Shooting people is a crime and the perpetrators should be arrested regardless of whether they are policeman or not.
OT: Travel Advisory
- Thread starter MadRU
- Start date
Shooting people is a crime and the perpetrators should be arrested regardless of whether they are policeman or not.
When you make a smartass comment with an analogy that's utter bullshit you should probably expect folks to disagree.
I see you put another one of your gems in here:
"You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater."
No you cannot FALSELY shout fire with malicious intent. It's known as inciting riot and is a crime, as are libel and perjury. Just like murder with a gun. However your analogy falls apart because I don't see you advocating restrictions on the 1st and 5th amendment rights of law abiding citizens because other people commit perjury or libel or incite criminal activity with calls to murder police officers for example. Of course I should expect that by now; you may well be the king of b.s. analogies and straw man arguments.
I'll tell you what- I'll give up my 2nd amendment rights if you give up your 1st amendment rights. Deal?
I have family that are officers of the law as well as good friends that are as well.
But, I also have a fairly unique situation where I have 4 boys between 29-22. 2 from a previous marriage that are white and 2 stepsons that are black. ALL 4 are educated, polite and confident.
When they go out at night, my fears for each are different. For my 2 white sons, it is stupidity and the streets for my stepsons- I do have to add in a different factor(which has played out firsthand)
I also have to give advice differently. My two sons-,if an officer approaches you and tells you to do something you feel is against your rights, you have the right to ask. For my stepsons- the advice is the yes sir approach, submit yourself to them and we will fight it in court. I beg of them never to even question their rights in this case and just make it to the next day.
Many know me on here and know I am not one to overstate something like this.
Bottom line- there are minorities as well as whites that break the law and are a danger, there are cops of all races that are incredible people. But on the same hand, there are minority's that are incredible people too and some cops that don't know how to act, are assholes or improperly trained.
Easy to say to just submit and obey but not always what will happen even with the innocent.
The problem on all sides have to be fixed. It is not fair to make it seem you have to take one side or the other.
Did you really mean to say that you hate people who protest peacefully and who don't inconvenience you in any way, i.e., that merely the act of protesting leads you to hate them? That kind of implies you hate them to begin with. Why is that?
Even if we pretend that is true for a second, that justifies an illegal chokehold?
A teacher asks a student to do his homework. He doesn't. So she smashes his head against the wall. Should he have just done his homework? Is the teacher responsible?
If your subordinates disobey you are you allowed to assault them?
And we all know that every day white people disobey the police, and still while some end up dead as well it's not as high a percentage.
Please explain how my analogy was incorrect. It got a lot of likes, so let us all know how wrong we are. Please explain how President Obama is "directly responsible" for Dallas but yet it was the shooter who was responsible in every other mass shooting. I eagerly await your reply. I won't use your language, but tell me how wrong it is.
I am actually the one who is defending the First Amendment. You have expressed support for a candidate who has promised to shut down the internet and "open up" libel laws.
I am actually an advocate of the Second Amendment. I advocate for the right of Philando Castile to have carried his legal gun. Of course the right wing does not. We can only deduce the rationale for that.
Of course I also understand that rights have limits. The difference is again most Americans accept we don't want fire shouted in a crowded theater; it is just that NRA has no issue with the mentally ill buying guns online with no background check or those on the terror watchlist buying guns and carrying them into theaters or whereever else and then cloak themselves in the Constitution by asserting that we can open libel laws on negative journalists, close the internet, according to who they endorsed, but yet allow those who we don't let on planes to have guns. Yet when it comes to legal, non-terrorist gun owners like Castile, there is silence. Why?
I could be wrong, but I just can't wrap my head around on how such a statistic could exist. And if it does, how the hell can it be accurately measured?
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/the-real-story-of-race-and-police-killings/?_r=0
This article examines stats from both sides. In all cases, while blacks make up about 12% of the population, the percentage of those killed by police is significantly higher than 12%.
I will submit that I think BLM and others should highlight the fact that plenty of whites and others are wrongfully killed by the police.
And in terms of regular abuse, I remember seeing a video a few years ago on this site of a white RU student being pinned to the ground outside of Scarlet Pub by some NBPD officers while another officer whaled on him. And I don't think that was an isolated incident.
The first barrier American society needs to move past is the infallibility of the police. I really can't think of another profession where Americans just automatically give the benefit of the doubt- not our soldiers, not our teachers, not lawyers or doctors or any kind of professional service.
Once we get to that point, then I think some the racial issues would start to drop away, because there would be a sense of justice.
That is the advice I will give Tyler and Corey when they are old enough to be out on their own. Doesn't matter if you're black or white, democratic or republican, Terran or Martian: be respectful, answer their questions, if there are issues, we'll sort them out afterwards, even if it means unleashing the junkyard dog. Just get through it and get home.
If Gartner did as instructed from the beginning, there would have been no chokehold, illegal or not. And we never would have heard of him, nor Brown.
DJ- what you said is true but it isn't that simple. And again, trouble starts by a very small percent of police and or minorities. But here is a perfect example. Couple of years ago, we were in Manhattan as a family. Some punks started talking crap to me and the misses for being interracial(not the norm) got to the point where we called the cops...who do you think was the only person who was grabbed and told to get to the ground? Not the punks who started it or me or the misses, it was the highly educated, well respected 6'5 black kid. Took me a while to get them to understand he was part of us that called them in the first place. That is reality for you
This is a perfectly logical observation, and that's why its of little value in these situations. When police arrive at a situation, in most instances, something has gone wrong and, in general, the people who the police are approaching know this. Perhaps they have committed a minor violation, or something not so minor. Either way, someone willing to break the law may not operate with such a logical, unemotional mindset when confronted by authority.
