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

[Cizr]

Interesting choice of words from the guy that shot that Union Patriot guy in Portland

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v...n-self-defense

Vice has a nice interview about it. What ideology can do to a man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsDW...annel=VICENews

Damn what a nutjob. Thats what media and their fearmongering does to you.


"Every time I see a truck I think they are out to get me"

"It felt like beggining of a war"

"Had I not acted I am confident that my friend and I would have been killed" - how? was the victim armed and pointing weapon at them? Or did he felt like his life is in danger just because there was a guy near him ?

"that shot felt like the beggining of a war" - when he is the one who shot someone

[Cerilis]

Any factual evidence of your claim ?

Humor someone else, drone.

[Specialka]

Humor someone else, drone.

So you have none and therefore as an adult, you should refrain to make such bold claims without any kind of evidence since that makes you lose the little left of credibility you have.

[Voidwielder]

Kyle killed a rapist pederast and a habitual domestic abuser with a backlog so huge your eyes would water from reading it all.

This guy? Killed some random dude from who knows where with as far as we know, clean past.

One can only dream that to have his bullets find perfect targets as it was in Kyles case.
[Infraction]

[Draco-Onis]

Kyle killed a rapist pederast and a habitual domestic abuser with a backlog so huge your eyes would water from reading it all

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say these people are that, are you saying he knew that when he pulled the trigger? do we want a society where random vigilantes pull the trigger and we hope they are bad people? we have something called the justice system and last I checked we don't give the death penalty for every crime.

This guy? Killed some random dude from who knows where with as far as we know, clean past.

Right wing extremists groups are known for being good people /s

[KaPe]

Kyle killed a rapist pederast and a habitual domestic abuser with a backlog so huge your eyes would water from reading it all.

This guy? Killed some random dude from who knows where with as far as we know, clean past.

One can only dream that to have his bullets find perfect targets as it was in Kyles case.

This may seem shocking to you, but random people are not allowed to kill others, even criminals. Hell, if you'd broke into a prison and killed a hardened criminal with a death sentence, it would still be murder.

It might seem even more shocking that people who have already served their sentence are considered free, not merely "released into the streets so a random white boy can kill them" - while another dude sings their praise over the internet.

Vigilantes shooting people is not legal and victim's past does not matter.

[JohnBrown1917]

Its so obvious that the cops killed Reinoehl that i'm not even surprised that it happend. You gotta kill BLM protestors if you want to be arrested peacefully.




edit - But lol at that dude refering to himself as "I'm ANTIFA", who even does that?

[Coolthulhu]

When the alternative is that they pre-emptively shoot an innocent civilian, or step up use of force and kill someone unnecessarily?

Yes.

It isn't about wanting the officers to get hurt, it's that the alternative is worse.

Pre-emtively shoot a suspect who made a quick move - I don't know about you but had I been that cop I wouldn't have thought of that as something an innocent would do. I probably wouldn't have shot him in the back either, I'm a big fan of less-than-lethal means. What I know is that one is under extremely high stress in such situations, and the US police generally doesn't seem trained to adequately operate under that kind of stress.

No, I went with that because we were discussing Jacob Blake, and the suspicion he had a knife.

A single stab wound will kill you just as good as any bullets. Or many bullets. A staggering amount of cases demonstrate as much, including this one.

This has absolutely nothing to do with valuing anyone's life more, to begin with.

It has to do with acceptance of risk. Police accept a level of risk by taking the job.

It's the difference between a bystander choosing to jump in front of a bullet to save another, or using someone as a human shield without their consent. The first is noble. The latter is murder.

Oh, but it has absolutely everything to do with valuing anyone's life more the way you worded it. Acceptance of risk, ok. Oil rig workers accept a far more dangerous job than librarians, I hope we can agree on that. I also think that your argument is entirely based on the civilian vs. LE dichotomy (in which case I could change my example to a private security member vs. a librarian, both would be civilians).

Way to go binary here - either the police officer shoots or he gets shot. If that's the realm we're operating in, there's no way you can ever reach a compromise. Besides, there is always a risk. Even if they do shoot first, they can miss, the weapon might be jammed, the other guy is faster, etc. Once you decide to go that route, it's too late.

The point is, shooting someone should be the very last option, not something done "just in case". This is especially true when we do see that police can do that thing when dealing with white guys. Somehow, mouthing off to them and making "potentially threatening moves" does not lead to a bullet in the head. So clearly, they are capable of that - they simply choose not to.

