[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Berzerker]

Love it when libertarians band together to support the arbitrary use of deadly force by government agents and remind us all the government’s legal right to tap our phones and arrest us without cause are only hypothetical concerns and there’s no reason to suppose any government would use its powers against innocents so Calm Down, even when those powers are actively being used against innocents and the police have no oversight in determining who they view are rioters.

The thread has now evolved into the “well it’s not technically murder if what the state’s murder patrols are doing is legal” and “but what about one time the government told me a bad man was coming and they were the only ones who could stop him” phase where the real problems are black racists and lawbreakers and the only solution is RoboCop.

Russia Gate have any meaning for you? Carter Page ring a bell? As for black racists, of course they're a problem because they are destroying the cause. If you believe in reform and you support assaults, looting and arson you are hurting the cause. People of all races see that crap and hear the apologists and turn away in disgust.

 

[Joij21]

government’s legal right to tap our phones and arrest us without cause are only hypothetical concerns and there’s no reason to suppose any government would use its powers against innocents so Calm Down, even when those powers are actively being used against innocents and the police have no oversight in determining who they view are rioters.

I think its just safe to assume that in the modern age if anyone has the capability to spy on you they will. Innocents or not, corporations do it as well for purely marketing purposes. Also governments of completely different ideologies, both democratic and authoritarian, spy on each other. No one today vouches for a no surveillance policy/ideology, or at least not those in power. In other words power corrupts, and once those in power can spy on others they use it, they just don't like it when others spy on them in return.

 

[Crezth]

Russia Gate have any meaning for you? Carter Page ring a bell? As for black racists, of course they're a problem because they are destroying the cause. If you believe in reform and you support assaults, looting and arson you are hurting the cause. People of all races see that crap and hear the apologists and turn away in disgust.

I don't believe in reform. The system's broken. The proof is that we're now arguing if RoboCop was right and criminals running away should be shot in the back.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Russia Gate have any meaning for you? Carter Page ring a bell? As for black racists, of course they're a problem because they are destroying the cause. If you believe in reform and you support assaults, looting and arson you are hurting the cause. People of all races see that crap and hear the apologists and turn away in disgust.

Very inspirational thing for a devout George Zimmerman defender to say.

 

[Estebonrober]

I haven't condemned black racism either. I see no point in condemning anything or anyone, expressing hatred in any way never helps, neither can it achieve anything good.


Why do you have to ask a question to which there is no clear answer?



Brooks fighting and using potentially lethal weapon on a cop just because - and only because - the latter was white. And then they set Wendy's on fire. Guess what face was on their sign? White of course. Then routine blocking, looting etc. followed.



I put Crezth on ignore list some time ago, she is raving all the time; worse even that bloke who is always up to nothing, burning his life bullying people on forums
I don't care for what people like them say. Anyway, hanging != lynching. As to whether they commited suicide or were murdered I have no idea. Would you question it if those people were white?

This post definitely wins this thread so far, gfg

 

[Berzerker]

I don't believe in reform. The system's broken. The proof is that we're now arguing if RoboCop was right and criminals running away should be shot in the back.

Does fixing the system mean criminals get to attack cops and take their weapons and run away?

Very inspirational thing for a devout George Zimmerman defender to say.

Like I said, apologists for assault hurt the cause. A jury decided Zimmerman defended himself and they were right.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

That's okay, because you now know what other people were able to discern from the post. The context of a post is greater than just that post, considering that it's over a 100 pages into a thread. Now you know.

Sorry if I came across as condescending. You dragged this out much longer than I should have let you.

No you are still being condescending. "Now you know I'm right, and you can either accept my wisdom or continue to wallow in ignorance" is not a reasonable exchange and is condescending. Obviously I'm aware that there is a bigger discussion here and 100 pages of other people making other points, but the post in question was still a link to a story about police tracking down an arsonist with a commentary of "be careful of exposing your identities". That's all there was to that post. You might well think that there's a general fear of the police applying that level of forensic investigation for every single peaceful protestor, but a) that seems a bit paranoid to me, b) the post wasn't talking about that, and c) linking to an example of them doing that for an actual criminal still remains a terrible way of highlighting that concern.

