Do you people really think looting is just "robbery"?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Printable View
Do you people really think looting is just "robbery"?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Then burn down the cop shops, don't start looting.Quote:
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.
It's correct for a government to stop the collapse of law and order.Quote:
It's not really about what they can get away with though is it? It's about what's correct.
It is if you're exploiting a state of emergency.Quote:
No, it really isn't a serious threat to law and order if I smash a window and steal a TV set.
Don't be a poop about this. I didn't say that, and your injection of the word "just" in that context is spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
If the police tell you to stop looting, and you don't stop looting, then you should be arrested not killed.
I can argue they are an indirect threat to life, in the same way someone robbing a bank is an indirect threat to life.Quote:
Suggesting that any crime committed by a person whom is not a threat to life should be responded to with bullets is barbaric.
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:
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.
Bank robbers sometimes get shot without trial. Is that outrageous? They're not always armed, just assumed armed.
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.
The officer in question has been arrested and taken into custody.
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 didn't even know there was a third degree murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
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.
Apparently it only exists in three states.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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'm surprised you don't understand how it's only going to escalate things if cops started shooting unarmed looters.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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 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.Quote:
I'm surprised you don't understand how it's only going to escalate things if cops started shooting unarmed looters.
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:
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.
Oddly, this is possibly a mitigating factor in the UK, rather than an aggravating factor. It might fall into "diminished responsibility" territory.Quote:
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.
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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:
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).
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:
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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?
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
In decending order of severity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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
His hands were in his pockets. He was showing calm, not showing any signs that he felt threatened.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
Looting is an inevitable consequence of mob mentality.
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.
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:
Even the riot police and national guard cannot stoop to rule by terrorism - rule by threat of death without judge or jury.
Look, I'm not going to try to convince you that human lives matter more than stolen goods (which are insured, BTW).
If you either choose not to get it, or you simply disagree, then fine. IDGAF if we disagree, but I can't possibly convince you otherwise if you simply don't value human life more than you value insured property.
Suggesting that it should be more legal to kill your own citizens than it is to kill an enemy combatant on a battlefield is just beyond me.
The gulf between us on this matter is pretty much summed up here. You still see looting as a simple matter of theft.Quote:
Look, I'm not going to try to convince you that human lives matter more than stolen goods
... and you don't see killing unarmed people without judge or jury as murder.
SWAT
SWAT requires a warrant signed by a judge to pursue any pre-meditated action.
Otherwise, they have to follow the same rules of reasonable suspicion that failure to kill a perp would result in the death of an innocent.
There's no law that says any police officer or military personnel can kill unarmed, non-violent people.
Hollywood may be responsible for your assumption that everyone in America carries a firearm, but that's neither the case nor directly relevant. People who have a license to carry a weapon do get arrested and are not killed during arrest because they follow strict guidelines about keeping their hands visible, not making sudden movements and clearly verbalizing to the officer the number and nature of the firearms on their person. All of which they have to take classes to learn the specifics to earn their license to carry.
To be clear, the possession of a firearm is not strictly relevant. If someone starts trying to wrestle, or punch an officer and that officer legitimately feels their life is threatened, then they have the authority to use necessary force to subdue the attacker and protect life. Necessary force is up to and including lethal force, but necessary force does not mean lethal force.
They swear a duty to serve and protect their citizenry. The looters and criminals are members of the community they are sworn to protect.
This perverse fantasy you harbor that killing humans for theoretical, hypothetical, intangible, or potential harm to society doesn't hold up to any legal standard, US, UK, or internationally recognized. It is ONLY justified when the direct, imminent threat to human life is REDUCED by the police use of force, not increased.
Hey. I just saw this, and maybe it helps me understand your position, ong.
It's a little long-ish (18 minutes), but the part where he's talking about social contracts kinda felt like he was touching on something you may be saying that I wasn't hearing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4amCfVbA_c
I really do respect you, and I wish I wasn't as triggered on this issue. I hope I haven't alienated you.
https://twitter.com/foxwoundband/sta...862447104?s=20
I thought he was mocking them at first, but those are literal children. What the fuck is this?
Meanwhile in Oakland:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKK0RUqdJbU
This isn't a court hearing with jury, and I'm also arguing that an extreme measure like shooting looters should also be authorised, either by a court or by the government using emergency powers.Quote:
SWAT requires a warrant signed by a judge to pursue any pre-meditated action.
