Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[jimbob]

Fake Antifa stories organised on 4chan

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41036631

 

[LSSBB]

I can't imagine what you'd be looking for as evidence, other than Emily's Cat saying so herself.

"Run across" should be quantifiable.

For example:

Claim 1:

News article A.
Statement from person B.

Counter Claim To Claim 1:
News article C
Statement from person Z
Televised program Q

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Immediately after he fired his shot, which was clearly a warning shot directed toward another person who was using a deadly weapon at the time, he put away his gun. The police saw that...

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. According to this NYT article, "...a state police spokeswoman said troopers did not hear the shot."

The cops were 20 feet away at the time, apparently, and the shooter walked past them to get away. Now, I'm all for the government employing the disabled, but using deaf cops in this situation was probably a mistake.

Clearly this spokeswoman understood that what happened was bad and the "did not hear" statement was an attempt to excuse their inaction.

...and made a decision to not intervene right at that moment, but wait until there was some safety.

It's not a cop's job to wait until things are "safe" before they actually do their job.

Considering what else could have happened, things turned out pretty well this time.

Stupid argument. Why even have cops, then, if they wait around to see how a situation resolves itself on its own before doing anything?

Yes, no one was injured or killed "this time", but that argument represents neither logic nor wisdom. It's simply a lazy regurgitation of the result of a single instance.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

It's not a cop's job to wait until things are "safe" before they actually do their job.

To some extent it does weigh on what are often split-second decisions.

Much like the Hippocratic oath for doctors, officers often take a course of action so as to not make things worse.

But they are secure in the knowledge that whether they are seen to have over-reacted or under-reacted, some wag on the internet will be sure to second-guess them.

Every time.

 

[quadraginta]

I think they would be able to get a pornographic display removed.

I would enjoy seeing the arguments that Michelangelo's David is a pornographic display.

Here he is in a public park in Buffalo, NY.

And some of the twenty three copies which stand in a yard in Los Angeles.

There are plenty of other examples.

The question is, has a court ever found that a community has the right to have such a display moved in the public interest? Obviously the argument that it is pornographic has some weaknesses.

But I don't think anyone has tried putting one up in front of an elementary school in a small town.

Could be an interesting "free speech" experiment.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

To some extent it does weigh on what are often split-second decisions.

Much like the Hippocratic oath for doctors, officers often take a course of action so as to not make things worse.

There's a significant difference between waiting for the best moment in an ongoing situation and waiting for the situation to come to a halt on its own.

People have actually been shot and killed, by cops, for less than this. Obviously, that's an over-reaction, but that doesn't justify going to the other extreme and doing nothing. This wasn't wisdom; it was luck.

But they are secure in the knowledge that whether they are seen to have over-reacted or under-reacted, some wag on the internet will be sure to second-guess them.

Every time.

It's almost as if we expect some sort of appropriate balance between "kill" and "do nothing" when it comes to people who willingly take on an occupation meant to ensure public safety.

How dare us.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would enjoy seeing the arguments that Michelangelo's David is a pornographic display.

I think this is where we are cross talking. I don't think the David statue is pornographic either. I thought you were talking about something obviously pornographic displayed on private property.

Sorry.

 

[ponderingturtle]

True, but in the West let's face it:Swastika means Nazi.

And in the east being a nazi is no big deal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In case you missed it in your knee-jerk efforts to be contrarian, I was making a slight clarification about swaztikas still being innocuous in certain parts of the world, in response to a comment by quadraginta.

And I am pointing out that Nazi's popular in those areas of the world as well. They are commonly used for marketing and people like the associations.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure what your point was. A Nazi-organised march is contaminated merely by being organised under the auspices as a Nazi organised march. If it was a "Nazis for vegetarianism" march, anyone marching with it would still be giving approval to the Nazis.

However it wasn't the case. It was a Nazi-organised march to celebrate a white supremacist.

It was a violent Nazi-organised march to intimidate people. They killed someone. They very nearly beat another person to death.

But the police are ok with such beatings, if they were not they would have done something about it, or they would have arrested this clearly good guy

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4332413/shocking-moment-white-nationalist-fires-a-gun-at-black-charlottesville-protestors-while-cops-stand-and-watch/

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/08/28/11/04/charlottesville-protester-arrested-firing-gun

Of course the answer is pretty clear, lots of cops agree with the nazi's.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/newly-appointed-okla-chief-police-denies-neo-nazi-ties-article-1.3445822

 

[ponderingturtle]

You know... I've actually run across far more cries for killing white people than I have for killing any other races.

And this is because you don't wonder about how the people like the nazi's who marched here would achieve the ethnic cleansing they want and claim will be done in a peaceful manner. They know how to phrase things so that you give them a pass.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Charlottesville PD really dropped the ball on this.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/...ce.html?referer=https://t.co/9Np2jwMAfr?amp=1

How was he not arrested when he fired his weapon?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

He was on the right side of the dispute. YOu have to remember whose side the cops are on.

 

[caveman1917]

Of course the answer is pretty clear, lots of cops agree with the nazi's.

