Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Vort said:

To tell the truth, I'm not really much of a gun guy. But I do deplore the wholesale murder of unborn babies. I assume that protesting the horror of elective abortion is rage-worthy in your book, too. So you clearly would support the storming of the streets and disruption of all normal daily activity until such a time as such things are made illegal. Right?

We've established that you and I have fundamental differences in our views of abortion that stem from fundamental differences about the personhood and rights of a developing fetus versus a woman's rights about what happens to her body. I don't believe that those differences will ever be resolved, so I'll just say that I support the right of pro-life protestors to peacefully protest for their cause and leave it at that.

1 hour ago, Colirio said:

I believe this is false. 
 

Freedom from an oppressive government is the oldest problem in our nation as it was the very foundation of our nation. 
 

Whether you agree or not, your point is valid that racism has been an issue since long before the founding of the nation. Even in Christ’s time there was extreme tension between the Samaritans and the Jews. It can certainly be traced back biblically into the Old Testament.
 

In modern times, how long has the tension between Muslim countries and the Jews been brewing? 
 

My point is that racism has been an issue that far exceeds the issues of our own government. Racism, at its base level, is a moral and spiritual issue. Despite all the laws to the contrary, institutional racism will exist as long as it exists in the hearts of the people. 
 

That being said, I don’t believe this issue will or even can be solved through legislation. Despite decades of protests and centuries of legislation, here we are with more protests and probably more legislation as a result. And it certainly won’t be the end of it. 

I agree that legislation isn't the answer, at least not on a national level. The relationship between police and our black communities certainly isn't the only source of racial tension in America, but it's arguably the biggest. Start there. Rethink the way they're trained to interact with the public. Implement stricter measures of accountability to keep their power in check. Remind them who they're supposed to serve, or the public will. I know there are a lot of good cops out there. I know a lot of them are upset about what happened to George Floyd, and they should be. Let's see their anger. Let's hear their voices. Some departments have taken steps in the right direction this week. Let's keep that going.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
2 hours ago, Colirio said:

But such a blanket statement offers no more proof than the conspiracy theory that was presented. 
 

Perhaps we (all of us) shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the opinions of others that don’t fit the narratives we want to see? Maybe this was your point in trying to show the left and right are the opposite sides of the same coin? 

It doesn't work that way. When you make an accusation, you are the one who has to prove it. 

It's just another crazy conspiracy theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It seems like we hear this a lot—mayors (who are, after all, politicians) saying “these are despicable human beings doing this, and I’m sure that godless rabble doesn’t include any of you worthy voters.”

That's an interesting take.  Most of the other politicians who have weighed in (both D & R) have taken the same tactic as Trump.  Rather than trying to deflect blame to out-of-state agitators, they say something like:

Quote

We are with you in your outrage and your desire for justice.  But that doesn't give anyone the right to become violent.

But for

  • Both a Dem Mayor and Dem Gov to both say that it it largely out-of-state agitators
  • Then cry "conspiracy theory" when conservatives take their words at face value

is putting excessive blame on conservatives who did nothing but listened to what they said.

Quote

But realistically, the idea that a) someone’s going to pay someone else to cross state lines and commit a petty property crime; b) that said offer would include enough of a payout to cover lawyer’s fees, court costs, fines, lost income from incarceration, and the ongoing stigma of a criminal conviction; and c) that someone else would actually take that deal—

—All to seems like a stretch to me.  Rent-a-crowds?  Sure.  Rent-a-mobs?  Mmmmm . . . color me skeptical. 

I was just repeating what was reported.  As far as Soros...I had thought that the callback to the Church Lady would have been enough to indicate a little tongue-in-cheek.  I guess not.

 

But, to your point: 

  • I am not exactly on board with the idea.  But I'm not as closed to it as you are.
  • Recognize that you're thinking of honest law-abiding citizens.  I don't think any law abiding citizen would either get hired for such a gig or be prone to agitation by agitators.

Either of the following options can be proven to have happened enough that it is not out-of-the question.

1) The fact is that the "agitators" don't need to be in the thick of it.  They don't need to actually DO anything.  They just need to get others to do it.  That's the hope.  They supply the explosives and so on (honestly, what the heck were people doing with explosives?).  Pass them around to "otherwise-peaceful-protesters-who-happen-to-be-so-angry-that-they-are-leaving-their-jobs-and-families to participate to-the-point-they-are-a-powder-keg."  And then they can slink into the background and not get caught.  That's what they're hoping for.

2) Do most of the people there truly have completely clean records? Do they have day jobs?  Do they have family to worry about?  What responsibilities do they have regularly?

I have no doubt that SOME (and honestly no idea what percentage) have clean records until now.  But to hire someone with multiple petty crimes on their records to go to another state where they have had no priors for just another catch and release is not too far out of the question.  In the next week or so, how many of those arrested are going to either be out on bail or possibly given amnesty (considering the outrage and extenuating circumstances)?

