National Guard called into Minneapolis

[Revnak]

I’ll, uh, reiterate I guess that the fight wasn’t in CHAZ? I don’t think Tiny would be allowed in there.

So I went through that guy's Twitter feed out of curiosity and...Jesus Christ.


This...this is trolling, right? This surely can't be real. And if it is real, um...I guess even before they took the white woman off, Amerindian, Latino, MENA, and Asian people were kind of screwed, no?

Edit: Okay, so it almost definitely is a joke - scroll down the thread, the revisions get more and more absurd. But, well, I'm reminded of someone called Poe, and a law he wrote...

Yeah, these are all shitposts. It’s kinda obvious dude. Mix of right and left shitposters.
Edit: just as a basic rule, aside from some San Fran tech weirdos, anarchists aren’t going to setup their organizational rules on fucking reddit. They’ll do it in person.

 

[Silvanus]

Ah yes the Far right groups who so far I've not seen any reports of actual inured officers. Yes they tried but again the previous week saw 27 officers injured so hardly a threat there.

23 officers were injured in the far-right protest in the UK. In the US, right-wing domestic terrorism is twice as common as Islamic or left-wing terrorism, and statistically more likely to end in fatalities. You also have recent incidents like the murder of Jo Cox and the Charlottesville car attack.

My point is that far-right or racist violence is increasing, and it's this sense of threat that motivates anti-racist groups. I'm not sure why that point would be contentious to you: even mainstream conservative or centre-right parties recognise this.

Also, I've not been able to find a source for your statistic about 27 injuries the previous week-- can you give me a citation?

No because they're mutually exclusive states

You can't be not a group at all just people with the mindset of being Anti-fascist = AntiFA
But also a group with select membership and exclude people who are Anti-Fascist when the only requirement to call yourself AntiFA is the position of opposing fascism

Uhrm, they're both mutually exclusive states and a false binary. The fact that they're mutually exclusive doesn't somehow counter the fact that it's a false binary.

The two descriptions you've given are mutually exclusive, yes; that doesn't mean that any group must fit into one or the other. "Antifa" is neither. It's not a group with select membership, and nor is it just "a mindset"; it's a group with loosely-defined affiliation, mostly to do with turnout and self-identification.

Why not they identify as Anti Fascists clearly by their actions alone.

How do you know they don't turn up to events. Heck if you're holding events that means organisers so AntiFA is a group then

You're asking me to prove they don't? To prove a negative? You're the one making the positive claim; the burden of proof is on you, if you're so intent on connecting these people you need to prove the connection.

And Church Councils.
Council Leaders
Heck most Churches have a literal preacher preaching to people.

They have structure.

Also they're thinking of Catholics BTW. You're always a Catholic

They're not the same single structure. There's hundreds of unaffiliated Churches. And you don't have to belong to any one of those churches or councils in order to be a protestant.

I'm sorry, but you just don't know what you're talking about with regard to Protestantism. If you think it's a single entity with a single structure, that's factually wrong.

I believe the exact thing he said was "Some of the people at the rally were likely very fine people". Note the rally was called 'Unite the right' and wasn't an exclusive white supremacist created white supremacist only event.

I recall a video (struggling to locate it) of a Republican church group with a Black Minister who set up stage in one area and preached peacefully in the day time on the Saturday.

Jesus Christ. The rally was specifically organised by neo-Nazis. The groups invited to take part were the KKK, and various neo-fascists, neo-confederates and militias.

Do not attempt to portray this as some kind of broad church, attended by moderate people. It was not.

No but there's plenty of fake news out there by less than honest actors.

Lets play a game shall we?

[...]

That should keep going going for a while.
Try and do it without google BTW you don't have to reply to me on these it's more just to show things.

I have zero interest in taking part in this manipulative condescending nonsense.

No but if you are invited onto the platform by students then it is their choice to have you speak there. It is also publicly funded this 1st amendment rights would protect some-ones right to speak there. That would include should you want to going there and standing on a box to shout should you want to.


No though being invited by the students in enough numbers to warrant being allowed to speak would entitle them to use said platform.

That's all well and good, but we're talking about freedom of speech specifically.

I'm not discussing whether he should have been allowed to speak on that platform by benefit of being invited. I'm specifically discussing whether he should have been allowed to speak on that platform by benefit of the freedom of speech.

