Is Punching A Nazi OK?

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Page 12, sorry.

noted and accepted. will read said page and review.

My claim, that you challenged, was that the initial brief encounter was as described by Wilson, in the summary there - rather than as you described, as involving Wilson's prior recognition of Brown as a robbery suspect.

wrong again - lets review:
Toad said

Whether or not someone wearing a badge or a fucked-up ego was wrong in a killing still doesn't make it legal.

to which your reply was

The race of the victim did, in those three cases, make it legal.

so that means your claim was supporting the comment that it is legal to shoot black people in the US - which is patently false and a blatant false claim. as i noted and stated.

but lets review the entire exchange before you started attributing other people's posts to me:

the evidence used to support the claim was posted by @T in the following exchange -

Michael said

You do not live in a country were it is legal to shoot people just because they are "black"

to which @T replied

Yeah, actually I do. Remember, I live here, while you make believe from afar.

this was challenged by toad

No, Tiassa, you don't.

to which @T replied

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.

Your defense specifically states that you're in agreement that it's legal to shoot black people in the US, and

nowhere at all have you or @T actually answered this post for Michael and given the evidence requested demonstrating the legality of shooting blacks in the US, as you claim it is legal justified by said above evidence posted by @T and supported by you in the following exchange:
in this post you said

It is true.

you abjectly fail to produce any evidence other than your opinion, but you state it firmly a noted
i replied that it was a false claim to your quote here and challenged @T to produce the requested evidence that wasn't just opinion, to which you and @T have still yet to actually do.

what you've provided was multiple posts of your interpretations of events based upon the media, but more recently, your cherry-picking of the DOJ document that i provided which only actually covers one of the shootings.

this is demonstrative of your inability to comprehend multiple things:
1- the legal system
2- basic english - it is still illegal to shoot anyone unless there is just cause
3- what constitutes evidence that is not opinion or subjective

i will stop here as you're offering tangential arguments when you still haven't addressed the original request to provide evidence demonstrating the legality of shooting blacks in the US

No, what I quoted from you is irrelevant - you seeing the evidence, to decide whether something was legal or not.

and again, you are ignorant of what constitutes legality
perhaps you should brush up on the legal system and laws before commenting further - after all, you said

That was held to be legal. That's legally shooting someone because they are black.

and you still can't actually produce anything but your own opinion as proof of this

There's going to be a trial, apparently, in the Castile case - an actual prosecution, which is what you might have based an objection to my claims on if you were making sense.

do i really need to re-quote where i said

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

so, what you're doing is attempting to redirect from your colossal screw up where you got confused and lay the blame entirely on me because you can't comprehend basic english???

why is that? because you can't actually produce evidence as requested? or because you are a true believer in your delusion?
i really would like to know the answer to that one since you keep attempting to redirect to it without actually reading the evidence
thanks

Well that's the issue, isn't it - whether it was found to be justified "regardless of race".

It clearly wasn't, in those various examples.

actually, the issue, as noted above, was the legality of the shooting because of skin colour... you know, where i quoted @T and stated it was a fallacy and you defended @T's argument?
you know, where i just re-quoted it above?

That begs the question.

you're really going to use that circular fallacy in this argument?

It's obviously legal to feel threatened by someone largely because they are black;

wait... so, you can't establish evidence to support the legality of shooting blacks in the US, so now you will change the goal-post and make it "feel threatened"?
wow

just .... wow

So we ignore the Martin example again. OK.

actually, you are the one ignoring everything, as demonstrated above

And what this has to do with legitimate "nazi" punching is getting less clear.

wow... just like i said in my LAST POST
let me quote that for ya

and the thread is not about shooting at all, but about punching (battery) a nazi. it was simply hijacked into the shooting by false claims.

LOL

The observation that identifying oneself as a "nazi" automatically bumps a threat level

why?
they have a belief... that's it. there is no threat unless the belief is physically acted upon. period. full stop.

this is like satan worshippers. you don't "automatically bumps a threat level" because someone has an anti-christian perspective, do you?
what about voodoo practitioners? do you "automatically bumps a threat level" for them?
Muslims?

and you call me racist?
LMFAO

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

―racist trolling was the answer.

