Is Punching A Nazi OK?

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Now, couple that with the laws that allow people to use deadly force for a perceived threat and you have what you currently have in many parts of America.. And it is absolutely legal.

need i remind you about what constitutes what is legal in the US?
LOL

What seems obvious, to those educated on these laws, is that you're either making shit up or you've been dupped by agenda-driven bias

Syne
actually, in this case it is a misconception about the law, IMHO
Bells makes a clear argument as to why it isn't prosecuted, but forgets that not being prosecuted doesn't mean it's legal. this is shown in the example of speeders i made pages ago (more than once). just because someone gets a warning doesn't mean what they did was legal. it only means it was not prosecuted.

The disproportionate crime rate, including violent crime, by blacks is an objective fact.

and i will have to add a qualifier here to that: it also doesn't clearly define all crimes, shootings, racial calls etc, nor does it record the requisite data needed to make a serious, accurate or valid study for the situation being argued above.

as such, it can't really be called objective as it doesn't have the requisite data to be objective. it is simply not clear. it points to the possibility of something, but you can't actually make a statement about it being objectively stating [x] as there is no ability to show correlation and causation to validate said claim of [x]

which was another point i made a while back...

so you really can't justify the argument using statistics alone as they're freely available from the DOJ, BJS, FBI and other sources, and anyone using them (like i do) will soon realise that there is a lot of information that is not present in the cases or logged and recorded in the data sets.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Again: we have examples. This is not theoretical. Trayvon Martin case is already in the thread.

please show, in the source material, where it explicitly stated that Martin was killed, or the killing was justified, because he was black
thanks

If it's the Adkins incident - there have been others - the shooter was eventually charged and convicted of second degree manslaughter, as the police recommended in the first place (although they did not arrest him). The victim was "hispanic" and/or "white", however - the perp was black, and 23 years old.

not being arrested or charged is not the same ting as being legal
http://thelawdictionary.org/

The whole point here is what "clear, objective justification" means. That's the issue. And nothing here is limited to "civilians" doing the shooting.

there are two misunderstood points you are making:
1- you're justifying the shooting. this is separate than justifying die to race
2- the race element of the shooting
as such, there are two laws that must be addressed, unless you can provide evidence from the source material that specifically states said shooting was justified because of race
This is why source material was requested (repeatedly) by me
this is why you can't make the claim based upon articles or internet news sources
this is why your argument is invalid - because you address only one aspect
you havee not been able to actually connect the racial aspect with evidence that is not subjective to imterpretation. you've only provided your interpretations of either news (subjective) or statistics (that do not contain the requisite data)

so as such, your entire argument centers around your interpretations of the law based upon your perceptions of what is happening
there is absolutely no corroborating evidence to justify your argument in this thread, especially since the point originally argued was the legality of shooting blacks in the US.
and before you argue paraphrasing - i proved that already in your own words more than once. i also proved it in T's words.
when you state something is legal per your argument then you are making the argument of the legality of said action

 

[Dr_Toad]

Let me just put it this way..

...

What is now blatantly obvious from these laws is that minorities are being killed by white people who merely have to perceive them as a threat and more often than not, they are not being charged for it. This is entirely legal.
...

I should not have to point out how this perception of black people and hispanics being stronger, more physically resilient, more aggressive and less sensitive to pain would be detrimental, should I? Especially when one looks at how racial bias results in whites subconsciously seeing black people as a threat..

Now, couple that with the laws that allow people to use deadly force for a perceived threat and you have what you currently have in many parts of America.. And it is absolutely legal.

So now do people understand what is meant when people say it is legal to shoot black people in America? Can people actually connect the dots and see how and why it is legal to shoot black people in America and how some laws allow for a perceived threat and be able to look at the many studies posted throughout this thread to show the inherent bias and prejudice and how some white people view black people and minorities and how they are viewed as threats because of their skin colour?

What happens if a black man is scared of a white man?

I mean, for goodness sake, there are whites out there who think that black people have superhuman strength and feel no pain. There are whites out there who think that black people are animalistic and strong and feel no pain. Is it really inconceivable that these people would shoot a black person because of a perceived threat and that the law actually allows them to shoot to kill because of a perceived threat? Is it really that hard to understand this? Is it really possible to deny the various studies done on this very subject, many of which have already been linked in this thread?

Studies done by people who don't have a foot on the ground in many cases. Who the hell but a fool would think that people of other races would have superpowers? What kind of idiot would ask these questions, and of what sort of cherry-picked study group?

