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

[Easo]

Do you think the state doesn't kill people on purpose or something? Like, why else would someone voluntarily violently enforce the will of the state?


So anyone who thinks the Holocaust was bad supports Putin. Good stuff.

I don't know what you are now ranting about and, frankly, I don't care.

So why can other countries do it without killing innocent civilians? Why is the US one of the only western nations that has to kill civilians to catch criminals?

You really think it never happens elsewhere? Like, really? You are trying to make a car chase gone bad as cop deliberately killing someone. Relax.

[Mekh]

Serious fuckin' doubts. Link me literally any instance.

There was the case in Germany of a lower court objecting to a certain politician being called a fascist during a protest, but the initiators of the protest objected and eventually it was decided that a) it was covered by freedom of speech to begin with but also b) there was enough evidence to more or less confirm the use of the word there.

Höcke espouses far-right views.[13] Political scientists such as Gero Neugebauer and Hajo Funke have commented that Höcke's opinions are close to the National Democratic Party of Germany and consider his statements völkisch, racist and fascist.[14][15] In September 2019, a German court ruled that Höcke could legally be called a fascist as the description "rests on verifiable fact".[16]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_H%C3%B6cke

[Endus]

There was the case in Germany of a lower court objecting to a certain politician being called a fascist during a protest, but the initiators of the protest objected and eventually it was decided that a) it was covered by freedom of speech to begin with but also b) there was enough evidence to more or less confirm the use of the word there.

That's what I'm getting at.

Oh, there's facts that justify the description, even if the subject disagrees? Tough nuts; that's free speech. You get to suck it up and deal with the social consequences of your public conduct and actions.

The idea that any of that is "defamation" is just an attempt to stamp out public criticism and condemnation, which is the people's right.

[PhaelixWW]

Have any defamation lawsuits even been filed yet?

Well, PolitiFact is here to tell us that...

• No, Rittenhouse hasn't sued Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg for $60m.
• No, Rittenhouse hasn't sued CNN for $400m.
• No, Rittenhouse hasn't sued LeBron James for $110m.

Damn, that's nearly $600m worth of defamation suits that haven't been filed by Rittenhouse!

Wait... what was the original question again?

[Machismo]

Defaming a person in media is an obvious, and historical, exception.


One billionth time of both denying human rights based on categories, and reminding people that one bar scene is proof enough of villainy to "omg you're defending white supremacists." Big time troll move. You'd have minorities in jail based on these slim standards.


Go look up exceptions to the broad freedom of speech. Unless I'm to presume you think everything is legal to say or show no matter what?


Luckily for you, you aren't saying this stuff from a media platform to millions and are thus protected. By freedom of speech.

But if I'm at Fox News or MSNBC and call you a fascist little murderer to all my viewers, that's defamation. Assuming you're a US citizen residing here.

Except, he's not being defamed, he is a shitty white supremacist. You Trumpsters always get upset, because people judge you for your actions and beliefs.

He is on video assaulting a girl. He is on video saying he wants to shoot people. He's on film hanging out with fellow white supremacists.

That other posters wants to imprison people who oppose racists. Period.

[Endus]

Luckily for you, you aren't saying this stuff from a media platform to millions and are thus protected. By freedom of speech.

That only affects the scale of the damage of the particular instance of defamation, it doesn't change whether or not a statement is defamatory.

But if I'm at Fox News or MSNBC and call you a fascist little murderer to all my viewers, that's defamation. Assuming you're a US citizen residing here.

If you've got facts that would lead a reasonable person to possibly conclude they're a fascist little murderer?

Nope. Honest and reasonable belief is a defense against an accusation of defamation. The onus would lie on the accused to demonstrate, to a greater burden of evidence, that coming to such a conclusion would be unreasonable. Not false, because falsity is not a guarantee of defamation, but unreasonable to even believe.

What you're talking about has fuck-all to do with freedom of speech, and is, in fact, an attack on basic human rights and freedoms. You're attacking open criticism as if it were defamation, and the two are not the same.