Looters are potentially armed violent people.Quote:
There's no law that says any police officer or military personnel can kill unarmed, non-violent people.
I know not everyone carries a weapon, but I also don't doubt Hollywood skews my view of USA.Quote:
Hollywood may be responsible for your assumption that everyone in America carries a firearm
I'm guessing these arrests don't usually involve the suspect being actively engaged in looting, with others, during a time of civil unrest, after having been warned that security forces have been authorised to use lethal force.Quote:
People who have a license to carry a weapon do get arrested and are not killed during arrest because they follow strict guidelines about keeping their hands visible, not making sudden movements and clearly verbalizing to the officer the number and nature of the firearms on their person
I agree. What's relevant is the potential for carrying a firearm, and the context of the incident, which is in this case a state of emergency caused by civil unrest. In this specific example, we also have the aggravating factor that the police are the subject of the riots.Quote:
To be clear, the possession of a firearm is not strictly relevant.
The looters are a direct threat to the safety and security of the community. And so the cop has a conflict... who is sworn to protect both, but if he can only protect one, he will protect the innocent.Quote:
The looters and criminals are members of the community they are sworn to protect.
Remember when you said how you don't like poop assigning emotional feelings to you?Quote:
This perverse fantasy
This isn't a perverse fantasy. Looters got shot in New Orleans after Katrina. It actually happens.
Not at all. We're going to disagree sometimes, occasionally quite strongly. It's fine. I'm observing this from a non-emotional angle. I know people dying is bad, but I also know lots of people die all the time. We talk about things being inevitable, the only truly inevitable thing is death. People influence when that happens with the choices they make in life. I influence it by smoking. Looters influence it by looting when they have been warned they might be shot.Quote:
I really do respect you, and I wish I wasn't as triggered on this issue. I hope I haven't alienated you.
I don't remember anywhere near this level of sympathy for looters when Bush was in charge during Katrina. You know why that was? Because people agreed with the measure. What's changed since then? People hate Trump more than they hate Bush. So when Trump says he's going to shoot the looters (while not actually doing it yet), there's more outrage then when Bush actually fucking did it.
This is people being sucked into the political shitshow. I think the left are emotionally manipulated into taking moral stances on social subjects, and they then take that sense of morality and use it as ammo against those who oppose their views. This isn't even deliberate, you are actually triggered because you see someone you respect seemingly having no regard for human life. That isn't true, I just lack sympathy for idiots. And looters are idiots.
First, Katrina was a different situation. It was a national disaster, not a protest. People had no food and water, so of course they had to go to stores and loot them. OTOH, some people were shooting at helicopters, gangs were running around threatening and raping people. Those weren't looters, they were criminals, and they were clearly violent.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Second, I don't know where you got the idea that Bush gave an order to shoot looters. There's no record of him doing that afaik. There were police chiefs who said things like that, then walked it back.
Third, once Gen. Honore got in charge of the army presence, the first thing he did was to tell his soldiers to put their guns down. So clearly he didn't think shooting hurricane victims, even looters, was an appropriate response to the crisis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AJPlzKFHKg
Yes, the two scenarios are different. However, we're discussing the shooting of looters and whether it can be morally justifiable. It's less morally acceptable if they are looting basic necessities like food and water. But those people in New Orleans were shot without trial.Quote:
First, Katrina was a different situation. It was a national disaster, not a protest. People had no food and water, so of course they had to go to stores and loot them
I'm not suggesting that where we're at is the right time to start shooting looters, but it's getting there, I mean it's spread to Dallas from what I can tell. If this actually takes hold, things will get nasty.
Looters are criminals. Looters are violent. Violence is not just threatening people with attack, violence is also creating an atmosphere of fear and chaos. And if things carry on as they are, people will start shooting at helicopters. That's when the state has to up their game and consider all options.Quote:
OTOH, some people were shooting at helicopters, gangs were running around threatening and raping people. Those weren't looters, they were criminals, and they were clearly violent.
idk who gave the order, or if it was individuals taking the course of action they deemed necessary, but Bush was president at the time.Quote:
Second, I don't know where you got the idea that Bush gave an order to shoot looters.
