|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 09 2015 03:20 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 02:48 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 02:25 Acrofales wrote:On April 09 2015 01:53 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. that's not always true though. Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people. Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general. The point is, that you cannot force someone to work properly for you. Lets say you force the baker to make your cake. What is stopping him from half-assing it, or worse still, delivering a disgusting, half-rotten cake 2 hours too late? He then says he is sorry and won't charge you for it. Go ahead and leave a shitty review on Yelp, but your wedding is ruined. You are FAR better off with that bakery being able to refuse you and being able to find a bakery that is not a stupid bigot, even if that means you have to travel god knows how far. The same goes for haircuts, photos or whatever. You might be able to force someone to work for you, but there is no way you will be able to force someone to do a good job. I agree with the principle that you shouldn't butt heads just for the sake of butting heads just like you don't insult the waiter that brings your soup even if you might have a reason to do so because he might spit in it  But thats more of a thing about what's stupid to do if you get in such a situation given the situation you're in. In that case the bakery should still pay some kind of fine while you look for some place else and might have to drive 30 minutes. Like I said, you can't physically force someone to serve you. But you can make him live with the consequences that denying service comes with and there certainly should be some if we're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation/religion here Any fine IS force though. It is backed by physical force. I mean really, what is the root word of "enforce"? You misunderstood me. I am perfectly fine with forcing SOMETHING on them, as should everyone. Either they do their job or live with the consequences like a fine. What those consequences are is up for discussion, I'm obviously not going to tell you to throw someone in prison for something like this. You just obviously can't call a police officer in to force their arms into baking a cake. It's their choice to be fined, which is a force like you said or to just get a cake. For all I care the bakery can charge the gay couple for baking a cake, meet another bakery guy they know who's not against this and ask them to do the job instead, buy that cake over there and deliver it to the gay couple without them knowing all that. That's the kind of thing I'd expect from the innitial bakery if they want to refuse in this specific case and get out of it without punishment of some sort.
But fining them IS forcing them to do it, insofar as the law is concerned. It's a punishment for non-compliance with what the law requires you to do. So if they want to be compliant with the law they are FORCED to bake the cake.
However, the law says absolutely nothing about them having to bake a good cake. It is entirely legal to run a really shitty bakery. And it is going to be far harder to prove that not only do they only produce shitty wedding cakes for gay weddings, but that the reason for that is homophobia.
And yes, I'm sure this is just a repetition of what happened in 1967.
|
On April 09 2015 03:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 03:17 Jormundr wrote:On April 09 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 02:48 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 02:25 Acrofales wrote:On April 09 2015 01:53 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. that's not always true though. Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people. Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general. The point is, that you cannot force someone to work properly for you. Lets say you force the baker to make your cake. What is stopping him from half-assing it, or worse still, delivering a disgusting, half-rotten cake 2 hours too late? He then says he is sorry and won't charge you for it. Go ahead and leave a shitty review on Yelp, but your wedding is ruined. You are FAR better off with that bakery being able to refuse you and being able to find a bakery that is not a stupid bigot, even if that means you have to travel god knows how far. The same goes for haircuts, photos or whatever. You might be able to force someone to work for you, but there is no way you will be able to force someone to do a good job. I agree with the principle that you shouldn't butt heads just for the sake of butting heads just like you don't insult the waiter that brings your soup even if you might have a reason to do so because he might spit in it But thats more of a thing about what's stupid to do if you get in such a situation given the situation you're in. In that case the bakery should still pay some kind of fine while you look for some place else and might have to drive 30 minutes. Like I said, you can't physically force someone to serve you. But you can make him live with the consequences that denying service comes with and there certainly should be some if we're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation/religion here Any fine IS force though. It is backed by physical force. I mean really, what is the root word of "enforce"? Discrimination is also force. So I don't know why you brought it up. How? The gay person won't go to jail for attempting to buy a cake from the anti gay marriage bakery. Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 03:20 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 02:48 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 02:25 Acrofales wrote:On April 09 2015 01:53 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. that's not always true though. Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people. Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general. The point is, that you cannot force someone to work properly for you. Lets say you force the baker to make your cake. What is stopping him from half-assing it, or worse still, delivering a disgusting, half-rotten cake 2 hours too late? He then says he is sorry and won't charge you for it. Go ahead and leave a shitty review on Yelp, but your wedding is ruined. You are FAR better off with that bakery being able to refuse you and being able to find a bakery that is not a stupid bigot, even if that means you have to travel god knows how far. The same goes for haircuts, photos or whatever. You might be able to force someone to work for you, but there is no way you will be able to force someone to do a good job. I agree with the principle that you shouldn't butt heads just for the sake of butting heads just like you don't insult the waiter that brings your soup even if you might have a reason to do so because he might spit in it But thats more of a thing about what's stupid to do if you get in such a situation given the situation you're in. In that case the bakery should still pay some kind of fine while you look for some place else and might have to drive 30 minutes. Like I said, you can't physically force someone to serve you. But you can make him live with the consequences that denying service comes with and there certainly should be some if we're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation/religion here Any fine IS force though. It is backed by physical force. I mean really, what is the root word of "enforce"? You misunderstood me. I am perfectly fine with forcing SOMETHING on them, as should everyone. Either they do their job or live with the consequences like a fine. What those consequences are is up for discussion, I'm obviously not going to tell you to throw someone in prison for something like this. You just obviously can't call a police officer in to force their arms into baking a cake. It's their choice to be fined, which is a force like you said or to just get a cake. For all I care the bakery can charge the gay couple for baking a cake, meet another bakery guy they know who's not against this and ask them to do the job instead, buy that cake over there and deliver it to the gay couple without them knowing all that. That's the kind of thing I'd expect from the innitial bakery if they want to refuse in this specific case and get out of it without punishment of some sort. And if they don't pay the fine? Then all you're really left with is jail. I like your idea though, about getting a different baker. I think it'd be wiser for the first bakery to just refer the gay couple to the second, instead of all the middleman stuff, but it seems like a good solution.
If they stay to argue the point they will be forcibly removed by the owner, the clientele, or the authorities. Them "No Niggers" signs weren't there for show in the 60s, and the "No Gays" signs ain't any more subtle.
|
On April 09 2015 03:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 03:20 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 03:11 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 02:48 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 02:25 Acrofales wrote:On April 09 2015 01:53 Toadesstern wrote:On April 09 2015 01:45 coverpunch wrote:On April 09 2015 01:08 oneofthem wrote:
the whole free market thing is interesting because the choice of argument here is suddenly 'free market could solve it' instead of 'free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices.'
why is the latter not defended when the line has always been about right to discriminate, and thus on aggregate nothing is wrong Reads like a troll. I don't see anyone who has ever made a coherent argument on any issue that free market decisions are right by its constitutive individual choices. That doesn't make any sense and sounds more like an argument for anarchy. The free market argument against legislating away discrimination has always been a systematic correction. Discrimination will correct itself over the long run because institutions that discriminate on unfair criteria will be less competitive than those that do not and will thus be pushed to change or leave the market through the feedback of losses or sub-optimal performance. that's not always true though. Serving black people a couple decades ago alongside white people would have upset a lot of white people thus making the barber shop or whatever lose a crapton of white, racist customers because they would not have wanted to sit next to black people. Like tons of people already mentioned, that statement is only true if a majority of people are already in favor of it and you can easily make cases for single places in which racism or homophobia is still a thing and not just for minorities despite it being heavily scrutinized in general. The point is, that you cannot force someone to work properly for you. Lets say you force the baker to make your cake. What is stopping him from half-assing it, or worse still, delivering a disgusting, half-rotten cake 2 hours too late? He then says he is sorry and won't charge you for it. Go ahead and leave a shitty review on Yelp, but your wedding is ruined. You are FAR better off with that bakery being able to refuse you and being able to find a bakery that is not a stupid bigot, even if that means you have to travel god knows how far. The same goes for haircuts, photos or whatever. You might be able to force someone to work for you, but there is no way you will be able to force someone to do a good job. I agree with the principle that you shouldn't butt heads just for the sake of butting heads just like you don't insult the waiter that brings your