 

[Gordon_4]

I was doing some reading earlier, an old Cracked article, about a British policeman who said he'd have "Peel's principals of policing tattooed on the backs of the eyelids of every policeman" if he could, or words to that effect. I was curious what these were so I looked them up.

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

There's some dispute if Sir Robert Peel actually wrote them, or if it was the joint commissioners of the Metropolitan Police force when it was first founded. But blimey, that's some surprisingly progressive thinking for 1829.

 

[ObsidianJones]

If you fight you are more likely to end up dead if you don't comply so you're still better off complying and hoping the officer isn't corrupt.

Though again an ovesight board etc would very much help stop some of the abuses of power.

That and getting rid of targets for number of arrests. That really is a bad idea.

Forgive me. I'm not feeling well, so I have enough strength for just this point.

There is no more hope left.

People in the black community have been hoping for humanity between the conditions they are forced into, for a change of the brutality to which they are policed, and/or for local and federal government to stop treating them like unwanted trash. There are generations of hopers who are long past dead, who raised their children to believe in the Lord and how His grace would bleed into the hearts of their oppressors. There are people who hoped that sitting down and stating their cases like normal people would get themselves heard.

Likewise were there generations of those in power who paid lip service enough to keep the Black Community compliant. Who knew that all it took was a pat on the head and a good word here or there would be enough to keep them silent for another stretch of time.

I asked if there was a better plan for people other than hope. I asked fully knowing that there is no other answer. It's the same answer that has been given to the Black Community for generations.

Once again I state that I don't condone violence, but the fact of the matter is the community's actions were provoked by the willful inaction of the government and populace who were more than fine with the way things are. Their ease does not allow for the subjugation of a people. And that's literally what is being asked for.

Don't get angry.

Do not act. And if you act, act in a manner we consider appropriate.

Don't make waves.

Comply.

That is subjugation.

 

[Eacaraxe]

There's some dispute if Sir Robert Peel actually wrote them, or if it was the joint commissioners of the Metropolitan Police force when it was first founded. But blimey, that's some surprisingly progressive thinking for 1829.

Is it really, though, sandwiched neatly between the Enlightenment's end and the depredations of the Industrial Revolution, within living memory of multiple wars of revolution, liberation, and conquest throughout Europe culminating in the Napoleonic wars? Or does it merely appear to be the case to our eyes, tainted by industrialism, fascism, and neoliberalism they are?

 

[Houseman]

People in the black community have been hoping for humanity between the conditions they are forced into, for a change of the brutality to which they are policed, and/or for local and federal government to stop treating them like unwanted trash. There are generations of hopers who are long past dead, who raised their children to believe in the Lord and how His grace would bleed into the hearts of their oppressors. There are people who hoped that sitting down and stating their cases like normal people would get themselves heard.

And there are also criminals, repeat offenders, people who try to resist arrest and evade capture, and people who will, because of their criminal lifestyle, inevitably come face to face with the police. When your lifestyle leads you into encounters with the police, where you are in the wrong, you renounce the ability to cry 'oppression', even if things go sideways.

That would be like starting a fight and then complaining "he wasn't supposed to hit me that hard" when you lose.

These people are being mixed in with cases like Breonna Taylor, and other truly innocent people, in order to construct a narrative that 'to them, black lives don't matter'.

I'd wager that, if you separated out the criminals from the truly innocent people, and then separated it out by race and per capita, or however is best to do it, you'd see similar numbers of 'unarmed black people' and 'unarmed white people' killed.

If you want police reform, that's one thing. If you want justice for innocent lives taken, that's another thing.

But to try and paint it as some issue of 'oppression' and making it out to be a race war is a bridge too far.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

23 officers were injured in the far-right protest in the UK. In the US, right-wing domestic terrorism is twice as common as Islamic or left-wing terrorism, and statistically more likely to end in fatalities. You also have recent incidents like the murder of Jo Cox and the Charlottesville car attack.

My point is that far-right or racist violence is increasing, and it's this sense of threat that motivates anti-racist groups. I'm not sure why that point would be contentious to you: even mainstream conservative or centre-right parties recognise this.

Also, I've not been able to find a source for your statistic about 27 injuries the previous week-- can you give me a citation?

Thing is far left attacks do happen but oddly turn out to be less deadly E.G. The Congressional Baseball shootings which killed no-one but had great potential tohave been more deadly.

Also worth pointing out that the far right attacks tends to include a lot of school shooters etc in those stats and tend not to have much warning because they're lone wolf attacks.