Perhaps, or maybe he just thought the message had been sent out and the looting would not continue. idk. But if I could be bothered, I'm sure I could find a general who would say that shooting looters in extreme cases in necessary, such as this guy's predecessor. It's not like Gnrl Whatshisname is an authority on generals.Quote:
So clearly he didn't think shooting hurricane victims, even looters, was an appropriate response to the crisis.
Plot twist. Antifa have hijacked the protests.
College football Hall of Fame ransacked in Atlanta.
Hey, here's an idea: You know those people protesting the use of excessive force by the police? Well, if we shot a few I bet that would calm things right down!
Oh no! Not the anti fascists! We had such nice fascism. :'(Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm paraphrasing something I've heard a pandemic expert say about covid and hijacking it for the protests: there is no perfect way to react to something like this, but even imperfect action is better than no action.
If you let this go. If you let the police murder in broad daylight with no punishment, you end up with a police state. You end up having no rights. Burning down a convenience store is by no means a perfect action, but it really gets attention.
Material things are replaceable. A life is not replaceable. The value of having human rights is greater than the value of whats being destroyed.
Unfortunately the overwhelming top down response has been to blame the protestors and not the overtly broken system they are protesting. Instead of promising change, they are promising to beat down and kill insubordinates.
WOW - Charges against an officer who overtly manipulated evidence after killing a black man in 2015 were DROPPED TODAY.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ing-ricky-ball
They claimed the suspect had a gun. The gun in question was owned by one of the police officers first on the scene, who filed a police report that said gun was stolen a year earlier at the day it was coincidentally found apparently now belonging to the victim.
https://apnews.com/1f15681c4597ec9f8...7ad0-174463521
All charges dropped.
I have a hard time seeing this as anything but instigation.
DPRKQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
That'll show 'em.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What do you think the authorities should do? Ask them what their demands are and oblige? All I'm saying when it comes to shooting looters is there comes a point where it is inevitable. We're not at that point yet, but if things carry on, then we'll get there. I understand why that happens.Quote:
Hey, here's an idea: You know those people protesting the use of excessive force by the police? Well, if we shot a few I bet that would calm things right down!
Looting is not protest.
What the protesters are demanding is clear: justice for the people killed by police. What should be done is exactly that. The police needs to be held accountable. There needs to be oversight, and there needs to be reform.
You're making it sound like all protestors are looting and vandalizing and that therefore their demands are illegitimate... but they're not even the ones vandalizing in many cases:
This is not an isolated case: https://twitter.com/_Helleric_/statu...184083460?s=20
This is essentially the same thing police is doing by launching tear grenades at sitting protesters, shield bashing and shoving protesters and shooting them with rubber bullets from a distance. They are escalating because they get a kick out of exercising their authority. There is very little reason to take that job unless you fetishize authority.
There are also videos of NYPD sending agent provocateurs into the crowds. This is so widespread that people started noticing that they're identifying themselves among each other by wearing white arm bands (not making this up).
This is reminiscent of what happened in Turkey under Erdogan a couple of years ago. Erdogan friendly forces were staging insurrection to enable Erdogan to then use Turkeys military against its own citizens to beat down antifascist elements in the country.
Trump will do the same. The ultimate power move would be to pardon a killer cop right now. That would do it. Not sure if he has enough game for that.
Did you watch the video I linked, ong?
What he says about the social contract is on point. I can't state it as well as he did, but here goes:
In short, society is nothing more than social contracts. If only 1 party is upholding their end of any contract, then the contract is void.
When the unwritten social contract that police will serve and protect the citizens (particularly in this case, people of color) has not been upheld, then there's this unwritten clause about peaceful protest to affect change in the social norms.
When time and again, unarmed black people are being killed, rather than arrested - and the story is that they were being violent is what comes out - until a video is released showing they were not being violent, the social contract is broken.
When, for 70 or so years, despite all the peaceful protests, the social contract is still broken, then there is no social contract with people of color.
When the social contract is broken, those people against whom it is broken wont feel any obligations to the society.
It's not excusing anything, it's explaining the human toll of decades of - well - shit.
IDK what to say. IDK what to advise. IDK how to solve any of this.
I cannot condone or advise violence.
I can certainly understand that non-violent protest isn't accomplishing anything, though.
