1. #19121
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Nobody deserves to die.

    That said, if the vet who fired back at the officers in the unmarked van had killed every single one of them, he'd both have a completely solid self-defense claim that justifies his actions and would likely have had grounds to sue the everloving fuck out of the PD and the city for the actions of those officers putting him into that situation, particularly as he wasn't a lone victim and there remains a clear issue with the police department's training and self-governance.

    There's a difference between saying someone deserves death, and pointing out that their (hypothetical, here) killing was justified. "Deserves" at least implies if not outright states that said individual should still be killed, right now. They "deserve" it. "Justified" is inherently contextual to the circumstances.
    I was literally just writing this up and decided to not go with this argument because if I said it well... it would be me and therefore taken entirely out of context.

    I don't think anyone deserves to die on an abstract level given enough time I'm sure everyone can change and grow... and deserving a thing = deserving of an action.

    Deserving to die and deserving a retaliatory action that could culminate in their deaths are two different things. The retaliation is the action they deserve, the dying is an outcome of that action, but the deserving is not on the outcome, just the retaliation. The problem is... a lot of people don't do nuance here... so that thought will fly over their heads entirely.

    I can see why most people wouldn't see me having said it in this way because... frankly I don't think most people care much to do any analysis of what people say.

  2. #19122
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Nobody deserves to die.

    That said, if the vet who fired back at the officers in the unmarked van had killed every single one of them, he'd both have a completely solid self-defense claim that justifies his actions and would likely have had grounds to sue the everloving fuck out of the PD and the city for the actions of those officers putting him into that situation, particularly as he wasn't a lone victim and there remains a clear issue with the police department's training and self-governance.

    There's a difference between saying someone deserves death, and pointing out that their (hypothetical, here) killing was justified. "Deserves" at least implies if not outright states that said individual should still be killed, right now. They "deserve" it. "Justified" is inherently contextual to the circumstances.
    That covers it, thank you.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    So you AREN’T against deciding who deserves to die. You’re just against anyone saying yes ever. Got it. You worded that very strangely.
    None of that is close to what I said. But you know that. Carry on.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  3. #19123
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Yeah, sorry I took you at your word. I disagree though. If someone will kill 500 unless I shoot them then they deserve to die. Their life isn’ worth more than the 500. I pity anyone who’d sacrifice the 500 to save that 1 just to lock them up for life.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You are super comfortable. You’ve just drawn the conclusion the answer is nobody. Tell me I’m wrong again.
    I never thought of this much but thinking about it more I don't think they "deserve" to die just because given time perhaps they could be rehabilitated (as in, if we assume we have infinite time). There's also the case they're just extremely extremely mentally ill. Ultimately though they absolutely deserve to be stopped and if that means they die in the process, they would have deserved it.

  4. #19124
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Yeah, sorry I took you at your word. I disagree though. If someone will kill 500 unless I shoot them then they deserve to die. Their life isn’ worth more than the 500. I pity anyone who’d sacrifice the 500 to save that 1 just to lock them up for life.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You are super comfortable. You’e just drawn the conclusion the answer is nobody. Tell me I’m wrong again.
    The phrase "deciding who deserves to die" implies that there are people who deserve to die. I know useless hairsplitting for heat rather than light is your giddy place, so you're arguing that (gotcha!) I am comfortable with it because I don't think anybody "deserves" to die. Yep, you got me. I am comfortable saying no one "deserves" to die, in case anyone was unsure that you are one of the most tedious, pedantic posters here.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    He died by cancer after smoking for years and spreading lies about it and cancer treatment... it's ironic no?
    He spread lies about so much that whichever form of death befell him would have probably been ironic.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  5. #19125
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    No, the phrase doesn’t imply that. There are three choices implied. All, some, or none. Some has sub-sections. Not going beyond this because it’s hard to get past such an obvious misunderstanding.
    Way to demonstrate you're not tedious or pedantic. *chef's kiss*
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  6. #19126
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Thank you for engaging openly. That’s all I’m trying to do. I don’t think ACAB because not all cops see other cops doing the shit bad cops do. I get the perspective though. I just find it naive.
    It's not naive imo. The 55% underreporting of murders by police with a whole system hiding it is quite telling. It says not just cops, but everyone around them. In New York when it came to stop and frisk all the cops saw it, all the cops knew the problems with it. There was a documentary and they spoke about how if they didn't get numbers they would be put on desk duty so... they went along with the harassment, stopping blacks and latinos every single day, even the same people, just to get numbers up.

