Jacob Blake (WI), Daniel Prude (NY), Breonna Taylor (KY), Jonathan Price (TX) - here we go again
Smedley said:
It wasn't a conclusion, it was a question. What you wrote "looting, assault and arson are not acceptable, but we can understand the reasons for the rage in the people who respond this way", is the general premise behind the crime of passion legal principle, so I wanted to know if you think it should apply here. What's so off the wall about the question?
why would the courts rule to downgrade charges on a blanket basis? It would be the DA's office decision on charges. And in the final analysis, it's up to defense attorneys to argue extenuating circumstances like "crime of passion" for their clients.
nohero said:
How much looting does it take before it proves that Mr. Blake deserved what happened to him?
Because otherwise, I have no idea what discussing the looting has to do with the issues about what actually did happen to him, and what can be done to prevent similar events.
mtierney said:
nohero said:
How much looting does it take before it proves that Mr. Blake deserved what happened to him?
Because otherwise, I have no idea what discussing the looting has to do with the issues about what actually did happen to him, and what can be done to prevent similar events.
Wow, what an amazing statement. She is clearly a person with extraordinary character to maintain that perspective in these circumstances. We would all be a lot better off if those who loot and perpetuate violence and their defenders had one ten thousandth the character of this woman.
terp said:
mtierney said:
nohero said:
How much looting does it take before it proves that Mr. Blake deserved what happened to him?
Because otherwise, I have no idea what discussing the looting has to do with the issues about what actually did happen to him, and what can be done to prevent similar events.
Wow, what an amazing statement. She is clearly a person with extraordinary character to maintain that perspective in these circumstances. We would all be a lot better off if those who loot and perpetuate violence and their defenders had one ten thousandth the character of this woman.
And we'd be even more better off if our police departments weren't populated by homicidal jackasses.
DaveSchmidt said:
Understanding ≠ a defense.
I don't know. I read the below as a defense. "People are driven to do it."
drummerboy said:terp said:
drummerboy said:
not the point. and I'm sure you know it.
What is the point? Is the point that it's ok to use the actions of others as license to harm innocent people and destroy property en masse?
how do they have license?
And really, what is your point in only talking about these incidents? How can you simply condemn them in your vacuum? Is there no room for complexity in your world?
I don't like to see this kind of violence. But that doesn't mean that I can't see where it's coming from. You don't, apparently.
The problem is not that a store gets burned down. The problem is that people are driven to do it.
Maybe the Kenosha shooter (shooters) were not BLM protestors. This is a developing story. It will be interesting to see what unfolds.
https://newsone.com/4002924/kyle-rittenhouse-jacob-blake-protest-shooter-identified/
drummerboy said:
terp said:
mtierney said:
nohero said:
How much looting does it take before it proves that Mr. Blake deserved what happened to him?
Because otherwise, I have no idea what discussing the looting has to do with the issues about what actually did happen to him, and what can be done to prevent similar events.
Wow, what an amazing statement. She is clearly a person with extraordinary character to maintain that perspective in these circumstances. We would all be a lot better off if those who loot and perpetuate violence and their defenders had one ten thousandth the character of this woman.
And we'd be even more better off if our police departments weren't populated by homicidal jackasses.
I have a long track record on this board of criticizing the police and arguing for greater accountability. A minimum of 10 years.
When George Floyd was murdered I brought up police violence as an issue. I mentioned that while it happens disproportionately to Black people it affects everyone. I would think that would be something everyone would be able to get behind. I brought this up in this board and the reaction was that those who were concerned about violence against others could organize their own march and it was alluded that I must be racist to argue for a holistic approach. It seems that the left has decided to go down a divisive path. One that results in endless cycles of violence.
And here's the irony. The progressives need state violence. They need people with uniforms and guns to coerce people to comply with all of their regulations, to ensure everyone "pays their fair share"(whatever that happens to be at any given moment) and to implement the murder of poor people of color abroad. The entire progressive platform has no chance without state violence. And the further we "progress" the more state violence we will need to support it.
"state violence" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there.
terp said:
I have a long track record on this board of criticizing the police and arguing for greater accountability. A minimum of 10 years.
When George Floyd was murdered I brought up police violence as an issue. I mentioned that while it happens disproportionately to Black people it affects everyone. I would think that would be something everyone would be able to get behind. I brought this up in this board and the reaction was that those who were concerned about violence against others could organize their own march and it was alluded that I must be racist to argue for a holistic approach. It seems that the left has decided to go down a divisive path. One that results in endless cycles of violence.
