUE LIES MAFIA
i bet the blue lies mafia wasn't expecting one of there VICTIMS to shoot back!
this is the sort of thing that happens when you suppress a population for long enough! eventually the dog that you keep kicking will turn around bite you!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justice done
Being a criminal violating a legally called curfew doesn’t give cops the right to beat you. Or shoot you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brain side down
"It was clearly a justifiable reaction.'
Do...do you smell toast burning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brain side down
What are you quoting. I didn’t say anything about toast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brain side down
F.
A.
S.
T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain side down
S.
L.
O.
W.
You make as much sense as a fireplace in a grain silo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Justice done
Cops should've just threatened to sue the school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Justice done
"Being a criminal violating a legally called curfew doesn’t give cops the right to beat you. Or shoot you."
Weird how most of the alt-right seems to feel differently about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Justice done
Everyone has their own opinion. Theirs is wrong. 🤪
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Justice done
"Everyone has their own opinion. Theirs is wrong."
Unfortunately, wrong or not, their opinion is backed by a rather large proportion of US law enforcement and a great many in the body politic.
Worse still, in the US violence appears to be normalized to the point where unless you are yourself a victim of it, someone shot over a triviality merits nothing further than a shrug and a "meh".
The guy in the OP lives a charmed life. Literally. Statistics say he should have been on a slab with a tag fitted to his toe and enough lead in his body to significantly skew his BMI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Justice done
[addendum]
point being, on the opinion of the alt-right that the cop shooting someone tends to merit itself by the circular argument that said someone must have deserved it if the cop shot them...that would normally be correct. That's the way it currently works nine times out of ten. Especially if you're poor, black, latin, or otherwise in the target range of a police force increasingly enmeshed with right-wing extremism.
Your opinion, then, would be that it shouldn't be this way. Because deeming by the facts at hand it currently is this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some of those that work forces...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
… Are the same that burn crosses
You quote lyrics well.
And Yes. That is a sad truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On review
There may be a stumbling block here.
I ask as a jury would be asked. Set aside all the surrounding material not directly related.
Based on the surveillance footage he may not be quite so innocent.
To begin, his group appears to be monitoring the progression of the van. As it approaches the parking lot they flee the open view, drawing weapons, to near/behind the pickup.
I can’t tell who fired first from the video but it looks to be near simultaneous.
By running the audio through Microsoft’s live speech to text program, which is not what it’s meant for, we get some partial, but potentially harmful, Dialogue.
…here they’re coming…
…it’s (get?) ready… behind the truck… no go…
Shots.
The purely evil and (should-be-) criminal actions of the police notwithstanding;
Could this be a case of vigilantism? A group of poc attempting to take out white suprematists?
Is this a situation of self caused martyrising? By intentionally taking an offensive stance?
I take no sides here on the preceding aspect of the event. That’s for the legal system to untangle. But it is something to consider in our pondering of what was obviously a sad, sad, slate of events.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On review
That ship has sailed. He was already acquitted. The jury was asked, and they answered "not guilty." Now the question is whether the police violated his rights during the vicious beating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On review
"The purely evil and (should-be-) criminal actions of the police notwithstanding; Could this be a case of vigilantism? A group of poc attempting to take out white suprematists? "
I'm not sure what is more horrifying; That police officers went for a round of shooting into a crowd at random or that a van moving in firing wildly into a crowd is so common a group of citizens are prepared for it to roll in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On review
Aye, there is that as well.
The whole situation is fucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: On review
"Aye, there is that as well.
The whole situation is fucked."
Meanwhile Switzerland is even more in love with their guns than the NRA can credibly claim yet have one of the lowest gun murder rates per capita in the world.
The "situation" as I see it boils down to three factors;
Not a single sensible firearms restriction law. Basically anyone and everyone can obtain a firearm without the need to display they know how to properly handle and store them.
The general state of mental health in the US combined with a culture rooted in violence.
A van full of cops shooting up the neighborhood and terrorizing people on so frequent a basis citizens may have created a home defense guard to deal with them is just the icing on a rancid cake which has 500 children dead every year, to avoidable at-home firearms accidents, as the foundation layer and only gets worse with every layer stacked on top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: On review
[addendum]
...eh, and to add to that the FBI report on the current overlap between law enforcement employment and white supremacy organization membership.
Ten years ago I would have looked at what keeps coming out of the US as news and considered it the plot of a bad novel where the author kept going over the top to the point of unintentional satire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: On review
Well, the first one is obviously true. And I’ve made very clear in most, if not all, my semi-pro-weapons postings that training is vital to reducing stupidity.
The second is impossible to deny. Born of I’ll will and baptised in blood.
The third? You sorely miss the premise in looking at cops.
After domestic hand gun violence, non-personal gun violence is the second largest cause of firearms death. The US has a plague of so-called drive-by shootings. One that hasn’t come close to slowing. Be it gangs spraying from illegal fully automatics or snipers in hotel rooms. A terrorist in the trunk of a car or an initiate on a highway overpass.
From Chicago and LA to back woods Arkansas and the deserts of Nevada.
It’s one case where you miss the humanity of the duel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On review
Are you including suicide in domestic gun violence? Because there are more gun suicides than homicides. And I would be interested to see your sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On review
I wasn’t since it’s not a “crime” per say.
But yes:
Killing yourself is domestic.
The numbers come from wfld for Chicago and NYT and NYP for New York.
I don’t recall the exact numbers and will have to dig up the reports again but when you combine them the indirect shootings and compare direct confrontations they far outweigh the common robbery or mugging.
It’s hardly surprising for a group of people to respond to an active shooter driving around.
I honestly don’t even fully disagree with their response.
All, literally all, is was pointing out was in this case they weren’t completely innocent civilian bystanders. They actively and intentionally put themselves into that confrontation.
It doesn’t make it right. But it does make it expected.
In the real world; they’re quite lucky it was over zealous illicit law enforcement and not the pillow cover brigade.
Because bed sheeters would have definitely killed them. Likely very slowly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something for you to think about: That “confrontation” wouldn’t exist without the cops. You want to talk about bystanders not being “completely innocent” as if that excuses the behavior of the cops who ultimately instigated violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nowhere, at all, in any way shape or form, did I excuse the actions or reactions of the police here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny, because…
…sounds like victim-blaming to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny…
sounds like pointing out something clearly seen from the footage. Nothing more.
And even if I’d did blame the victims, which I didn’t, doesn’t release the perpetrators from their own evil actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Look at how that woman was dressed, and watch how much she drinks—she was clearly asking for sex!” cries the defense attorney at a rape trial, who is only pointing something out something clearly seen from security footage at a bar before said rape occured.
