[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities

Frank

Frank

Well, protests broke out over this in Minneapolis and the police showed the exact opposite amount of restraint they did with armed white nationalists demanding access to the governor of Michigan to maybe murder her, who knows so of course, it's now a full blown riot/battle between the police and the protestors.

Apparently boogaloo militia is showing up to support the protestors since all those people want is to violently clash with authorities. Hopefully nothing escalates, ha ha ha.

Robert Evans is doing a good job relaying info.

 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
Trump will use this to try to undermine state governments, and further discord among the people. He will use this to set up for attempting to stay in office by any means necessary, including military force.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Dave said:
I actually agree with @ScytheRexx on this one. If the dude would have said this to me I'd have immediately been on the defensive.



I mean, what WAS he intending to do? Say the dog HAD come to him. What was his plan of action? Hold the dog illegally until she put the leash on it? Take the dog? Simply pet the dog? His words don't say, "Hey, I want to pet your dog." His words say, You're not going to like what I do, so come here, doggy!

Like @ScytheRexx I agree she took the wrong tact after the filming started (and isn't it always the things BEFORE the filming starts that seems to change the nature of the whole thing?) but were I her I would have felt that he was being threatening. "You're not going to like it" and "we'll see about that" IS THREATENING SPEECH! Bringing his race into it is wrong, but he's in the wrong as well.
Click to expand...
...

...

I agree with this too
 
Krisken

Krisken

It's ok to be wrong and admit it. It's also ok to look at the situation and say "This person was a little wrong, but that person was WAY WRONG and makes the other's wrong seem almost negligible."

I don't understand why we can't accept that both are true.
 
D

Dubyamn

Krisken said:
It's ok to be wrong and admit it. It's also ok to look at the situation and say "This person was a little wrong, but that person was WAY WRONG and makes the other's wrong seem almost negligible."

I don't understand why we can't accept that both are true.
Click to expand...
Still not understanding what Christian Cooper did wrong here.

Unless giving a racist's dog a treat while black is wrong now.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Dubyamn said:
Still not understanding what Christian Cooper did wrong here.

Unless giving a racist's dog a treat while black is wrong now.
Click to expand...
He said "you're not gonna like what I'm about to do" then called the dog over. The woman is a POS and clearly lied to the cops, but if she said "this man threatened my dog" it would've been justified.
 
netsirk

netsirk

Dubyamn said:
GasBandit said:
It's been explained to you multiple times, multiple ways.
By my interpretation of his own account, he made an implied threat against her dog.
Click to expand...
FTFY.
Click to expand...
I tend not to wade into argument quagmires like this, but the guy self reported saying: "I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it" to the woman. Whether or not this happened exactly as stated is somewhat irrelevant, as we have no video evidence of that particular interaction, and thus have to rely on the man's retelling of his own words during the exchange.

(n.b. NPR article that has a little bit more of a discussion about his thought process, in case that helps. He clarifies that he carries treats with him "because over the years, that has proven the most effective way to get a recalcitrant dog owner to put their dog on the leash because they don't like it when a stranger feeds their dog treats")

Regardless of his physical actions being kindly or manipulative or whatever, he self reports (now on multiple occasions) expressly stating that the dog owner isn't going to like what he's doing. Thus his statement is that his forthcoming actions (regardless of what they are) will be something that he believes will be unpleasant to the owner in some manner. That is the literal definition of a threat, however mild.

All that to say, I think the woman was vile and racist, clearly in full knowledge of what her statements could produce in terms of a legitimate threat to the man. Also, wholly unrelated to semantics, there are very few times when slinging a dog around by its collar (thus bearing its whole weight by its neck) are potentially justified; this was not one of them.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Hey anyone defending that cop in Minnesota that killed the black guy? You say he's not racist? You might want to rethink your platform.

 
D

Dubyamn

netsirk said:
I tend not to wade into argument quagmires like this, but the guy self reported saying: "I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it" to the woman. Whether or not this happened exactly as stated is somewhat irrelevant, as we have no video evidence of that particular interaction, and thus have to rely on the man's retelling of his own words during the exchange.

(n.b. NPR article that has a little bit more of a discussion about his thought process, in case that helps. He clarifies that he carries treats with him "because over the years, that has proven the most effective way to get a recalcitrant dog owner to put their dog on the leash because they don't like it when a stranger feeds their dog treats")

Regardless of his physical actions being kindly or manipulative or whatever, he self reports (now on multiple occasions) expressly stating that the dog owner isn't going to like what he's doing. Thus his statement is that his forthcoming actions (regardless of what they are) will be something that he believes will be unpleasant to the owner in some manner. That is the literal definition of a threat, however mild.

