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

[PickleballAce]

Do you just met Endus ? Did you never read his drivel before ?

Maybe Endus just hates Black people and encouraging them to violently resist arrest at all costs is just the 5-Dimensional Underwater Chess way of getting them killed? :taps forehead:


BTW, is Postman Endus's own sockpuppet or just some Cling-on? Kinda weird how many times they treat Endus like a damsel in distress that needs to be rescued.

[postman1782]

Something we have in common

Nope, at least I am not cowardly enough to not post a source for things I claim.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe Endus just hates Black people and encouraging them to violently resist arrest at all costs is just the 5-Dimensional Underwater Chess way of getting them killed? :taps forehead:


BTW, is Postman Endus's own sockpuppet or just some Cling-on? Kinda weird how many times they treat Endus like a damsel in distress that needs to be rescued.

No, and thanks for letting me report you.

[Rozz]

Settle down, don't twist each other's words to invent drama. The thread has enough tension as is.

[Elegiac]

No, it's not "reasonable". Your argument for it being "reasonable" is based on profiling.

Again, it's just as much of a shit attempt at justification as when it's used by the police against others.

Aside from the fact that, unlike being a racial minority, law enforcement is a voluntary profession making this attempt at painting the police as victims beyond laughable.

More than that, the idea that the only legitimate form of resistance against a fundamentally oppressive system is nonviolent is itself a marker of privilege. To quote Arundhati Roy:

“Can the hungry go on a hunger strike? Non-violence is a piece of theatre. You need an audience. What can you do when you have no audience? People have the right to resist annihilation.”

[Mekh]

I m Of course fucking an imminent threat to justify violent resistance. That was not original.

I mean, and I'm just quoting your words here, but you are talking weird nonsense.

[PhaelixWW]

I mean, I'm just weird nonsense.

Great, and I'm just quoting yours.

[Yadryonych]

the idea that the only legitimate form of resistance against a fundamentally oppressive system is nonviolent is itself a marker of privilege. To quote Arundhati Roy: “Can the hungry go on a hunger strike? Non-violence is a piece of theatre. You need an audience. What can you do when you have no audience? People have the right to resist annihilation.”

If you have no audience just perform better to gain some, don't go flinging shit at the audience and blame them for your woes. This way you will only have the audience demanding that the "oppressive system" shuts your shitshow down

[Endus]

If you have no audience just perform better to gain some, don't go flinging shit at the audience and blame them for your woes. This way you will only have the audience demanding that the "oppressive system" shuts your shitshow down

Violent resistance isn't against the audience. It's against the oppressors.

But go on; tell us more about how you think the French Resistance shouldn't have fought back against the Nazis. To pick just one obvious example.

[Elegiac]

If you have no audience just perform better to gain some

This is the equivalent of "just stop being poor".

This way you will only have the audience demanding that the "oppressive system" shuts your shitshow down

And if the audience is demanding this, they aren't the audience; they are also the oppressors.

Once again: people have the right to resist annihilation.

[Yadryonych]

Violent resistance isn't against the audience. It's against the oppressors.

Yeah, that's that IRA was saying. Bombing children to own the libs the Brits

tell us more about how you think the French Resistance shouldn't have fought back against the Nazis. To pick just one obvious example.

It's not how I think, it's how it was. There were more Frenchmen serving in German army than fighting in the resistance until they coincidentally became oh-so-brave right after the D-day landing

[Elegiac]

Yeah, that's that IRA was saying.

Because as we all know the British government was not doing anything oppressive in Ireland. Never and not at all. /s

It's not how i think, it's how it was. There were more Frenchmen serving in German army then fighting in the resistance until they coincidentally became oh-so-brave right after the D-day landing

Hey look, yet another person who doesn't know the difference between an 'is' and an 'ought' argument.

I will continue to point out that MLK was only as successful as he was precisely because people were forced to choose between him and Malcolm X. Justice has never been achieved by treading on eggshells around the unjust.

[Edge-]

There were more Frenchmen serving in German army then fighting in the resistance until they coincidentally became oh-so-brave right after the D-day landing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France - 75K troops

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Free-French - 100K+ troops pre-Normandy

I appreciate the opportunity to brush up on my history, thanks for continuing to sling incorrect information about topics you often admit you don't understand.

[Yadryonych]

Because as we all know the British government was not doing anything oppressive in Ireland. Never and not at all. /s

Yeah I knew you wouldn't fail me in finding the way to justify bombing children, that's a one brave way to come out as a terrorist. Beaten the other resident extremists to it, congrats on your promotion!

[Elegiac]

Yeah I knew you wouldn't fail me in finding the way to justify bombing children, that's a one brave way to come out as a terrorist. Beaten the other resident extremists to it, congrats on your promotion!

Saying the IRA had a point is not in any way an endorsement of "bombing children".

