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

[Doctor Amadeus]

No one has said that reckless drivers shouldn't be stopped. This is a fantasy you have created to advance your pro-police state narrative.

We're saying that cops shouldn't assault and murder people. Not even alleged reckless drivers.

No but to stop wreckless driving means I want them killed?

No, I don’t but someone actively engaging in activities a danger to the lives of others certainly forfeits their right to safety when threatening the safety of others.

Because a reckless driver is engaging in a choice to endanger others. A person driving or walking across the street isn’t.

- - - Updated - - -

And if they really did need to make an arrest... well, they know where he lives and they have his car. It's a pretty simple matter to show up at his home with an arrest warrant.

This thread isn’t only about current events. In this case maybe your approach is prudent. In others maybe not.

Again we don’t have all the information or history here either.

[Endus]

No but you should I’m not ignorant even if you think I’m wrong because I disagree with you.

I do not agree with enabling criminals. The recent events are not what this entire thread is about.

Talking about "enabling criminals" when we're talking about limiting police immunities and requiring basic ethical standards for the profession is the "ignorance" in question, here. Nobody's talking about "enabling criminals". It's an argument you made up in your own head so you don't have to deal with our actual positions.

No but to stop wreckless driving means I want them killed?

No, I don’t but someone actively engaging in activities a danger to the lives of others certainly forfeits their right to safety when threatening the safety of others.

Absolutely fucking not. That's monstrously abusive. You're just arguing in favor of police abuse and violence, here.

That's how "inalienable rights" work. They can't be forfeited. Jesus wept, dude. One step away from "LITTERING DETECTED. ENGAGE KILL SQUAD."

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

No but to stop wreckless driving means I want them killed?

No, I don’t but someone actively engaging in activities a danger to the lives of others certainly forfeits their right to safety when threatening the safety of others.

Actually, no, they don't forfeit their right to safety. This is another fantasy you are making up to push a pro-police state agenda.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Talking about "enabling criminals" when we're talking about limiting police immunities and requiring basic ethical standards for the profession is the "ignorance" in question, here. Nobody's talking about "enabling criminals". It's an argument you made up in your own head so you don't have to deal with our actual positions.



Absolutely fucking not. That's monstrously abusive. You're just arguing in favor of police abuse and violence, here.

That's how "inalienable rights" work. They can't be forfeited. Jesus wept, dude. One step away from "LITTERING DETECTED. ENGAGE KILL SQUAD."

So you get to complain about being maligned and said to be enabling crime specifically which I have not said speaking generally.

But you’re ok accusing me because I disagree with you of advocating murder.

You basically just lost the argument.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This thread isn’t only about current events. In this case maybe your approach is prudent. In others maybe not.

Again we don’t have all the information or history here either.

We don't need the history. We have the videos. 5 cops murdered an unarmed man. There is no defense for that. Not even "but the cops that murdered him said he was a reckless driver.".

The dude could have raped and murdered every student on a bus (no one is alleging that he did that) and what happened to him in those videos would still be murder.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Actually, no, they don't forfeit their right to safety. This is another fantasy you are making up to push a pro-police state agenda.

No that’s reality. You making a choice, your problems aren’t suddenly everyone else’s.

The cops are responsible for the community the priority should be to them themselves then the person creating the threat and breaking the law.


You disagree OK. But I’d never want to live anywhere like that or support it.

Oversight means accountability it doesn’t mean everyone gets what they want especially people who choose to not give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

[Endus]

So you get to complain about being maligned and said to be enabling crime specifically which I have not said speaking generally.

I never claimed you were talking about me. Can you stick to what's actually being posted rather than the imaginary thread you wish this was?

But you’re ok accusing me because I disagree with you of advocating murder.

You literally just said that any citizen posing a risk to other people forfeited their rights to safety, which means the police are free to hurt or kill that citizen to stop them.

That's literally what you just said.

If you've got a problem with that, take it up with what you actually posted, because that's what you said, dude.

[Doctor Amadeus]

We don't need the history. We have the videos. 5 cops murdered an unarmed man. There is no defense for that. Not even "but the cops that murdered him said he was a reckless driver.".

The dude could have raped and murdered every student on a bus (no one is alleging that he did that) and what happened to him in those videos would still be murder.

I’m not saying that it’s not nor is this thread just about the recent incident.

Your tunnel vision not withstanding.


If you’re arguing that lethal force is never justified or that cops are always responsible for the outcomes of criminals making poor decisions I’ll also disagree with that.

[Endus]

If you’re arguing that lethal force is never justified or that cops are always responsible for the outcomes of criminals making poor decisions I’ll also disagree with that.

