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

[downnola]

Protests are calculated endeavors used to entice an emotional response when a group lacks enough general support to change a law. A protest can be performed within the protection of the law.

I love your completely uncharitable definition of what a protest is. The simple answer is that a protest is a function of the first amendment and is used to raise awareness to issues that need to be discussed or addressed. The important bit of all that is that protesting is a right enshrined in the constitution, and chucking tear gas to break up crowds of protestors should invoke the same response from you that an Assault Weapon ban would.

[Elegiac]

I love your completely uncharitable definition of what a protest is. The simple answer is that a protest is a function of the first amendment and is used to raise awareness to issues that need to be discussed or addressed. The important bit of all that is that protesting is a right enshrined in the constitution, and chucking tear gas to break up crowds of protestors should invoke the same response from you that an Assault Weapon ban would.

But it doesn't, because again - the people being harmed by this policies are largely young, urban BIPOC and women, not people Republicans consider to have social value.

Whereas an assault weapons ban would disproportionately impact a certain demographic. I hesitate to even call it "closet" white supremacy.

[Kellhound]

The Holocaust was also legal. You've already lost the ethical argument, lol.



Yeah, maybe because that cause has to do with dismantling a system of judicial and legal injustice?

Who would have fucking thunk it?



This isn't a representative democracy, however, as you people keep insisting. This is a constitutional republic. So are a lot of tinpot dictatorships.

Also what the fuck do you think the point of the protests are? Lol.

Ethics are interpretive and far from universal. Hence why laws exist.

Then don't get butt hurt when the police respond exactly as you hoped they would.

Technically true, as the elected representatives are bound by laws and cannot remove constitutional rights on a whim. It is superior to a true democracy in most regards.

[Elegiac]

Ethics are interpretive and far from universal. Hence why laws exist.

We get that this is the argument used by people supporting legislation that facilitates humanitarian crises, thanks.

Then don't get butt hurt when the police respond exactly as you hoped they would.

Gonna bank this one for September when people try to argue the US didn't shoot itself in the foot with Al Qaeda, lol.

Technically true, as the elected representatives are bound by laws and cannot remove constitutional rights on a whim. It is superior to a true democracy in most regards.

Unless they damage federal property, insult the police, or overstay their visa while being Hispanic, in which case it's entirely fine to rescind those rights.

Y'all really think we've forgotten the talking points you lot have lobbed out ad nauseum since 9/11, huh?

[Elegiac]

that would only be positive... too many stupid people who put others in danger... people tested positively should not be allowed to leave their home at all unless it's to obtain medical attention...

Yes.

And the point is despite it being manifestly in the interest of public safety, not a single Republican would agree to it even if it was a lawful order being enforced by police, because they don't actually give a shit about authority, the rule of law, or whatever - as long as they personally aren't inconvenienced, it is never an issue.

It's just plain old hypocrisy.

[Noxx79]

Ethics are interpretive and far from universal. Hence why laws exist.

Then don't get butt hurt when the police respond exactly as you hoped they would.

Technically true, as the elected representatives are bound by laws and cannot remove constitutional rights on a whim. It is superior to a true democracy in most regards.

So the Holocaust was ok because it was legal.
Legalized racism was/is ok because it’s legal.

[Elegiac]

So the Holocaust was ok because it was legal.

And it happened under a constitutionally elected and legally empowered government, no less.

This is where these legalist arguments tend to break down and the biases supporting them get exposed, tbh. There's a reason cunts like Qin Shi Huang tend to be attracted to the philosophy.

[Kellhound]

You mean like you've been doing this entire thread. Retreating to "well it's legal" as a defense, regardless of the action.



And this is a nonsense strawman argument because people are explicitly not opposed to the idea of rule of law.

What they are opposed to is the form of law you support, that being a legal system that has in-groups it protects but doesn't bind (gun owners, racists, crony capitalists), and out-groups it binds but doesn't protect (protesters, resident aliens, and generally everyone else).

- - - Updated - - -



Sure seems like you're doing a lot of excusing for people that did an armed occupation of a federal building and resulting armed standoff with police versus...Let's see...

Unarmed people that spray painted mean things about the pigs on the side of one and lit a fire to the effect of chucking a fag into a wastepaper basket.

Yeah, we get where your priorities are. Fucking lol.

"Its legal" is a standard that can be proven, "its ethical" is one that cannot.

It still comes down to people believing they can ignore laws they don't like. I have no qualms with protesters breaking the law per say, it is when they cry about having to deal with the consequences that I lose all respect for them.

