Another "I can't breath" death: Police Reform & Protests in the USA

[Mayhem]

I haven't seen anyone make this comparison, but given the abuse has lead to a multitude of deaths it's already worse than the rioting (which has so far apparently caused several deaths).

Just look at what is being talked about most of the time in this very thread.

I'm not sure - I'm not particularly one of those folks. There's an obvious case to be made about defending yourself from the riots though:

https://www.facebook.com/COLIONNOIR/..._fb_noscript=1

Not really, because the riots are a result of the system failing too many people. It is using a symptom to excuse a "treatment" that shouldn't even be needed if we'd get rid of the disease.

[Crissi]

Wrong. It wasn't police brutality, so I cannot be defending it because it doesn't exist in this case. For me to be defending it, I would have to claim it was police brutality and then say it was OK because she disobeyed an order. Not what I am doing at all. You are trying to claim it is police brutality so you can accuse me of defending it. Reality is I am not defending police brutality because it wasn't police brutality to begin with and the woman was an idiot for disobeying the order while the cop was an idiot for shooting at her. You are misusing the term.

Denying something as police brutality that is police brutality is defending it, dude. Normalising is a form of defense. you are NORMALISING police brutality

[Machismo]

Wrong. It wasn't police brutality, so I cannot be defending it because it doesn't exist in this case. For me to be defending it, I would have to claim it was police brutality and then say it was OK because she disobeyed an order. Not what I am doing at all. You are trying to claim it is police brutality so you can accuse me of defending it. Reality is I am not defending police brutality because it wasn't police brutality to begin with and the woman was an idiot for disobeying the order while the cop was an idiot for shooting at her. You are misusing the term.

The definition of the word disagrees with you.

"I'm not defending rape, I'm just pretending that rape isn't rape, and I'm blaming the victim for being raped."

[Kraenen]

Just look at what is being talked about most of the time in this very thread.

The thread is moving kinda fast, but I suspect you're inferring users that have a focus on the violence from the riots to the notion that the riots are worse than all of racism? (a couple quotes would just clear this up quick)

Not really, because the riots are a result of the system failing too many people. It is using a symptom to excuse a "treatment" that shouldn't even be needed if we'd get rid of the disease.

I'm not seeing how you get that from "the 2nd amendment is useful for when the riots come and threaten your life or livelihood".

Your statement is essentially bordering on the logic used to justify the riot police - they wouldn't have to do this if the rioters weren't violent. Which I don't want to assume you're intentionally making, but you should re-think the logic of your statement.

[Egomaniac]

Wrong. It wasn't police brutality, so I cannot be defending it because it doesn't exist in this case. For me to be defending it, I would have to claim it was police brutality and then say it was OK because she disobeyed an order. Not what I am doing at all. You are trying to claim it is police brutality so you can accuse me of defending it. Reality is I am not defending police brutality because it wasn't police brutality to begin with and the woman was an idiot for disobeying the order while the cop was an idiot for shooting at her. You are misusing the term.

Let me ask you a simple question

Was the use of force in this situation appropriate? I mean, you've said several times now that the officer should not have shot his weapon.

[rrayy]

nah, visual clues are evidence, dude. I haven't seen you provide a counterpoint to that, oiutside of "but we dun knoooooow".

and your "facts" haven't been facts, only your preconceived authoritarian beliefs. Otherwise you'd actually recognize police brutality instead of handwave it was "well thats not it. Also thats not it. Also if ytou only use 1 bullet its not it either"

Just admit you prefer authoritarianism. Its been evidently clear in your posts already

Wrong. They are evidence, but they are not concrete proof that your claims are fact. In fact, I don't have to prove anything because you are the one who has made clams, not me. I never declared what it was one way or the other. Basically you are making claims then tell me to prove you wrong. Burden of proof is on the accuser. You haven't proven anything.

I have no authoritarian beliefs. I stay strictly with the facts and what can be proved with said facts. What I don't do is declare things as facts so it fits the narrative I am running with. I also don't call something police brutality something that clearly is not. You are claiming it is automatically police brutality simply because the cop did it. You are recklessly throwing around the term and a complete lack of understanding of what true police brutality is. What happened to Floyd was police brutality. What happened to Rodney King was police brutality. Knocking someone to the ground or taking one shot is not. But your anti-police stance is clear as now anything they do, including breathing on a civilian, is now police brutality.