The question has to be is far right violence increasing or just being reported on more.

Also citation for you

George Floyd: London anti-racism protests leave 27 officers hurt

Protests in London have been largely peaceful but were marred by scuffles outside Downing Street.

www.bbc.co.uk

As far as other stuff.
Well they're attention seeking groups who will fade into obscurity mostly and they rely on getting people angrily opposing them to try and make themselves seem more valid. Ignoring them gives them no attention and no recruitment potential for the most part.

Uhrm, they're both mutually exclusive states and a false binary. The fact that they're mutually exclusive doesn't somehow counter the fact that it's a false binary.

The two descriptions you've given are mutually exclusive, yes; that doesn't mean that any group must fit into one or the other. "Antifa" is neither. It's not a group with select membership, and nor is it just "a mindset"; it's a group with loosely-defined affiliation, mostly to do with turnout and self-identification.

So if they self identify as being against Fascists and turnout in their own way against them does that not make them AntiFA then?

You're asking me to prove they don't? To prove a negative? You're the one making the positive claim; the burden of proof is on you, if you're so intent on connecting these people you need to prove the connection.

Well as pointed out they've claimed to be taking the actions they did to in the letter writing case to oppose fascists.

They're not the same single structure. There's hundreds of unaffiliated Churches. And you don't have to belong to any one of those churches or councils in order to be a protestant.

True but there are leadership structures etc in place to be an official face of it so to speak.

I'm sorry, but you just don't know what you're talking about with regard to Protestantism. If you think it's a single entity with a single structure, that's factually wrong.

It does have more of an official structure as such.

Jesus Christ. The rally was specifically organised by neo-Nazis. The groups invited to take part were the KKK, and various neo-fascists, neo-confederates and militias.

Do not attempt to portray this as some kind of broad church, attended by moderate people. It was not.

The militias actually rescheduled some of their planned events to attend and also included general anti-government ones who don't care who is the government so they were technically Anti-Trump too lol

I have zero interest in taking part in this manipulative condescending nonsense.
[/quot]
You mean you can't do it lol

but sure I'm the manipulative one for pointing out a number of claims that circulated round as truth and challenging you to pick truth from fiction.........Couldn't possibly be that I'm pointing out manipulation going on and the thing you're truly mad about is realising how bad it is......

That's all well and good, but we're talking about freedom of speech specifically.

I'm not discussing whether he should have been allowed to speak on that platform by benefit of being invited. I'm specifically discussing whether he should have been allowed to speak on that platform by benefit of the freedom of speech.

Well from the very principal yes because all views can have benefit even if only to make us more sure of our own view by reassessing why we hold them and making us more aware of the evidence supporting our views. Some views just can't survive in the open marketplace because they're built on nonsense, lies and misrepresentations.

Forgive me. I'm not feeling well, so I have enough strength for just this point.

There is no more hope left.

People in the black community have been hoping for humanity between the conditions they are forced into, for a change of the brutality to which they are policed, and/or for local and federal government to stop treating them like unwanted trash. There are generations of hopers who are long past dead, who raised their children to believe in the Lord and how His grace would bleed into the hearts of their oppressors. There are people who hoped that sitting down and stating their cases like normal people would get themselves heard.

Likewise were there generations of those in power who paid lip service enough to keep the Black Community compliant. Who knew that all it took was a pat on the head and a good word here or there would be enough to keep them silent for another stretch of time.

I asked if there was a better plan for people other than hope. I asked fully knowing that there is no other answer. It's the same answer that has been given to the Black Community for generations.

Once again I state that I don't condone violence, but the fact of the matter is the community's actions were provoked by the willful inaction of the government and populace who were more than fine with the way things are. Their ease does not allow for the subjugation of a people. And that's literally what is being asked for.

Don't get angry.

Do not act. And if you act, act in a manner we consider appropriate.

Don't make waves.

Comply.

That is subjugation.

Get well soon

To address your point.

The better plan would be an independent police complains commission organisation / oversight board.

 

[thebobmaster]

And it happened again! Well, rather, this happened last year, but thanks to new video footage, the case is being re-examined.

A man named Ariane Lamont McCree was shot and killed by policemen in 2019. At first, it seemed like a good shoot, with some eyewitnesses and officers reporting that McCree had fired upon the officers. However, newly released video of the evidence shows that, while McCree did in fact have a gun on him, he was handcuffed behind his back. In addition, ballistic evidence later showed McCree's gun had not been fired.

