EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4662
| 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 | ||
|
Billyboy
679 Posts
| ||
|
Razyda
574 Posts
On December 13 2024 10:55 Jockmcplop wrote: What opinion on the Neely case is consistent with having been in a fight? Simply that it can't be calculated, from the safety of your house. It is whole different thing, to sit at home with footage and whats not, rather than be there with dude threatening to kill people. If you were in the fight you would know that, it is really that simple. Edit: On December 13 2024 12:11 Billyboy wrote: Is anyone else getting a oligarch feel from Trumps cabinet picks? What is their net worth at now, over 300 bn! Who could have predicted that Trumps picks would all be people who could help him personally get wealthier? I wouldn't worry too much, I'm sure these are the good billionaires that really care about the everyman, and he did such a good job picking last time. What could go wrong? Thats literally Musk worth, seems like everyone else is going pro bono  | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10337 Posts
| ||
|
Billyboy
679 Posts
| ||
|
Razyda
574 Posts
On December 13 2024 12:28 BlackJack wrote: Musk is worth over $400 billion now lol Apologies should have checked . Seems like it is Musk and bunch of people in perpetual debt. . | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2521 Posts
On December 13 2024 11:33 BlackJack wrote: The way the system works now is someone that is high on drugs and behaving psychotically, either throwing rocks at cars, attack pedestrians, starting fires, running into traffic or any other antisocial behavior, they get placed on a 72 hour psychiatric hold, paramedics come and inject them with versed, ketamine or some other sedative. They get taken to the emergency room where they sleep for many hours. When they wake up they get a psychiatric professional to talk to them. “Do you want to kill yourself?” No. “Do you want to kill anyone else?” No. The hold gets dropped, they are released into the community and the cycle repeats. The next unsuspecting victim takes their turn. Neely had a history of 3 unprovoked assaults on women, including punching a 67 year old woman in the face, breaking her nose and her eye socket. Jock’s advice is that women should just ignore him. So we agree that this endpoint of civilians having to intervene physically is not ideal and not what's at issue? I could pick a half-dozen points along the path you described that could be improved, and can see none of them that I hope would end with somebody quietly murdering a person. As to your sleight at Jock, you're the one advocating for hobo fights to the death as a legitimate solution to the issue, so you have no right to throw stones. + Show Spoiler + The above is intentionally hyperbolic, because if that's your take on Jock's position you only deserve the same consideration in kind. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9481 Posts
On December 13 2024 12:17 Razyda wrote: Simply that it can't be calculated, from the safety of your house. It is whole different thing, to sit at home with footage and whats not, rather than be there with dude threatening to kill people. If you were in the fight you would know that, it is really that simple. That's got nothing to do with anything that I've said so far. We all know fights are messy. I'm not sure what you want me to do with that though. You haven't told me what that means in terms of what we're discussing. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9481 Posts
On December 13 2024 13:30 Fleetfeet wrote: So we agree that this endpoint of civilians having to intervene physically is not ideal and not what's at issue? I could pick a half-dozen points along the path you described that could be improved, and can see none of them that I hope would end with somebody quietly murdering a person. As to your sleight at Jock, you're the one advocating for hobo fights to the death as a legitimate solution to the issue, so you have no right to throw stones. + Show Spoiler + The above is intentionally hyperbolic, because if that's your take on Jock's position you only deserve the same consideration in kind. No he's right, my advice to ladies who get harassed on public transport by psychotic/drugged up people is probably to ignore them and hope they go away. I don't know what the better advice is. Shoot em in the face? Tell them you're going to call the cops? Bear in mind I'm a badly disabled, extremely sick person so I would also live by that advice. Some crazy fucker comes up to me mumbling random threats on public transport I'm shutting the hell up and hoping they leave, while trying my best not to provoke them. | ||
|
Billyboy
679 Posts
On December 13 2024 12:35 Razyda wrote: Apologies should have checked . Seems like it is Musk and bunch of people in perpetual debt. . Billionaires with massive debt, why does that sound familiar? Same debt holders as Trump? I think you are on to something Razyda! | ||
|
oBlade
United States5406 Posts
On December 13 2024 05:18 Jockmcplop wrote: But a person died, and that's what resulted in the charge. If the guy had not died, suffered no long term damage and there were still charges the situation is totally different as would my opinion be. If someone doesn't intervene next time because the guy who killed someone got charged with killing someone, then either that person is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone and they should not be intervening in anything at all, or they are making the absolutely insane leap of logic that 'Someone got charged for killing someone in this situation so if i deal with it without killing someone i will also get charged'. The difference between killing someone and not killing someone is very significant here. I personally don't believe we should let people get away with killing others in case it is a deterrent to people who aren't going to kill anyone. The logic doesn't follow. You don't need to make legal allowances for people who can't think clearly, especially when said allowances let someone get away with killing someone else. Your entire presumption is that you simply tacitly assume killing is necessarily the intended result. Imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger was doing this on the subway (fortunately he confines his insanity to has-been self-important tweets and videos). Someone with his build. Want to demand nobody intervenes unless they can guarantee Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't lose his life as a result? There's no insane leap. You can be charged with assault, with battery, with a million fucking things, even if someone doesn't die. Sued also. Criminals sue their victims when they get injured. Why would the Arnold get impunity? Why should a criminal have more of a right to fuck up society than a good Samaritan has to fix it? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9481 Posts
On December 13 2024 17:30 oBlade wrote: Your entire presumption is that you simply tacitly assume killing is necessarily the intended result. My God this argument is like wading through wet tar. You people are so good at taking something incredibly easy and simple and deliberately misinterpreting it as much as you possibly can. I have never assumed, tacitly or otherwise, that anyone has intended to kill anyone. None of my arguments suggest that at all. In fact if you read the very post you're replying to the most basic reading comprehension should tell you otherwise. When I say : then either that person is not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone and they should not be intervening in anything at all, or they are making the absolutely insane leap of logic that 'Someone got charged for killing someone in this situation so if i deal with it without killing someone i will also get charged'. I'm not actually talking about deliberately killing people or that being the intended result. Absolutely shocking. Sometimes things are accidents, but people have to take legal responsibility for the fact that they happened. Sometimes, people don't intend to kill someone, but act so irresponsibly that death was the inevitable result. This case falls into one of these brackets, probably the second but its a grey area. A court proceeding is the best way to find out. The guy needed to be charged with a crime for that to happen. I'm constantly shocked how people of all political persuasions on here think that killing people is fine. That its something you can just shrug your shoulders at and go 'eh it happens', or even celebrate. The cops can't watch a video of someone killing a guy from behind and then write up their report saying 'We should just leave him alone the poor guy didn't mean to'. EDIT: Remember I'm not, nor have I ever said that the guy should be found guilty of something. Blackjack says he shouldn't have even been prosecuted. I apply the golden rule. If I were attempting to subdue a deranged person threatening to kill people on the subway I would not want to be prosecuted if they were unfortunately harmed. On the other side if I were a deranged person high on drugs and threatening people on the subway I would accept that that I’m putting myself in danger by creating an altercation with other people. It’s one of the reasons I don’t get high on drugs in public. But don’t worry. Simply being prosecuted is quite the punishment in itself. It’s sufficient to ensure that the next time this happens the people capable of doing something to stop it will wisely not get involved. Next time the lady with the small child in the stroller can fend for herself against the psychotic man on drugs. Progress. I find this position to be absolutely ridiculous. The guy is on video literally killing someone and blackjack thinks that we as a society should just wave it away. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17912 Posts
On December 13 2024 12:35 Razyda wrote: Apologies should have checked . Seems like it is Musk and bunch of people in perpetual debt. . Musk isn't in his cabinet... | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany820 Posts
