JWeinCom said:
KLAMarine said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h1wE9gk1kc

When posting a link, especially a long one, add a brief summary and some key points. 

Apologies, this has been fixed.



Around the Network
KiigelHeart said:
JWeinCom said:



Personally, I just don't think that the first victim would have randomly charged a person with an AR-15 armed with a plastic bag. I'm not saying that the protesters are like angels who would never hurt a fly, but I'm assuming that the person had some basic sense of self preservation. Something happened that was significant enough to make him charge at an armed teenager, and without knowing what that thing was, I can't really determine how effective a self defense claim would be. 

You should've watched those commentary clips someone posted. There's footage of the first victim before the incident and he doesn't seem to have any sense of self preservation. Aggressively looking for a fight an shouting "shoot me n****r".. second victim is with him so it seems unlikely they are trying to stop an active shooter but who knows. You're also missing the point someone else fires their weapon before this 17-year-old and his lawyers statement also takes note of this.

edit. I have a hard time trusting anything defence lawyers say but at least it's on video. Unknown who fired and why though.

No, I really shouldn't have, because I had no idea what was in the video. I'm not going to watch every video someone posts on the off chance it may contain something relevant. If someone wants me to watch a video they'd have to explain particularly what's relevant.

It's also a matter of time. If that's the information that's important, I got it in about 30 seconds from reading your post, rather than watching the whole video.

If what you said is true, (is the victim identified and clearly audible in the video? Can you timestamp it to the appropriate location?) then that would factor into whether a self defense claim is viable. At the same time, you'd have to get from "this guy is saying shoot me" to "this guy is going to try and kill me". You'd also have to rule out that the shooter was also acting aggressively. Even if we establish that the victim was crazy, the shooter is still obligated to act with reasonable caution to avoid a violent confrontation (based on my understanding of the law). 

Assuming what you said is true, that makes for a better case, but still not clear without more. 



John Oliver with a good summary of last week's insanity.

https://youtu.be/rBu0BRTx2x8



KLAMarine said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h1wE9gk1kc

Lawyer basically concludes that the shooting of Blake was not unjustified.

Thanks for updating. In the future those, a few key points would be even better.

As for the video itself, I'm not going to watch it, because I'd probably agree with its points. To the best of my knowledge, in a situation like these where (according to the police report which may not be true) multiple warnings were issued, a weapon was present, less lethal options had been attempted, and there is a valid warrant, lethal force is legally justified.

But I think that is missing the point. The more important question is whether the lethal force rules themselves are justifiable.

The laws are skewed heavily in favor of law enforcement. Assuming Blake did have a knife, the risk of him turning around and actually killing people was relatively small. Don't get me wrong I think there was some reasonable apprehension of extreme physical harm or death. But how great must the threat be before you can shoot someone seven times in the back? According to most current laws, any reasonable possibility of force can be justified with a lethal response, but I don't know if I agree with those laws. 

The laws place a significantly higher value on the lives of police officers than the lives of suspects. Others would argue that all lives matter equally, and thus there should be a much higher requirement before lethal force can be used (for instance confirmation of a firearm or even an actual attack). And these laws would, almost certainly, make police less safe. Personally, I'd go for a middle ground. I do generally place a higher value on the officer's lives (assuming they are operating by lawfully themselves and the laws are reasonable), but I think the imbalance is too great. 

There's also a question of, careful I'm about to use a dirty word, defunding the police. There were three police officers involved. If there were two officers and a social worker or someone specifically trained in psychology/deescalation, would the situation have turned out differently? Did the third officer make either the other officers or the suspect safer? There were three officers looking on while George Floyd was killed. Could having some other kind of personnel have led to a better outcome? I don't know the answer, I haven't done the research. But it's a worthwhile question.

The tl:dr version though is that something being legally justified does not make it right. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 31 August 2020

Runa216 said:
JWeinCom said:

When posting a link, especially a long one, add a brief summary and some key points. 

You and other mods keep telling us that but some people just never bother listening. There's a reason I stopped responding to anything EricHiggin, Zoombael, KLAMarine, LonelyDolphin, and a handful of others post. I learned my lesson after the 'using a literal white nationalist neo-nazi website as proof to back their claims' link drop. 

Reported for defamation. Insinuating i relied on Nazi propaganda to "back my claims".

As i said, to ignore facts and discredit anyone who is not on your side is the only way for your kind to prevail.



Hunting Season is done...

Around the Network
Runa216 said:
JWeinCom said:

When posting a link, especially a long one, add a brief summary and some key points. 

You and other mods keep telling us that but some people just never bother listening. There's a reason I stopped responding to anything EricHiggin, Zoombael, KLAMarine, LonelyDolphin, and a handful of others post. I learned my lesson after the 'using a literal white nationalist neo-nazi website as proof to back their claims' link drop. 

When I've seen it, I've corrected it. Only person I've directly told IIRC is Eric and now KLA, and neither has repeated that I've seen. If you have evidence of them using white nationalist Neo Nazi websites as proof, that should be provided with an allegation of such. This is also potentially backseat moderating.

Zoombael said:
Runa216 said:

You and other mods keep telling us that but some people just never bother listening. There's a reason I stopped responding to anything EricHiggin, Zoombael, KLAMarine, LonelyDolphin, and a handful of others post. I learned my lesson after the 'using a literal white nationalist neo-nazi website as proof to back their claims' link drop. 

Reported for defamation. Insinuating i relied on Nazi propaganda to "back my claims".

As i said, to ignore facts and discredit anyone who is not on your side is the only way for your kind to prevail.

