2020 US Election (Part Two)

[cardgame]

Exactly how much random public and private property is it appropriate to burn down to protest a loss of human life, in your opinion?

Until it stops happening with zero consequences seems like a very reasonable base position.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Mere fact of following someone - maybe to learn his destination, maybe to ask for a cigarette/time/directions or whatever, can not mean you are not entitled to defend yourself, if the person you are following unprovokedly and unexpectedly turns around and punches you. That would be quite ridiculous.There's "pursuing", as in "wanting to observe where he goes" and "pursuing" as in "wanting to catch and apprehend/beat/kill him".

Might as well say "There's "pursuing", as in "after a black person" which is totes OK and not threatening at all... and"pursuing" as in "after a white, right-wing person" in which case he obviously gets to shoot you in self defense."

All these hypotheticals are irrelevant because Zimmerman wasn't "asking for a cigarette" he wasn't "asking for the time" nor was he "asking for directions". He was stalking Martin because he harboured a racist belief that Martin was a dangerous criminal because Martin was black. Zimmerman took his gun with him with the express intention of shooting and/or threatening Martin, to prevent Martin from committing the heinous crimes that his racist mentality caused him to fabricate in his mind that Martin would commit. It was the exact same mentality and intent that led to the death of Ahmaud Arbery (the black jogger who was stalked and killed). Saying that there was no aggression on Zimmerman's part is utterly preposterous.

$11 million is more than I'll make in about 11 lifetimes. If I'm still kicking in 2800, let's chat. Yawn worthy to you and your small town education budget, maybe. It's enough that people around would try to help each other out with their livlihooods. They might even drive to a town they have friends in that's just down the road even if there is an imaginary OMG SPR SERIOUS line between Wisconsin and Illinois. There are signs even. If you're going north they say "cheese" and "fireworks." If you're heading south they say "Pay Toll Ahead."

If he was going there with a sham-wow, Windex and a soap bucket, sure... but he wasn't going there to wash cars or otherwise "help his friend out with his business". He was going there to harass and shoot protesters... and harass and shoot protesters he did. Wash cars he did not. Help out with his friend's business he did not. That was just the lame, lame, lame ass excuse... and I'm not buying it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If you want to create a stir, it would be better to burn down suburban malls.

 

[Drakle]

If you actually care about the property in question, you would be all for reforming the police, so they stop executing or attempting to execute people, which causes unrest.

And bringing untrained civilians with guns, let alone underage untrained civilians with guns is only going to cause more potential damage. The police let Rittenhouse run around armed, and let him flee after killing people.

And if we are talking costs,

Illinois and Chicago are spending tens of millions of dollars, every year to protect police in court from the consequences of their own actions with lavish private lawyers. But they would rather constantly shell out massive sums for civil rights violations and expensive lawyers, instead of just reforming the damn police. But I don't see people complaining about that use of tax dollars.

 

[Lexicus]

Right. People who are happy about this are ****ed in the head. It's a ****ton of money.

I'm not happy about. Don't get me wrong. I was perfectly happy when they burned the police precinct building in Minneapolis because that was targeted. I'm not happy about more-or-less random property destruction. But I am trying to keep a clear head about the whole context.

Exactly how much random public and private property is it appropriate to burn down to protest a loss of human life, in your opinion?

I don't know. In theory any amount of property destruction would be justified to prevent the loss of a human life but that isn't the situation we're dealing with here. Destroying property can also be a legitimate form of social protest in that it demonstrates that society cares more about property than about [some] persons. But anyway. I don't think it's appropriate to randomly destroy property as a form of protest, but I also think something more is required of me than sitting here from behind my keyboard and condemning the destruction of property.

If you actually care about the property in question, you would be all for reforming the police, so they stop executing or attempting to execute people, which causes unrest.

Bingo.

Illinois and Chicago are spending tens of millions of dollars, every year to protect police in court from the consequences of their own actions with lavish private lawyers.

In keeping with this, the city of St. Louis had to pay $12M to Breonna Taylor's family.

 

[aelf]

So Yeekim just managed to stumble across a link directly from Rittenhouse's defense team. Having never heard about Rittenhouse before. And yet you don't come up with anything from every major outlet that will have covered the case. Outlets that'll have far better SEO than the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Hmm

That a statement of a simple fact is in itself enough to identify who said it, honestly tells more about the rest of this forum than it tells about @Berzerker.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you actually care about the property in question, you would be all for reforming the police, so they stop executing or attempting to execute people, which causes unrest.

And bringing untrained civilians with guns, let alone underage untrained civilians with guns is only going to cause more potential damage. The police let Rittenhouse run around armed, and let him flee after killing people.

And if we are talking costs,

Illinois and Chicago are spending tens of millions of dollars, every year to protect police in court from the consequences of their own actions with lavish private lawyers. But they would rather constantly shell out massive sums for civil rights violations and expensive lawyers, instead of just reforming the damn police. But I don't see people complaining about that use of tax dollars.

You haven't watched me complain about the state level use of tax dollars and the city governance to the east?

If he was going there with a sham-wow, Windex and a soap bucket, sure... but he wasn't going there to wash cars or otherwise "help his friend out with his business". He was going there to harass and shoot protesters... and harass and shoot protesters he did. Wash cars he did not. Help out with his friend's business he did not. That was just the lame, lame, lame ass excuse... and I'm not buying it.

I think they ringed a local liquor shop with people with baseball bats on an exciting night closer to here. The dump probably wasn't even worth 10 million. Ha! Losers.

 

[Yeekim]

Until it stops happening with zero consequences seems like a very reasonable base position.

May I suggest you start with your own home then?

All these hypotheticals are irrelevant because Zimmerman wasn't "asking for a cigarette" he wasn't "asking for the time" nor was he "asking for directions". He was stalking Martin because he harboured a racist belief that Martin was a dangerous criminal because Martin was black. Zimmerman took his gun with him with the express intention of shooting and/or threatening Martin, to prevent Martin from committing the heinous crimes that his racist mentality caused him to fabricate in his mind that Martin would commit.

Bolded parts are nothing but your own conjecture.

 

[cardgame]

May I suggest you start with your own home then?

What does this mean? Are people being extrajudicially murdered by the police in my own home? Yes, if 'home' means country or state.

 

[Yeekim]

What does this mean? Are people being extrajudicially murdered by the police in my own home? Yes, if 'home' means country or state.

According to the Wall Street Journal, total damages from the unrest are estimated at $50 million, with 56 buildings destroyed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachel...-kenosha-unrest-tops-11-million/#23524a43155a
I doubt there were people being extrajudicially murdered by the police in all those 56 buildings.
If those were fair game regardless, why not your home? Not your country, not your state, but the house you live in.

 

[cardgame]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachel...-kenosha-unrest-tops-11-million/#23524a43155a
I doubt there were people being extrajudicially murdered by the police in all those 56 buildings.
If those were fair game regardless, why not your home? Not your country, not your state, but the house you live in.

Lexicus's position is my position here.

I'm not happy about. Don't get me wrong. I was perfectly happy when they burned the police precinct building in Minneapolis because that was targeted. I'm not happy about more-or-less random property destruction. But I am trying to keep a clear head about the whole context.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Here's a super-reassuring article, if you have some spare time.

The Atlantic, 23 September 2020 - "The Election That Could Break America"

A lot of people, including Joe Biden, the Democratic Party nominee, have misconceived the nature of the threat. They frame it as a concern, unthinkable for presidents past, that Trump might refuse to vacate the Oval Office if he loses. They generally conclude, as Biden has, that in that event the proper authorities “will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.”

The worst case, however, is not that Trump rejects the election outcome. The worst case is that he uses his power to prevent a decisive outcome against him. If Trump sheds all restraint, and if his Republican allies play the parts he assigns them, he could obstruct the emergence of a legally unambiguous victory for Biden in the Electoral College and then in Congress. He could prevent the formation of consensus about whether there is any outcome at all. He could seize on that uncertainty to hold on to power.

 

[Yeekim]

Lexicus's position is my position here.

The police precinct building was public property built with your taxes ... and it will be rebuilt with your taxes.
Burning down public property is to protest government policy is equivalent to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Even though targeted vandalism and arson is preferable to entirely random vandalism and arson, I guess.

 

[cardgame]

The police precinct building was public property built with your taxes ... and it will be rebuilt with your taxes.
Burning down public property is to protest government policy is equivalent to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The police killing people and settling lawsuits is paid with by my taxes, and more of it.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Here's a super-reassuring article, if you have some spare time.

The Atlantic, 23 September 2020 - "The Election That Could Break America"

The Atlantic sure likes anonymous sources.

 

[Yeekim]

The police killing people and settling lawsuits is paid with by my taxes, and more of it.

Even more reason to behave responsibly?
EDIT: You might have a case if there was reason to believe burning down property is both useful and required to improve police behavior in this regard.
It's clearly not.

 

[cardgame]

Even more reason to behave responsibly?

Didn't seem to help Philando Castille or Elijah McClain.

 

[Yeekim]

Didn't seem to help Philando Castille or Elijah McClain.

I was unclear, sorry.
I meant that horrible waste of public money is not a justification to waste even more of it, but rather the opposite.
EDIT: I don't want to come off as if money was more important than justice. It's obviously not.

I can't believe that people who're burning and looting shops "in protest" actually care about justice and improvement; rather they are simply thugs looking for an excuse to loot and vandalize.

It baffles me to see people defending it.

 

[Kaitzilla]

The Atlantic sure likes anonymous sources.

Still, I think they make a really good point near the end.

What if Trump's grand strategy really is to drive Republicans not to vote by mail?


During a pandemic, such a shift in behavior will 100% guarantee Trump gets more counted votes on Election night.

So regardless of Trump ultimately winning or losing the election after everyone gets counted, he can always say he had more counted votes on Election Night.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I doubt that.
You can't try to remove yourself from danger before you have any reason to believe you are in danger.
Mere fact of following someone - maybe to learn his destination, maybe to ask for a cigarette/time/directions or whatever, can not mean you are not entitled to defend yourself, if the person you are following unprovokedly and unexpectedly turns around and punches you. That would be quite ridiculous.


There's "pursuing", as in "wanting to observe where he goes" and "pursuing" as in "wanting to catch and apprehend/beat/kill him".

The "mere fact of following someone to learn their destination" is called stalking and is in fact a crime.