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

[Coniferous]

Which just seems like apologism for fascism.

I can oppose antifa's choices when members engage in violence while recognizing that their objectives are completely defensible and laudable.

Not so much the white supremacist neo-fascist terrorists like the Proud Boys, who we know Rittenhouse was buddy-buddy with.

- - - Updated - - -



Killing two people and trying to kill two more and then "going home" is precisely the problem.

"Across state lines" makes it super clear that the Antioch PD he eventually turned himself in to was not remotely the closest or most appropriate one to go to. It doesn't even have jurisdiction. Which is why they had to call Kenosha PD to come get him, once he did. And, somehow, they weren't too busy with the protests to do so.

Like, leaving the scene of the crime is literally the difference between a tragic traffic accident claiming the life of a pedestrian, and a hit-and-run homicide that will likely be treated as manslaughter. Just the act of leaving the scene of the homicide creates criminal liability, by demonstrating mens rea. You could maybe argue that Rittenhouse felt it wasn't safe, but that excuse ends once he's at the police line, and his actions from there are equivalent to a hit-and-run in this.

Nobody's suggesting his crimes were worse because he crossed state lines when he left. They're using that to point out his voluntarily leaving the scene and not turning himself in to police as he was legally obliged to do.

I really don’t even know anything about the proud boys so I’m not trying to make an equivalence here, but sometimes, what you view as a “moral center” I view as people violently focused on the wrong thing.

The whole movement has become focused on finding racist bogeymen instead of anything systemic, like zoning laws or schools. I live near towns dotted with Black Lives Matter signs, full of people who are quick to join a candlelit protest for blm but just as quick to descend in droves on the statehouse if anyone tries to integrate schools.

It feels like people want to find an easy answer like “the cops are all racist and killing people” and it’s easy to support that argument when all you have to do is find 3-4 cases a year among millions of arrests, then darkly say “and these are just the ones we know about!”

See the nice thing about saying the problem is the proud boys or racist cops is it doesn’t require introspection, particularly by a liberal movement that has complete failed to accomplish any meaningful change in the blue states it controls. There are no proud boys in my town/state. The democrats have been in control forever. Black student test scores are just as low as they were a decade ago, and segregation is worse.

Then here’s where I’m going to get really controversial - a “moral center” doesn’t matter if the actions you take a counterproductive.

[Endus]

I really don’t even know anything about the proud boys so I’m not trying to make an equivalence here, but sometimes, what you view as a “moral center” I view as people violently focused on the wrong thing.

The whole movement has become focused on finding racist bogeymen instead of anything systemic, like zoning laws or schools.

I'm not sure why you think zoning or schools are major fascist movements currently.

Antifa are anti-fascists. That's where their focus is. Opposing fascism.

It feels like people want to find an easy answer like “the cops are all racist and killing people” and it’s easy to support that argument when all you have to do is find 3-4 cases a year among millions of arrests, then darkly say “and these are just the ones we know about!”

Man, it isn't 3-4 cases a year. That's just bullshit, and you know it. It's a major systemic issue affecting most PDs in the USA.

See the nice thing about saying the problem is the proud boys or racist cops is it doesn’t require introspection, particularly by a liberal movement that has complete failed to accomplish any meaningful change in the blue states it controls. There are no proud boys in my town/state. The democrats have been in control forever. Black student test scores are just as low as they were a decade ago, and segregation is worse.

Hard to talk about that when you're not revealing your location. You can make any kind of shit up when your location isn't given, and there's no way for anyone to debunk it, not without looking through data for literally every single town in the entire USA, which isn't something anyone's gonna do.

No specifics, and I have no reason to take the account seriously.

Also, let's be clear; Democrats are not progressive, as a whole. They're a center-to-center-right party. And yes, have been contributors to racial inequalities for decades. That said, the only positive movement on equity issues in the last 60 years or so has come from Democrats. It may be half-assed, but the Republicans are actively trying to turn that dial backwards.

[draynay]

How do you breathe with your head buried in the sand?