[Machismo]

Let me ask you a simple question

Was the use of force in this situation appropriate? I mean, you've said several times now that the officer should not have shot his weapon.

He doesn't realize it's a trap.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. They are evidence, but they are not concrete proof that your claims are fact. In fact, I don't have to prove anything because you are the one who has made clams, not me. I never declared what it was one way or the other. Basically you are making claims then tell me to prove you wrong. Burden of proof is on the accuser. You haven't proven anything.

I have no authoritarian beliefs. I stay strictly with the facts and what can be proved with said facts. What I don't do is declare things as facts so it fits the narrative I am running with. I also don't call something police brutality something that clearly is not. You are claiming it is automatically police brutality simply because the cop did it. You are recklessly throwing around the term and a complete lack of understanding of what true police brutality is. What happened to Floyd was police brutality. What happened to Rodney King was police brutality. Knocking someone to the ground or taking one shot is not. But your anti-police stance is clear as now anything they do, including breathing on a civilian, is now police brutality.

Great, let's see that evidence . So far, you have refused to provide any, and you've been called out more than a dozen times.

[Crissi]

Wrong. They are evidence, but they are not concrete proof that your claims are fact. In fact, I don't have to prove anything because you are the one who has made clams, not me. I never declared what it was one way or the other. Basically you are making claims then tell me to prove you wrong. Burden of proof is on the accuser. You haven't proven anything.

I have no authoritarian beliefs. I stay strictly with the facts and what can be proved with said facts. What I don't do is declare things as facts so it fits the narrative I am running with. I also don't call something police brutality something that clearly is not. You are claiming it is automatically police brutality simply because the cop did it. You are recklessly throwing around the term and a complete lack of understanding of what true police brutality is. What happened to Floyd was police brutality. What happened to Rodney King was police brutality. Knocking someone to the ground or taking one shot is not. But your anti-police stance is clear as now anything they do, including breathing on a civilian, is now police brutality.

you're basically being dishonest in a debate, dude. You need to describe why that area would fall under public safety if you're going to use the claim "but PUBLIC SAFETY" as a reason that people must follow their orders, of which I have seen no reason from you yet. You claimed firts, I described the video second, so stop being dishonest about everything.

Nah, you very clearly seem to fall on the authoritariam side of things if you're going to victim blame and normalize brutality, even in the face of a definition given to you. Your "facts" arent facts because you are disregarding everything that counters your points. and "taking one shot" isnt brutality? So getting shot in the eye isnt brutality because it was only one shot? If that flash bang had hit her, it wouldnt have been? You realize brutality is more than just overt violence, its alos undue force and harassment.

You are being a dishonest debater. All Im seeing is "I dun wanna clarify myself"

[Yuujin]

Wrong. It wasn't police brutality, so I cannot be defending it because it doesn't exist in this case. For me to be defending it, I would have to claim it was police brutality and then say it was OK because she disobeyed an order. Not what I am doing at all. You are trying to claim it is police brutality so you can accuse me of defending it. Reality is I am not defending police brutality because it wasn't police brutality to begin with and the woman was an idiot for disobeying the order while the cop was an idiot for shooting at her. You are misusing the term.

Police brutality or police violence is legally defined as a civil rights violation where officers exercise undue or excessive force against a civilian.

Imagine being so desperate to defend the actions of police that you imply firing rounds at a person because she was refusing orders to go inside for her own protection is not excessive or undue force.

You my friend might be a cuck for the police.

[Raetary]

Wrong. It wasn't police brutality, so I cannot be defending it because it doesn't exist in this case.

Police brutality is using an amount of force with regards to a civilian that is more than necessary.
In other words, using excessive and unnecessary force to assert power in a situation.

Them shooting at an unarmed group of civilians that did nothing but stand on their own property is, by definition, police brutality.

[Mayhem]

The thread is moving kinda fast, but I suspect you're inferring users that have a focus on the violence from the riots to the notion that the riots are worse than all of racism? (a couple quotes would just clear this up quick)

Not the time for doing that, sorry. It's just a minor complaint anyway.

I'm not seeing how you get that from "the 2nd amendment is useful for when the riots come and threaten your life or livelihood".

Your statement is essentially bordering on the logic used to justify the riot police - they wouldn't have to do this if the rioters weren't violent. Which I don't want to assume you're intentionally making, but you should re-think the logic of your statement.

