Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2020 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by snapper View Post
    'Reasonable' self defence I think comes in here.
    The gun completely distorts the calculus. And I am not saying in favour of who just that it does. Every struggle can come back to the chance of either side getting a hold of the gun with a potential to use it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tantalus View Post
      I was not aware of any knife involved, but if true that changs the narrative meaningfully. I agree that currently that the discussion around policing has become decoupled from rational analysis.
      The car itself is a lethal weapon.

      The narrative was never changed. People lacked situational awareness. Blake was known to police with a history of domestic violence and weapons charges. He had a warrant out at the time. There was never any intention of allowing him to grasp a weapon, ie the car.
      Chimo

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DOR View Post
        The smokescreen is getting too thick.

        It does not matter one bit if the police or some random teenager with an illegal gun kill someone who it then labelled as "not a nice person."
        "Not nice" isn't a death sentence.
        Why are you giving a pass to the Bad Guys? Policing against violence is not a Gentlemen's Sport.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • A person reaching into a car is not normally taken as a threat. As a right to self defence when a person does so shooting in the back seven times seems a bit 'unreasonable' to me.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by snapper View Post
            A person reaching into a car is not normally taken as a threat. As a right to self defence when a person does so shooting in the back seven times seems a bit 'unreasonable' to me.
            A person trying to get into a vehicle full of kids while trying to flee arrest is always a threat as it gives the person fleeing hostages. The police were recorded as yelling drop the knife before shooting.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by snapper View Post
              A person reaching into a car is not normally taken as a threat. As a right to self defence when a person does so shooting in the back seven times seems a bit 'unreasonable' to me.
              A normal person with a Domestic Violence Warrant out for him? The man was known to police with a HISTORY of Domestic Violence and Weapons convictions. He was defieing a Court Issue Restraining Order to commit Domestic Violence (taking his children away from their Mother against a Court Order).

              The man was also tazed at least twice and fought it off. That means that he is able to committ physical harm while able to sustain hurt. In that case, the rule of thumb is the same as hunting Brown Bears. You don't stop shooting until he stops moving.
              Chimo

              Comment


              • Whatever his/her record may be was he/she a threat to the Police Officer should be the criteria. Nor does reaching into a car amount to driving off and ignoring the Police/holding his/her own children 'hostage' etc. Shooting someone in the back seven times does not seem 'reasonable' self defence to me...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tantalus View Post
                  Ask yourself this. Develop a classificiation system for the media, imagine perfect data collection. What % of protestors have to be peaceful for "mostly peaceful" to be an acceptable term?
                  NKVD was a very tiny minority in the Communist Party,let alone the USSR.Allgemeine SS was a tiny minority in the Waffen SS,let alone Germany.The Mongol society still comprised of mostly peaceful women,children and elderly herders.
                  What these assholes are doing for 3 months is met with approval or at least silence in the left wing parts of the society,its academic elite,the media and,sadly,here on WAB,a place which used to have higher standards.It's not about isolated cases of politically motivated nutcases,or just nutcases that happen to choose a political target for violence.It's the rule.It involves large numbers of people,organized or self organized by the social media(that allows them to do so).It's allowed by the politicians,both at national and local levels.It's not annihilated by the law enforcement.That means complicity.
                  Those who know don't speak
                  He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    The car itself is a lethal weapon.

                    The narrative was never changed. People lacked situational awareness. Blake was known to police with a history of domestic violence and weapons charges. He had a warrant out at the time. There was never any intention of allowing him to grasp a weapon, ie the car.
                    What has changed is the level of ignorance I had to the specifics of the case

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                      NKVD was a very tiny minority in the Communist Party,let alone the USSR.Allgemeine SS was a tiny minority in the Waffen SS,let alone Germany.The Mongol society still comprised of mostly peaceful women,children and elderly herders.
                      What these assholes are doing for 3 months is met with approval or at least silence in the left wing parts of the society,its academic elite,the media and,sadly,here on WAB,a place which used to have higher standards.It's not about isolated cases of politically motivated nutcases,or just nutcases that happen to choose a political target for violence.It's the rule.It involves large numbers of people,organized or self organized by the social media(that allows them to do so).It's allowed by the politicians,both at national and local levels.It's not annihilated by the law enforcement.That means complicity.
                      Soviets, germans, people of the asian steppe, not all painted with the one brush, you are making my point for me with extra examples.

                      Its too far for me, calling peaceful protestors complicit with violent ones. Each judged separately. As previously stated i agree there has been widespread failure to condemn the violence. I also agree that the violence has not been sporadic, but it has also been conducted by a minority.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                        Whatever his/her record may be was he/she a threat to the Police Officer should be the criteria. Nor does reaching into a car amount to driving off and ignoring the Police/holding his/her own children 'hostage' etc. Shooting someone in the back seven times does not seem 'reasonable' self defence to me...
                        Oh for Fuck sakes. The police was NOT shooting in Self Defence. They were shooting to PROTECT others, ie the children and ANY other bystanders AGAINST someone who had ALREADY demonstrated the ability and the WILLINGNESS to INFLICT VIOLENCE on the spot. The Police was CALLED for a case of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!!! The man was COMMITTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. What part of that do you NOT get?

                        The POLICE HAD THE RIGHT AND THE DUTY TO STOP THAT MAN BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY! THE POLICE WAS DOING THEIR JOB WHEN SHOOTING THAT MAN! PERIOD!

                        You know! I can't believe this stupidity. You claim to be a mother and yet, you seemed ok to let a WANTED VIOLENT CONVICTED CRIMINAL to drive off while kidnapping a woman's children! On what freaking planet is that good mothering? What the police done was right and justified.
                        Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 30 Aug 20,, 21:46.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Snapper, the legal test for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is Tennessee v Garner. Mr. Blake fullfilled every part of the test set out by SCOTUS. It was at least on the federal level good shoot. I for one am not crying that a violent predatory individual wont be able to sexually assault or beat the mother of his children anymore.

                          BTW, it wasn't just self defense (knife) but also defense of others (potential hostages and the motoring public).

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                            Oh for Fuck sakes. The police was NOT shooting in Self Defence. They were shooting to PROTECT others, ie the children
                            You telling me it is acceptable to shoot someone seven times in the back because you suppose they might knife their own small people? You're having a larf.

                            Comment


                            • Well if that is the law in that 'State' I suppose that is the way it is and can accept that. I do not accept though the 'reasonable force' argument. Everyone 'motors public' nor do I believe 99.9% of people are going to hold their own small people 'hostage' just because they reach into their car.

                              Comment


                              • A call for an investigation by the DOJ into who is funding the violent rioters. i.e. their paid for hotel rooms on the same floor as a US Senator.
                                https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ken...olent-protests
                                Last edited by surfgun; 31 Aug 20,, 02:46.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X