[Coniferous]

I'm not sure why you think zoning or schools are major fascist movements currently.

Antifa are anti-fascists. That's where their focus is. Opposing fascism.



Man, it isn't 3-4 cases a year. That's just bullshit, and you know it. It's a major systemic issue affecting most PDs in the USA.



Hard to talk about that when you're not revealing your location. You can make any kind of shit up when your location isn't given, and there's no way for anyone to debunk it, not without looking through data for literally every single town in the entire USA, which isn't something anyone's gonna do.

No specifics, and I have no reason to take the account seriously.

I mean, the proud boys claim they aren’t racist. Antifa is just stirring up shit to make themselves feel good.

Pretend I live in NYC. Or California. Or Seattle. It doesn’t really matter the results are the same everywhere.

[Endus]

I mean, the proud boys claim they aren’t racist.

They're a white supremacist terrorist group.

Why the fuck would you play defense for them?

Antifa is just stirring up shit to make themselves feel good.

Nah.

Pretend I live in NYC. Or California. Or Seattle. It doesn’t really matter the results are the same everywhere.

No, it matters, because when you live in Anywhere, Anystate, data can't be brought forth to test your claims. You can say all kinds of crazy shit and there's no way to fact-check it. We can't confirm or deny it, which means it's no different than something you made up, and it's not a basis for any discussion.

This isn't an attack. I'm not claiming you are making it up. But if you don't have specifics, you don't have an argument. If you want a response that deals with what you're trying to get across, you need to have specifics that can be examined, because without that, it's just you saying a thing, and I can counter it completely by just saying "nah". Then we both have the same merit behind our arguments. I'd like to get into those details and actually consider your point, but your vagueness means there's no argument to debate.

[Coniferous]

They're a white supremacist terrorist group.

Why the fuck would you play defense for them?



Nah.



No, it matters, because when you live in Anywhere, Anystate, data can't be brought forth to test your claims. You can say all kinds of crazy shit and there's no way to fact-check it. We can't confirm or deny it, which means it's no different than something you made up, and it's not a basis for any discussion.

This isn't an attack. I'm not claiming you are making it up. But if you don't have specifics, you don't have an argument. If you want a response that deals with what you're trying to get across, you need to have specifics that can be examined, because without that, it's just you saying a thing, and I can counter it completely by just saying "nah". Then we both have the same merit behind our arguments. I'd like to get into those details and actually consider your point, but your vagueness means there's no argument to debate.

Oh here we go... no, I'm not defending the Proud Boys. Stop it - I know it's all about the "gotcha" adrenaline rush, but maybe try to actually understand. I know you're smarter than that. Please try again. I'm saying something very simple - that the label a group uses doesn't necessarily indicate what they are. Calling your group "anti-fascist" doesn't necessarily mean that's what they are. I was saying that the proud boys are claiming they aren't racist, and they obviously are.

For specifics - no I'm not going to give you my town, but let's use NYC. They spend something like 27k a student in schools - extremely well funded. Their public schools are terrible. They have had mostly democrat mayors for a long time, except Bloomberg who later became a democrat. There's no housing. Public college options are getting worse every year.

[Machismo]

I'm curious as to whose burner this is. It's lasted longer than most.

[Zeth Hawkins]

I just want to point out, again, the Proud Boys are a listed domestic terrorist organization.

Where are you seeing that? I'm not finding anything on the FBI or DHS giving the Proud Boys that designation.

No, it matters, because when you live in Anywhere, Anystate, data can't be brought forth to test your claims. You can say all kinds of crazy shit and there's no way to fact-check it. We can't confirm or deny it, which means it's no different than something you made up, and it's not a basis for any discussion.

You are not entitled to someone's personal information.

[Endus]

For specifics - no I'm not going to give you my town, but let's use NYC. They spend something like 27k a student in schools - extremely well funded. Their public schools are terrible. They have had mostly democrat mayors for a long time, except Bloomberg who later became a democrat. There's no housing. Public college options are getting worse every year.

And?