On top of that, the body camera for both of the officers directly involved in the shooting were not activated properly. Nicholas Harris was reprimanded for failing to activate his body camera, and Justin Baker did not activate his body camera until after the shooting had begun, causing his recording to lack audio in key moments.

Oh, and while the mayor has now called for the two officers to be fired, it's because of them failing to follow body cam protocol, not because they fired at a handcuffed man 23 times between the two of them.

SC mayor calls for firing of 2 officers who fatally shot handcuffed man

Days after video was released, the Chester mayor called for the firing of two officers who shot and killed Ariane McCree while he was handcuffed.

www.postandcourier.com

 

[Eacaraxe]

On top of that, the body camera for both of the officers directly involved in the shooting were not activated properly. Nicholas Harris was reprimanded for failing to activate his body camera, and Justin Baker did not activate his body camera until after the shooting had begun, causing his recording to lack audio in key moments.

Because of course they weren't. Funny how body cams just never seem to work right, or how officers just forget to turn them on, in black people's presences. Clearly the problem can't be cops are state-sponsored terrorsts, and body cams under officers' control and without adequate oversight was a deliberate non-solution, black people must just emit some form of heretofore-unknown electromagnetic field that causes spontaneous body cam shutdown.

 

[Houseman]

Sure, but how does this have anything to do with ObsidianJones wrote?

He's trying to paint it as 'oppressors vs victims'. I disagree, and am explaining why.

It has been shown repeatedly, on this very forum and in this very thread even, that black people in the US has a far higher chance of being hurt or killed when confronted by the police.

Do these statistics also include those who resist arrest? That's what I'm saying, it's a skewed narrative that, intentionally or not, groups in career criminals with innocent people. If you want the whole picture, it shouldn't be grouped like that.

Unless you want to complain that "When we violently fight back against the police, they fight back harder than if we were white", and maybe you'd have a valid case there, but I doubt that's a narrative that most people will rally around, criminals excepted. The obvious solution to that little dilemma would be to stop being violent with the police.

It doesn't matter what kind of confrontation you compare, black people get killed far more often by the police then white people when you compare similar situations.

Okay, prove it.

You linked to the Wikipedia "Shooting Bias" page, which, in turn, linked to a study done by the University of California. I found another study that cites that study as a reference and appears to debunk it after "adjusting for crime", which sounds exactly like what I've been saying.

Speaking of bias, I wonder how much more likely you are to get on the news if you're an unarmed black man who gets shot, vs an unarmed white man who gets shot. Media bias is another thing that can skew the narrative.

 

[Silvanus]

Thing is far left attacks do happen but oddly turn out to be less deadly E.G. The Congressional Baseball shootings which killed no-one but had great potential tohave been more deadly.

Also worth pointing out that the far right attacks tends to include a lot of school shooters etc in those stats and tend not to have much warning because they're lone wolf attacks.

The question has to be is far right violence increasing or just being reported on more.

Whether more common or more widely reported, there's a pretty justified fear for safety. It's this that motivates anti-fascists and anti-racists to turn out, and that's the reason anti-fascist protests are becoming more common.

The threat is the motivating factor; anti-fascists see this as a defensive situation. Without that threat to safety, this situation of growing social protest wouldn't exist.

Also citation for you

George Floyd: London anti-racism protests leave 27 officers hurt

Protests in London have been largely peaceful but were marred by scuffles outside Downing Street.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ah, thank you. Shitty behaviour from those throwing bottles etc.

I have to wonder about the police use of horses in these scenarios. I've attended a protest in the past in which the police charged horses into a crowd of peaceful protesters; the chaos that ensued could easily have resulted in injury, either for the protesters or the officer. It was a monumentally stupid approach.

So if they self identify as being against Fascists and turnout in their own way against them does that not make them AntiFA then?

There's no solid definition, so I can't really answer that. But I wouldn't have thought so. I'd think that in order for someone to be associated, they'd have to self-identify with the group specifically, not just broadly identifying as "against fascism".

True but there are leadership structures etc in place to be an official face of it so to speak.

Those people will only speak for their own individual church. Not for the thousand other Protestant churches, or for non-affiliated Protestants. That's my point.