Ever been to Houston or Chicago, or Holyoke, Omaha, or the Bronx? You aren't worried about skin color there. Any SOB can shoot you, and likely get away with it, because nobody saw anything...

Not saying that it's reasonable, but it's a thing.

And punching a "perceived" nazi is still not any more OK than shooting someone that's threatening you from 30 feet away.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

and mostly I'm struck by how much effort people have put into keeping the discussion focused here instead of on Nazis.

Tiassa
i will give you several reasons:
1- you historically make blatantly false claims in any gun topic and attempt to justify your arguments with your beliefs, not objective data or evidence that can be considered non-subjective

2- the subject is directly related as i demonstrated per 18 U.S.C § 249 - this is where you went ape-sh*t troll because you can't comprehend the protections under the constitution and the law, so you distracted per your "equating with nazi" argument along with a few other intentional troll red herrings and strawman arguments based upon your personal bias and / or worse

3- you continue, still, to repeat the claim and attempt to justify it without being able to even establish, using source material, that the justification of the shooting was racial

the first two reasons are why i stepped into the thread because you intentionally made a false claim that isn't supported by evidence and you literally did it as a strawman distraction from the OP for whatever reason
... it would have ended had you been able to supply either the source material that proved the justification was racial -or- you provided a legal statute the explicitly states that it's legal, and that using race is legal

considering 18 U.S.C § 249, i can demonstrate you will not find the latter (the law), so you now need the former, or the source material, showing the justification was racial and intent was due to race.

you've repeatedly refused to provide this, and so has ice... hell, even Bells still hasn't address that point with source material

 

[iceaura]

What happens if a black man is scared of a white man?

And kills him without being under actual threat, or starting the fight in the first place? He goes to jail. That's a crime.

And punching a "perceived" nazi is still not any more OK than shooting someone that's threatening you from 30 feet away.

No such thing as "fighting words"?

3- you continue, still, to repeat the claim and attempt to justify it without being able to even establish, using source material, that the justification of the shooting was racial

The justifications for most of the shootings at issue was "mortal threat".
It's the mortal threat that was racial.

 

[Syne]

Again: we have examples. This is not theoretical. Trayvon Martin case is already in the thread.

And which of the criteria I listed do you suppose was missing in that case?
Trayvon Martin isn't a magic talisman you can wave in lieu of argument.

If it's the Adkins incident - there have been others - the shooter was eventually charged and convicted of second degree manslaughter, as the police recommended in the first place (although they did not arrest him). The victim was "hispanic" and/or "white", however - the perp was black, and 23 years old.

You're going to have to link to the story...a name isn't enough to find it.
But like I said, unjustified shooters do face charges.

The whole point here is what "clear, objective justification" means. That's the issue. And nothing here is limited to "civilians" doing the shooting.
Otherwise: George Zimmerman, of course.
But this one's my favorite, because nobody died: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-revealed-object-believed-gun-toy-truck.html Note that the police handcuffed the guy they shot. Any idea why?

I already gave you a clear list of objective justifications...and all must be present for the justification to be sufficient. Bells mentioned a civilian (stand your ground laws do not apply to police), so are you just moving her goalposts to forward your narrative?
Again, Zimmerman isn't a magic talisman to ward off actual argument.
As far as the Kinsey shooting, it seems obvious that the officer who fired didn't have sufficient firearms training, since he missed his target. You'll notice that the police handcuffed both men, which is likely procedure. But it seems obvious that the police where on edge, answering a call of an armed suspect, and that mistakes that should have consequences were made. Police are human too...they're not perfect. And using errors in judgment to paint a racist narrative is disingenuous, at best, and can potentially get police killed.

You do know that there's a difference between not being charged and being found not guilty, right?

Which one is most clearly related to whether it's ok to punch a "nazi", in your view?

Who said that was directly related to punching a nazi? If you use force without sufficient justification, you're likely to face charges.

 

[kx000]

Don't harm people for pleasure.

 

[Dr_Toad]

And kills him without being under actual threat, or starting the fight in the first place? He goes to jail. That's a crime.

No such thing as "fighting words"?

The justifications for most of the shootings at issue was "mortal threat".
It's the mortal threat that was racial.

You are a troll and a damned fool. Now you're on "ignore", because you're deliberately obtuse or just plain stupid.

 

[Tiassa]

No such thing as "fighting words"?

I have a personal joke about the threshold at which we will call off traditional doctrines, and, quite honestly, the reason I have it is that we have the appearance, as a society, of questioning these customary truisms when the empowerment majority perceives itself accordingly vulnerable.

We're entering a period that, if not checked, might well be described someday as the New Appeasement.

