Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 375 of 420 FirstFirst ... 275325365373374375376377385 ... LastLast
Results 28,051 to 28,125 of 31490
  1. #28051
    What I don't understand is that if you choke someone until they're unconscious, they're still alive and at the same time absolutely zero threat to you. So why not cuff him and stuff him then? Why keep your knee on his neck for two or three more minutes, or however long it takes, until he's dead?

    Cops like this are why people riot. Not just killers but others too who abuse their position and/or have anger management issues and/or are openly racist. There's only so much bullshit a people can take.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  2. #28052
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Is this about Minnesota? I can't see the twitter stuff.

    There's a wide margin of error on both how long without O2 before you pass out and again how long after you pass out before you die. I don't think any of that's relevant, though.

    5 minutes is 300 seconds to change your mind about choking a handcuffed, unarmed person. If it lasted less than 5 seconds, that would be BARELY forgivable, if the circumstances were much different. 6 seconds is far long enough for rational thought to overcome a gut reaction.


    What's this about the station being on fire? The police station was on fire? I didn't see that in the 1 article I just read. Not conclusive research by any means.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  3. #28053
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Police station was set on fire. A group of 50-100 cops in riot gear is protecting the murderers home. Dozens of cop cars destroyed. This is at least Rodney King levels bad.

    State prosecutor now suggests they might not even bring a criminal charge against the officer. This won't end well.
    https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1...874696709?s=20

    Here's a YT link with some of the twitter video footage. It is very hard to find on YT without someone putting a "the blacks out there lootin' again!" twist on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97hGi3ac7K8
    Last edited by oskar; 05-29-2020 at 12:40 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  4. #28054
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Yeah. This is real bad.

    It's hard to even watch the protest. Like, the destruction, looting, and arson, is hard to watch, not the peaceful protests.

    The protestors were even throwing shit at firefighters, so the fire dept. had to just let the police station burn.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  5. #28055
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Apparently, the police evacuated the station before the fires got out of hand, and just left the area entirely.

    There was no police, fire dept, or national guard presence on the scene shortly after sundown, it seems.

    Fires are spreading from building to building near the police station.


    A reporter said the incident - the knee to the throat - is on camera from 5 angles..?
    And no arrest of the officer.


    What the hell is this?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  6. #28056
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  7. #28057
    It seems to me that they are actively trying to encourage disorder.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #28058
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I got you this time MMM:



    Yeah, this is pretty bad.

    Fascism doesn't get a lot more literal than that. At the same time Trump is encouraging police to shoot protestors on twitter.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  9. #28059
    ^^ The worst thing about that is 1/3 of the country will cheer because of some combination of the sentiments "arresting the fake news" and "arresting a black guy"
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  10. #28060
    Fascism doesn't get a lot more literal than that. At the same time Trump is encouraging police to shoot looters on twitter.

    FYP

    Don't be disingenuous. Protesters and looters are different things. Looters getting shot is nothing new. It's how nearly all governments deal with them.

    The arresting of journalists is obviously unacceptable.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #28061
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Pretty sure he says looters because he can't say the n-word in public.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  12. #28062
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I mean he's probably not talking about officer Umbrellaman doing whatever officer Umbrellaman does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC9-ygP87CQ
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  13. #28063
    That's once again being disingenuous.

    He said "looters" for two reasons... one, looting rhymes with shooting, and two, governments threatening to shoot looters is what usually happens when riots turn into looting. Was there this kind of outcry when Bush threatened to shoot looters after Katrina? No, most people said "fucking right".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #28064
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  15. #28065
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    There's a really easy way to stop the riots: arrest the murderer. They can arrest a CNN crew no reason given, they can kill a man during an arrest, but they can't arrest someone who's on video committing murder?
    I place zero blame on the looters. I think they're doing the right thing. What good is it to have a city when it's run by fascists. They can decide: hold one man accountable or lose the city.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  16. #28066
    I'm sorry, where these "very good people" looting?


    Those who were protesting at lockdown are imbeciles, but they weren't violent. There's no need to threaten them with violence.


    And I dunno if you noticed, but the "thugs" Trump is referring to are not necessarily black.

    There's a really easy way to stop the riots: arrest the murderer.
    Agreed, though it has to be said, because it's extremely important in a civilised nation, that he is an alleged murderer, and not a murderer until a court proves him to be. idk what defines "murder" in USA, but in the UK he could only be guilty of manslaughter. I don't think his actions can be legally justified, but I do believe people should be presumed innocent until they face a court.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #28067
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm sorry, where these "very good people" looting?
    He called the neonazis in Charlottesville, one of whom murdered a counter protestors "very good people".