I don't go "binary" at all, not even in my private setting, the first shells in my shotgun's tube are rubber shot/slugs, and I'm a big supporter of less-than-lethal alternatives and more training for the police. Using deadly force should be the very last option, I completely agree. What you have to realize is that under certain circumstances and with the lack of a proper training people tend to jump to that last option rather quickly. It's instinctual. Most of the LE training I've seen focuses around controlling that for a reason, as opposed to say, actual shooting practice.

First of all, yes, without question. Not even sure how its a question.

No one is saying anyone's life is worth more by their occupation....other than you. You think a cop's life is more important than anyone else/s, therefore they shouldn't;t be too cautious when it comes time to shoot someone.

Never said anything of the sort. It's all written here, I've never edited what I wrote. If you've been unable to understand what I wrote, well, that's not on me. Putting words in my mouth on the other hand is.

[DingDongKing]

How many examples exactly do you need to change your conclusion? Do you at least agree that anyone that does it does not have best US interests at heart?

Many clearly are interested defending in (or "excusing") riots as political points against Trump.

...just like the point you're repeating here. You say it doesn't justify it (that's arguable), but it is clearly enough to not outright condemn it. How many such protests did not turn to violence and looting so far?

As far as i see thing got far worse because of coronavirus and subsequent economic downturn that created a lot of tension all around the country - and a lot of people with nothing better to do. That's how they get current numbers. I don't think even Obama's soothing word would be able to change that reality, and it's not like "protests" weren't multi-month already under Obama either.

We have multi-week protests over Khabarovsk governor arrest still ongoing. Also peaceful. Because anything violent gets cracked down hard immediately.

1. Do I believe that people who defend rioting and looting don’t have the US’ best interests at heart? No. I believe there is a point of view where people can say enough is enough, nothing else is working. But here’s the thing; the percentage of people looting with just cause versus those looting to just create chaos is skewed towards the latter. Currently the peaceful protestors are doing that, protesting peacefully. The ones rioting and looting don’t care at all about social justice. They’re just doing it cause they want to make the most out of the opportunity. Also, there’s a whole load of right wing folk out there burning shit and looting. Look at the pro Trump crazies in Portland. Man is concerned about caravans from Mexico when domestic white nationalists are going bonkers. Good job, my man.

2. Here’s the issue; the US is not Russia. At this juncture, Russia is a one party state under a dictatorship. Ain’t nothing gonna change that. The protests against police brutality have gotten more commonplace because police brutality is just seen as acceptable and par for the course by the Trump administration. The protests would likely be even more in numbers were there no COVID. Under Obama in the second term there was half the issue there is now; tea party politics was on the rise and the Senate was controlled by the GOP. Ergo, gridlock on social justice. People can cry all they want, the GOP has blood on their hands.

[Bodakane]

P

Never said anything of the sort. It's all written here, I've never edited what I wrote. If you've been unable to understand what I wrote, well, that's not on me. Putting words in my mouth on the other hand is.

I made one conclusion in that post, and that was you feel a cop's life is more important than the life of someone from another occupation. You think because you didn't;t explicitly say those words verbatim, that it can;t possibly be true. That's the problem with you Trumpers....you have no comprehension that you can be X without saying exactly X.

Case in point, here's the post that lead me to that conclusion:

A couple of things: would you rather see an officer shot because he was overly cautious? You went for "I'd rather see an officer get stabbed" deliberately, as to avoid having to hypothesize dealing with someone reaching for a gun instead of a knife. Doesn't matter much because a knife will kill you just as easily at that distance. And then there's the underlined part. Would you claim that a librarian's life matters more as opposed to that of someone who works on an oil rig, because the latter volunteered for a more dangerous job?

You are literally making the argument that because a cop's job is dangerous they should be able to shoot to kill at the mere chance of a threat. You want them to be LESS cautious when deciding to kill someone. That is, absolutely, 100%, unequivocally saying a cops life is more important than whoever else they are about to shoot because of a possible threat that may or may not be real. I mean if a cop pulls over a teacher and the teacher goes into heir glovebox to get their papers and the cop thinks they may be going for a gun, you believe the cop as the right to shoot that person dead before there's confirmation of a threat. However, if say, a black teacher, gets pulled over and thinks the cop is going to kill them for being black you don't believe that teacher should pull out a gun and shoot the cop for a perceived but unconfirmed threat.

All you are doing is trying to justify cops killing black people by making wholly stupid and frankly anti Constitutional arguments. Its sad, weak, pathetic and you're not even really good at it.