And in situations where the police arrive and nothing has gone wrong, it's very easy for emotions to escalate quickly. Someone who feels unfairly targeted is likely to have an emotional reaction, and that can feed police reaction creating a rapid escalation.
That's why its moslty on the trained police officer to navigate situations as calmly, and with as little violence, as possible. They have to be the grown up authority figure.
Prescriptions for logical action are very often abadoned in the heat of an emotional moment.
While that may be true and I tell this to my two daughters - the only thing completely under your control is your own behavior.
Strikes me as good advice, and is a good model as to how one should behave. Unfortunately, how a person should behave is not necessarily a good indication as to how a person will behave when confronted by authorities. .
Last edited:
I hear you, and agree. To me, in a disturbing way the article makes logical sense. The fact that more blacks are killed by police at a higher % is a logical mix of: 1. higher % of blacks involved in violent crimes, and 2. Racist/ill-trained cops (both white and minority). Cops are human. Among their many faults, I believe that humans are inherently racist creatures. No answers here, just my own sad opinion.
The question I had was with your phrasing of "disobey" in your original statement. Seems such an unquantifiable aspect.
I apologize, apparently I didn't speak plainly enough. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not illegal (although perhaps unwise) if there is actually a fire. Even if the person shouting it mistakenly thinks there is a fire, it falls under ill-advised but Constitutionally protected. The legal example (Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States) stated falsely, meaning malicious intent. None of our constitutional rights are meant to be a shield to cover malicious intent to harm others. So, falsely shouting fire is legally equivalent to using your gun to shoot at someone with intent to harm. You can argue degree of effect, but the intent is the key. Neither one of these actions is Constitutionally protected, even though we have a right to free speech and a right to bear arms. Can we agree on this?
My point is that you cannot use the fire in a theater analogy to argue the merits of restricting the gun rights of law abiding citizens for the greater good unless you are also willing to restrict the free speech of law abiding citizens for the greater good. Otherwise your analogy breaks down logically, no matter how many likes you get.
And by the way, stop asking me how to explain how Obama is "directly responsible" for Dallas. I never said that, I don't believe it, regardless of my feelings about him or his administration. This is at least the second time I have had to say this, I don't expect to have to say it again.
Philando Castile did everything right. I can only say that anyone who says otherwise or tries to justify what happened to him (and I have seen some of it on the internet) must have some axe to grind that keeps them from being able to look at what happened objectively. His death was senseless and Officer Jeronimo Yanez was clearly panicked the entire time.
My candidate, since you push so hard, was John Kasich. I have admired and respected him since he became the House Ways and Means chairman during the Clinton administration. I think he would have been a far better President than any of the others.
Finally, please stop with this partisan rhetoric. Nobody wants guns in the hands of the mentally ill, the terrorists, criminals and so forth. This is just more of the Wasserman/Pelosi politispeak, lies to demonize the opposition. Sadly, both sides do it, please don't get caught up in it. The NRA has always supported background checks for gun purchases. They support not allowing people on the no fly list to purchase guns. What person in their right mind doesn't?
He still didn't do anything that warranted a death penalty with no trial. The cops were trying to arrest him, and he was standing still with his arms in the air and nothing in his hands. When they went to arrest him, he tried to prevent the cops from doing so for a split second, and that is what got him killed even though he didn't do anything that would indicate he was a threat to the officers. There were something like five officers there, they easily could have brought him to the ground without having to kill him. I don't understand why you seem to give the police a free pass when it was obviously not handled appropriately. What about the Castile killing--what should he have done differently, not leave his house that day?
I don't know how anything in my post would lead you to believe that I am advocating for stricter gun laws.
You didn't answer my question.
Give me another position where "disobeying" gives justification for shooting and chokeholds.
I guess my point on "obey" is that in any of these instances, it has not played the role that some want to point to. The Garner chokehold was illegal. Castile was following orders. Sterling and the Charleston shooter were shot in the back, one while pinned down and the other while running away. The *maybe* differentiator would be with Michael Brown, but even then theft does not strike me as a reason to shoot.
because T2k sounds like he has grown up in a protective bubble and has never had to face fear and what it is like to be afraid of what can happen even when you do obey.
There is an equivalency in the sense that we are talking about restricting a right. The typical argument on the 2A is "it's in the Constitution", and that is right so far as it is literally there but like all rights it has to be abridged in certain circumstances.
Here is the issue. Ultimately the NRA is the reason the Republicans are not voting on these gun law proposals from either party. That is just the truth of the matter. They refuse to even allow the vote to the floor. If this were truly about what is reasonable, why not say, instead of worrying about politics, safety first? 80% want the terror list matchup and 90% the background checks. At least let a vote. Now we can guess why but are you really going to tell me the NRA isn't the reason there are no votes?
You quoted my post in response to the Obama comment, which is why I mentioned it. But it's illustrative of the entire issue, because actual Republican politicians (certainly not Kasich, to be fair, who is IMO one of last reasonable Republican politicians left) are ginning up the base and have been for 8 years on his relation to things he of course has no relation to. And we should all be offended by that, especially the moderate Republicans, because it's the reason they are so endangered.
Lol, T2K is the poster child for "posts opinions about things he's never encountered inside his wealthy, homogenous, suburban protective bubble." Virtually every post he makes supports that.
I feel like a really tough day in T2K's world is when the gardener trims the hedges a little unevenly and it's a Friday so it has to look like that all weekend.
Latest posts
-
-
Olympic Sports Rutgers Softball Returns with Youth Movement This Season- Latest: rubaseball78
-
-
-