On December 13 2024 00:22 BlackJack wrote: The problem with these discussions is that people either want to apply hindsight thinking or bad faith argumentation to make their point. Like for fucks sake nobody is saying you should be allowed to execute people for being belligerent. People are saying if someone is posing a danger to others in a public place you should be allowed to restrain them and if the person is inadvertently harmed you shouldn’t go to prison for it. It's out of question that Penny killed Neely out of negligence. The only question is, was it criminal negligence. In the end only the different medical results do aquitt Penny of criminality here - because Penny isn't a medical professional,and Neely "could have died as result of drug abuse, illness and weakend state". I don't like the politics involved, choking somebody to make him stop screaming is literally the "leatherface" approach on problems. The Fallout was just dirty laundry. Fox-News types try to grift the issue, to spew their hate. They want the story to be "White KKKnight rushed in to save Subway passengers from Black drugged Black violent Black criminal BLACK person" An absent Father tries to blame Racism... when his Son's mother was brutaly murderd by her boyfriend and his son put into Foster care, and drifted into an existence of drugs and psychosis. So the tragedy has build up for 30 years, happening eventually. Could have been prevented if Penny would have missed the train..or Neely wouldn't have been released from psychiatric care into an unstable life. Musk never had a job title ne didn't make up himself. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5406 Posts
On December 13 2024 17:41 Jockmcplop wrote: My God this argument is like wading through wet tar. You people are so good at taking something incredibly easy and simple and deliberately misinterpreting it as much as you possibly can. I have never assumed, tacitly or otherwise, that anyone has intended to kill anyone. None of my arguments suggest that at all. In fact if you read the very post you're replying to the most basic reading comprehension should tell you otherwise. When I say : I'm not actually talking about deliberately killing people or that being the intended result. Absolutely shocking. Sometimes things are accidents, but people have to take legal responsibility for the fact that they happened. Sometimes, people don't intend to kill someone, but act so irresponsibly that death was the inevitable result. This case falls into one of these brackets, probably the second but its a grey area. A court proceeding is the best way to find out. The guy needed to be charged with a crime for that to happen. I'm constantly shocked how people of all political persuasions on here think that killing people is fine. That its something you can just shrug your shoulders at and go 'eh it happens', or even celebrate. The cops can't watch a video of someone killing a guy from behind and then write up their report saying 'We should just leave him alone the poor guy didn't mean to'. EDIT: Remember I'm not, nor have I ever said that the guy should be found guilty of something. Blackjack says he shouldn't have even been prosecuted. I find this position to be absolutely ridiculous. The guy is on video literally killing someone and blackjack thinks that we as a society should just wave it away. You're correct that I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. If I for example have a tranquilizer gun, and there is an elephant charging me, and I know that the pharmaceutical involved has a chance of knocking the elephant unconscious, but another chance of overdosing and making the elephant sleep forever, and after I shoot it the elephant dies, how have I not intentionally killed the elephant? I used free will to do something that I knew at the time could kill the elephant. Whether I wanted the elephant to die, or wish it didn't have to, is different than intentionally causing it. The same as whatever you mean by "not confident in their ability to intervene without killing someone and they should not be intervening in anything at all." They grey area is not whether you are confident or not the grey area is the fact that due to the nature of biology, physics, and our world, you CANNOT be confident. Rittenhouse was charged with attempted homicide for Grosskreutz. The issue of prosecution is not limited by whether the instigator dies or not. This would be a better way to clarify: Do you think there's any conceivable situation someone would get killed by another that SHOULDN'T be prosecuted? In other words, is there any self-defense case of homicide that DOESN'T need to be litigated by dragging a man through the courts at his expense and frivolously charging him with a crime at the taxpayer's expense? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21507 Posts
On December 13 2024 11:33 BlackJack wrote: shockingly its possible to both think people should not be killing others on the train because they were a disturbance and think that the US does a very bad job of handling mental health problems.The way the system works now is someone that is high on drugs and behaving psychotically, either throwing rocks at cars, attack pedestrians, starting fires, running into traffic or any other antisocial behavior, they get placed on a 72 hour psychiatric hold, paramedics come and inject them with versed, ketamine or some other sedative. They get taken to the emergency room where they sleep for many hours. When they wake up they get a psychiatric professional to talk to them. “Do you want to kill yourself?” No. “Do you want to kill anyone else?” No. The hold gets dropped, they are released into the community and the cycle repeats. The next unsuspecting victim takes their turn. Neely had a history of 3 unprovoked assaults on women, including punching a 67 year old woman in the face, breaking her nose and her eye socket. Jock’s advice is that women should just ignore him. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9481 Posts
On December 13 2024 18:31 oBlade wrote: You're correct that I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. I'll make it extremely simple: If someone is on video killing someone in a violent incident on a subway, they should be investigated, and if there is enough evidence that the death was result of negligence then they should be charged with a crime. You and Blackjack seem to think that if they say that they didn't intend to kill the guy, we should just pat them on the back, say 'that's an oopsie!' and let them go home without bothering to figure out what happened or why. This would be a better way to clarify: Do you think there's any conceivable situation someone would get killed by another that SHOULDN'T be prosecuted? Yes, if there isn't enough evidence to take it to court or charge the person with a crime. | ||
KwarK
United States42250 Posts
On December 13 2024 06:04 BlackJack wrote: Jock your interpretation of “steelman” seems to be the least charitable interpretation of someone’s arguments. The point is there is always some small risk of killing someone anytime you restrain someone. Of course it’s rare. But there are 300 million+ people in this country and a lot of people have mental illness and drug addiction so it happens a lot. 99.99% of the time they are not going to die but the laws of large numbers tell us every so often someone is going to die. Maybe they have health problems, maybe they’ve abused their body with drugs. In this case Jordan Neely had both working against him. Your argument is essentially “well because he died somebody has to pay for that.” It’s a perverse sense of justice that serves no purpose other than to punish people who stuck their necks out to act. Armchair experts that are not full of adrenaline and not involved in a violent struggle will look at a video days later and think “hmmm… he could have released that hold a few moments earlier… so to hell with him.” My point is we should be more lenient in judging someone when something goes wrong if their intentions were good. But your steelman of this argument is ‘BJ wants to make sure Good Samaritans that murder people aren’t deterred from murdering people.’ C’mon. That’s a strawman not a steelman. Also the idea that we need to charge Daniel Penny to deter other would be vigilantes from choking people to death is ridiculous. Do you know the state of the average unhoused person in NYC? They could have scabies, lice, communicable diseases. They could be covered in feces and piss and who knows what else. There’s already enough of a deterrent for why someone wouldn’t want to climb on top of a homeless person and engage them in combat during their commute. All laws are intended to punish people who stuck their neck out to act. The fact that an action was performed does not provide any legal coverage. Not sure why it would. Also the idea that there is already so much deterrent that nobody would ever do this and therefore there is no deterrent factor to be gained by making it punishable because the idea that someone would even do it is unthinkable seems to conflict with the fact that it happened. | ||
|
KT_Elwood
Germany820 Posts
He killed a man, negligently. But it was not criminal, because the jury found: 1. Penny didn't intend to kill Neely. 2. Penny didn't have the skills or tools to subdue Neely w/o harm, yet he saw himself inclined to act in the moment and subdue Neely, as he viewed him as a threat to others. 3. Penny isn't a medical professional. While aware of his physical strength, and boasting that he had "learned that in the marines" his experience might suggest that "People usually survive this, unharmed" So the investigation and trial was carried out and found it to be a tragic chain of events and consequences of prior conditions. For the future people should be warned, that choking somebody for almost 1 minute after they pass out.. can kill them, and maybe your threshold for using violence - that could lead to death - should be higher than people getting "annoyed and frightened" on a train by a homeless man. If Neely had physicly assaulted anybody on the train.. I guess there wouldn't have even been a trial. If Penny would have gone by bike, I guess Neely would still be alive, and nobody harmed. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28597 Posts
Sometimes, a person should be allowed or even encouraged to perform a citizen's arrest if they are in a position where they can protect an innocent person from harm. I think if someone stops an active shooter who is in the process of firing at a crowd, then I have no issues with someone taking that person out even if it causes the death of that person. Still, I think if someone threw a grenade at him or fired a bazooka or something - some type of taking out the person that could predictably cause a whole ton of collateral damage, one might argue that this was excessive even while acknowledging that taking out the active shooter was a good thing to do. Likewise, I think most people can agree that there are certain forms of citizens arrests that one might consider disproportionate. Say a person shoplifted a $20 tshirt from a store, is running away from the store, and then some citizen sees what happened and shoots the guy in the back, I think most would agree that this also wouldn't be an appropriate course of action. Meanwhile, if instead of shooting the guy in the back, someone sees the store clerk running after the guy yelling 'SOMEBODY STOP THAT THIEF' and some quick-thinking individual extends his leg, tripping the culprit, that strikes me as 'might be okay'. In this case, I could see arguments in favor of 'good on you' and 'you should have stayed out of it' - there's some validity either way, imo. And there's the case of 'what if the culprit trips, hits his head on the curb, and dies?' Does that make any difference in terms of whether the action of tripping the guy was good or not? What if the thief stole jewelry worth $200000 instead of a tshirt? Not like you necessarily know. Basically what I'm getting at is that okay, there are probably some slight differences in terms of what scenarios people are okay with a civilian using violence to stop some.one engaged in some criminal activity, but honestly, I think most of the difference in opinion is grounded in the factual details of what happened - not in different principles being in play. So - 1: Was Neely an active threat to the people on the bus? If yes - using violence to stop him is imo okay. His apparent history of being violent to strangers in the past gives credence to the claim that he was an active threat - however at the same time, I suspect Penny didn't know about his history. Still - that's fair, to me. 2: Was the force used excessive? Honestly - I haven't watched the video and as I'm not going to be responsible for determining guilt, I'm not going to, but a central point to me is how long is the choke maintained after loss of unconsciousness. As above - I'm guessing that if people saw Penny continue to choke the guy for 5 minutes after the struggle ended, certainly killing Neely, they would think 'what the fuck, that's obviously fucked up', while if he lets go within a few seconds but unfortunately Neely had health and substance problems contributing to the loss of consciousness leading to his death, that's more unfortunate. So like, I dunno what the right thing to do in this case is. But I have the impression that what looks like a discussion about principles is actually a discussion about facts or interpretation of facts. Or maybe it's a real borderline scenario. Does seem like some form of prosecution or trial is a good method to establish and interpret the relevant facts, though. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5406 Posts
On December 13 2024 18:52 Jockmcplop wrote: I'll make it extremely simple: If someone is on video killing someone in a violent incident on a subway, they should be investigated, and if there is enough evidence that the death was result of negligence then they should be charged with a crime. You and Blackjack seem to think that if they say that they didn't intend to kill the guy, we should just pat them on the back, say 'that's an oopsie!' and let them go home without bothering to figure out what happened or why. I can't speak for BlackJack but I think we just lie on different sides of a line of what "enough evidence" means. Since you seem to accept there would be a case where someone's death is just unavoidable, or a tragic accident, then it wouldn't make sense to bring charges against a person in those cases. Obviously the police always investigate. There are cases where police don't want to do anything, and the DA insists on bringing charges. And then loses. And then you find out it's the same DA who is lenient on criminals in general - like Alvin Bragg who downgrades 60% of felonies. The observation is that this larger pattern has issues with how it steers society. On December 13 2024 18:52 Jockmcplop wrote: Yes, if there isn't enough evidence to take it to court or charge the person with a crime. This seems to make sense unless you're saying every death is fundamentally the result of negligence (because everyone should be able to act in nonlethal self-defense or just take it), and it's just that in some cases the evidence isn't sufficient for the standard you need to prosecute, which I have an inkling might be close to what you do think. | ||
| ||