 

[sculptor]

You are a troll and a damned fool. Now you're on "ignore", because you're deliberately obtuse or just plain stupid.

When your only tool is a hammer, you begin to see every problem as a nail.

 

[James R]

iceaura:

So you have weighed in on the thread topic - when it is OK to punch a "nazi". You used the capital N - that, imho, changes things, as has been mentioned.

You mean "Nazi" as in a paid-up member of Hitler's National Socialist movement, as opposed to "nazi" as in just somebody who you happen to believe is oppressing you in some way?

There are "grammar nazis", you know. I don't think it's ok to punch somebody who presumes to suggest a correction to your grammar...

But still, that's progress:
We now have three contributions, one of which we can separate into two somewhat different takes:
1) Mine: it is ok to punch a "nazi" not only whenever it's ok to punch anyone (legal and legitimate), but also - particular to "nazis" - when their self-identification as a "nazi" amounts to an instigation, is "fighting words", or otherwise increases the threat level enough over the non-nazi background to justify punching.

Now we need to consider morality vs legality.

It is clear to me that it is not legal to punch somebody just because they said something that you happen to take as "fighting words". For example, they tell you that Donald Trump is an idiot, and you love the Donald, so you punch them.

Presumably, then, you're not arguing the legality of it, but the morality of it. You feel morally obliged to punch the anti-Donald "nazi", and you think violence is a good solution to a perceived insult you have been dealt. Is that it?

(I compared punching someone who is burning a flag - sometimes that is "fighting words", and no other threat or excuse is needed to punch them imho. Other times it's free speech, and punching is not ok imho. Depends. )

I've never understood the peculiarly American aversion to flag burning. I guess it's tied to a strong sense of nationalism or something.

What you seem to be telling me is that you think it's ok to physically beat somebody because they burnt a piece of cloth that you considered symbolic of your patriotism or something. If that is the case, then I understand why you might think it's ok to beat up somebody who offended your politics or your views on race.

What I don't understand is why you think that violence is likely to be helpful in such circumstances. It might give you some short-term satisfaction, but that's about it. I also worry because you're pro-guns, are you not? At what point would it become acceptable to you to shoot the "nazi" or flag-burner instead of merely punching him?

I made no distinction between legal and illegal (I don't know, and don't care, whether it's illegal to punch someone for burning a flag in the entry lot of a VFW club on July 4th. I think it's ok, and by my use of the comparison it's also ok to punch a "nazi" sometimes whether it's legal or not. My opinion.)

So you have a vigilante's disregard for the law? Is that what you're telling me?

 

[Randwolf]

That seems a bit dubious insofar as the Talk, as I understand it, has to do with cops, generally.

Maybe a smidge dubious - I should have gone with the klansman example instead. And you're right, all cops scare me, not just the white ones.

I don't know, I just don't believe↑ a black man could do to a white guy what Zimmerman did to Martin↑.

Much less likely, I agree. In today's climate he might get away with it if the victim was a light skinned Muslim wearing a Topi.

Look, in that moment when anyone has to decide, and we get it wrong, why did we get it wrong?
Criterion of fear. What qualifies for mortal fear.

This is a legitimate concern. There was a time, in my previous life, when I regularly carried. A road rage situation arose and I ended up in a parking lot with a dude that was literally frothing at the mouth. I mean literally frothing at the mouth... Anyway, he told me he was getting a gun to shoot me. He then proceeded to bend over into his back seat and pull out a metallic shiny object. Needless to say, I was reaching... And I realized I wasn't armed at that particular time (unusual for me then). I thought I was dead for sure. Turns out the idiot had actually pulled out a friggin' rear view mirror that was laying detached on the floor in the back of his car. Any other time I would have shot him dead. I consider this one of the luckiest days of my life, in that I didn't have my .38. After the cops arrived and the whole situation calmed down I found out the guy had just come from discovering his brother dead by suicide - he was a little whacked in the head...

Anyway, that experience never left me. Although I didn't reject firearms my view on the 2nd amendment evolved a bit - maybe it's not such a good idea for everybody to be strapped every minute in every place. Point is, it is possible to make an honest mistake based on a reasonable assessment of the situation. However, I do not believe that is what happened in the Zimmerman case or many of the similar ones, especially those involving cops. The cops are trained for this sort of thing (aren't they?) and shouldn't be making these "mistakes" as frequently as they do. OTH, I wasn't there so I can't be sure... But it seems awfully rotten in Denmark. Furthermore, as to the subtopic under discussion, the "mistake" seems to involve an unarmed black male WAY more often than one would expect.

The underlying problem is even more difficult to fix precisely because it is not legal to shoot a black person. The system is set up so that these sort of things are almost impossible to prosecute - how do we know the shooter was not in fear for his life? I know I was on the day of the rear view mirror - but I was wrong. The evidence showing something is systemically wrong is mostly statistical and correlation does not equal causation. That is starting to change now that everyone has a video camera but yet we still can't get a conviction. I imagine many more will have to die before the tide turns.

As to the whole drawn out semantic argument over the use of "legal" (with and without scare quotes) I would wager I have exclaimed "I guess it is legal to shoot black men now!" at least a dozen times. I've said this to my wife, to friends and associates - in reaction to the latest news story illustrating just that. However, if someone called me on the phrasing I wouldn't try to support it in a scholarly fashion with citations and all. Reason being, it is just not true and the ensuing battle would be nothing but a distraction from the underlying substantive discussion. But hey - that's just me...

Iceaura has put in a titanic effort;

Yes, yes he has... Every time I interact with Ice it seems to end in a dispute over the definition of some common word. I guess we're both stubborn that way.

PS - the link to the pic in your spoiler seems broken - at least for me.

 

[Randwolf]

/@ Iceaura - just so I leave a reply: Whatever you say buddy... Carry on.

 

[Dr_Toad]

There was a time, in my previous life, when I regularly carried. A road rage situation arose and I ended up in a parking lot with a dude that was literally frothing at the mouth. I mean literally frothing at the mouth... Anyway, he told me he was getting a gun to shoot me. He then proceeded to bend over into his back seat and pull out a metallic shiny object. Needless to say, I was reaching... And I realized I wasn't armed at that particular time (unusual for me then). I thought I was dead for sure. Turns out the idiot had actually pulled out a friggin' rear view mirror that was laying detached on the floor in the back of his car. Any other time I would have shot him dead. I consider this one of the luckiest days of my life, in that I didn't have my .38. After the cops arrived and the whole situation calmed down I found out the guy had just come from discovering his brother dead by suicide - he was a little whacked in the head...

Lucky and very scary. Damn, that would stay with me, too.

 

[Tiassa]

PS - the link to the pic in your spoiler seems broken - at least for me.

Yep. That's Google for you. I'll correct it again, by using a completely different server. Google is just not reliable.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

The justifications for most of the shootings at issue was "mortal threat".
It's the mortal threat that was racial.

so now were back at this exact same argument: where does it say "mortal threat" in the case file?

where does it say "mortal threat" in the final judgement or adjudication? (source material is important)

where does it say in the state law that it is legal to kill someone if you think anyone of a separate race constitutes a "mortal threat"?

you keep saying that It's the mortal threat that was racial, so now actually prove that the mortal threat was due to race by linking the final judgements!

i will ask yet again because it is important and vital to your argument, considering you've not actually presented any source material for ANY shooting that actually states the shooting was racially motivated, let alone race constituted a "mortal threat"...
so : where is the source material?

and i say this because the justification of "mortal threat" must come from a "mortal threat", whereas a perceived threat due to race is a wholly different argument per the law,

worse still, you still haven't proven is the justification for the shootings you advocated in the examples earlier! so how can anyone validate it was a "mortal threat"?
just because it's printed in the paper or published on line doesn't mean it's real, let alone factual. there are no controls like in science. no peer review.

source material please... not your belief. not your links to articles. please show the adjudication where the "mortal threat" was the race and it was called a justified shooting under the law

.

The cops are trained for this sort of thing (aren't they?) and shouldn't be making these "mistakes" as frequently as they do.

Randwolf
if i may interject: yes and no
they may be trained and develop a muscle memory reaction to a threat, but cops don't train with "benign threats" ... so there is that to consider
most of the "training" is just verbal reminders or some update done during shift change or some similar meet or memo

sure, some training may have various pics of "Criminals" on shooting range targets with the occasional soccer mom, kid, or groceries (think "Police Academy" movies on the shotgun range)... but that is also not a regular training program that is maintained because it is expensive to fund, maintain, judge, train, justify and keep using

so the cops may do this once in the academy and maybe, maybe a couple times afterward in a career of 20 years? ... all because of budgets.
[note: things may have changed recently but i highly doubt the funding is there for this kind of continual training]

this is also a pet peeve of both the law enforcement folk and the public: the public want the reassurance that they have a well trained professional law enforcement program but they don't want to pay for it (or firefighters, or emergency medical ... ). The cops (etc) want to be the best they can in a lot of cases, and often take their own time and money to train, take classes, etc... with no compensation or help

it's a tightrope where you have to make judgement calls and work with what you have. in fact, there is no real mandatory qualifications in a lot of places other than a yearly firearms proficiency shoot. (in some jobs, it means only shooting better than 25 out of 40)