[Orange Joe]

You really think it never happens elsewhere? Like, really? You are trying to make a car chase gone bad as cop deliberately killing someone. Relax.

At where near the rates America has? No not in 1st world western nations.

If they drive in a way they know puts pedestrians at risk it's just as deliberate as if a "criminal" did it imo.

[Zan15]

Defaming a person in media is an obvious, and historical, exception.


One billionth time of both denying human rights based on categories, and reminding people that one bar scene is proof enough of villainy to "omg you're defending white supremacists." Big time troll move. You'd have minorities in jail based on these slim standards.


Go look up exceptions to the broad freedom of speech. Unless I'm to presume you think everything is legal to say or show no matter what?


Luckily for you, you aren't saying this stuff from a media platform to millions and are thus protected. By freedom of speech.

But if I'm at Fox News or MSNBC and call you a fascist little murderer to all my viewers, that's defamation. Assuming you're a US citizen residing here.

LOL you really don't understand freedom of speech, do you?

no one posting here is protected under freedom of speech if they are involved in defamation.

[Armael]

It's called Freedom of Speech, not Freedom from the Consequences of said Speech.

[DKjaigen]

That's what I'm getting at.

Oh, there's facts that justify the description, even if the subject disagrees? Tough nuts; that's free speech. You get to suck it up and deal with the social consequences of your public conduct and actions.

The idea that any of that is "defamation" is just an attempt to stamp out public criticism and condemnation, which is the people's right.

In this case its a proven fact. You still have not provided any facts about Rittenhouse being a white supremacist and i fully expect that this evidence will never materialize . I can fully understand why you call him that however. BLM supporters value form over substance . It doesnt matter what the wrong doing is of BLM, be it riots that cost millions , corrupt leaders or ineffective political policies .As long as the ideal that they fight against racism is maintained then BLM can do no wrong. So when somebody gets into conflict with them they must be white supremacist because thats the only conclusion in the mind of BLM supporters. And it doesnt matter to BLM supporters if some people have serious issues with how BLM handles things, to them everybody that opposes must be nazi or white supremacist.

[Easo]

At where near the rates America has? No not in 1st world western nations.

If they drive in a way they know puts pedestrians at risk it's just as deliberate as if a "criminal" did it imo.

I am sure you can find statistics about cop driving...? Considering the average training length in USA vs EU, Canada, whatever - yeah, maybe, which would make it a problem not strictly on the cop side.
Also we have no idea how they drove, which again goes back to what I said at the very start - let experts do the job, instead of shouting "criminal cops!" before we actually know something..

[Endus]

In this case its a proven fact. You still have not provided any facts about Rittenhouse being a white supremacist and i fully expect that this evidence will never materialize .

Again, he's on video celebrating and partying with white supremacists, and the boogaloo boy group he was with is part of a movement that involves a lot of white supremacists.

That's all the facts we need to justify it. Hell, it's way more than we need; that's reason and confirmation.

I can fully understand why you call him that however. BLM supporters value form over substance .

If you don't support BLM, you're arguing that black lives have less value than the lives of others.

That's just outright, direct racism.

It doesnt matter what the wrong doing is of BLM, be it riots that cost millions , corrupt leaders or ineffective political policies .As long as the ideal that they fight against racism is maintained then BLM can do no wrong.

The BLM movement is responsible for no such things.

That's a lie pushed by white supremacists.

So when somebody gets into conflict with them they must be white supremacist because thats the only conclusion in the mind of BLM supporters. And it doesnt matter to BLM supporters if some people have serious issues with how BLM handles things, to them everybody that opposes must be nazi or white supremacist.

Because "BLM" is literally just the idea that "black lives matter". That's the whole thing. There is no "organization", there is no central planning or leadership, it's just the idea that black lives have value.

That's what you're standing against if you oppose BLM. I wouldn't immediately leap to "white supremacy", because hey, there's other flavors of racism to be had. Though given the US history, that's the bulk of it.

