Police shootings, vigilante shootings, and Black Lives Matter

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You're complaining about the use of non-lethal means to disrupt a riot? Would you prefer the methods used in other countries, where they just mow down folks in the street?

I'm asking about specific events which happened in America this past summer and whether or not you consider them to be tyrannical or oppressive.

Potatoeman

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm asking about specific events which happened in America this past summer and whether or not you consider them to be tyrannical or oppressive.

You have the right to protest, you do not have a right to riot. As soon as a protest turns violent you have lost any moral high ground.

Police should be wearing badges but failing to do so is not tyrannical, our own police have done it a few times.

Tell me how

Potatoeman wrote: »

You have the right to protest, you do not have a right to riot. As soon as a protest turns violent you have lost any moral high ground.

Police should be wearing badges but failing to do so is not tyrannical, our own police have done it a few times.

What about when it turns violent due to the presence of agitators?

Minneapolis Police Reportedly Identify Viral 'Umbrella Man' As White Supremacist

So, a governmental force with no identification using excessive force on 1st amendment practising people is not tyranny?

Do you think Irish police (or agents of) operating without identification is acceptable?

What, in your view is an example of tyranny?

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm asking about specific events which happened in America this past summer and whether or not you consider them to be tyrannical or oppressive.

No, I don't.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, I don't.

Can you give an example of what you think would be an entry level tyrannical act for a government which would justify citizens using armed force?

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Can you give an example of what you think would be an entry level tyrannical act for a government which would justify citizens using armed force?

Dead bodies in the streets, mass internment and denial of legal rights, arrest and jailing of opposition politicians, denial of constitutional rights.

Potatoeman

Tell me how wrote: »

What about when it turns violent due to the presence of agitators?



So, a governmental force with no identification using excessive force on 1st amendment practising people is not tyranny?

Do you think Irish police (or agents of) operating without identification is acceptable?

What, in your view is an example of tyranny?

I don’t doubt there are agitators from the right but the protests on the whole have been violent and intent on property destruction from the start.

It’s frustrating to watch something that will undermine anything they hoped to achieve.

Tell me how

Potatoeman wrote: »

I don’t doubt their are agitators from the right but the protests on the whole have been violent and intent on property destruction from the start.

It’s frustrating to watch something that will undermine anything they hoped to achieve.

The evidence doesn't support this.

93% of Black Lives Matter Protests Have Been Peaceful, New Report Finds

There are still protests happening daily which receive no national media coverage, because, they are entirely violence free. They don't even warrant a police presence.

And the numbers arrested versus the numbers protested indicate the vast vast majority of protesters are peaceful.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Dead bodies in the streets, mass internment and denial of legal rights, arrest and jailing of opposition politicians, denial of constitutional rights.

Like their right to free speech, as protected by the 1st amendment of the constitution?

Or what about this guy?

Not a tyrannical act no?

Do you think Trump was calling for tyranny with his 'Lock Her Up' strategy of 2016?

Or the carrying out of forced sterilisation by ICE currently being investigated? Would that be tyrannical, in your view?

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Like their right to free speech, as protected by the 1st amendment of the constitution?

Or what about this guy?

Not a tyrannical act no?

Do you think Trump was calling for tyranny with his 'Lock Her Up' strategy of 2016?

Or the carrying out of forced sterilisation by ICE currently being investigated? Would that be tyrannical, in your view?

Putting aside your tendencies towards unfounded sensationalism, there has been no mass crack down on protests. Far from it. I doubt a tyrannical regime would have permitted the CHAZ situation to perpetuate, or for protests outside the WH.

You can strawman all day long, the US isn't in the thrall of a despot, democracy and the rule of law still exists. Life will continue after the election.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Putting aside your tendencies towards unfounded sensationalism, there has been no mass crack down on protests. Far from it. I doubt a tyrannical regime would have permitted the CHAZ situation to perpetuate, or for protests outside the WH.