    Sometimes we are talking about entire departments that magically have 100% crimes of theft solved. So I don't think it isn't that the cops don't "see" it. They see it, they hear about it, they're there when it happens. During the protests was probably when it was most telling. Where you see entire departments striking because a guy got suspended for the thing in Boston... who is the good cop there? I don't see it.

    The other thing is that this is extremely publicised and known to the world, and yet cops still abuse people on camera... they'll talk to the camera and brazenly shoot, tase, push, punch, kick in the head and all sorts of things with absolutely no care for retaliation because it won't happen. So the idea that all cops are bastards is naive, I disagree with. A bad cop is a cop who allows all the bad shit to go on around them and say nothing and do nothing.

    The good cops aren't cops... the good cops who speak out and try to bring attention to these issues are harassed, arrested, shot, framed for crimes, followed home and intimidated. The good cops don't stay cops for long because the entire institution is so shit, that just trying to bring light to the issue, if you're a cop means game over you're fucked. Thus... ACAB.

    When doing the right thing often means being forced out of the profession and made a pariah... ACAB. Because you either fall in line... or you get fucked, and when you get fucked you're often no longer a cop.
    Last edited by Themius; 2021-10-09 at 07:43 PM.

  7. #19127
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    You're the one who tried to enforce a fallacious implication on the statements being made. Let me know when you're ready to get off semantics and discuss the topic at hand. It's no big deal if you misspoke, just move on and state your position.
    You just spent a page whinging about semantics. Hush.

    inb4 "it wasn't a page"
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  8. #19128
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    The issue is that not every department has this shit happening. Yes, many do. That doesn't mean ACAB. It just means MCAB.

    - - - Updated - - -



    I just spent a page debating whether or not you are comfortable deciding who lives and who dies. You are and refuse to admit it. It's OK if you've made the decision that nobody does, but I don't live in a utopia where that's realistic. Some people will die. Politicians decide that more than anyone else. Especially when they're the ones who have the power to declare war. Sooooo, if you aren't comfortable making that decision you shouldn't be voting for someone, and thus giving them your proxy, to do so. You should abstain like any good conscientious objector. Other wise your ARE making the decision on who gets to live and die based on that vote. If you're comfortable with that choice that nobody should die then go ahead and vote for anti-capital punishment pacifists. I'm just trying to figure out where people stand than anything else. Sorry that my attempts to do so with you were so obsterperous.
    This is a series of falsehoods and strawman arguments, which is not all that surprising, frankly.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  9. #19129
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    The issue is that not every department has this shit happening. Yes, many do. That doesn't mean ACAB. It just means MCAB.
    It's a majority and "majority of cops are bastards" doesn't exactly display the extent of the issue.

  10. #19130
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    How so? Care to actually engage or are you just going to mald?
    Lol "mald." Ok, sweaty. I conceded your "gotcha" that I am in fact, comfortable saying no one deserves to die, so your second sentence is a lie. You've suggested I'm unaware "some people will die"--that's a strawman. You said that because I don't think anyone deserves to die, that means I shouldn't vote. That's a strawman non sequitur. Your claim that I "[AM] making the decision who gets to live and die based on [my] vote" pretends that's the same thing as thinking people deserve to die. That's a lie, falsehood, strawman. You said I made a choice that "nobody should die" which is ridiculous because of course people die all the time--that doesn't mean I think they deserve to. And I do vote for anti-capital punishment politicians, like Joe Biden, for example. Did you vote for Joe Biden? Does that mean you also think no one deserves to die? So yes, nearly everything in that post was a lie or a strawman. Which makes your pretense about engaging and just trying to find out where everyone stands disingenuous at best.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  11. #19131
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    That doesn't mean ACAB. It just means MCAB.
    I've identified the cowardly centrist lads. Let him have it.

