All the guy needed was a bandage and Tylenol.
Advertisement
by Thermodolia » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:04 am
by Fahran » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:06 am
Pilipinas and Malaya wrote: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.
by The Reformed American Republic » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:10 am
Fahran wrote:Pilipinas and Malaya wrote: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.
by Fahran » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:14 am
Genivaria wrote:It's impossible to say whether or not we're overstating it without a full audit and investigation.
by Vassenor » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:15 am
The Reformed American Republic wrote:Aeritai wrote:
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.Loben III wrote:
Actual paramedics or larpers?
Probably the latter.
by Fartsniffage » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:17 am
by Fahran » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:20 am
Fartsniffage wrote:He probably also needed an x-ray. Getting hit directly by a baton round can break shit.
by Fartsniffage » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:21 am
Vassenor wrote:The Reformed American Republic wrote: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?
by United States of Devonta » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:32 am
Fahran wrote:Fartsniffage wrote: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.
Ask Devonta a Question/Embassy ProgramUS Air Force E-4Twenty-Five, Male, Lightskin, Social Democrat, Proud Kansan
Proud member of the IFC, SA, IHAPC, IDS, PEDC, IBE, ISA nation!
by Phoenicaea » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:46 am
by Slaughter None » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:46 am
by Kowani » Mon Aug 31, 2020 9:51 am
Fahran wrote:Pilipinas and Malaya wrote: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.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:24 am
Slaughter None wrote:Great take taken by a registered lawyer having a practice in Kenosha:-
https://youtu.be/8L7JQ-KXzWg
by San Lumen » Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:25 am
Paddy O Fernature wrote:Ifreann wrote: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.San Lumen wrote: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.
by Telconi » Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:40 am
San Lumen wrote:Paddy O Fernature wrote:
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?
by Bear Stearns » Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:42 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:43 am
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Slaughter None wrote: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.
by Rusozak » Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:46 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote: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.
by Telconi » Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:47 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:48 am
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Aug 31, 2020 10:51 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote: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.
by Paddy O Fernature » Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:01 am
by Loben III » Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:04 am
Paddy O Fernature wrote:Telconi wrote:
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.Loben III wrote:
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.
by Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States » Mon Aug 31, 2020 11:18 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Rusozak wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Fame And Even More Fame, Likhinia, ML Library, The Selkie, Umeria
Advertisement