    Here's looters giving their loot to people who need it: https://twitter.com/SophNar0747/stat...079510016?s=20.

    manslaughter
    I usually appreciate accurate language, but in this case I know what I saw. I saw a man who was not resisting arrest being put on the ground in handcuffs and fixated for no reason while a man slowly asphyxiated him until he died. I don't need a judge and jury to tell me what I saw. That was murder.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  18. #28068
    He called the neonazis in Charlottesville, one of whom murdered a counter protestors "very good people".
    Ok so Trump said something idiotic and might even be racist. That doesn't mean that calling looters "thugs" and threatening to shoot them is unreasonable for a leader.

    Here's looters giving their loot to people who need it: https://twitter.com/SophNar0747/stat...079510016?s=20.
    This doesn't make it ok. The problem with looting is not the theft, it's the collapse of law and order. People sitting at home start to worry that it'll spread to residential areas, or independent businesses that aren't insured. Others might think "now's a perfect time to get a new TV". When riots turn into looting, the government has to act strongly. That's a given.

    I usually appreciate accurate language, but in this case I know what I saw. I saw a man who was not resisting arrest being put on the ground in handcuffs and fixated for no reason while a man slowly asphyxiated him until he died. I don't need a judge and jury to tell me what I saw. That was murder.
    For it to be murder, in the context I understand that word, then he has to have been actively trying to kill him. I can't draw that conclusion from what I've seen. Maybe in USA reckless endagerment of life causing death is murder, in which case yes I agree what I saw looks like muder.

    But we still live in civilised nations where presumption of innocence underpins our entire legal system.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  19. #28069
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Trey Gowdy one of the most pathetic Trump bootlickers in congress called it murder. Idk what you're watching that you can consider this to be potentially accidental in any way.

    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  20. #28070
    From what I can tell based on a quick bit of research, he could be guilty in USA of "voluntary manslaughter".

    "First degree murder" requires it to be planned in advance, rather than spur of the moment.

    There are four key points to consider when considering "second degree murder"...

    1. intent to kill
    2. intent to inflict serious bodily injury
    3. extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life
    4. felony murder rule


    1. is subjective and probably not provable,
    2. is also subjective but probably easier to prove,
    3. is the closest we are getting to accurately calling this guy a murderer,
    4. does not apply (refers to dangerous crimes where someone accidentally dies, perhaps a bank robbery).
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  21. #28071
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    How the fuck is kneeling on somebody for 10 minutes possibly "spur of the moment"?

    He was stopped under suspicion of having paid with a counterfeit $10 bill. Since this has not been confirmed to be true, nor have they smeared the victim with any past charges, I assume they got nothing. It is clear from a surveillance video that he did not at all resist what looked like an unlawful arrest.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't watched the full video. I would encourage you to do so, because I don't see any way you could see anything but an intent to kill by the cop. He kept kneeling long after Floyd stopped moving. Not that there was ever a reason to knee on his neck in the first place.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  22. #28072
    How the fuck is kneeling on somebody for 10 minutes possibly "spur of the moment"?

    I think you're misunderstanding what that means in a legal context, but maybe I am. For it to be premeditated, it would mean that he had intent to kill before he arrived on the scene.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #28073
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I'll also remind you that not only are there no murder charges. There are no charges, and the state prosecutor made it sound like there won't be criminal charges against the officers. At that point I think it is your civil duty to burn the city to the ground.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  24. #28074
    I don't see how this is first degree murder unless it can be objectively proven that he arrived at the scene with intent to kill.

    The difference between "second degree murder" and "voluntary manslaughter" in USA isn't that clear to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #28075
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    I'll also remind you that not only are there no murder charges. There are no charges, and the state prosecutor made it sound like there won't be criminal charges against the officers. At that point I think it is your civil duty to burn the city to the ground.
    You should still wait for them to complete their investigation and announce no charges are forthcoming. At that point you burn the police station to the ground, not the city.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #28076
    With that said, he should be under arrest while they investigate, for his own safety and for the sake of public order.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  27. #28077
    By the way, I'm only talking about the one guy here. The other three officers are almost certainly not guilty of murder, and might not have even committed a crime. idk, it would be somewhat reassuring if at least one of them spoke out and said "dude he's not resisting, let's get him in the car and book him". That none of them did is alarming. But their actions are certainly not as serious as the knee guy, who in my opinion is the only one who should be arrested and charged with either murder or manslaughter.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #28078
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    It's been 5 years of peaceful protests since Eric Garner was murdered. No officer faced consequences for that. I don't care about semantics. Those who were killed by police don't care what you want to call it legally.
    There's a massive systemic problem with police all over the world. Their actual purpose is extremely homeopathic. The only thing they're efficient at is oppression, tyranny and escalation. Police forces need to be massively stripped of their power worldwide - the UK is extremely exemplary when it comes to law enforcement. I think that's what shapes your perspective.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  29. #28079
    the UK is extremely exemplary when it comes to law enforcement. I think that's what shapes your perspective.
    Perhaps. Or maybe it's just the sociopath in me, that I try to view these things without emotion clouding my judgement. I used to react emotionally to global affairs, but as I got older and had issues with depression, I started to put some emotional distance between myself and things out of my control. Maybe that's why I come across as uncaring about these issues, even though I do actually care in the sense I wish this kind of stuff wasn't happening.