  12. #19132
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Nothing to do with being a centrist. I still think our entire justice system needs an overhaul, but there are a couple of good cops out there among the 99% bad ones.
    How often is all used to be 100% all without any deviation? In most colloquial speech this is almost never the case.

  13. #19133
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-ohio-n1281148

    Police in Ohio forcibly pulled a paraplegic man out of his vehicle and threw him to the ground, despite his repeated appeals and him saying he has no use of his legs, according to body-camera video released Friday.

    The Dayton Police Department shared the video with NBC News that shows two officers commanding motorist Clifford Owensby to step out of the Audi he was driving during a traffic stop last week.


    Owensby can be heard telling the officers he's paraplegic. One of the officers said he'd help him out of the car, but the motorist declined and asked why he was pulled over.

    "I can't get out of the vehicle sir," Owensby said.

    The officer told Owensby he needed to be out of the vehicle so a dog could smell for drugs, but the motorist objected, the video showed.

    "No you're not, no you're not, you're not going to touch me. You are definitely not going to touch me," he can be heard saying in the video. "There will be a lawsuit if you put your hands on me for no reason, bro."

    Owensby then appeared to make a phone call, asking someone to come to him and film his interactions with officers.

    Owensby asked officers to call their supervisor before they unbuckled him and appeared to drag him out by his shoulders and dreadlocks.

    He screamed and repeatedly shouted, "Somebody help! Somebody help!"

    As officers pressed him to the pavement, one put his knee into his back as Owensby kept pleading for help.
    Owensby said to WHIO that he was pulled over because the tint of his windows was too dark. He says he provided his information to the officer, but the officer asked him to get out of the car.
    THEY THIS ONE HAPPENED to me before. Too dark tints... yet barely tinted... coming to the window... with no tint tester mind you...

    He requested a supervisor and even attempted to call someone to assist him.

    “I’ll pull you out of the car and then call a white shirt because you’re getting out of the car,” said the cop. “That is not an option. So you can cooperate and get out of the car, or I can drag you out of the car.”

    “You see your two options here?”

    Officers dragged Owensby by his sweatshirt and hair out of the Audi sedan and onto the pavement a few seconds later. Footage shows Owensby’s legs dangling, with him yelling in pain.
    https://www.dailydot.com/irl/paraple...dayton-police/
    Last edited by Themius; 2021-10-09 at 10:52 PM.

  14. #19134
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    in context nobody should die is your choice when it comes to punishment/prevention. Let alone wars. I get you’re on your malding mode now and trying to talk down to me, but c’mon. You can’t get mad about semantic arguments and then keep making ones that are bad. Especially after conceding your anger over the first misunderstanding was your inability to articulate your position. It’s nice you think nobody should ever die, want to address reality?
    Everybody will die. Nobody "deserves" it. Also, you're trying too hard.
    Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit

  15. #19135
    Because Qualified Immunity ain't just for cops but supposedly all government entities even when they try to force one of their forensic scientists to commit perjury in court and then punish and fire them for not committing a felony in court.

    When a witness testifies in court, they take an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Laws also prevent a witness from being persuaded to give inaccurate testimony or commit perjury. Arizona, for example, makes it a felony to attempt to “influence” the testimony of a witness.

    As I found out, however, if you work for the government, your superiors can't be held financially responsible for ordering you to change your testimony and retaliating against you when you refuse.

    I worked as a forensic scientist for nearly 40 years in a variety of agencies and medical laboratories, including the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Scientific Analysis Bureau, which I ended up suing.

    I regularly testified in court about the results of defendants' blood-alcohol samples.

    A USA TODAY Opinion series: Faces, victims, issues and debates surrounding qualified immunity
    Greg Ohlson retired from the Arizona Department of Public Safety in 2017.
    Greg Ohlson retired from the Arizona Department of Public Safety in 2017.