If you think that comparison is offensive, maybe don’t say shit that sounds like an apologia for unwarranted violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A more accurate comparison would be:
‘Look how she was dancing, rubbing his crotch. As she slides her hands down his pants. How she flashes her chest dozens of times. The sexual actions she is making’
There’s a difference between blaming a victim and saying a victim is not without fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The above was given as an example of blaming a theoretical rape-victim for what happened because how she acted which is wholly immaterial. She could have danced naked with "fuck me" written on her chest, if she later says no it actually means no.
Without the correct context for each party involved, you don't actually know what's going on. In your example above, how can a third party watching it actually know if she was doing it on a dare, doing it as tease or on drugs?
It's the same with a video showing an event, it doesn't contain any information of the participants thoughts and why they acted as they did. The whole "the video clearly shows" are in many cases a big fallacy when multiple parties are involved, and a 3rd party who watches the video will interpret it according to their beliefs and preferences. It's even worse if they have sine knowledge of the video before they watch it.
This is further complicated by the fact that humans are really really bad at remembering details later and are often prone to create false memories of an event if someone starts questioning them about it and uses leading questions, ex "did you see a pistol in his hand?". So when this person later is questioned at a trial, they have incorporated the false memories into their recollection of the event. This is relevant to the "the video clearly shows", if a police detective watches the video and comes up with a scenario and bases his questions on that he has effectively biased any witnesses he questions to his idea of the events.
Go and read the research by Elizabeth Loftus & Jacqueline Pickrell, then reflect on how many witnesses may have retold things in a court which actually never happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mind you my first impression was evil cop beatings. It was later, an careful review, that the existence of the other question came into play. Mainly in trying to figure out what was said. And I can not tell so therefore do not pass further judgment.
Ultimately we have illicit congregation and cops brutalising people over that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you saying it would be partially that woman's fault if she were raped?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Borderline. Not quite.
What I am saying, to be clear, is that she created the environment where the rape would eventuate.
AND
Such an preceding environment does nothing to lessen the crime.
It simply diminishes the innocence of the victim.
In actuality here we have a very different set of facts.
Arguably the police officers are more liable than they would have been.
Knowingly firing into what had been in the area known armed crowds makes them, not the men from the parking lot, liable for the return fire.
Regardless of what their intentions in gathering there in violation of the curfew, they were retreating when fired upon. Having only committed a civil infraction.
As such the police response to return fire goes from excessive force to targeted assault.
The police fired live projectiles (less lethal or not) with no threat mounted against them.
The return fire was justifiable self defence. The beatings rendered were assault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just so you know, that sounds like you’re saying “if a woman is acting like a slut and she gets raped, she’s at least partially responsible for the actions of a whole other person over whom she has no control”. It sounds like you’re eager to blame the victim for being attacked. It also sounds like the kind of rhetoric you might hear from Religious Right fuckbois who talk about modesty and purity and shit when they decry “loose” women.
Paraphrasing what I said in another comment: Even if a woman is asking a guy for sex, if she says “no” right before penetration (or at any point during sex) and the guy keeps going anyway, that’s rape—regardless of whether she said “yes” at first and regardless of what she was wearing or doing before she said “no”. To so much as even imply otherwise is to imply that you believe there is a situation where rape can be justified. I don’t want to think even you are such a ghoul that you’d say there is such a situation.
But if you’re willing to even partially blame a woman for her own rape, I have to wonder whether you think the now-convicted killers of Ahmaud Arbery deserved to walk as free as Kyle Rittenhouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh no! Not at all!
I would prefer a society the gets beyond and over the middle ages purity and welcome all sex all the time. As long as it is willing.
Want to fuck on the dirty floor of the club? Have at it. That’s the way it should be.
We’d have less trouble if we openly welcomed free sex clubs. Legalised licensed prostitution.
And actually punished those who commit rape.
Rapists should be tortured.
But we should also have severe penalties for filing false reports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again: Tell me you’re an American conservative without telling me you’re an American conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What the fuck does that have to do with conservatives?
Tell me why there should be no penalty for filing a false crime report?
Tell me why the MAFIAA has no penalty for fake DMCA
And tell me why there is no penalty for intentionally ruining a person’s life.
Tell me why there’s no penalty for pointing and saying witch so the burn you at the stake!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have to ask, you haven’t done enough research into comments from conservatives about rape. Start with “legitimate rape” and work from there.
Also…
…what you suggested sounded like more severe punishments for filing false rape claims, as if that specific subset of false criminal complaints alone warrants a harsher punishment. It’s the “tough on crime” mindset—you know, the kind that conservatives love to say they have even as such thinking, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to shit like the bullshit described in this article and grade school kids being handcuffed in said schools.
We Americans love punishment. But conservatives love punishment like it’s a sexual fetish—especially if they have the power to punish their political enemies for any perceived slights. If you need proof of that, look at how the Republicans have become the party of “own the libs at all costs”, especially in the wake of Old 45 (you know, the fascist shithead you voted for twice).
What the fuck penalty do you want, life in prison? The death sentence? God to reincarnate them as a mushroom so they can never die in a way that matters?
Besides, it’s not like famous/powerful/wealthy men have to worry about that shit unless they’re convicted of a crime. To wit: Shithead comedian Louis CK was accused of some heinous sexual misconduct a few years ago and he picked up a Grammy nomination this past week. And hell, even if they are convicted of a crime, they might still be able to escape accountability and remain powerful and influential—I mean, look at Roman Polanski.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And once again, as you fully know by now, I don’t do “sounds like”.
I didn’t bring up rape. The article isn’t about a rape or any other sexual context.
What I was saying in al contexts is get over your myth of faultless victims.
When a lady walks into a club and strips naked in front of 20 men high on X and gets gangbanged she the victim. But she’s not without fault.
When a pillow case head walks into a new panther rally with a MAGA sign and gets the shite beat out of them their a victim, but not without fault.
And here. When a group of armed men gather on a parking lot in violation of a curfew to ambush a vehicle and get the crap kicked out of them: they are victims but not without fault.
I have not changed my comment that these cops need to be hit with every charge available and strung out.
Now, that! Is a just punishment. For so many crimes. Just make mushrooms.
To forever be forced to feed those you hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again: Tell me you’re an American conservative without telling me you’re an American conservative.
No, she is without fault. No matter what a woman says or does before (or even during!) a sex act, if she says “no” or otherwise refuses to consent to a sex act, someone going through with said act is raping her. She can’t and doesn’t control what other people do in reaction to her actions; while the act you describe might be best defined as “provocative”, the burden for the reaction still lies on her rapist(s). To say otherwise is to heavily imply—if not outright declare—that she deserved to be raped because she provoked her rapist(s).
They shouldn’t be getting beaten at all. They should be getting kicked out at best, arrested by the cops at worst. I understand the desire to act on such provocation—and yes, I’m more than happy to repeatedly watch Richard Spencer get his stupid face punched—but even so, it’s still assault unless the racist shithead (and it’s okay to call them racist shitheads, I promise I won’t tell your orange Jesus that you called some white people “racist”) provoked the violence against them with some kind of violence or physical contact on their part.
(That said: I hope the person who punched Dick Spencer is never found and never reveals their identity. They should take that bit of personal satisfaction to the grave.)
If they’re committing an act of violence against the vehicle, yes, they have provoked a violent response in kind. If all they’re doing is standing around and/or talking shit, no, they don’t deserve a violent response—regardless of whether they were violating a curfew.
But you are giving them a free defense by saying their victims deserved what they got from those cops. And you’re doing the same thing for the theoretical rapists in your hypothetical. If you blame a victim for any violence committed against them that they did not provoke with violence in the first place, you are justifying unwarranted violence—up to and including rape and murder—for reasons I cannot fucking fathom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The difference is how we should respond to it as people.
I’m not a bleeding heart. Crime is crime and law is law.
The difference is when to make a poster child for the crime and when not to. For all the ‘innocent’ people brutalised by rogue groups of police this isn’t, apparently, the group of victims I’d be covering as the choice example.
They didn’t deserve to be beaten into the ground. They deserved to be arrested and fined.
What bothers me in such cases, beyond the actual final result, is how often the preceding illegal act is ignored or forgotten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee, maybe it’s because an illegal act that didn’t require an overly violent response—which you yourself admit is the case!—received one and people are focused on why that is~. But that really couldn’t be it, could it~?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, increasing her guilt. So you are saying dancing like a slut makes a woman partially culpable for being raped. Not that I'm surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And absolutely none of that would justify rape, any more than any non-violent actions of any civilian would justify police violence. A woman can literally bend over naked in front of a man and say “fuck me until I can’t walk”, but if she says “no” before the man sticks his dick in her and he does it anyway, it’s still rape. I can’t believe you apparently need to have that explained to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Consent does seem to be a foreign concept to a certain type. To the point where laws have recently needed to be passed in some states to explain that it can be withdrawn if the conditions of consent have changed (e.g. "stealthing", where consensual sex on the condition of a condom being used is no longer consensual if the condom is removed without her knowledge or permission).
It's depressing that some people need this explained to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And new we have a logical place to go in terms.
stealthing. The victim is completely and absolutely innocent. Terms and conditions were set up front.
If you go to a nude club and the sign say look but don’t touch and every entrant must acknowledge the sign/rule to enter… the terms and conditions are set.
When it says only cast can initiate contact…
When you walk into a free-for-all kink club and get raped… you got raped. You are a victim. But you are not without fault.
When you charge at police with a knife and get your chest blown in , you are definitely not without fault.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7zSAsrA-K48
A victim of extreme force? Yes. A victim of excessive force? Maybe. But far from a victim without fault.
And when a group of men Stage an ambush in a parking lot, and get beaten for it…
These men are definitely victims. Of assault. Of battery. I’d go so far as say attempted manslaughter, or attempted murder, with the kicks and stomps to the head.
But they are not without fault.
And that is very much the premise of the lady stripping naked in a club, groping everyone in reach, and then getting raped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being in a free-for-all kink club does not—and I repeat with extra emphasis for your sake, abso-fucking-lutely does not—mean someone automatically and continually consents to being touched/fondled/fucked by anyone and everyone in that club without limit. You keep equating the idea of being in a sexual situation with continual consent; that isn’t the case at all. Stealthing, for example, is considered rape even if the removal of the condom happens during the actual sex act.
Consent for sex should be knowing, enthusiastic, and continual right up to the end of the act itself. (How you feel about the act after you’re done is your own fucking business.) The burden of mutual consent initially lies on all involved parties, but once someone involved in that act says “no” (or an agreed-upon safe word), the other person(s) involved must stop what they’re doing without question or hesitation. Otherwise, it’s a non-consensual sex act—better known as either sexual assault or rape.
Acting sexual (e.g., dancing naked) is not consent. Dressing provocatively (e.g., wearing a miniskirt) is not consent. Getting drunk is not consent. Leveraging socioeconomic power (including peer pressure and blackmail) to induce sex from someone is not consent. The victim of a non-consensual sex act is not to blame for the actions of those who assaulted the victim. I honestly can’t believe I have to explain all of that to you again. If you make me do it a third time, I’ll have no choice but to write you off as someone who thinks rape can be justified under “the right circumstances”. And yes, that is exactly what you’re doing when you’re out here trying to blame the survivors of rape and sexual assault for the actions of their attackers in even the smallest possible way. I mean, fuck, even Jesus basically said “if you can’t stop looking at women, gouge out your own eyes, you goddamned pervert”.
(Once again: Tell me you’re an American conservative without telling me you’re an American conservative.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh ye of inference. I implied nothing.
I didn’t justify it. I simply won’t be shedding tears
not for the naked groper who supplied her rapist with x 15 minutes earlier.
The crime is still a crime. The difference is I won’t martyrise someone who set up the situation in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, now you’re outright stating it by saying a woman who “sets up” a situation where there is a possibility that she could be raped deserved to be raped for being in that situation. Change the details and the wording all you want to say you’re not blaming the victim, but you’re doing exactly that until and unless you explicitly say “absolutely nothing can justify or defend rape” without any further qualifications (e.g., “nothing can justify or defend rape, but…”).
Acting sexual (e.g., dancing naked) is not consent. Dressing provocatively (e.g., wearing a miniskirt) is not consent. Getting drunk/high is not consent. Leveraging socioeconomic power (including peer pressure and blackmail) to induce sex from someone is not consent. Giving drugs to someone is not consent. Giving consent to one person is not giving consent to all people, nor is it giving permanent and continual consent to that one person. Implied consent to one kind of sexual act (e.g., groping) does not grant blanket consent to all other kinds of sexual acts (e.g., penetrative sex). No non-consensual sexual act is defensible or justifiable under any circumstance, and the victim of a non-consensual sex act is not to blame for the actions of their rapist—even if (and it’s more “when” than “if” at this point) you think a slut is “asking for it” by acting like a slut. And all of that applies to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Oh, and once more, with feeling: Tell me you’re an American conservative without telling me you’re an American conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Though I shed no tear for the idiot who created a situation themselves, such as drugging the man who rapes her;
“absolutely nothing can justify or defend rape”. And proven rapists should be tortured.
I have not justified the illegal act. I will not seek to justify such an act.
I will however make a difference between a victim, and a martyr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And yet…
…you’re all but saying “the idiot who created a situation” where it was possible for them to be raped doesn’t deserve pity or sympathy. This isn’t about martyrdom, you sociopathic Trumpist—this is about saying “rape is wrong”, and you can’t even fucking do that without trying to pin at least partial responsibility for some rapes on the fucking victim.
The cruelty really is the fucking point with you, isn’t it?
…yep, it really is. You are totally an American conservative.
And before you ask: I want rapists jailed and put on sex offender registries, but I also want to see them given at least a chance at rehabilitation. And torture is bullshit regardless of the reason for (or the identity of the victim of) an act of torture. But since you’re seemingly okay with the idea of being “tough on crime” no matter what, even if it means arresting pre-teen kids in schools, I’m not the least bit surprised you’re on board with torture as a justifiable punishment for the guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Deserve? Maybe. Maybe not. But given the example of you drug someone with a rabid sex drug and then get raped by the same person I have zero sympathy for you.
Class me however you like. I don’t really care what you think.
If you think the men that brutalised those scofflaws in the parking lot absolutely should not face the same which they devised?
There is zero doubt what those men did. And they should face the same. When a murder is caught on video committing murder I have zero reluctance to the death penalty.
And yes, rape is a violent assault with permanent damage.
Anyone who committed such an act with undeniable evidence and with full wilful thought should be forced to suffer.
I take it you don’t know any rape survivors?
Because I guaran fucking tee you the vast majority would have zero reluctance in knowing the rapist was tied up and chopped into little pieces.
That you leave your car running, keys in the ignition, and it gets stolen? No pity.
If you drug someone and they rape you because of that drug, no sympathy.
And when you brutalise someone to the literal edge of their life and someone does the same to you… zero sympathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Violence for violence is the rule of beasts. Those cops deserve to be held accountable for their actions, but not with unnecessary violence.
They deserve to be held accountable via time in prison and a life-long sex offender label. They don’t deserve to be tortured—and since I know you’re thinking it, they sure as shit don’t deserve to be raped themselves.
And if one of them did it to their rapist, you might have an extreme emotional disturbance defense for a murder trial.
Rapists are reprehensible people who have committed a heinous act. They still don’t deserve the torture and cruelty you would have the state visit upon them to assauge the “eye for an eye” mentality you so clearly hold dear.
But apparently I’m the asshole here for not condoning the state-sanctioned torture/murder of someone convicted of rape. I mean, it’s not like people have been falsely imprisoned or executed for a crime they didn’t commit…right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As I expected. You’re against the death penalty.
I support modified and more strict application uses.
Not preponderance. Absolute and undeniable. Video, photo, combined with eye witnesses? Absolutely zero doubt.
Yes, I absolutely believe some crimes are so egregious they deserve punishment more than just fines or prison.
And before you come back with another right wing platform quite: show me an atheist or agnostic, lgbt, social spending, corporate tax supporting American conservative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"You’re against the death penalty"
Most first world countries are. Something to do with people being uncomfortable with the state having direct power over life and death of its citizens, and there being a long history of it getting it wrong over who is actually guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no such thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you be certain that everyone ever executed by the United States government was guilty of the crime for which they were convicted? If the answer is “no”, that means the death penalty system is open to making a mistake it can’t undo.
At least when wrongful convictions are overturned and people are exonerated of crimes they didn’t commit, there’s a chance they can eventually lead something resembling a life outside of prison. Put them to death and they’re not coming back even if the evidence says the person is innocent.
Yes, I oppose the death penalty—in all instances. What are you going to do about that, mock me for having enough compassion for the innocent who’ve been put to death by the state that I don’t want to see it happen again?
You share more in common with American conservatives than you do American liberals, and your “BuT i’M a LiBeRtArIaN!!1!” bullshit is a smokescreen at best. I’ll keep calling you an American conservative because you keep fitting that description. Or would you prefer I call you a fascist based on your unyielding and unquestioning support for your personal orange Jesus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
unyielding?
Despite the line by line breakdown of your lest we forget link? That response that was more against than for?
Again: I’m no fan of either party. I take the best of the worst for ME and my concerns in each election. Nothing less and nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, yes, you support torture and don’t give a shit if the people you put in office hurt the marginalized. We get it, you don’t care about people outside of yourself—you can stop showing off your conservative bona fides now.
(And yes, I said “unyielding”. I said that because you looked at four years of Trump shitting all over America and still said “hell fucking yes, I want another four years of that” at the voting booth.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Again: I’m no fan of either party"
You just always happen to side with one while ranting about how all non-Murdoch controlled media is controlled by the Democrats... We know.
"I take the best of the worst for ME and my concerns in each election"
Yes, it's well established that you don't care about anyone else and will immediately fawn over a failed con artist who somehow convinces you that he will make your life better, even as evidence shows that he has made life demonstrably worse. But, hey, you're a "libertarian" who's arguing in this thread that the government should have ultimate power over life and death, so logic isn't your strong suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So according to you Rittenhouse was justified, while these people, who had a greater reason to act to protect their community, like actual active shooters are in the wrong. I wonder what colours your reasoning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rittenhouse defended himself against a threat.
So did these men.
They fired in response to being fired upon.
Both are legal self defence cases.
Rittenhouse was travelling by foot; walking, as per court testimony and evidence, not running up on people, carrying a medical kit and offering first aid.
There wasn’t, that I recall, a curfew in place at the locations he was at.
If there was, he is less innocent. But still not guilty.
In this case Police case we have non-innocence. They had already broken the law.
Curfew law violation alone does not suggest the cops are innocent, or the men are guilty of anything else.
Here the men in the parking lot should STILL face whatever penalties they brought upon themselves under the law for the curfew violation.
The police should be tried and held accountable for the crimes they committed that evening.
Illicit discharge of a firearm
Assault with a deadly weapon
Assault
Battery
Attempted murder
And potentially a hate crime.
And in case the last sticks all others should be extended secondarily as separate
-during or in support of a hate crime
Charges as well.
The difference between you and I is I won’t ignore one criminal act in light of a graver criminal act carried out against the criminals.
The difference in the cases is we have a man thrice threatened without (legal) provocation
Vs
What appears to be an ongoing criminal act in the first place and a wholly overresponse to it by police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody here has said that anyone who breaks the law shouldn’t face the consequences of doing so. What we have a problem with is you either implying or outright saying they deserved what they got from the cops—a violent response to a non-violent crime—only because they were breaking the law. And you’ve been doing exactly that with that “well, the cops didn’t need to do that, but…” bullshit you’re pulling.
The cops didn’t need to be (and shouldn’t have been) violent towards people who weren’t being violent—full motherfucking stop. For what reason do you keep going out of your way to prove how callous and cruel and heartless you are with your “they deserved what they got for breaking the law” bullshit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Men in the parking lot broke the law and should still face the consequences of doing so.
Men firing rounds from a panel van broke the law and should face the consequences for doing so.
Men who beat a bunch of people into the hospital broke the law and should be held accountable.
Feel feee to show I justified it, as in it was Ohkay, or proper, to beat a man into the hospital. Because such a statement doesn’t exist.
I see nobody innocent due for martyrdom though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You also don’t seem to care that the cops overreacted to a non-violent offense, given how hard you’re pushing the “they brought that response on themselves by being a bunch of fucking criminals” bullshit. If the people who were assaulted by the cops weren’t being violent, they didn’t deserve to be assaulted by the cops—full fucking stop, I don’t give a shit what crimes they may or may not have committed. But hey, keep telling me that you’re not a bleeding heart when it comes to police brutality—all you’re doing is proving that one Atlantic headline right: The cruelty is the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep. One of those bleeding hearts you are.
Cry for the criminals if the cops are worse.
what part hang the criminals that were on duty as police out to dry do you fail to understand.
Considering it was the first post on the topic I made and hasn’t changed.
That I came back and said , oh by the way, the victims, they’re still criminals… doesn’t lessen the situation or the crimes of the cops you everyone-I-disagree-with-is-q moron.
It simply points out a fact lost under the more drastic of the crimes in the series if events.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone breaks the law and violence isn’t a required response, they don’t deserve violence—they deserve to be arrested and given the proper punishment for their violation of the law. When the cops meet non-violence with violence, yes, they are worse. I’m sorry that you think people are deserving of having violence visited upon them only for breaking the law, but your belief in cruelty as the only response to illegal acts is not my problem.
It kinda does, though. It’s blaming the non-violent criminals—you know, non-violent people committing non-violent offenses—for the violent actions of the cops by implying that any violation of the law is deserving of police violence, even if you think that violence went a smidgen too far in only this one specific instance. You’re trying to defend the cops by saying “they’re just criminals”, but the cops shouldn’t be brutalizing criminals (especially non-violent ones) only for the sake of doing so.
Keep calling me a bleeding heart. All that does is prove you think compassion is a weakness. The cruelty, dear Lozenge, is your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Cry for the criminals if the cops are worse."
It's possible for both "sides" to be wrong. Siding with the guy who just got murdered by corrupt racist cops does not necessarily mean that you absolve the victim of all wrongdoing. It just means that people would prefer that they were afforded due process and full access to rights rather than being subjected to a roided up bully's Judge Dredd fantasies. Something which seems to be afforded way more to white murderers than black suspects.
"everyone-I-disagree-with-is-q moron."
If you dislike that label, stop parroting their echo chamber's fictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I’ve said before: If the people who were out after curfew were violating the law, they should’ve been ticketed or arrested, not assaulted by a bunch of assholes with badges whose violence is government-approved. Non-violent offenses shouldn’t be met with violence, no matter how “tough on crime” someone wants the cops to act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You cockroaches were chanting the same lie about Charlottesville.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Use quotes please. Nobody has any idea who you are responding to at this point in the thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On review
"In the real world; they’re quite lucky it was over zealous illicit law enforcement and not the pillow cover brigade. "
I'd have to argue that the two are increasingly likely to be one and the same. The argument that these people were lucky it was just "ordinary" criminals wearing badges rather than white supremacists wearing badges...isn't really a comforting one.
"All, literally all, is was pointing out was in this case they weren’t completely innocent civilian bystanders. They actively and intentionally put themselves into that confrontation."
I'll take exception to the use of the word "innocent" here. As you've implied earlier on, self-defense is a thing, and you've argued up one side and down the other in favor of defense of self, others and property.
By definition, even if they gathered to ambush an expected van of shooters they expected to show up, they'll still be innocent of any wrongdoing.
Nitpicking, to be sure, but given todays climate I'm more in favor of accurate wording leading to actual arguments rather than a sentence resembling gaslighting leading to the Monty Python skit about "the argument".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On review
"The US has a plague of so-called drive-by shootings. One that hasn’t come close to slowing. Be it gangs spraying from illegal fully automatics or snipers in hotel rooms. A terrorist in the trunk of a car or an initiate on a highway overpass. "
I'd argue this underscores the point; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Well, yeah, but every other constitutional amendment has been provided with caveats and conditionals. The US strips the vote from criminals but is unable to make gun ownership a subject of licensing and training? Can't keep lethal weapons out of the hands of the obviously insane?
And the normalization of death gets to me as well. The US lost, in a single year, more people than they lost in the damn world wars. Because defying basic medical safety had become a loyalty test inspiring "covid parties" and similar gatherings out of spite.
It's like catching a glimpse of...17th century Japan or medieval europe. A place where in modern times the citizenry seems to consider violent death a normality. And actively oppose any action to reduce the death toll. It's...surreal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And here is where I point out that the current Grand Poobah of that brand of sociopathic ignorance is the exact same person Lozenge voted to install as POTUS in 2016 and 2020.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"And here is where I point out that the current Grand Poobah of that brand of sociopathic ignorance is the exact same person Lozenge voted to install as POTUS in 2016 and 2020."
Yeah, that, in the end, is why I can't respect Lostinlodos's stand on that particular issue, irrespective of all the parts where he sounds and appears sensible. His adherence to Trump despite that administration owning the headstones of more americans than were lost in every major war last century combined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
One problem with that;
More people died of covid during Biden’s term than Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Biden wouldn’t have to deal with the mess Trump left behind if Trump hadn’t left the mess in the first place—first by ignoring COVID-19, then by pushing his supporters into celebrating ignorance and holding anti-science stances that they now proudly champion when they’re not dead or in the ICU.
If Trump had been a leader instead of a self-absorbed narcissist whose only real concern in 2020 was winning the presidential election, he could’ve prevented many, many thousands of the deaths COVID-19 caused on his watch. But he wasn’t. So he didn’t. The number of people who’ve died of COVID-19 in Biden’s term is at least partially the fault of the nearly year-long campaign from Donald Trump and his Republican asskissers to fight against every possible means of containing the spread of the disease. They don’t give a shit about people outside of themselves—and neither does your personal orange Jesus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure blame trump for the “mess”.
The vaccines produced in record time.
Fully paid for and funded.
The attempted travel ban from source country China.
The massive distribution system nearly completed when he left office.
Maybe, just maybe, this is one hell of a virus and Biden is no special saviour? Maybe, just maybe, trump did much the same in the private side as Biden and it’s just the way it works out?
Maybe you’re just pissed off biden didn’t turn out to be god and trump wasn’t as incompetent as you claimed?
Because travel bans only work when Biden supports them.
It’s not his fault when more people die under his watch.
It’s just not possible for you to admit Trump positives of anything without permission of your progressive masters, is it.
And you can’t say anything bad if they say not to.
I think we understand.
Because maybe you could finally comprehend this country is more like China in population distribution than Anywhere in Europe?
Maybe the spread and death toll has something to do with 90-some% of the population crammed into a few % of land area?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’ve never said he was, and I never will. Since I know you have issues with understanding the concept of consent, I’ll make this request clear enough that even you can grasp it: Stop shoving words in my mouth that didn’t first come from it.
But he was.
(Big shock, a Republican blaming a Black man for something he didn’t even do.)