And you, dude. C'mon―

nope. it was intentionally used to show the stupidity of the claim by the poster and the logical fallacy of their thought process using a comical approach

i know why you don't get it - you're emotionally invested in your argument
you can't see the other side of the situation because it would require you to alter a lot of personal beliefs
much like the following:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
here is an article that may help you understand why you can't comprehend anyone pro-2nd amendment : https://phys.org/news/2016-12-hard-wired-brain-circuitry-political-belief.html

so you see satire, etc, and assume, due to your ingrained prejudice, that i'm racist or worse, forgetting that we've already been down this path or that we actually agree on a lot of stuff, but you're far more emotional about certain topics and can't (literally, CANNOT) see evidence that contradicts your perspective.

for more on this, re-read any exchange regarding guns we have had
you argue because you are pissed about the legal system failing to live up to your expectations and assume that criminals will magically abide by restrictive laws that won't work

or... simply read this:

So he wanted to troll PJ in defense of white supremacism as disruption to a discussion about punching Nazis.

perhaps you missed the above? i entered into the thread because you, specifically, were posting false claims based upon your prejudice and hatred, and you have YET to actually produce the evidence requested for it
pj attempted to defend your racist prejudice post and i replied
it's that simple

it's nice to see you're still incapable of being rational on this topic though as it supports my conclusions above

 

[sculptor]

Racism sux.
Sexism sux.
All races have racists.
All sexes have sexists.

Dwelling on the few racists or sexists is idiocy.

 

[pjdude1219]

@pj
wow... all that great evidence. i don't know where to start [@T - that was sarcasm and hyperbole

cute

so you admit that you can't actually provide evidence to support your conclusions then?
(imagine that)

i see no reason to point to anymore evidence when your own links post all the relevant facts. your delusions about what they mean doesn't change they support me.

wow... so you don't know what "profiling" is!
if only there was a place you could go to search for an explanation or definition ...

i know what profiling is. appartantly you are ignorant of the long history of race being involved in it. sorry for assuming you were an educated adult instead of the man child you are.

what is a "ready know"?
a new dance?
[@T - that was sarcasm and hyperbole while mocking his literacy skills]

you failed because most people have the maturity ,something you have in your short posting history here have failed miserable at, to ignore typos.

i see... so you can't prove your point, therefore i am a thug
gotcha! LMFAO
[@T - that was mockery]

no your a thug because your defending a jack booted thug and promote pro gun terrorism. you might lack the ability to remember other threads but i remember all of people's posting histories. look i get it you need a gun to feel better about your um substandard equipment( hint i'm saying you have a tiny penis and are using your gun and defense of pro gun thuggery as a way to compensate for that) but than again your one of aholes who thinks its ok to issue death threats to people for wanting gun control so yeah your a thug and i remember

you mean here?
just outside of atlanta?
who cares?

you do or did you literally for get making comments on where i lived less than 24 hours ago?

why are you going to throw a temper tantrum?
LOL

you are as evidenced in this post where you rely on personal attacks and never addressed the points made against your rather shoddy argument. but nice attempt at trying to turn it around, you failed as always but an a for effort.

haven't yet, so why start now?
or are you going to start with your own super power?
LMFAO

well thats just a flat out lie. who would have thought the racist pro terrorism thug would be liar

ah, so you're illiterate? try this link: http://www.readingbear.org/
good luck with that one. you'll need it

no your just a biased hack

.

@T
actually it was a parodic and satirical look at the comical and racist post of PJ

never take up writing or drama. if thats what passes for parody or satire. it counts only under the most wildly broad of definitions.

i'll use specific nomenclature to designate that in the future (like i did above) so that you're not confused...nope

perhaps its so you wouldn't forget like you forgot claiming to be superhuman? eh clark kent?

 

[pjdude1219]

so you see satire, etc, and assume, due to your ingrained prejudice, that i'm racist or worse, forgetting that we've already been down this path or that we actually agree on a lot of stuff, but you're far more emotional about certain topics and can't (literally, CANNOT) see evidence that contradicts your perspective.

what satire? your making an ass out of your self doesn't count as satire?

pj attempted to defend your racist prejudice post and i replied

please don't speak for me i don't want to be linked to racists and terrorists which you are

it's nice to see you're still incapable of being rational on this topic though as it supports my conclusions above

the guy who claims to be superhuman better than us mere mortals doesn't get to attack anyone rationality. your delusion. irrational, and quite frankly i feel dirty for watching you make your self look like a buffoon.

 

[billvon]

please don't speak for me i don't want to be linked to racists and terrorists which you are

He is racists _and_ terrorists? Wow, TKS is a pretty formidable guy, then! I wouldn't piss him off if I were you.

the guy who claims to be superhuman better than us mere mortals doesn't get to attack anyone rationality. your delusion. irrational, and quite frankly i feel dirty for watching you make your self look like a buffoon.

But it must make you feel good to feel dirty, given that you can't take your eyes off his posts.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

cute

i thought so
it's also relevant and a reminder that you still haven't produced any evidence supporting the argument that it's legal to shoot blacks
OR that "if he was white he wouldn't have been shot"

still waiting for any evidence to prove that point
.

.