soup even if you might have a reason to do so because he might spit in it But thats more of a thing about what's stupid to do if you get in such a situation given the situation you're in. In that case the bakery should still pay some kind of fine while you look for some place else and might have to drive 30 minutes. Like I said, you can't physically force someone to serve you. But you can make him live with the consequences that denying service comes with and there certainly should be some if we're talking about race/gender/sexual orientation/religion here Any fine IS force though. It is backed by physical force. I mean really, what is the root word of "enforce"? You misunderstood me. I am perfectly fine with forcing SOMETHING on them, as should everyone. Either they do their job or live with the consequences like a fine. What those consequences are is up for discussion, I'm obviously not going to tell you to throw someone in prison for something like this. You just obviously can't call a police officer in to force their arms into baking a cake. It's their choice to be fined, which is a force like you said or to just get a cake. For all I care the bakery can charge the gay couple for baking a cake, meet another bakery guy they know who's not against this and ask them to do the job instead, buy that cake over there and deliver it to the gay couple without them knowing all that. That's the kind of thing I'd expect from the innitial bakery if they want to refuse in this specific case and get out of it without punishment of some sort. But fining them IS forcing them to do it, insofar as the law is concerned. It's a punishment for non-compliance with what the law requires you to do. So if they want to be compliant with the law they are FORCED to bake the cake. However, the law says absolutely nothing about them having to bake a good cake. It is entirely legal to run a really shitty bakery. And it is going to be far harder to prove that not only do they only produce shitty wedding cakes for gay weddings, but that the reason for that is homophobia. And yes, I'm sure this is just a repetition of what happened in 1967.
again I'm perfectly fine with forcing them to bake a cake which leads them to a decision on how to deal with that. I'm just not fine with someone showing up and strapping their hands to something and forcefully pushing them through the motions of physically making one. As long as you have the option to pick a fine/compensation instead or get someone else to get a cake for them that's okay.
@Millitron: The reason I made the example with the middle man is because you could make this into bullying. The whole idea is that it's still not acceptable if you make them run through the city to 10 different bakeries "oh they should be totally fine to make you a cake". Yes far fetched but better safe than sorry.
I mean chances are the couple will want to talk with the new bakery in person anyways if it's something as important as a wedding cake, so they'd probably just offer to do that themselves anyways.
|
On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve.
Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this.
|
On April 08 2015 20:14 coverpunch wrote:
Your answer was basically that nobody cares about religious controversies in Canada, not even Canadians.
It seems that the US is different. We've devoted several pages to talking about what an obscure pizzeria owner in an obscure state said he would hypothetically not do. Nobody was actually refused service in this instance.
I'm sure you could find a Canadian business owner to say he wouldn't serve gays or minorities. But nobody cares. That seems to be the difference, not this philosophical contortion. Although ironically it might be a Christian value to get self righteous and feel we have to lecture others about why their culture is wrong and they should embrace a new belief that will bring salvation.
Probably worth noting that Canada has quasi-constitutional laws that prohibits discrimination, which also covers public services.
And I wouldn't say that no one cares. We certainly had a lot of noise when our marriage laws were expanded, but for the most part the Bills were brought up, voted on and passed, and that was kind of the end of it. A couple of our federal MPs talked about repealing the laws a couple of times, but they were basically just shot down.
(Of course, it probably helps that marriage is defined as Federal jurisdiction here...and that the only provinces/territories that didn't already have gay marriage was Alberta, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut)
Also, we've had plenty of minor news stories about businesses discriminating against people. It's just...they get brought up, there's some noise made, apologies or something get made, and then it's over. But again, we don't have some existing battle lines already drawn up.
|
Just ban discrimination for sexual orientation for 'open to the public' businesses. If you want to discriminate make your business a selective 'club' and require membership.
Really, if you work in retail / food service and your biggest complaint is 'someone asked me to make a gay cake' you're doing better than 99% of people who work in those industries.
|
United States2611 Posts
On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this.
People wasted all their outrage on Michael Brown, and now there's none left for a much clearer instance of police brutality.
|
On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this.
or people just don't feel like yelling in outrage every time something outrageous happens.
The guy's charged, I'd rather let that process work.
|
On April 09 2015 04:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. or people just don't feel like yelling in outrage every time something outrageous happens. The guy's charged, I'd rather let that process work.