    If I thought these riots had any chance of ovethrowing the government and replacing it with something better, I'd be all for it. But that's no more a pipe dream than when I was 13 and thought I'd be a footballer, even though I was shit at football.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #28080
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Pretty sure he says looters because he can't say the n-word in public.
    Another way of framing the question is whether he'd be sayiing the same thing if it were white people rioting.

    I'm going to guess a big fat 'no' on that one.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  31. #28081
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Another way of framing the question is whether he'd be sayiing the same thing if it were white people rioting.

    I'm going to guess a big fat 'no' on that one.
    Even if this is the case, the problem is not with how he deals with black looters, rather how he deals with white looters. He shouldn't be soft on looters, regardless of their colour.

    And there's an deliberate emphasis on the word "looters" here. Rioting and looting are not the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #28082
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think you're misunderstanding what that means in a legal context, but maybe I am. For it to be premeditated, it would mean that he had intent to kill before he arrived on the scene.
    Nope. It means he had to have a moment or more to think before or during the act of murder. "Premeditation" in US law means nothing more than that.

    He clearly had ten minutes to think while he was choking the guy to death. Again, he wasn't under immediate threat and had nothing else going on to worry about while he did this.

    A better defense would be he was too ignorant to realise he was murdering the guy and would have stopped if he had known what he was doing. Or, that he has PTSD from years of witnessing himself abusing civilians.

    But overall, I think first degree murder implies that you have to knowingly be trying to kill someone, which is hard to prove because he could just be an idiot. Manslaughter would definitely be a slam dunk though imo.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  33. #28083
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Even if this is the case, the problem is not with how he deals with black looters, rather how he deals with white looters. He shouldn't be soft on looters, regardless of their colour.

    And there's an deliberate emphasis on the word "looters" here. Rioting and looting are not the same thing.
    In what scenario is summary execution appropriate punishment for robbery and/or vandalism?

    Funny how these people Trump wants to shoot don't deserve fair process and a trial but the murderer cop does.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  34. #28084
    In what scenario is summary execution appropriate punishment for looting?
    FYP. Let's not derail onto general robbery and vandalism. We're talking specifically about looting.

    And it can be justifiable, for example, after a disaster, such as a hurricane. I'm not sure why you're acting so surprised about this, find me a government that isn't willing to shoot looters on sight in the event of serious public disorder.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #28085
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    FYP. Let's not derail onto general robbery and vandalism. We're talking specifically about looting.

    And it can be justifiable, for example, after a disaster, such as a hurricane. I'm not sure why you're acting so surprised about this, find me a government that isn't willing to shoot looters on sight in the event of serious public disorder.

    Looting is a form of theft, so it seems an apt comparison to make.

    As it happens, there are no laws on the books in the US or UK that make it legal for the police to shoot looters. Not sure where you got the idea there were.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  36. #28086
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Funny how these people Trump wants to shoot don't deserve fair process and a trial but the murderer cop does.
    What's your position on this? Is looting a form of crime where due process can be ignored in your view?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  37. #28087
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    find me a government that isn't willing to shoot looters on sight in the event of serious public disorder.
    None of this would happen if there was a functioning law enforcement.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  38. #28088
    As for Katrina, a number of those police who shot looters came up on trial. So no, it's not legal to execute looters or suspected looters on sight.

    Further, the cop accused of telling them they could shoot looters later denied saying that (same article). So apparently he knew it was illegal too.


    https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/wh...-looting-31613

    In the days after Katrina New Orleans police officers shot 11 civilians, and five were killed, prompting the involvement of the Department of Justice, which is currently investigating the NOPD on eight separate cases. The troubled department has been engaged in an effort to reform itself; the presence of the Department of Justice has certainly helped. So far, a total of sixteen NOPD police officers have been hit with criminal charges for their involvement in shootings of civilians, most which happened in the days after Katrina.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  39. #28089
    Looting is a form of theft, so it seems an apt comparison to make.
    This is pretty weak. Murder is a form of actual bodily harm, you wouldn't then compare the two. Looting is specifically the act of ransacking during times of war or catastrophe. If you want a full definition, google it. Looting is not theft. Theft is a minor crime in most cases. Looting is a serious public order offence.

    As it happens, there are no laws on the books in the US or UK that make it legal for the police to shoot looters. Not sure where you got the idea there were.
    You might find this isn't the case if a State of Emergency has been declared.

    What's your position on this? Is looting a form of crime where due process can be ignored in your view?
    As an act of last resort, with adequate warnings issued, yes. But it has to be sustained public disorder during a time of crisis, and they have to be taking goods that are not essential to their immediate wellbeing, like trainers and not water. Under normal circumstances, people get shot without trial due to the perceived threat they pose. In a state of emergency, this is even more likely.