[crickets]
.

i see no reason to point to anymore evidence

but you haven't provided any evidence other than your opinion ...

hell, you haven't been able to show a link to my evidence either
in fact, you state my evidence proves your point but you can't show where in my evidence that it does!

still waiting...

[crickets]

when your own links post all the relevant facts

true, but you seem to be ignoring the facts for your opinion on this topic

i know what profiling is. appartantly you are ignorant of the long history of race being involved in it.

actually i am not
but in this case it still doesn't justify your argument of legal shooting of blacks, nor does it prove that he wouldn't have been shot if he was white. if a white guy were bashing a head in i am thinking he would have been shot, but you stated otherwise because you ASSume that he wouldn't have been racially profiled in the neighborhood.

so: prove it
that isn't justified or proven in my linked evidence. you're simply believing it is due to a delusional perspective much like @T above

you failed because most people have the maturity ,something you have in your short posting history here have failed miserable at, to ignore typos.

actually, i ignored a lot of typo's, but i felt that it deserved notice in that particular occasion due to your intentional attempt to inflame the situation while offering absolutely no evidence supporting your delusions...

still waiting for that evidence ...

[crickets]

no your a thug because your defending a jack booted thug and promote pro gun terrorism.

so... if i state that you're making a false claim because you intentionally lied and made a false claim, then i am "defending a jack booted thug and promote pro gun terrorism"?
i see...

this is easily rectified! produce the specific evidence, from my links or other similar valid references that specifically prove:
1- that it is legal to shoot blacks in the US
2- that if Martin was white he would not have been shot

thanks!
this will end the responses to you immediately if you can, quoting and linking the reference, show where these were absolutely factual and supported by evidence that isn't a subjective interpretation of events!

i will just wait for your copious evidence links and references...
[crickets]

you might lack the ability to remember other threads but i remember all of people's posting histories.

then post links/references because i think you're full of sh*t on that one - and i don't know what you're referring to specifically. i don't speak fundie delusional crank, so were talking two different languages here -
thanks

(see what i did there? i even used your literary fails to incorporate your own language barrier problem to enhance my post and make it more clear to you by mis-spelling we're !!! )

just trying to speak your lingo

look i get it you need a gun to feel better about your um substandard equipment( hint i'm saying you have a tiny penis and are using your gun and defense of pro gun thuggery as a way to compensate for that)

you think so?
LMFAO
well then... this is also easily rectified: you can always challenge me to a face-to-face confrontation. i would not recommend it, however, as you would most definitely lose.

and if you remember historical posts then you know why i own a gun, and this actually demonstrates you're a lying POS attempting to bait

so again, it's really easy: produce the evidence that:
1- that it is legal to shoot blacks in the US
2- that if Martin was white he would not have been shot

while you are at it, please show where this is quoted in my links and references. since you claimed my links supported this delusional crap
thanks!

.

[crickets]

but than again your one of aholes who thinks its ok to issue death threats to people for wanting gun control so yeah your a thug and i remember

oh, this should be easily done: show where i issued a death threat!
that should be easy for you, considering your literacy skills!
thanks

you are as evidenced in this post where you rely on personal attacks and never addressed the points made against your rather shoddy argument.

funny thing: i produced an argument that used evidence to directly demonstrate you were posting a false claim and asked you for evidence to support said delusoinal belief, and all i got was attacked back

but somehow this is evidence that i "rely on personal attacks and never addressed the points made"

hell! i'm still waiting on you to produce a single shred of evidence, be it a quote from my own links to a valid reference that isn't subjective!
this is called transference on your part, little girl! you tried ...it failed. it's funny, but also pathetic on your count.
LOL

well thats just a flat out lie.

prove it

who would have thought the racist pro terrorism thug would be liar

i didn't know you were a racist pro terrorism thug liar, but i will accept your description of yourself as accurate so far...

no your just a biased hack

sorry you can't learn how to read - literacy problems are one of your largest contributing factors to this situation

perhaps one day your mom will let you out of the basement to socialise like a real person?
there is hope yet...

never take up writing or drama. if thats what passes for parody or satire. it counts only under the most wildly broad of definitions.

yeah, and that was intentional
i do more technical writing - my wife is the author. but she thinks you're too stupid to comprehend what she would write so refused to help
i hold out hope that you can learn (eventually) because i'm optimistic that way

perhaps its so you wouldn't forget like you forgot claiming to be superhuman? eh clark kent?

well it should be easily proven by the quote then, eh ken ham??

please don't speak for me

i didn't
i made a statement of fact

where is that evidence?
[crickets]

the guy who claims to be superhuman better than us mere mortals doesn't get to attack anyone rationality. your delusion. irrational, and quite frankly i feel dirty for watching you make your self look like a buffoon.

you really need to watch something other than porn and conspiracy video's because you're showing signs of delusional and irrational separation from reality
do you have schizophrenia too?
you should get back on your meds if you are, and talk to your psychiatrist

still waiting for that evidence...

