Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

5 hours ago, downzy said:

Totally rational to bring an AR to a protest/riot in your efforts to support the cops.  

Totally rational to support the cops in this situation. 

I don't know if you missed my post where I criticized the authorities for being hands off, the Rambo's for trying to take their place, and the rioters for burning and attacking people?

[Ace Nova]

On 8/26/2020 at 7:46 PM, Swampfox said:

 

 

 

Most "non" gun owners have no idea how lethal a double-aught buckshot is at close range.  Two shots at close range would be the equivalent of shooting someone 16 times with a .33 caliber weapon.   

Edited August 28, 2020 by Ace Nova

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Maybe I'm naive here pertaining to firearms but I have oft wondered why they don't just shoot someone, who they deem is acting suspicious and potentially reaching for a firearm, in the leg. Seven times in the back? You hold a gun and therefore hold all the cards! 

Insufficient training and fear. 

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Insufficient training and fear. 

All this talk of guns reminds me of when I was with my brother-in-law in Texas a while ago. We went out to grab some food from a Whataburger and I was kinda zoned out in a bit of a world of my own and I opened the glove box in his car, pulled out a loaded 9mm and started playing with it as we were going through the Drive Thru.  Luckily I'm not black so I'm still alive.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Dazey

[SoulMonster]

7 hours ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

 

Nope!

 He resisted arrest and there was an  open warrant for his arrest for sexual abuse and domestic violence which he served jailed time. But yeah lets ignore the favt that he also was in the middle of committing robbery on another women who was black.

Facts matter people .

But none of those facts actually make any difference: The police still shot him 7 times in the back. No matter what he had been done prior to this, even if he had been eating babies, would that have made the actions of the police correct. They failed. And it is the police's failings we are discussing, not what an awful man the victim was.

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse but I've explained it in great detail in this thread and the other thread.

Heads of state should always do whatever it takes in order to avoid further violence.   If you think his initial tweet was intended to avoid further violence (riots, lootings, further shootings) I have news for you....it wasn't.   

Why do you keep referring to another discussion where I am not a participant?

How did the governor's factual tweet induce more violence? Who are the people who read the governor's tweet and went, "what the fuck! the governor saw a video of a police man shooting a black man in the back seven times and tweeted that a police man shot a black man in the back seven times!! ARGH!!! now I will burn down the city because a governor shouldn't talk about the police being incompetent!!"?

And while a governor should absolutely think carefully about not inducing violence, pointing out that another police killing had taken place, and that seven shots had been fired into a black back, is not crossing any line. If you happen to think it is then it seems you want to protect the police from criticism whereas I am of the opinion that especially the police -- who are our law authorities and who we are supposed to respect and cherish -- should be criticised whenever they overstep, especially when it is such a gross misconduct as shooting someone in the back seven times.

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

Maybe you don't understand it because the culture and demographics of the U.S. is vastly different than Norway's but that tweet to the average American said, "I don't care about the details but another black man was shot by police.  Do what you need to do".  

It seems it is the "I don't know all the facts" that confuses you. OBVIOUSLY, the governor knew enough facts to point out that a police man shot a black man seven times in the back. Do you honestly think there are any facts that would not make this into a terrible misconduct deserving of harsh criticism, loss of job, and possible criminal punishment? What facts are these? Are you thinking along the line of @Gibsonfender2323 who think that whatever the victim did prior to him being shot could possibly mean that the shooting was justified? That the police are okay to shoot people in the back if the victim has done something really bad beforehand? That police are allowed to summarily execute criminals to save time for the legal system? That a corruption of law and order and putting way too much power in the hands of police.

Here's the thing, I also don't know all the facts (how old the victim was, what he ate for breakfast that day, what he had done prior to arrest, what was in the car, if it had been raining that day) but I still know that the police shot a man seven times in the back. And that is actually all I need to know to condemn the action because none of the missing facts will affect this. There is no facts that would make any difference. What the police did was wrong, period.