Where did I ever claim the Democrats run everything perfectly? The Democrats are mostly frickin' awful, man. I have no idea where you got the impression that I'm a fan.

They're the moldy peanut butter and bubblegum sandwich, to the Republicans' literal pile of steaming shit. If I had to pick which to eat, yeah, there's an obvious front-runner, but it's a terrible set of options.

I'm more interested in you making the case for Democrats being pro-segregation. I see now you probably meant the soft segregration of zoning policies and the like, but we're delving back into demographic processes that were set in place 60+ years ago and which continue to have negative impacts in an ongoing sense, and I don't think it's fair to direct that solely to modern Democrats.

Where are you seeing that? I'm not finding anything on the FBI or DHS giving the Proud Boys that designation.

Fun fact; the USA is not the only country in the world.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/n...ts-en.aspx#510

You are not entitled to someone's personal information.

Literally never claimed nor suggested I was.

Just that vague statements that contain no specifics aren't falsifiable; they may as well just be made up, because there's no way to confirm or dispute any of it.

Coniferous could pick a specific location and rephrase, regardless of whether they live there or not. I don't really care. Until they get into some specifics, though, they haven't actually made any meaningful statement. Just a generic "somewhere, something might be true, but there's no way to tell". Which is useless.

[Gorsameth]

It's an article that presents a lot of sides to the argument. Here's a quote that actually accurately summarizes what the article is about, unlike the quote you picked:

"Several legal experts contacted by NPR differed on the expected outcome, but most thought Rittenhouse is likely to be acquitted on the most serious charges."

You, predictably, picked the one that supports you and ran with it. You guys are tiresome.

Here's another interesting article that basically summarizes the legal argument:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...zn4-story.html

What's interesting is that it was written a week after the actual events. By that time, the outline of the case was pretty well known. All this time, all the witnesses, all the video, and it's still a pretty simple case - was it self defense or not? Rosenbaum was running at him, was that enough provocation?

- - - Updated - - -



Are you saying it's somehow important for determining his innocence or his guilt? That it proves something about his state of mind? That's an incredible stretch.

Yes he may be acquitted, because the US legal system is insane. not because he is innocent.

[Adamas102]

Maybe so. I'm not clear on how "doing something legal but idiotic" before the actual event of the potential crime relates to your right to self defense. He wasn't breaking any laws. Legal experts seem to disagree on that - in the article I linked above one said the case comes down to what happened in three seconds, the other said basically what you did. But maybe it makes him guilty of a much lesser charge. To use a (maybe bad) analogy - let's say you're a terrible skier and you go down a double black diamond, lose control, and knock another skier into a tree - did you just commit manslaughter? Another edit: apparently Colorado sees this as worthy of a 3 month jail sentence: https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94239&page=1.

According to Wisconsin law, that's exactly the case. It doesn't matter if you were acting lawfully, if you provoke an attack with intent to use deadly force in response then you are not entitled to claim self defense. Remember, Wisconsin is not a "stand your ground" state.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
2c: A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

That's why it matters WHY Rittenhouse was out there. Wisconsin law also doesn't allow you to use lethal force for the purpose of defending property unless you're in your own home (Castle Doctrine state). His best defense would be that he was there to intimidate and dissuade lawlessness, but he wouldn't have needed a loaded gun for that. He left his home state, armed himself with a loaded weapon, and went out prowling the streets during a protest. Those actions strongly suggest that he was fully prepared to use deadly force in a situation of his own making. I would certainly count that as provocation with intent to kill or do great bodily harm and therefore NOT entitled to claim self defense.

[Coniferous]

I'm more interested in you making the case for Democrats being pro-segregation. I see now you probably meant the soft segregration of zoning policies and the like, but we're delving back into demographic processes that were set in place 60+ years ago and which continue to have negative impacts in an ongoing sense, and I don't think it's fair to direct that solely to modern Democrats.