    At the Arizona Department of Public Safety, samples from multiple defendants were analyzed in batches. The department preferred to give criminal defense attorneys only their defendant's sample. I told my supervisors that the most fair and objective method was to provide defense counsel with the entire batch of samples, so they could better review and determine the results. I considered that a best practice and within my professional discretion.
    Told to change testimony in court

    In 2016, I testified in two DUI cases that the disclosure being provided to defense attorneys was incomplete. I was asked whether there was any scientific reason not to disclose the information. I said no. I was asked whether the undisclosed data could demonstrate that there was a problem in the blood run. I said yes, based on my professional opinion.

    Then all hell broke loose.

    I was informed by my superiors that I was required to change my testimony in court.

    I said I would not change my testimony. I was then suspended – locked out of my computer and had my key card taken away. After months of being isolated from my work and my team, it was determined that I had been insubordinate and I was fined. I felt I was being forced to retire.

    For Arizona DPS, the concern was never to make sure the state didn’t convict innocent people.

    My son was killed by a park ranger.But I may never see justice.
    Greg Ohlson in Arizona on Sept. 20, 2021.
    Greg Ohlson in Arizona on Sept. 20, 2021.

    I brought suit in federal court for the violation of my First Amendment right to free speech. Everyone I talked to, including many lawyers, said, “They can’t do that. The government can’t order you to change your testimony, then punish you if you still tell the truth.”

    Unbelievably, they were wrong.
    Qualified immunity trumped my rights

    The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona agreed there was a violation of my free speech rights but granted the defendants qualified immunity, which means they won't have to pay monetary damages.

    The court ruled that the law was not "clearly established" on whether government employees had a First Amendment right to be free from discipline for in-court testimony offered as part of their job.

    Qualified immunity: 8 myths about why police need it to protect the public

    I appealed the court's decision. In August, a panel of three judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that I couldn't recover my financial losses because the court had not previously carved out an exception to qualified immunity that protects government employees from discipline by their employer for telling the truth in court. In short, my First Amendment rights weren't "clearly established" by the district court.

    How is that possible?

    According to qualified immunity, even if the government's conduct was illegal, because there is no case saying government supervisors can’t punish an employee for truthful testimony in court, my supervisors weren't on notice that this kind of conduct could create civil liability for them.

    It doesn't make sense.

    I’m a scientist, not a lawyer, but I can’t understand why any supervisor would need a court to tell them that you can’t punish someone for truthful testimony. I fear for government employees. That they can be punished for telling the truth, and end up having to leave their job because of it, doesn’t feel like justice.

    Qualified immunity robbed me of my shot at justice. It must be abolished.
    http://https://www.yahoo.com/news/re...230008745.html

    For fuck sake does Qualified Immunity need to be wholesale purged from the entirety of the U.S. like the plague that it is. This is why people say ACAB no matter how many good cops there are. Because the system does everything they can to protect them and their own from crimes no matter how illegal or horrible. For Qualified Immunity to be broken there has to be a previously established law that perfectly goes a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h-i-j-k-l-m-n-o-p-q-r-s-t-u-v-w-x-y-z and if what the cop does in any way misses a piece or messes with the exact order of the previously established law then they are free and clear. No matter how damning of the evidence and clear as sin that they are guilty.
    Last edited by pathora44; 2021-10-11 at 03:21 AM.

  16. #19136
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Sociopathic? The police are driving around shooting people who were protesting the brutal murder of a man and me saying they would have served to die if they had been shot to death is sociopathic exactly where do you draw the fucking line?
    You are literally one step away from "kill the cops". No, it is not exageration, that is how it usually goes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  17. #19137
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    You are literally one step away from "kill the cops". No, it is not exageration, that is how it usually goes.
    The current actions of police in the USA, regardless of how justified they might think they are, have created a circumstance where someone, particularly a black American, could reasonably make a self-defense plea to any violence they exert to avoid being accosted by the police. So many benign stops that lead to a dead black person and officers facing next to no consequences, that justifies violence, particularly given how often officers draw their weapons in such situations as a matter of procedure. A drawn and aimed weapon constitutes a lethal threat to the target's life, and if there's cause to believe the officer is outside their lawful authority, grounds to presume malice rather than ethical police conduct. It's almost a matter of time before an officer pulls over a black man for a vehicular offense like speeding, approaches with gun aimed at the driver as is often procedure, and the driver will kill that officer. And then claim self defense at trial. And be acquitted on those grounds.