    Looting is dangerous, it's more serious than rioting. It can cause people to come out onto the street to protect their property, it's an unacceptable step towards total loss of law and order. When the looting starts, that's when I expect governments to up their game.

    As for Katrina, a number of those police who shot looters came up on trial. So no, it's not legal to execute looters or suspected looters on sight.
    Where any of them found guilty? Or did the courts find they were legally justified in their actions?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #28090
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Where any of them found guilty? Or did the courts find they were legally justified in their actions?
    Whether the courts found police guilty of murder seems like a strange metric of justice if you ask me.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  41. #28091
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    It's a lot more dangerous to let a militarized police force murder indiscriminately than it is to cause property damage. One is replaceable, the other one strips you of every right you have, including your right to live.

    Let's be clear: this is not at all an isolated incident. Getting killed by police is a leading cause of death for black youth in the US.
    Last edited by oskar; 05-29-2020 at 11:31 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  42. #28092
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You might find this isn't the case if a State of Emergency has been declared.
    You'd have to show me that law, 'cause I very much doubt it exists.

    In general, punishment has to fit the crime. You can't just say 'arrrgggh, looters are robbing and smashing stuff, let's kill them all, arrrrgggh!'. It doesn't work that way, as much as you'd like to argue it does.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  43. #28093
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Ong doesn't your own position strike you as kind of weird... That a man who is on camera from 6 angles killing someone deserves extreme scrutiny to even warrant an arrest, but the theft of property should be met with immediate deadly force?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  44. #28094
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The knee was on throat for 5 minutes, not 10... as if it matters.
    The alleged counterfeit bill was a $20, not a $10... as if it matters.

    The officer's hands were in his pockets while he was kneeling on George Floyd's throat, clearly the officer was not threatened in any way.

    Looting vs theft vs stealing - None of them are violent crimes. A violent crime is one that poses immediate threat to life, not projected or long-term hardship, not a presumption that vigilantism will happen. Killing unarmed, non-violent people who have not been found guilty by a court of law simply cannot be acceptable.


    A black/latino CNN reporter was arrested this morning and held in custody until police verified he worked for CNN, despite the reporter holding his CNN ID in front of him, facing the police the entire time. Meanwhile, the white CNN reporter a block away is not arrested, as his CNN ID (and white skin, presumably) are enough to convince the police.


    I'm just completely drained by this. I hate it. I can't support violent protests, but I can't ignore that 70 years of non-violent protests haven't affected any change.
    It just becomes more and more obvious over time. Every incident, we're told the police had reason to use force, then videos emerge showing they clearly didn't. This is happening time and time again.


    All 4 officers need to be arrested and charged. Maybe not the same charge, but their silence was acceptance, and even support of that knee to the throat. It is what would happen to anyone else. If a bank robbery results in death, then the get-away driver is charged with the same murder charge as the one who pulled the trigger, even though the driver wasn't even in the building, and didn't have a gun. That's what the law is if you're not a police officer. It's what the law should be. Putting officers above the law is the source of the injustice, and it has to end.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  45. #28095
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Whether the courts found police guilty of murder seems like a strange metric of justice if you ask me.
    That the courts failed to successfully prosecute seems a strange metric of guilt.

    You'd have to show me that law, 'cause I very much doubt it exists.

    Well I doubt that the laws recently passed by the govt to enforce lockdown are legally enforceable if challenged to the highest court. Laws require certain processes to be binding, the govt have skipped those due to time being of the essence.

    If no such law exists, there will be loopholes. Simply declaring a looter a "terrorist" will probably be enough. Looters are a direct threat to national security. People can get shot perfectly legally by the state if the state deems that person to be a threat to national security.

    In general, punishment has to fit the crime. You can't just say 'arrrgggh, looters are robbing and smashing stuff, let's kill them all, arrrrgggh!'. It doesn't work that way, as much as you'd like to argue it does.

    You really do miss the magnitude of looting, don't you? To you it's just a bit of robbing and smashing shit up. To me it's a serious threat to law and order
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #28096
    None of them are violent crimes.
    If you want to define violence to "a direct physical attack" or words to that affect, then sure.

    I don't agree though. I consider a threat to public order to be violence. Whether it's justified violence or not is another matter, but it's violence. Looting is very much violent, that's what makes it so much more serious than theft.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  47. #28097
    I mean we live in a world where "microagression" is a thing. Calling someone a cunt is considered violence. But escalating a state of emergency is not violent?

    2020, the year that keeps on giving.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #28098
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    It's not my definition. It's the legal definition.

    FFS, it's a war crime to shoot a person fleeing a scene of battle.
    How can you argue that it's legal to shoot a looter fleeing a scene of robbery?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  49. #28099
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That the courts failed to successfully prosecute seems a strange metric of guilt.
    The question arises how often the police get let off on serious charges -you may not have noticed this, but is the main impetus for the riots.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well I doubt that the laws recently passed by the govt to enforce lockdown are legally enforceable if challenged to the highest court. Laws require certain processes to be binding, the govt have skipped those due to time being of the essence.