They're anti-segregation in theory, but in practice their education policies have created more segregation. Urban schools are a disaster in this country because they are asked to reach impossible objectives instead of taking a more realistic approach. Schools are focused on trying to get everyone to college, and that's just not a realistic goal for most urban systems, so what ends up happening is the whole system becomes bad as they try to get every student to the same level of achievement. This leads wealthy people to leave. For example, in New York, Di Blasio just dismantled the gifted and talented program for younger students and he's changed admission criteria for the high performing high schools. These policies lead the wealthy to move away or send their students to private schools.

https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla....rt-placeholder

The entire landscape of most urban areas is defined by school districting, and how certain schools give students opportunity to do well, and others don't.

And it's not racism. If you're a parent, and you have done a lot of work to prepare your kid for schools (which many parents do well before kindergarten), why would you choose to send your kid to a school where he/she is going to be in a classroom with a large number of functionally illiterate students, where the teacher is tasked with trying to achieve equality of outcome so your child gets ignored, when you can just send them to private school or move to a suburb and have them receive appropriate instruction? This becomes a self reinforcing cycle that means there's no high achievers left in the cities.

- - - Updated - - -

According to Wisconsin law, that's exactly the case. It doesn't matter if you were acting lawfully, if you provoke an attack with intent to use deadly force in response then you are not entitled to claim self defense. Remember, Wisconsin is not a "stand your ground" state.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
2c: A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

That's why it matters WHY Rittenhouse was out there. Wisconsin law also doesn't allow you to use lethal force for the purpose of defending property unless you're in your own home (Castle Doctrine state). His best defense would be that he was there to intimidate and dissuade lawlessness, but he wouldn't have needed a loaded gun for that. He left his home state, armed himself with a loaded weapon, and went out prowling the streets during a protest. Those actions strongly suggest that he was fully prepared to use deadly force in a situation of his own making. I would certainly count that as provocation with intent to kill or do great bodily harm and therefore NOT entitled to claim self defense.

The argument there is that simply holding a gun provokes an attack, and then we get into the illogical nature of gun laws. If holding a gun is enough to provoke an attack, why would guns be legal?

[Endus]

They're anti-segregation in theory, but in practice their education policies have created more segregation. Urban schools are a disaster in this country because they are asked to reach impossible objectives instead of taking a more realistic approach. Schools are focused on trying to get everyone to college, and that's just not a realistic goal for most urban systems, so what ends up happening is the whole system becomes bad as they try to get every student to the same level of achievement. This leads wealthy people to leave. For example, in New York, Di Blasio just dismantled the gifted and talented program for younger students and he's changed admission criteria for the high performing schools. These policies lead the wealthy to move away or send their students to private schools.

https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla....rt-placeholder

I mean, the report's basically confirming what I said. The issue in NYC is not really modern policy, it's a demographic history dating back 70+ years. There's still deep racial divides in the boroughs in terms of population distribution, not because it's been enforced to be that way, but because it was enforced that way 60+ years ago, and there simply hasn't been time for that to change much. It's hard to force people to move, particularly when you're inevitably targeting some of these minority groups who already feel disadvantaged (and not just to move them to "better" neighbourhoods, but to create room for families of more diverse backgrounds to move in). It's a shitty situation, but it isn't the creation of today's Democratic leadership, it isn't going to be solved quickly or easily, and NYC has a long history of attempts to fix it which, for one reason or another, didn't work out.

I understand the way they're using "segregation", but that word carries connotations of policy-level segregation, and that's not what's happening; there are not schools designated as "whites only" or "blacks only" or something. It's a demographic outcome where the surrounding neighbourhood(s) that feed that school are themselves not ethnically diverse, due to decisions made generations ago. It's particularly tricky because the only real way to seriously address this involves forcing people out of the communities they've lived in for generations. I could make points about much broader reforms that schools would benefit from, but we're going to get into topics that are not relevant to this thread and which basically no school system in the USA supports, like specializing schools and funding them at the municipal level, not the local level (so every school in the city gets the same funding per student, unlike the standard which sees schools in wealthy suburbia getting much better funding than inner-city schools).