[crickets]

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

have to address this separately - for clarity

So he wanted to troll PJ in defense of white supremacism as disruption to a discussion about punching Nazis.

point of fact:
my entry into this thread started when you (Tiassa) posted a false claim, not pj

my request for evidence has also been ignored, while you, personally, have also ignored other requests for the same evidence. (isn't that baiting?)

this was your specific point and attempt to derail the thread into your personal advocacy forum in the form of a delusional soliloquy - and whereas i tend to personally agree with certain arguments you've made in the past regarding sexism or LGBT, and i can accept your arguments when they're logical or evidenciary based, i cannot abide by a direct false claim with the intent of spreading misinformation for the sake of a personal agenda like you continue to do, under the guise of authority and some bullsh*t moral superiority.

that is a load of crap on any level.

why? here is one reason, and it's relevant to your posts
or watch this video:

if those are not to your liking, let me know because i can provide other, or simpler, versions that explain the exact same thing: just because you want to believe something doesn't mean it's factual, nor does it mean it is true for everyone. a belief is nothing more than your interpretation of reality. it has nothing to do with facts unless it is supported by a valid and validated source of evidence, like science.

so you hate guns: who cares? only you and perhaps those you care about.
maybe there is sympathy there, but maybe only empathy at your stress responses

personally, i don't care what you believe.. i do care that you made a false claim (AKA - you lied) and can't support said claim with evidence.

so, i will ask you yet again: produce the evidence to support your claim, as requested by myself and Michael, that it's legal to shoot black people in the US

otherwise the only "trolling" being done here (in your case it is actually baiting) is your posts attempting to spread your beliefs and pj's idiocy in an attempt to defend the combined delusional belief from you both.


it's nice to see you've not changed on this topic... it does validate the stuidies i've linked regarding bias and intentional refusal to accept evidence when presented

 

[sculptor]

[crickets]

?
meaning please
..............................
speaking of which, I heard one in the greenhouse this morn...
Doesn't (s)he know it's still the middle of an Iowa winter?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

?
meaning please

when i post this: [crickets]
it's demonstrating they have an awkward silence and no response

IOW - they don't produce the facts because there isn't any fact to produce

kind-of a reference to comedy movies and cartoons from back in the day

 

[iceaura]

so that means your claim was supporting the comment that it is legal to shoot black people in the US - which is patently false and a blatant false claim. as i noted and stated.

1) That wasn't the claim you were talking about, in the quote now long lost in the muddle
2) We have a disagreement about whether this other claim I supported,

which you have misleadingly reworded (my support was for the claim that it is (sometimes) legal, in the US, to shoot someone because they are black)

is false. It is certainly not blatantly false - we have seen posted here several examples of shootings apparently motivated or caused (or both) by the threat of blackness, being declared legal - declared legal by courts, and by officials, and by officers of the law.

Which matter you have not addressed, btw, in your digressions regarding the character of the victims, your invocation of "mistakes" as a vague and unspecified category, and so forth. (Of course it's a mistake to shoot somebody because they are black, the question here is whether that mistake is legal, at least sometimes, in the US. The evidence, the examples, supports "yes")

It's obviously legal to feel threatened by someone largely because they are black;
wait... so, you can't establish evidence to support the legality of shooting blacks in the US, so now you will change the goal-post and make it "feel threatened"?
wow

just .... wow

Failing to quote the entire sentence there is lying. I'm sorry, but that is too obvious - you can't have done that by accident. That's not ok.

Here's the sentence: "It's obviously legal to feel threatened by someone largely because they are black; and we see demonstration (by those examples, and dozens of others) that it is often - in standard circumstances such as police traffic stops, or seeing somebody walk down the street - legal to shoot them if you feel sufficiently threatened for that reason."

The observation that identifying oneself as a "nazi" automatically bumps a threat level
why?
they have a belief... that's it. there is no threat unless the belief is physically acted upon. period. full stop.

Public self-identification as a "nazi" is not a belief, but public alignment with a political faction that does in fact advocate physical action and has in the past acted.

this is like satan worshippers. you don't "automatically bumps a threat level" because someone has an anti-christian perspective, do you?
what about voodoo practitioners? do you "automatically bumps a threat level" for them?
Muslims?

Threat of what? Obviously public self-identification as a Muslim, say, does indicate the likelihood of - say - refusing to eat the ham sandwiches somebody brought to the picnic. Is that a threat?

and you call me racist?