All that to say, I think the woman was vile and racist, clearly in full knowledge of what her statements could produce in terms of a legitimate threat to the man. Also, wholly unrelated to semantics, there are very few times when slinging a dog around by its collar (thus bearing its whole weight by its neck) are potentially justified; this was not one of them.
Click to expand...
It's not a threat when the literally worst thing that's going to happen is that the dog gets a treat. Now I have no problem with people saying that whe interrupted it as a threat but it still isn't even a mild threat.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
She didn't KNOW he kept treats in his pocket. In fact, he HAD NONE. So here's a guy calling your dog after using threatening language, then reaching into his pockets.

Come on, man.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Dubyamn said:
It's not a threat when the literally worst thing that's going to happen is that the dog gets a treat. Now I have no problem with people saying that whe interrupted it as a threat but it still isn't even a mild threat.
Click to expand...
A poisoned treat, kicking the dog, killing the dog, kidnapping the dog - there are plenty of potential ways "I'm going to do something to your dog you're not going to like " can end up badly.
 
netsirk

netsirk

Dubyamn said:
It's not a threat when the literally worst thing that's going to happen is that the dog gets a treat. Now I have no problem with people saying that whe interrupted it as a threat but it still isn't even a mild threat.
Click to expand...
Or the treat contains something that the dog is allergic to, or the dog chokes on the treat, or whatever. The point is still that the man intended that the owner "would not like" what he was going to do.

To put it in a way that maybe you'll understand a little more, would it not be a threat if someone said "I'm going to shoot you" but actually only had a nerf gun in his pocket (and was a lousy shot to boot, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with the little nerf ammo)?

Regardless, it seems like you want to disagree just for the sake of argument, which is pretty boring unless it involves John Cleese and Michael Palin, so I shall not continue this line of conversation any further and bid you a good day :D

ArgumentClinic.jpg
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member


So basically, Dubyamn is saying that because D-FENS only had a squirt gun, he did nothing wrong here. Because "literally the worst thing that could happen here" is that the detective would have gotten wet.

Hindsight is 20 frickin 20 I guess, eh?
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
I really do see the point he's trying to make but yes, I think he's looking at it through the filter of hindsight. I'm trying to put myself in the lady's (racist) shoes. She doesn't know this is a gay bird-watching dude, just a dude. And women as a whole are more wary of strange men.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Dave said:
Hey anyone defending that cop in Minnesota that killed the black guy?
Click to expand...
Yes. There were plenty of replies saying stuff like, "Thank goodness, another one of those dirty ***s off the streets. Why not get rid of them all?" or "He probably deserved it, I bet he already robbed/assaulted at least one person that day" and so on.

--Patrick
 
Ravenpoe

Ravenpoe

Dave said:
I really do see the point he's trying to make but yes, I think he's looking at it through the filter of hindsight. I'm trying to put myself in the lady's (racist) shoes. She doesn't know this is a gay bird-watching dude, just a dude. And women as a whole are more wary of strange men.
Click to expand...
How can you tell which birds are gay?
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
There's always a Tweet from Trump about Trump....and there's always an Onion article about current news. This is the weirdest timeline.

local.theonion.com

Police Officer Wouldn’t Have Killed Black Man If He Knew Everyone Would Make Such A Big Fuss About It

MILWAUKEE, WI—Expressing his deep and heartfelt regrets regarding how the incident has played out in the media, Milwaukee police officer Ian Feeny said Monday that he would never have killed an unarmed black man during a routine traffic stop if he had known that everyone would make such a big...
local.theonion.com local.theonion.com
 
D

Dubyamn

netsirk said:
Or the treat contains something that the dog is allergic to, or the dog chokes on the treat, or whatever. The point is still that the man intended that the owner "would not like" what he was going to do.
Click to expand...
Wild idea here he'd give the dog a treat. It's pretty obvious that is something that she wasn't going to like.

To put it in a way that maybe you'll understand a little more, would it not be a threat if someone said "I'm going to shoot you" but actually only had a nerf gun in his pocket (and was a lousy shot to boot, and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with the little nerf ammo)?
Click to expand...
I think that "I'm going to shoot you" is a little different than "I'm going to give your dog a treat" when it comes to a threat. Guy's a 55 year old bird watcher with a Harvard degree for gods sake.

Regardless, it seems like you want to disagree just for the sake of argument, which is pretty boring unless it involves John Cleese and Michael Palin, so I shall not continue this line of conversation any further and bid you a good day :D

View attachment 34063
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing just to argue. I just think that when we start blaming the victim it isn't good. Especially when it really only seems to happen in cases where we aren't willing to put ourselves in the victim's shoes. Now victim isn't really a great word here but how is "he shouldn't have tried to give her dog a treat" any different from "he shouldn't have worn a hoodie" or "well she shouldn't have been wearing that dress." Or any of the other "helpful" advice that people give out.

He didn't start the fight he didn't escalate the fight, and he didn't want the fight. He just wanted to see the birds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top