And I replied as an example of incitement of action, not legality, as always before in my posting on that particular matter, throughout this thread, ever since I introduced the illustration. Try to pay attention.
Last edited:
Is Punching A Nazi OK?
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
- Status
going to start here: the only people proven to be lying here has been you and ice
i've done that more than once - and your statement is baiting
i can also validate my point about your attempt to garner support due to your failure to produce evidence, and should a MOD request it, i will comply
it is not a separate issue - you made the claim
i refuted the claim
you continued to push and support the claim
because you made the claim and don't know what constitutes the legality of something, nor how to demonstrate it, then supported it, i am fully justified in calling you out on it
more to the point - you have a really bad habit of making these same type comments whenever you discuss anything dealing with guns
and only you would call a failure on your part to make an argument with evidence my personal "days-long tantrum of irrelevance"
only because you could not justify your own argument
so, lets back up a minute and show how you established that nazi's have greater rights than anyone else
i am requesting evidence
mind you, not your interpretation, but evidenciary support from a reliable validated source
This would mean various places like: adjudicated cases and explicit statements from final judgements
the US Constitution
the CFR's, or similar State codes
once you can establish that they have more rights, and you can demonstrate that this isn't just your interpretation or belief, then i will make a topical argument
this is specifically why i made the following statement:
if i am going to be told that i am advocating for nazi's then you must present the evidence showing that i am advocating for nazi's
otherwise you are not only trolling, but lying
again
i will continue to report your blatantly false claim that i am advocating for nazi's as it's a lie and in no way, shape or form can you provide proof that i am
if you could please demonstrate this with evidence... you made the claim, i refuted the claim
you continued to defend the claim
I have proven that on pg 19 alone, and elsewhere
this is not a matter of what you believe, but it is a matter of fact, demonstrated in this post: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-19#post-3438269
so now you are blatantly lying again
as such, this constitutes intentional harassment because of your failure to actually validate your original claim or your support of said claim
blatant lie
also note, if i am the "troll" you claim i am, then why did you respond to anything?
is it to get your kicks becuase you got a rise out of someone with a blatantly false claim that i pointed out?
oh wait... that would be the definition of trolling, right?
so, because i caught you trolling with a blatantly false claim, then i am the troll for pointing this out and refuting your claims?
that is called transference - and you did it, not i
i am not making a strawman as i have not discussed anything other than your intentional false claim, which could be considered not only a strawman, but a trolling strawman to boot!
i've posted about the legality of things, which is directly related to the original point i made about your trolling strawman and subsequent defense of said trolling strawman
I've posted your own words, and ice, verbatim, to which you still deny your own quotes above - but that is, in your eyes, evidence that i made sh*t up?
how does that work, eh?
rhetorical, and i don't really care as i've seen you in action doing this for years
- the only reason you weren't banhammered like realitycheck for doing the same thing realitycheck did was because you're a MOD
i will close this with your own transference, and in your own words which demonstrate and validate my claims about your transference:
Even in your self-righteous pronunciations you don't have the basic respect to acknowledge what people are actually saying.
Okay, prove it. Show me the post in which I invoked 18 USC § 249.
but that isn't factually correct. let me reword that post to demonstrate:
now, if i had made that statement you would say it is blatantly false because there is a law (federal) that demonstrates this, and not all people are given warnings
so why then is your argument suddenly more accurate when it is a hate crime?
being prosecuted for a hate crime is not the same thing as being prosecuted for a homicide. you can have a homicide in a hate crime (as explicitly stated in the law) but not all hate crimes are homicides. and no homicide is prosecuted as a hate crime unless it meets the requirements.
two separate points
so you can't say the lack of prosecution for a hate crime is somehow evidence of legality - see also: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-19#post-3438278
there is a very specific criteria and qualification for the use of the term "legal" - as stated in the above link
you do not meet that, so you can only say it is perceived or believed to be legal
language is a part of the problem, but it is due to inexperience
you are making a claim of legality based upon your interpretations of events - not the facts
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-19#post-3438278
if you could just pull the facts from the above cases and present the final judgements this would all end
really and truly
because you're making the same argument - all i did was change the situation to a black man killing a white person and used the justification of an event where said suspect was not found guilty
that is exactly what you are doing above, just using black men being killed by non-black men
so, either you mean your argument is valid, but only when you post it, or you mean it's valid all the time
i state it is not valid at any time as it doesn't meet the requirements of evidence
again: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-19#post-3438278
and i keep harping on this for a reason - this boils down to the levels of evidence and what constitutes evidence in any discourse regarding legal matters
it really is relevant - much like using studies to justify the argument in science for [insert claim], you must use evidence that is valid in law to justify the legality of something as well. not articles and interpretations based upon what is perceived in the media
post the final judgements and you will see what i am talking about
Last edited:
[Tiassa is]
You do have a way with similes Cap'n...