I can sympathize with people sick and tired of seeing their children and neighbors die while the people who kill them walk free.
Without the leadership of a once-in-a-century charismatic genius like Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr., I think we can only expect this kind of violence. It doesn't make the violence acceptable, it makes it understandable. The assertion that people in the position of black communities in the US should just keep on with "business as usual" is just not going to solve anything. It hasn't solved anything, despite 70 years of "business as usual."
Ong, you're on crack if you think the solution to the current situation is to start shooting people. ffs.
Yup Trevor Noah is spot on. That was a brilliant way to put it.
That's what the protesters want. How about the looters? How about the infiltrators?Quote:
justice for the people killed by police.
That is definitely not the case. I have been quite clear that looters and protesters are different things. In fact, the very last thing I said on this matter was "looting is not protest".Quote:
You're making it sound like all protestors are looting and vandalizing and that therefore their demands are illegitimate... but they're not even the ones vandalizing in many cases:
So the looters aren't the only dickheads. Cops are dickheads too.Quote:
They are escalating because they get a kick out of exercising their authority. There is very little reason to take that job unless you fetishize authority.
There seems to be this kind of stuff going on from all angles. Antifa, white nationalists, NYPD, anyone with an agenda to push is exploiting this. People are taking the bait.Quote:
There are also videos of NYPD sending agent provocateurs into the crowds.
Antifa are not anti fascists. They are fascists.
No sorry, I clicked it and it was like 18 mins long or whatever and it was sunny outside.Quote:
Did you watch the video I linked, ong?
I agree with the tone of your summary. I do understand why people are angry, why there's riots, and I even support them. That might be easy to miss when I'm saying that I understand why looters get shot, but I'll say it again. Looting is not protest. Looting is a game changer, and allows the authorities to clamp down on the protests. The looters do more harm than good.
There is no Antifa. It's a shirt you can buy. It's a flag you can print. It's a logo without an organization. To say Antifa is fascist makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying Atheism is a religion.
You should watch the Trevor Noah clip, Ong.
https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/st...759116288?s=20
I haven't once complained about rioters. My problem is with looters.
Well that's my mind put at ease.Quote:
There is no Antifa. It's a shirt you can buy. It's a flag you can print. It's a logo without an organization. To say Antifa is fascist makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying Atheism is a religion.
So did they find out who was leaving piles of bricks lying around the streets in Dallas?
Not saying it's no one else, but it looks like a lot of cops and cop sympathizers among those who vandalize and loot:
https://www.courthousenews.com/minne...emacist-groups
Well if there's one thing we can count on, it's Donald Trump to handle things well.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/66a1...b1ac/tenor.gif
Sorry Oskar, the truth has been spoken.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...60009872007171
Yeah... then they arrested a bunch of people in MN, and found out their addresses in the process of booking them, and guess what?
80% of them were not, in fact, from out of state.
At least the MN governor had the sense to apologize and say he took full responsibility for the math error.
I mean, the start of today was mostly mayors and governors in denial about the entire situation.
I read "This is not who we are" from 5 or more officials. Just... open your eyes and look around... that's who you are. It isn't who you will be tomorrow, but it's who you are today.
Then other people saying the violent protestors were from somewhere else, and all the locals are totes chill. Also shown false as arrests start happening.
At least that didn't take long. Maybe we can move on to the next stage of grief?
At least the arrest numbers are still low. Shockingly low, considering all the damage done to police vehicles and face to face confrontations between police and protestors.
What is most mind-blowing is the daughter of MLK Jr. talking about non-violence when her dad was candid about the fact that none of his work could have happened if not for the preceding violence lead by the Black Panthers.
Even Ghandi (the near total fuck that history chose to glorify) stood on the shoulders of violence to gain his label of champion of non-violent civil disobedience.
This scale of oppression doesn't end without some violence. All the non-violent protests have failed for 70 years.
I can't see how you can understand those facts and still say that violence is not protest.
Gonna just say again that I don't condone or suggest violence.
I don't see many videos of protestors instigating at all.
What I do see is a lot of this shit:
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status...847197696?s=20
https://twitter.com/imactuallynina/s...193774080?s=20
https://twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/s...898733570?s=20
- I can see those one while not logged in. I think videos are an exception.