No, I didn't. Why are you posting in this dishonest manner?

 

[Michael]

We've appeared to diverge from the question of whether or not it is morally acceptable to physically attack a person for wrong-think (it's not), to a conversation about a Latino man shooting a self-identified Black man.

I'm not sure what this statistically insignificant outlier has to do with the moral imperative?

 

[sculptor]

I'm not sure what this statistically insignificant outlier has to do with the moral imperative?

imho
Absolutely nothing.
('cepting maybe a little pc braggadocio)

 

[iceaura]

We've appeared to diverge from the question of whether or not it is morally acceptable to physically attack a person for wrong-think

That was never the question. The attempt to divert the discussion into a question of thinking, or holding opinions, etc, is a tactic.

to a conversation about a Latino man shooting a self-identified Black man.

The boy shot did not self-identify, racially or any other way - he didn't have a chance to.

I'm not sure what this statistically insignificant outlier has to do with the moral imperative?

It's a category of legal decision, not an outlier, and it helps establish the "morality" actually in force at the moment - especially, its public handling and adjudication inform us in that area.

imho
Absolutely nothing.
('cepting maybe a little pc braggadocio)

More evidence of the morality actually in force - in this case, the complete lack of good faith in those arguing that self-identified "nazis" are not thereby a serious threat to anybody regardless of circumstances.

 

[Tiassa]

I'm not sure what this statistically insignificant outlier has to do with the moral imperative?

It's your digression.

 

[pjdude1219]

my request for evidence has also been ignored, while you, personally, have also ignored other requests for the same evidence. (isn't that baiting?)

untrue you just refuse to accept any and all evidence as relevant so you can whine about not getting evidence. its a rather typical right wing dodge so you can pretend to have the high ground when you don't.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

1) That wasn't the claim you were talking about, in the quote now long lost in the muddle

i see... so when i prove you wrong then it suddenly is time to switch goal posts?
gotcha - i'll try to remember that when i see you post later

2) We have a disagreement about whether this other claim I supported,

i have been talking about this same thing from the beginning - it is perhaps you who is not clear about what is being talked about
I was very clear, and i just proved that above and i still stand by my original argument, starting with: show the f*cking evidence or STFU

which you have misleadingly reworded

1- i reworded nothing and quoted everything verbatim
2- show where it is legal to shoot blacks in the US - not where people have gotten away with it, and not your interpretations of some event because you delusionally believe it to be factual

this has been my argument from the beginning and you have avoided actually posting any evidence yet claimed that my own links justify your belief and provide the evidence - do i really need to re-quote and post that entire exchange again?

i can... and it will clearly show you are now being blatantly dishonest and attempting to avoid blame for stupidity by simply changing the goalposts and shifting blame to me...

tell you what: show where, above, i " misleadingly reworded" your posts... can you at least show the evidence of that?

i will tell you that you can't because in no place do i quote you and not quote you verbatim...
you screwed up and you can't even admit it with the evidence in black and white in front of you!
WOW

It is certainly not blatantly false - we have seen posted here several examples of shootings apparently motivated or caused (or both) by the threat of blackness, being declared legal - declared legal by courts, and by officials, and by officers of the law.

and i will say that again: that can be circumstantial evidence of someone getting away with it, or of a flawed justice system. or of your interpretation of what happened
BUT
IT IS IN NO WAY EVIDENCE THAT IT IS LEGAL TO SHOOT SOMEONE DUE TO RACE

i can't make that more clear without using expletives to explain why your commentary is blatantly stupid and false, misleading, racist, sexist and a few other -ists!
this is the exact same point i've tried to make to Tiassa more than a few times: you're pissed at the legal system - i get it. i get that way too... BUT - that doesn't mean your belief in the situation is factual. i think i even mentioned that a few times already above... should i re-quote that for ya?

Which matter you have not addressed, btw, in your digressions regarding the character of the victims, your invocation of "mistakes" as a vague and unspecified category, and so forth. (Of course it's a mistake to shoot somebody because they are black, the question here is whether that mistake is legal, at least sometimes, in the US. The evidence, the examples, supports "yes")

1- i've stated from the beginning that it's not legal. that is what being "blatantly false" means: her use of those events as evidence to demonstrate it's legal to shoot blacks is blatantly false - meaning: it aint legal! period! full stop! end of story!
2- explaining the situation is not the same thing as digression, either. you're backpedaling now...

Failing to quote the entire sentence there is lying. I'm sorry, but that is too obvious - you can't have done that by accident. That's not ok.

Here's the sentence: "It's obviously legal to feel threatened by someone largely because they are black; and we see demonstration (by those examples, and dozens of others) that it is often - in standard circumstances such as police traffic stops, or seeing somebody walk down the street - legal to shoot them if you feel sufficiently threatened for that reason."