Who got charged for violating constitutional rights in Ferguson?
The only reason the process started in this case was because a video surfaced after the police released a bullshit lie of a statement. Combine that with video after video of cops trying to illegally take cameras from people and it's easy to see how this very easily could of just been another case of 'justified use of force' despite that the reality was clearly not.
|
On April 09 2015 04:21 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. People wasted all their outrage on Michael Brown, and now there's none left for a much clearer instance of police brutality.
It also helps that it didn't happen a racist wasteland like Ferguson and the officer was charged instantly.
|
On April 09 2015 04:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. or people just don't feel like yelling in outrage every time something outrageous happens. The guy's charged, I'd rather let that process work.
The reason people would like outrage is because if it wasn't for the person who happened to catch it on camera it would have gone unpunished.
How many times in a year does this happen with coverups being successful? That's why people want more outrage.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'd rather see this show of bigot strength. better than 'bigots don't exist' mantra.
|
On April 09 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:21 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. People wasted all their outrage on Michael Brown, and now there's none left for a much clearer instance of police brutality. It also helps that it didn't happen a racist wasteland like Ferguson and the officer was charged instantly.
Charges weren't going to be brought until after the video was released. It was well on it's way to being a 'justified use of force' before that. The department was already covering for him.
|
On April 09 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2015 04:21 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. People wasted all their outrage on Michael Brown, and now there's none left for a much clearer instance of police brutality. It also helps that it didn't happen a racist wasteland like Ferguson and the officer was charged instantly. Charges weren't going to be brought until after the video was released. It was well on it's way to being a 'justified use of force' before that. The department was already covering for him.
do you have any factual basis for your statement that the department was already covering for him? wouldnt they just be relying on his statements (or his partner's if there was one)?
|
On April 09 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2015 04:21 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. People wasted all their outrage on Michael Brown, and now there's none left for a much clearer instance of police brutality. It also helps that it didn't happen a racist wasteland like Ferguson and the officer was charged instantly. Charges weren't going to be brought until after the video was released. It was well on it's way to being a 'justified use of force' before that. The department was already covering for him.
Charges were filed and there will likely be more charges and jobs lost. I am sure people will investigate who covered up what, but this all happened yesterday. I am not sure how much "outrage" is necessary since the news is 24 hours old.
People are planning to protest and demand full investigations, if that is what you are looking for.
|
On April 09 2015 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2015 04:21 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. People wasted all their outrage on Michael Brown, and now there's none left for a much clearer instance of police brutality. It also helps that it didn't happen a racist wasteland like Ferguson and the officer was charged instantly. Charges weren't going to be brought until after the video was released. It was well on it's way to being a 'justified use of force' before that. The department was already covering for him. do you have any factual basis for your statement that the department was already covering for him? wouldnt they just be relying on his statements (or his partner's if there was one)?
Releasing what is basically a PR'd version of his lies as a statement of fact with the name and credibility of the department attached?
A statement released by North Charleston police spokesman Spencer Pryor said a man ran on foot from the traffic stop and an officer deployed his department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop him.
That did not work, police said, and an altercation ensued as the men struggled over the device. Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer.
Notice the officer picking up the taser and bringing over to the body is not so mysteriously absent.
|
On April 09 2015 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2015 04:21 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. People wasted all their outrage on Michael Brown, and now there's none left for a much clearer instance of police brutality. It also helps that it didn't happen a racist wasteland like Ferguson and the officer was charged instantly. Charges weren't going to be brought until after the video was released. It was well on it's way to being a 'justified use of force' before that. The department was already covering for him. do you have any factual basis for your statement that the department was already covering for him? wouldnt they just be relying on his statements (or his partner's if there was one)? Releasing what is basically a PR'd version of his lies as a statement of fact with the name and credibility of the department attached? Show nested quote +A statement released by North Charleston police spokesman Spencer Pryor said a man ran on foot from the traffic stop and an officer deployed his department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop him.
That did not work, police said, and an altercation ensued as the men struggled over the device. Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer. Notice the officer picking up the taser and bringing over to the body is not so mysteriously absent.
