I'm pretty sure we need an addendum. "If he's a cop he's liable to just beat you up and arrest you 10 minutes later."
National Guard called into Minneapolis
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
- Status
I agree with this passage actually, I just don’t think protesting, fighting, and demanding change in this system is revenge. It is good conquering evil as far as I am concerned.
USA
Don’t Confuse Revenge With Justice: Five Key Differences
The terms revenge and justice often get muddled. And that’s hardly surprising. In the course of history, they’ve frequently been used interchangeably.
www.psychologytoday.com
"Some"?
But with justification. Cops are a plague.
Yeah, break the wheel. Abolish the police. That's being kind.
Isn't that what regular news interviews and protests are for making it visible.
Those who care will see it on the news etc. Those who don't probably aren't suddenly going to care and be involved because you've made it part of their escapism, they may even just ignore it or be annoyed by it.
Also again the Moviebob argument.
You need some escapism sometimes from reality. People don't want all politics all the time or it will drive them nuts.
Also opening the door to one group using something as a platform often leads to all other groups in politics jumping in on it then what are you going to tell these other groups fighting for things too that they're not allowed in?
You might end up with more political platforming going on than match because every issue is now having to have it's time.
So to circle back to the Moviebob argument.
Should LGBTQ people not be allowed to have content unless it talks about homophobia in society?
Yes but as the officer started kneeling on his neck were any of then still holding Mr Floyd, I don't think they were in the video so it would be a tough argument to make that because they were part of the arrest initially they also are responsible for the over-reach of one officer when they didn't contribute to it but also didn't stop it.If a person holds down the legs of a victim while they are being murdered, they are an accomplice. If they kneel on the person while they are being murdered, they are an accomplice. The officers were assisting with the arrest, thus were also partially responsible for the actions taken during that arrest.
accomplice
www.law.cornell.edu
Oh thank you for telling me what I think because clearly I must not know my own damn mind. Care to tell me next weeks lottery numbers too using your psychic powers? Or how about using those magical psychic powers to detect the actual corrupt cops through the internet too?
Or are you going to give your illusory superiority a rest here and actually engage with what I said rather than blindly trying to ascribe motive so you can pretend to be superior?
If I didn't care why would I bother being here in this damn thread arguing with some-one acting as you are?
I doubt it would affect me much either way. I mean I'd not like to see the USA go bankrupt that would impact me but then it would also impact everyone including those you claim to want to help as what they're going to just pull that $17.1 Trillion out of the wealthiest people in the countries bank accounts? Nah it would be yet more debt.
Pretending you're taking the system down by breaking into Nike and Stealing Trainers then torching the place isn't moving the needle, at least not the way you'd want.
Most of them chose their targets. They were precise. They were aimed. They weren't the equivalent of PETA protesting animal abuse by setting fire to UPS trucks.
Former Republican President George Bush doesn't mention Trump by name, but this is obviously directed at him:
www.cnn.com
His full statement here:
READ: Former President George W. Bush's statement on the death of George Floyd | CNN Politics
Former President George W. Bush released a statement calling for the country to unify after the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police and the protests that have erupted across the country in the following week.
www.cnn.com
Wouldn't only the one kneeling on his neck likely count as the arresting officer in this case though or whomever read him his rights?
Yes SOME
So next time there's a Mass shooter do we just wait for them to run out of ammo?
Get robbed, have people act without consequence. Have no Swat teams to tackle active shooter situations. Have no-one to break up criminal gang brawls. How no-one to turn to if being extorted.
Except it's why class warfare philosophy positions fail and you don't end up with real change. You just turn the wheel not break it.
Yes, actually one of them still held his legs at one time and others actually knelt on him later. Though they STILL would be partially responsible as he was in ALL of their charge not just the officer who was on his neck. This did not happen instantaneously, it went on for an extended period of time with them doing nothing to correct the officers position to ensure the safety of the man in their charge. The officers prevented bystanders from rendering aid. They told bystanders they were wrong for asking for them to change his position. They actively prevented others from saving his life, thus are responsible for his death. Once the person is in their custody, they are all responsible for his safety. If they had taken ANY action to protect the life of the man who was in their charge, this might be different, they did not and instead took direct action that led to his death by not protecting this man and additionally prevented others from saving his life.
In the US, we have laws that require bystanders to " stop and render aid" when we see someone's life in danger. These laws vary by state but even Minnesota ha a law on the book to address this. The people were prevented from doing so by the police officers who killed him. Though it is only a misdemeanor in Minnesota, in Texas, it can be considered a felony to fail to stop and render aid. Though this is usually applied to vehicle accidents, as they are more frequent, it has also applied to other situations as well in the past.
Last edited:
It would still be tough to get the charges to stick really against them I'd imagine unless they did any excessive restraining themselves not just that they didn't try to correct him.
I’m not here to diagnose you, but I know you don’t give a fuck about protesters, peaceful or otherwise. You’ve made that damn clear.
Glad we’re agreed.
THEY BURNED DOWN A PRECINCT BUILDING. And the vast majority of that “theft” gets handed out to the crowds. This is communities giving back what has been built on their backs and their blood, particularly in LA or Atlanta where upscale boutiques and the like in wealthy neighborhoods were heavily targeted.
The civil rights movement started with sit-ins across the board, with a riot against the entire bussing industry. Panthers didn’t carry guns sometimes, they carried guns through their entire communities, challenged cops on every street corner. The specific right place to show dissent is wherever it will do nothing, because the rules have been written to keep themselves from changing, the system constructed to perpetuate itself into eternity. When the rules exist to make you lose, you break the fucking rules.
I don't think it will be difficult for the charges to stick at all, and once they have the charges for the first officer sorted, I am sure we will see these charges for the additional officers applied. I have no idea why you think what they did was legal tbh. Their additional malignant actions and not just inaction actually make that easier. It isn't like they can pretend they didn't know harm was being done, everyone was pointing it out to them.
I was going to respond, but you know, you're tipping your hand with your bad faith arguments here.
I really see no reason to think that someone who said something asinine is arguing in good faith, this is all fake hand wringing shit.
And for the record: they're allowed to and allowing protests to be hard to ignore doesn't disallow it so don't even pretend that's the logical conclusion.
So what you're saying is you want them to protest...
But not like that...
And not like that...
And not like that...
And not like that...
And not like that...
And not like that...
Gotcha!
No you don't know that I don't care and I'd advise not playing internet pop psychologist neither of us would benefit from playing that game.
Hell if I didn't care I'd be off watching something or playing something now rather than engaging with some-one who can't argue and relies on strawmen, aspersions and just general shaming techniques the moment they face even a tiny amount of resistance.
That it can't be feasibly done?
Wow so you're actually admitting the messaging has a problem here?
They also burned down, stores people rely on. Pharmacies people need for medicine. Post offices people use to communicate (and Cthulhu help them if they burned down any super important irreplaceable letters). Bars people relax in and owners have spent most of their lives working to buy and build up to where it was.
LA only happened after the first night and lets be honest most of that was probably stuff made in China these days.
It started with Sit ins as you said.
It targeted 1 business industry as you said.
It was targeted as I said.
As for breaking rules, you have to judge the impact of breaking them and understand consequences and if the consequences are worth it otherwise you end up as a Rebel without a clue. Going after low income housing projects in a place with a housing problem isn't the answer.
The Police station, I don't support the use of violence but that can at least be pointed to as targeting something vaguely related to what people were upset about though the Police chief is Black isn't he?
You can't do it that way. The system is built how it is for a reason because in the past people "fought until it stuck" and innocent people died quite often as a result or lost their freedom. About the best that can be done is to build on it.
Would you want to be the person with a Gun to confront the other person with a Gun already showing some disregard for the law?
Oddly I borrowed the argument from Moviebob hence I linked the related video to point out the argument.
Are people not allowed escapism? Or is escapism from the real world [current year] politics of things only acceptable if you find the reality of situations objectionable and the media portrays the situation without the objectionable reality?
Surprise, it’s all bullshit. They just want to torture protesters.
Fine so everyone here is going to be fine if I just start pulling out these nice stats on Climate change and talking about all that here and not about the actual topic at all right?
I mean it's not like you're hear for a specific topic right?
That none of it will likely affect me doesn't mean it doesn't matter to me.
I'll likely be dead before the worst impact of Climate change hits, doesn't mean that doesn't bother me
- Status