The form of law I support is one that treats everyone equal. Either you are breaking the law or you are not. The law is black and white, its application should be as well.

I would gladly let the protesters occupy the courthouse and have them contained in it with no actions taken against them until they surrendered.

[Noxx79]

"Its legal" is a standard that can be proven, "its ethical" is one that cannot.

It still comes down to people believing they can ignore laws they don't like. I have no qualms with protesters breaking the law per say, it is when they cry about having to deal with the consequences that I lose all respect for them.

The form of law I support is one that treats everyone equal. Either you are breaking the law or you are not. The law is black and white, its application should be as well.

I would gladly let the protesters occupy the courthouse and have them contained in it with no actions taken against them until they surrendered.

So you should be supporting the protestors, as the law treats cops differently than non-cops.

[Elegiac]

"Its legal" is a standard that can be proven, "its ethical" is one that cannot.

Lol, you fucking serious? Laws, abstract principles which are agreed upon by humans, can be proven whereas ethics, abstract principles which are agreed upon by humans, cannot? Rofl.

The only difference is that the former tends to be codified and is considered enforceable. Your argument seems to be that makes it more valid, which is nothing more than an extension of "might makes right".

And if that's the case, you lose any right to complain about disrespecting the law. Not that it was particularly present to begin with given aforementioned hypocrisy regarding the Bundy standoff and the Portland protests.

[Kellhound]

Yeah I mean there's totally no internal inconsistency between a milquetoast reaction to an actual armed occupation and standoff with federal officers because said occupiers happen to be mainly rural white Republican dudes with vocal Second Amendment inclinations, versus issuing continued snide and tacit support for brutalization of mostly peaceful protesters because they happen to be mostly urban BIPOC Democrats that say mean things about police. /s

- - - Updated - - -



Kinda missing the point when part of the motivations for protest has to do with "what is a lawful protest".

I'm not surprised by this shit you're posting, honestly. Open any history book about the 1960s outside of Texas and you see the exact same arguments being lobbied against Civil Rights advocates. Y'all aren't advocating "lawful protests" because you think there's an issue that needs to be fixed, you advocate "lawful protests" because the current ones (or any ones, really, don't think we forget how y'all behaved during the Women's March) are noisy and annoying. Or if they are within the bounds of the law, you immediately begin to bitch about their pointlessness - because again, the agenda is one of obstinate opposition to any form of political change because you personally are invested in the status quo.

Which is fine, just admit you're okay with benefiting from an unjust and racist system. And quite frankly I'm not sure where Oregon or Washington gets the money for keeping tone police on retainer but here we are, rofl.

My point is if you break the law while protesting, don't get butt hurt about the consequences because you should know its coming. If you are not willing to pay the price, don't break the law. The protests and riots do not affect me at all, I always avoid downtown Portland as much as possible.

- - - Updated - - -

Right... You don't see the problem with that statement?

If I wanted a law changed, be it minority or majority support, and the government didn't want to play ball; I am shit out of luck. Because if the government finds my protesting not to their wanting, they can easily revoke my protection of the law.

If you have majority support and the current elected leaders refuse to budge, vote in people that will. If you don't have majority support, then yes, you are shit out of luck.

- - - Updated - - -

No but you see if the cause is "valid" it would automatically have majority support and the government would just roll over as if the current occupant didn't lose the popular vote by 3 million people.

Because every level of government in the US is controlled by one man

[Howel]

If you have majority support and the current elected leaders refuse to budge, vote in people that will. If you don't have majority support, then yes, you are shit out of luck.

Several things.

How can I vote in people, if I haven't made my concerns heard loud enough? Sorry, but politicians are fucking snails to adapt policies, until people make very clear they want something. This voting in people, is not exactly a surefire way.

Secondly, majority in that kind of logic, is highly problematic. Being able to hold complete control over 49 % of the population, and ensuring their voice not be heard if it so suits you, goes back to the previous point, of getting a message across.

[Elegiac]

My point is if you break the law while protesting, don't get butt hurt about the consequences because you should know its coming. If you are not willing to pay the price, don't break the law. The protests and riots do not affect me at all, I always avoid downtown Portland as much as possible.

We get the point. You just keep trying to find ways to disagree when we correctly point out said point makes you a facile supporter of unrestricted authoritarianism because "the law".

Because every level of government in the US is controlled by one man

In the case of these gestapo - yes.

None of DHS's department heads have been Constitutionally confirmed. Or did you forget that little tidbit?

