Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

Minoosh said:
I gave an example why I would consider it a problem: Documentation (recordings and body cams) helps resolve questions of fact. Like whether a Miranda warning was read. But why do *you* consider it bad practice? What are the problems it has created for the bureau?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it creates problems for the bureau, because that's not what I meant. It creates problems for determining the truth. Sometimes those are the same, but not always.
 
Minoosh said:
It took me a long time to post that response because of slow Internet and other distractions. I did consider letting it go. But no, dammit, I have to make my point, even if it is a pedantic quibble. Especially if it's a pedantic quibble, because I'm right, dammit! I can PROVE it. In the process they don't answer my question - which was, Why is it bad practice for feds not to have recordings or body cams? I threw out one example; but I wanted Zigg's take. Instead he dismissed the question with an obtuse comment - I had speculated about one example, so why I was I asking? I wanted to discuss it, which I thought would have been clear but whatever.

This method of "triggering the libs" - what is the equivalent "trigger the cons" tactic? The right seems damn good at it. Libs want to win the (main) argument with earnest persuasion, while the right simply dodges the question.

But if taking the bait is the wrong approach, what is a more effective way of engaging (if any)? Should we stop trying and use our energy for voter registration drives etc.?
Dang! Donald Trump or CREEP 2.0 just called for third time today. I hope he's broke because his fundraising team is skimming whatever they can off the top. I am seeing mail from Democrats even though I'm a Republican, and they're saying Republicans will take away your health insurance. Decent tactic IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes. You should focus your energies where they can do good. It's pointless speaking to a Trumpist. You will not reach the person, and in your conversation, you let the Trumpist spew all manner of lies to anyone listening. Remember, Trumpists cannot persuade people with facts and proper arguments, because they have none of those. They need a foil that they can point to in order to persuade anyone. Don't be that foil. Don't engage.

Trumpists should be shunned by polite society. They are welcomed back when they realize their error and make amends.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I didn't say it creates problems for the bureau, because that's not what I meant. It creates problems for determining the truth. Sometimes those are the same, but not always.
Click to expand...
I agree. Thanks for the response.
 
uke2se said:
Yes. You should focus your energies where they can do good. It's pointless speaking to a Trumpist. You will not reach the person, and in your conversation, you let the Trumpist spew all manner of lies to anyone listening. Remember, Trumpists cannot persuade people with facts and proper arguments, because they have none of those. They need a foil that they can point to in order to persuade anyone. Don't be that foil. Don't engage.

Trumpists should be shunned by polite society. They are welcomed back when they realize their error and make amends.
Click to expand...
I'm still glad the Democrats are sending me mail. There is a Senate race that will probably drive up turnout, because the candidate is just awful. I don't think that's just me saying it either.

There are key points where maybe a few R votes can be swayed.

In 2016, on Craig's list, Trump's team was advertising for people to canvass targeted specific Republicans. It wasn't random; the team provided the names and addresses of people who might not otherwise vote. Hell, sometimes just knowing the polling location is enough - they find out that it's down the street and has ample parking. You wouldn't think that would sway people, but it does.

An experiment at a university determined that more people got flu shots when a map of Student Health was depicted on a handout. That was the only variable, but it made quite a bit of difference. And it was not some weird experiment; campus officials really did want students to get flu shots. The information was just framed slightly differently for some participants.

So I'm hesitant to say, give up entirely on Republicans. The right point could make a difference if you're not a dick about it.
 
Last edited:
CaptainHowdy said:
Up until about a week ago that was the standard line from the MSM and the Joe and the Ho fanboys
Click to expand...


tenor.gif
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Up until about a week ago that was the standard line from the MSM and the Joe and the Ho fanboys
Click to expand...

Back to peddle your usual white supremacist crap, I see.