1- i didn't quote the whole thing because it's all a bunch of bullsh*t based upon your belief in the situation - i will ask again: where is the evidence that states this to be true? you should be able to manifest some part of the operational guidelines for LE using the FOI to prove this, so where is it?

need i remind you that this is your interpretation of events, and as such, it's largely due to what you read in the media and not what you have read in the evidence?
need i also remind you (and reiterate yet again) that you are pissed at the legal system and attempting to utilise a single situation to justify your own bias?
lets examine this in another way: please show, from the DOJ/FBI and other sources, the statistical numbers that demonstrate a serious significance that supports your argument ... i can wait for it.

of course, i also happen to know you will not be able to actually provide the evidence because once you see that you're wrong then you will suddenly disappear...

2- there are laws that explain what justifies a shooting: feel free to actually quote some of them and show the legal precedented adjudications that support your claim that "it is often ... legal to shoot them if you feel sufficiently threatened for [being black]" as you stated. you will find this typically under criminal law
if you can't find this under recent legal precedent then i suggest perhaps copying it from the operational instructions from the dfepartments you've decided to malign in ANY of the three incidents.
[crickets]

yeah... still no evidence
imagine that

but you will find a reason to continue this argument where you are not only blatantly wrong but blatantly backpedaling to salvage a smidgen of credibility
it won't work... but i will enjoy watching you try

Public self-identification as a "nazi" is not a belief, but public alignment with a political faction that does in fact advocate physical action and has in the past acted.

so?
so that justifies violence because you don't like them?

last time i checked we also had the right to free speech
do i support nazi's? hell no. i've seen the horrors they inflicted upon the world and it disgusts me

i do, however, support freedom, and if that means allowing someone to choose to follow nazi beliefs, then i will allow them to do that

regardless of their political ideals, stupidity or lack of taste: until they've acted in a manner that is threatening or perform an action that is considered threatening enough to defend against, then they are not a threat to life, safety or health and are allowed to say and do whatever they want, as long as they don't violete the rights of others. this means that, thought i despise them, it is illegal to hit, punch or violate their rights without either:
just cause (battery in self defense, etc)
a warrant (investigation, arrest or some similar detainment that may require physical action)

Threat of what? Obviously public self-identification as a Muslim, say, does indicate the likelihood of - say - refusing to eat the ham sandwiches somebody brought to the picnic. Is that a threat?

and again:

they have a belief... that's it. there is no threat unless the belief is physically acted upon. period. full stop.

IOW - unless they provide an action that is a direct threat to life, health, safety and the same to others of immediate present family (dependent upon the state) then they have the right to believe and say what they believe in and you do not have the right to battery because you're not in defense of any action or direct threat of action. this is about how the jury (grand or other) at the time will interpret the findings to establish culpability or complicity in a crime or establish justification for said battery.

you can't just randomly strike anyone, regardless of their belief. this is just not legal ... in any state.

again: this doesn't mean you won't find examples of someone getting away with it (much like your "examples" where you defended Tiassa 's blatantly false claims)

No, I didn't.

my mistake: that was Tiassa and @PJ that called me a racist.

i can admit when i am wrong... and i apologize. (but only for saying that you called me a racist)

question is: can you admit when you are wrong?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

untrue

is it?

you just refuse to accept any and all evidence as relevant

no, i refuse to accept subjective evidence as relevant
why?
because it's biased.

show me where it is legal to shoot blacks in the US... you say it's legal and can only provide subjective interpretations of events

nowhere have you provided legal adjudication and precedent from recent years backed by a supreme court adjudication supporting the homicide of a person due to race.

nowhere have you provided operational instructions or even a statistical analysis of all crime deaths (or all deaths period) showing a statistically significant finding that demonstrates your beliefs

these things are all available free and you are able to download statistics from the DOJ - the FOI act allows you to request and obtain operational instructions as well as adjudicated cases

what you have given is: your interpretation of events

there is a difference

its a rather typical right wing dodge so you can pretend to have the high ground when you don't.

i'm not a right wing anything
i'm also not a left wing

i am requesting something that is either:
irrefutable evidence not subject to interpretation and bias
OR
direct written legal documents

this is the only thing that can prove you correct because it is the only thing that can establish legality of shooting blacks in the US

there is no other means to prove your point because your argument is about your interpretation of events listed by Tiassa and you have no f*cking clue as to what constitutes the legality of something

 

[iceaura]

i see... so when i prove you wrong then it suddenly is time to switch goal posts?

There are two claims in this mess you have made: The one claim I objected to, an objection that I referred to the DOJ link to support, was your claim that in Wilson's initial encounter with Brown he knew Brown was a suspect in a robbery. I said that wasn't the case, you demanded evidence, I referred you to page 12 of the DOJ report - Wilson's own testimony.

The other claim, that sometimes it's legal in the US to shoot somebody because they are black, I did not refer specifically to page 12 of the DOJ report, but rather to the several posted examples of people being shot because they were black followed by the shooter being not guilty of any crime according to the arbiters of legality in the US - the police, courts, etc.

Those are two different claims. Do try to pay attention.

1- i reworded nothing and quoted everything verbatim

If you compare your words (the ones you attributed to me) with my words (the ones I actually posted) - for your convenience in comparison they are right next to each other in my post 171, at the top in the first few sentences - you will notice that they are not the same words in the same order. That's why I reposted my words there - so you would have the evidence of your rewording right in front of you, and stop doing that.

and i will say that again: that is evidence of someone getting away with it, or it is evidence of a flawed justice system
IT IS IN NO WAY EVIDENCE THAT IT IS LEGAL TO SHOOT SOMEONE DUE TO RACE

It is evidence of a flawed justice system. The flaw in the justice system revealed by this evidence is that in some circumstances it is legal to shoot someone because they are black. We have several examples of this, it is well established fact. It appears to be a result of the following combination: 1) it is legal to feel threatened by someone because they are black 2) it is legal to shoot someone if you feel sufficiently threatened by them, including when the threat is largely that they are black.

2- explaining the situation is not the same thing as digression, either.

Yes, it was. You were "explaining" irrelevancies, and indulging in misdescriptions while you did that. (such as your a,b,c, and d bs about Trayvon Martin's killing).

Public self-identification as a "nazi" is not a belief, but public alignment with a political faction that does in fact advocate physical action and has in the past acted.
so?
so that justifies violence because you don't like them?

No, and nobody said it did, or anything like that.

last time i checked we also had the right to free speech

And last time I checked you agreed that people could defend themselves from sufficiently dangerous threats - even by shooting each other. So punching is obviously ok.

So: any progress on the actual question; When is it ok to punch a "nazi"?

We have this:

IOW - unless they provide an action that is a direct threat to life, health, safety and the same to others of immediate present family (dependent upon the state) then they have the right to believe and say what they believe in and you do not have the right to battery because you're not in defense of any action or direct threat of action.

But that's just what we all agree, and doesn't deal with the central question: when is a "nazi" directly threatening action, so that we can punch them?

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

There are two claims in this mess you have made: The one claim I objected to, an objection that I referred to the DOJ link to support, was your claim that in Wilson's initial encounter with Brown he knew Brown was a suspect in a robbery. I said that wasn't the case, you demanded evidence, I referred you to page 12 of the DOJ report - Wilson's own testimony.

first, let me be very clear about your argument: you're using testimony. even personal testimony changes. it is why eyewitness testimony is considered so much crap in real life (and in science), and it is why investigators require corroborating evidence to any testimony. only the court system, f*cked up as it is, allows this as a substantial piece of evidence, even with the scientific proof that it's crap.

having said that, let me repeat what i posted, yet again: this is from the SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
this is not testimony. this has not changed. this is substantiated by other physical evidence in the recordings.

...an FPD dispatch call went out over the police radio for a “stealing in progress.” The dispatch recordings and Wilson’s radio transmissions establish that Wilson was aware of the theft and had a description of the suspects as he encountered Brown and Witness 101.

i said it in the beginning and i say it again: this is evidence that is not subjective
why?
because of the requirements of the legal system and your failure to provide overwhelming evidence of guilt
let me also repeat from the last lines of the report:

Because Wilson did not act with the requisite criminal intent, it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury that he violated 18 U.S.C.§ 242 when he fired his weapon at Brown.

VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, this matter lacks prosecutive merit and should be closed

what you have provided, on page 12, is the witness testimony (which we know changes over time) as well as your INTERPRETATIONS of what should be done about things.
therefore, you've provided SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE

if you're going to use a source, perhaps you should also learn how to actually read said source. government documents, especially those which may end up reviewed by Congress or the general public, usually post the title, contents, explanation/introduction and the conclusions within the first page or pages... typically because of the lack of time most congressional folk (or other similar jobs) have to sift through the data. they require answers they can use (for sound bytes, etc) immediately with a cursory look.

