[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Ajidica]

And the most tyrannical domestic policy of the last half century has been the drug war

Not Dubya's indefinite imprisonment without trial? Not the use of torture?
Not Iran-Contra where the President ignored the explicit prohibition passed by Congress and continued to transfer arms to right-wing deaths squads?

 

[Crezth]

I dont think Trump got much of a libertarian vote, they're kinda in the open/free market camp. And the most tyrannical domestic policy of the last half century has been the drug war and the Democrats' fingerprints are all over that murder weapon. I guess they just ignore it and vote for Biden.

You're straight-up making stuff up if you think that was a Democrat policy and not a Republican policy the Democrats wisely latched on to lol.

Only one person in this thread is obsessed with raising up a political candidate that is part of this rotten system and that's you.

 

[Commodore]

The US has a weird self-defense system, where you they have to prove you murdered someone and weren't defending yourself. It's internally consistent, even if it sucks

It doesn't suck at all. Innocent until proven guilty is probably the greatest legal concept humanity has ever devised. If the state wants to accuse me of murdering someone, it's on them to prove the truth of that accusation. No one should ever have to prove their innocence, even if they are guilty as sin but the state just can't manage to prove it for some reason.

So if someone claims self-defense in a killing, then our legal system is supposed to automatically assume that is the truth of the matter until the state proves otherwise. If you think such a system allows too many guilty people to go free, the solution isn't to abandon the idea of innocent until proven guilty, but rather to tell the state to do a better job of arguing their cases.

 

[Seon]

On the contrary even in American court the defendant must prove a self defense claim by either preponderous evidence or a plausible scenario based on existing evidence and circumstance.

In these cases the material circumstance of the crime is not in question. You have and you admit to have killed another person. Self defense claims either attempt to claim that this illegal action was justified or that it was unavoidable due to actions of the other party. The burden of proof is on the defense.

 

[El_Machinae]

Where does the BoR say 'citizens' are presumed innocent? When a cop is charged with murder, he is no longer 'the state', he's just a person with the same due process rights as everyone else.

Right, but when he conducted the homicide, he was an agent of the state. The agents of the state are held to a different standard in a free society. In fairness, we pay them for the inconvenience. No one is forced to be a cop.

You're literally endorsing a system that make it easier for a cop to get away with murder than a normal person.

A normal person cannot walk into a bar with a pistol on their hip and 'accidentally' have to kill someone. Or at least, the bar owner can kick that person out if if they sense trouble.

A cop can, though.

A normal person cannot force a car to the side of the road, walk on over, get told that the other person is armed legally and then 'accidentally' kill him in front of his kid.

A cop can, though. And they can use a self-defense argument for the very situation they created.

You've basically proven everyone's point here. Cops can murder more easily because you guys protected them. Surprise, surprise, the people the cops focus on are so displeased by this, they no longer respect the system you're telling them 'is for their own good'.

 

[El_Machinae]

On the contrary even in American court the defendant must prove a self defense claim by either preponderous evidence or a plausible scenario based on existing evidence and circumstance.

In these cases the material circumstance of the crime is not in question. You have and you admit to have killed another person. Self defense claims either attempt to claim that this illegal action was justified or that it was unavoidable due to actions of the other party. The burden of proof is on the defense.

What's a 'preponderous amount of evidence' amount relative to, say, the burden you need to show to win a tort?

A 'plausible scenario' still makes murder super-easy. I betcha that one shakes out wonderfully with racial bias.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm glad you chaps aren't in charge of quality control on aircraft or anything like that. Your modus operandi seems to be "if standards are difficult to meet, then reduce the standards".

 

[Seon]

Honestly self defense claim is stupidly easy to prove in most states In America as the jury is often not allowed to consider whether the defense’s claims are reasonable or not—just the plausibility of the scenario. That is, as long as you are white man who shot a black man anyways.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/...s-are-far-more-likely-to-be-ruled-justifiable

 

[Seon]

I'm glad you chaps aren't in charge of quality control on aircraft or anything like that. Your modus operandi seems to be "if standards are difficult to meet, then reduce the standards".

I’m sure if you’ve been paying attention, our arguments are that police standards are unacceptably low and should be raised.

 

[Crezth]

I'm glad you chaps aren't in charge of quality control on aircraft or anything like that. Your modus operandi seems to be "if standards are difficult to meet, then reduce the standards".

Funny you should say that, because working in flight test engineering, I can tell you a lot about how in our field we try to promote standards that are created by open panels of experts with due research and careful consideration, and we tend to shy away from secretive legislative councils paneled by corporate stooges and politicians.

Most notably, our professional culture is sometimes notorious for being "too" safe and limiting in the scope of what we deem acceptable. Why are we so safety-motivated? Because we're held accountable when lives are lost.

 

[Berzerker]

You're straight-up making stuff up if you think that was a Democrat policy and not a Republican policy the Democrats wisely latched on to lol.

Only one person in this thread is obsessed with raising up a political candidate that is part of this rotten system and that's you.

Joe Biden epitomizes this rotten system and many people in this thread will be voting for him, not me. I'll be voting Libertarian or maybe Green if they go with Ventura. So the Democrats 'wisely latched on to lol' the drug war? Wise from whose perspective? What a strange way to describe a war on black America.

Weren't the Democrats writing the laws? Who pushed the '86 and '94 crime bills thru Congress? Oh yeah, Joe Biden. Nixon's war on drugs was tame in comparison, he focused more on treatment and had the endorsement of the Black Caucus. Hey, if 'wise' black politicians supported the drug war, can it be racist?

Not Dubya's indefinite imprisonment without trial? Not the use of torture?

Not Iran-Contra where the President ignored the explicit prohibition passed by Congress and continued to transfer arms to right-wing deaths squads?

Of course not, they pale in comparison to the death and destruction from the drug war. But most of that is foreign policy, I said the drug war is the most tyrannical domestic policy of the past half century... If I was to include foreign policy I'd go with Vietnam, Iraq, and Syria even though the drug war has killed far more Americans than all 3 combined. And thats not even getting into the Mexican death toll.

https://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/drug-war-statistics

Its kinda weird they have a Mexican body count but not one for the US.

Number of people killed in Mexico's drug war since 2006: 200,000+

wow, Democrats and Republicans are mass murderers

Right, but when he conducted the homicide, he was an agent of the state. The agents of the state are held to a different standard in a free society.

The victims get to sue the state, not put the politicians and bureaucrats who hired the cop in jail for murder. Agents of the state are supposed to uphold the law, murdering people is a deal breaker. What is this different standard?

You're literally endorsing a system that make it easier for a cop to get away with murder than a normal person.

A normal person cannot walk into a bar with a pistol on their hip and 'accidentally' have to kill someone. Or at least, the bar owner can kick that person out if if they sense trouble.

A cop can, though.

A normal person cannot force a car to the side of the road, walk on over, get told that the other person is armed legally and then 'accidentally' kill him in front of his kid.

A cop can, though. And they can use a self-defense argument for the very situation they created.

You've basically proven everyone's point here. Cops can murder more easily because you guys protected them. Surprise, surprise, the people the cops focus on are so displeased by this, they no longer respect the system you're telling them 'is for their own good'.

I'm not a Democrat, dont blame me for the results of their racist policies. I never told anyone the system is for their own good (WTH) and I haven't literally endorsed a system that allows cops to 'accidentally' kill people (WTH). I've been voting against foreign and domestic wars for decades and you're blaming the Libertarians for 'the system'? WTH.

 

[Seon]

Libertarians as established before are authoritarian reactionaries who are part of the people seeking to uphold the current unjust system or claw it backwards to a more unjust state, so they bear part of the blame for the American system being as it is. To claim they are not would be to accept that they are distinguishable from Republicans or other authoritarian right wing groups, and I have yet to hear an effective argument proving such a point from libertarian thinkers and groups.

Your claim before is that protests against police brutality is unjustified because 21 people have died from it. You have additionally said “how many of these were by police, and why were they morally unjustifiable?” which means that you assumed the guilt and culpability of the victim without trial.

In American legal system, for a self defense claim to be justified, the victim of self-defense homicide must have been in the midst of about to commit a felony violence against the self-defender’s person. In a remarkable bit of circular logic, the legal system instead declares anyone who died from self-defense or police shooting as a felon, as anyone who died from self-defense must have been one. This is even if investigation proved that the victim of self-defense did not actually have the capacity to commit a crime.

now who is the one saying guilty until proven innocent? More like guilty even if proven innocent.

 

[El_Machinae]

The libertarian philosophy has a lot of components that are internally consistent. Starting with a premise that people are owed maximum sustainable liberty is fine, even if you don't agree with each aggregate consequence. They just don't have solutions for some real world applications. All property rights can trace at least part of its origin to original theft. This isn't something anybody can fix, obviously, but it does mean that modern property rights are all stained with a taint of illegitimacy.

So, insisting that all modern property rights must be protected just outright fails. The error isn't even in the current allocation of property rights, because the world is full of errors and we do our best to fix them. The error is in insisting they shouldn't be fixed.

Even the side argument, of "can they even be fixed?" is a legitimate question, because it's hella hard to answer and deserves attention. But the side-argument needs to contain the understanding that you are looking for fixes - even if they're iterative or imperfect.

Libertarianism also suffers from other practical considerations. It's never been successfully adopted at scale with migration as evidence of buy-in. And libertarians don't don't defend themselves from external threats so that they're not free-riders. So, it's just an idea, a place to start thinking from. I come from pretty strong Libertarian tendencies, and I mostly gave up on them when they couldn't even use their own solution for climate change. The Ebola crisis then just completely lost me as much as the Evangelicals lost my respect due to Trump.

I haven't literally endorsed a system that allows cops to 'accidentally' kill people (WTH).

Naw, you have. You think that the cops should have greater leeway for creating scenarios for when they 'plausibly' have to defend themselves. They have greater permission to create the risk but the same burden to be free of criminal consequences.

No citizen could have arranged Philandro Castile's death like that and walked away 'not guilty'. Only an agent of the state could have, and did. A cop is allowed to accidentally kill someone in a way citizens aren't. And that means "accidentally" is easier as well, by default.

 

[Berzerker]

Your claim before is that protests against police brutality is unjustified because 21 people have died from it.

That wasn't my claim

You have additionally said “how many of these were by police, and why were they morally unjustifiable?” which means that you assumed the guilt and culpability of the victim without trial.

Defendants on trial for a crime are entitled to the presumption of innocence by the court, that doesn't mean no one else can have an opinion. But I asked for evidence the (2) killings were unjustified, Lex ran away and you tried to answer but you got some facts wrong. If you dont have evidence they were unjustified, why should I demand the cops be tried for murder?

In American legal system, for a self defense claim to be justified, the victim of self-defense homicide must have been in the midst of about to commit a felony violence against the self-defender’s person. In a remarkable bit of circular logic, the legal system instead declares anyone who died from self-defense or police shooting as a felon, as anyone who died from self-defense must have been one. This is even if investigation proved that the victim of self-defense did not actually have the capacity to commit a crime.

now who is the one saying guilty until proven innocent? More like guilty even if proven innocent.

Who was proven innocent?

Naw, you have. You think that the cops should have greater leeway for creating scenarios for when they 'plausibly' have to defend themselves. They have greater permission to create the risk but the same burden to be free of criminal consequences.

No citizen could have arranged Philandro Castile's death like that and walked away 'not guilty'. Only an agent of the state could have, and did. A cop is allowed to accidentally kill someone in a way citizens aren't. And that means "accidentally" is easier as well, by default.

I want to end the drug war and delete all sorts of laws, that would dramatically decrease the number of scenarios for when cops can 'plausibly' defend themselves. I dont know why you brought Castile up, the cop should be prosecuted. Biden supporters are complaining about too many scenarios for cops to plausibly kill people while blaming libertarians?

 

[Seon]

Burden of proof is not on me to prove that a murderer’s act to murder someone else was an unjustifiable act.

material circumstance is clear. Somebody acted in a harmful way to cause the death of another. We can tell from forensics and witness testimony that a specific someone is guilty of this crime. Self defense is a request for clemency in spite of these litany of evidence against the murderer. Burden of proof is on the defense, as otherwise, material evidence demands punishment.


in addition i note that you are now saying that the cops should not even be brought to trial unless we somehow prove that the cops were in the wrong to commit murder.

 

[Takhisis]

I’m sure if you’ve been paying attention, our arguments are that police standards are unacceptably low and should be raised.

I've already said that his MO is pretending not to have read the thread… oh wait, it's Manfred.

Still, distinction without difference.

 

[El_Machinae]

I want to end the drug war and delete all sorts of laws, that would dramatically decrease the number of scenarios for when cops can 'plausibly' defend themselves. I dont know why you brought Castile up, the cop should be prosecuted. Biden supporters are complaining about too many scenarios for cops to plausibly kill people while blaming libertarians?

He was prosecuted. He got off on 'fear for his own safety', which you want him to be able to present as a defense just as easily as someone who couldn't have pulled him over in the first place. He's literally part of the the reason why BLM exploded.

But let's go through more of your drug war


January 4, 2018 / 7:39 AM / 3 years ago
Trump administration drops Obama-era easing of marijuana prosecutions

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said President Donald Trump’s top priority was enforcing federal law “whether it’s marijuana or immigration.”
...
Sessions said in a statement that the Obama-era policy “undermines the rule of law” and told federal prosecutors in his memo to “follow the well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions”

Sessions has a point, obviously, Congress makes the laws. He's also the guy (appointed by Trump to lead the DOJ) that jacked up the discrepancy between crack and cocaine from zero to 18x, "the best people" Trump literally promoted the guy who aggravated the most recent upswing in the drug war.
But, he has a point, the Executive should be doing what Congress says. Of course, interpreting that is a function of latent bias, so let's see had already what happened.

Marijuana Arrests Increased Again Last Year (2018) Despite More States Legalizing, FBI Data Shows

Prior to 2016, the country had seen a steady decline in cannabis arrests for roughly a decade, according to the annual FBI reports.

Oh, huh. Despite increased legalization, somehow other states are capable of cracking down harder. That must be super hard on state budgets. I hope they're getting something for all their hard work.

Spoiler Let's see how more arrests worked out :

2018 was definitely a good time to start enforcing more of the marijuana laws.

 

[Seon]

Notable libertarian Ron Paul is noted to be specifically against federal war on drugs. He’s fine with states cracking down and have made this distinction clear on occasions.

Which indicates to me that his primary objection to the war on drugs is the Federal interventionist nature of it. The actual brutality of it he’s willing to look over, depending on who’s doing the cracking down.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm glad you chaps aren't in charge of quality control on aircraft or anything like that. Your modus operandi seems to be "if standards are difficult to meet, then reduce the standards".

Just coincidently happening to Stan for those oppressing others, weird how that keeps happening, in a consistant pattern with you.

 

[Commodore]

Cincinnati Police are refusing to enforce the mandatory facemask ordinance the city passed that goes into effect tomorrow. Why am I posting this here instead of in the coronavirus thread? Because Cincinnati Police are refusing to enforce the ordinance as retaliation for the city government's support for BLM.