The militias actually rescheduled some of their planned events to attend and also included general anti-government ones who don't care who is the government so they were technically Anti-Trump too lol

Uh-huh. It was still an event organised by self-proclaimed neo-Nazis, explicitly for their allied groups, and attended overwhelmingly by white supremacists and neo-fascists.

You mean you can't do it lol

but sure I'm the manipulative one for pointing out a number of claims that circulated round as truth and challenging you to pick truth from fiction.........Couldn't possibly be that I'm pointing out manipulation going on and the thing you're truly mad about is realising how bad it is......

This is just bait.

Well from the very principal yes because all views can have benefit even if only to make us more sure of our own view by reassessing why we hold them and making us more aware of the evidence supporting our views. Some views just can't survive in the open marketplace because they're built on nonsense, lies and misrepresentations.

Ok. But this is all just about why he should be allowed to speak.

Once again: we're specifically talking about whether the freedom of speech affords him that specific platform. Talking about how we should hear dissenting views and blah-de-blah isn't relevant to that question.

 

[ObsidianJones]

And there are also criminals, repeat offenders, people who try to resist arrest and evade capture, and people who will, because of their criminal lifestyle, inevitably come face to face with the police. When your lifestyle leads you into encounters with the police, where you are in the wrong, you renounce the ability to cry 'oppression', even if things go sideways.

That would be like starting a fight and then complaining "he wasn't supposed to hit me that hard" when you lose.

These people are being mixed in with cases like Breonna Taylor, and other truly innocent people, in order to construct a narrative that 'to them, black lives don't matter'.

I'd wager that, if you separated out the criminals from the truly innocent people, and then separated it out by race and per capita, or however is best to do it, you'd see similar numbers of 'unarmed black people' and 'unarmed white people' killed.

If you want police reform, that's one thing. If you want justice for innocent lives taken, that's another thing.

But to try and paint it as some issue of 'oppression' and making it out to be a race war is a bridge too far.

You know for a fact that not only he was in the wrong, but he did so willingly? The cops don't even have that now.

Would you use a bad bill and just sit in front of the place you used it at? Also, would you use a bad bill in a place that you're a regular? The issue is that you're so assured of the nature of this man that you're not even budging to see any other explanations other than 'he's guilty and therefore he deserves punshiment'.

And you are wrong. Criminality does not forgo human civility. The idea of a sexual predator that preys on younger people might turn my stomach, especially with my history as being someone preyed upon. But I would never sign off on the abuse and mishandling of a suspect or a convicted criminal. Because I'm not looking for my pound of flesh. I'm looking for justice. I'm looking for the safety of the community. Me getting a good few hits in doesn't protect anyone.

Nor does kneeling on a man's neck for a possible fake 20 dollar bill.

Especially if you didn't know it's a fake 20 dollar bill.

And double that when you're a native and you know the spotty history at best that the police has had with the community. If you think it's your turn to get tuned up for something you might think it's false.. do you go willingly?

We can play the surmising game back and forth. But for your points to have any merit, you have to prove that Floyd willingly went to a store that he frequented, gave a fake 20 dollar bill with malice aforethought, and stayed in front of said store in a car the entire time it took for the cops to arrive. And when you're done, you have to argue that even the mild resisting that Floyd did was worth three grown men pressing him down with a knee on the neck.

But like it's warned to me often, think about the future if you do.

Because then what you are arguing is that any act of criminality is worth extreme action. Jaywalking, Social Distancing and speaking out against aggressive arrests, Not wearing Masks, sitting in your car... you're warranting them all.

Maybe if the culture wasn't so used to be lied to, talked over, dismissed, and treated like animals that need to be broken, maybe they would listen to cops more. Maybe if they didn't see their lives constantly being put in harm's way, maybe they would even trust them.

And lastly, it doesn't freaking matter if someone is innocent. They are still human. If you killed five people tomorrow and you went in quietly, I would step in front of anyone who would try to cause you pain. What you did might be vile, but any damage visited upon you when you're not doing anything is beyond the pale and uncalled for. Civilization can not function like that. Innocent or Guilty, all must be met with a measured hand of justice. Not one solely driven by rage and excused away because "HE'S A CRIMINAL".

As we just saw, Jaywalking is criminal. Something I'm sure we all done. Should we get treated like that 13 year old for doing that? I think most of us would say no.

And why can't we be in the wrong and cry oppression? From Britain's standpoint, isn't that what America did to become it's own country? Seems a lot like tradition around these parts.

