For fuck sake I hope not! Unless you want to intentionally cause an atomic meltdown, how about don't do it you idiots!
Chauvin Found Guilty of All Charges
- Thread starter thebobmaster
- Start date
That you don't see what's wrong with this sentence says nothing positive about you.
Name names.
I don't know about verdicts, but they've found in the UK that what politicians say certainly influences sentencing; ramping up political rhetoric against various crimes leads judges to increase sentences on average.
So Back The Blue and Blue Lives Matter are back to trending as conservatives are having a temper tantrum that a murderer got convicted of murder for a murder that was caught entirely on camera.
And I am supposed to seriously consider the idea that the murderer isn't *actually* a murderer committing the murder that was caught entirely on camera because letting the murderer go free when we have the entire video of the murderer committing murder on camera would probably get the city center burnt down?
...
I do not like vigilante justice. I don't. It harms out groups while protecting the already powerful. It's a reflection of power instead of justice. In theory, law enforcement shouldn't be beholden to a mob that doesn't have all the information.
But, that requires that law enforcement is held to a *higher* standard than the general population. Instead, every good cop I've ever heard of has been ostracized, fired, framed, and/or murdered for trying to be good cops. The dude who got fired for stopping a fellow officer from using an illegal chokehold wasn't backed up by his precinct. Wasn't backed up by his union. Wasn't backed up by his fellow officers.
But they'll sure as hell back a murderer who murdered an unarmed, subdued person on camera, going so far as lying about it on official reports.
If the only justice to be had is vigilante justice...
And I am supposed to seriously consider the idea that the murderer isn't *actually* a murderer committing the murder that was caught entirely on camera because letting the murderer go free when we have the entire video of the murderer committing murder on camera would probably get the city center burnt down?
...
I do not like vigilante justice. I don't. It harms out groups while protecting the already powerful. It's a reflection of power instead of justice. In theory, law enforcement shouldn't be beholden to a mob that doesn't have all the information.
But, that requires that law enforcement is held to a *higher* standard than the general population. Instead, every good cop I've ever heard of has been ostracized, fired, framed, and/or murdered for trying to be good cops. The dude who got fired for stopping a fellow officer from using an illegal chokehold wasn't backed up by his precinct. Wasn't backed up by his union. Wasn't backed up by his fellow officers.
But they'll sure as hell back a murderer who murdered an unarmed, subdued person on camera, going so far as lying about it on official reports.
If the only justice to be had is vigilante justice...
Tucker Carlson said it best on his show last night. If you can get convicted of killing a black man, why would anyone ever want to be a cop?
Back Blue Lives and Blue Lives Matter is just knee-jerk reactionary thoughts to the idea of white officers being held accountable. Being a police officer used to mean carte blanche to kill/rape/imprision anyone. There's a reason the phrase "We write the reports" is a threat.
In which case the only course is to disband and not recognize current law enforcement and instead return to community based laws and enforcement of them by people in those communities. If the people do not trust the law enforcers and attempts to reform those institutions have failed then this is the course of action that is going to bring about a desire that will appeal to the most people.
Yeah, and the Holocaust wasn’t real because they had a rec center. Bet your theory crafters have some ideas on that one too.
@Hawki and @Specter Von Baren. Listen and watch closely. If you can't figure it out that this point, I have nothing left to tell you.
Last edited:
I mean I've said this before on other threads, but here in St. Louis the police basically lost all legitimacy during the Ferguson riots and just act like an occupying army, with patrol copters and Nuisance Abatement Programs in black neighborhoods, mass stops of major highways to drug sniff/breathalyze everyone, fully armed SWAT officers standing guard, and openly refusing to report to civilian oversight or follow the directions of the mayor.
And didn't Regan fire all the nation's air traffic controllers and just start again? So shit like that has been done before.
I feel like the biggest take away here is that there's a running theme of cops creating their own "heightened situation". I think you'd see far less of these extremes if cops had better conflict resolution and de-escalation requirements training with government oversight rather than a protected fraternity of cops that are trained to think they are the domestic equivalent of the military. I realize the "no more cops" stuff is a lot of noise, but I would not be surprised if, with actual government monitoring and statistics we'd see evidence that a lot of these traffic stops are a waste of time and have limited impact on overall crime statistics. I wonder how much time Chauvins gonna spend sitting in his cell contemplating that he's there because someone died over a supposed fake $20.