Yes; everyone opposing the idea that "black lives matter" is a racist. Period. 100%. No exceptions. How is that not obvious?

[DarkTZeratul]

let experts do the job, instead of shouting "criminal cops!" before we actually know something..

If an innocent, uninvolved civilian dies as a direct result of police action, even if it's not criminal, that's not okay. Nobody should ever be okay with "experts doing the job" resulting in people getting killed.

[beanman12345]

Well, PolitiFact is here to tell us that...

• No, Rittenhouse hasn't sued Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg for $60m.
• No, Rittenhouse hasn't sued CNN for $400m.
• No, Rittenhouse hasn't sued LeBron James for $110m.

Damn, that's nearly $600m worth of defamation suits that haven't been filed by Rittenhouse!

Wait... what was the original question again?

Well even the most desperate of lawyers who chase ambulances need an argument cobbled together by using the minimum of brain cells to even attempt to sue in those cases. No such argument exists here, and if there is, I certainly haven't seen one. No lawyer is that desperate to waste the time making no money in this case.

[Endus]

If an innocent, uninvolved civilian dies as a direct result of police action, even if it's not criminal, that's not okay. Nobody should ever be okay with "experts doing the job" resulting in people getting killed.

I'll make allowances for the rare instances where an actual accident beyond the officer's reasonable control occurs. If a kid is hiding between parked cars and darts out right in front of the officer, there's no way the officer could've known, say.

If it was within the officer's control, and they were driving over the speed limit or engaged in a chase or anything of that sort? Then it's gross negligence at a minimum, and the officer at least should be fired with cause, and criminal prosecutions should be considered.

I don't see how that's an objectionable stance. It's literally "police are held to the same standards as private citizens, and a little higher given the training they're expected to have which would allow them to break some of the rules of the road without creating undue risks". So far, the only contests to that position have been "how dare you assume police officers even KNOW how to drive a car, let alone get any SPECIAL training?" Even though they do. Obviously.

[PhaelixWW]

In this case its a proven fact. You still have not provided any facts about Rittenhouse being a white supremacist and i fully expect that this evidence will never materialize .

You have the burden of proof backwards, champ.

His own actions make that somewhat impossible.

[Easo]

If an innocent, uninvolved civilian dies as a direct result of police action, even if it's not criminal, that's not okay. Nobody should ever be okay with "experts doing the job" resulting in people getting killed.

I am talking about investigation... Instead of "LOCK 'IM UP!" let investigators find out who/what was or was not at fault.

[Machismo]

It's called Freedom of Speech, not Freedom from the Consequences of said Speech.

Nope, it's called freedom of speech.

I'm free to call him a murderer and a white supremacist.

[gondrin]

Like being driven off campus and denied education and training as a nurse?
Yeah, it's actions like that that give those howling for libel suits credibility.

Colleges/Universities are not like public grade or high schools. Public grade/high schools generally have to take anyone in their district barring anyone showing highly aggressive tendencies towards others while in school.

A Public/Private College/University has no obligation. They only cannot refuse you based on age/sex/race/religion. Otherwise, they can most certainly tell you that you are not welcome there.

[Machismo]

In this case its a proven fact. You still have not provided any facts about Rittenhouse being a white supremacist and i fully expect that this evidence will never materialize . I can fully understand why you call him that however. BLM supporters value form over substance . It doesnt matter what the wrong doing is of BLM, be it riots that cost millions , corrupt leaders or ineffective political policies .As long as the ideal that they fight against racism is maintained then BLM can do no wrong. So when somebody gets into conflict with them they must be white supremacist because thats the only conclusion in the mind of BLM supporters. And it doesnt matter to BLM supporters if some people have serious issues with how BLM handles things, to them everybody that opposes must be nazi or white supremacist.

That evidence has been presented on more than one occasion.

Just because you don't like it when racists get outed, doesn't make it a valid argument.