    That's a fucking problem, even if you're pro-cop and don't give a shit about minorities.

    To put it as bluntly and distractingly as you tried to; the status quo is already "cops kill black people for nothing". Some of us want the killing to stop, and not changing the status quo (by not firing and prosecuting these racist fuckbag officers every single time) means there's going to be killings of innocent people one way or the other. I'm not going to cry any tears if that balance swings more against officers than innocent citizens; those officers are the problem, and it's entirely in their power to fix the issue, and they won't.

    That's why slogans like ACAB exist. In any department where such a shooting occurs and the officer is protected, the entire department is dirty. They're either part of the leadership that established and maintained the issue, one of the violent criminals wearing a badge, someone complicit and going along because they're a sympathizer, or a fresh rookie who's being trained to become one of these killers by all the above.

    The only response to a "bad apple" has to be shitcanning that apple ASAP and then engaging in careful measures to make sure the rot didn't spread to any other apples. Otherwise, the bunch gets spoiled. That's literally what the idiom is about.


  18. #19138
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    The only part I’ll add is that they need to do their best to make sure the bad apples they toss don’t end up in other departments. Too often these fucks get tossed and just go be a cop somewhere else. Disgraceful.
    Yeah, there needs to be national standards on this. An officer fired for an abuse of force issue should be unhireable as an officer. They shouldn't be hireable as armed private security. They can do unarmed mall cop shit, and frankly, I'm uncomfortable with even that.


  19. #19139
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The current actions of police in the USA, regardless of how justified they might think they are, have created a circumstance where someone, particularly a black American, could reasonably make a self-defense plea to any violence they exert to avoid being accosted by the police.
    I appreciate your schtick of being an internet forum edgelord, but bull-fucking-shit. This justification sounds an awful lot like the profiling that is used to justify suspicion and violence against young black men by referencing the violence of gangs and gang members.

    It's fucking wrong when the police do it, and it's fucking wrong when you do it.

    Congratulations on being a part of the problem. But sure, go ahead and try to feel "morally superior" while egging on violence. As if that attitude solves anything.

    It's fine to say that there's a huge problem with law enforcement in the US. It's fine to say that the police should be held far more accountable, even to a higher standard than normal. It's fine to say that change must happen. It's fine to say that that change might have to be made from the ground up in order to be meaningful.

    But fuck anyone who says that more violence is justified, because that attitude is literally just making the situation worse.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  20. #19140
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,906
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    I appreciate your schtick of being an internet forum edgelord, but bull-fucking-shit. This justification sounds an awful lot like the profiling that is used to justify suspicion and violence against young black men by referencing the violence of gangs and gang members.

    It's fucking wrong when the police do it, and it's fucking wrong when you do it.
    There's no "profiling" there. There's reasonable cause for presuming a lethal threat, and in this case, there is very clearly a lethal weapon being aimed at you. I wasn't saying that you could just up and kill a cop from behind who doesn't even know you're there, just because they're a cop.

    So kindly stuff your "moral" outrage.

    But fuck anyone who says that more violence is justified, because that attitude is literally just making the situation worse.
    Try reading my post all the way to the end, or at least through to the end of that paragraph and the separated sentence at the end of it. I was condemning the violence. I was not saying that using violence in self defense was some kind of counter-point. I said that's an argument that will inevitably be made, successfully, in actual court, if circumstances don't change. And I very clearly stated that this would be a bad thing. I wasn't encouraging this, I was making a case for strong action against police brutality and abuse of power now, immediately, not over the next 5-10 years, to forestall that hypothetical ever coming to fruition.

    My entire point was an opposition to violence, and you were so damned eager to shit on m for some godforsaken reason you tripped all over yourself and got my position completely backwards, by cherry-picking my post and missing the entire point.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-10-11 at 06:31 PM.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •