Is this just the beginning of rioting or will it subside?

[Alpo]

In hindsight....the officers lost the wrestling match. The guy is running away. They have his ID. They have his car.

There wasn't a need to chase him.

I'd still haven't heard about active warrants which might make me change my mind.

Not a good shoot, imho.

 

[CampingJosh]

Of course you think so. You're the one who made the following comment:

Having a different opinion, in a conversation discussing Wendy's being burned for the manager simply doing the right thing, does not constitute being in favor of a totalitarian government.

That was uncalled-for. Man-up and accept that you got a little hot under the collar. It happens.

No, I'm not hot under the collar.

There are nationwide protests of police violence against a person who was not resisting. If you think the proper response is police violence against protesters a la the clearing of Lafayette Square, then you're not listing to the complaints.

 

[Twangbanger]

It’s clear that the officer knew who's taser it was. There’s 90 minutes of body cam video released to the public. After the shooting the cop who shot Brooks told some other officers involved in the investigation that Brooks took the other cop’s taser.

I haven't watched it yet, so I will reserve final judgement until later, until I can see for certain "who said what." But if a weapon is being pointed at me, and both my own holsters are still full, then in the heat of action I can definitely understand a scenario in which a reasonable person might not be required to wait around to see how it turns out before making a shoot decision.

 

[jamil]

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

If you think that is the solution, you either aren't listening to the complaints or you are in favor of a totalitarian government.

Be careful about wording wild ass binary statements. It is a sign that you may have said something that’s at least a little full of ****. There’s a lot of room between not listening to the complaints and favoring a totalitarian government.

 

[churchmouse]

OK fellas this is being discussed over here.....
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...82336-rayshard-brooks-shooting-atlanta-5.html

 

[CampingJosh]

Do you have a link to that video?

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007190061/rayshard-brooks-police-shooting-video.html

 

[churchmouse]

Off topic.

Say goodnight Gracie.
I will open this again in the morning

 

[churchmouse]

Open for business.
Stay on topic please.

 

[churchmouse]

OK now its open.....

 

[Twangbanger]

No, I'm not hot under the collar.

There are nationwide protests of police violence against a person who was not resisting. If you think the proper response is police violence against protesters a la the clearing of Lafayette Square, then you're not listing to the complaints.

But you don't know he was talking about Lafayette Square, or any other peaceful protest. You _assumed_ that. It was his first post in the thread. There have been several non-peaceful ones, too.

Jumping inside his head, assuming which one(s) he's referring to, then brusquely suggesting he's in favor of totalitarianism is not friendly pitcher-of-beer discussion. INGO is not an "autonomous zone." Stuff like what you're doing is why threads get closed.

 

[CampingJosh]

Open for business.
Stay on topic please.

 

[jamil]

No matter if pre-planned or not. There is no legitimate excuse for this lack of social responsibility or the lack of spine of the government to squelch it!!!!

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

If you think that is the solution, you either aren't listening to the complaints or you are in favor of a totalitarian government.

I wanted to get back to this part of the discussion. It's not just one side that needs listening to. Yes. That side does need people to listen, but the for a meaningful conversation to happen it can't just be "listen". There's a back and forth. A sharing of all perspectives. That's what a discussion looks like. What it looks like in the above exchange is two people talking past each other.

The "law and order" perspective is as legitimate as any, but it's not without flaws. The "listen to our protest" perspective is as legitimate as any, but it's not without flaws. I think neither side seems capable at this point of identifying that there are any flaws at all with their perspectives. And that's going to continue as long as one side wants law and order to shut up the other, and the other side only wants their voices heard above all others.

Law and order is fine but people have a right to protest. Peacefully. People should protest their grievances against the government. That's built into our rights as citizens. But "silence is violence" is nonsense. And their voice is not 100% right. Violence, looting, and all of that is not a legitimate way to protest and the government does have authority and should use that authority to keep the peace in a reasonable way. That's the point that's in between your dichotomy above. Enforcing a peaceful aspect to the protests is not authoritarian. Mere enforcement of laws is not authoritarian.

 

[BugI02]

I'm OK with whatever level of lethality you want the taser to count as so long as it's consistent no matter who is holding the taser.

Is a taser lethal? Then there was no justification for the officer to use it.
Is it non-lethal? Then there was no justification for the suspect to be shot.

False dichotomy. The taser is a sub-lethal option in an escalating confrontation between a criminal and LEO. It's selection for use at the time indicates the officer(s) are having to escalate the use of force to subdue/arrest the perp in question indicates that they feel the need to get control of the situation in a definitive manner but do not yet feel their lives or health are immediately in danger. When the perp steals the taser and attempts to use it on the LEO, there is only one ratchet left in the use of force. What do you think would happen if in a similar situation a perp was to remove a baton or pepper spray from an officers posession and turn it against him? The narrative of these times would have you believe the perp would be justified in so attacking the LEO because he might fear what will happen to him if he allows them to incapacitate him. The reality is the LEO have a much more valid reason to resist that situation than the criminal does. You also give insufficient credence to other interpretations. A fugitive turns and fires something gunlike at a pursuing LEO. Is the taser sufficiently visually identifiable under the circumstances for the officer to be sure that was what was fired at him? During the attempted arrest, had they had the opportunity to carefully search him and determine he did not have some other weapon? Would Alpo be singing the same 'They've got his car and DL, why chase him' if the guy turned out to have serious paper on him? The police have to make split second decisions about a wealth of issues in these situations, and the crux of the matter is still 'can't do the time, don't do the crime' - don't get so drunk/high and drive that you pass out in the drive-thru lane at Wendy's, or if you do realize you may be going to jail (again)

Once again a person has pushed their luck right to the edge, expecting mere mortals to do everything right so they come out the other side alive

 

[BugI02]

No, I'm not hot under the collar.

There are nationwide protests of police violence against a person who was not resisting. If you think the proper response is police violence against protesters a la the clearing of Lafayette Square, then you're not listing to the complaints.

We can all play the conflate(for Alpo) unrelated events game

If you think burning St Johns church is a proper response to grievances, then you're not listening to the other side of the debate or worse yet are convinced of the absolute recht of your viewpoint

 

[jamil]

We can all play the conflate(for Alpo) unrelated events game

If you think burning St Johns church is a proper response to grievances, then you're not listening to the other side of the debate or worse yet are convinced of the absolute recht of your viewpoint

Jamil has joined the Alpo non-conflate team. It is indeed a bending of the word. Conflating ideas should mean that two ideas were combined to make a new idea that contains the components of both the ideas being conflated. But to use it to say that someone confused one idea for another is not correct. But we're past that point. The word has now been conflated with itself.

 

[BugI02]

Is not tying together protests against police violence against a non-resisting (at the time) perp and the clearing of Lafayette square the epitome of conflation? From the OED

conflate
verb [ T ]


to combine two or more separate things, especially pieces of text, to form a whole:


Synonyms: combine fuse meld merge

 

[jamil]

Is not tying together protests against police violence against a non-resisting (at the time) perp and the clearing of Lafayette square the epitome of conflation? From the OED

conflate
verb [ T ]


to combine two or more separate things, especially pieces of text, to form a whole:


Synonyms: combine fuse meld merge

I think it's more like one is trying to say that one is the same as the other. That is to say that the police tactics of keeping order during protests is the same kind of violence that sparked the the protests in the first place. That's more like claiming A=B, when they're not the same thing. Conflation would be more like A+B=C which doesn't really fit.

His point isn't really without merit. Optics are important because people don't always perceive the same events with the most realness. It's true enough that some of the tactics used to keep "peace" end up having the opposite effect. There's the image of a Louisville cop (actually a corrections officer, but whatever) shooting rubber bullets at the local press crew. The news crew wasn't protesting. They weren't participating in any violence. They were just reporting what was happening. There was nothing peacekeeping about that. All it managed to do was go viral nation wide and support the general narrative that police are bad.

Where I disagree with campingjosh is that at some point when things escalate into violence, property damage, looting, which harms other people, we should expect police to step in and protect people being harmed, and restore order. The legitimate function of government is to protect rights, including property rights. Your right to protest does not abridge my right to property. You want to loot and burn, to protest something, loot YOUR business, and burn YOUR house.

 

[NKBJ]

CHAZ has mutated into CHOP.
And they themselves are saying it is like the French revolution.
Reminds me more all the time of Dance The Eagle To Sleep.

chop chop
https://www.trunews.com/stream/christian-free-chaz-jacobins-assault-seattle-preacher

 

[Alpo]

CHAZ has mutated into CHOP.
And they themselves are saying it is like the French revolution.
Reminds me more all the time of Dance The Eagle To Sleep.

chop chop
https://www.trunews.com/stream/christian-free-chaz-jacobins-assault-seattle-preacher

Well, the one thing to come out of the French Revolution that we might be able to look forward to: End of tabloid journalism and press shaming.

 

[Twangbanger]

Well, the one thing to come out of the French Revolution that we might be able to look forward to: End of tabloid journalism and press shaming.

But the Gauls are humorless. British Tabloids do the Lord's work.