In any case, I don't recall saying that Antifa was avowedly nonviolent - most of us have noted the opposite. But yes, we do note that the peaceful protests (ie. some 93% of all BLM protests according to one study) are, in face, peaceful. The events where people riot, often in response to direct attacks by police or right-wing lunatics, are noted as "riots". We also refuse to call cops "peacekeepers" when they are outright physically attacking protestors, journalists, and random people that they decide to beat, taze, or shoot. And some of us have even offered many suggestions on how to minimize violence - for example, instead of tear-gassing entire city neighborhoods and choking children in their own beds when someone throws a rock or water bottle, they could simply arrest the few troublemakers, and let the nonviolent protestors go about their business. Also, they could stop treating black people like "brutes" out of Birth of a Nation.

See? It's easy - well, for those of us who are honest, anyway. Of course, if you're the sort of person who has repeatedly shown that they view black people as subhuman, as CaptainHowdy has done, one may instead come to view this sort of violence as animal control against some sort of beast that is, to use one of his favorite expressions, "chimping out".
 
Minoosh said:
It took me a long time to post that response because of slow Internet and other distractions. I did consider letting it go. But no, dammit, I have to make my point, even if it is a pedantic quibble. Especially if it's a pedantic quibble, because I'm right, dammit! I can PROVE it. In the process they don't answer my question - which was, Why is it bad practice for feds not to have recordings or body cams? I threw out one example; but I wanted Zigg's take. Instead he dismissed the question with an obtuse comment - I had speculated about one example, so why I was I asking? I wanted to discuss it, which I thought would have been clear but whatever.

This method of "triggering the libs" - what is the equivalent "trigger the cons" tactic? The right seems damn good at it. Libs want to win the (main) argument with earnest persuasion, while the right simply dodges the question.

But if taking the bait is the wrong approach, what is a more effective way of engaging (if any)? Should we stop trying and use our energy for voter registration drives etc.? Dang! Donald Trump or CREEP 2.0 just called for third time today. I hope he's broke because his fundraising team is skimming whatever they can off the top. I am seeing mail from Democrats even though I'm a Republican, and they're saying Republicans will take away your health insurance. Decent tactic IMO.
Click to expand...

Mayor Ted "Tear Gas" Wheeler isn't a Republican.

In regards to the recent BLM type protests, it should not be forgotten that many, if not most, of these big cities with rotten police departments are run by Democrats, often in Democratic run states. Trump's leadership of federal law enforcement has exasperated things, but the core problem is not a Trump or even a conservative problem, it's about the inherent role and power of policing.

Perhaps voting is a solution, but it's not as simple as voting "blue". If voting is to be the answer, it will mean challenging establishment Democrats with reform candidates. Expect these libs to cry bloody murder when serious reformers enter the scene.
 
Last edited:
The closest thing to a single, solitary, magic bullet solution would be the end to Qualified Immunity.

It (obviously) wouldn't fix everything but I think just the simple fact of police actually be charged, arrested, and having to go through a trial would in and off itself make a huge difference in the broad, angry mentality that "the system" just doesn't care about the victims of police violence.

Start paying of all these "Out of court settlements" out of police retirement funds and see how quick this goes away.
 
Man arrested on aggravated assault after driving car into protest crowd, breaking leg of victim.

On Saturday night, cellphone video posted to social media showed a white Ford Expedition accelerating into two demonstrators who were standing in a crosswalk in front of the vehicle near the intersection of West State of Franklin Road and Spring Street. According to protesters and police, the vehicle then left the scene.
Click to expand...

https://www.johnsoncitypress.com/news/north-carolina-man-charged-after-video-shows-vehicle-running-over-black-lives-matter-supporter/article_9bc7ae14-f6ba-11ea-bcc7-fb55a0ebf8d7.html

Video below:

https://twitter.com/TheTNHoller/status/1304943472433139713

Catching a felony to own the libs.
 
Ziggurat said:
Ok, this was great:
https://twitter.com/MattsIdeaShop/status/1305711344616792070
"I mean, wouldn't the cars always win?"
Click to expand...