 

[action]

they need to bring back Robocop

[WhazUp]

28 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But none of those facts actually make any difference: The police still shot him 7 times in the back. No matter what he had been done prior to this, even if he had been eating babies, would that have made the actions of the police correct. They failed. And it is the police's failings we are discussing, not what an awful man the victim was.

Right.  These right anti-BLM people did the exact same thing with George Floyd's death.  "Well the man was no angel", as if that matters in the case of police deciding to be the judge, jury, and executioner of these people right there on the streets.  They are fishing for reasons to blame the deceased as opposed to acknowledging we have a serious issue with police in the US 

[Ace Nova]

22 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Why do you keep referring to another discussion where I am not a participant?

How did the governor's factual tweet induce more violence? Who are the people who read the governor's tweet and went, "what the fuck! the governor saw a video of a police man shooting a black man in the back seven times and tweeted that a police man shot a black man in the back seven times!! ARGH!!! now I will burn down the city because a governor shouldn't talk about the police being incompetent!!"?

And while a governor should absolutely think carefully about not inducing violence, pointing out that another police killing had taken place, and that seven shots had been fired into a black back, is not crossing any line. If you happen to think it is then it seems you want to protect the police from criticism whereas I am of the opinion that especially the police -- who are our law authorities and who we are supposed to respect and cherish -- should be criticised whenever they overstep, especially when it is such a gross misconduct as shooting someone in the back seven times.

 

14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It seems it is the "I don't know all the facts" that confuses you. OBVIOUSLY, the governor knew enough facts to point out that a police man shot a black man seven times in the back. Do you honestly think there are any facts that would not make this into a terrible misconduct deserving of harsh criticism, loss of job, and possible criminal punishment? What facts are these? Are you thinking along the line of @Gibsonfender2323 who think that whatever the victim did prior to him being shot could possibly mean that the shooting was justified? That the police are okay to shoot people in the back if the victim has done something really bad beforehand? That police are allowed to summarily execute criminals to save time for the legal system? That a corruption of law and order and putting way too much power in the hands of police.

Here's the thing, I also don't know all the facts (how old the victim was, what he ate for breakfast that day, what he had done prior to arrest, what was in the car, if it had been raining that day) but I still know that the police shot a man seven times in the back. And that is actually all I need to know to condemn the action because none of the missing facts will affect this. There is no facts that would make any difference. What the police did was wrong, period.

 

Straw man argument.  
 

I will simplify my statement.

Should heads of state advocate for peace within the populations they lead?  Yes or No? 
 

[SoulMonster]

39 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I will simplify my statement.

Should heads of state advocate for peace within the populations they lead?  Yes or No? 

Yes, of course, but not to the extent that this means they should not criticise police who shoot unarmed men seven times in the back. Because a head of state should also, as top leader, acknowledge mistakes that are made and criticise gross misconduct. Not sweep police killings under the carpet.

I still have trouble understanding who would be offended by the governor's tweet and what was offending in it? I mean, the only people I could think of that would be offended would be those people who think it is okay that police shoot people seven times in the back? Are you seriously saying that a governor should refrain from chatisting the police from gross misconduct out of some respect for people who think the police should be allowed to shoot people in the back? Again, who are the factors that are being divided by the governor's tweet? Who are these people who, after reading the governor factually saying what had happened, who would then go out and cause violence? 

[Padme]

3 hours ago, Ace Nova said:

Comments like that are exactly why Trump won in 2020....and if the left keeps it up, you'll be crying for 4 more years.  

Really? I thought Trump won in 2016 because he was going to get rid of NAFTA and bring back jobs  to the U.S. Something that never happened by the way

[Ace Nova]

45 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, of course, but not to the extent that this means they should not criticise police who shoot unarmed men seven times in the back. Because a head of state should also, as top leader, acknowledge mistakes that are made and criticise gross misconduct. Not sweep police killings under the carpet.

I still have trouble understanding who would be offended by the governor's tweet and what was offending in it? I mean, the only people I could think of that would be offended would be those people who think it is okay that police shoot people seven times in the back? Are you seriously saying that a governor should refrain from chatisting the police from gross misconduct out of some respect for people who think the police should be allowed to shoot people in the back? Again, who are the factors that are being divided by the governor's tweet? Who are these people who, after reading the governor factually saying what had happened, who would then go out and cause violence? 

Again, most of your post is a straw man argument.  I’m not debating what happened.  And no, I don’t think police officers should shoot people in the back 7 times.  I was hoping that would be obvious and that I didn’t need to mention it every time I posted on the subject.   

But like I stated in the other thread, I will wait until all the facts come out in the case before coming to a “complete conclusion” about the case.  

I’m a fan of “due process”...you know, those things called “civil rights”.  The exact same things that people are now ready to start a civil war over.  

 

But finally we are in agreement that heads of state should advocate for peace.  

That was my entire point. 
 

The fact that the governor amended his tweets and eventually advocated for peace further validates my point.

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Ace Nova

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

Again, most of your post is a straw man argument.  I’m not debating what happened.  And no, I don’t think police officers should shoot people in the back 7 times.  I was hoping that would be obvious and that I didn’t need to mention it every time I posted on the subject.   

But like I stated in the other thread, I will wait until all the facts come out in the case before coming to a “complete conclusion” about the case.  

But we are not discussing what the "complete conclusion" will be, we are discussing a tweet where a governor expressed criticism over the police shooting a man seven times in the back. It seems you think there are any unknown facts that would mean this criticism wasn't legitimate? And that, again, is @Gibsonfender2323 territorium. Are you saying you agree with him?

3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I’m a fan of “due process”...you know, those things called “civil rights”.  The exact same things that people are now ready to start a civil war over.  

According to you, civil rights means that police who shoot people seven times in the back should not be criticised from the governor for shooting someone seven times in the back. I disagree.

[Ace Nova]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

But we are not discussing what the "complete conclusion" will be, we are discussing a tweet where a governor expressed criticism over the police shooting a man seven times in the back. It seems you think there are any unknown facts that would mean this criticism wasn't legitimate? And that, again, is @Gibsonfender2323 territorium. Are you saying you agree with him?

 

For the umpteenth time my point was that heads of state should advocate for "peace".  Let me simplify it for you...this is my post to downzy, since both of you guys seemed to have put on your boxing gloves this morning, ready to knock out the straw man...

He has been mostly advocating for "peace" since his disastrous original tweet.  He amended his original tweet after tweeting it and replaced it with "more appropriate" tweets. 

He knew it was a mistake and he changed it.  I commend him for acknowledging his mistake and taking appropriate actions to correct it.  (Even if it was a day or two after the riots started).

 

Is that better? 

 

 

 

 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

For the umpteenth time my point was that heads of state should advocate for "peace".  Let me simplify it for you...this is my post to downzy, since both of you guys seemed to have put on your boxing gloves this morning, ready to knock out the straw man...

He has been mostly advocating for "peace" since his disastrous original tweet.  He amended his original tweet after tweeting it and replaced it with "more appropriate" tweets. 

He knew it was a mistake and he changed it.  I commend him for acknowledging his mistake and taking appropriate actions to correct it.  (Even if it was a day or two after the riots started).

Is that better?

How is tweeting that a policeman shot a black man seven times in the back the opposite of advocating for peace? Who will be outraged by such a tweet, except people who think police should be allowed to shoot people in the back? So are you saying that out of respect for such people that the governor shouldn't have correctly tweeting that the police had shot a black man seven times in the back? That the governor should placate people who are in favor of the police shooting black men in the back by not levying any criticism against the police?

Have you even thought that by not criticising something that should be obviously criticised, like another case of police killing a black man, that that could enrage tempers much more than by acknowledging the tragedy? By not stating that another police killing of a black man has taken place, it could easily be interpreted as the governor not caring or disapproving of the killing, and that would send a much, much, much worse signal and actually be effective at inflaming tempers.

And isn't it also the governor's job, no, his responsibility, to address severe misconduct among authorities, to signal that this is being taken seriously and that actions will be taken? Especially at a time when accusations of systemic racism is being raised against the US police forces and authorities in general.

You also seem to be all over the place in your argumentation, Ace; initially you kept focusing on the "not knowing all facts" argument but seem to have abandoned that approach by now; you have also tried to make a civil rights argument stick, although that also seems to have been abandoned; and then there is the "politicised tweet", the "advocating for peace" argument which is also only half-baked since you seem to refrain from accepting that advocating for peace is not the sole job of a governor but also addressing wrongs in society and taking responsibility as top chief, nor that you haven't made it clear who on earth would be divided by the governor's tweet. In summary, you seem to be very eager to defend the police but haven't really found an effective way of doing it, so you just brainstorm some arguments and throw them out hoping something will eventually stick.

[Ace Nova]

20 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

According to you, civil rights means that police who shoot people seven times in the back should not be criticised from the governor for shooting someone seven times in the back. I disagree.

Nope.

The beauty of free speech is that people can criticize someone for shooting another person in the back all they want.  Personally, I do as well, to an extent but I won't form a complete conclusion until all the facts of the case are brought forward in a court of law; because I believe in "due process" aka "civil rights".

I don't think it's wise for a governor to play "judge, jury and executioner" without knowing all the facts and his initial tweet seemed to do that UNTIL he amended it and added an additional half dozen or so tweets that helped "clarify" his tweets.

 The fact that he amended it and then further explained his tweet means that the governor realized that his original tweet could have been "harmful".  He also realized that he should have also advocated for peace when he started tweeting about "peace" a few days later.   

[Ace Nova]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

How is tweeting that a policeman shot a black man seven times in the back the opposite of advocating for peace? Who will be outraged by such a tweet, except people who think police should be allowed to shoot people in the back? So are you saying that out of respect for such people that the governor shouldn't have correctly tweeting that the police had shot a black man seven times in the back? That the governor should placate people who are in favor of the police shooting black men in the back by not levying any criticism against the police?

Have you even thought that by not criticising something that should be obviously criticised, like another case of police killing a black man, that that could enrage tempers much more than by acknowledging the tragedy? By not stating that another police killing of a black man has taken place, it could easily be interpreted as the governor not caring or disapproving of the killing, and that would send a much, much, much worse signal and actually be effective at inflaming tempers.

And isn't it also the governor's job, no, his responsibility, to address severe misconduct among authorities, to signal that this is being taken seriously and that actions will be taken? Especially at a time when accusations of systemic racism is being raised against the US police forces and authorities in general.

You also seem to be all over the place in your argumentation, Ace; initially you kept focusing on the "not knowing all facts" argument but seem to have abandoned that approach by now; you have also tried to make a civil rights argument stick, although that also seems to have been abandoned; and then there is the "politicised tweet", the "advocating for peace" argument which is also only half-baked since you seem to refrain from accepting that advocating for peace is not the sole job of a governor but also addressing wrongs in society and taking responsibility as top chief, nor that you haven't made it clear who on earth would be divided by the governor's tweet. In summary, you seem to be very eager to defend the police but haven't really found an effective way of doing it, so you just brainstorm some arguments and throw them out hoping something will eventually stick.

I addressed most of this in my post above. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

Nope.

The beauty of free speech is that people can criticize someone for shooting another person in the back all they want.  Personally, I do as well, to an extent but I won't form a complete conclusion until all the facts of the case are brought forward in a court of law; because I believe in "due process" aka "civil rights".

But the governor didn't pass sentence, he described what had happened. Pointing out that a police man has shot a black man seven times in the band when indeed a police man had shot a black man seven times in the back, is not a violation of said police man's "civil rights" nor is it a violation of any due process  It is a factual description of an event. If, on the other hand, the governor had tweeted, "A police man murdered a black man and will be sentenced to 20 years in prison" that would be passing sentence and be a violation of legal due process, and a violation of the police man's civil rights which means that he is entitled to a proper legal process.

5 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I don't think it's wise for a governor to play "judge, jury and executioner" without knowing all the facts

Again, what facts would change the reality that a police man shot a black man seven times in the back? Come on, Ace, what facts would make this acceptable? And it is the "shooting someone seven times in the back" that is being discussed. 

[Ace Nova]

1 hour ago, Padme said:

Really? I thought Trump won in 2016 because he was going to get rid of NAFTA and bring back jobs  to the U.S. Something that never happened by the way

That was a tongue in cheek comment...hence the  after the comment.  There could likely be a half dozen or more theories as to why he won in 2016.  Pretty sure the Clinton campaign is still trying to figure it out. 

[Ace Nova]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But the governor didn't pass sentence, he described what had happened. Pointing out that a police man has shot a black man seven times in the band when indeed a police man had shot a black man seven times in the back, is not a violation of said police man's "civil rights" nor is it a violation of any due process  It is a factual description of an event. If, on the other hand, the governor had tweeted, "A police man murdered a black man and will be sentenced to 20 years in prison" that would be passing sentence and be a violation of legal due process, and a violation of the police man's civil rights which means that he is entitled to a proper legal process.

Again, what facts would change the reality that a police man shot a black man seven times in the back? Come on, Ace, what facts would make this acceptable? And it is the "shooting someone seven times in the back" that is being discussed. 

How much whiskey did you put in your coffee this morning?  Your post is conflating entirely separate arguments.  And most of it is arguing with this guy....

 

Let me know when he disagrees with you and I'll come back and help him out.  

[Ace Nova]

19 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, what facts would change the reality that a police man shot a black man seven times in the back? Come on, Ace, what facts would make this acceptable? And it is the "shooting someone seven times in the back" that is being discussed. 

I'll humor you since you appear to be looking for entertainment.

Had the guy just raped the lady (he was a convicted felon sex offender) and had he yelled, "I'm going to get my gun that's in my front seat and then I'm going to shoot you all"  and then proceeded to reach into his vehicle...yep, that would likely do it.   

And just about any law enforcement agency in the world would take drastic measures in a situation like that, regardless of race.

The governor had no idea if something like what I described above happened before making his initial tweet. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Ace Nova

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I'll humor you since you appear to be looking for entertainment.

Had the guy just raped the lady (he was a convicted felon sex offender) and had he yelled, "I'm going to get my gun that's in my front seat and then I'm going to shoot you all"  and then proceeded to reach into his vehicle...yep, that would likely do it.   

I completely disagree. It is still entirely wrong for a police man to shoot someone in the back seven times even if a) the man claims to be about to get his hands on a gun, and b) the man has just raped someone. The police should not shoot to kill someone simply because said person threatens to shoot them, and the police should not shoot someone as punishment for crimes committed. If, on the other hand, the man did indeed get his hand son a gun and started to turn around, would the police shooting be possibly justified. As it was, it wasn't, he was about to enter the car when he was shot seven times in the back. And the rape is entirely irrelevant.

[Len Cnut]

4 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I don't know if you missed my post where I criticized the authorities for being hands off, the Rambo's for trying to take their place, and the rioters for burning and attacking people?

You leave Rambo out of this, John was a good man!

[Ace Nova]

24 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I completely disagree. It is still entirely wrong for a police man to shoot someone in the back seven times even if a) the man claims to be about to get his hands on a gun, and b) the man has just raped someone. The police should not shoot to kill someone simply because said person threatens to shoot them, and the police should not shoot someone as punishment for crimes committed. If, on the other hand, the man did indeed get his hand son a gun and started to turn around, would the police shooting be possibly justified. As it was, it wasn't, he was about to enter the car when he was shot seven times in the back. And the rape is entirely irrelevant.

Ok.  I don't necessarily agree but I understand your point.

He had his children in the car.  What if he said, "he was going to get his gun in the front seat and then he was going to shoot the children in his car"?

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Ace Nova