[muffinss]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/louisvill...shoots-himself

Gunshots erupted during a planned protest in Louisville, Ky., Saturday and three members of the heavily armed militia group, the “Not F---ing Around Coalition” (NFAC), were injured by shots fired from one of their own member's guns, police told Fox News.
The shooting took place near Baxter Square Park around 1 p.m. and all of the victims were transported to the University of Louisville Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, the Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) told Fox News.
Protesters ducked behind cars and scattered to flee the area, a reporter from WHAS11 wrote on Twitter.

One of the members of the NFAC spoke to throngs of protesters and said “we had a little accident, it happens,” the reporter said.

Earlier in the day, officers from the LMPD were on high alert, aware of the possibility of violence from highly armed militants dressed in all black -- many of whom are not from Kentucky -- claiming they are defending the Constitution and decrying the death of Breonna Taylor.

Other racial justice protesters who have staged peaceful marches daily since the death of Taylor in March faced off with NFAC militants, saying they don't agree with their tactics of displaying guns and weaponry.

The Louisville organization of Black Lives Matter has distanced itself from the coalition, accusing the armed group of being “outside agitators," WDRB reported.
Protesters from various groups have demanded justice for Taylor, a 26-year-old EMT who was shot eight times as officers burst into her home on Springfield Drive, firing off more than 20 rounds, as they were conducting a narcotics investigation on March 13

No drugs were found in the house.

[Kellhound]

I love your completely uncharitable definition of what a protest is. The simple answer is that a protest is a function of the first amendment and is used to raise awareness to issues that need to be discussed or addressed. The important bit of all that is that protesting is a right enshrined in the constitution, and chucking tear gas to break up crowds of protesters should invoke the same response from you that an Assault Weapon ban would.

I view politics in an uncharitable light generally, as it is either being used to keep power or to take power, and those in power only care about those who put them into power. Protesters want to have an issue addresses, but that does not mean it needs to be.

I do support the right to protest to a point. Once it becomes destructive or violent I no longer support it. I also take a dim view of protests interfering with the rights of others, especially when they are not directly involved.

[Elegiac]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/louisvill...shoots-himself

Lol, Faux News.

- - - Updated - - -

I view politics in an uncharitable light generally, as it is either being used to keep power or to take power, and those in power only care about those who put them into power. Protesters want to have an issue addresses, but that does not mean it needs to be.

I do support the right to protest to a point. Once it becomes destructive or violent I no longer support it. I also take a dim view of protests interfering with the rights of others, especially when they are not directly involved.

You can just say you're sufficiently privileged to be able to ignore politics. Like I'm not sure what your point is by repeatedly telling everyone how much you don't care and how much this doesn't affect you, besides some weird form of self-gratification at being humiliated on the internet for badly thought out legalistic arguments.

You do not have a stake in this affair. We get it. You don't care about it. We get it.

Like is the issue that you think you're more interesting than police brutality and think people should be talking about that instead? Lol.

[Kellhound]

We get that this is the argument used by people supporting legislation that facilitates humanitarian crises, thanks.



Gonna bank this one for September when people try to argue the US didn't shoot itself in the foot with Al Qaeda, lol.



Unless they damage federal property, insult the police, or overstay their visa while being Hispanic, in which case it's entirely fine to rescind those rights.

Y'all really think we've forgotten the talking points you lot have lobbed out ad nauseum since 9/11, huh?

I get it, you ethics are the only correct ethics and anyone who does not agree with you is unethical.

Damaging federal property and overstaying a visa are not legal nor are they protected by the Constitution.

[Elegiac]

I get it, you ethics are the only correct ethics and anyone who does not agree with you is unethical.

I tend to view people that violate the Golden Rule in such terms, yes.

If they want to act like people with the moral worldview of children then I shall treat them accordingly.

Damaging federal property and overstaying a visa are not legal nor are they protected by the Constitution.

Being arrested without a warrant and detained without trial, however, is explicitly protected against. And before you whip out the "illegals aren't protected by the Constitution" crap, you've just admitted that legal protections are worthless in a society where someone's identity as a person is a question of law.

Can I call you a royalist, going forward? Since you would have clearly been bitching about those filthy colonial upstarts in Boston.

[Howel]

Damaging federal property and overstaying a visa are not legal nor are they protected by the Constitution.

Problem is that it is not only, those who have damaged federal property that are getting hurt.

[Kellhound]

So the Holocaust was ok because it was legal.
Legalized racism was/is ok because it’s legal.

That obviously depends on your ethical views.