[Shalcker]

1. Do I believe that people who defend rioting and looting don’t have the US’ best interests at heart? No. I believe there is a point of view where people can say enough is enough, nothing else is working.

That seems to be exact opposite of what you claimed initially:

1. No one with their head screwed on is defending anyone who’s rioting and looting. Not Biden. Not Harris. Not anyone in the Party. Not their voters who aren’t morons. Not anyone with the US’ best interests at heart.

But i agree, people can say "enough is enough" and go do something. I just don't think aimless riots (and looting) work toward change for the better, and supporting them is waste of energy that could be used in pursuit of actual change.

Perhaps that's the intent - to avoid real change while letting people blow off steam.

But here’s the thing; the percentage of people looting with just cause versus those looting to just create chaos is skewed towards the latter. Currently the peaceful protestors are doing that, protesting peacefully. The ones rioting and looting don’t care at all about social justice. They’re just doing it cause they want to make the most out of the opportunity. Also, there’s a whole load of right wing folk out there burning shit and looting. Look at the pro Trump crazies in Portland. Man is concerned about caravans from Mexico when domestic white nationalists are going bonkers. Good job, my man.

Looting/destruction and social justice are not mutually exclusive. Stalin robbed banks to finance revolutionary operations, and mentioned "in defense of looting" also makes arguments to that end.

But it helps if you have actual organization that can use it, and people who consider prison time for worthy cause as acceptable bargain. And such organizations and their leadership will undoubtedly get pursued quite strongly regardless of administration.

2. Here’s the issue; the US is not Russia. At this juncture, Russia is a one party state under a dictatorship. Ain’t nothing gonna change that.

That is oversimplification, and i think change is still possible. Both through violent and non-violent means.

The protests against police brutality have gotten more commonplace because police brutality is just seen as acceptable and par for the course by the Trump administration. The protests would likely be even more in numbers were there no COVID. Under Obama in the second term there was half the issue there is now; tea party politics was on the rise and the Senate was controlled by the GOP. Ergo, gridlock on social justice. People can cry all they want, the GOP has blood on their hands.

And so do Democrats.

Riots and police brutality are not GOP-exclusive, and federal government, as far as i understand it, does not have much sway in how local law enforcement operates on day-to-day level.

[DingDongKing]

That seems to be exact opposite of what you claimed initially:

That's my fault for typing too quickly on the response. I don't believe people who are defending looting/rioting have the US' best interests at heart.

However, I can see the rationale that some people have had enough and have thus gone off the reservation, resulting in looting. So they're not defending or justifying the action. it's still absolutely wrong and warrants prosecution, but there's a reason it's happening. It's still not right.

It's understanding of a situation vs agreement of the action.

But i agree, people can say "enough is enough" and go do something. I just don't think aimless riots (and looting) work toward change for the better, and supporting them is waste of energy that could be used in pursuit of actual change.

Perhaps that's the intent - to avoid real change while letting people blow off steam.

I think even if people say enough is enough, things shouldn't get to rioting and looting. And what I mean by that is there should be a mutual understanding that, 'hey, shit has gotten this bad, we need to do something to understand why and mitigate future issues.

And that's where the Government needs to get its shit together. Right from a local level to a national level. The problems have been ignored for ages.

Looting/destruction and social justice are not mutually exclusive. Stalin robbed banks to finance revolutionary operations, and mentioned "in defense of looting" also makes arguments to that end.

But it helps if you have actual organization that can use it, and people who consider prison time for worthy cause as acceptable bargain. And such organizations and their leadership will undoubtedly get pursued quite strongly regardless of administration.

Of course they're not mutually exclusive. Social justice can be implemented at the same time as looting/destruction. But in such a situation as now, were there social justice, the looting and destruction would have far less reason to exist.

Because a) the people who are looting and rioting to protest the Government (I disagree with their actions heavily) would not do so and b) the people acting in bad faith would not have an incendiary situation to take advantage of.

However, that would not stop white supremacist movements unless the Government worked with the FBI to clamp down on them.

It's not as clear cut. As to your second point, I offer no comment because I don't think looting or Robin Hood activities are justified.

But that's just me. Unless you're reclaiming what has been taken from you, but that's a different situation entirely.

That is oversimplification, and i think change is still possible. Both through violent and non-violent means.

That may well be true. I haven't looked into Russian politics enough to comment, but it looks pretty bad on the surface.

You have a dictator in charge...

And so do Democrats.

Riots and police brutality are not GOP-exclusive, and federal government, as far as i understand it, does not have much sway in how local law enforcement operates on day-to-day level.

