[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Lexicus]

The word entitled means you have a legal right to something. The cop who killed Floyd is 'entitled' to a fair trial and presumption of innocence, he is not entitled to walk away if found guilty. So you believe when the state accuses people of crimes, they're guilty until they prove their innocence?

preemptive apology since i'm typing this post on a keyboard with a shift key that barely works -


just in case anyone is being bamboozled by this utter trollish nonsense, the real issue here is not whether cops deserve fair trials (and uh newsflash, BLM is literally calling for prosecutions and trials, not summary punishment, and no one in this thread is saying any cop does not deserve a trial)

The issue is that the evidentiary standard for determining that the cop committed a crime, even when the evidence obviously exists that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed someone, is impossibly high. and that's true even for the proceedings that could result in a trial, let alone a trial itself.

in any case though, there's a pattern to berzerker's arguments here and it's not what people think. recall his position on the Trayvon Martin killing - zimmerman is no cop. berzerker's position was exactly the same: that zimmerman had killed Martin was not, by itself, evidence that a crime had been committed. berzerker is making a consistent argument not about law enforcement officers killing people, but about killers whose victims are black.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think you're mistaking two different cases. Rayshard Brooks was the one shot in the back while he was fleeing with a stolen taser.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think you're mistaking two different cases. Rayshard Brooks was the one shot in the back while he was fleeing with a stolen taser.

Indeed, Floyd was the one the cop pressed down on.

 

[Berzerker]

just in case anyone is being bamboozled by this utter trollish nonsense, the real issue here is not whether cops deserve fair trials (and uh newsflash, BLM is literally calling for prosecutions and trials, not summary punishment, and no one in this thread is saying any cop does not deserve a trial)

I'm debating Takhisis, not BLM... and here's what he said:

So police, or anybody else for that matter, killing somebody else is supposed to be justified until and unless proven otherwise? Is this what you've come to?

The issue here is Takhi disagrees with the presumption of innocence, do you?

The issue is that the evidentiary standard for determining that the cop committed a crime, even when the evidence obviously exists that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed someone, is impossibly high. and that's true even for the proceedings that could result in a trial, let alone a trial itself.

Then no cops would ever be tried much less convicted including Floyd's killer.

in any case though, there's a pattern to berzerker's arguments here and it's not what people think. recall his position on the Trayvon Martin killing - zimmerman is no cop. berzerker's position was exactly the same: that zimmerman had killed Martin was not, by itself, evidence that a crime had been committed. berzerker is making a consistent argument not about law enforcement officers killing people, but about killers whose victims are black.

When have I argued cops who kill non-black people dont deserve the presumption of innocence?

 

[El_Machinae]

The issue here is Takhi disagrees with the presumption of innocence, do you?

It's really weird seeing you not distinguish between agents of the state vs regular citizenry. In what bill of rights does it say that the State has the same presumption of innocence that the citizenry does?

 

[Socrates99]

I'm debating Takhisis, not BLM... and here's what he said:



The issue here is Takhi disagrees with the presumption of innocence, do you?



Then no cops would ever be tried much less convicted including Floyd's killer.



When have I argued cops who kill non-black people dont deserve the presumption of innocence?

Oh FFS, Takhisis isnt disagreeing with the presumption of innocence. Anybody defending a cop killing a suspect absolutely is. Especially when the deceased is accused of anything less than a capital offense.

The cop is removing that person's right to a trial and presumption of innocence by dispensing judgment and punishment themselves.

 

[Crezth]

Since when did "innocent until proven guilty" mean "we can't assume a dead body with a bullet hole in it and a man holding a smoking gun nearby means a murder happened." Like... that evidence is pretty damn circumstantial for a murder.

Unless you're using a special definition of the word "murder," which I guess would be a great tool for any Orwellian state to deny it kills citizens.

 

[Takhisis]

The thing is that wrongful killing is defined in law (in the real universe, not wherever Libertarians reside mentally) as killing somebody (the killing, obviously) and without justification. If you want to argue that you're justified then the burden of proof is on you. As I said before, the killer has to justify the killing. And if you're going for self-defence you'd better explain how one unarmed fleeing person is a threat to an armed one, or how a suspect that has been subdued and is both unarmed and outnumbered somehow merits a chokehold.

As Lexicus says, Berzerker's arguments shift around to accommodate whosever turn it has latest been to have killed a member of the African-American community. Vigilantes, militiamen, law enforcement are all to be given their freedom, just as Berzerker (a self-admitted vocal defender of the KKK) occasionally tries to spin his defence of freedom™ as the free right to take other people's freedom away a.k.a. slavery.

Freedom™ intellectual property of the Libertarian Movement

 

[Seon]

It's really weird seeing you not distinguish between agents of the state vs regular citizenry. In what bill of rights does it say that the State has the same presumption of innocence that the citizenry does?

This is not correct. He is on record saying agents of the state should be held at less stringent moral obligation and burden of proof than regular citizenry, so he does distinguish between agents of state and normal people.

 

[Lexicus]

When have I argued cops who kill non-black people dont deserve the presumption of innocence?

Cops "who kill people" don't deserve the presumption of innocence. If they can't satisfactorily explain why they killed someone they should be locked up.

 

[Takhisis]

I'm not sure why he's specifying ‘non-black’ people.

 

[Seon]

Libertarianism, being a reactionary authoritarian movement which began to counter an interventionist social democratic New Deal, fundamentally does not believe that those with Authority and Privilege have any kind of duty to intervene to help, as they claim, without much evidence, that such intervention leads to harm.

This is why notable libertarians here insist that state actors, those with authority, and celebrities, those with privilege , should be held to an equal or lower standard for behavior as regular citizenry. It makes absolutely no sense for a liberal or liberation-inclined view points, but makes sense when you consider the history of their movement and realize that the entire libertarian ideology and its name was coined to spread propaganda against Democratic politicians attempting to create a welfare state.

This is why “libertarianism” does not actually exist. They are actually either authoritarian right wingers, or confused anarchists.

 

[Lexicus]

This is why “libertarianism” does not actually exist. They are actually either authoritarian right wingers, or confused anarchists.

American libertarians are cryptofascists, though in these latter days of Trump they are largely dropping the crypto.

 

[Takhisis]

Yeah, they dropped the crypto after hoisting KKK and (Illinois-)Nazi flags.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'm not sure why he's specifying ‘non-black’ people.

I'm sure you can guess as to why

It should be obvious to all here by now, we've had our share of fun and games but let's not beat around the bush

 

[Lexicus]

It should be obvious to all here by now, we've had our share of fun and games but let's not beat around the bush

Also just to be clear the race-hatred against black people and the belief that the agents of the state should be able to kill people with impunity are deeply interlinked, not separate things.

 

[Takhisis]

'twas a rhetorical question.

 

[Seon]

When have they ever? Right-Libertarians have always Caucased with authoritarians and racists since the 50s. Their rhetoric evolved out of realization that head on confrontation on matters of economic and racial injustice is no longer possible. American popular opinion have been steadily turning against the idea that the rich should have more power than them and that the whites can openly discriminate against blacks for over a century at this point. Their ultimate goal is thus to reverse engineer the country backwards in time to mid-century Virginia minus the open segregation.


This is why libertarians also tend to be anti-democratic and supportive of oligarchic rule. As Tyler Cowen, one of the most important thinkers in the libertarian movement said: “freest countries have not generally been democratic.” Rothbard and Rockwell, central figures in Libertarian movement, penned racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic newsletters for Ron Paul.

In Democracy: the God that Failed, written by libertarian Hans Hermann Hoppe, states : “A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person, but falls instead in the same moral category as an animal — of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a “free good”) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest).”

To believe that libertarianism is a separate ideology from run of the mill authoritarian conservatism, albeit with good press for luring faux intellectuals, would be ignoring history and their own writing throughout the last century.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Also just to be clear the race-hatred against black people and the belief that the agents of the state should be able to kill people with impunity are deeply interlinked, not separate things.

Of course.

 

[Lexicus]

Right-Libertarians have always Caucased with authoritarians and racists since the 50s.

Since the 20s:
It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.
-Ludwig von Mises

[he was referring here to the various reactionary governments that sprang up in the aftermath of the revolutions in central and eastern Europe at the end of World War I]