    If no such law exists, there will be loopholes. Simply declaring a looter a "terrorist" will probably be enough. Looters are a direct threat to national security. People can get shot perfectly legally by the state if the state deems that person to be a threat to national security.
    It's not really about what they can get away with though is it? It's about what's correct.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You really do miss the magnitude of looting, don't you? To you it's just a bit of robbing and smashing shit up. To me it's a serious threat to law and order
    No, it really isn't a serious threat to law and order if I smash a window and steal a TV set. It's a crime but it's not treason. And I shouldn't get a bullet in the head from the nearest cop for it.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  50. #28100
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    It's a lot more dangerous to let a militarized police force murder indiscriminately than it is to cause property damage. One is replaceable, the other one strips you of every right you have, including your right to live.

    Let's be clear: this is not at all an isolated incident. Getting killed by police is a leading cause of death for black youth in the US.
    That first sentence, you're right, I do get it. I'm not saying that these protesters should do nothing. But looting is one of the stupidest things they can do, because in doing so they give the authorities all the ammo they need to justifiably clamp down hard.

    Ong doesn't your own position strike you as kind of weird... That a man who is on camera from 6 angles killing someone deserves extreme scrutiny to even warrant an arrest, but the theft of property should be met with immediate deadly force?

    No, you haven't absorbed my posts. Not immediate. They should be given adequate warning of the serious nature of the escalation. If after they have been warned, they carry on looting, then they have given the state no choice. So you start off with one or two, hope to cause non-fatal wounds and that be enough to deter further looting. Usually that will suffice, people don't want to risk their life for a TV.

    If looters hadn't got shot in New Orleans, who knows how far it would've gone? Maybe people's houses start getting looted. You have to nip that in the bud before it gets to that point.

    And I've said this cop should be arrested and held while investigated.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #28101
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    It's not my definition. It's the legal definition.

    FFS, it's a war crime to shoot a person fleeing a scene of battle.
    How can you argue that it's legal to shoot a looter fleeing a scene of robbery?
    Do you people really think looting is just "robbery"?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  52. #28102
    The question arises how often the police get let off on serious charges -you may not have noticed this, but is the main impetus for the riots.

    Then burn down the cop shops, don't start looting.

    It's not really about what they can get away with though is it? It's about what's correct.

    It's correct for a government to stop the collapse of law and order.

    No, it really isn't a serious threat to law and order if I smash a window and steal a TV set.
    It is if you're exploiting a state of emergency.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #28103
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do you people really think looting is just "robbery"?
    Don't be a poop about this. I didn't say that, and your injection of the word "just" in that context is spin.

    I think looting is a form of robbery / theft / stealing. None of which poses immediate threat to life.

    If the police tell you to stop looting, and you don't stop looting, then you should be arrested not killed.
    Suggesting that any crime committed by a person whom is not a threat to life should be responded to with bullets is barbaric.


    It's an international war crime to kill an enemy combatant who WAS shooting at you a minute ago, but is now running away from you.
    It's an affront to humanity to argue a lesser standard applies to non-enemy allies who were never shooting at you and aren't even armed.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  54. #28104
    If the police tell you to stop looting, and you don't stop looting, then you should be arrested not killed.

    Yes, if this is possible. However, during a state of emergency, that is directing resources away from other areas. You also have to worry about if the looters are armed, and how they will react to officers attempting to arrest them.

    Suggesting that any crime committed by a person whom is not a threat to life should be responded to with bullets is barbaric.

    I can argue they are an indirect threat to life, in the same way someone robbing a bank is an indirect threat to life.

    It's an international war crime to kill an enemy combatant who WAS shooting at you a minute ago, but is now running away from you.

    This doesn't make any sense and basically implies that you have to let the enemy retreat to regroup, potentially where they have more weapons/ammo. I don't see how anyone can be successfully charged with this war crime, it would be easy to argue that you didn't know they were "fleeing", simply that they were "retreating".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #28105
    Bank robbers sometimes get shot without trial. Is that outrageous? They're not always armed, just assumed armed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #28106
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Immediate threat to life, not supposed threat to life, not metaphorical threat to life, not potential threat to life.
    Immediate threat is the standard.

    As for the war crimes, yea. They could regroup, and re-arm, or they could leave entirely. If there isn't immediate threat to life, it is recognized by international standards that killing them is a war crime.

    You can disagree, or not, but that's neither here nor there. Immediate and present threat to life is the standard. It's what should be the standard, and arguing that a person who isn't actively and presently trying to kill deserves death without trial or jury is an affront to human dignity.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  57. #28107
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    The officer in question has been arrested and taken into custody.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  58. #28108
    Apparently he's been charged with third degree murder AND manslaughter. Did he kill someone else in the meantime or is that just some technicality they use in law to charge him twice for the same crime?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  59. #28109
    I didn't even know there was a third degree murder.