PD's are not a reliable source right now... or ever really:
https://i.imgur.com/6iGZ9RJ.png
I didn't say this. I said looting isn't protest. Rioting is protest, rioting is violence. Looting is what happens when dickheads feel empowered by lack of police resources.Quote:
I can't see how you can understand those facts and still say that violence is not protest.
Oinkers gonna oink supercut:
https://twitter.com/whyadore/status/...432130050?s=20
https://twitter.com/tomakeupwityou/s...20326182641670
I think there's basically two kinds of people who become police officers: ones who sincerely want to help their community, and ones who get their orgasms from wielding authority. There needs to be a serious culling of the latter from forces everywhere.
That'll show 'em
https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status...87192670457857
For mojo - dude gets pelted then beaten on the ground by a bunch of "protesters" (definitely not "thugs") for trying to protect his store from looters.
Looters are fucking scum.
^^ For anyone who isn't British - Katie Hopkins is a famous right-wing nut over here.
Any chance this isn't what she says it it? Yes, plenty.
Others have described it as a video where the 'victim' was wildly swinging a machete around and the crowd turned on him.
Hard to tell what's really happening here as the clip has very little context - we don't know what happened before the camera turned on.
I'm not going to sit here defending every single protestor... but in this case it very much looks like that was a guy who tried to murder someone just before that clip you posted starts: https://twitter.com/activiaaaa/statu...128169472?s=20
Not proof, just saying it's not clear what's happening,.
I'd be wary about any story associated with a video if it's not clear from the video.
Katie Hopkins is a twat, but that's irrelevant.
I agree it's not entirely clear what's happening, but my best guess is this guy who is trying to "murder" someone is protecting his property. If he's not, if he's some nutjob who just decided to wade into a violent crowd with a machete for no reason, then I don't give a fuck about him getting a beating, but let's assume it's the former, that he is protecting his business. This is why looting cannot be tolerated. Business owners desperately try to protect their livelihoods, fear amongst the community, a sense of collapse of law and order. The longer it goes on, the more this happens.
This is just amazing...
News coverage: https://twitter.com/imraansiddiqi/st...313205760?s=20
What actually happened: https://twitter.com/hayofray/status/...337573376?s=20
Mojo needs cliffs again...
Clip 1 - Dude is beaten up and claims they did it for him shouting "all lives matter".
Clip 2 - Dude is shouting "all lives matter" while pointing a crossbow at people, then the mob beat him up.
That fuckhead is lucky his head didn't eat a bullet.
I think it was Konfuzius who once said: There is a time when you fuck around,and there is a time when you find out.
Well he did say "all lives matter" when he pointed his bow and arrow at people. So he wasn't entirely lying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14p2FS0CTDE
Doesn't seem implausible to me that this is an organized group of white supremacist agent provocateurs trying to stoke a race war.
^ doesn't seem implausible that it's the hard left, either. What I will say with confidence is that all parties with an agenda to push are likely exploiting this. Many groups are itching for a civil war, many of whom (not just white supremacists) want it to be drawn along racial lines.
So... Epstein's "Little Black Book"...
Is there more than just an address book? Because a rich guy keeping a list of contacts is not compelling evidence, yet people are saying this "confirms" that Trump had Epstein killed. I'm not sure why people are lapping this up.
I dunno whether to laugh or be shocked, but my MP is in Epstein's list of contacts.
Apart from white supremacists, who would want a civil war drawn on racial lines? Surely not the 20% of the population that is black and will surely die the most in such a war.
Oh yeah, of course, the same MP who didn't lose his job after sending his secretary, who he called "sugar tits", into a sex shop to buy two vibrators, one for his wife and one for his mistress.
This list could be legit.
I've never seen it seem so hair-triggery like this. It's like just one more spark and the whole place could go up.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266942896659406848
Did you see the footage yet of the woman shouting from a car "shoot the whites"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Do you mean to suggest that one angry black person was speaking for the whole nation of them? Didn't know they elected her the new MLK.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Did you mean to suggest that white supremacists are speaking for 80% of the population?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Neither of us suggested either of those things.
I said some groups, not just supremacists, want a race war. That woman is in one such group, and the group is not "black people". That's an assumption you made. The group she is in is "racist black people".