Did they have access to the video disproving the officer's account at the time this statement was released? If not, they just took the officer's report in good faith. Which is not proof of a cover up by the department.
|
On April 09 2015 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2015 04:21 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. People wasted all their outrage on Michael Brown, and now there's none left for a much clearer instance of police brutality. It also helps that it didn't happen a racist wasteland like Ferguson and the officer was charged instantly. Charges weren't going to be brought until after the video was released. It was well on it's way to being a 'justified use of force' before that. The department was already covering for him. do you have any factual basis for your statement that the department was already covering for him? wouldnt they just be relying on his statements (or his partner's if there was one)? Releasing what is basically a PR'd version of his lies as a statement of fact with the name and credibility of the department attached? Show nested quote +A statement released by North Charleston police spokesman Spencer Pryor said a man ran on foot from the traffic stop and an officer deployed his department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop him.
That did not work, police said, and an altercation ensued as the men struggled over the device. Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer. Notice the officer picking up the taser and bringing over to the body is not so mysteriously absent.
so, no. you just have them issuing a press release where they parrot what he says.
i assume at the end of the press release it says that the matter is being investigated.
|
On April 09 2015 04:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2015 04:21 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. People wasted all their outrage on Michael Brown, and now there's none left for a much clearer instance of police brutality. It also helps that it didn't happen a racist wasteland like Ferguson and the officer was charged instantly. Charges weren't going to be brought until after the video was released. It was well on it's way to being a 'justified use of force' before that. The department was already covering for him. Charges were filed and there will likely be more charges and jobs lost. I am sure people will investigate who covered up what, but this all happened yesterday. I am not sure how much "outrage" is necessary since the news is 24 hours old. People are planning to protest and demand full investigations, if that is what you are looking for.
He shot the guy on Saturday... It's just getting in motion now because the video surfaced more recently. Like has been said multiple time (even by the mayor) the video was critical to bringing charges, the facts were simply not enough on their own...
The same people that have been outraged about stuff like this will still be outraged. My comment on the lack of outrage is about the people spending several posts defending/expressing concern about the constitutional rights of bakers to not go to gay weddings but had practically nothing to say about the systemic denial of constitutional rights in places like Ferguson or incidents like this. It's transparent as all hell.
On April 09 2015 04:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 04:26 Plansix wrote:On April 09 2015 04:21 Millitron wrote:On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. People wasted all their outrage on Michael Brown, and now there's none left for a much clearer instance of police brutality. It also helps that it didn't happen a racist wasteland like Ferguson and the officer was charged instantly. Charges weren't going to be brought until after the video was released. It was well on it's way to being a 'justified use of force' before that. The department was already covering for him. do you have any factual basis for your statement that the department was already covering for him? wouldnt they just be relying on his statements (or his partner's if there was one)? Releasing what is basically a PR'd version of his lies as a statement of fact with the name and credibility of the department attached? A statement released by North Charleston police spokesman Spencer Pryor said a man ran on foot from the traffic stop and an officer deployed his department-issued Taser in an attempt to stop him.
That did not work, police said, and an altercation ensued as the men struggled over the device. Police allege that during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer. Notice the officer picking up the taser and bringing over to the body is not so mysteriously absent. so, no. you just have them issuing a press release where they parrot what he says. i assume at the end of the press release it says that the matter is being investigated.
At least one officer knew he was lying as he saw him grab the taser and bring it to the dying man. They also made claims about trying to perform CPR and saving his life which the video shows clearly didn't happen from any of the first few people who show up. If they just wanted to parrot what he told them they should not say its from 'the department' they should say "according to officer..." It's kind of like when they blatantly lied about why they released the video of Brown in the store. It's to create a narrative.
Although I guess it's clear why you would think the officer who didn't snitch on his fellow officer for planting evidence or the department helping reinforce a bullshit narrative is 'not a problem'...
|
That video almost makes me rethink my dislike for the death penalty. Rarely is a display of disregard for human life so appallingly callous, and it seems reasonable that it should be punished as severely as possible in a public way, particularly given the fact that it was a police officer doing the killing.
Police reform is definitely in order. I've got the ear of a state AG or two and I'm going to see what they think. This is a tricky problem that needs to start getting some serious momentum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