The other claim, that sometimes it's legal in the US to shoot somebody because they are black, I did not refer specifically to page 12 of the DOJ report, but rather to the several posted examples of people being shot because they were black followed by the shooter being not guilty of any crime according to the arbiters of legality in the US - the police, courts, etc.

and because you still can't actually comprehend the difference between the legality of something and that someone has gotten away with an act regardles of the legality of something, let me reiterate, yet again:
IT IS IN NO WAY EVIDENCE THAT IT IS LEGAL TO SHOOT SOMEONE DUE TO RACE

i know that's hard for you you comprehend because you want it so desperately to be true because, as you repeatedly state, you BELIEVE that those articles or examples are evidence for your claims, but you know jack sh*t about the legal system and reality on this topic, especially with regard to the legality of this topic.

so, i will again state: Where, in the legal system, has it ever been mentioned in modern law, that it is legal to shoot blacks?
that is a simple request... all you need is:
1- a legal decree, adjudication and subsequent support from the SCOTUS
2- evidence of the following application of said legal decree
you will be able to review modern case law for free on any number of sites... feel free to link the findings when you get them

Do try to pay attention. or take your ADD meds... because you're not comprehending what is being said, apparently.
thanks

If you compare your words (the ones you attributed to me) with my words (the ones I actually posted) - for your convenience in comparison they are right next to each other in my post 171, at the top in the first few sentences - you will notice that they are not the same words in the same order. That's why I reposted my words there - so you would have the evidence of your rewording right in front of you, and stop doing that.

let me break this down... i will type slow since you can't seem to be able to read as fast as i thought:
i said:

so that means your claim was supporting the comment that it is legal to shoot black people in the US - which is patently false and a blatant false claim. as i noted and stated.

you say:

which you have misleadingly reworded (my support was for the claim that it is (sometimes) legal, in the US, to shoot someone because they are black)

is false. It is certainly not blatantly false - we have seen posted here several examples of shootings apparently motivated or caused (or both) by the threat of blackness, being declared legal - declared legal by courts, and by officials, and by officers of the law.

and i will reiterate:
IT IS IN NO WAY EVIDENCE THAT IT IS LEGAL TO SHOOT SOMEONE DUE TO RACE
NEVER!
EVER!
NOT SOMETIMES!
NOT ON OCCASION!
AND YOU HAVE CERTAINLY NOT PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS "the claim that it is (sometimes) legal, in the US, to shoot someone because they are black"

THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF DEBATE -IT IS A MATTER OF THE RULE OF LAW
IF IT WERE LEGAL IN ANY WAY YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PRODUCE COURT< LEGAL OR OTHER DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTED BY SCOTUS

get it yet?

and yes, i had to make that large, red and all caps (except for your - again - verbatim quote).
why?
because you don't seem to comprehend the difference between a jury or investigation finding someone not prosecutable, not culpable and what constitutes something being "legal" in the US. to be legal, there must not be a law against it. it is legal to consume unknown newly created psychotropic drugs that aren't studied... much like certain designer drugs, because there is no law that you can produce to prove it's illegal... it is not legal, however, to be under the influence of any drug and commit a crime, even if it's a legal designer drug.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE and i've stated that from the beginning....
AND YOU"VE IGNORED IT FROM THE BEGINNING

do ya got that yet?
was that typed slow enough for you and with a sufficiently monosyllabic vocabulary? or should i use smaller words?

It is evidence of a flawed justice system.

now THIS you can find evidence for!
this is the ONLY true thing you can state with regard to the posted examples... and why?
because it's a subjective opinion and doesn't rely upon the physical evidence. it's malleable and dependent upon your personal perspective. i am not arguing about that. nor will i argue about your opinion on that matter, or Tiassa 's opinion which is the same... i find certain similar incidents disturbing.
HOWEVER
it is not in any way shape or form evidence for the legality of shooting blacks in the US
period
full stop

yes, i'm repeating myself because you can't seem to understand the rational evidence based discourse already posted.

The flaw in the justice system revealed by this evidence is that in some circumstances it is legal to shoot someone because they are black. We have several examples of this, it is well established fact.

and again: this is called a blatantly false claim, and there is no well established fact that "in some circumstances it is legal to shoot someone because they are black"

you are equating your subjective opinion about a flawed legal system with the legality of shooting blacks.
might i remind you that there are incredibly HARSH sentencing requirements and prosecutorial tools for hate crimes, which include: race, sex, religion, etc
that is not a matter of debate. there are laws written to establish the legality of shooting/killing/battery, etc of a person due to race, sex, etc...
because you lack the ability to actually google "hate crime", "law" and "US" i will provide you a few links showing you why you're full of sh*t:
i'll start with simple reading knowing your limitations demonstrated above:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

here is something meatier:
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249

you see... that is called EVIDENCE
that establishes the truth... a known fact that can be validated because i literally linked a review of the actual law posted at Cornell
i also validated it with a secondary source which gets involved with investigating hate crimes: the FBI

2Bcont'd