Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Page 43 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15201058
Doug64 wrote:@Potemkin, I have no idea how many clones of me there are out there, "evil" or otherwise. :D

You… you mean there could be an army of Dougs out there, ready to march at a moment’s notice…? :eek:
#15201059
Potemkin wrote:
Wait, so that was ‘Evil Doug’, and you’re ‘Good Doug’? :?:

…Are there any other ‘Dougs’ you want to tell us about…? :eh:



Doug64 wrote:
@Potemkin, I have no idea how many clones of me there are out there, "evil" or otherwise. :D



'New Spreadsheet'.


= D
#15201069
Wait, so when they’ve been talking about the “War on Drugs”, I’ve been mishearing it all this time, and they were actually talking about the “War on Dougs”…? My God! It all makes sense now! :eek:
#15203985
He's going to do WWE next....

Dudes, everyone halfway famous in the USA gets a Professional wrestling inspired theme-song eventually.


..... First President to have an official WWE theme song (also happens to be his TV show's theme). 5/10 for me.

Nothing inheritntly wrong with giving someone a wrestling theme.

Greatest Wrestling Themes ever(in my own order from 1-5! And yes its all WWF/E they make better theme songs than any other wrestling promotion):





And I'll include one from the "modern era" as fifth:

Have to give him credit for singing his own theme himself.

Kyle's was a 2/10. Give him a full song first then we'll talk about revising it. It sounded to much like "Getting Jiggy with it!" for my liking. Not enough originality.
#15203986
colliric wrote:
Dudes, everyone halfway famous in the USA gets a Professional wrestling inspired theme-song eventually.



No. Everyone famous for being a crypto-fascist mascot gets a theme song that works for a mix of Willy Wonka and Zoolander.

For everyone else, It's just nauseating. :)
#15204010
I'm allowed to agree with @SpecialOlympian while also joking about it. Lol.

Damn I hate how internet sarcasm doesn't work out for me often.
By Doug64
#15204924
So there's been plenty of ink spilled about the jury's recognition of Rittenhouse's innocence, and even of the guilt of the Arbery killers, even though that jury's ability to recognize vigilantism when they see it contradicts the Left's hyperventilating about how the Rittenhouse verdict puts us back in the days of the Wild West. I haven't seen much about a jury's finding of innocence for Andrew Coffee, though that puts another stake in the Left's narrative about racism and gun ownership. (The jury apparently had no trouble recognizing that a Black could use a gun against the police in self defense.) Mind, he's still facing up to thirty years for possession of a firearm by a felon, but that's rather different of murder and the jury's finding of innocence is something of the back of their hand to the cops that raided his home--an aspect that must make a lot of cops nervous.
#15204928
Doug64 wrote:
So there's been plenty of ink spilled about the jury's recognition of Rittenhouse's innocence, and even of the guilt of the Arbery killers, even though that jury's ability to recognize vigilantism when they see it contradicts the Left's hyperventilating about how the Rittenhouse verdict puts us back in the days of the Wild West. I haven't seen much about a jury's finding of innocence for Andrew Coffee, though that puts another stake in the Left's narrative about racism and gun ownership. (The jury apparently had no trouble recognizing that a Black could use a gun against the police in self defense.) Mind, he's still facing up to thirty years for possession of a firearm by a felon, but that's rather different of murder and the jury's finding of innocence is something of the back of their hand to the cops that raided his home--an aspect that must make a lot of cops nervous.



Hey, what *are* these cases to you, anyway -- like the Gladiator fights, but modern, in slow-mo, and with news graphics -- ?

Can we talk about the 1,000+ dead every year in the U.S. at the hands of cops?
By Doug64
#15204934
ckaihatsu wrote:Hey, what *are* these cases to you, anyway -- like the Gladiator fights, but modern, in slow-mo, and with news graphics -- ?

Can we talk about the 1,000+ dead every year in the U.S. at the hands of cops?

And you know something interesting about those 1,000+ dead? The vast majority of them are armed, one way or another. In 2020, across the entire nation, police killed 1,126 people. Only 81 were unarmed; of the 1,045 that weren't, 667 were armed with guns, 180 with knives/sharp objects, 66 with vehicles, 60 with some other object, and 72 undetermined. As for race, only 27 were Black--4 were unknown, 2 were American Indians, 2 were Asian/Pacific Islander, 15 were Hispanic, and 31 were White.

But all of that is beside the point I was making, that when the police do act in ways that give people a reason to believe their lives are in immediate danger, juries are able to recognize that those believing they are in danger may be legally justified in shooting back. Or even in shooting first, if they don't realize they are being attacked by cops--something I doubt many cops are all that happy about.
#15204937
Doug64 wrote:
And you know something interesting about those 1,000+ dead? The vast majority of them are armed, one way or another. In 2020, across the entire nation, police killed 1,126 people. Only 81 were unarmed; of the 1,045 that weren't, 667 were armed with guns, 180 with knives/sharp objects, 66 with vehicles, 60 with some other object, and 72 undetermined. As for race, only 27 were Black--4 were unknown, 2 were American Indians, 2 were Asian/Pacific Islander, 15 were Hispanic, and 31 were White.

But all of that is beside the point I was making, that when the police do act in ways that give people a reason to believe their lives are in immediate danger, juries are able to recognize that those believing they are in danger may be legally justified in shooting back. Or even in shooting first, if they don't realize they are being attacked by cops--something I doubt many cops are all that happy about.



Juries, after the fact -- but what about *prevention* -- ?