You can strawman all day long, the US isn't in the thrall of a despot, democracy and the rule of law still exists. Life will continue after the election.

I want to establish what your bench mark is and it seems that in your view it will only become 'tyranny' when it is happening across the whole country, isolated, documented events of such acts, and a President pleading with governors for more use of the same tactics within their state is in no way tyrannical in your view.

The protests outside the White House were indeed interrupted with tear gas and they were the event for which the military was asked about the availability of a war zone weapon.

These are facts.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

I want to establish what your bench mark is and it seems that in your view it will only become 'tyranny' when it is happening across the whole country, isolated, documented events of such acts, and a President pleading with governors for more use of the same tactics within their state is in no way tyrannical in your view.

The protests outside the White House were indeed interrupted with tear gas and they were the event for which the military was asked about the availability of a war zone weapon.

These are facts.

No, I don't view them as evidence of a tryanny that would warrant an armed uprising. Any other ways you want to frame that question to get the same answer?

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No, I don't view them as evidence of a tryanny that would warrant an armed uprising. Any other ways you want to frame that question to get the same answer?

So its tyranny, but not enough tyranny?

Well, I suppose we should be thankful for that much.

Potatoeman

Tell me how wrote: »

The evidence doesn't support this.



There are still protests happening daily which receive no national media coverage, because, they are entirely violence free. They don't even warrant a police presence.

And the numbers arrested versus the numbers protested indicate the vast vast majority of protesters are peaceful.

The reporting has been too partisan and you get very different stories from the different news outlets.

From Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests

Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
However, the violence had resulted in two deaths, 617 arrests, and upwards of $500 million in property damage to 1,500 locations, making it the second-most destructive period of local unrest in United States history, after the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

So its tyranny, but not enough tyranny?

Well, I suppose we should be thankful for that much.

It's not tryanny but trying to frame it as such seems to be very important to you. Pray tell why?

Dyr

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think the intent to use war field weaponry against such protesters would be evidence of a tyrannical mindset?

Do you think the use of unidentifiable forces to quell people practising their first amendment right is an oppressive act?

Don't mind heat rays they need to start spraying the weirdos with that skunk stuff, that'll soften their coughs

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's not tryanny but trying to frame it as such seems to be very important to you. Pray tell why?

You suggested that resisting the government is a valid reason for owning a gun. I'm trying to understand in what circumstances this would be the case for you particularly given the governments behaviour in recent weeks and months.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

You suggested that resisting the government is a valid reason for owning a gun. I'm trying to understand in what circumstances this would be the case for you particularly given the governments behaviour in recent weeks and months.

Well, I explained my views on it pretty succinctly then.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well, I explained my views on it pretty succinctly then.

You think people should be allowed to own a gun as a counter measure to government tyranny.

At what point would you agree that it’s acceptable to resist government tyranny? Generalities like bodies in the street and mass incarceration seem a bit too vague for me.

Tell me how

Brian? wrote: »

You think people should be allowed to own a gun as a counter measure to government tyranny.

At what point would you agree that it’s acceptable to resist government tyranny? Generalities like bodies in the street and mass incarceration seem a bit too vague for me.

It's not when unidentifiable armed forces are beating and arresting peaceful protesters, or when the government asks the military if a weapon designed for use in war zones is available to be used on peaceful protesters exercising their first amendment rights apparently. Oh and not when the President is pleading with Governors to use more force and to be more physical with protesters.

We established that earlier.

Think the poster acknowledged that the above is tyranny, just not enough for the people to fight back however.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

You think people should be allowed to own a gun as a counter measure to government tyranny.

At what point would you agree that it’s acceptable to resist government tyranny? Generalities like bodies in the street and mass incarceration seem a bit too vague for me.

Is there still the rule of law? Has the constitution been suspended? Are civilians being rounded up, or killed en masse in the streets?

Not the case in the US. So no, I wouldn't call it even close to a tryanny. Despite the hysterics of some on here

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Is there still the rule of law? Has the constitution been suspended? Are civilians being rounded up, or killed en masse in the streets?

Not the case in the US. So no, I wouldn't call it even close to a tryanny. Despite the hysterics of some on here

You need all 3 or just one for official tyranny?

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

You need all 3 or just one for official tyranny?

You asked me for an opinion. I doubt you need any help from me to draw your conclusions

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You asked me for an opinion. I doubt you need any help from me to draw your conclusions

I’m asking you to clarify an opinion.

I think you’re setting a pretty high bar for tyranny to be honest. A bar that’s unlikely to ever be met. So your argument that guns are necessary to protect against government tyranny don’t really hold water.

Potatoeman

Brian? wrote: »

I’m asking you to clarify an opinion.

I think you’re setting a pretty high bar for tyranny to be honest. A bar that’s unlikely to ever be met. So your argument that guns are necessary to protect against government tyranny don’t really hold water.

If you want to see real tyranny just look at any communist run country and look at how they deal with protesters.

Nody

Potatoeman wrote: »

If you want to see real tyranny just look at any communist run country and look at how they deal with protesters.

You mean things such as military clad government forces abducting people in unidentified vehicles which is against the countries constitution? Or perhaps you're referring to encouraging militant vigilantes among your own supporters to kill people? You know; those kind of things as are done in Belarus today and oh, wait, USA as well...

Brian?

Potatoeman wrote: »

If you want to see real tyranny just look at any communist run country and look at how they deal with protesters.

You know if it's wrong when they do it, it's wrong when the US government do it?

Water John

Potatoeman wrote: »

If you want to see real tyranny just look at any communist run country and look at how they deal with protesters.

I have trouble identifying any communist run country.

Nody

Water John wrote: »

I have trouble identifying any communist run country.

Venezuela would probably be the closest fit today along with Cuba (though Cuba is "regressing" slowly). Russia and Belarus are no longer communist countries but simply dictatorships hiding behind "free elections" and NV was never so much communist as it was a personality cult. China while communistic is not a true communist country due to being to pragmatic and capitalistic etc. Laos and Vietnam are also suppose to be communist countries but in case of Vietnam (don't know Laos well enough to comment) there is a big oligarchies family owned setups etc. which means not state owned factories which sort of is a key point.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

I’m asking you to clarify an opinion.

I think you’re setting a pretty high bar for tyranny to be honest. A bar that’s unlikely to ever be met. So your argument that guns are necessary to protect against government tyranny don’t really hold water.

Have a read through the histories of Eastern Europe when the USSR came a calling, pretty solid example of a tryanny.

I get it Brian, you want to either a) have some gotcha moment, where you triumphantly declare hypocrisy; or b) make some convoluted point about Trump being a Kroger brand tyrant. I don't see it myself but YMMV

AbusesToilets

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

That depends on the colour of your skin in US and soon enough on the makeup of the supreme court.


Trump literally just told the world he will not commit to peaceful transfer of power if he loses.


People being snatched off streets by unmarked federal (maybe?) officers. Kids of immigrants disapearing into federal system





countless black people being literally killed in the streets en masse with videos to prove it.

and then theres 200,000 dead due to Covid



I just showed that all of your "tyranny" check boxes have now been checked.

BTW its not just tyrany it is now plain old fascism they have under Trump

So that's no to all those conditions. Your hysteria is noted

Tell me how

Incredible to think a President who advocates for violence against protesters, says that he is the ultimate authority, allocates aid based on which states supports him, refuses to say that he will go peacefully should he lose the election and suggests some of his fans might demand he serves a 3rd term isn't a tyrant in the eyes of some.

I guess when you sign up to a fan club, you take that seriously.

Manic Moran

People being snatched off streets by unmarked federal (maybe?) officers.

Definitely federal, if you're referring to Portland. They are wearing their identifying insignia on their sleeves. Example https://twitter.com/Eleven_Films/status/1283967750981873670

That said, there is nothing saying you must be arrested by a uniformed/marked officer, as long as they identify themselves. Plain-clothes police have been a thing for quite a few years.

Potatoeman

Nody wrote: »

You mean things such as military clad government forces abducting people in unidentified vehicles which is against the countries constitution? Or perhaps you're referring to encouraging militant vigilantes among your own supporters to kill people? You know; those kind of things as are done in Belarus today and oh, wait, USA as well...

It’s when the people disappear after being picked up you have to worry.

Potatoeman

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

You repeatedly post one liners, do not engage in discussion as poster after poster demolish your Trumpian nonsense.

I posted clear examples of Trump being a tyrant by your own definition. Are you capable of engaging in debate? Or are just here to regurgitate Trump's incoherent talking points?

If he wins the election and tries to extend his term to a third term the military will remove him after his second term is over. The next democrat to win can just undo anything he passes. It’s always been like this in the US.

AbusesToilets

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

You repeatedly post one liners, do not engage in discussion as poster after poster demolish your Trumpian nonsense.

I posted clear examples of Trump being a tyrant by your own definition. Are you capable of engaging in debate? Or are just here to regurgitate Trump's incoherent talking points?

You offer nothing but hyperbole and exaggeration. What is the point of engagement with that? Where is the tryanny when those you claim were rounded up get bailed out shortly afterwards? Not really on the level of places like the USSR where you'd catch a bullet in some damp cell or get sent to Siberia is it? It's all political theatre.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Have a read through the histories of Eastern Europe when the USSR came a calling, pretty solid example of a tryanny.

I get it Brian, you want to either a) have some gotcha moment, where you triumphantly declare hypocrisy; or b) make some convoluted point about Trump being a Kroger brand tyrant. I don't see it myself but YMMV

You clearly don’t get it.

You think people should have guns to resist tyranny. You constantly criticise people protesting against tyranny.

It’s ridiculous to hold both views at once.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

You clearly don’t get it.

You think people should have guns to resist tyranny. You constantly criticise people protesting against tyranny.

It’s ridiculous to hold both views at once.

Except it's not tryanny, far from it.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Except it's not tryanny, far from it.

According to your absurd definition of tyranny.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

According to your absurd definition of tyranny.

If you consider a rational observation of the situation absurd, sure man.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If you consider a rational observation of the situation absurd, sure man.

It’s not at rational to define tyranny the way you have.

It’s clearly a sliding scale with your definition somewhere at the higher end.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

It’s not at rational to define tyranny the way you have.

It’s clearly a sliding scale with your definition somewhere at the higher end.

Is there still the rule of law in the country? Yes

Does the Constitutional still stand? Yes

Are people being illegally detained without due process a la internment camps or the like? No

Are people being executed/ killed for their political views by agents of the state in a coordinated manner? No

Are people able to exercise their free speech without fear of reprisals from the Government? Yes.

Are people able to engage in politics without fear of punishment or violence? Yes

Please show me the widespread actions which you claim constitute evidence of a Tyranny existing in the US.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Is there still the rule of law in the country? Yes

Does the Constitutional still stand? Yes

Are people being illegally detained without due process a la internment camps or the like? No

Are people being executed/ killed for their political views by agents of the state in a coordinated manner? No

Are people able to exercise their free speech without fear of reprisals from the Government? Yes.

Are people able to engage in politics without fear of punishment or violence? Yes

Please show me the widespread actions which you claim constitute evidence of a Tyranny existing in the US.

You’ve made up a definition of tyranny and are continually defending it as if it’s a fact. It isn’t. It’s an opinions and a pretty poor one.

Tyranny is an oppressive government. Simple.

I’d be happy to debate you in relation to the actual definition of tyranny, but your definition is off the charts ridiculous.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

You’ve made up a definition of tyranny and are continually defending it as if it’s a fact. It isn’t. It’s an opinions and a pretty poor one.

Tyranny is an oppressive government. Simple.

I’d be happy to debate you in relation to the actual definition of tyranny, but your definition is off the charts ridiculous.

I don't believe I made up a definition of tyranny. I was asked what actions I would consider as grounds to justify armed resistance. I offered my opinion. Perhaps you missed that part in your rush to hysterics.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny

Definition of tyranny

1 : oppressive power every form of tyranny over the mind of man— Thomas Jefferson especially : oppressive power exerted by government the tyranny of a police state
2a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force living under the tyranny of the clock— Dixon Wecter
4 : an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act workers who had suffered tyrannies

Go on so, please demonstrate the subjugation of the American people by Trump. Can't say I've noticed it myself lately.

Water John

Interesting interview here with Opal Tometi, one of the three women who founded BLM:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/24/opal-tometi-co-founder-of-black-lives-matter-i-do-this-because-we-deserve-to-live

They can hardly be characterised as a threat to the state.

AbusesToilets

Water John wrote: »

Interesting interview here with Opal Tometi, one of the three women who founded BLM:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/24/opal-tometi-co-founder-of-black-lives-matter-i-do-this-because-we-deserve-to-live

They can hardly be characterised as a threat to the state.

“I say look at the data. In 93% of the protests, nothing like that has happened. But beyond that I’ll be really honest: I’m not really concerned about broken glass. I’m concerned about people’s broken faces, their broken bodies, because they had the audacity to stand up for human rights. Property can be replaced, people cannot … I know it can be very confusing for people, but it really shouldn’t be.”

Some comfort to those whose saw their livelihoods destroyed

Retr0gamer

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Some comfort to those whose saw their livelihoods destroyed

I know. All those people of colour that have lost so much to police brutality. Sometimes their lives and the knock of affect to their families. I'd trade lives for a bit of property damage any day of the week.

Retr0gamer

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Are people being illegally detained without due process a la internment camps or the like? No

Except they are being detained in prison for protesting. Doesn't matter if it's a internment camp, they are being detained for practicing their democratic rights

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Are people able to exercise their free speech without fear of reprisals from the Government? Yes.

Only if you ignore the police brutality against peaceful protesters which is happening even if you choose to ignore it. How you can even say this is utterly delusional and baffling.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Are people able to engage in politics without fear of punishment or violence? Yes

Being tear gasses, beaten, shot at with paintballs, rubber bullets and actual bullets and supporting vigilantes not count?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Please show me the widespread actions which you claim constitute evidence of a Tyranny existing in the US.

What's the point, there's hundreds of verified reports of this happening. You'll just do your usual ostrich impression and choose to ignore it.

AbusesToilets

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Except they are being detained in prison for protesting. Doesn't matter if it's a internment camp, they are being detained for practicing their democratic rights



Only if you ignore the police brutality against peaceful protesters which is happening even if you choose to ignore it. How you can even say this is utterly delusional and baffling.



Being tear gasses, beaten, shot at with paintballs, rubber bullets and actual bullets and supporting vigilantes not count?



What's the point, there's hundreds of verified reports of this happening. You'll just do your usual ostrich impression and choose to ignore it.

Being arrested for breaking curfew and rioting is not indicative of the collapse of the legal system. Figures you would see the police as acting in the wrong to disrupt riots. As is abundantly clear, the lives of those suffering at the hands of the rioters matter not a jot.

Amazing how posters can go and on about police brutality, when again and again these incidents are shown to have been driven by the actions of the people involved. How dare the police try to break up a riot. How dare the police try to arrest someone passed out drunk driving. Ludicrous reasoning.

AbusesToilets

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I know. All those people of colour that have lost so much to police brutality. Sometimes their lives and the knock of affect to their families. I'd trade lives for a bit of property damage any day of the week.

What's a person of colour?

Nice of you to handwave away $1bn worth of destruction