There's this running joke that in an antifa action you usually end up against two groups of fascists, the ones on-duty and the ones off-duty.

 

[uke2se]

He was on the right side of the dispute. YOu have to remember whose side the cops are on.

I don't think this is fair at all. As far as I can tell, we don't have enough information to ascertain why the police didn't intervene - and I agree that they should have.

In a situation like this, with multiple skirmishes breaking out among a crowd of thousands, it's not unusual for police to take a hands-off approach until they can go in with force and break up the fights. This is to ensure that they don't make things worse, and put their own officers in danger as a result. I've been in this situation myself many times, and I know how it looks from the outside - like we're not doing anything about the violence. But it's normally the best approach.

This is obviously not the case when someone is firing a gun at (towards) someone else - then it's a matter of protecting someone's life. I hope that the police simply did not see what happened.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. According to this NYT article, "...a state police spokeswoman said troopers did not hear the shot."

From you.

You were complaining that they didn't act immediately. From that complaint, I inferred that they must have seen the guy shooting. If they didn't even see the guy fire the shot, it would be crazy to complain that they didn't do anything about it right away.

Then, from the fact that they did take him into custody, I inferred that they did see and could identify the man, and acted later.

I would still like to know whether they also arrested flamethrower guy. I think they should. It didn't really seem like he was throwing flames in self defense.

I was trying to figure out what he was actually spraying. I don't think that any old aerosol, like hair spray or something, would be that flammable. I though maybe a WD40 or something, but those usually have nozzles that keep the fluid in a narrow beam. Cooking spray maybe?

 

[uke2se]

From you.

You were complaining that they didn't act immediately. From that complaint, I inferred that they must have seen the guy shooting. If they didn't even see the guy fire the shot, it would be crazy to complain that they didn't do anything about it right away.

Then, from the fact that they did take him into custody, I inferred that they did see and could identify the man, and acted later.

I would still like to know whether they also arrested flamethrower guy. I think they should. It didn't really seem like he was throwing flames in self defense.

I was trying to figure out what he was actually spraying. I don't think that any old aerosol, like hair spray or something, would be that flammable. I though maybe a WD40 or something, but those usually have nozzles that keep the fluid in a narrow beam. Cooking spray maybe?

What flamethrower guy?

The incident with the pistol wielding Nazi was described in one of the news articles above. He was in a shouting match with a counter-protester, turned away and took a few steps, then turned, said something like "hey ******", then mantled his pistol and fired into the ground in front of the counter-protesters.

The article also says one of the counter-protesters had a home-made torch.

 

[Meadmaker]

What flamethrower guy?

The incident with the pistol wielding Nazi was described in one of the news articles above. He was in a shouting match with a counter-protester, turned away and took a few steps, then turned, said something like "hey ******", then mantled his pistol and fired into the ground in front of the counter-protesters.

The article also says one of the counter-protesters had a home-made torch.

Watch the video and check out the flames coming from the upper right corner.

They are coming from what looks like some sort of aerosol can that a counterprotester is igniting and aiming toward the alt-righters on the steps. I've seen other video of him. I'll try a search on "charlotesville flamethrower" and see if anything comes up. The shot is fired immediately after a burst of flame.

ETA: Flamethrower guy's name is Corey Long. https://www.theroot.com/white-nationalist-opened-fire-at-crowd-during-charlotte-1798474021

 

[uke2se]

Watch the video and check out the flames coming from the upper right corner.

They are coming from what looks like some sort of aerosol can that a counterprotester is igniting and aiming toward the alt-righters on the steps. I've seen other video of him. I'll try a search on "charlotesville flamethrower" and see if anything comes up. The shot is fired immediately after a burst of flame.

Yes, that's an aerosol can, sprayed nowhere near anyone. And that's when the Nazi with the pistol shoots towards them.

So, someone using an aerosol can to spray fire nowhere near anyone, and a Nazi shooting towards counter-protesters. Equivalence in your eyes?

ETA: I notice the word "flamethrower" shows up in connection with this video only in pro-alt-right comments.

 

[ponderingturtle]

According to the introduction of the clip you posted, he was in custody Saturday.

They apparently decided that arresting him at that moment would create a hazard, which seems like a wise decision.

Exactly as a good guy with a gun he was their buddy and cops are not going to worry about any white nazi with a gun. That would be as crazy as arresting nazi's for beating protesters with their clubs.

The cops are not there to restrain the nazi violence after all.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. It was a careless and dangerous decision. The man fired his weapon in public, among a crowd, at another person in a show of deadly force that was clearly meant as a threat to the life his target. That he fired it at the ground is not an excuse. Ricochets are a very real danger.

I have no doubt that a black person would have been shot right then and there, due to the undeniable danger he clearly showed himself to be to the public.

Instead, they let him wander off into a crowd of people.

Stupid.

He is clearly less threatening than a black man with a BB gun, or a black kid with a toy gun. Because he is white and was a ally of the police. Blue lives matter not black ones after all.