    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    and arguing that a person who isn't actively and presently trying to kill deserves death without trial or jury is an affront to human dignity.


    So in the movies, when a cop says "stop or I'll shoot", and the guy doesn't stop, so he gets shot, that's not how it happens in real life, right? That's just Hollywood? Serious question, because I wouldn't know.

    You didn't acknowledge my bank robber point. If you're a cop, and approach a bank robber, you're assuming he's armed. If he goes for his wallet, you're shooting him. There was a perceived immediate threat to life, even if that threat didn't actually exist. The same can be true of the looter. If the looters are within shooting range of the police, the reverse is true, the police are potentiall vulnerable. So how do you arrest them? You approach cautiously with gun drawn, and shoot as soon as there is any perceived threat. It's a tense situation and the police are well within their rights to shoot if they feel threatened.

    It's obviously better to arrest them, but that might not be practical. If the looting is sufficiently bad enough, then a shoot-on-sight policy would be inevitable. I'm actually quite shocked that I'm the only person who understands that inevitability.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  60. #28110
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I didn't even know there was a third degree murder.
    Apparently it only exists in three states.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-degree_murder

    I'm guessing it's the 'depraved heart' thing being used here. Like, he wasn't really trying to kill the guy, but had some sociopathic level don't-give-a-shit-if-he-dies attitude about it.

    Think also manslaughter is a step worse than that, in that it wasn't premeditated but still intended to kill. So maybe they use both charges thinking if they can't get manslaughter they can still go for 3rd degree.



    As to your other point, I think you have to have a "reasonable" degree of belief that the person is armed. If a bank robber held up a bank with a rubber chicken, then you can't shoot him while he flees. If you know he has a gun or even suspect it (he stuck his hand in his pocket and pointed something at the clerk), you're good to go. So, you can't just assume because someone is breaking the law in general (i.e., looting) that they must be armed. Otherwise you could shoot a guy jaywalking.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  61. #28111
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If the looting is sufficiently bad enough, then a shoot-on-sight policy would be inevitable. I'm actually quite shocked that I'm the only person who understands that inevitability. [/COLOR]
    I'm surprised you don't understand how it's only going to escalate things if cops started shooting unarmed looters.

    Case in point: One hot summer night in Canada they had a weird confluence of heat, a summer holiday and the bars closing early on a Saturday night. People rioted over it. I'm not saying that's a reasonable response, I'm saying no-one would think 'oh shit there's a riot going on, let's go in and start shooting to restore law and order.' Law and order is going to come back faster if you don't start shooting people than if you do.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  62. #28112
    I'm surprised you don't understand how it's only going to escalate things if cops started shooting unarmed looters.

    I dunno, the kind of people who are out looting are generally not the kind of people who are willing to risk their lives for a cause. The people doing that are those burning down police stations. And when shit is hitting the fan, when people are actually scared, I think you'd be surprised how much public support there is for shooting looters. Looters are not protesters. Looters are exploiting protests. The protesters should discourage looting in the strongest way possible. It hurts their cause, badly. It makes it easier for the govt to clamp down, and costs them public support. You might not think the latter is true, and so long as it's just insured major businesses, the public might maintain support, but as soon as normal people start getting dragged into it, whether that be uninsured small businesses, or residential areas, that's when people get scared that law and order is collapsing.

    Case in point: One hot summer night in Canada they had a weird confluence of heat, a summer holiday and the bars closing early on a Saturday night. People rioted over it. I'm not saying that's a reasonable response, I'm saying no-one would think 'oh shit there's a riot going on, let's go in and start shooting to restore law and order.' Law and order is going to come back faster if you don't start shooting people than if you do.

    Are you sure you're not from Australia? I'm not saying "start shooting people", that's obviously a terrible thing to do. But if those riots had escalated into days of riots, with looting, there comes a point where the govt has to change tactics. The Canada thing, that's just one raucous night, probably something many people fondly remember. Obviously it would be unimaginable for the police to use lethal force, but if those riots lasted for days, with widespread looting, then it's a matter of time before the govt take extreme measures.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  63. #28113
    I'm guessing it's the 'depraved heart' thing being used here. Like, he wasn't really trying to kill the guy, but had some sociopathic level don't-give-a-shit-if-he-dies attitude about it.

    Oddly, this is possibly a mitigating factor in the UK, rather than an aggravating factor. It might fall into "diminished responsibility" territory.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #28114
    "Diminished responsibility" isn't a get-out-of-jail card, it's a one way ticket to life in a nuthouse. But it's probably a better life for an ex-cop than 30 years in the slammer. This "mitigating factor" would apply to someone with paranoid schizophrenia, for example, but any potential mental illness could be considered.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #28115
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Apparently he's been charged with third degree murder AND manslaughter. Did he kill someone else in the meantime or is that just some technicality they use in law to charge him twice for the same crime?
    You cannot be tried for the same crime twice, so prosecutors will sometimes charge 2 similar crimes simultaneously, 'cause they're not sure which one the jury will stick to.