Again, trying to counter arguments literally no one made. I know straw men are easier targets, but it's not a reasonable approach to posting if you want to be taken remotely seriously.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I never claimed you were talking about me. Can you stick to what's actually being posted rather than the imaginary thread you wish this was?



You literally just said that any citizen posing a risk to other people forfeited their rights to safety, which means the police are free to hurt or kill that citizen to stop them.

That's literally what you just said.

If you've got a problem with that, take it up with what you actually posted, because that's what you said, dude.

No it doesn’t it means if the consequences of their actions leads to unfortunate circumstances that isn’t on the cops for doing their job.

Cops aren’t there to kill people. But if you’re there endangering the lives of everyone including your own. Their police priority is to the public and themselves in that order.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, trying to counter arguments literally no one made. I know straw men are easier targets, but it's not a reasonable approach to posting if you want to be taken remotely seriously.

I’m not interested in your personal opinions of me.

You disagree make a valid argument.

[Crissi]

No it doesn’t it means if the consequences of their actions leads to unfortunate circumstances that isn’t on the cops for doing their job.

Cops aren’t there to kill people. But if you’re there endangering the lives of everyone including your own. Their police priority is to the public and themselves in that order.

Actually the latter is a lie. the Supreme Court ruled Caops have no requirement to save civilians. Only to enforce laws. So they can watch a civilian get killed if they think they might get hurt trying to save them. see: Uvalde.

see also: Miami shootout where cops killed several civilians while trying to kill the perp.

[Endus]

No it doesn’t it means if the consequences of their actions leads to unfortunate circumstances that isn’t on the cops for doing their job.

Forfeiting your right to safety means your safety can be infringed without consequence, which means police can use whatever force they like to stop you. Including lethal force. Even for speeding.

That's what you argued. If that's not what you meant, admit you misspoke and try again.

Cops aren’t there to kill people. But if you’re there endangering the lives of everyone including your own. Their police priority is to the public and themselves in that order.

Fun fact; the people you're targeting for police harm are also part of the public you're saying should be protected.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I’m not saying that it’s not nor is this thread just about the recent incident.

This conversation is about this "recent incident."

If you’re arguing that lethal force is never justified or that cops are always responsible for the outcomes of criminals making poor decisions I’ll also disagree with that.

Nice Strawman.

I have never argued that lethal force is never justified. Nor am I arguing that cops are responsible for anyone else's actions.

Lethal Force was not justified here and the cops are responsible for their own actions. Their actions resulted in a man being murdered.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Forfeiting your right to safety means your safety can be infringed without consequence, which means police can use whatever force they like to stop you. Including lethal force. Even for speeding.

That's what you argued. If that's not what you meant, admit you misspoke and try again.



Fun fact; the people you're targeting for police harm are also part of the public you're saying should be protected.

Not at the expense of those they put in danger.

If your argument is they should. That's up to you

[Crissi]

Savage beating leading to death is a hell of a step up, huh.

I know in Texas, its almost always just a ticket uinless you're doing something pretty crazy. Going 15 over or accidentaly being over lines does not qualify.

[Orange Joe]

Because I don’t agreed with others to be popular or go with narratives I disagree with whether I like or dislike anyone.

Nah, it's because you like to speak before you even know what you are talking about. You are the textbook case of a ignorant person.

[Doctor Amadeus]

So no sort of standard order to beat the shit out of people doing seemingly nothing wrong to the point they die? Amazing.

So did it seem wrong before or when people who are struck by and killed by reckless drivers?

[Crissi]

Street Racing isnt going to be stopped by cops going HAM. Provide mroe legal avenues for racing, heavy fines, more obstcles that will cause a speeding car to get damaged but is fine for regular drivers and towing their expensive cars will tho. Even just reposessing the cars using civil forfeture, since street racers value their cars more than life.

Also, again, did you miss what I and Unified said about reckless mostly being a ticket thing? aka no excuse for cops going HULK SMASH.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So did it seem wrong before or when people who are struck by and killed by reckless drivers?

Put the strawman down. Literally no person has said "don't punish reckless drivers". We've just said "don't murder them"

This whole "Blame the Victim" tract you're on here is really disgusting.

[Crissi]

Put the strawman down. Literally no person has said "don't punish reckless drivers". We've just said "don't murder them"

This whole "Blame the Victim" tract you're on here is really disgusting.

He also seems to think reckless driving only encompasses the worst of driving, rtaher than simple things that are often subjective. Like crossing lines without signaling, crossing double yellow lines when passing, going 15 over, etc.