It's also a bit rich of you to accuse me of dragging this out as if somehow it's just me participating in this exchange. I'm not making you respond and I'm hardly going to keep chasing you for a response if you choose not to. However, this doesn't appear to be going anywhere so I'll allow you the final word if you feel that's your right.

 

[El_Machinae]

There was no need to double-down in the first place.

Very inspirational thing for a devout George Zimmerman defender to say.

I DO think the 1,2,3 step of (a) localized protests going too far leading to (b) police powers being abused on (c) peaceful demonstrators with actual skin in the game ended up being a necessary series of events.

If the rioters hadn't made Fox News all crazy, Trump might not have strong-armed a pastor from her church in order to have a photo-op.

The rioting is part of the catharsis, the first necessary step when things have gotten too far. But it's the protests that matter. And the police over-reaction to the protests is going to be vastly more indicative of the problem than police over-reaction to the rioters.

There's never perfectly applied violence, but there's often necessary violence.

 

[cardgame]

Does fixing the system mean criminals get to attack cops and take their weapons and run away?

Police cannot be above the law.

The law says a former assailant fleeing the scene is not an imminent threat and the use of lethal force is not justified. If you think the cops should be allowed to shoot them, introduce a new law. Until then, obey the law. No, stop resisting. STOP RESISTING!

Like I said, apologists for assault hurt the cause. A jury decided Zimmerman defended himself and they were right.

A jury decided OJ was innocent.

 

[Joij21]

If the rioters hadn't made Fox News all crazy, Trump might not have strong-armed a pastor from her church in order to have a photo-op.

And that's a good thing? All of this might have just rallied Trump's base around him even more. Whether or not you think it was a bad photo-op doesn't matter, that's how he takes attention away from the protest and instead makes it all about him.

 

[Estebonrober]

Does fixing the system mean criminals get to attack cops and take their weapons and run away?



Like I said, apologists for assault hurt the cause. A jury decided Zimmerman defended himself and they were right.

apologists only hurt the case for people who condone unregulated violence against the citizenry, agree to disagree with the jury on Zimmerman who now signs fudging skittle bags as a sign of his killing Martin. You know cause shooting black kids is like the ultimate trophy sport. . . so fudging gross.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wait, people are justifying shooting drunk and fleeing suspects in the back?

And that's a good thing?

The entire BLM movement has been expressing concern about police being too heavy-handed and the average American is worried that Trump is a bit of an omen of America's decent into being too far rightwing.

Trump's base may rally around him after videos of camera-men getting punched by law-enforcement or reporters shot with pepper bullets or people getting peppered in their own homes. But while Kaepernick being called an SOB by someone hired to defend Kaepernick's rights is apparently yawn-worthy, there is now over-whelming evidence that the candidate who wanted police to 'rough up suspects' will happily pass orders that turns the military against the people.

The average person doesn't want to be racist, they just don't want to be inconvenienced by it. Trump represents some pretty top-down rot. It's up to you to turn a photo-op of him holding a Bible (to appease his base) after gassing out a pastor against him. Candidate Trump brought his latent racism into the field and the base backed him every time he ratcheted it up.

The same guy who 'remembers' muslims dancing in New Jersey 'noticed' that an old man is part of a huge conspiracy.

 

[Zkribbler]

Does fixing the system mean criminals get to attack cops and take their weapons and run away?
.

No. If a suspect attacks a cop, takes the non-lethal weapon, and runs away, this does not mean the cop can summarily execute him.
The cops knew who this guy was, where he lived, etc. The could later gone over to his house and picked him up. Then his daughter could celebrate future birthdays without remembering that it was the day her father was gunned down.

BTW- What is the crime of the non-shooting cop?