    If they were to pick wrong, and the guy is innocent of the murder 3 charge, then he cannot be retried for the same event under manslaughter. Basically the prosecutor is saying, I think it might be Murder 3, but it's definitely at least manslaughter.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  66. #28116
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So in the movies, when a cop says "stop or I'll shoot", and the guy doesn't stop, so he gets shot, that's not how it happens in real life, right? That's just Hollywood? Serious question, because I wouldn't know.
    That's Hollywood, not irl. I mean. We could pull up countless news stories where that does happen, and the cop gets away with it, but it's technically only legal if the cop honestly believes the perp is armed and actively threatening lives. It's just that when you shoot the opposing witness, and all your coworkers will commit perjury to back you up, it's easier to get away with it.

    Another one Hollywood does all the time is ignore the law that cops can't fire at crowds, even if there's a bad guy in front of the crowd.
    Even if the guy has a gun pointed at the cops, they're not allowed to shoot unless "the background is secure." Meaning that IF they miss their target, they aren't going to hit an innocent person behind the target.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You didn't acknowledge my bank robber point. If you're a cop, and approach a bank robber, you're assuming he's armed. If he goes for his wallet, you're shooting him. There was a perceived immediate threat to life, even if that threat didn't actually exist. The same can be true of the looter. If the looters are within shooting range of the police, the reverse is true, the police are potentiall vulnerable. So how do you arrest them? You approach cautiously with gun drawn, and shoot as soon as there is any perceived threat. It's a tense situation and the police are well within their rights to shoot if they feel threatened.
    This is correct, but note how you moved the bar from the cop believing it was an unarmed looter to having a reasonable suspicion that the looter was armed and threatening to shoot the cop?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It's obviously better to arrest them, but that might not be practical. If the looting is sufficiently bad enough, then a shoot-on-sight policy would be inevitable. I'm actually quite shocked that I'm the only person who understands that inevitability.
    There are shoot-on-sight missions... usually carried out by SWAT teams, not beat cops. Those require a judge's warrant. Not just the judge's permission, but a signed paper document (although there can be exceptions to that, too).
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  67. #28117
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Oddly, this is possibly a mitigating factor in the UK, rather than an aggravating factor. It might fall into "diminished responsibility" territory.
    Except you can't get 40 years in prison for "diminished responsbility" like you can for 3rd degree murder. In America, DM is equivalent to the insanity defence, put broadly.

    So 3DM is still assuming you're responsible - that you didn't mean to do it but at the same time you didn't give a shit if they died either. It's more 'he's an asshole' than 'he's crazy.'

    Insanity and (I think) diminished responsbility imply there were extenuating circumstances that made you less responsible than you otherwise would be. In the US the insanity defense means you didn't understand what you were doing was wrong.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 05-29-2020 at 05:28 PM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  68. #28118
    This is correct, but note how you moved the bar from the cop believing it was an unarmed looter to having a reasonable suspicion that the looter was armed and threatening to shoot the cop?

    In USA, it's reasonable to assume the looter is armed. In the UK, not so much, but still a concern for approaching officers. And how the looters will react to police force kinda depends on the situation. Where the riots are the result of police brutality, it's probably reasonable to assume the looters are more likely to attack police than comply.

    There are shoot-on-sight missions... usually carried out by SWAT teams, not beat cops. Those require a judge's warrant. Not just the judge's permission, but a signed paper document (although there can be exceptions to that, too).

    Regular cops here aren't armed, so they couldn't even carry out such a measure. This would be special units, or military, depending on the gravity of the situation. But of course a policy of shooting looters should only be carried out by authorised personnel, even in USA where all cops are armed. A regular cop should probably not be dealing with potentially dangerous looters, that's the job of riot police and maybe special units.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #28119
    Insanity and (I think) diminished responsbility imply there were extenuating circumstances that made you less responsible than you otherwise would be. In the US the insanity defense means you didn't understand what you were doing was wrong.

    Yeah there's going to be differences between the UK and USA, and also big holes in my knowledge. I don't think diminished responsibility or whatever can apply here anyway, he seems calm and completely in control of his actions. It's not like he's losing his shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #28120
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah there's going to be differences between the UK and USA, and also big holes in my knowledge. I don't think diminished responsibility or whatever can apply here anyway, he seems calm and completely in control of his actions. It's not like he's losing his shit.
    Yeah I think DM is more in line with the whole "crime of passion" thing that you get in some European countries. In the US, that's a question that goes to premeditation, and so the distinction between first degree murder and manslaughter.