Can 'qualified immunity' be knocked-down, everywhere, so that killer cops are no longer protected by government policy -- (!) The idea here is *deterrence*, and also *defunding* those elitist centers of deathly power in favor of *social services* responses.
#15204971
Doug64 wrote:And you know something interesting about those 1,000+ dead? The vast majority of them are armed, one way or another. In 2020, across the entire nation, police killed 1,126 people. Only 81 were unarmed; of the 1,045 that weren't, 667 were armed with guns, 180 with knives/sharp objects, 66 with vehicles, 60 with some other object, and 72 undetermined. As for race, only 27 were Black--4 were unknown, 2 were American Indians, 2 were Asian/Pacific Islander, 15 were Hispanic, and 31 were White.

But all of that is beside the point I was making, that when the police do act in ways that give people a reason to believe their lives are in immediate danger, juries are able to recognize that those believing they are in danger may be legally justified in shooting back. Or even in shooting first, if they don't realize they are being attacked by cops--something I doubt many cops are all that happy about.


And yet police in other countries seem to be able to deal with these same conditions without shooting people,

Why is the US far worse at not killing its own people than any developed country?
#15204993
Can 'qualified immunity' be knocked-down, everywhere, so that killer cops are no longer protected by government policy -- (!) The idea here is *deterrence*, and also *defunding* those elitist centers of deathly power in favor of *social services* responses.


Qualified immunity does not protect "killer cops". If a cop breaks the law they go to jail. I am not clear how you see sending a social worker to a 'man with a gun' or 'armed robbery' call is going to help.

@Pants-of-dog

And yet police in other countries seem to be able to deal with these same conditions without shooting people,


That may be because in other countries the average person can't buy a gun easier than he can buy a beer.

Why is the US far worse at not killing its own people than any developed country?


Because we are awash in guns, violent by nature and design, and have a permanent underclass trained by its subculture to behave violently.
#15204999
Drlee wrote:
Qualified immunity does not protect "killer cops". If a cop breaks the law they go to jail. I am not clear how you see sending a social worker to a 'man with a gun' or 'armed robbery' call is going to help.



Even as the 'worst case' that's probably not worse than the default -- automatically sending an armed professional of the state to *any* given emergency call that comes in, with a similar potential for unintended violence and harm.

Maybe it's the state employee -- the social worker -- who *should* be taking on the risk in that kind of situation, rather than having an impromptu *client* be the one to take on the risk of a *cop* shooting and/or killing them there, in their home.

Also, qualified immunity *does* protect killer cops:



Police brutality

A significant amount of criticism contends that qualified immunity allows police brutality to go unpunished.[6] Legal researchers Amir H. Ali and Emily Clark, for instance, have argued that "qualified immunity permits law enforcement and other government officials to violate people's constitutional rights with virtual impunity".[43] Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has noted a "disturbing trend" of siding with police officers using excessive force with qualified immunity,[44] describing it as "sanctioning a 'shoot first, think later' approach to policing".[43] She stated:

We have not hesitated to summarily reverse courts for wrongly denying officers the protection of qualified immunity in cases involving the use of force...But we rarely intervene where courts wrongly afford officers the benefit of qualified immunity in these same cases.[45]


A 2020 Reuters report concurred with Sotomayor, concluding that "the Supreme Court has built qualified immunity into an often insurmountable police defense by intervening in cases mostly to favor the police". The report reviewed over 200 cases involving excess force by police since 2007, and found since the 2009 Pearson change from mandatory sequencing to discretionary sequencing, plaintiffs have had a more difficult time moving their case past the qualified immunity stage.[6]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified ... _brutality



---


Drlee wrote:
@Pants-of-dog



That may be because in other countries the average person can't buy a gun easier than he can buy a beer.



Because we are awash in guns, violent by nature and design, and have a permanent underclass trained by its subculture to behave violently.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
#15205001

Background

Main article: Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law which shields government officials from being held personally liable for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violate "clearly established" federal law—even if the victim's civil rights were violated.[12] The U.S. Supreme Court first introduced the qualified immunity doctrine in 1967, originally with the rationale of protecting law enforcement officials from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability in cases where they acted in good faith in unclear legal situations.[13][14] Starting around 2005, courts increasingly[citation needed] applied the doctrine to cases involving the use of excessive or deadly force by police, leading to widespread criticism that it, in the words of a 2020 Reuters report, "has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights".[15]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ending_Qu ... munity_Act
#15205002
Drlee wrote:Qualified immunity does not protect "killer cops". If a cop breaks the law they go to jail.


https://theconversation.com/how-qualifi ... ing-159617

I am not clear how you see sending a social worker to a 'man with a gun' or 'armed robbery' call is going to help.


Many cities have reduced arrests, police budgets, police violence, and crime by hiring psychologists and social workers and sending them on calls when the problem seems to be someone with mental health problems.

If you can provide an example of a city that deviates from this trend, I would love to see it.

That may be because in other countries the average person can't buy a gun easier than he can buy a beer.

Because we are awash in guns, violent by nature and design, and have a permanent underclass trained by its subculture to behave violently.


Unarmed victims of police shootings (this does not include killings such the murder of Mr. Floyd or deaths in police custody, so the actual number of unarmed people killed by police is higher) comprise 428 deaths of the 6,825 recorded by the Washington Post database. This is about 6.2%. Since the US kills about a thousand of its own residents each year, this is about 62 unarmed people per year.

Canada, the country with the most similar history and demographics, has 36 police killings per year. That is all killings, not just unarmed people.

Guns do not seem to be the only issue.

The other problem with these explanations is that they all blame the people shot, and the behaviour of the police is not a factor.
  • 1
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44

It is worse. And unanalyzable. Their army has alw[…]

Biden Just Lit the Spark

Inspirational. I often see people slandering Bid[…]

How Structural Racism Works https://www.youtube.c[…]

Perhaps... there are things you can do to mitigat[…]