[WTF] <--- edit to add and avoid confusion
???
You do have a way with similes Cap'n...
[WTF] <--- edit to add and avoid confusion
Last edited:
1- i never said you invoked 18 U.S. Code § 249 - not once. not ever. i don't think you even read it, otherwise we would not be arguing about the legality of shooting blacks in the US at all and you would have retracted your claim and subsequent support
2- what you invoked: a hate crime is legal in the us
and i've quoted this multiple times, so 18 U.S. Code § 249 is relevant to any argument regarding your quote
let me repeat your quote, yet again:
found here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-11#post-3436987
that quote, which i refuted, specifically is relevant to 18 U.S. Code § 249
it is relevant because the explicit wording of 18 U.S. Code § 249 states you are wrong, and your state statute justification argument is thus also wrong
this, by definition, means 18 U.S. Code § 249 is relevant to the argument that you and i have regarding the legality of shooting blacks, which was my point the whole time
EDIT:
your post is also a distraction and strawman
likely intentional
and again, what you referenced was articles: not final judgements
and article is the opinion of an author about what they perceive are the facts in a story they're writing
if you were to post the final judgements you would be justified in making the claim that your argument is based upon "the reasons for not prosecuting" or the "fact", the acceptance as "justified killings"
public statements can be used in court but they are not the same thing as the facts of the case, and until you can reference those adjudications and facts, then you are basing your entire argument on what someone may well have misquoted or simply believed to be true, and others repeated. repeatedly
a serious point that must be addressed as well: if you are specific about source material in science when you make an argument, then why are you now ignoring this for the sake of the law?
the law has source material just like science...
Now, bear with me:
you wouldn't justify the argument that the Theory of Evolution is just a belief because 500 christian newspapers, web-sites and church sites make the claim
you would require at least a study to make a point, and validation of said study which refuted the scientific facts in order to call it a scientific fact
why? because of the volume of evidence that demonstrates that Evolution is real
correct?
feel free to refute this if you think i am wrong
well... the law is the same way.
you can't state that articles, even news articles, are accurate representations of fact unless they're validated by source material, and in the law and this case in particular, that must be the final judgements,
and eventually, the legal statutes themselves must also be a part of the argument, especially when regarding the legality of something
and there are levels among those statutes, with local being the lowest, then state, and federal being the highest
nowhere and in no way is something that is not prosecuted then considered legal
never
it simply is not prosecuted
and just because they were not found guilty of homicide per a state law doesn't mean they can't face prosecution for a hate crime, which is what the justification of violence and homicide using race is
Not me. I just pointed to the obvious - that whatever the definition of "legal" is in the US, what Zimmerman and Wilson and all the rest did - according to reams of evidence right in front of us - matches it.
That stupid shit you post is not even close to my argument. Quit paraphrasing - you can't do it.
Last time I complained about your rewording, you called me a liar for saying you reworded stuff.
For the third or fourth time: give up rewording. You are incapable of rewording. You always screw it up, like that one, because you refuse to acknowledge the argument in the first place - you refuse to consider the meaning of the posts you are "rewording".
It's not me doing the "perceiving" or "believing". I'm pointing to judges, AGs, police, courts, juries, the DOJ, and so forth. They say it's legal. I'm just taking their word for it, over yours. I think I'm pretty safe there, considering your bizarre interpretations of my posts.
The final judgments are exactly what I presented - the judges's rulings, the AGs's decisions, etc. So - ended?
What they did was declared to be legal - by the judges, AGs, police, courts, juries, DOJ, and so forth - on the basis that what they did, for the reasons they said they did it, was not a crime.
Last edited:
I agree. It's stupid. And it's your argument.
That violates US law. So they are not legal, no matter what "stupid fucking shit" some idiot says.
Let's go back to the speeding argument.
Let's say you were speeding. And everyone agrees you were speeding - the cop, the judge, everyone. And they say "it's just not worth prosecuting it, because of this dumb mistake that the cop made on the ticket." And you go free without even having to pay a fine. You can claim that since you weren't prosecuted although you were clearly speeding, and everyone knew it, that you were not "getting away" with anything - you simply weren't breaking the law, since they let you go.
And THAT is the point. You are still breaking the law, no matter what stupid fucking shit you say. No, it's not "legal to speed" just because you didn't get prosecuted. No, it's not "legal to kill blacks" even if you get away with it under circumstances where it is murder.
actually, i used your exact post and words to prove that you lied, so that is different
i specifically said i was rewording to make a point: if the statement you made is correct and "legal" per your claims, then it should also apply to the exact same situation in any other legal citation or event
the rewording demonstrates this is blatantly false simply by changing homicide to speeding
it also elucidates the problem, and it is not that i am "refuse[ing] to acknowledge the argument in the first place" or "refuse[ing] to consider the meaning of the posts you are "rewording" "
then please demonstrate this by posting the final judgement
this is the source material in this case
everything else is opinion and utilising it is just you interpreting (perceiving /believing) it based upon your acceptance of said article as a valid source
i've made this point multiple times and you have yet to actually provide the adjudication that explicitly states and or demonstrates that said killing is legal and justified and that the justification was due to race
why can't you see that?
you seem to be able to see how posting a link to a creationist site isn't proof evolution isn't real
you seem able to see that linking to an article by breitbart isn't proof that climate change isn't real
so why are you refusing to actually link source material for the law?
why?
i can't stress this enough. i've repeated this. i've repeatedly asked for the adjudication adn documentation. why do you refuse this?
is it because you found the documents and they do not support the claims?
because that is the only way you will be able to prove your point, especially if you really do believe that you aren't doing any interpretation, perceiving or believing
no, you did not
there is only one link on this thread of any ruling or judgement, and that was to the Wilson shooting here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf
the only thing found in said ruling was the following:
and i was the one who provided that, not you
you have never once linked any judicial final judgement. you have linked articles about a judgement
nowhere on this thread can you post a quote that demonstrated you linked the final judgement - which is the adjudication and findings of the court with specific listings of evidence and the justification in the text
and i've repeatedly told you that you've only posted links to articles, not to the adjudication documentation. hell, i even used Blacks Law to spell it out so that you weren't confused about what that was
then you should be able to link the adjudication and final judgement which is public information to prove this point
NOT an article
NOT a link to someone talking about the points in the case
the source material - the final judgement issued by the court and freely available to all per the FOIA (that means Freedom Of Information Act, just in case you want to argue some other point)
i am putting this separate: how can you take their word for it when you can't produce their word demonstrating your argument?
you say you are taking their word for it... but you've only linked articles
not once have you linked any source material
Not once
i linked a DOJ document on Wilson/Brown and you even had problems with what that was, in that one, because you ignored the findings (justification) for the sake of your interpretation of events based upon what you read in Wilson's statement.
so you even admitted on that document by example that you don't believe the findings in a legal document because it didn't jibe with what you wanted to believe, even in a case that was written up by law that you used as a justification for shooting
but now you want to argue that you will believe a judge over me?
when you can't actually produce the judgement that states what said judge actually ruled?
how does that work?
really, it is simple: produce the source material
don't repeat an article and don't quote any article link you've made here
quote the source material for the judges words
if it is an article then you are interpreting the events because you are taking the word of the author of said article
if it is the adjudication documentation then you can state it is the judges words
there is only one source material in this case and you have not presented it in even one of your posts
Last edited:
billvon
THANK YOU
thank you for understand that point and getting it!
i doubt you will make any headway because i've been making this point for pages to ice, and he is still making the exact same claim that is still the exact same fallacy
No.
I referenced the DOJ findings, in that and other cases, directly - they are explicitly part of my argument (see my continual inclusion of "DOJ", specifically, just for you, in my list of authorities who have found no crime in these events).
My only "problem" with your misinterpretation of that DOJ report was your claim that in the initial encounter with Brown Wilson approached him as a suspect in a violent robbery. As Wilson's accepted testimony stated, in his initial encounter he did not - he confronted Brown and pal for walking in the street, initially, and drove away before realizing they were robbery suspects. And I explained, when you seemed confused, exactly why that mattered in our consideration of Wilson's officially determined and declared lack of demonstrable criminal guilt.
It means that what Wilson said he did, for the reasons he gave, was legal.
I accepted the findings in the legal document you referenced, took them as given, and used them to support my argument. I also have - throughout - taken as given your version of what whatever judge you're banging on about this time said when they ruled.
I don't believe "a judge" over you. I believe the combined and mutually consistent and multiply supported opinions of many judges, AGs, police, courts, DOJ investigators, and so forth, over yours.
so what you're saying is that, despite the findings that state otherwise, you are still under the impression and belief that Wilson killed Brown over race?
please be explicit and clear on that
thanks
you cannot show that you linked any DOJ findings from the other cases
the only DOJ finding was from the Wilson/Brown shooting
if you linked a DOJ finding from another case, please quote that post and link it here
sorry... no
i am not presenting any "Version" of what any judge says - i presented the explicit wording per the legal documentation
the only one presenting any version of what any judge says is you
and that is my point - present the judicial documentation proving what he said in the cases you claim are supporting the legality of racial hate crimes
or, as you put it, the legality of shooting blacks in the US
but you just explicitly said you believe a judge over me... you said
so again, where did they say it was legal?
where is that adjudication?
where is the source material?
where is the post you provided the linked source that i can go to and then read the adjudicated case, please?
and therein lies the problem: you are explicitly stating that you believe the judges over me but you can't actually provide the judicial documentation
so, by definition, you are saying, literally, that you believe the subjective opinion of whomever is writing an article from your regular source of information on this topic as being factually accurate about the judicial findings
you can't say you believe the judges because you have yet to be able to provide the source material to support your claims
if you believed the judges, cumulatively or individually, you would be able to provide some source material that is not subjective
something that is written by said judge (all adjudications have a final judgement)
not something that is written by a second, third or unnumbered author compiling random quotes from various sources
present the source material for at least the cases you specifically mention, be it the original three or any other (that is not the already listed DOJ)
as i've stated time and again: you have not once provided source material for your argument
Well, almost.
At least you got the right words.
But you still can't justify your change of subject.
No, it's not.
If you cannot prove malice under RCW 9A.016.040(3), what triggers 18 USC § 249? We have a malice standard. A federal prosecutor is welcome to test an act covered under 9A.016.040 that lacks malice, but without that malice how would the prosecutor establish a hate crime?
If one asserts self-defense, how will a prosecutor prove otherwise?
No, it isn't, and no it doesn't.
You have yet to explain what the hell all that means. All you've done is insist on changing the subject.
It's almost the opposite of my argument. That's part of its fucking stupidity.
It's not like I'm dealing in rocket science, here. It's pretty simple: a bunch of judges, AGs, police, etc, accept the facts of various killings and the justifications offered, and declare the killings to have been legal ones on that basis. On the basis of the killings being legal, they declare the killers not guilty of crime. On the basis of the facts and justifications offered by the killers, they don't even press charges - they can see they would have no case. And so forth. This having all the facts in front of them, of deriving their verdict from the killer's justifications, of the verdict being based on the killing being legally justified, is the entire basis of the argument - it's the only reason for pointing to those examples.
The basis in fact and justification, the determination that the killings were justified by the justifications offered, that given these justifications there was no crime committed, is the entire reason those examples even came up.
And you post an argument from the OJ Simpson verdict as somehow "the same". Seriously. You aren't joking. I must have missed the part where OJ was declared innocent because his justification for killing the woman was accepted by the judge and jury - or was it the part where the AG read OJ's account of his killing the woman and why, and realized he had no case, that this was justified homicide?
What can you be thinking is even the parallel there?
Let's not. Because it's got nothing to do with my argument, and nothing to do with this thread.
So the entire body of US legal authority is saying stupid fucking shit, and you are going to tell them all what's what about US law - starting with your comprehension as demonstrated by the speeding ticket and OJ examples.
That still wouldn't do it. Because in the real world people subject to US law will not have you guys around to straighten out the DOJ, police, prosecutors, AGs, judges, and juries, on these interpretations - people still have to act as if those dozens of rulings and decisions by every level of US law enforcement had the force of law.
And that's where the relevance to the OP would begin: on the effect of this fact of US law on one's assessment of when it's ok to punch a "nazi".
Let's say you think it's ok whenever it's legal - does that mean legal in your view, or legal in the view of the public, the police, the prosecutors, and the courts?
I don't have this problem, because I don't base my assessment of when it's ok to punch a "nazi" completely on the basis of legality (either way). But those who place greater significance on legality when determining "ok" in this particular matter have a decision to make.
Last edited:
except that i have not changed the subject. the subject has always been the same argument
you made a false claim that i refuted with evidence
i have been arguing with you since because you can't accept the evidence presented and you refuse to actually accept you're actually wrong
i mean, you're a MOD. and you can't be wrong - or at least, that is the way you've repeatedly acted WRT this topic since i posted my first refute to your claim that it's legal to shoot blacks in the US
you are the only one who keeps trying to change the subject from your original false claim, which you still can't accept is wrong per the evidence
yes, it is. it is relevant because you stated it is legal to shoot blacks in the US
whereas the law explicitly states this is false
therefore it is relevant
you are talking two separate charges, and one does not preclude the other
you can be charged with both at the same time, so there is no need to "trigger" 18 USC § 249
the federal law is explicit
and again, just because you didn't get prosecuted doesn't mean its legal, nor does it mean you're safe from prosecution under the law, especially when there is a homicide
asked and answered many, many, many times
the law is not only explicit, but 18 USC § 249 does not require malice or aforethought at all
how many times do we have to go over this?
read the law -
here is the link again: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249
where does it say anywhere that malice need be present?
where?
show me, please?
you are arguing two separate statutes: one covers self defense, one covers hate crimes
if you continue to ignore this then you will never understand WTF this whole argument is about, not that i am sure you know what you are actually talking about WRT this topic anyway
this is about hate crimes, not your law
and regardless of your self defense law, it is a state statute and still is superseded by federal law
so you can be found justified in your shooting but still be found guilty of a hate crime
it's a separate law for a separate situation that explicitly states your argument is false: it is NOT legal to shoot blacks in the US
and i just once again proved you wrong above, in this post
you keep arguing about your state statute - it really is irrelevant
i am making the argument that it really is not legal to shoot blacks in the US because of race, as it's illegal
you say it is legal per the state statute
you have absolutely no source material to support your claims demonstrating that shooting because of race is legal
not one link to not one case file or adjudication
not one
nowhere in this thread
none of the above is changing the subject
and this is baiting with intentional trolling BS
i have explained this as thoroughly as anyone can explain it and you have refused to accept it because it doesnt fit with your delusion
so i will explain this again: you made a claim. it is the same claim i have just proven is false
you claimed it is legal to shoot blacks in the US
the legal statute ( 18 U.S. Code § 249 )is relevant because it specifically states that shooting someone due to race is illegal
so you change it and claim it's legal because people have not been prosecuted, so that's proof it's legal
but not being prosecuted is not the same thing as being legal, it simply means you haven't been prosecuted
so then you change it to people have been prosecuted by the state and not found guilty of a crime
but that is not the same thing as the state statute is about justifying shooting when threatened, whereas the federal statute i provided ( 18 U.S. Code § 249 ) is superior to the state and specifically about shooting someone because they're black
then you change it yet again to i haven't explained all of that
but that is a lie
More to the point: not once do you ever actually provide source material for any case that demonstrates that any person utilised race as a justification for the shooting
not once
so you can't provide source material, you've changed the subject repeatedly to mask the fact taht you are blatantly wrong, and now you are attempting to distract again with the strawman argument that i am the one changing the subject
i am the only one who has stuck to the same argument throughout our exchanges
so you are demonstrating transference and lying
and blatantly so
and i've already proved that
and i can link that yet again to any MOD who wishes... you should be able to find it yourself
without source material you are taking someone elses word for this
this means your argument is subjective
also, you can't actually state this if you can't actually provide the documentation to support it
no source material means you're linking opinion
source material is: the adjudication documentation
1- they may have decreed the killers not guilty of a local state statute, but that doesn't mean they can't be charged with a crime per 18 U.S. Code § 249
2- not being charged of a crime is not the same thing as being found innocent, being found not guilty, or establishing the legality of anything
you keep quoting this and saying this, but you still can't actually show source material proving this
It's not like I'm dealing in rocket science, here. It's pretty simple: source material or STFU already
not an article, either
you made the claim, now you provide the source material
and this means the adjudication documentation that explicitly supports your claims, not some random author who can't comprehend the difference between what makes something legal and what makes something a travesty
I referred directly to your DOJ link on the Brown shooting, and you refused to accept it.
I think I will hold off on wasting any time finding a bunch of quotes from AGs and prosecutors and judges and so forth, until you have explicitly made a fool of yourself by declaring exactly what it is you need documentation of, and thereby simplified my task.
For example: do you need documentation for my take on the Trayvon Martin case? If so, on what basis do you think Zimmerman was found not guilty - by a jury - other than Zimmerman's account of his killing of Martin, including his justifications and claims of self defense etc, (and the odd manner in which charges were brought, omitting (for example) the possibility of lower degrees of manslaughter for the jury to choose).
Note that my argument depends on his account being a key aspect, and acceptance of his account (or at least recognition that it was not disproved) being central to his acquittal, {by establishing that the killing was or would be justified on that account, and therefore not a crime.} (edit in).
Last edited:
- Status