... but since you're also violating forum rules, I'm probably not going to do anything. Backseat moderating which includes posts like "reported" are considered backseat moderating and against forum rules (rule 7 #2). (Also, if you mean defamation in a legal sense, your case is very weak.)

The purpose of reporting is to alert mods of behavior, and to avoid escalating situations. When you report and also report that you reported and respond with comments making broad generalizations (i.e. your kind), then you are trying to have your cake and eat it to by getting your digs in while calling the mods on the other person.

So as I see it, we're all tied up here at one post each violating rules (possibly in the first case providing there's no evidence) and nothing further is required (other mods may disagree), so long as both of you drop it. ANYTHING further along these lines should be via PM either to me if you want to talk about moderation policies or each other if you want to debate the issue (keeping in mind of course the same rules apply to PMs as posts). Either way it's not a US politics matter, so this thread ain't the place.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 31 August 2020

JWeinCom said:
Runa216 said:

You and other mods keep telling us that but some people just never bother listening. There's a reason I stopped responding to anything EricHiggin, Zoombael, KLAMarine, LonelyDolphin, and a handful of others post. I learned my lesson after the 'using a literal white nationalist neo-nazi website as proof to back their claims' link drop. 

When I've seen it, I've corrected it. Only person I've directly told IIRC is Eric and now KLA, and neither has repeated that I've seen. If you have evidence of them using white nationalist Neo Nazi websites as proof, that should be provided with an allegation of such. This is also potentially backseat moderating.

Zoombael said:

Reported for defamation. Insinuating i relied on Nazi propaganda to "back my claims".

As i said, to ignore facts and discredit anyone who is not on your side is the only way for your kind to prevail.

... but since you're also violating forum rules, I'm probably not going to do anything. Backseat moderating which includes posts like "reported" are considered backseat moderating and against forum rules (rule 7 #2). (Also, if you mean defamation in a legal sense, your case is very weak.)

The purpose of reporting is to alert mods of behavior, and to avoid escalating situations. When you report and also report that you reported and respond with comments making broad generalizations (i.e. your kind), then you are trying to have your cake and eat it to by getting your digs in while calling the mods on the other person.

So as I see it, we're all tied up here at one post each violating rules (possibly in the first case providing there's no evidence) and nothing further is required (other mods may disagree), so long as both of you drop it. ANYTHING further along these lines should be via PM either to me if you want to talk about moderation policies or each other if you want to debate the issue (keeping in mind of course the same rules apply to PMs as posts). Either way it's not a US politics matter, so this thread ain't the place.

I did not say Zoombael said that, I said I knew better than to react after the last time it happened it turned out that the person who left a random link did so on a literal white nationalist/neonazi webpage. Torillian can verify this exact thing happened. There was a 2-page discussion about the importance of citing sources and doing more research before blindly posting things. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

Runa216 said:
JWeinCom said:

When I've seen it, I've corrected it. Only person I've directly told IIRC is Eric and now KLA, and neither has repeated that I've seen. If you have evidence of them using white nationalist Neo Nazi websites as proof, that should be provided with an allegation of such. This is also potentially backseat moderating.

... but since you're also violating forum rules, I'm probably not going to do anything. Backseat moderating which includes posts like "reported" are considered backseat moderating and against forum rules (rule 7 #2). (Also, if you mean defamation in a legal sense, your case is very weak.)

The purpose of reporting is to alert mods of behavior, and to avoid escalating situations. When you report and also report that you reported and respond with comments making broad generalizations (i.e. your kind), then you are trying to have your cake and eat it to by getting your digs in while calling the mods on the other person.

So as I see it, we're all tied up here at one post each violating rules (possibly in the first case providing there's no evidence) and nothing further is required (other mods may disagree), so long as both of you drop it. ANYTHING further along these lines should be via PM either to me if you want to talk about moderation policies or each other if you want to debate the issue (keeping in mind of course the same rules apply to PMs as posts). Either way it's not a US politics matter, so this thread ain't the place.

I did not say Zoombael said that, I said I knew better than to react after the last time it happened it turned out that the person who left a random link did so on a literal white nationalist/neonazi webpage. Torillian can verify this exact thing happened. There was a 2-page discussion about the importance of citing sources and doing more research before blindly posting things. 

The way it was phrased indicated to me that it was applied to all of the named users. If it wasn't meant that way, then fine. At any rate, this isn't about US politics anymore, so if you want to continue do so through PM.



KLXVER said:
Torillian said:

Don't be a coward, just say "I think that black people get shot to a disproportionate degree because they commit a disproportionate amount of crime" so we can move on and have a discussion from that point instead of this wishy washy bullshit. 

Edit: Try to do it without the "despite" quote though, that will probably help. 

Well thats what I get for trying to prove my opinion instead of just saying it. People dont want to see it and a racist website is the first thing that shows up when searching for stats.lol

Its just a bit hard to come out and say it sometimes. I know its statistically correct, but its an uncomfortable truth.

I've tried searching every which way and this doesn't come up. Even when I phrase my search in intentionally racist and biased ways it does not come up.

The figures are not verifiable. They conflict with fbi data. For their numbers on larceny to conform to FBI data, by my calculations, black people would have to commit larceny 2,002,067 times per year. The actual number is 258,000. (This is granting their assumptions and eliminating hispanic from the white data set). There is anti-semitic propaganda at every turn. If you read it and thought it was a legitimate and reliable source, that's a problem. If you did not read it and posted it anyway, that's also a problem. 

If you post a link here, holding it up as accurate (which you did) you are responsible for its content. This content has no place here. Keep this in mind, and be cautious about what you post. Posting more sources like this will have consequences.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 31 August 2020

This is Trump's America:



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.