(At least one Trumpist drank chlorine after Trump mentioned hydroxychloroquine, which was eventually proven to have little-to-no signficant preventative or treatment effect against COVID-19.)
(As with his comments about bleach, even if you want to argue that he didn’t mean “the coronavirus is a hoax”, it’s not hard to see how his…less educated followers would’ve gotten that message.)
(I left the bit about Juneteenth in there to show you just how much of a narcissist Trump is, since you apparently don’t believe me when I tell you that.)
(Do you think he had a replacement plan ready if the Supreme Court “repealed” the ACA, or did that not matter so long as he kept saying “repeal and replace”?)
(Because nothing mattered more to Trump in 2020 than winning the election—and that includes American lives.)
(Narrator: But he was actually lying.)
(Trump loved to mock people who wore facemasks, and his sycophantic followers in and out of office took that message to heart when they started attacking mask mandates and the concept of wearing facemasks in general.)
(And it’s not like Trump had any interest in calling for that mandate, since he didn’t actually call for one himself.)
(See? No interest in a mask mandate of any kind.)
(It would also have allowed the virus to continue mutating into new, possibly deadlier variants, but it’s not like Trump was listening to people saying that. They knew what they were talking about, which was enough reason for him and his cronies to dismiss them.)
(Republican politicians love to mock and belittle outside expertise. Their voters follow that up by openly distrusting experts in their fields, especially science. Trump further endorsed that behavior to the nth degree by participating in it.)
(But suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure, everything is Biden’s fault~.)
And remember, Lozenge: You wanted four more years of all that bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn’t say you personally said he was the great saviour. That was the general image of him propped up in the media. Save us from evil trump. Etc
Oh, the happy list I already line items for you?
Yes, a good many medical and viral scientists had contemplated that c19 would taper off,
Much like many viri do. Like the flu.
They were all wrong.
But just ignore the “you know in theory” aspect of what many believed a possibility.
Is it not good to be in communication with the WHO and international health agencies?
Oh, and that it wouldn’t be until may that we would see rising temperatures didn’t knock the virus back?
Drugs shown to have preliminary benefits.
He took them himself following his infection.
Exactly. A rational response.
And what about two states that violate federal immigration law and deny access to federal law enforcement?
It had shown considerably promise in helping recovery and minimising symptoms, and may have some affect on the actual virus.
Ultimately, he did take it.
—drank chlorine —
And that’s trump’s fault? Sure. Have at that premise.
“Do you need it?” he asked about testing. “No. Is it a nice thing to do? Yes.” He added, “We’re talking about 325 million people. And that’s not going to happen, as you can imagine.”
Let that number sink in.
Bullshite. completely debunked.
The only person who suggested ingestion was a far left political activist writer. Who intentionally condensed the verbal exchange into propaganda for social media.
And while you blame trump for what he didn’t say, maybe, given how the media spent so long hiding anything of value, they had seen the post and believed he had said something dangerous when he did not.
I blame the idiot fake news tweet for any death from bleach ingestion.
The hoax was the fud the democrats rolled out.
Self explanatory.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel—is a self aggrandising law ignoring a candle riddled fool.
Well, when you have situations where gun shot victims and motorcycle accidents are included in covid 19 death counts, there good reason to question.
The organisation that bent over backwards and tied themselves into a pretzel to not investigate the lab origin of the virus.
The vast majority of the country didn’t know what Juneteenth was before trump was president.
2020 was the first year it was added to big tech calendar apps.
Jobs lost to the closing of businesses by liberal city and state governments.
No. Not likely. But the SCOTUS will rule. If it was unconstitutional it absolutely should be struck down.
A bit overstated. It was closer to 80%.
Which would completely guarantee the government had access to all cases.
Yes: he opposed states that violated federal laws receiving federal funds.
Trump reposted a video of doctors who disagreed with the WHO and CDC.
So he minced a date and misspoke. Not like the current president doesn’t do that hourly.
And how does the post office support American lives?
Neither are you. So what.
Funny how fast the rollout came AFTER the election?
So report the stats.
In August the majority medical belief was that asymptomatic people were not spreaders.
Trump forwards an article. Wow.
There’s a difference in need for a mask in a city of millions and a country of a few thousand. One size steps on many.
SSA? They had a job to do. Do the job or quite. Period
We will just ignore the Obama and Clinton and Biden events I guess. It’s not unique to trump
Correct. I never said he pushed for one. I disagree with any mandate. I use a quality 95+ filtration mask by choice.
I tend to agree. Mr fund weaponised viri.
Fact. Hospitals with higher infection, and death, rates receive more C19 funding.
Do anything. No law required he do so and the election results were in question.
Despite this more people have died under Biden.
That is purely Biden at fault. Not trump. Who handed him multiple vaccinations to hand out to the public. Not just one!
More people have died in his second half as president than first. But that’s still somehow trumps fault.
You’re incapable of accepting facts. Biden is doing no better. Despite the increasing push for less liberty and more restrictions. Despite the return of mask mandates.
How quick was Biden to implement a travel ban on Africa? Where’s the backlash? It’s racist right?
Notice the republicans and right News aren’t calling for lawsuits to bar the travel ban?
But let’s just all hail president double death as he leads us into the toilet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m about to take a long Internet break partially because replying to you has been one of the most mentally exhausting things I do on any given day as of late, so I sincerely hope you take some sort of delight/satisfaction/sick sexual gratification in knowing how detrimental you’ve been to my mental health, you unfeeling son of a bitch.
You said, and I quote, “maybe you’re just pissed off Biden didn’t turn out to be God”. The implication there is that you believe I thought Biden would turn out to be God. I have never—not once in my goddamned life—said or thought anything of the sort about any politician. And I’ve sure as shit never thought that about a middling centrist needledick whose only purpose in 2020 was to get Trump out of office before he and the GOP really did turn America into a fascist nation-state. Go ahead and keep insulting Biden, jackass—I’ll be glad to join you.
Trump said it would disappear completely. He is not a doctor, virologist, or any other kind of medical scientist—nor was he when he repeatedly made that claim.
And further studies said they didn’t, but that fact didn’t stop Trump and his acolytes from continuing to push the drug as if it did.
Except it wasn’t, because we have actual safety measures in place to help both prevent car accidents and lessen possible injuries from said accidents. We have stop signs and seat belts and traffic lights and air bags and all of that stuff. Trump wanted to do the pandemic equivalent of sending people out on road trips without all of those safety measures in place, because he didn’t want a goddamn thing to ruin the election he was only going to accept as a legitimate election if he won.
And then it didn’t. You keep leaving that out.
Let this fact sink in: He didn’t want to test even the smallest fraction of the full American population because that would mean admitting that COVID-19 was much more widespread than he wanted his idiot followers to believe.
I’m not going to get into this entire bullshit argument with you again because if I do, I’m probably going to have suicidal thoughts before I finish this long-ass comment, so I will leave you with this: Trump suggested that scientists should look into using household disinfectants as a potential treatment for COVID-19 in people, and if anyone—regardless of how they felt about Trump—came away with the idea that he was suggesting the injection of bleach into living human beings as a possible treatment for COVID-19, I can absolutely understand how they came away with that idea. That you can’t is your fucking Trumpist malfunction and I’m not here to fix it.
Yeah, that COVID-19 thing was only a mild flu that happened to kill a couple dozen people or so~. Totally nothing to worry about~.
And other than his decision to intentionally antagonize Black voters/“own the libs” by holding one of his superspreader even—I mean, political rallies on Juneteenth, what specifically did Donald Trump himself do to promote the existence of Juneteenth?
Gee, it’s almost as if a viral pandemic was raging at the time and the shutdowns were meant to help protect the public health at large so more people didn’t die~. Imagine that, lawmakers caring about others outside of themselves~. Makes you want to mock their compassion, doesn’t it~?
It also meant they could fudge the numbers to make the pandemic look like it was slowing down/ending when it wasn’t. Remember, Trump didn’t give a single good god’s damn whether people died from COVID-19—he only cared about winning the 2020 election at all costs.
And they were a handful of doctors out of…what, hundreds? Thousands? A small group of professionals disagreeing in bad faith with a much larger group of professionals acting in good faith means nothing to me. It’s like people who think finding the one scientific article out of a thousand that disagrees with the other 999 articles have found The One Truth Above All (Fuck The Haters).
Typically, if I want advice about medicines and health, I turn to a doctor, not a pillow salesman or an elderly game show host.
If Trump had won the election, would you still be questioning the speed of the vaccines as if it’s a fucking conspiracy theory, or would you be celebrating it as a massive fucking achievement for Trump to taunt everyone with for the rest of his life? You don’t need to respond; I already know the answer.
Again: If your Trumpist brethren would’ve listened to the advice of the same experts that Trump spent months denigrating as brainless dolts (something you keep doing by slandering Dr. Fauci as a bought-off Chinese double-agent), there wouldn’t be a need for mask mandates.
They’re also people, you heartless monster. If they get sick, they can’t be there to protect the president. And it’s one thing if they get sick by outside sources. But in this case, the president was the one who could’ve infected them with COVID-19—could’ve killed them by proxy—and all because he wanted a fucking photo-op.
They mandated masks and other measures to help curb possible COVID-19 cases. They did their best to protect attendees from making each other sick. How many of those events were confirmed superspreaders compared to the largely mask-less, often crammed-as-hell, “fuck the guidelines” Trump rallies where Trump himself decried those same guidelines?
And the Trumpists who agree with you but refused to wear a mask voluntarily are the reason mandates became a thing. It’s funny how voluntarily doing all the things that would’ve helped stave off mask/vaccine mandates and prevent the spread of the virus would’ve also helped things get back to normal much sooner…if only the jackass Trumpists would’ve actually done them.
Trump was essentially asserting that hospitals were knowingly and intentionally overreporting those numbers to receive more funding. Nobody has proven that such a thing has ever taken place. If anything, the numbers are likely still underreported for a variety of reasons.
Only from the same people who keep insisting, even now, that the election was stolen from Donald Trump. Nobody had presented any tangible evidence of widescale voter fraud in one city, let alone one state, and never mind all four of the battleground states where Trump sought to invalidate the election results. (Trumpists like you never seem to be able to explain why the presidential election was supposedly rigged but the downballot races in which Republicans won were left alone.)
There’s a reason or two for that…
…and one of them is Trump never actually pushing his supporters to get the vaccine even after it was available. He refused to participate in any campaigns to promote vaccination. He never strongly urged his followers to get vaccinated. And he did nothing to help push back against the anti-vax/anti-science propaganda from Trumpists—propaganda he helped to generate by continually denigrating the same scientists who say the vaccines are safe.
Gee, can’t imagine why he isn’t doing a better job of “saving” a country where at least a third of said country wants to undo democracy~.
Three things:
That “right” rhetorical gimmick will not work on me.
Pretty damn quick, and it was a ban on travel from South Africa. Africa is a continent, not a country, you asshole.
Yeah, because they’re actually racist enough to approve of those bans—whereas Democrats fought the travel bans from the early part of the Trump administration because said bans targeted certain people based on skin color and/or religious creed (i.e., Middle Eastern Muslims).
I’m under no illusions that Biden sucks. But do you really believe, in that ice-cold heart of yours, that Trump would’ve led us all to the Promised Land of No COVID-19? Do you genuinely believe Trump would’ve prevented the hundreds of thousands of deaths that’ve happened so far this year? Do you sincerely motherfucking believe Trump could’ve convinced the cult of personality he created to stop shitting on the scientists for once and get the vaccine—or that he would’ve even tried?
Donald Trump downplayed the threat of COVID-19 from the get-go. He didn’t do it to prevent a “panic” in the sense that he cared about the general well-being of the American population—he did it to prevent a “panic” that would’ve fucked around with the 2020 election. He constantly pushed to re-open the economy in full not because he cared about getting the American people back to work in as safe an environment as possible, but because he wanted to run his campaign on the back of a strong economy instead of focusing on the pandemic. He didn’t give a fuck how many people died of COVID-19, so long as he won the election.
And he didn’t even do that.
I’ve spent so much time ripping into you and your Trumpist bullshit that my mental health has suffered for it. You keep acting as if Trump’s narcissism and sociopathy is something to be admired—as if his lack of giving a fuck about people outside of himself is something everyone should be doing—and it’s frankly disturbing that you can keep commenting here and continually lack the self-reflection necessary to see just how much of a sociopath your support of Trump has made you. For God’s sake, you openly and knowingly advocated for torturing convicted rapists after they’ve been imprisoned.
You mock me for my compassion. But if I were to ever become the kind of unfeeling psycho that you come off as in your comments, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself.
I’ll be back around these parts in a month, and I won’t be replying to you again once I return. So please take this last bit of advice from me to heart (or what’s left of yours, at any rate) as I flip you off and walk backwards into a mental health break:
FUCK OFF FOREVER, YOU TRUMPIST SHITHEAD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Damn. Honestly; I’ve enjoyed debating with you.
You, Paul, Devil…
Yall have been a GREAT addition here.
I have never wanted or wished any harm on you and if i caused you any pain:
I really, truly, am sorry.
I would never wish to hurt anyone directly if there is any other option. And your absence will be missed.
Especially by me.
Gimmicks and personas aside,
All three of you have been instrumental in my growth as a human.
It was a questioning statement.
Because despite your rhetoric I find him to be nothin more that a cut-throat businessman capable of keeping a country afloat.
Not quite accurate. The big news studies found issues. The majority were left at minimal, leaning on benefit.
You make a mistake there. As seatbelts, by clinical observation, cause more injuries than they prevent deaths.
And that begs: does saving 50 override injuring 5000. That’s the ratio the most recent NASC report in 2018 came up with reviewing roughly 5076 crashes.
4 in 10 seatbelt injuries cause partial paralysis of loss of appendage use.
Yet it still does. That CNN doesn’t report it doesn’t nullify it. JSM Sep 2021 reports that the benefits likely outweigh the risks, but it should not be considered as a primary over other options.
And one could point to historical fact that panics based on arbitrary numbers without context can be worse than the problem at hand!
Look: fact. Trump in a (probably shouldn’t have been public in retrospect) discussion made comments about topical and subcutaneous use of cloride and chlorinated injections as a treatment vector.
I’m not a doctor. My family is full of medical training though. From ems (myself as a combat rescue SNCO) up to Drs.
What trump was, admittedly, misunderstanding was the difference in topical use (external) and semi-sub-dermal.
Some idiots took a misrepresentation of his pondering a in a tweet by an anti-Trump progressive activist completely at face value (mainstream media is proven to lie) and drank bleach. That’s a strike against media, not trump.
Nobody with any medical education or training or experience would have misunderstood what he was trying to understand.
Chlorine, and clorosulphur are common treatments for many ailments.
I’ve had clorosulphur injections in both wrists for my 4+ decades of computer use to treat my constant chronic pain.
It reduces inflammation. Fast!
Look, he read or hear something somewhere and went with it.
I won’t disagree it’s not for general public consumption but that’s the environment of 24-7-news-media-ratings-first society.
Trump did not suggest drinking bleach in any way shape or form and anyone who walked away with that idea… the blame falls 99.99999% on media and lack of proper narrative.
On hoax, states that didn’t shut down had by and large lower rates of covid: infection and death.
Which is evidence that what works in an urban, environment doesn’t in full rural.
Juneteenth?
Nearly nobody knew what that was. If not for trump nobody would know today. Egotistical or not. It is fact that we all know what it is today because trump scheduled a rally on a day the 99.9% didn’t consider to be of any meaning.
Shutdowns did little to spread. Again showing one rule does not fit the whole country.
Maybe. If you hate trump. But it also meant they could rule out shooting victims, motorcycle accidents and dog bites.
Your conflicting doctors constitute a large minority.
As do I. Both my doctors were honest in their reviews. That there is evidence but it it is inconsistent and not reflected in CDC nor WHO reports.
I’d celebrate and cheer the massive achievement of the trump administration’s vaccination triumph regardless of who won. See above!
Masks? Well there’s the blatant undeniable fact that 5 people and 5 people employees in a 5000sqft store are unlikely to pass anything to each other. But let’s ignore that aspect and force rules on everyone when less than 10% of the land area is at risk.
People with a job. If you don’t like your job or can’t or won’t do what is required find a different job.
If
If poll watchers were allowed to view the ballots as they always have and not been segregated for covid nobody would have questioned the election either.
When you take a job you do what the job requires. If not you quit or get fired. Period.
You may want to do a little more digging if you want the truth. Since the hosts were mask free from start to finish.
Nor disproven
We do have all sorts of records of non-covid cases being reported as such.
No. Given how many places gave Clinton the win in 16 the question of early calling without 100% security is warranted.
Yes, this is likely a lost control bio weapon. And it’s proving to be quite good at what it was designed to do.
If you need the president to tell you what to do I have no pity. If you only do what the president says I have no pity.
And no matter how much you wish to wish it away NOT A SINGLE GOVERNMENT doubted the virus came from China. And trump sought to stop travel from China.
And have no care for shutting down travel from a hot spot?
Travel to and from China should have been shut down day one by every government. If leaders took trump’s actions of logical fact over political correctness the virus would have had far less impact. Period.
No covid? No. I doubt we’d be any better or worse. I doubt we’d be any different at all.
Rape:
Yes. When there is zero doubt. And until you have someone close, or you yourself, suffer such an evil crime, don’t speak about proper punishment.
Because anyone who commits rape should die the most slow and torturous death. If we could bring back the dead they cycle should be repeated for eternity.
**Again; I don’t mean you any personal harm.
I’ve grown to rather like you despite what I consider fanciful beliefs.
You respond.
You debate.
I could do without the self aggrandisement but you often have well thought out replies.
It was your passionate beliefs on 230 that change my opinion.
I hope you will consider further debates upon your return.
Because you opinions do matter.
And I WILL miss our commentary**
You’re one of the best debaters I’ve ever come across and I will always hold you in high regard.
Few have ever gone toe to toe with me on politics. Less have changed my mind.
Despite our very large gap in ideals and ideas I will always consider you a guiding voice.
If you ever make it to the Great Lakes area I’d be handy to buy you a dozen rounds.
Be safe this season.
Be healthy.
I wish you the best regardless.
And a happy holiday season.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know he’s not gonna fuck off forever. I strongly believe that the nature of Techdirt where trolls can come and go, and post anonymously and generally without restriction, is one of the worst parts of the site. Nobody gets banned, the only punishment people seem to face is getting their comments flagged.
But while they’re flagged, those comments are never ignored.
The culture that’s developed here on TD where trolls are gleefully fed, and entire comments threads can be mucked up with people responding in good faith to trolls who are allowed to keep coming back forever and ever and ever, it’s bad.
You’re not winning, you’re not sharpening your debate skills, you’re not helping anybody by responding to trolls who’ll never learn. It’s entirely performative for the other regular users of the site. It’s all for the admiration of your peers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For others who stumble across this:
I have no opinion on schools. The science (factual science) is still pending.
Childhood recovery is 99% and infractions alone are hardly a rounding error in covid numbers.
I supported trump over
A) a genocidal maniac in 16 who made it a quest to support any country that helped or supported the Ukrainian persecution of native Rus and Gypsum populations.
B) a man who had barely passable facilities in 19/20 and would all but definitely be a puppet. How surely became just that.
I’m a libertarian. That makes me socially selfish by definition. Family. Friends. Self. In order. If something is left after that I’ll try to care.
That makes me more interested in personal freedoms over societal benefits. Including security.
Want to discuss masks. N(etc) masks have at or above 95% filtration. If I see someone not using a mask I walk away. A they have the right to die. I have the right to ignore them.
I don’t worry about that 5% because I got vaccinated and move away from any massless moron.
And as far as I am concerned Biden has done no better than trump on the virus and far worse on other things. Like abandoned Americans.
How’s that stay in Mexico… oh, wait, he’s reversing that.
Walls are barbar… oh wait, he’s reversing that.
Travel bans are xeno… oh wait, he changed on that too.
That mr stone and I can bicker back and forth so well is more for entertainment value than anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone else surprised that Lostinlodos is busily gobbling the Trump and cop cock?
Anyone?
No?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So is it the action (bigotry) or is the choice of source (jealousy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]