So if, as a lawyer, you can educate me:

How many states have extradition for bail jumpers?  How easy is it to enforce?  How often is it enforced?  Does the state of residency go find the bail jumper?  Or does the state where the crime was committed have to go out of state to go pick them up?  In a practical sense, are they going to be able to do so when a tremendous number of people jump bail for the same event?  And what if those officials are somewhat sympathetic to their cause?  Are they going to make it a priority?

I honestly don't know.  I'm just wondering about the difference between theory and reality.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...So I’m coming in late to this conversation...

If I understand this correctly, someone was racist against a black man so they started destroying their own city and burning local stores where they were employed?

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fether said:

...So I’m coming in late to this conversation...

If I understand this correctly, someone was racist against a black man

A (now former and in jail) police officer murdered a black man in cold blood. Not that it should matter, but his alleged crime was either possession of a counterfeit $20 bill or check fraud. I've heard both, but neither should have cost him his life.

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

so they started destroying their own city and burning local stores where black men and women were employed?

That's what we're debating. There's reason to believe that the black communities in Minneapolis were destroyed primarily by white agitators of unknown origin and political motivation (if any). And the same story has been unfolding in other cities the past couple of nights. It's not unreasonable to think that there were some locals participating in the violence, but there's been an alarming amount of evidence to suggest that a lot of the instigators were white non-locals*. Some may have been undercover cops. Antifa and white supremacist groups are also being looked at. Regardless, this is a lot more complicated than the "black people destroying their own communities" narrative that some people are parroting. 

*For the purpose of this discussion, "locals" refers to people living in the immediate community in question. If a middle class white kid drives to Lake Street from a nicer part of Minneapolis, he's considered non-local. I imagine the same would be true if someone from Manhattan's Upper East Side found themselves stirring up trouble in Harlem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/officials-blame-differing-groups-of-outsiders-for-violence/ar-BB14OE3z?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

General consensus is that many of the rioters in various cities are actually not from the cities they're rioting in, but there's disagreement as to who they are and what they're doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/officials-blame-differing-groups-of-outsiders-for-violence/ar-BB14OE3z?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout

General consensus is that many of the rioters in various cities are actually not from the cities they're rioting in, but there's disagreement as to who they are and what they're doing. 

Yes, I think the question is who is actually doing the rioting and looting and why?  I'm not real clear on that right now.  Here's an article I just saw...

"‘Damn Shame’: Pittsburgh Police Chief Says White Males Dressed In Anarchist Attire Hijacked George Floyd Protests Downtown"

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/05/30/cheif-schubert-floyd-protests-comments/?fbclid=IwAR05n0Zs04uVHkGYwTdSv03gUU-HScz3ZjMKM_WrhVHejhAAYYKEJ0cXZR4

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also worth noting that, last night especially, uniformed police officers escalated peaceful situations into violence in a few cities. There have also been several reports of unprovoked attacks against members of the media. Regardless of what you think about the press in this country, police violence against them should be sending up all kinds of red flags. A country without a free press isn't free. The Founders wrote that into the Constitution for a reason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Here is a news clip of a peaceful protester talking about her frustrations about anachists creating chaos.  

https://youtu.be/aH7yi0FmZEk?t=22913

 

41 minutes ago, Godless said:

Also worth noting that, last night especially, uniformed police officers escalated peaceful situations into violence in a few cities. There have also been several reports of unprovoked attacks against members of the media. Regardless of what you think about the press in this country, police violence against them should be sending up all kinds of red flags. A country without a free press isn't free. The Founders wrote that into the Constitution for a reason.

 

This will only make things worse. Pathetic actions that should not be tolerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Godless said:

We've established that you and I have fundamental differences in our views of abortion that stem from fundamental differences about the personhood and rights of a developing fetus versus a woman's rights about what happens to her body. I don't believe that those differences will ever be resolved, so I'll just say that I support the right of pro-life protestors to peacefully protest for their cause and leave it at that.

A reasonable answer; thanks for that. My point is that I find public protests generally useless at best, and I think if our entire society were built around using protests as a primary vehicle to societal change, society would grind to a halt overnight. But as long as you think the use of protests by the other side is exactly as reasonable as by yours, then I guess I have no fundamental objections other than that I think it's a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Godless said:

A (now former and in jail) police officer murdered a black man in cold blood.

This is an unfair and untrue take. No commentators, even those who believe the cop guilty of murder, think the cop was planning to murder the guy. It was obviously accidental; the only question is whether the cop showed "depraved indifference" in that he knew or should have known that his actions were likely to cause the guy's death. That is not and never has been the definition of murder "in cold blood".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Godless said:

uniformed police officers escalated peaceful situations into violence in a few cities

I don't understand. You made a claim about "uniformed police officers", then linked a tweet about the National Guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Words are important.  Words mean things.  As tempers flare, emotions run hot, and crap is happening in the streets, those of us who are trying to make sense of things need accurate words, with precise and unarguable definitions, in order to do so.

Folks are used to decades of the media melodramaticizing and hypersensationalizing and clickbaiting actual news.  It might be a hard habit to break, but now is not the time for word inflation.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

I wonder how everyone would feel if a cop used the same amount of force against the Michigan protestors a few weeks ago who wanted the state reopened. The sides would be reversed. The right would call it police brutality and left would be largely agnostic towards the incident. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I wonder how everyone would feel if a cop used the same amount of force against the Michigan protestors a few weeks ago who wanted the state reopened. The sides would be reversed. The right would call it police brutality and left would be largely agnostic towards the incident. 

Yeah, because the two situations are exactly parallel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I wonder how everyone would feel if a cop used the same amount of force against the Michigan protestors a few weeks ago who wanted the state reopened. The sides would be reversed. The right would call it police brutality and left would be largely agnostic towards the incident. 

The amount of force the cops are using has little to do with the politics of the protestors, and everything to do with the tactics of the protestors.

If the “reopen” protestors were doing this kind of crap . . .

I’d endorse a shoot-on-sight order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The amount of force the cops are using has little to do with the politics of the protestors, and everything to do with the tactics of the protestors.

Right, agree. I’m saying everyone would look at it differently if it was like the situation I described. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I wonder how everyone would feel if a cop used the same amount of force against the Michigan protestors a few weeks ago who wanted the state reopened. The sides would be reversed. The right would call it police brutality and left would be largely agnostic towards the incident. 

Hi there - member of the right here.  I am calling what happened to George Floyd police brutality, and quite possibly murder.  If a cop grabbed one of those potbellied maskless armed blowhards out of the Michigan capital building and knelt on his neck despite no sign of resistance, or even movement for the last couple of minutes, and the potbellied blowhard died, I would be calling that police brutality and quite possibly murder too.

It's often a good idea to test onesself for hidden hypocrisy.  Thanks for the opportunity - I think I pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's often a good idea to test onesself for hidden hypocrisy.  Thanks for the opportunity - I think I pass.

Yes it is, and I wasn’t calling anyone out here. Just raising an interesting point. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The amount of force the cops are using has little to do with the politics of the protestors, and everything to do with the tactics of the protestors.

If the “reopen” protestors were doing this kind of crap . . .

I’d endorse a shoot-on-sight order.

I think that sometimes people will conflate complaining online about one bad cop with setting buildings on fire and blowing up private property. Yeah, they seem like they're exactly the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I am having the most difficult time finding any logic - Why are there protest (including riots and property damage) against the police here is Salt Lake City, Utah about something that happened in Minnesota?

What is the logic in demonstrating against excessive force - with excessive force?

My only conclusion is that this is not local to any one place (why is anyone even arguing this point) and not to end a wrong - but use a wrong to start something violent.  One thing everyone should know - if you are to read your fire insurance policy on a building you own - like your home or business building.  Your insurance does not cover for war or public disturbances.  There are no protections for those losing private property - combine this with the COVID-19 shutdowns and no small business will survive such conditions.  I am appalled with the cavalier attitude many are having concerning the deliberate destruction of private property - or any property for that matter.   I believe we are at or close to a threshold - that will result in civil war if it is crossed.  Property has always been closely related to freedoms and liberties in this country - we have fought most of our wars over this single principle.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Traveler said:

One thing I am having the most difficult time finding any logic - Why are there protest (including riots and property damage) against the police here is Salt Lake City, Utah about something that happened in Minnesota?

What is the logic in demonstrating against excessive force - with excessive force?

My only conclusion is that this is not local to any one place (why is anyone even arguing this point) and not to end a wrong - but use a wrong to start something violent.  One thing everyone should know - if you are to read your fire insurance policy on a building you own - like your home or business building.  Your insurance does not cover for war or public disturbances.  There are no protections for those losing private property - combine this with the COVID-19 shutdowns and no small business will survive such conditions.  I am appalled with the cavalier attitude many are having concerning the deliberate destruction of private property - or any property for that matter.   I believe we are at or close to a threshold - that will result in civil war if it is crossed.  Property has always been closely related to freedoms and liberties in this country - we have fought most of our wars over this single principle.

Remember this?

Wow!  Why did the alligator/crocodile image come up from that link?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Remember this?

Wow!  Why did the alligator/crocodile image come up from that link?

This happened with a discussion I was involved with (a cool dude from Florida).  Anyway, as we were discussing he felt that the horse had left the barn and no way to get him back.  I made a sarcastic remark that the horse may had gone to Florida but that the cool dude would have noticed.  The cool dude said that they would not only have noticed but ate the horse - and they provided the picture.  

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now