US Anti-Police Protests and Riots Thread II

[Thermodolia]

It just reminded me of another instance I had with the mods. I shouldn't have brought it up, and I'm sorry for doing so. Let's get back on topic please.



Probably the latter.

“Hang on bro let me tie this onto you for a FUCKING CUT.”

All the guy needed was a bandage and Tylenol.

[Fahran]

And here we observe a party attempting to ban reallocation of government funds. Just simply amazing. This is probably one of the top most weirdest things the GOP has done this year.

There's actually a policy reason for refusing to accommodate municipalities that severely slash the budgets of local law enforcement, namely that, in many cases, the state would have to pick up the slack. It creates a free rider problem if municipalities that aren't paying for policing still receive adequate policing and it creates a civil unrest and crime problem if they go completely unpoliced.

And, again, we know that adequate policing has a deterrent effect on certain forms of criminality. For instance, the study I posted a little earlier in this thread found that widespread education about laws and penalties as well as a robust police presence led to a decline in vehicular homicides involving alcohol.

[The Reformed American Republic]

And here we observe a party attempting to ban reallocation of government funds. Just simply amazing. This is probably one of the top most weirdest things the GOP has done this year.

There's actually a policy reason for refusing to accommodate municipalities that severely slash the budgets of local law enforcement, namely that, in many cases, the state would have to pick up the slack. It creates a free rider problem if municipalities that aren't paying for policing still receive adequate policing and it creates a civil unrest and crime problem if they go completely unpoliced.

Look I'm no fan of the GOP, but I agree here. We should not defund law enforcement or abolish them.

[Fahran]

It's impossible to say whether or not we're overstating it without a full audit and investigation.

This is true but, as the 2006 report noted, the main threat surrounding white nationalist infiltration of law enforcement is that "ghost skins" could leak information to white nationalist groups regarding ongoing investigations and intelligence assets and techniques such as undercover officers and the like. There's not really any indication that the FBI, which has been actively infiltrating white nationalist groups, believes that white nationalists have wholly coopted departments in a systematic way. We actually have details of the report and, despite constant references to it, a lot of articles that have covered this subject have misrepresented the findings.

[Vassenor]

What how are they left-wing? They just warned him for the "shut up" part.

It just reminded me of another instance I had with the mods. I shouldn't have brought it up, and I'm sorry for doing so. Let's get back on topic please.

Actual paramedics or larpers?

Probably the latter.

Now are you going to prove that or just assume it because it makes you feel better about the cops leaving a man to die when he could've been saved?

[Fartsniffage]

“Hang on bro let me tie this onto you for a FUCKING CUT.”

All the guy needed was a bandage and Tylenol.

He probably also needed an x-ray. Getting hit directly by a baton round can break shit.

[Fahran]

He probably also needed an x-ray. Getting hit directly by a baton round can break shit.

^ This. Street medics can render immediate first aid care but, if you suffer an injury like this, you should also consult with a physician and get yourself properly checked out as soon as possible.

[Fartsniffage]

It just reminded me of another instance I had with the mods. I shouldn't have brought it up, and I'm sorry for doing so. Let's get back on topic please.



Probably the latter.

Now are you going to prove that or just assume it because it makes you feel better about the cops leaving a man to die when he could've been saved?

One of the street medics is called Sierra Boyne and she claims no other medical training than a first aid course. Her twitter account before it was taken down said she was a tired college student and a model.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3axROOwK2yQ

[United States of Devonta]

He probably also needed an x-ray. Getting hit directly by a baton round can break shit.

^ This. Street medics can render immediate first aid care but, if you suffer an injury like this, you should also consult with a physician and get yourself properly checked out as soon as possible.

It's funny because allot of the street medics are and work beside Antifa. The people who tried to help him in the video before the victims friend push them away is probably Antifa. I also think the two voices you hear in the video are the victim and his friend.

[Phoenicaea]

since it gets and political strife has got always some pleasure, i spent some time and saw a brief tape through twitter, where police takes in custody some youth in baltimora town standing on the basement.

not a large tape enough, yet it shows how an arrest should be done, professional and gentle. you wouldn t say they ve nothing in common with tapes shown sort of mislead police in other towns.

other that you ve been said it is the same nation. so the teaching is you have got diversity when in a local electoral college strict democracy, with autonomies as america is in many domains.

it goes without saying, this is not a true police topic, it is rather a broaden politics topic that falls into police theme because of american structure. nevertheless, the principle is simple.

the portland approach is much fine and other less fortunate provinces should learn from it.

[Slaughter None]

Great take taken by a registered lawyer having a practice in Kenosha:-
https://youtu.be/8L7JQ-KXzWg

[Kowani]

And here we observe a party attempting to ban reallocation of government funds. Just simply amazing. This is probably one of the top most weirdest things the GOP has done this year.

There's actually a policy reason for refusing to accommodate municipalities that severely slash the budgets of local law enforcement, namely that, in many cases, the state would have to pick up the slack. It creates a free rider problem if municipalities that aren't paying for policing still receive adequate policing and it creates a civil unrest and crime problem if they go completely unpoliced.

And, again, we know that adequate policing has a deterrent effect on certain forms of criminality. For instance, the study I posted a little earlier in this thread found that widespread education about laws and penalties as well as a robust police presence led to a decline in vehicular homicides involving alcohol.

So, I read your study (although I've yet to check all the background info), and the only bit in it about law enforcement is this: "The relationship between law enforcement, for MLDA and drinking and driving laws, and youth drinking and driving was examined further using data provided by the FBI. The data set contained the number of DWI arrests and the number of liquor law violation arrests of persons under 21 years of age in each state annually for 1989 through 1995. A general linear model was constructed using DWI arrests, liquor law arrests, year and state as independent variables and the number of youth drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes as the dependent variable. The model showed no significant relationship between these enforcement measures and youth drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes.

This result is not especially surprising as previous studies have not found a strong relationship between DWI arrest totals and alcohol-related crashes. It is generally agreed that laws are most effective in deterring the behavior they prohibit if the public believes that violators are highly likely to be arrested and punished. Good enforcement programs seek to increase the public's perception of enforcement levels, not just raise arrest levels. Some enforcement efforts such as checkpoints produce few DWI arrests but create substantial publicity; other strategies can raise arrests but have little or no effect on public perceptions. In short, arrest levels generally are not a good measure of public perceptions of enforcement."
You don't actually need a robust police force to create the perception of crime prevention. In fact, the size of the force doesn't matter to the perception at all.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Great take taken by a registered lawyer having a practice in Kenosha:-
https://youtu.be/8L7JQ-KXzWg

Just the first minutes are already filled with lies. The chase was after the first shooting, for instance. A crucial fact, and this makes it clear this guy only has a partisan agenda. Not going to waste an hour on that.

Edit: Oh good, they go into the illegal possession, and completely miss the point on culpa in causa. If you have an illegal firearm and people try to disarm you, you are not allowed to use that weapon to defend yourself. That would be insane. Imagine criminals like Rittenhouse being able to defend themselves because people are trying to stop them via a citizen’s arrest.

[San Lumen]

A:I'm trying to understand why you and supposedly Aureumterra are bringing up this one time where someone was bad at first aid in response to the cops not letting people help a man who had been shot. B: I did ask if he believes that people of a given political persuasion are inherently bad at first aid, is that the point you are trying to make?

A: It's sadly not one time though. Bottom line, leave it to the professionals as more often then not in such situations these people are just going to get in the way and end up doing more harm then good.

B: No, because I've clearly never said that. Nice attempt at grasping though.

That would be were I start. Id mandate training and use of non lethal force and any officer who did what something similar happened to what happened in Minneapolis or Kenosha would be immediately fired.

Sounds incredibly fascist to me, what with bypassing peoples right to a fair trial and all that.

Who said anything about denying a fair trial?

[Telconi]

A: It's sadly not one time though. Bottom line, leave it to the professionals as more often then not in such situations these people are just going to get in the way and end up doing more harm then good.

B: No, because I've clearly never said that. Nice attempt at grasping though.



Sounds incredibly fascist to me, what with bypassing peoples right to a fair trial and all that.

Who said anything about denying a fair trial?

Why would you immediately fire someone for being involved in a shooting?

[Bear Stearns]

So antifa murdered someone in Portland again.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Great take taken by a registered lawyer having a practice in Kenosha:-
https://youtu.be/8L7JQ-KXzWg

Just the first minutes are already filled with lies. The chase was after the first shooting, for instance. A crucial fact, and this makes it clear this guy only has a partisan agenda. Not going to waste an hour on that.

Edit: Oh good, they go into the illegal possession, and completely miss the point on culpa in causa. If you have an illegal firearm and people try to disarm you, you are not allowed to use that weapon to defend yourself. That would be insane. Imagine criminals like Rittenhouse being able to defend themselves because people are trying to stop them via a citizen’s arrest.

I'm pretty sure there's precedent saying the exact opposite in our legal system actually.

[Rusozak]

Just the first minutes are already filled with lies. The chase was after the first shooting, for instance. A crucial fact, and this makes it clear this guy only has a partisan agenda. Not going to waste an hour on that.

Edit: Oh good, they go into the illegal possession, and completely miss the point on culpa in causa. If you have an illegal firearm and people try to disarm you, you are not allowed to use that weapon to defend yourself. That would be insane. Imagine criminals like Rittenhouse being able to defend themselves because people are trying to stop them via a citizen’s arrest.

I'm pretty sure there's precedent saying the exact opposite in our legal system actually.

I mean, if you have an illegal firearm, anything you do with it would be illegal, no?

[Telconi]

I'm pretty sure there's precedent saying the exact opposite in our legal system actually.

I mean, if you have an illegal firearm, anything you do with it would be illegal, no?

No.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm pretty sure there's precedent saying the exact opposite in our legal system actually.

I mean, if you have an illegal firearm, anything you do with it would be illegal, no?

Not inherently. The legality or not of the weapon doesn't really impact the self defense argument. You could certainly be nailed on weapons charges afterwards, but that's an entirely separate thing.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Just the first minutes are already filled with lies. The chase was after the first shooting, for instance. A crucial fact, and this makes it clear this guy only has a partisan agenda. Not going to waste an hour on that.

Edit: Oh good, they go into the illegal possession, and completely miss the point on culpa in causa. If you have an illegal firearm and people try to disarm you, you are not allowed to use that weapon to defend yourself. That would be insane. Imagine criminals like Rittenhouse being able to defend themselves because people are trying to stop them via a citizen’s arrest.

I'm pretty sure there's precedent saying the exact opposite in our legal system actually.

Well, please share. I’d be happy to see it.

[Loben III]

So antifa murdered someone in Portland again.

and they say that federal officers are the problem.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Who said anything about denying a fair trial?

Why would you immediately fire someone for being involved in a shooting?

Without a trial for that matter as well. Again, sounds incredibly authoritarian/fascist.

So antifa murdered someone in Portland again.

and they say that federal officers are the problem.

Laughably so even.

Needless to say, I wonder if these idiots have any idea that they themselves are going to bring about a shooting match that they have zero hopes of winning in the long term.

[Loben III]

Why would you immediately fire someone for being involved in a shooting?

Without a trial for that matter as well. Again, sounds incredibly authoritarian/fascist.

and they say that federal officers are the problem.

Laughably so even.

Needless to say, I wonder if these idiots have any idea that they themselves are going to bring about a shooting match that they have zero hopes of winning in the long term.

they wanted a war they got one.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I mean, if you have an illegal firearm, anything you do with it would be illegal, no?

Not inherently. The legality or not of the weapon doesn't really impact the self defense argument. You could certainly be nailed on weapons charges afterwards, but that's an entirely separate thing.

Not entirely separate. I think you are not keeping the two arguments apart enough:

1. The illeglity of the weapon does not make the self defence inherently illegal, BUT;

2. By bringing an illegal weapon you are opening yourself up to a citizen’s arrest, and then you have created the situation in which you hsd to defend yourself. And that is grounds for dismissing a claim of self defence:

A person who was the initial aggressor cannot claim self-defense as a justification unless they abandon the combat or the other party has responded with excessive force.

More specifically, the Wisconsin criminal code is quite clear on the matter:

A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

Rittenhouse shot someone and was illegally carrying a firearm. That is behaviour that provoked others to attack him. He thus forfeited his right to self defence, unless there was no other option left open to him. But he had a clear avenue to take a sprint and run, he just didn’t. The law is clear on the matter.