And here's the irony. The progressives need state violence. They need people with uniforms and guns to coerce people to comply with all of their regulations, to ensure everyone "pays their fair share"(whatever that happens to be at any given moment) and to implement the murder of poor people of color abroad. The entire progressive platform has no chance without state violence. And the further we "progress" the more state violence we will need to support it.
I just have no desire right now to unpack your libertarian nonsense. Done it too many times.
#defundthepolice #demilitarizethepolice
The two people killed in Kenosha were shot by a white well UNREGULATED militia member.
Police coordinated with these militia member and actually funneled the protesters towards them.
I think most agree that police reform is needed. But to the extent that the Democrats run with the slogan, #defundthepolice = #hellotrumpsecondterm.
Smedley said:
I think most agree that police reform is needed. But to the extent that the Democrats run with the slogan, #defundthepolice = #hellotrumpsecondterm.
it's a good thing Democrats aren't doing that then.
terp said:
I have a long track record on this board of criticizing the police and arguing for greater accountability. A minimum of 10 years.
When George Floyd was murdered I brought up police violence as an issue. I mentioned that while it happens disproportionately to Black people it affects everyone. I would think that would be something everyone would be able to get behind. I brought this up in this board and the reaction was that those who were concerned about violence against others could organize their own march and it was alluded that I must be racist to argue for a holistic approach. It seems that the left has decided to go down a divisive path. One that results in endless cycles of violence.
And here's the irony. The progressives need state violence. They need people with uniforms and guns to coerce people to comply with all of their regulations, to ensure everyone "pays their fair share"(whatever that happens to be at any given moment) and to implement the murder of poor people of color abroad. The entire progressive platform has no chance without state violence. And the further we "progress" the more state violence we will need to support it.
It seems a person would need to define civil court proceedings as "state violence" in order for this to be true.
I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard.
ml1 said:
terp said:
I have a long track record on this board of criticizing the police and arguing for greater accountability. A minimum of 10 years.
When George Floyd was murdered I brought up police violence as an issue. I mentioned that while it happens disproportionately to Black people it affects everyone. I would think that would be something everyone would be able to get behind. I brought this up in this board and the reaction was that those who were concerned about violence against others could organize their own march and it was alluded that I must be racist to argue for a holistic approach. It seems that the left has decided to go down a divisive path. One that results in endless cycles of violence.
And here's the irony. The progressives need state violence. They need people with uniforms and guns to coerce people to comply with all of their regulations, to ensure everyone "pays their fair share"(whatever that happens to be at any given moment) and to implement the murder of poor people of color abroad. The entire progressive platform has no chance without state violence. And the further we "progress" the more state violence we will need to support it.
It seems a person would need to define civil court proceedings as "state violence" in order for this to be true.
One should consider how court rulings are enforced.
terp said:
One should consider how court rulings are enforced.
I'm baffled by this. If I decide to move my family into your house (assume that we're all well armed), and we guard "our" new home using those armaments, what are you supposed to do? Suck it up?
I would guess that a lot of the looting and arson are from out of town opportunists.
Hopefully they'll be caught and prosecuted.
We're also going to start seeing militia opportunists - like this guy:
terp said:
One should consider how court rulings are enforced.
most people don't need to be arrested or threatened at gunpoint to respond to a suit or abide by its findings.
if you're going to be pedantic about it, I suppose we can say that nearly everything we do is enforced by "state violence," from driving on the right side of the road, to paying for our groceries, to abiding by the boundaries of our property. I'm not sure I can think of anything we do in public that isn't technically enforced by "state violence" according to the definition you seem to be using.
ml1 said:
terp said:
I have a long track record on this board of criticizing the police and arguing for greater accountability. A minimum of 10 years.
When George Floyd was murdered I brought up police violence as an issue. I mentioned that while it happens disproportionately to Black people it affects everyone. I would think that would be something everyone would be able to get behind. I brought this up in this board and the reaction was that those who were concerned about violence against others could organize their own march and it was alluded that I must be racist to argue for a holistic approach. It seems that the left has decided to go down a divisive path. One that results in endless cycles of violence.
