Naw, just kill Moses, save a lot more people.
Is Punching A Nazi OK?
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
- Status
I actually read an alt-history story years ago where that happened. Hitler is killed in WWI, and never comes to power nor do the Nazis...so they never invade Poland or start WWII. The U.S. never gears up for war and doesn't invent the atomic bomb....instead the U.S.S.R does and uses it to take over all of Europe.
no - Martin was watched or followed, perhaps, because of his skin colour, but not shot because of it: he was shot because he was pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement
you can read that in the first paragraph of the wiki page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon_Martin
or you can actually read the detailed accounts and evidence found in court transcripts
either way, it is a blatant false claim to state Martin was shot because of his skin colour. you can say he was suspected or profiled, and followed... but not shot because of it.
again, no
the police officer (Wilson) was responding to a robbery and assault, as noted in the second paragraph of the wiki page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown
or - again- you can refer to the court transcripts and evidence like this
https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf
so are you trying to state that it is every citizens "right" to use force against the police when being detained during the course of their duty?
this does call into question your ability to form logical or reasonable judgements about the firearms topic given your emotional outbursts that castigate any supporter of the 2nd amendment ... all due to your unfounded beliefs
you've made a comment that (literally) uses false claims to justify your beliefs
WOW! this guy wasn't even shot! he was choked
3 for 3 on the false claims! - of course, this is to be expected from someone who is anti-gun. ignore pertinent evidence for the sake of the belief
this argument is no different than Brown - the police, in the course of their duty, attempted to do their job and the suspect fought back attempting to get away with his crime. the true believers like yourself think he was the "peacemaker" the community he lived in called him while ignoring the criminal record he had:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner#Background
another false claim: see evidence above
false claim: the actions of the people made them a threat because they decided that there was no authority they should be limited by
the rule of law means that the laws apply equally to all people regardless of limiting prejudice, class or status and require a force to apply said restrictions to the populace
otherwise it's just the rule of the jungle and the more powerful take from the less, which is what the criminals live by, as well as the
magic three" false claims by the above
considering the bulging populace and the overworked police departments, sh*t will eventually happen, and it will be bad
this is perhaps a case of a mistake, but it doesn't justify your beliefs
perhaps you can provide some actual references and citations rather than your personal opinions about this topic... especially since it is requested and you are attempting to defend the criminal as being right in three known cases that have been investigated and the evidence proved you wrong
maybe because you are only reading the opinions of those who are anti-gun on those topics?
that was a short, concise and accurate description of the point, but if you want more data read my reply to T
.
.
and you can provide empirical evindece that isn't just your opinion supporting this one?
i will accept DOJ documentation, evidence from investigators and Prosecution Discovery documentation if you have it...
thanks...
to answer the OP
this is a difficult question but it is also surprisingly simple:
1- if you can provide just cause for the assault and battery, then you can state that it is "ok" (just cause would be: defense of your life, etc)
2- it is never morally "ok" to assault/batter someone unless there is a justification for said battery (see above) as it is a constitutional right to believe whatever you wish
there are grey area's regarding this topic, however: if you've been continually maligned and intentionally instigated into an emotional fervor for the sake of "the lulz" then it can be considered justification for battery dependent upon the players and situation
also note: it is not legal for the police or a court to beat someone unless justified - that is the basis for the rule of law, and once said person violates the law and becomes a threat then it is justified to use equal or greater violence to subjigate said person. this is also a mandate for the military in use of violence in war, per the Geneva convention as well as other laws (a soldier can't just kill, maim or assault/batter someone in times of war without just cause, just like the police)
ElectricFetus
this is a difficult question but it is also surprisingly simple:
1- if you can provide just cause for the assault and battery, then you can state that it is "ok" (just cause would be: defense of your life, etc)
2- it is never morally "ok" to assault/batter someone unless there is a justification for said battery (see above) as it is a constitutional right to believe whatever you wish
there are grey area's regarding this topic, however: if you've been continually maligned and intentionally instigated into an emotional fervor for the sake of "the lulz" then it can be considered justification for battery dependent upon the players and situation
also note: it is not legal for the police or a court to beat someone unless justified - that is the basis for the rule of law, and once said person violates the law and becomes a threat then it is justified to use equal or greater violence to subjigate said person. this is also a mandate for the military in use of violence in war, per the Geneva convention as well as other laws (a soldier can't just kill, maim or assault/batter someone in times of war without just cause, just like the police)
No, he wasn't. Not initially. He was accosting teenagers for walking in the road instead of on the sidewalk.
That's not what happened, and not why they were shot.
That's not true - wildly not true, in my case.
And it's not relevant - nothing about "guns" in involved in that irrelevant digression.
So try again.
It doesn't happen like this to white people.
In the case of Castile, which you were specifically addressing, one of the ways the police could have reduced their workload would have been not pulling him over every two weeks on average for - apparently - no reason (he was pulled over 50 times in two years - his offense appears to have been driving through the wrong neighborhoods, namely the ones he lived and worked in, while being black.)
He was shot the 51st time, while by all accounts speaking politely, following the directions of the officer, and with his hands visible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile
The case has not been tried, actually, so it's not a good example of a "legal" shooting. Yet. http://www.twincities.com/2017/01/1...onth-on-motion-to-drop-castile-shooting-case/
He was profiled, followed, chased, and accosted in the dark on the public street - which is assault - because he was black. The shooter threatened him, started a fight with him, and shot him in the course of the fight - if you believe him: that's the best version possible. So we have an assault that ends in the victim of the assault being shot by the perpetrator of the assault, the entire assault being motivated by the victim's being black.
So it's legal to assault a black person, and shoot them if necessary (if you're losing the fight, say) in accomplishing that assault.
That was held to be legal. That's legally shooting someone because they are black.
As opposed to your opinion that these victims deserved to be shot because they were thugs - suppose you provide empirical evidence for that: people deserving to be shot because they were thugs.
I have nowhere "defended the criminal as being right". In only one of the cases was any "criminal" involved, and in that case the criminal was wrong to be a criminal according to me.
The evidence proved I was right, not wrong.
.
Trayvon Martin had every right to stand his ground against the armed stalker who was harassing him for his skin color.
I don't know why so many people think blacks aren't allowed to defend themselves, but some manner of explanation for this absurdly racist recurring outcome nigh on American heritage would be appreciated.
You want law enforcement known to participate in a racket to document the racket for you so that you don't have to answer a simple question that nobody supporting the Missouri outcome is willing or able to even attempt to address: How many other suspects get that kind of grand jury investigation?
How many other suspects get the state, ostensibly investigating the suspect for crimes, acting as the suspect's defense attorney, even calling the suspect to testify in his own defense, and misinforming the jury of the law?
Seriously, according to Equal Protection, who else gets that? In all this time, not a single advocate for the racists in Missouri has been able to show standard process; not a single advocate has been willing to try.
The empirical evidence is what we all can see, the so-called "due process" of the grand jury investigation.
Meanwhile, an unarmed black man with his back to you as he walks away is more of a threat to life and limb of law enforcement in the U.S. than a white guy with a rifle saying he intends to kill law enforcement.
That, too, is observable. Hell, we can't even convict the white guy.
Welcome to the United States of America.
Honestly, if it was a latinx cop kicking a handcuffed white guy on the ground while shouting, "I'm gonna stomp the French piss out of you!" we wouldn't have to scream and shout for intervention; law enforcement would do its job.
If it was a nonwhite cop shooting a white, deaf woodcarver to death, lying about it, and getting caught lying, the state would find reason to file charges, and federal prosecutors wouldn't tremble at the presumption of good faith that includes the argument that he lied in good faith.
If it was a black cop strangling an overweight white guy to death, we could easily win a conviction.
Welcome to the United States of America.
Honestly, when they have to lie to the grand jury in order to protect the white cop who shot the black guy, it's pretty damn clear what's going on.
citation?
i am not posting opinion on this
i am taking data from the DOJ - as noted and linked above already - let me show you:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf
where is your citation or equivalent evidence of refute other than your statement?
thanks
then prove it with something other than opinion
when a police officer is doing their duty then they are justified in questioning and detaining for the sake of inquiry... unless there has been a huge change in the law that i'm not aware of, and if there is, then provide the statute and show it's precedent prior to the event
then please list the citations
thanks
it is not relevant to the OP, but it is relevant to the post that i replied to, and as such relevant
unless, of course, they're split and taken to another forum thread, then it is fully relevant to the above statements
then you will be able to support your comments with either VICAP or similar DOJ documentation that tracks violent crime statistics
thanks
this one was either a serious accident or simply a matter of stupidity and wrongdoing on the cops part, but as i can't actually access the DOJ stat's or some non-subjective legal documentation on this topic with evidenciary value then i can't (won't) comment further.
if you can provide it, then please show it
thanks
not sure it even is a legal shooting as i can't read the evidence as yet... and if it is being tried then there will be limits to discovery or FOIA
well, i don't believe anyone, just FYI
but the evidence speaks, and considering the trauma, then he was not "shot" for being black
you can make the argument for the rest... even the starting a fight, maybe... but you can't say he was shot for being black as the evidence clearly shows that he was shot while battering the other guy, which makes it defensive, not offensive.
justification may well not be there for you, but that is irrelevant
and again, no
it may well mean that to you but it doesn't specifically state it and thus it can't be said to justify shooting blacks
legal documentation may well require interpretation sometimes, but that "interpretation" is a mite ridiculous and indicative of emotional responses
where did i state that this was my opinion?
thanks for quoting that one... and don't put words in my mouth
first prove i stated that thugs deserved to be shot
thanks
lets try that again... i stated
so you state you're not attempting to do this by defending a false claim made above?
standing his ground is not the same as battery. the police were called and the situation could have been resolved without gunfire had there not been a physical confrontation, correct?
not defending the shooter for that one, but i will state that if anyone smashed my head into the ground i would shoot them as well - it's a matter of self defense. period
where did i ever state they couldn't defend themselves?
thanks
while you are at it - where are your citations?
not opinion pieces or news articles, but actual DOJ stats?
you can find the raw data in any number of gov't sites, from the FBI to DOJ.
thanks
so... you don't have a citation then?
only opinion?
and there are law enforcement agencies that don't report to the locals, you know... in think one of them might actually be a federal agency
[sarc/hyperbole intended]
need i point out that the rest of that post is completely based upon your opinion and not supported by evidence?
and again... where is the evidence?
it's not like you can't request federal documents under the FOI act
more to the point - you are simply ranting and you have yet to actually demonstrate, with evidence, that there is any conspiracy or that you're opinion is valid
more to the point: read this article, which is why i am challenging you to present evidence that isn't your opinion
thanks
Your culture would not exist
Chinese is a citizenship. So is Korean. You could claim to be either of these by "ethnicity" or "race" if you like. But then you'd be confusing what most people consider as race with national identity. You can claim to verify Asian. That's fine. No one can say you're not and prove it. Try it.
I personally know "Koreans" in Japan who do not speak Korean and have never been to Korea. I've met many Lebanese is AU who've never once left AU.
You could develop a genetic test, but then you'd find most Americans are mixed with genes from all over the world. Then what? Cut offs or self identification?
I'd also note eye color, hair pattern, etc.... These are quite variable within a population.
Thus, my argument stands, black and white are subjective categories one must choose to be a part of.
only if you don't know how cause and effect work. if a than b if b than c if c than d a therefore d. the only reason the incident happened was because he was black, and trying to defend himself, so yeah martin was shot because he was black.
So what? There would be no Christians, Muslims, or Jews, all the religions making so much trouble in the world.
so, you're saying that if he was white he wouldn't have been shot?
so...
if he was a (acting suspiciously in a neighborhood that had a rash of criminal activity)
and b (stopped by neighborhood watch)
then told c (the police were coming)
then d he resists and then bashed the neighborhood watch persons head into the concrete...
then obviously because he was white there would be no shooting
is that correct?
just trying to get this through my head, so that i can understand your logic
Man always generate problem. Take American native , they were no Christian nor Jewish nor Muslim . yet they had tribal wars.
I mentioned American native because they go back 13000 years with their religion.
Religions contribute to the problem.
I will agree if you say different opinion, because religion is a different opinion, such as politics or a different sport team
typically this was over resources, not religion, as evidenced by the sharing of many aspects of religious culture between the US plains indian tribes (like: Pipe ceremonies, Sun Dances, Ghost dance, etc)
misleading: some do, but others are malleable and dependent upon only certain things
for instance: in Lakota Culture religion is highly subjective and dependent upon the individuals beliefs - there is no standard or specific religious "way" of doing things. it's all about how you walk your specific walk with your beliefs - fiercely independent upon the individual interpretations.
if you want to learn more, here is an account that may help: https://www.amazon.com/Black-Elk-Speaks-Oglala-Premier/dp/1438425406
Absolutely 100% true
it allows people to treat those who think differently as being sub-human - much like the christian declaration of sub-human status to the native american tribes, sometimes called the Papal Bull "Dum Diversas" - this was also reaffirmed and extended in 1455 when the pope Sanctifies the seizure of non-Christian lands discovered during the Age of Discovery and encourages the enslavement of natives
about this...
opinion is about having a thought, belief or reason for accepting/rejecting a topic
a religion, by definition, is an arbitrarily defined set of rules, normally surrounding a faith, that is used to not only judge others and establish their compliance with said beliefs, but is also about controlling large groups of others for the sake of a belief or ideal that may or may not be based in reality.
there is no other purpose for a religion and it is the reason so many religions are inundated with sociopaths, frauds and worse who seek only self aggrandizement, financial recompense or some similar celebrity.
- Status