People aren't merely protesting people being shot by cops. They're protesting the bleak inhumanity of people dying needlessly.
People aren't merely protesting people being shot by cops. They're protesting the bleak inhumanity of people dying needlessly.
Last edited:
Oy! That's everybody else's line!
The World is full of theories.
Unless you have some good fucking source and not just "Guy on the internet" this yet another take on "That's why there's a triangle on the money".
So put up or shut up, because I can post that video all goddamn day rather then waste breath responding to inane conspiracy babbling.
Last edited:
This right here strikes pretty close to the crux of the problem, apart from the daily, generally partisan, bullshit, and highlights exactly how deeply-rooted and systemic these problems are.
The public perception and expectation of law enforcement is not consistent with what law enforcement is, nor what law enforcement does, in the context of Western justice systems. In fact, it's the complete opposite of what that perception and expectation is. And no, this isn't about systemic racism, training methods, the dubious origins of contemporary police forces, what personality types the job attracts, or any other discrete issue within the broader context.
Pay close attention to this video, starting at 26:48:
That's a cop, explaining to a group of law students, exactly what his job as a cop is and how that contrasts to how the justice system nominally operates.
Here's the TLDR: cops don't act on the presumption of innocence. Their job as state actors is to aid prosecution, and they do this through investigation, case-building, arrest, detention, and interrogation such that prosecution is best-informed as to how to exercise its prosecutorial discretion, and should a case go to trial, maximize the possibility of conviction. Thus, cops actually act on the presumption of guilt in order to most effectively aid prosecution.Cop in the video said:
This "protect and serve" stuff is public relations bullshit. Maybe once in an entire cop's career, if they're lucky, they might have to act swiftly and decisively to do something that might make someone a teeny, tiny bit safer. And guess what, that isn't engaging in high speed chases, gunfights, busting up "violent" protest, or any of this other dumb cop TV (news or fiction, not that there's much difference) bullshit the American public is awash with on a daily basis. In almost every case, that shit endangers public safety more than it provides.
And the shit cops could do to foster public safety? They either don't do it, or fuck it up.
Because that's not cops' jobs. Cops' jobs are to act as prosecutorial field agents.
Last edited:
That isn't a case of the law enforcement being unrecognized and dissolved, at least not in the way I mean. A large country cannot exist without a body that enforces the laws, if the people do not trust the body that enforces the laws or the body that makes the laws then the only option is to dissolve that large country into smaller communities that can create the kind of laws and enforcement of them that they wish.
In other words, something like dissolving the United States into individual states. The likely result would be that several states, particularly the ones with few natural resources, will join together into larger, but still smaller than the current US, countries. The alternative is that the country will descend into civil war as factions fight to seize control of the country and its power for themselves.
Lol off-topic, but wow they really beat you over the head with it. I get the sentiment and maybe the comedy. I question their research though. I'm not "sure" the terminology specific xenophobia would be correct for that timeframe. My debate brain wants to go research this because I wanna say anti-catholism didn't come until later in the 1900s and I'm not sure Asian or Homosexual were common slurs. Then again I'm sure the developers would have blanched at using the real slurs that I won't repeat aloud. The jew thing I believe. That sadly dates back a long long time. * nope I'm wrong anti-catholism does date back as well.
I guess I could see it. A tad over the top, but believable.
Nope. They'll just reduce the sentence.
The UK has similar laws on interference in trials. The judge would normally declare a mistrial if he felt the interference severe enough. If lesser, they may allow the trial to continue but issue a public rebuke to the offender (not that this has any official force).
I think the evidentiary bar to cross for a public statement by an elected official to justify an appeal should be quite high. Although my understand of appeals is that this is true anyway: I don't know if it counts as an official "benefit of the doubt" in the same way as innocent until proven guilty, but appeals seem to me to say the verdict stands unless there is exceptionally good reason to say otherwise.
Do you think it possible for this trial to be declared a mistrial due to the mob of people outside the building threatening to burn it down? I'm not asking if you think they should, do you think it possible and/or likely?
So I pulled up twitter, and it turns out #BackTheBlue is 50% people posting things other than police that can be blue, and 49% people using the hashtag to criticize the hastag. and 1% people talking about the Columbus shooting. Blue Lives Matter doesn't seem to have trended recently. I'm not seeing a temper tantrum.