No, they wouldn't have to do this if there was no reason for riots to break out. There is a reason for these riots and we should focus on that instead of using riots as an excuse for the need of the 2nd amendment.

The riot police are there because people might get violent during protests. Well get rid of the reason for people to protest and riot, not arm the riot police even further to a point where they look like an army unit patrolling in a warzone.

All of this is treating the symptoms, not the disease. That leads to worsening the situation. If nothing comes of this that actually fights the systematic abuse of power and racism, the next time protests turn into riots civilians will be better prepared to fight the police.

[melodramocracy]

I never said they can fire rounds at you to force you inside. In fact, I also said they never should have done it and were stupid to do it. But they have the legal ability to tell you to get inside for public safety reasons. She had 100% ability to prevent what happened. Nope she just had to get her footage. That is why I have no sympathy for her.

She had every right to be on her property during curfew. The troops that did this need to be prosecuted.

[rrayy]

Let me ask you a simple question

Was the use of force in this situation appropriate? I mean, you've said several times now that the officer should not have shot his weapon.

It is appropriate in the legal sense because she was told 10 times to go inside and refused, and it was only one shot which falls under reasonable use of force. But, he should have used better discretion and not shot so it is not a cut and dry, completely yes or completely no answer.

[Traveler Voltin]

if you are going to turn your protest into a riot then i cant side with your cause.

[rrayy]

She had every right to be on her property during curfew. The troops that did this need to be prosecuted.

She doesn't have right to disobey police commands. That is also a crime. Since it can easily fall under "reasonable use of force" and she clearly and repeatedly disobeyed the police command, no prosecutor with a brain will ever prosecute that. No way in hell you get a conviction out of it and it would be a complete waste of time.

[Crissi]

She doesn't have right to disobey police commands. That is also a crime. Since it can easily fall under "reasonable use of force" and she clearly and repeatedly disobeyed the police command, no prosecutor with a brain will ever prosecute that. No way in hell you get a conviction out of it and it would be a complete waste of time.

You do if the commands are unlawful. Where were the public safety issues that would have justified ignoring the curfew regulations?

say I live 10 miles away form the riots but still fall under the curfew. Does that mena, despite absence of riots, that I have to obey police commands that does not apply to me since my area is safe?

[Machismo]

It is appropriate in the legal sense because she was told 10 times to go inside and refused, and it was only one shot which falls under reasonable use of force. But, he should have used better discretion and not shot so it is not a cut and dry, completely yes or completely no answer.

Evidence, please.

By that logic, you'd find it reasonable if they had I stead ordered her to "Suck their dicks," and shot her if she refused.

After all, she didn't comply... right?

[Endus]

It is appropriate in the legal sense because she was told 10 times to go inside and refused

In no jurisdiction does "an officer told you to" constitute an automatic presumption that the officer's order was a lawful order and thus must be obeyed.

You're skipping directly past the argument and presuming the conclusion you're asked to make an effort to prove. It's dishonest, and you should know better, because this is basic shit.

and it was only one shot which falls under reasonable use of force.

It could only qualify as "reasonable use of force" if there was context that justified the use of that force.

A woman standing on her own porch in no way constitutes such context. Which, again, you're skipping right past trying to prove and just flatly assuming, because it's easier for you to just flatly make up bullshit than participate in an honest, reasoned discussion.

But, he should have used better discretion and not shot so it is not a cut and dry, completely yes or completely no answer.

This is where, even after spending your time making up bullshit to defend police brutality, you admit that you know you are wrong, and that the officer was not actually justified, meaning you know it's unreasonable use of force, and all the prior is a deliberate, intentional lie, meant to protect and defend that officer in his brutal assault on an innocent bystander.

[Inuyaki]

She doesn't have right to disobey police commands. That is also a crime.

You keep claiming that but still haven't produced a source for that.
Why would people believe your stupid claims, if you don't back them up?

[Raetary]

It is appropriate in the legal sense because she was told 10 times to go inside and refused, and it was only one shot which falls under reasonable use of force. But, he should have used better discretion and not shot so it is not a cut and dry, completely yes or completely no answer.

Good fuck.
No, shooting an unarmed civilian that poses no threat to anyone, regardless of whether it was 10 shots or just one, is not in any way shape or form a reasonable use of force.

In fact, there was no force needed whatsoever.