Police brutality is not GOP exclusive, but they have enabled it by not acting and not punishing those responsible. The Democrats didn't go out of their way to spread disinformation about victims in order to smear them. That's a very GOP/Conservative tactic.

As far as Federal Government involvement is concerned, both Houses could easily work together in order to pass reform bills to facilitate change, if the GOP wanted to. And then you've got a President on top of that who just won't allow it. So yeah, GOP have blood on their hands big time.

[Themius]

Got to note that even revolutions that started as riots were soon taken over by forces with actual political agenda. Most started by people already having some kind of plan they enacted by violence, some change they wanted to create and actually were capable of achieving.

What do riots achieve so far?

Wait you mean blacks people fighting for equality just newly happened??

- - - Updated - - -

Its so obvious that the cops killed Reinoehl that i'm not even surprised that it happend. You gotta kill BLM protestors if you want to be arrested peacefully.




edit - But lol at that dude refering to himself as "I'm ANTIFA", who even does that?

Did you watch the interview... it was literally about being anti fascist...

- - - Updated - - -

I made one conclusion in that post, and that was you feel a cop's life is more important than the life of someone from another occupation. You think because you didn't;t explicitly say those words verbatim, that it can;t possibly be true. That's the problem with you Trumpers....you have no comprehension that you can be X without saying exactly X.

Case in point, here's the post that lead me to that conclusion:


You are literally making the argument that because a cop's job is dangerous they should be able to shoot to kill at the mere chance of a threat. You want them to be LESS cautious when deciding to kill someone. That is, absolutely, 100%, unequivocally saying a cops life is more important than whoever else they are about to shoot because of a possible threat that may or may not be real. I mean if a cop pulls over a teacher and the teacher goes into heir glovebox to get their papers and the cop thinks they may be going for a gun, you believe the cop as the right to shoot that person dead before there's confirmation of a threat. However, if say, a black teacher, gets pulled over and thinks the cop is going to kill them for being black you don't believe that teacher should pull out a gun and shoot the cop for a perceived but unconfirmed threat.

All you are doing is trying to justify cops killing black people by making wholly stupid and frankly anti Constitutional arguments. Its sad, weak, pathetic and you're not even really good at it.

And he sits here feeling all insulted that I said that libertarians are just republicans who tolerate minorities...

[JohnBrown1917]

Wait you mean blacks people fighting for equality just newly happened??

- - - Updated - - -



Did you watch the interview... it was literally about being anti fascist...

- - - Updated - - -
...

Did you have a point or did you reply to the wrong post again?

[Themius]

Did you have a point or did you reply to the wrong post again?

Did you forget what you said?

go back and read your own words and try to figure out what may have led to that reply.

[JohnBrown1917]

Did you forget what you said?

go back and read your own words and try to figure out what may have led to that reply.

No, still don't see it. You're just seeing things again.

[Themius]

No, still don't see it. You're just seeing things again.

You said who even describes themselves as I'm antifa... and that's when I asked did you even watch the interview..

Because antifa stands for anti-fascist so say ing I'm antifa is saying I'm anti-fascist... which he was saying in his interview...

[JohnBrown1917]

You said who even describes themselves as I'm antifa... and that's when I asked did you even watch the interview..

Because antifa stands for anti-fascist so say ing I'm antifa is saying I'm anti-fascist... which he was saying in his interview...

I'm pointing about how he said as "Im antifa", its the way he said it. Nobody actually does that irl. But hey, you continue to nitpick random posts you're bored. I'm done here. Because that part of my post was clearly more important than the part where I said the police murdered him, gotta get your priorities straight.

No wonder liberalism has not fixed anything in the last few decades.

[Shalcker]

Wait you mean blacks people fighting for equality just newly happened??

They riot for how long? ...and the reason for those riots still haven't disappeared - in fact people often argue here it got worse.

So it seems to me that whatever force "goes behind" those riots has either no reason or no ability to change anything for the better.

[Themius]

I'm pointing about how he said as "Im antifa", its the way he said it. Nobody actually does that irl. But hey, you continue to nitpick random posts you're bored. I'm done here. Because that part of my post was clearly more important than the part where I said the police murdered him, gotta get your priorities straight.

No wonder liberalism has not fixed anything in the last few decades.

Put the fucking shield down. The fuck are you so defensive for. You’re confused why he said that I point out it’s because of what it stands for and you’re butt fucking hurt to hell and back over it??? And I am nit picky?!!!!!!