Even if it were, it wouldn't alter the fact that your argument is essentially "well some people that did bad things also agreed with the viewpoint that oppressed people have a right to resist said oppression", which is as stupid as claiming vegetarianism is bad because Hitler. You can't actually dispute that people should be able to resist annihilation, therefore we need to employ shitty emotional appeals to cover for the lack of a substantive argument.

Rofl. Got any more ahistorical bullshit to add to the thread, by the way?

[Endus]

Yeah, that's that IRA was saying. Bombing children to own the libs the Brits

Yeah, no. You're not arguing that some violent resistance is unjustified, you're arguing that all violent resistance is bad, no matter the cause.

You don't get to cherry-pick examples that you don't like as "proof". You have to argue that every single example of violent resistance was unjustified and wrong.

So I point again to the French Resistance. You're of the opinion they shouldn't have fought the Nazis?

Edit: How about a current example, like the resistance fighters in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban's takeover? They're in the wrong, too?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/21/w...ghanistan.html

It's not how I think, it's how it was. There were more Frenchmen serving in German army than fighting in the resistance until they coincidentally became oh-so-brave right after the D-day landing

What does French soldiers serving with the Reich have to do with anything? We were talking about whether violent resistance to an oppressor can be justified.

Also, the shitty "the French are cowards" bigoted horseshit is tired and sad. And ahistorical. It's just a lie you tell yourself.

[Rozz]

Off topic and inappropriate.
This isn't the place to debate the merits of violent resistance. That isn't going to lead to anything productive as seen here.

[uuuhname]

so another outright horrifying instance of a cop brutalizing a black woman by throwing her around like sack of potatoes on the ground. and apparently this is after the women was already attacked by a group of teenagers before the cop showed up.

article here, https://www.propublica.org/article/t...-beat-her-more

[Endus]

so another outright horrifying instance of a cop brutalizing a black woman by throwing her around like sack of potatoes on the ground. and apparently this is after the women was already attacked by a group of teenagers before the cop showed up.

article here, https://www.propublica.org/article/t...-beat-her-more

One of the most galling phrases among the wide range of other galling phrases in that article is this;

"In this case, the Sheriff’s Office is conducting an internal affairs investigation into the incident, something it has not done in some similar cases, according to court records. "

Jesus Fucking Christ.

If there's a complaint against any officer by a member of the public, for any level of abuse of power, there should be an automatic Internal Affairs investigation. It shouldn't be an option, it should be a procedural requirement. And that's for cases as low as "officer was overly belligerent and condescending during a traffic stop that wasn't justified", cases of actual assault and battery like this should see the officer on leave until/if the IA investigation clears them of wrongdoing. Sure, paid leave; I'm not a monster and I recognize that cops may be unfairly targeted. But you're benched, go home. And if the IA investigation discovers wrongdoing, you're fired. Immediately. First offense. If said wrongdoing was criminal, you're leaving the station in cuffs.

But the idea that there's attacks like this by racist shitheads and Internal Affairs doesn't even investigate? IA's dirty, too. They're corrupt, and part of the problem.

This is why people say ACAB.

[uuuhname]

One of the most galling phrases among the wide range of other galling phrases in that article is this;

"In this case, the Sheriff’s Office is conducting an internal affairs investigation into the incident, something it has not done in some similar cases, according to court records. "

Jesus Fucking Christ.

If there's a complaint against any officer by a member of the public, for any level of abuse of power, there should be an automatic Internal Affairs investigation. It shouldn't be an option, it should be a procedural requirement. And that's for cases as low as "officer was overly belligerent and condescending during a traffic stop that wasn't justified", cases of actual assault and battery like this should see the officer on leave until/if the IA investigation clears them of wrongdoing. Sure, paid leave; I'm not a monster and I recognize that cops may be unfairly targeted. But you're benched, go home. And if the IA investigation discovers wrongdoing, you're fired. Immediately. First offense. If said wrongdoing was criminal, you're leaving the station in cuffs.

But the idea that there's attacks like this by racist shitheads and Internal Affairs doesn't even investigate? IA's dirty, too. They're corrupt, and part of the problem.

This is why people say ACAB.

yeah... and that's if you even assume the internal investigation is going to come up with anything... cops investigating other cops and oh would you look at that, they didn't find anything worth pursuing.

[Levelfive]

yeah... and that's if you even assume the internal investigation is going to come up with anything... cops investigating other cops and oh would you look at that, they didn't find anything worth pursuing.

These two stories came out on the same day: Judge acquits former St. Louis County officer in death of 12-year-old girl

"Marquart, 27, hit Akeelah while she and her friend crossed the 8900 block of Halls Ferry Road about 5:45 p.m. near the city line with Jennings. An investigation found that Marquart was going 58 mph in the 30 mph zone when he struck Akeelah, throwing her body more than 125 feet down the road. Akeeleh died about a month after being hit."

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...6a627748a.html

"Prosectors in Oklahoma successfully argued to a jury this month that a woman who had a miscarriage was guilty of the manslaughter of her non-viable fetus."

https://www.oxygen.com/crime-news/br...ge-in-oklahoma