|
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 June 17 2017 12:19 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +So you expect agents of the state to wait to be shot at before defending themselves. Good logic. By that logic every single person carrying a weapon is free game, because you can always claim "i was so scared". Do you even follow your own arguments? I'm not sure why you persistently try to argue that cops need more leniency than civilians when it comes to, lets call it like it is, manslaughter.
Beacuse I argue against one thing I must surely belive in the absolute and complete oppisite. No I think there was an investigation and that a jury decided that it wasn't murder. I argue cops should be treated the same as civilians as far as the situations that they get put in are the same. Cops are killed at traffic stops. Its a thing that happenes. Being afraid that its going to happen to you is a thing. Compunding that fear with a series of events that give you reasonable fear for your life is something that will happen to cops. This isn't what we're arguing.
On June 17 2017 12:20 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:16 Sermokala wrote:
My claim is that its not murder. In many places it would be but this is a special circumstance so we're arguing about it. Holding people accountable doesn't fix the system. Fixing the system fixes the system. Holding people acountable will create more people to hold accountable. I would say that holding police officers accountable for shooting innocent civilians will not "fix the system" on its own, but it is a necessary part of "fixing the system". Do you disagree with that statement?
I would agree with the statement but would content on the point of who is an "innocent civilian". Unarguably in this case the person that was shot was in violation of federal law and was illegally carrying a firearm. I don't think that makes them an innocent civillian when they then say they have a gun and reach in their waist.
|
On June 17 2017 12:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:02 zlefin wrote:
You haven't remotely established that Sermo.
our claim is that it's actually murder; and in many places it would be; and indeed I'd say by the laws of the United States in that jurisdiction it also is murder.
They get off crimes because people choose not to punish them when they break the law.
And we're tryintg to change the system; part of our whole point is to CHANGE THE SYSTEM so they don't get off for their immoral conduct.
holding people accountable is LITERALLY what FIXES the system.
You reduce murders, by CONVICTING people of murder and punishing them. how can you not get that basic point? My claim is that its not murder. In many places it would be but this is a special circumstance so we're arguing about it. Holding people accountable doesn't fix the system. Fixing the system fixes the system. Holding people acountable will create more people to hold accountable. Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:02 Plansix wrote:
Clearly the law must be changed. No reasonable person looks at that verdict and thinks that is a good outcome for police or citizens. Being scared is not justification for leather force by agents of the state. So you expect agents of the state to wait to be shot at before defending themselves. Good logic. Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:02 m4ini wrote:On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:49 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see. What you describe doesn't make the shooting justified. You are explaining the officer's error. He heard "gun" and so he made a free association in his head that probably there was a threat. He was wrong. There wasn't. Reality matters. "People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything." We aren't complaining that there's a balance, we're arguing that the balance is broken. Surely you know that, I'm not sure why you're dumbing down the conversation. "Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere." What is that, cops don't kill people, people get killed by cops? The officer made an error but was reasonably afraid for his life. People make mistakes. Police make mistakes. When police make mistakes people die so we have to decide whats a reasonable error for police to make. this isn't a radical concept Unjustified killing is kinda not a reasonable mistake, is it. If that is, nothing is unreasonable bar "accidentally on purpose slashing throats of people filming police violence". See above also. Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:05 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:49 Nebuchad wrote:On June 17 2017 11:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:32 KwarK wrote:Reaching for your wallet in an interaction with the police is absolutely a reasonable thing to do. What the fuck man. You've surely been in a police stop before. They ask you for your drivers license. I've been in a police stop after coming to America and I reached into my pockets before he even got to my car to have it ready. The assumption of a police officer should absolutely be that you're reaching for your wallet. Especially after you declare you have a gun too. Preemptively declaring you have a gun is a very "I want to go above and beyond to make this a smooth encounter" thing to do. I'd wager a police officer deals with thousands of reaching for a wallet encounters for every reaching for a gun encounter. They should err on the side of assuming it's a wallet and take one for the team in the gun instances rather than erring on the side of a gun and executing an innocent man. That's what they're paid for. If they're too cowardly to do it then they don't deserve the badge. On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
The world is shitty. Either acept that shittyness and try to get it better by victim blaming and stripping away the civil rights of minorities where those civil rights might conflict with the shitty police On June 17 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
or live in a fantasy world and stop bothering the rest of us. by lobbing to fix the shitty system? Reaching for your wallet and telling the cop you have a gun isn't a reasonable thing to do. You get your wallet and don't tell them about your gun or you tell them about your gun and then get your wallet. You expect someone who hears gun not to see gun if they see something dark and gun shaped moving around and be afraid that your reaching moment is now for the gun beacuse thats the thing they heard and can see. What you describe doesn't make the shooting justified. You are explaining the officer's error. He heard "gun" and so he made a free association in his head that probably there was a threat. He was wrong. There wasn't. Reality matters. "People want law and order until it effects them negatively. Laws will restrict freedom and order restricts freedoms. Complaining that there is a balance isn't complaining about anything." We aren't complaining that there's a balance, we're arguing that the balance is broken. Surely you know that, I'm not sure why you're dumbing down the conversation. "Accept that the cops arn't the root cause of cops killing people or we're never going to get anywhere." What is that, cops don't kill people, people get killed by cops? The officer made an error but was reasonably afraid for his life. People make mistakes. Police make mistakes. When police make mistakes people die so we have to decide whats a reasonable error for police to make. this isn't a radical concept Hearing non-threatening words and seeing a non-threatening gesture and free associating them into "omg threat" isn't reasonable. To claim that it is is certainly radical. reaching for your waist while telling someone you have a gun is a threatening gesture and free asociating seeing something move into being the thing they just said is reasonable. Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:07 Plansix wrote:
The protests have started. I won't be surprise if they turn violent. I remember King and "he kept trying to stand". Its minnesota It won't turn violent.
He was charged with second degree manslaughter, not murder. That should be a pretty easy conviction for a prosecutor even remotely trying. But even if we put that shit aside, he was cleared on two counts of intentional discharge of firearm that endangers safety.....are you real? This coward didn't endanger the safety of a woman and child in the car when he killed an innocent man? There was nothing resembling justice going on here.
I expect agents of the state to confirm there is indeed a threat before using deadly force, hell yes. You might not like it but that's that whole higher standard thing I believe in and you don't.
It's Minnesota, it won't turn violent. Oh wait, there's that guy who shot protestors and just got 15 years for it in Minnesota so that's another one of your awful theories that doesn't hold water. www.cbsnews.com
|
On June 17 2017 12:26 Sermokala wrote:
Beacuse I argue against one thing I must surely belive in the absolute and complete oppisite. No I think there was an investigation and that a jury decided that it wasn't murder. I argue cops should be treated the same as civilians as far as the situations that they get put in are the same. Cops are killed at traffic stops. Its a thing that happenes. Being afraid that its going to happen to you is a thing. Compunding that fear with a series of events that give you reasonable fear for your life is something that will happen to cops. This isn't what we're arguing.
With a biased judge who denied certain pieces of evidence?
Do you, honestly, read what you're writing? Cops should be treated the same as civilians, so the other way around would work the same. There's no fucking reasonable fear. That's made up utter bullshit. 150 cops dead per year (that's a ridiculously low number especially considering that based on this number - which never gets actually told, only that sooo many cops get killed - your police force is army-ing up, partially with tanks), now lets see how many people cops killed and who ACTUALLY should be afraid and shoot first.
Like, that's idiotic, seriously.
Just ask you this: if i get pulled over by a cop like your friend who's unarguably unfit for the job (watch the video and his breakdown), and i shoot him based on the fact he has a gun and "seems like he'd shoot for no reason" - do i go free, or do i not? By your argument, citing "reasonable fear for my life", that's fine. Except it isn't, so why is the threshold for me to prove fear for my life so much higher/impossible, especially considering that statistically i am almost 10 times more likely to be shot by him than the other way around?
edit: that's btw assuming that a cop should be held to the same standard as me, which is inherently wrong. Everywhere in the world (yes, even third world countries) police is assumed to be held to higher standards.
|
On June 17 2017 12:21 Sermokala wrote:
reaching for your waist for your wallet is the same motion as reaching for your gun in your waist. Telling a cop you have a gun is a threatening gesture. What would qualify as a threatening gesture for you?
"Telling a cop you have a gun is a threatening gesture"? Are you even serious? Do you think people generally engage cops with things like "Officer, I'd like to let you know I have a gun and I plan to use it on you in the next ten seconds"? Telling a cop you have a gun during a traffic stop is your attempt to defuse the situation as much as possible so that the officer doesn't get scared by seeing a gun he doesn't expect to see, it's literally the exact opposite of a threatening gesture.
I think I remember Hannity word for word telling all the silly black people after Ferguson that if they get shot by the police it's because they behave badly and instead they should (among other things) let the officer know that they have a gun in the car if they have one. Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.
|
On June 17 2017 12:27 OuchyDathurts wrote:It's Minnesota, it won't turn violent. Oh wait, there's that guy who shot protestors and just got 15 years for it in Minnesota so that's another one of your awful theories that doesn't hold water. www.cbsnews.com
Hey, you never know, maybe it won't turn violent because the last person who fired a gun got held accountable for it.
|
United States42655 Posts
On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 11:51 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2017 11:45 Sermokala wrote:
Telling women that don't worry about people getting raped we got the rapist in prision now is just telling them that someone else is going to get raped so that you can punish the guy who raped them. Any other approach tells women that if they don't want to be raped then they should voluntarily abdicate their rights within society. It strips their rights away by telling them that the protection of the law is contingent upon them not acting in the same ways a man would. That's the problem with victim blaming. It places the duty of self censorship of action upon the potential victim rather than the perpetrator and it should be called out whenever and wherever it surfaces its ugly head. Furthermore the lesson "don't walk home alone if you don't want to be raped" is essentially "let some other girl be the one who gets raped tonight". The responsibility for committing an action has to be placed on the individual who chose to commit that action. Basic personal responsibility shit. You pull a trigger, you get held to account. And a prosecutor throwing the case doesn't count as being held to account, before you repeat your argument that he was. Stop being shitty we both know you're better then this kwark. An ultimatium for your position is beneath you. Having a posision of "lets concentrate on the rape in society more then the rapists. Isn't telling women to abdicate their rights. I'm not victim blaming I'm discovering why they were made a victim and trying to find a way to not make more victims. Don't try anything to not get raped just accept that its going to happen and go about your life normally to prepare yourself for getting raped because we don't care about actually stooping you from getting raped because it might infringe on your rights to prevent your rape from happening.
What are you talking about? I 110% believe everything I've said. If you think you know me well enough to know better what I mean than I do you're an idiot. What ultimatum do you think I've made? I don't think I've made one.
There is nothing for a rape victim to try to avoid being raped because rape victims don't make people rape them. This ought not to be controversial. There is nothing you can say or do to make someone else rape you. The reason rapes happen is because rapists choose to commit rapes. Therefore the entire idea of the victim "trying something to not get raped" is morally abhorrent. The idea that rape victims shouldn't "go about their life normally" is morally abhorrent. If you genuinely believe what you are arguing right now you are being morally abhorrent.
Whenever you start with "victims need to do X to avoid getting raped" you are telling them to censor their own actions and limit their own freedoms because you are not willing or able to stand up for them against sexual violence. It's absolutely despicable. You are demanding that victims live in prisons of their own construction because you refuse to hold the predators to account.
The question of "what causes a rape" is perfectly simple, a rape is caused by a rapist chooses to rape someone. That's the entire story, start to finish. You fix it by removing the rapists from society, preventing citizens from becoming rapists through education and creating a strong system of deterrence.
Similarly the question of "what causes a police officer to shoot an innocent citizen who was doing something perfectly reasonable" is pretty simple. The police officer chose to pull out his gun and pull the trigger. Nobody made him do it. Holding classes on how the citizen population might best limit their own freedoms in order to avoid victimization by the police is morally abhorrent, and made more so by your cheerleading of the corrupt prosecution and his betrayal of the principals of justice.
|
On June 17 2017 12:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:27 OuchyDathurts wrote:It's Minnesota, it won't turn violent. Oh wait, there's that guy who shot protestors and just got 15 years for it in Minnesota so that's another one of your awful theories that doesn't hold water. www.cbsnews.com Hey, you never know, maybe it won't turn violent because the last person who fired a gun got held accountable for it.
I was not ready for this level of meta savagery.
|
Yeah, telling a cop you have a gun can be and usually is pretty much the opposite of a threatening gesture. Especially if you need to reach for your waist/the glove compartment, where he might see a gun and feel threatened.
If I had a gun on my person (legal or illegal) and got pulled over, the absolute first thing I would do would be to tell the officer I had a firearm on my person. Pretending it isn't there is just an awful, awful idea. Obviously how you say it is important, though.
|
On June 17 2017 12:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:51 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2017 11:45 Sermokala wrote:
Telling women that don't worry about people getting raped we got the rapist in prision now is just telling them that someone else is going to get raped so that you can punish the guy who raped them. Any other approach tells women that if they don't want to be raped then they should voluntarily abdicate their rights within society. It strips their rights away by telling them that the protection of the law is contingent upon them not acting in the same ways a man would. That's the problem with victim blaming. It places the duty of self censorship of action upon the potential victim rather than the perpetrator and it should be called out whenever and wherever it surfaces its ugly head. Furthermore the lesson "don't walk home alone if you don't want to be raped" is essentially "let some other girl be the one who gets raped tonight". The responsibility for committing an action has to be placed on the individual who chose to commit that action. Basic personal responsibility shit. You pull a trigger, you get held to account. And a prosecutor throwing the case doesn't count as being held to account, before you repeat your argument that he was. Stop being shitty we both know you're better then this kwark. An ultimatium for your position is beneath you. Having a posision of "lets concentrate on the rape in society more then the rapists. Isn't telling women to abdicate their rights. I'm not victim blaming I'm discovering why they were made a victim and trying to find a way to not make more victims. Don't try anything to not get raped just accept that its going to happen and go about your life normally to prepare yourself for getting raped because we don't care about actually stooping you from getting raped because it might infringe on your rights to prevent your rape from happening. What are you talking about? I 110% believe everything I've said. If you think you know me well enough to know better what I mean than I do you're an idiot. What ultimatum do you think I've made? I don't think I've made one. There is nothing for a rape victim to try to avoid being raped because rape victims don't make people rape them. This ought not to be controversial. There is nothing you can say or do to make someone else rape you. The reason rapes happen is because rapists choose to commit rapes. Therefore the entire idea of the victim "trying something to not get raped" is morally abhorrent. The idea that rape victims shouldn't "go about their life normally" is morally abhorrent. If you genuinely believe what you are arguing right now you are being morally abhorrent. Whenever you start with "victims need to do X to avoid getting raped" you are telling them to censor their own actions and limit their own freedoms because you are not willing or able to stand up for them against sexual violence. It's absolutely despicable. You are demanding that victims live in prisons of their own construction because you refuse to hold the predators to account. The question of "what causes a rape" is perfectly simple, a rape is caused by a rapist chooses to rape someone. That's the entire story, start to finish. You fix it by removing the rapists from society, preventing citizens from becoming rapists through education and creating a strong system of deterrence. Similarly the question of "what causes a police officer to shoot an innocent citizen who was doing something perfectly reasonable" is pretty simple. The police officer chose to pull out his gun and pull the trigger. Nobody made him do it. Holding classes on how the citizen population might best limit their own freedoms in order to avoid victimization by the police is morally abhorrent, and made more so by your cheerleading of the corrupt prosecution and his betrayal of the principals of justice.
You said that any other approach other than just blaming the rapist was telling women that they needed to abdicate their civil rights. Thats an ultimatum and an obtuse strawman. You can't believe that I want women to not have rights because I believe that stopping rapes is more important then punishing rapists. That would make you an idiot and I don't believe you are an idiot. Rape victims don't make people rape them they are raped because they are prayed apon by sexual predators. Going after the conditions that cause someone to get raped isn't blaming someone for getting raped is discovering why they were prayed apon and stopping that from happening to someone else. It has nothing to do with the person thats getting raped and has everything to do with the next person that might get raped and making sure that they don't.
Holding someone countable means judging if what they did is worth punishment or not and in this case he wasn't and I believe he had a reasonable fear for his life. If people don't think people should be able to defend themselves because they have a fear for their life they should go after the stand your ground law or self defense law not the police officers or killers themselves. punishing every cop who kills someone isn't justice and isn't holding them accountable.
I didn't cheer lead the prosecution I just surmised what the prosecution was motivated to do and what I thought they might have done. If you want them not to be motivated to do it then go after their motivation to do it not them for trying to make the broken system the best they can make it work. If its corruption to best serve the people then I don't know what corruption even is. Educating people doesn't take away peoples freedoms they can decide to follow the advice or not. Just like they can decide to rape or not.
On June 17 2017 12:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Yeah, telling a cop you have a gun can be and usually is pretty much the opposite of a threatening gesture. Especially if you need to reach for your waist/the glove compartment, where he might see a gun and feel threatened.
If I had a gun on my person (legal or illegal) and got pulled over, the absolute first thing I would do would be to tell the officer I had a firearm on my person. Pretending it isn't there is just an awful, awful idea. Obviously how you say it is important, though.
By your example you wouldn't have made the same decision as the person who was killed and. Doing one thing with another thing can change if something is threatening or not.
|
On June 17 2017 12:55 Sermokala wrote: ...
You can't believe that I want women to not have rights because I believe that stopping rapes is more important then punishing rapists.
...
In that case, what other things do you think should be done to stop police killing civilians unnecessarily?
|
United States24676 Posts
A hypothetical somewhat different than this case (I admit I don't know all the details of what actually happened). The officer in question had a body camera which captured the affair and shows pretty much the perspective the cop saw. When the man in the car reached for his wallet and lifted it up, due to some random, highly unlikely lighting-related optical illusion, you can clearly see in the footage that the wallet looked exactly like a gun being pointed at the officer as though the officer was about to get shot. The officer, seeing the 'gun' defends himself with his firearm, killing the unfortunate unarmed man. What should the officer have done? What is an appropriate punishment for the officer for killing the unarmed man? Is it merely an accident? Should the cop have decided, based on his training, to simply take the bullet?
|
United States42655 Posts
On June 17 2017 12:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:44 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:51 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2017 11:45 Sermokala wrote:
Telling women that don't worry about people getting raped we got the rapist in prision now is just telling them that someone else is going to get raped so that you can punish the guy who raped them. Any other approach tells women that if they don't want to be raped then they should voluntarily abdicate their rights within society. It strips their rights away by telling them that the protection of the law is contingent upon them not acting in the same ways a man would. That's the problem with victim blaming. It places the duty of self censorship of action upon the potential victim rather than the perpetrator and it should be called out whenever and wherever it surfaces its ugly head. Furthermore the lesson "don't walk home alone if you don't want to be raped" is essentially "let some other girl be the one who gets raped tonight". The responsibility for committing an action has to be placed on the individual who chose to commit that action. Basic personal responsibility shit. You pull a trigger, you get held to account. And a prosecutor throwing the case doesn't count as being held to account, before you repeat your argument that he was. Stop being shitty we both know you're better then this kwark. An ultimatium for your position is beneath you. Having a posision of "lets concentrate on the rape in society more then the rapists. Isn't telling women to abdicate their rights. I'm not victim blaming I'm discovering why they were made a victim and trying to find a way to not make more victims. Don't try anything to not get raped just accept that its going to happen and go about your life normally to prepare yourself for getting raped because we don't care about actually stooping you from getting raped because it might infringe on your rights to prevent your rape from happening. What are you talking about? I 110% believe everything I've said. If you think you know me well enough to know better what I mean than I do you're an idiot. What ultimatum do you think I've made? I don't think I've made one. There is nothing for a rape victim to try to avoid being raped because rape victims don't make people rape them. This ought not to be controversial. There is nothing you can say or do to make someone else rape you. The reason rapes happen is because rapists choose to commit rapes. Therefore the entire idea of the victim "trying something to not get raped" is morally abhorrent. The idea that rape victims shouldn't "go about their life normally" is morally abhorrent. If you genuinely believe what you are arguing right now you are being morally abhorrent. Whenever you start with "victims need to do X to avoid getting raped" you are telling them to censor their own actions and limit their own freedoms because you are not willing or able to stand up for them against sexual violence. It's absolutely despicable. You are demanding that victims live in prisons of their own construction because you refuse to hold the predators to account. The question of "what causes a rape" is perfectly simple, a rape is caused by a rapist chooses to rape someone. That's the entire story, start to finish. You fix it by removing the rapists from society, preventing citizens from becoming rapists through education and creating a strong system of deterrence. Similarly the question of "what causes a police officer to shoot an innocent citizen who was doing something perfectly reasonable" is pretty simple. The police officer chose to pull out his gun and pull the trigger. Nobody made him do it. Holding classes on how the citizen population might best limit their own freedoms in order to avoid victimization by the police is morally abhorrent, and made more so by your cheerleading of the corrupt prosecution and his betrayal of the principals of justice. You said that any other approach other than just blaming the rapist was telling women that they needed to abdicate their civil rights. Thats an ultimatum and an obtuse strawman. You can't believe that I want women to not have rights because I believe that stopping rapes is more important then punishing rapists. That would make you an idiot and I don't believe you are an idiot. Rape victims don't make people rape them they are raped because they are prayed apon by sexual predators. Going after the conditions that cause someone to get raped isn't blaming someone for getting raped is discovering why they were prayed apon and stopping that from happening to someone else. It has nothing to do with the person thats getting raped and has everything to do with the next person that might get raped and making sure that they don't. Holding someone countable means judging if what they did is worth punishment or not and in this case he wasn't and I believe he had a reasonable fear for his life. If people don't think people should be able to defend themselves because they have a fear for their life they should go after the stand your ground law or self defense law not the police officers or killers themselves. punishing every cop who kills someone isn't justice and isn't holding them accountable. I didn't cheer lead the prosecution I just surmised what the prosecution was motivated to do and what I thought they might have done. If you want them not to be motivated to do it then go after their motivation to do it not them for trying to make the broken system the best they can make it work. If its corruption to best serve the people then I don't know what corruption even is. Educating people doesn't take away peoples freedoms they can decide to follow the advice or not. Just like they can decide to rape or not.
I'm not sure you know what an ultimatum is. It's a demand coupled with a threat of ending all negotiations if it is not accepted. We're not negotiating and I haven't demanded anything of you. I'd try and help you find the word you're looking for but I have literally no clue what you're trying to say. You're not trying to say ultimatum though.
If your method of stopping rapes is telling women which things they ought not to do then yes, you're putting the duty of preventing rapes on the victims of rapes. The only thing a woman need do to avoid a rape is not rape anyone. If you don't want me to think that the thing you keep fucking arguing is your opinion then stop arguing it. You can't keep up this "I'm just interested in stopping rapes by telling women how to avoid getting raped by going after the conditions" while simultaneously claiming you're not limiting them. The two are mutually exclusive. Take it to its logical extreme, Saudi Arabia style. Women not allowed out of the house without their husband or father. Odds of a Saudi woman being attacked while walking home alone drunk from a club are pretty low. And, naturally, if you were to rape a woman doing that in Saudi Arabia she'd be blamed more than you. That's the logical conclusion of your argument, and every step on the path to Saudi Arabia is equally disgusting.
|
United States42655 Posts
|
On June 17 2017 12:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:44 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:51 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2017 11:45 Sermokala wrote:
Telling women that don't worry about people getting raped we got the rapist in prision now is just telling them that someone else is going to get raped so that you can punish the guy who raped them. Any other approach tells women that if they don't want to be raped then they should voluntarily abdicate their rights within society. It strips their rights away by telling them that the protection of the law is contingent upon them not acting in the same ways a man would. That's the problem with victim blaming. It places the duty of self censorship of action upon the potential victim rather than the perpetrator and it should be called out whenever and wherever it surfaces its ugly head. Furthermore the lesson "don't walk home alone if you don't want to be raped" is essentially "let some other girl be the one who gets raped tonight". The responsibility for committing an action has to be placed on the individual who chose to commit that action. Basic personal responsibility shit. You pull a trigger, you get held to account. And a prosecutor throwing the case doesn't count as being held to account, before you repeat your argument that he was. Stop being shitty we both know you're better then this kwark. An ultimatium for your position is beneath you. Having a posision of "lets concentrate on the rape in society more then the rapists. Isn't telling women to abdicate their rights. I'm not victim blaming I'm discovering why they were made a victim and trying to find a way to not make more victims. Don't try anything to not get raped just accept that its going to happen and go about your life normally to prepare yourself for getting raped because we don't care about actually stooping you from getting raped because it might infringe on your rights to prevent your rape from happening. What are you talking about? I 110% believe everything I've said. If you think you know me well enough to know better what I mean than I do you're an idiot. What ultimatum do you think I've made? I don't think I've made one. There is nothing for a rape victim to try to avoid being raped because rape victims don't make people rape them. This ought not to be controversial. There is nothing you can say or do to make someone else rape you. The reason rapes happen is because rapists choose to commit rapes. Therefore the entire idea of the victim "trying something to not get raped" is morally abhorrent. The idea that rape victims shouldn't "go about their life normally" is morally abhorrent. If you genuinely believe what you are arguing right now you are being morally abhorrent. Whenever you start with "victims need to do X to avoid getting raped" you are telling them to censor their own actions and limit their own freedoms because you are not willing or able to stand up for them against sexual violence. It's absolutely despicable. You are demanding that victims live in prisons of their own construction because you refuse to hold the predators to account. The question of "what causes a rape" is perfectly simple, a rape is caused by a rapist chooses to rape someone. That's the entire story, start to finish. You fix it by removing the rapists from society, preventing citizens from becoming rapists through education and creating a strong system of deterrence. Similarly the question of "what causes a police officer to shoot an innocent citizen who was doing something perfectly reasonable" is pretty simple. The police officer chose to pull out his gun and pull the trigger. Nobody made him do it. Holding classes on how the citizen population might best limit their own freedoms in order to avoid victimization by the police is morally abhorrent, and made more so by your cheerleading of the corrupt prosecution and his betrayal of the principals of justice. You said that any other approach other than just blaming the rapist was telling women that they needed to abdicate their civil rights. Thats an ultimatum and an obtuse strawman. You can't believe that I want women to not have rights because I believe that stopping rapes is more important then punishing rapists. That would make you an idiot and I don't believe you are an idiot. Rape victims don't make people rape them they are raped because they are prayed apon by sexual predators. Going after the conditions that cause someone to get raped isn't blaming someone for getting raped is discovering why they were prayed apon and stopping that from happening to someone else. It has nothing to do with the person thats getting raped and has everything to do with the next person that might get raped and making sure that they don't. Holding someone countable means judging if what they did is worth punishment or not and in this case he wasn't and I believe he had a reasonable fear for his life. If people don't think people should be able to defend themselves because they have a fear for their life they should go after the stand your ground law or self defense law not the police officers or killers themselves. punishing every cop who kills someone isn't justice and isn't holding them accountable. I didn't cheer lead the prosecution I just surmised what the prosecution was motivated to do and what I thought they might have done. If you want them not to be motivated to do it then go after their motivation to do it not them for trying to make the broken system the best they can make it work. If its corruption to best serve the people then I don't know what corruption even is. Educating people doesn't take away peoples freedoms they can decide to follow the advice or not. Just like they can decide to rape or not.
You're being extremely obtuse and I'm starting to doubt it's not on purpose. Nobody is asserting that cops shouldn't be able to use self-defense, we're asserting that they abuse it in a lot of cases, in a way that indicates that the problem is certainly systemic rather than coincidental, and that this one of those cases. You taking that and pretending to think it means we want to punish every cop who kills someone is hard to consider as anything else but dishonesty.
Your last sentence should either be about "educating people" and "decide to risk being raped" or about "educating cops" and "decide to rape". You're on the side of the former, we're on the side of the latter; can't switch in the middle of the analogy I'm afraid.
|
A cursory read of that article indicates to me that they threw the flashbang before they knew what was blocking the door at all. Which is quite probably not a good idea, but saying that they knew it was a crib/playpen/whatever before throwing the grenade seems inaccurate and misleading (unless the article itself is imprecise).
In hindsight, Terrell said at the time, officers would've conducted the raid differently had they known there was a child inside the home, but there was no sign of children during the alleged drug purchase that prompted the raid.
Many homes don't have babies in them. Of course, a significant number do as well.
|
United States42655 Posts
On June 17 2017 13:10 Aquanim wrote:A cursory read of that article indicates to me that they threw the flashbang before they knew what was blocking the door at all. Which is quite probably not a good idea, but saying that they knew it was a crib/playpen/whatever before throwing the grenade seems inaccurate and misleading (unless the article itself is imprecise). Show nested quote +In hindsight, Terrell said at the time, officers would've conducted the raid differently had they known there was a child inside the home, but there was no sign of children during the alleged drug purchase that prompted the raid. Many homes don't have babies in them. Of course, a significant number do as well.
They said that they didn't mean to throw the grenade into the crib which doesn't really mean much. Best case scenario in terms of their defence is that they were just blindly throwing grenades and hoping for the best and had no idea where they were throwing them. It was a residential home, maybe don't throw grenades around in it. Also they found no guns or drugs in the raid.
|
On June 17 2017 13:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 13:10 Aquanim wrote:A cursory read of that article indicates to me that they threw the flashbang before they knew what was blocking the door at all. Which is quite probably not a good idea, but saying that they knew it was a crib/playpen/whatever before throwing the grenade seems inaccurate and misleading (unless the article itself is imprecise). In hindsight, Terrell said at the time, officers would've conducted the raid differently had they known there was a child inside the home, but there was no sign of children during the alleged drug purchase that prompted the raid. Many homes don't have babies in them. Of course, a significant number do as well. They said that they didn't mean to throw the grenade into the crib which doesn't really mean much. Best case scenario in terms of their defence is that they were just blindly throwing grenades and hoping for the best and had no idea where they were throwing them. It was a residential home, maybe don't throw grenades around in it. Also they found no guns or drugs in the raid.
No, they said they didn't know there was a crib there at all when they threw the grenade, and there is an important distinction there. Your original statement implied that they deliberately threw the grenade into a crib they knew was there, which in my opinion would be considerably more culpable.
As you say, though, throwing grenades around wildly in a residential home doesn't seem advisable.
I don't see how not finding drugs or guns is in any way relevant, for two reasons.
(a) they had no way to know at that point what they would find, and the responsibility for securing good intelligence probably falls to somebody else
(b) would their behaviour be any more acceptable if they had found drugs or guns?
|
On June 17 2017 13:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 13:10 Aquanim wrote:A cursory read of that article indicates to me that they threw the flashbang before they knew what was blocking the door at all. Which is quite probably not a good idea, but saying that they knew it was a crib/playpen/whatever before throwing the grenade seems inaccurate and misleading (unless the article itself is imprecise). In hindsight, Terrell said at the time, officers would've conducted the raid differently had they known there was a child inside the home, but there was no sign of children during the alleged drug purchase that prompted the raid. Many homes don't have babies in them. Of course, a significant number do as well. They said that they didn't mean to throw the grenade into the crib which doesn't really mean much. Best case scenario in terms of their defence is that they were just blindly throwing grenades and hoping for the best and had no idea where they were throwing them. It was a residential home, maybe don't throw grenades around in it. Also they found no guns or drugs in the raid.
If I recall there were children's toys scattered all around, as places with children tend to have. That should be a pretty big red flag that kids are around so maybe we shouldn't be playing fast and loose with the explosives. Also I seem to recall something about them not footing the medical bills for completely fucking the kid up for life. Sorry we blew your kids face in half, good luck with the bills.
|
On June 17 2017 13:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2017 12:55 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 12:44 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2017 12:01 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2017 11:51 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2017 11:45 Sermokala wrote:
Telling women that don't worry about people getting raped we got the rapist in prision now is just telling them that someone else is going to get raped so that you can punish the guy who raped them. Any other approach tells women that if they don't want to be raped then they should voluntarily abdicate their rights within society. It strips their rights away by telling them that the protection of the law is contingent upon them not acting in the same ways a man would. That's the problem with victim blaming. It places the duty of self censorship of action upon the potential victim rather than the perpetrator and it should be called out whenever and wherever it surfaces its ugly head. Furthermore the lesson "don't walk home alone if you don't want to be raped" is essentially "let some other girl be the one who gets raped tonight". The responsibility for committing an action has to be placed on the individual who chose to commit that action. Basic personal responsibility shit. You pull a trigger, you get held to account. And a prosecutor throwing the case doesn't count as being held to account, before you repeat your argument that he was. Stop being shitty we both know you're better then this kwark. An ultimatium for your position is beneath you. Having a posision of "lets concentrate on the rape in society more then the rapists. Isn't telling women to abdicate their rights. I'm not victim blaming I'm discovering why they were made a victim and trying to find a way to not make more victims. Don't try anything to not get raped just accept that its going to happen and go about your life normally to prepare yourself for getting raped because we don't care about actually stooping you from getting raped because it might infringe on your rights to prevent your rape from happening. What are you talking about? I 110% believe everything I've said. If you think you know me well enough to know better what I mean than I do you're an idiot. What ultimatum do you think I've made? I don't think I've made one. There is nothing for a rape victim to try to avoid being raped because rape victims don't make people rape them. This ought not to be controversial. There is nothing you can say or do to make someone else rape you. The reason rapes happen is because rapists choose to commit rapes. Therefore the entire idea of the victim "trying something to not get raped" is morally abhorrent. The idea that rape victims shouldn't "go about their life normally" is morally abhorrent. If you genuinely believe what you are arguing right now you are being morally abhorrent. Whenever you start with "victims need to do X to avoid getting raped" you are telling them to censor their own actions and limit their own freedoms because you are not willing or able to stand up for them against sexual violence. It's absolutely despicable. You are demanding that victims live in prisons of their own construction because you refuse to hold the predators to account. The question of "what causes a rape" is perfectly simple, a rape is caused by a rapist chooses to rape someone. That's the entire story, start to finish. You fix it by removing the rapists from society, preventing citizens from becoming rapists through education and creating a strong system of deterrence. Similarly the question of "what causes a police officer to shoot an innocent citizen who was doing something perfectly reasonable" is pretty simple. The police officer chose to pull out his gun and pull the trigger. Nobody made him do it. Holding classes on how the citizen population might best limit their own freedoms in order to avoid victimization by the police is morally abhorrent, and made more so by your cheerleading of the corrupt prosecution and his betrayal of the principals of justice. You said that any other approach other than just blaming the rapist was telling women that they needed to abdicate their civil rights. Thats an ultimatum and an obtuse strawman. You can't believe that I want women to not have rights because I believe that stopping rapes is more important then punishing rapists. That would make you an idiot and I don't believe you are an idiot. Rape victims don't make people rape them they are raped because they are prayed apon by sexual predators. Going after the conditions that cause someone to get raped isn't blaming someone for getting raped is discovering why they were prayed apon and stopping that from happening to someone else. It has nothing to do with the person thats getting raped and has everything to do with the next person that might get raped and making sure that they don't. Holding someone countable means judging if what they did is worth punishment or not and in this case he wasn't and I believe he had a reasonable fear for his life. If people don't think people should be able to defend themselves because they have a fear for their life they should go after the stand your ground law or self defense law not the police officers or killers themselves. punishing every cop who kills someone isn't justice and isn't holding them accountable. I didn't cheer lead the prosecution I just surmised what the prosecution was motivated to do and what I thought they might have done. If you want them not to be motivated to do it then go after their motivation to do it not them for trying to make the broken system the best they can make it work. If its corruption to best serve the people then I don't know what corruption even is. Educating people doesn't take away peoples freedoms they can decide to follow the advice or not. Just like they can decide to rape or not. I'm not sure you know what an ultimatum is. It's a demand coupled with a threat of ending all negotiations if it is not accepted. We're not negotiating and I haven't demanded anything of you. I'd try and help you find the word you're looking for but I have literally no clue what you're trying to say. You're not trying to say ultimatum though. If your method of stopping rapes is telling women which things they ought not to do then yes, you're putting the duty of preventing rapes on the victims of rapes. The only thing a woman need do to avoid a rape is not rape anyone. If you don't want me to think that the thing you keep fucking arguing is your opinion then stop arguing it. You can't keep up this "I'm just interested in stopping rapes by telling women how to avoid getting raped by going after the conditions" while simultaneously claiming you're not limiting them. The two are mutually exclusive. Take it to its logical extreme, Saudi Arabia style. Women not allowed out of the house without their husband or father. Odds of a Saudi woman being attacked while walking home alone drunk from a club are pretty low. And, naturally, if you were to rape a woman doing that in Saudi Arabia she'd be blamed more than you. That's the logical conclusion of your argument, and every step on the path to Saudi Arabia is equally disgusting.
I guess I'm trying to use the word Ultimatum in the sense that it means that you're eliminating any choice between means of your next decisions ala if you arn't with me your against me.
I'm not putting the duty of stopping rapes on telling women what not to do I'm just saying that we should try to stop rapes in figuring out the conditions that cause them. Having better lit street walks or a community watch might be where it takes it. I'm putting the burden of stopping rapes on the community and society as a whole by changing the conditions that caused the rape. Women being in that community can help but classifying everyone effected by rapes as a victim makes it a personal thing and not a community thing that crime should be.
I'm not going to admit that I want to limit womens rights to stop them from getting raped. If it judged to be something that needs to happen then it will. What I'm trying to get across to people is that we need to stay on the message of whats going to stop people from getting raped or killed by the police instead of focusing on punishing the people who do the rape or the killing. I'm not offering a closed ended argument or path to get anywhere I'm arguing that a better direction is obvious and people are being angry at the wrong things.
People want to punish cops for Murdering innocent people. I can acept that and I perfectly understand that. Is that happening and cops are not being punished for murdering innocent people? Yes. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm arguing against is punishing cops for killing people regardless of the facts which people have been advocating for in this thread. People want to change the bar for whats murder and whats not? Okay then go and get angry at your representatives for not pushing for that. I don't see democrats anywhere near criminal reform. I don't see bernie sanders say one peep about police reform. All I see and hear is anger tword the police officer who's been proven to have done no crime. Thats going to get no one anywhere and just make things even worse.
|
United States24676 Posts
Is my scenario above inconvenient?
I feel like this was a bit misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