And to repeat; I'm not a Democrat supporter. They've been dragging their asses, too. But that's better than being directly regressive.

[Adamas102]

The argument there is that simply holding a gun provokes an attack, and then we get into the illogical nature of gun laws. If holding a gun is enough to provoke an attack, why would guns be legal?

No! That's not the argument. The argument is that attending a protest with a loaded weapon when you have no legal authority to defend someone else's property with that weapon is considered intimidation and therefore provocation. Again, the circumstances matter. There's a big difference between open carrying on the way to work and open carrying in a state you don't live in for the sole purpose of intimidation.

[Egomaniac]

I'm curious as to whose burner this is. It's lasted longer than most.

Seems like Kraken to me.

[Coniferous]

And to repeat; I'm not a Democrat supporter. They've been dragging their asses, too. But that's better than being directly regressive.

I think this is where we differ. My argument is they've been dragging their asses because they are unrealistic and focused on the wrong things, like finding 5 or whatever cop shootings a year that went bad (which alienates a lot of people), or arguing that if only the teacher was good enough, every student can go to college (which is an approach doomed to fail 100% of the time). So I see things like the focus on Rittenhouse as a part of the cause of their failure.

- - - Updated - - -

No! That's not the argument. The argument is that attending a protest with a loaded weapon when you have no legal authority to defend someone else's property with that weapon is considered intimidation and therefore provocation. Again, the circumstances matter. There's a big difference between open carrying on the way to work and open carrying in a state you don't live in for the sole purpose of intimidation.

I don't see how holding a gun directly provokes an attack. Sure, it escalates the situation, but the intent is usually to deter attackers - at least that's how at least some members of the jury are going to see it.

[Endus]

I think this is where we differ. My argument is they've been dragging their asses because they are unrealistic and focused on the wrong things, like finding 5 or whatever cop shootings a year that went bad (which alienates a lot of people), or arguing that if only the teacher was good enough, every student can go to college (which is an approach doomed to fail 100% of the time). So I see things like the focus on Rittenhouse as a part of the cause of their failure.

What "focus on Rittenhouse"? Nobody's really talking about him politically outside the court system, which is prosecuting this like any other multiple homicide.

And again; it's way fucking more than 5 bad police shootings a year.

Edit: Also that you're apparently more worried about the alienation caused by recognizing the many unjustified shootings of primarily non-white people, rather than the alienation caused by the shootings themselves.

[Elegiac]

I think this is where we differ. My argument is they've been dragging their asses because they are unrealistic and focused on the wrong things, like finding 5 or whatever cop shootings a year that went bad (which alienates a lot of people)

So, you dispute that there is in fact systemic bias in the justice system and that police brutality is a problem in America I guess?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see how holding a gun directly provokes an attack. Sure, it escalates the situation, but the intent is usually to deter attackers - at least that's how at least some members of the jury are going to see it.

A reasonable person is going to assume that a lethal weapon being pointed at them is a threat to their life.

Not everyone is a small dicked 2A nut, y'all.

[Adamas102]

I don't see how holding a gun directly provokes an attack. Sure, it escalates the situation, but the intent is usually to deter attackers - at least that's how at least some members of the jury are going to see it.

Dude, I don't know why you're being so dense about this. It's not JUST "holding a gun". Attending a protest in order to intimidate people while carrying a loaded gun is provocative.

[Xyonai]

Dude, I don't know why you're being so dense about this. It's not JUST "holding a gun". Attending a protest in order to intimidate people while carrying a loaded gun is provocative.

Well when Rittenhouse gets acquitted, I hope this means we'll have more Protesters arming themselves to protect against the emboldened vigilantes who're going to materialize at future protests thinking they can get away with shooting 'Communist Pedophiles'.

Not that I'm advocating for simply shoving more guns at the problem, but you gotta use the tools you have and better for people to protect themselves than not. As was the case during the Portlant protests earlier this year when deranged proud boy fucknuts decided it'd be fun to just start attacking people and the police did fuckin' jack shit about it.