HCSO (Tampa, Fl) used to issue 1 box of rounds a month for practice ... but i can't even say if that is done any more. and 20 rounds for practice? that is one hour of training ... not much, really, when you think about it

The evidence showing something is systemically wrong is mostly statistical and correlation does not equal causation. That is starting to change now that everyone has a video camera but yet we still can't get a conviction. I imagine many more will have to die before the tide turns.

not only that... those statistics often don't actually contain all the data needed to point to a cause, which then causes additional frustration when trying to actually find out what is going on

sometimes it's well after the fact gets bad, or after polarizing situations that cause massive national or global media attention, when people notice that sh*t aint right, so they change what is collected, add to it or whatever, to try to find the problem.

this has happened more than a few times to the DOJ/BJS statistics just since 1980 - they collect far, far more data on crimes today than in 1980

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

So, yeah. What qualifies for mortal fear↑. Criterion of threat↑, suspicion, or danger.

ok, i have to ask again: how do you know for sure?
because the media told you?
for instance: you state

I live in a country where you can shoot someone to death for being black.

That's pretty much all it takes, these days, to qualify for mortal fear.

there are legal documents that specifically deal with the topic, but i saw only your link to the WA state (local, not federal)
also note - this is directly refuted by 18 U.S.C § 249 as well - if you use the argument of race as justification for mortal fear, you are breaking the law, which is in most definitions or dictionaries, considered illegal
Therefore it can't be "legal" to shoot someone for being black

so you actually attempt to use examples:

Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner.

In all three cases, a criterion of "threat" was their dark skin.

In all three cases, this prejudicial assessment was accepted.

now, here is the kicker for me: how do you know the media reports are factual?
where is the proof?
is it because the media said so? because the media also said the navy yard shooter used an AR-15 shotgun at one point...

and therein lies a major problem with your argument.

you are claiming that all three cases prove your point but you can't actually provide the source material that prove that "In all three cases, a criterion of "threat" was their dark skin." [copied verbatim from your post]

and this is something i've repeatedly asked for multiple times

in science, the source material is studies and journals... in the law, it's case files and final judgements. you provided the names, but you have yet to provide any actual evidence from any source that proved that the cases you use as examples used race to justify the fear and thus shooting the person

so i will ask, yet again: where is the source material?
prove it

don't repeat it - repetition doesn't mean truth. facts. i want facts. not your belief because of the media storm. not some random authors opinion on a topic. the factual adjudication and or final judgement statements.

it's not trolling to ask this: it is how you establish a factual argument
so one wonders why you still refuse to provide it

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

been mulling this over and had to post about it Bells

Now the law allows one to shoot another if one merely perceives a threat. This is established law in around 30 or so States of the US. This is not up for dispute at present. We all agree on this, yes?..

no.
at least, not really.
this is not clearly defined nor does it clearly or explicitly state and or cover the law in various states.

you can say there are 30 or so states with potential laws that cover this situation, but that is also not clear

states can add ambiguity to the problem

in my state, there are laws that state i have a duty to retreat in public, but not in private in my own home. however, this is also not entirely true. if i can avoid confrontation and flee to safety before using deadly force, even in my own home, in my state, i'm required as a holder of a CC (and a badge, mind you) to flee or avoid the use of deadly force if at all possible. this is taught in all CC courses and reminded to all retired badge holding citizens as even though we have badges, experience and history, we are still just citizens and no longer actively represent the law, state and or government unless specifically authorised and or activated.

so whereas there is state law that covers the bases, so to speak, it can also be as clear as a muddy stream full of bitumen. at night. in the rain. depending on the mood of the locals, the PA, judge and Sheriff.

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

And here we are again..

Countless of studies ignored, instead, willful ignorance of what is actually happening.

Countless of reports filed and rejected for that reason. To the one, the issues flagged in reports are being hashed out in the thread. To the other, there's only so much that one can provide and have it ignored, only for the same demand to keep cropping up. And when one partakes in the same behaviour that is being reported, well, it is pretty obvious as to why those reports were rejected. Something something about glass houses applies here.

The trolling in this thread has been, well, way waaaay out there. Perhaps if people were willing and open to actually read what has been provided by both sides and be willing to discuss it, we may not find ourselves in the deep dank hole we currently find ourselves in with this thread.

Since the previous mod note has been ignored for the most part and I am seeing the same behaviour again, I am closing the thread. You can all consider yourselves warned!