They would, it still doesn't stop that unrestrained acceleration towards the end (sending the person on top flying) from being intent to harm. Same thing like "I mean, wouldn't the cop with the gun always win (from an unarmed civilian)?" being a perfectly true statement, but that kind of missing the larger point about police violence.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
The closest thing to a single, solitary, magic bullet solution would be the end to Qualified Immunity.

It (obviously) wouldn't fix everything but I think just the simple fact of police actually be charged, arrested, and having to go through a trial would in and off itself make a huge difference in the broad, angry mentality that "the system" just doesn't care about the victims of police violence.

Start paying of all these "Out of court settlements" out of police retirement funds and see how quick this goes away.
Click to expand...

I think ending qualified immunity makes sense in the long run, but I have questions about how it would be applied in practice. Not the aspect of letting cops be charged and tried like everyone else... but what happens between the time of the event and the time of the trial?

I think that generally, cops under investigation for wrongdoing are placed on administrative leave, which is usually paid. If that includes every mandatory charge of murder that needs to go to trial... yes, it would likely reduce the number of avoidable killings, but would it also place us in a position where we end up with a lot of cops one leave, getting paid, waiting months for their trial, and not actually doing any police work?

How do you envision this being put into practice?
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think ending qualified immunity makes sense in the long run, but I have questions about how it would be applied in practice. Not the aspect of letting cops be charged and tried like everyone else... but what happens between the time of the event and the time of the trial?

I think that generally, cops under investigation for wrongdoing are placed on administrative leave, which is usually paid. If that includes every mandatory charge of murder that needs to go to trial... yes, it would likely reduce the number of avoidable killings, but would it also place us in a position where we end up with a lot of cops one leave, getting paid, waiting months for their trial, and not actually doing any police work?

How do you envision this being put into practice?
Click to expand...

"The cops are killing so many people we might run out of cops while they are all awaiting trial"

Yeah I'm not worried about that, sorry.

Again I'm not entertaining any version of any argument that if we apply reasonable standards to cops we're going to "run out of police."

If a bunch of cops resign because they are so butt hurt they can't murder people? So be it.

A bunch of cops are sitting behind a desk because we are waiting to see if they murdered people? So be it.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think ending qualified immunity makes sense in the long run, but I have questions about how it would be applied in practice. Not the aspect of letting cops be charged and tried like everyone else... but what happens between the time of the event and the time of the trial?

I think that generally, cops under investigation for wrongdoing are placed on administrative leave, which is usually paid. If that includes every mandatory charge of murder that needs to go to trial... yes, it would likely reduce the number of avoidable killings, but would it also place us in a position where we end up with a lot of cops one leave, getting paid, waiting months for their trial, and not actually doing any police work?

How do you envision this being put into practice?
Click to expand...

Running out of bad cops should be the goal.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
I think ending qualified immunity makes sense in the long run, but I have questions about how it would be applied in practice. Not the aspect of letting cops be charged and tried like everyone else... but what happens between the time of the event and the time of the trial?

I think that generally, cops under investigation for wrongdoing are placed on administrative leave, which is usually paid. If that includes every mandatory charge of murder that needs to go to trial... yes, it would likely reduce the number of avoidable killings, but would it also place us in a position where we end up with a lot of cops one leave, getting paid, waiting months for their trial, and not actually doing any police work?

How do you envision this being put into practice?
Click to expand...

If that many police are being meritoriously accused of murder, that it disrupts their ability to function, and uninvolved officers coerce departments by not showing up, that is a dynamite justification to break the Union agreement and disband it. No more qualified immunity (with some exceptions), and no more paid leave if accused of murder; sit in a cell like any other criminal. The Union is the problem. Remove the enabler.
 
caveman1917 said:
They would, it still doesn't stop that unrestrained acceleration towards the end (sending the person on top flying) from being intent to harm.
Click to expand...

I see it as pretty reasonable defensive maneuver to hostile actions. The intent isn't to harm, but merely to get them off the car.

The case just above mine where the driver ran over someone on the sidewalk is unjustified. But climbing on top of a cop car? No, that's asking for it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom