| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
On September 24 2020 11:54 Bagration wrote: Shit is going down in the USA - this type of unrest is getting more and more common I fear November could be catastrophic Everyone sees its coming and we just look at it while running towards the abbys,as if the whole of society is parralized and unable to stop it. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On September 24 2020 11:39 Mohdoo wrote: I felt like the first couple of sentences were a lot more open ended and more difficult to find points of agreement. My understanding is that the cops no-knocked and would qualify for the right to fire in self defense. If they rightfully fired in self defense, does not mean the cops committed the first unethical act by creating the situation to begin with? If it is ethical to shoot the intruder, doesn't that mean the person defending their home did not commit an unethical act? And in that way, someone was killed by police negligence? To me, breaking into a house is equivalent to initiating violence. And by initiating violence in a situation that can ethically result in self defense, what the cops did was supremely unethical as people who are given extra power to kill. In this instance, they misused their power, and in doing so, they should be severely punished. Where do we disagree? Let's assume the following things as facts : -the police knocked and announced themselves (there is a witness) -breonna&bf were in bed watching a movie/sleeping. He heard the knocking, but not the announcement. - he asked who was there, no answer, he readied his legally owned weapon - the door is blown by battering ram, he shoots and hits a cop in the leg - other cops return fire. -they completely miss the armed guy, but somehow 5 bullets end up in the body of a defenseless woman. Here are my issues. In my country, in my job: - every bullet shot is accounted for and investigated. - while defending somewhere (the never attacks anything inside the country, but same rules apply abroad in peacekeeping operations) if I defend myself with shooting (only after being shot), I need to aim ONLY at the target (you know, all those target training with hostages in movies?) -we have 4 golden rules for a weapon, including: +finger on the trigger only if aiming (eye+weapon) towards the target +be CERTAIN about your target. +do not point or let point your weapon towards something that you do not intend to destroy Now, in the us and in this case, these cops just started raining fire everywhere and hit whatever. This means they were not properly trained, or subject to stress and not fit for the job. If you're going in somewhere and you know about stand your grounds laws, you do what you must : -abort mission if unsure -make sure the target knows you're here If you decide to ram in while unsure you were heard, you're better be prepared for what could (lawfully) come. They were not, reacted badly, one officer is charged for it, but nobody is charged for repeatedly shooting a bystander. There were a bit more than 20 bullets fired by police, 5 of these hit Breonna. This is not a coincidence. In no world with 25% hit rate did they NOT target her with their weapons. There should definitely be a charge of homicide. If they had shot or killed the boyfriend who was shooting at them, that would be a shitty outcome, but I could understand. In this situation, they failed to do their duty and should be charged for it. Being a cop should mean you have a higher bar to clear than regular citizens related to your weapon use. Killing a bystander with a 25% hit rate is not acceptable in any case and they should pay for it. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On September 24 2020 01:59 KwarK wrote: There is not a right to continue living that trumps bodily autonomy. If there were then we would requisition kidneys from people all the time to give them to donors. No such right exists, you cannot force other people to give up their own bodies, even if your own life is dependent upon their body. Pro-choice believers recognize that bodily autonomy is one of the most fundamental rights and that a fetus is, through no fault of its own, biologically dependent upon continued support from another human being. Additionally they recognize that the support represents a significant burden that does permanent damage to the other human in addition to subjecting them to a barrage of hormones, drastic body modification, physical limitations, incredible amounts of pain, and either surgery or genital tearing. A fetus quite literally cannibalizes the body of the mother, the resource demands of the fetus supersede the biological needs of the mother to the point that the mother's bones are stripped for resources. I believe there is a moral obligation to help others and after learning that I was a match for a guy with leukemia I voluntarily allowed my body to be used to incubate stem cells which became the basis for his immune system after they nuked him. But the point is that I chose to do that, it was something I believed was worthwhile to save the life of another human. I believe that, all things being equal, pregnant women should make the same choice I did. I am, in the most literal sense, pro-life. Life is something I'm in favour of and I believe there's a moral obligation to support it. But I can't extend that pro-life belief to the logical extreme of requisitioning the bodies of other human beings, and ultimately that is what an abortion ban requires. Requisitioning their labour and their resources to fund food stamps etc. are a lesser evil I will incorporate within my pro-life stance. Opt out organ donation by default for deceased people is something I support as a pro-life individual. I would probably support tax credits for blood plasma donation too. But once we start requisitioning the bodies of women as incubators I find it untenable. I'm pro-life, but up to a point. What's weird to me too is that a lot of people who claim to be pro-life actually draw the line substantially earlier than I do. I will consent to having my labour and resources requisitioned to ensure that children don't starve but believe that requisitioning bodies is a step too far. But many people seem to believe that labour and resources should not be requisitioned for SNAP while also believing that bodies should be requisitioned as incubators. That's pretty strange. I also wonder why there isn't more attention paid to unimplanted embryos from IVF. Why not mandate that women of child bearing age are drafted into a lottery and those selected are required to carry the embryos to term. If we're requiring that women ensure that embryos are born, despite bodily autonomy, we should commit to that. I appreciate the effort you went to here, so I will try to respond even if everyone is probably over this by now. There is not a right to continue living that trumps bodily autonomy. If we agree that we are opposed to late-term abortion, then we agree that the right to continue living can trump autonomy. So, the question is, when and why? I am skeptical of anyone who believes they can answer this with certainty, and yet there is certainty left and right on this topic. If you, personally, think that autonomy is overriding, and that the right to choose applies all the way to term, then I respect that as a self-consistent position. However, I don't think this is where you or the others are coming from. Plus, if you did think this, it's been mentioned that 85% of people would disagree, so you would hardly be standing on a moral axiom. I'm not here to argue for minority rule in the other direction either. I don't think the republicans' all-out attack on democracy for the sake of this one issue is justified, and I have always been a strong opponent of Trump's attempts to swing this axe at the foundations of the country he purports to lead. What I am here to argue for is an understanding that the issue is controversial not because one side or the other is evil and hates women/babies, but because both groups are struggling to align deep and deeply competing rights as best they can. I think the comparison to organ/blood donation is useful, and I was going to make it myself. I am also in favour of an opt-out register and incentives for donation. I think these things recognise that there is a balance between autonomy and altruism, and that it benefits society to encourage people towards the latter. If I were to argue for a second thing, reluctantly, it would be an understanding that just as blood donation to save a life is desirable, we might consider whether sacrifice in order to allow a baby to live could also be desirable. I would not mandate this, and I have difficulty even seeing myself have the conversation with someone considering it. I recognise that people may find themselves caught between their own autonomy and the life of their child, and I accept that people may feel they need to choose the former. However, in the sense of public discourse, I am very uncomfortable that this has become something to #shoutyourabortion and even celebrate about, and that a pro-life stance is becoming a death sentence for any politician to the left of Mitt Romney, which is basically the whole overton window outside the US. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 24 2020 17:38 GreenHorizons wrote: No one is advocating to abolish the police and not reallocate their funding or reimagine how to address the issues people think (usually in error) the police do. The defund movement is part of the abolition movement. The "defund and reform" crowd are liberals that just learned about the defund/abolition movement recently and are attempting to coopt and undermine it. First report was practically blank. Said there wasn't forced entry (used a battering ram), said she wasn't injured (she bleed to death for 20 minutes without aid), and the part where they are paid to describe/narrate the event simply said "PIU investigation" which stands for "Public Integrity Unit" Is part of this in contention or something? It sounds like Danglars flat out rejects the idea this was no-knock, but various sources indicate it was | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On September 24 2020 23:00 Mohdoo wrote: Is part of this in contention or something? It sounds like Danglars flat out rejects the idea this was no-knock, but various sources indicate it was And the actual order given to the cops specified this location was less high-risk than the other 4-5 locations raided at the same time, and that they should knock, which a witness said they did. I'm at work, don't have the sources at the ready. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
This isn't even like Eric Garner where the person in question was technically violating the law and excessive force was used to detain them. The cops broke into a place in the middle of the night and shot an innocent, sleeping woman to death. They turned their body cams off before hand(or "lost" the footage later), and as such, the presumption should be that they are LYING in their reports. There is no reason to have them off, ever, and especially not when conducting a raid in the middle of the night. Here's my simple rule on bodycams : if they're off, I assume the worst possible case. That's because of the instances where the police forgot that they recorded 30 seconds before being turned on and got caught planting drugs, etc. It's not rocket science. The things shouldn't even have an off switch and it should be a felony to intentionally obstruct their view. Honestly, it's one of the two worst instances of police violence since Rodney King in my mind, so I'm not going to be at all surprised if a good deal of Louisville burns. The people I know who lived in Louisville were absolutely disgusted with the way the whole thing had been handled by the cops, even before the refusal to indict broke. Of course, many of them were more worried about it because of the riots that were going on, but they thought that the riots were justified. On September 24 2020 23:00 Mohdoo wrote: Is part of this in contention or something? It sounds like Danglars flat out rejects the idea this was no-knock, but various sources indicate it was It has ALWAYS been reported as a no knock warrant previously - and from what I've read, the only proof that it wasn't is that neighbors said they heard them knock or make noise. That's not proof. If there were ironclad proof it wasn't a no knock warrant, it would've come out way over a year ago (edit : scratch this, it happened in March, but at least 5-6 months ago) . No knock isn't literally referring to just not knocking. The lack of identifying themselves as police is the actual issue at hand, and no witness says they did. Presenting a witness who says they heard knocking is playing semantic games with a group of people too uneducated to know the distinctions (the grand jury). In fact, the officers who executed it had already testified in their affadavits that it was a no knock warrant, and that using one was justified. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 24 2020 23:11 Nevuk wrote: In fact, the officers who executed it had already testified in their affadavits that it was a no knock warrant, and that using one was justified. Danglars, can you please clarify why this is not convincing to you? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 24 2020 23:23 Mohdoo wrote: Danglars, can you please clarify why this is not convincing to you? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.whas11.com/amp/article/news/investigations/breonna-taylor-case/breonna-taylor-decision-no-knock-warrant-louisville-officers-announced-attorney-general/417-7dd8174f-53f1-4af6-8baf-c36eb4bd7cc1 News articles, press statements, and witness testimony. No-knock warrants do not involve knocking announcing and waiting before breaching. If you want to revise this to be the type of warrant expressly contradicted by superiors or whatever, go ahead. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 25 2020 00:14 Danglars wrote: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.whas11.com/amp/article/news/investigations/breonna-taylor-case/breonna-taylor-decision-no-knock-warrant-louisville-officers-announced-attorney-general/417-7dd8174f-53f1-4af6-8baf-c36eb4bd7cc1 News articles, press statements, and witness testimony. No-knock warrants do not involve knocking announcing and waiting before breaching. If you want to revise this to be the type of warrant expressly contradicted by superiors or whatever, go ahead. So in your eyes, in an alternate universe where they broke the door down, it would be ethical to shoot the cops? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 25 2020 00:14 Danglars wrote: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.whas11.com/amp/article/news/investigations/breonna-taylor-case/breonna-taylor-decision-no-knock-warrant-louisville-officers-announced-attorney-general/417-7dd8174f-53f1-4af6-8baf-c36eb4bd7cc1 News articles, press statements, and witness testimony. No-knock warrants do not involve knocking announcing and waiting before breaching. If you want to revise this to be the type of warrant expressly contradicted by superiors or whatever, go ahead. The question here is why should we trust the AG's word? From what I read, he based this on a single witness as well as the police accounts (which have already been shown to be contradictory, and it's well established why police accounts can never be trusted) while all other evidence says otherwise. Not only this, but the AG has already been shown to be highly partisan and biased towards law enforcement. EDIT: I think we need to reiterate that there is substantial physical evidence, as well as the police's own initial statements, that say that this was a no-knock warrant. The idea that it wasn't looks to be incredibly dubious after even a few moments of reflection, and it makes the AG look extremely untrustworthy. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On September 25 2020 00:22 Stratos_speAr wrote: The question here is why should we trust the AG's word? From what I read, he based this on a single witness as well as the police accounts (which have already been shown to be contradictory, and it's well established why police accounts can never be trusted) while all other evidence says otherwise. Not only this, but the AG has already been shown to be highly partisan and biased towards law enforcement. This is precisely why the grand jury system is broken, disputed facts that go to the heart of whether a criminal act was committed should be actually tried, not unilaterally assessed behind closed doors without adversarial examination. Not to mention, as you say, the word of an AG whose career lives and dies on whether he can comport with Republican ideals is worth very little. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 25 2020 00:30 farvacola wrote: This is precisely why the grand jury system is broken, disputed facts that go to the heart of whether a criminal act was committed should be actually tried, not unilaterally assessed behind closed doors without adversarial examination. Not to mention, as you say, the word of an AG whose career lives and dies on whether he can comport with Republican ideals is worth very little. He's also openly partisan, as he spoke at the Republican National Convention and was parroting the same pro-police propaganda that the party does. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 25 2020 00:30 farvacola wrote: This is precisely why the grand jury system is broken, disputed facts that go to the heart of whether a criminal act was committed should be actually tried, not unilaterally assessed behind closed doors without adversarial examination. Not to mention, as you say, the word of an AG whose career lives and dies on whether he can comport with Republican ideals is worth very little. I don't really understand why it matters whether it was no-knock or knock-first. They had a warrant to conduct a raid. They entered a building, were shot at, and returned fire. Knock or no-knock they would have returned fire, unless I am missing something. The relevant questions, if there are any, must turn on something else. The question of whether someone being raided can legally shoot at people who barge into their home, for example, seems moot. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 25 2020 00:19 Mohdoo wrote: So in your eyes, in an alternate universe where they broke the door down, it would be ethical to shoot the cops? From his eyes, he’s shooting an intruder. That’s morally right along principles of self defense within the home. That’s the main reason why no-knock raids are bad. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 25 2020 00:51 IgnE wrote: I don't really understand why it matters whether it was no-knock or knock-first. They had a warrant to conduct a raid. They entered a building, were shot at, and returned fire. Knock or no-knock they would have returned fire, unless I am missing something. The relevant questions, if there are any, must turn on something else. The question of whether someone being raided can legally shoot at people who barge into their home, for example, seems moot. Legality is hardly worth discussing because its literally written down. It isn't worth asking whether slavery was legal either, but clearly it was unethical. My impression is that we are discussing ethics, not law. If we are having discussions of law, 99% of the people in this thread have no business posting, myself included. So it is not only a boring pursuit, but also pretty exclusive. Not a good fit for this thread in my eyes, but I won't stop you. But for whatever it is worth, I am only approaching this from an ethics perspective. Historically, laws aren't particularly reputable from an ethics perspective. Slavery is always the easiest example to cite, but it has lots of company. So that's why I see the question of law in ethics discussions to be pretty pointless. On September 25 2020 00:58 Danglars wrote: From his eyes, he’s shooting an intruder. That’s morally right along principles of self defense within the home. That’s the main reason why no-knock raids are bad. Makes sense. Sounds like our ethics align and our disagreement comes from perceived truthfulness of pieces of evidence. That's a discussion I don't find particularly interesting or stimulating, so I'll discontinue here. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 25 2020 01:00 Mohdoo wrote: Legality is hardly worth discussing because its literally written down. It isn't worth asking whether slavery was legal either, but clearly it was unethical. My impression is that we are discussing ethics, not law. If we are having discussions of law, 99% of the people in this thread have no business posting, myself included. So it is not only a boring pursuit, but also pretty exclusive. Not a good fit for this thread in my eyes, but I won't stop you. But for whatever it is worth, I am only approaching this from an ethics perspective. Historically, laws aren't particularly reputable from an ethics perspective. Slavery is always the easiest example to cite, but it has lots of company. So that's why I see the question of law in ethics discussions to be pretty pointless. Historically, laws are also pretty reputable. Have you heard of Hammurabi? Or the ten commandments? Ethics as character, or as way of life, will depend on its social context. The ethics of the Bronze Age are quite different from the ethics of a WEIRD nation state with an aspiration for due process under the law. In this case, Louisville ended up banning no-knock raids. The family got a large settlement. We should acknowledge that there are other ways of going further than that to limit militarized police raids on homes in the future. What else does ethics demand? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 25 2020 01:10 IgnE wrote: Historically, laws are also pretty reputable. Have you heard of Hammurabi? Or the ten commandments? In this case, Louisville ended up banning no-knock raids. The family got a large settlement. We should acknowledge that there are other ways of going further than that to limit militarized police raids on homes in the future. What else does ethics demand? Laws have been good and laws have been bad. As such, law will never be sufficient to determine ethics. So long as law is insufficient, it isn't worthwhile to me. We have no incentive to settle for law as justification for ethics. We can dig deeper and work harder. Settling for law lacks ambition. Edit: according to my ethics, the settlement does not improve the ethics of the situation. No amount of money would make me comfortable with my wife being shot and I imagine I am in good company. In my eyes, the only ethical outcome from instances of extremely unethical behavior committed by a institution of power is complete and total guarantee the behavior can't be repeated anymore. In this instance, the institution of power is not able to sufficiently guarantee this is the last time this happens. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby25282 singsing2103 Liquid`RaSZi2003 FrodaN1299 Beastyqt1105 B2W.Neo755 KnowMe251 Hui .179 Pyrionflax159 Livibee89 |
|
OSC
Replay Cast
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