 

[Houseman]

You know for a fact that not only he was in the wrong, but he did so willingly? The cops don't even have that now.

Who's 'he'? I'm not talking about a specific individual. What I said was: "there are also criminals, repeat offenders, people who try to resist arrest and evade capture, and people who will, because of their criminal lifestyle, inevitably come face to face with the police. When your lifestyle leads you into encounters with the police, where you are in the wrong, you renounce the ability to cry 'oppression', even if things go sideways."

Your claim is about widespread oppression. When I criticize that, moving your position to "George Floyd, specifically" is moving the goalposts. That's not a counter-argument, that's a fallacy. Is it widespread, or is it not? Is it about a single individual or not? You can't have it both ways.

The issue is that you're so assured of the nature of this man that you're not even budging to see any other explanations other than 'he's guilty and therefore he deserves punshiment'.

George Floyd didn't deserve to die. There, now that we're in agreement on this, let's move the goalposts back to where they originally were and talk about "the black community", that you were talking about in post #1164

But for your points to have any merit, you have to prove that Floyd

No, no I don't, because I'm not talking about Floyd. I'm talking about the black community that YOU wanted to talk about.

So if you'd still like to talk about that, please respond to the points I made in my post, the points that are about the black community.

any act of criminality is worth extreme action

That's not what I said, nor what I meant.
Think about it this way. Working on an oil rig is dangerous. If you accept the job of working on an oil rig, you accept the risks.

If you die, is it necessarily your fault? No.
If you die, do you necessarily deserve it? No.
Should safety be enhanced so that people don't die? Yes.

But still, there's a risk that you might die, even if you do everything right. You accept that risk.
Don't want to die on an oil rig? Don't agree to work there.

Committing crimes is the equivalent to working on an oil rig. You accept the risk that you might die.

Now, if you decline the job and live a quiet life, 500 miles away from the nearest oil rig, and an oil rig suddenly appears in the sky and lands on your house, killing you in your sleep, now that's a HUGE problem that deserves to be solved. But that's an ENTIRELY SEPARATE PROBLEM.

And why can't we be in the wrong and cry oppression?

Because you're in the wrong.

 

[Trunkage]

US trained likely for their tactics not their morals and ethics.

It's called the Jakarta method. Due to what the US did with Indonesia to 'protect' it from communism. It's a precursor to things like Contra, Death Squads etc. It's how JFK thought the Bay of Pigs was a good idea. And all of South America for 50 years. There is plenty of evidence that all this was funded and egged on by the US. So... while they did nothing, but they did nothing to stop it, and verbally and monetarily encouraged it. It's like a big bully encouraging a little bully to hurt someone else. Good ethics there US (this was done by presidents on both sides of the aisle. The US is very good at getting others to kill for them.) Also, they killed more people than Pol Pot in the name of protecting Capitalism. Because Capitalism is all about freedom. Not that terrible dictators should be waved away because of terrible US dictators.

It's like Obama's wall. It's fine to capture, torture and kill immigrants as long as you don't do it on US soil. Use someone else's army to crackdown, so you can pretend you did nothing wrong. Trump's biggest mistake was letting it happen on US soil, because that's when everyone got cranky. Oh, and he stopped paying the Mexican Army to keep refugees away, so the army started ferrying refugees to the US door.

 

[CaitSeith]

Because you're in the wrong.

Should a jaywalker be pushed into the traffic? He is in the wrong, after all.

 

[Houseman]

Should a jaywalker be pushed into the traffic? He is in the wrong, after all.

If you jaywalk, you accept the risk that you might be struck by a vehicle.

What is this really about? Staying alive, or committing crimes and staying alive?

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Please answer the question. Should a jaywalker be pushed into the traffic? He is in the wrong, after all.

 

[Houseman]

Please answer the question.

I think my answer has already been given here:

"If you die, is it necessarily your fault? No.
If you die, do you necessarily deserve it? No.
Should safety be enhanced so that people don't die? Yes.

But still, there's a risk that you might die, even if you do everything right. You accept that risk.
Don't want to die on an oil rig? Don't agree to work there."

I refuse to simplify it any more than that, as it would become an oversimplification of a complex issue, and therefore, misleading.

 

[Revnak]

Hey, remember like forty pages ago where a couple of federal agents got shot some distance from any protests and people tried to blame it on rioters? Wanna guess who actually did it?
Lol. Most of the people dead at this point have been killed by cops or boogs. “But the violent leftists!”