Are you saying there's only one white supremacist?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Racist black people might want to see white people die. But I don't think it follows from that that they want a full-blown race war. Could be wrong though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are you saying there's only one racist black person?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My response to that is so predictable I'm surprised you bothered to hit submit.
A race war does not mean 80% vs 20%. Nobody expects the entire population to take up arms in a civil war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What's your point? That racist blacks think they could win a race war cause most whites would stay home?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Trust me, minorities who own a fraction of the weapons don't want race wars with majorities who own most of them.
Well I can assure you that most white people don't want a race war either. The people who do represent minorities. How numerous each minority is, your guess is as good as mine, but the vast majority of armed white people are not going to start pointing their guns at random black people.
idk if USA is actually heading for a civil war, it feels like it's been bubbling for decades while not actually being something I can see happening due to the sheer might of the USA military. But if it does, it'll be down political lines, not racial. There will certainly be a race aspect to it, but it'll be a left vs right thing, with the left using race to manipulate blacks and non-racist whites. The race aspect is a propaganda war.
Left vs. right I could believe. They basically live in different worlds, with their relative medias pounding it into their respective heads that the other side is scum.
But I don't think we're close to a civil war. It could certainly get ugly(er) though.
It should be obvious to anyone who's been watching police behavior in the past couple of days that the protests are totally justified and there desperately needs to be reform immediately. I see that some police officers offer solidarity, but they are in the single digits. The vast majority is out there escalating tensions and abusing their power. A sane nation would defund and replace the offending PD's immediately and restructure from the ground up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You would think before sending them out there, their chiefs would be saying something along the lines of "Ok these people are really pissed at the police right now, and they should be. Whatever you do, try not to make things worse. And if any of you get out of line, we'll sack you."
Instead it seems like they're saying "Ok, let's show these fuckers who's boss."
What scares me this morning is I don't know what it will take to stop the protests right now.
What are the protestors specifically demanding? Most agree that there needs to be reform of some kind, but specifically what reform?
What needs to happen for people to feel heard, like the protests have worked?
Also... As a white person.... white people need to step back and start listening. I get that poor white people are defensive when they hear the phrase white privilege, because those white people don't feel like they've gotten any privileges. It's a language problem. The fact that white people don't have a reason to fear for their lives over a routine traffic stop is the privilege. The fact that white people get more and better treatment when in hospitals is privilege. The language of "privilege" is making people defensive.
Life is hard. Life has a lot of shit for everyone to deal with. The white privilege is that we don't have to deal with our children being murdered instead of arrested. It's not supposed to be a privilege. It's supposed to be common sense and simply normal. It's not.
White people don't understand what their privilege is.
The looting makes it a lot easier for the police to take this posture.
Guilty conscience, ong?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I wasn't talking about you at all. The entire post is clearly not talking about you.
Get off this soapbox.
We got it the first 12 times you brought it up. Yes, looting: bad. We agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
None of the police violence in the videos I shared was towards looters... Common factors as far as I can tell: skin color and press passes.
Yeah telling me to get off my soapbox is likely to have that affect!Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Get off this soapbox. I'm not going to start feeling guilty for the colour of my skin. Taking for granted things like freedom, peace and happiness is not "privilege". I don't think people who grew up in a normal family environment are privileged, even though that's something I didn't have. They were more fortunate than me, that's all.Quote:
White people don't understand what their privilege is.
If some groups lack the basic necessities of life that I take for granted, that doesn't make me "privileged", it makes them unfortunate. And yes, of course we should strive for a society that does not discriminate against certain groups. But we don't do that by saying an entire demographic are "privileged", we do that by ensuring everyone takes for granted basic freedoms.
Well the factor to me seems to be cop vs not cop. And yes I do agree that they are using unreasonable force. It's just not that surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
It's not about you, it's about the system. When you use this language, you sound like you're taking the phrase "white privelege" personally somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't think you should feel guilty, and I don't think Mojo wants you to either. I think you should understand that certain inequities exist based on race and see that that's a problem for everyone, not just the disadvantaged, because it creates the wrong kind of society.
And I think you do understand that, but for some reaosn you seem to get a bit butthurt by the phrase that symbolizes it, when a more constructive approach might be to support the reconstruction of the social order so the phrase itself becomes obsolete.