And here's the irony. The progressives need state violence. They need people with uniforms and guns to coerce people to comply with all of their regulations, to ensure everyone "pays their fair share"(whatever that happens to be at any given moment) and to implement the murder of poor people of color abroad. The entire progressive platform has no chance without state violence. And the further we "progress" the more state violence we will need to support it.
It seems a person would need to define civil court proceedings as "state violence" in order for this to be true.
well, yeah. It's the old libertarian trope about the enforcement of laws is "state violence", like forcing us to pay those god-awful taxes. Like I said, that phrase is doing an awful lot of work in his post.
Frankly though, the logic in the post is so muddled I can't unpack it.
e.g. what the hell does this mean?
It seems that the left has decided to go down a divisive path. One that results in endless cycles of violence.
Both "progressives" and "conservatives" need "state violence" in order to enforce the laws they deem necessary.
"Progressives" require state violence to protect consumers from fraud and workers from exploitation.
"Conservatives" require state violence to prevent people from moving from one country to another and advocate state violence to prevent physicians from performing abortions and women from obtaining those services.
Both require state violence to enforce taxation.
And it seems that Libertarians require state violence to protect property
So it seems to me that the only ones actually opposing state violence are those calling for "Defunding the Police".
Unless one advocates anarchy one must understand that there are criminals bent on harming others and therefore we must have agents of the State who will protect the citizenry from those criminals.
What we are discussing is what we do when those agents of the State become the criminals.
can you believe this guy? we are so screwed. the police are out of control.
Holy ****.
— Charles Gaba (@charles_gaba) August 26, 2020
"A 17-year old individual was "involved" in "the use of firearms" "the result of which" was that 2 people are dead."
Yes, that's what happens when a teenager deliberately drives across state lines w/an automatic weapon and guns people down. https://t.co/e2f1IWKWVz
ml1 said:
most people don't need to be arrested or threatened at gunpoint to respond to a suit or abide by its findings.
if you're going to be pedantic about it, I suppose we can say that nearly everything we do is enforced by "state violence," from driving on the right side of the road, to paying for our groceries, to abiding by the boundaries of our property. I'm not sure I can think of anything we do in public that isn't technically enforced by "state violence" according to the definition you seem to be using.
It's a corollary of Godwin's Law, that operates on MOL: as a "Soapbox: All Politics" discussion involving Mr. Terp grows longer, the probability of a claim that any law or tax is a form of "state violence" approaches 1.
Tucker Carlson for, well ... Tucker Carlson : "How shocked are we that 17 year olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?" Kyle Howard Rittenhouse is charged with first-degree intentional homicide. Carlson is justifying his fatal actions. pic.twitter.com/U9CpivebHi
STANV said:
Both "progressives" and "conservatives" need "state violence" in order to enforce the laws they deem necessary.
"Progressives" require state violence to protect consumers from fraud and workers from exploitation.
"Conservatives" require state violence to prevent people from moving from one country to another and advocate state violence to prevent physicians from performing abortions and women from obtaining those services.
Both require state violence to enforce taxation.
And it seems that Libertarians require state violence to protect property
So it seems to me that the only ones actually opposing state violence are those calling for "Defunding the Police".
Unless one advocates anarchy one must understand that there are criminals bent on harming others and therefore we must have agents of the State who will protect the citizenry from those criminals.
What we are discussing is what we do when those agents of the State become the criminals.
One of the flaws in the progressive mindset is the assumption that the government is the good guys. Their is also this notion that they act on behalf of us. The reality is that it is a group of people with the same flaws as everyone else. They just have a monopoly on violence.
We work for them. Our labor pays for them. The policemen who shot Jacob Blake was compensated with the labor of the citizens of Kenosha. Just like the police who killed George Floyd was compensated from labor taken from the citizens of Minneapolis.
It is the same on the national level. Your labor is appropriated so we can kill hundreds of thousands of poor people of color in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya,etc. They take half your labor hours to perpetuate this violence. I guess it's your fair share.
Who else could take half of people's labor at the risk of prison and violence and have the people that are having their labor taken actually argue for more? We are fed so much propaganda from childhood that we lash out at those who dare point out this obvious truth. It's for our own good!
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Garage Sales
-
Huge Garage Sale Sale Date: May 4, 2024
More info
It wasn't a conclusion, it was a question. What you wrote "looting, assault and arson are not acceptable, but we can understand the reasons for the rage in the people who respond this way", is the general premise behind the crime of passion legal principle, so I wanted to know if you think it should apply here. What's so off the wall about the question?