 

[Berzerker]

The law says a former assailant fleeing the scene is not an imminent threat and the use of lethal force is not justified. If you think the cops should be allowed to shoot them, introduce a new law. Until then, obey the law. No, stop resisting. STOP RESISTING!

jury decided OJ was innocent.

I suspect juries are right more often than they're wrong, otherwise we should ignore them and flip a coin. All the evidence in the Zimmerman case showed he pulled a gun while Martin was on top beating him. Why would he wait to pull a gun if he attacked Martin? The law says lethal force is justified if someone attacks a cop, takes their weapon and runs and then uses it against the pursuing cop.

The problem for the Atlanta cop is he fired after Brooks discharged the taser, unless the taser could be fired again - thats possible, apparently they can fire 2 shots - it ceased being a weapon. Murder, no. Maybe manslaughter or something else short of murder. And the other cop got beat up and they're charging him with assault?

 

[Crezth]

The libertarian continuing to dig his "police should summarily execute anyone they want" hole, also he has conveniently forgotten the one (1) "libertarian" he brought up as proof they stand for civil rights completely disagrees with him here.

 

[Berzerker]

No. If a suspect attacks a cop, takes the non-lethal weapon, and runs away, this does not mean the cop can summarily execute him.
The cops knew who this guy was, where he lived, etc. The could later gone over to his house and picked him up. Then his daughter could celebrate future birthdays without remembering that it was the day her father was gunned down.

BTW- What is the crime of the non-shooting cop?

They're charging him with some form of assault, but according to Georgia law tasers are lethal weapons. The same DA charging this cop with murder is on tape just 2-3 weeks ago reciting the law defining tasers as deadly weapons. Apparently tasers have killed a bunch of people over the years.

As for picking Brooks up later, what would happen if he ran off and attacked someone else or went home and barricaded himself inside armed with guns? In an 'ideal' world the cops would have just let him go and pick him later - peacefully.

 

[Berzerker]

The libertarian continuing to dig his "police should summarily execute anyone they want" hole, also he has conveniently forgotten the one (1) "libertarian" he brought up as proof they stand for civil rights completely disagrees with him here.

Where did Spooner say the person he hired for protection can be attacked?

 

[Bugfatty300]

I DO think the 1,2,3 step of (a) localized protests going too far leading to (b) police powers being abused on (c) peaceful demonstrators with actual skin in the game ended up being a necessary series of events.

If the rioters hadn't made Fox News all crazy, Trump might not have strong-armed a pastor from her church in order to have a photo-op.

The rioting is part of the catharsis, the first necessary step when things have gotten too far. But it's the protests that matter. And the police over-reaction to the protests is going to be vastly more indicative of the problem than police over-reaction to the rioters.

There's never perfectly applied violence, but there's often necessary violence.

There were large protests and police crack downs after the murders of Trevon Marin, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, Ahmaud Arbery. Same old same old: The news cycle moved on and the average person lost interest. But then after George Floyd a police station got seized and burned down...

One can disagree with violent protests but I don't think there's any question that without the riots there wouldn't be any real momentum towards addressing police racism and brutality.

 

[bernie14]

....BTW- What is the crime of the non-shooting cop?

I think it's aggravated assault but he is "looking forward to cooperating with investigators to clear his name".

As they say, snitches get....reduced sentences.

 

[El_Machinae]

One can disagree with violent protests but I don't think there's any question that without the riots there wouldn't be any real momentum towards addressing police racism and brutality.

It's an aggregate vs individual necessity. I wouldn't recommend that any individual engage in any type of riotous behaviour. It's bad for you. It's bad for the direct victims of the damage. But, at the same time, it's impossible to figure out the correct amount of rioting. We've learned that it's not zero.

FoxNews fooled a President into thinking that there was anarchy everywhere, and he shows that he's a brutish lout when he's scared. And now he's lumping in protestors with rioters in his tweets. His base conflated them, so he does.