    Classic example is a guy who walks in on his wife banging some other guy and kills them. That's not premeditated, but manslaughter. In the UK, I think then it's diminished responsibility. Is that right?
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 05-29-2020 at 06:09 PM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  71. #28121
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    You cannot be tried for the same crime twice, so prosecutors will sometimes charge 2 similar crimes simultaneously, 'cause they're not sure which one the jury will stick to.

    If they were to pick wrong, and the guy is innocent of the murder 3 charge, then he cannot be retried for the same event under manslaughter. Basically the prosecutor is saying, I think it might be Murder 3, but it's definitely at least manslaughter.
    I think you got the right idea about why have both charges, but I think manslaughter is 2nd degree murder (intended to kill but not premeditated) and so worse than 3rd degree murder (didn't intend to kill necessarily but didn't give a shit if they killed either).
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Boris until we have all the facts through an inquiry, police investigation, and parliamentary commission...then we should explode him.
    also,
    I'd like to be called Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent.
  72. #28122
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    In USA, it's reasonable to assume the looter is armed. In the UK, not so much, but still a concern for approaching officers. And how the looters will react to police force kinda depends on the situation. Where the riots are the result of police brutality, it's probably reasonable to assume the looters are more likely to attack police than comply.
    Not that kind of reasonable, but the kind of reasonable that says, "Here are the specific reasons I believed this particular person was not only armed, but had the intent to do immediate harm."

    To the latter point, I agree with poopadoop's analysis. The withdrawal of the police and lack of inserting national guard at the time of the fire was to save lives. They could only have made the situation worse on that night, in that moment. It shocked me, and I didn't get it at first, but it was wise. If they started confronting protestors directly, it would have pulled more people into the protest, and ignited the rage at injustice that was simmering just below the surface of the protest.

    We would only have lost more lives. As it played out in St Paul, we only lost property. Insured property, at that.

    Looting is an inevitable consequence of mob mentality. I haven't kept up with the current psychological stance on mob mentality. What I mean is that once a mob / riot forms, people assume their role in the mob, and will do things that they would never do under other circumstances. Most people will get caught up in the mob, if they're present. It's a human thing, not a criminal thing.

    Criminalizing and killing people who are otherwise never going to act in that criminal way is not the best way to deal with it. Sure, it's a perfectly legal way to deal with it, but it misses the spirit of the law, where it relies on the letter of the law.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Regular cops here aren't armed, so they couldn't even carry out such a measure. This would be special units, or military, depending on the gravity of the situation. But of course a policy of shooting looters should only be carried out by authorised personnel, even in USA where all cops are armed. A regular cop should probably not be dealing with potentially dangerous looters, that's the job of riot police and maybe special units.
    I can absolutely support the final comment, but I can't support any argument that treats hundreds of people caught up in a moment as though they are armed, dangerous threats to the society. Even the riot police and national guard cannot stoop to rule by terrorism - rule by threat of death without judge or jury.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  73. #28123
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I think you got the right idea about why have both charges, but I think manslaughter is 2nd degree murder (intended to kill but not premeditated) and so worse than 3rd degree murder (didn't intend to kill necessarily but didn't give a shit if they killed either).
    In decending order of severity.

    Here's the MN code for Murder 3
    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.195

    for manslaughter 1
    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.20

    for manslaughter 2
    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  74. #28124
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah there's going to be differences between the UK and USA, and also big holes in my knowledge. I don't think diminished responsibility or whatever can apply here anyway, he seems calm and completely in control of his actions. It's not like he's losing his shit.
    His hands were in his pockets. He was showing calm, not showing any signs that he felt threatened.

    Also, there's now video released to he public that shows he was 1 of 3 officers kneeling on George Floyd, and none of them had the right to do so to an unarmed, handcuffed suspect in their custody. Their own police chief has said that such behavior is nothing they were trained to do, and appeared to have no justification for in that moment.


    Also also... I corrected oscar to say the knee was on the throat for 5 minutes, but CNN reports it was over 8 minutes, the final 3 of which the suspect had passed out / gone totally limp.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  75. #28125
    Looting is an inevitable consequence of mob mentality.
    I agree, and the govt reacting with increasingly extreme measures is an inevitability of widespread looting. You understand that looting is "mob mentality", that many people wouldn't normally do it. That's why it's so serious... it's contagious. It is a symptom of serious social disorder and if not challenged, can spread, causing great fear amongst the general population.

    Before any looter gets shot, there needs to be a very public warning that such measures are becoming inevitable. That in itself should be enough to stop non-criminals from doing it. People do it because they think they'll get away with it. If they know getting shot is a distinct possibility, it doesn't spread.

    Even the riot police and national guard cannot stoop to rule by terrorism - rule by threat of death without judge or jury.
    Let's not forget we're talking about a state of emergency here. If those authorised to open fire on looters are 100% certain that an individual is looting, and there is no reasonable hope of arrest, then that's no different to your SWAT teams effectively carrying out state assassinations, which aren't during times of crisis.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •