[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.8465[View All]

File: 1609971316784.png (897.06 KB, 929x952, 929:952, 4654677.png) ImgOps Google

This will be the thread for any discussions concerning today's events at the capitol.

Please keep it civil.
60 posts and 33 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.8530

>>8529

The fact that ultimately there was the opposite effect to the intended one is not really relevant. It's perfectly natural for tacit supporters of a coup to want to try to cut themselves off from it after it fails as a way to limit their personal losses. The mob never did reach the actual congresspeople, as was the plan. But again, a failed coup attempt is still a coup attempt.

Anyway, there are of course reasonable limits for how far "it's meant to be a coup so it should be treated as one" can be taken. If they gathered around the capitol and then started to do witchcraft, casting spells and magic rituals directed at the people inside in order to get their way, then it would have been not a coup and probably not even a crime - doesn't matter how hard they believe magic is real, and doesn't matter how violent the effects the spells are supposed to have. This is different though, because there were real world violent actions committed. Also, even if they couldn't have made Trump president in this manner, they did manage to stop the congress' ability to function (the jokes to be made about that are obvious but not actually relevant) after successfully seizing the place where it does its business. I can see how the courts can go lenient on them because their plan was so bad, but as far as I'm concerned it's a coup. Or, well, as one of them put it in this "world's smallest violin video": https://twitter.com/i/status/1346919171595137025

 No.8531

File: 1610289675585.png (166.94 KB, 499x747, 499:747, Screenshot from 2021-01-10….png) ImgOps Google

>>8530
Guess it could be argued, if the baseline support for Trump among capitol security and Congress were a bit better, Congress might have continued the count with the moral support -- as they say -- of the Trump mob, finding the count in Trump's favor.  While the plan may not have been detailed -- mostly play it by ear, perhaps it was good enough.

 No.8541

>>8504
>Perhaps if the courts would have ruled on the merits of the complaints regarding the election, instead of kicking the can down the road by throwing out cases on procedural grounds, then those who stormed the capitol would not have been so angry as to do what they did.  The vast majority of the complaints themselves were never resolved.  The complainants were simply told "you are not allowed to complain."  But to those who have grown accustomed to "winning" arguments by merely preventing their opposition from speaking, this I'm sure seems like a perfectly viable solution.

I'm really curious what's being suggested here. The dismissal of the "complaints" about the election were mostly bipartisan, so it's not like the Dems were trying to game things in their favor. Are you saying the courts on both sides just didn't feel like doing their jobs? Or that the Republicans are also trying to game Trump out of office? Who is 'winning' their argument by preventing a fair election? I'm not even aware of the complaints you're talking about.

 No.8544

File: 1610387925121.jpeg (86.22 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.jpeg) ImgOps Google

News:

"House Democrats formally introduced their resolution to impeach Trump today [Monday]" "expects the vote to impeach President Trump will occur on Wednesday"

Potential Debate:

Can impeachment occur or the process continue after a President leaves office?  (Seems likely this will happen, I doubt Trump will take Nixon's path and resign.)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/can-trump-be-tried-senate-impeachment-charges-even-after-he-n1253544

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-news-01-11-21/index.html

 No.8546

>>8544
There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that limits impeachment+trial to current office-holders.  It isn't completely moot once Trump's term is over, because Congress can still ban him from holding office again in the future.

 No.8556

>>8541
I think they are saying that people who like to kick the can down the road are used to winning arguments in that way, and probably thought they could get away with it again. But the people making the complaints were tired of being silenced, so they made themselves impossible to ignore by storming the capital. This could have been prevented if someone had heard their complaints at any point instead of just kicking the can down the road.

>>8504
Am I wrong?

 No.8557

>>8556
That's literally what they said yes, but gives no insight at all into what they meant by it.

 No.8572

File: 1610901612012.jpg (104.96 KB, 1583x908, 1583:908, 2291955__safe_artist-colon….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I don't like how militarized everything is getting. It was cathartic seeing that consequences apply to the assholes, but I don't care for the word "terrorist" being thrown around so casually to describe protesters and rioters nor to see military checkpoints in public spaces.

It's like there is a giddiness over the idea of escalation right now. I don't like it.

 No.8573

File: 1610931638043.png (1.35 MB, 1100x900, 11:9, O_2.png) ImgOps Google

>>8572
It is rather disgusting.

 No.8580

>>8572
There's a giddiness over the idea of escalation you say... While saying it was "cathartic" to see an unarmed woman murdered.

Have you ever stopped to consider you might be part of the problem?

 No.8585

>>8572
I'm not sure what possible definition of "terrorist" you could be using that doesn't include people engaging in a violent attack specifically to threaten the government to meet demands.

 No.8588

File: 1611095491011.png (1.24 MB, 1280x800, 8:5, large.png) ImgOps Google

>>8585
I was thinking about that, too.  While at the fist level, terrorism is any (significantly organized?) violence not supported or allowed by the state, done for political reasons.  If you look back at cases in history, another judgement is whether the violence was successful, or you might say whether the violence was for the right reasons.  Then other words are used for the people who do the violence.  Making those judgements before history has played out is not something I'm qualified for, and during the event, I think terrorism is the respectful term.  We simply can allow morality to be relative through time, and later words for people doing violence to turn good.

 No.8592

>>8588
The definition of terrorism as I've always understood it has been simply the use of terror  or fear by violent action against innocents for the purposes of coercion to a political ends.

I don't think just fighting governments necessarily makes you a terrorist. Rebels are not always terrorists.

 No.8596

>>8592
But then you'd agree that the attack was terrorism?

 No.8599

File: 1611182521578.png (465.41 KB, 768x1024, 3:4, large.png) ImgOps Google

>>8592
>the use of terror  or fear by violent action against innocents for the purposes of coercion to a political ends
>just fighting governments

Sounds like you consider state agents -- police officers in this case -- not innocents.  I guess that's like civilian/military.  A different innocent than not a criminal.

 No.8600

>>8596
Which attack is that?
The little riot in the capitol? Not really, no.
>>8599
It depends, I'd say, but largely no. Law enforcement and other such people are agents of the state. Consequently, they bear the responsibility of the state's actions.

They could still be innocent individually, and subsequently not responsible if they were to, say, leave their badge on a desk or what have you. But, as the primary enforcers of the state and its policy, they are responsible for what the state does.

 No.8608

>>8600
And government officials aren't innocents either? The "rioters" were there to murder them.

 No.8609

>>8608
I disagree with your characterization of events.
I do not think that was their goal. It seems to be a completely unreasonable presumption.
If they were going to do that, they would've brought firearms. And yet, the reality is, the police shot and killed an unarmed woman.

Remember when the left cared about police gunning down unarmed people?
So much for that. Now it's perfectly acceptable. Almost like the left doesn't actually hold any principles.

 No.8610

>>8609
>It seems to be a completely unreasonable presumption.
It's not a presumption, they made it quite clear by loudly chanting their explicit desire to do so. Maybe you don't believe them, but it's your word against theirs.

 No.8612

>>8610
Random chanting from a crowd is hardly going to tell you what they intend to do there.
Or are you telling me that when BLM chanted "pigs in a blanket fry them like bacon" the protesters there were explicitly out marching on the street for the purpose of burning alive police officers?

Of course you wouldn't. It's a completely irrational notion.

 No.8613

>>8612
If they were breaking into police stations chanting "Kill the police" then yes, it would be rational to conclude that.

What do YOU think would have happened if the congresspeople hadn't evacuated?

 No.8614

>>8613
>If they were breaking into police stations chanting "Kill the police" then yes, it would be rational to conclude that.
They've literally done that.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/29/minneapolis-police-abandon-precinct-after-protesters-set-it-on-fire/
Have you just not bothered paying attention?
Or is this a case of the classic "my side can do no wrong"?

>What do YOU think would have happened if the congresspeople hadn't evacuated?
Nothing. Again, if they were there with malicious intent, they would've brought rifles.
You wouldn't've had an unarmed woman murdered by police, something the left used to care about.

 No.8615

>>8614
>Nothing.
Yep, that's all I need to know.

 No.8617

>>8615
That's not an argument.
And notably, you didn't bother to counter the other half. So either you're a hypocrite, or a liar.

 No.8620

File: 1611341555847.jpg (496.33 KB, 900x1200, 3:4, 1499037168675.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8613
I'd say that a vast majority of the Capitol rioters had literally no idea what they were going to do inside the Capitol.  I doubt they would have murdered any Congresspersons.  Of course, there were some bad actors among them who did cause the death of the police officer and who might have harmed the legislators.  

>>8614
>an unarmed woman murdered by police
Not sure about D.C., but in most jurisdictions, deadly force is usually lawful in response to breaking-and-entering.

 No.8621

>>8620
>Not sure about D.C., but in most jurisdictions, deadly force is usually lawful in response to breaking-and-entering.
As far as I was aware, this was not a thing for government property, generally. But, if it is, I'd certainly say it shouldn't be. Where the individual has justified argument for reasonable fear from an unknown assailant in their house, the state lacks that when no weapon is present as in this circumstance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ9oThRuMVs&bpctr=1611349456

 No.8623

>>8621
>no weapon is present as in this circumstance.
The police officer didn't know that she was unarmed when he shot her.  She could have been carrying a concealed weapon, for all he knew.

 No.8625

File: 1611351254153.png (1.68 MB, 1478x762, 739:381, Capture.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>8623
She quite clearly had no weapons visible in her hands, and moreover was a significant distance away still.

This certainly seems a significantly weaker set of justification than in the case of Jacob Blake, yet there were massive protests in his case.
He at least actually had a knife in his hand.

 No.8627

File: 1611353940785.png (259.25 KB, 403x533, 31:41, hannah-and-barbara-ipad.png) ImgOps Google

>>8625
>She quite clearly had no weapons visible in her hands
She could have had a weapon concealed underneath her clothing.

>This certainly seems a significantly weaker set of justification than in the case of Jacob Blake, yet there were massive protests in his case.
Agreed.  But I think the Jacob Blake protests were unjustified as well.  If Blake didn't want to get shot, he should have dropped the knife and refrained from reaching inside his car, as instructed by the police officers.  As the saying goes, "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".  

 No.8630

>>8627
>She could have had a weapon concealed underneath her clothing.
If the police shot you because you were wearing a jacket, with nothing in your hands, I'd call that a terrible thing to do as well.

 No.8632

File: 1611356322087.jpg (60.5 KB, 666x611, 666:611, 1498894524693.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8630
>If the police shot you because you were wearing a jacket
They shot her because she was breaking-and-entering into a security-sensitive area of a government facility.

 No.8633

>>8632
I'm just not comfortable with the government being able to gun down unarmed civilians who are quite clearly not posing a threat to anyone given the distances for that.
There are surely better ways to respond.

This used to be a left wing position too. That seems to have changed.

 No.8634

File: 1611357350495.jpg (65.17 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, kkk.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>"Don't worry guys, if they were serious about hurting anyone they would have brought guns."

 No.8635

>>8634
Difference between an unarmed group going after a single person, and an unarmed group going after the government.
Rather obviously.

And this is assuming equating them to the KKK was reasonable... Which it's quite obviously not

 No.8638

File: 1611360901084.jpg (228.22 KB, 1883x1839, 1883:1839, 1507987874019.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8633
>unarmed civilians who are quite clearly not posing a threat to anyone given the distances for that.
Well, the cop didn't know that she was unarmed.  Perhaps in hindsight we can say that she didn't pose a threat.  Or perhaps if she got through, others would have followed and they would assaulted the legislators.  It's unfortunate that she died, but she deserves some of the blame for that herself.

>There are surely better ways to respond.
The security response was a colossal fuck-up, no arguments there.  They should have used non-lethal means of preventing the protesters from breaching the Capitol.  But given what happened, I can't really blame the individual police officer who shot her.  

 No.8641

>>8638
>Well, the cop didn't know that she was unarmed.  
See
>>8630
>"If the police shot you because you were wearing a jacket, with nothing in your hands, I'd call that a terrible thing to do as well."

>Perhaps in hindsight we can say that she didn't pose a threat.
In that case,  that officer who did so should be in prison. Or at least fired, if absolutely nothing else.
Hindsight is the means by which we judge others, after all.
Especially in a court of law.

> Or perhaps if she got through, others would have followed and they would assaulted the legislators.
Irrelevant.
There are better means to deal with unarmed groups. And again, the distances were great.

I do not think, in any case, murdering someone for the possibility of another person's actions is acceptable.

>  It's unfortunate that she died, but she deserves some of the blame for that herself.
In the sense that a rape victim deserves some blame for going into a dark alley at 3AM in a crime-infested area, maybe.

But I'd consider that significantly lesser to the guilt of the person who murdered her.

>But given what happened, I can't really blame the individual police officer who shot her.  
I am happy to.

Any law enforcement member who murders an unarmed woman who quite clearly posed no threat to them and was more than a dozen feet away ought be immediately removed from duty, prevented from ever serving as a law enforcement agent ever again, and ideally incarcerated for that murder.

I do not care where this happens.
I do not care who it happens to.
It doesn't matter if the person is black, white, repbulican, or democrat.
This ought to be a consistent value everyone can agree with.

 No.8644

File: 1611448949952.png (13.59 KB, 205x296, 205:296, 1499621886211.png) ImgOps Google

>>8641
>Hindsight is the means by which we judge others, after all.
>Especially in a court of law.
Not really.  E.g., charges against Kenneth Walker for shooting a cop were dropped because he reasonably believed that the cops he was shooting at were robbers.

>who quite clearly posed no threat to them
I disagree that it was clear that she posed no threat.  The legislators were being evacuated due to concerns about their personal safety.  The motivations and abilities of this woman were unknown, so it was reasonable to assume that she might pose a threat.  So I don't think it was unlawful for the cop to shoot her for breaking-and-entering into a restricted area.  I think most people understand that breaking-and-entering into a restricted government area subjects them to the use of deadly force.  Certainly at least for places such as LANL.

 No.8645

>>8644
>Not really.  E.g., charges against Kenneth Walker for shooting a cop were dropped because he reasonably believed that the cops he was shooting at were robbers.
That's still judging with hindsight. You are saying, based on the parameters of the event, this is what is reasonable or unreasonable.
For example; You have an unknown person inside your house who has not stated who he is, and is armed. Reasonable, even in hindsight.

You have a clearly unarmed woman, with nothing in her hands, and her hands well away from her chest over a dozen feet away from you; Not reasonable in hindsight.

And of course, as I had said prior in >>8621 there is a difference between the use of deadly force as an individual, in your own home, and as the state, defending state property.

>I disagree that it was clear that she posed no threat.  The legislators were being evacuated due to concerns about their personal safety.  The motivations and abilities of this woman were unknown, so it was reasonable to assume that she might pose a threat
So at any point, if people are being evacuated, we ought start gunning down unarmed individuals in the area?
Is that really your standard?

I would call that a psychotic standard. The kind of thing that results in states with mass graves out back.

Shooting unarmed citizens, dozens of feet away from you, who have their hands far away from any pockets or potential concealment points, is immoral.
This is the action of savages, barbarians, and tyrants.
I would've hoped no American would ever support such a system.
it's a damn shame this is how far we have fallen.

 No.8646

File: 1611453782568.png (1.68 MB, 1478x762, 739:381, Capture.PNG) ImgOps Google

>>8644
I do want to ask, to be certain here:
You did watch the video, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ9oThRuMVs&bpctr=1611339439

Because, I genuinely do not understand how you could watch this video, and think this was an acceptable action.
She quite clearly had nothing in her hands, her hands were far, far away from her body, and the distances were two full car's length.
She didn't even get all the way through the window.
There was quite literally no immediate threat, whatsoever, as a matter of simple and objective fact, posed by her.

I honestly do not understand how you can be okay with this kind of shooting.
It seems clear and objective murder, to me.
If I did that, I would be in jail.

 No.8647

File: 1611459400679.webm (1.42 MB, 1610216140408.webm) ImgOps Google

>>8646
>You did watch the video, right?
I did see one version (attached), but thanks for that that YouTube link -- it's a different angle and has some more background that I haven't seen before.

>>8646
>There was quite literally no immediate threat,
Right, there wasn't an immediate threat.  The threat was what she might do when she reached the legislators, which she was very close to doing.  And the cop might not have had a safe backstop if she broke through the window and starting running.

>I honestly do not understand how you can be okay with this kind of shooting.
>It seems clear and objective murder, to me.
>If I did that, I would be in jail.
I dunno where you live, but in my state, in someone broke into my house and I shot them, my actions would be presumed to be lawful.  Likewise, if I owned a store and was inside it, and BLM rioters broke the windows and started invading the premises, me shooting the intruders would be presumed to be lawful.  Judging from your post >>8621, I guess you think that government property is different.  But I don't think it really it.

 No.8648

>>8647
>Right, there wasn't an immediate threat.  The threat was what she might do when she reached the legislators, which she was very close to doing.
Lethal force is to be used for IMMEDIATE threats. Not threats for some later point.

Otherwise, what's the moral reasoning for them not to be allowed to murder you in your own home, right now?
You might be a threat to the state at a later date.
Maybe you'll disagree with some policy taken, and rebel against the state.
You're a threat, then, so it's warranted by your logic to murder you before that can take place.

>  And the cop might not have had a safe backstop if she broke through the window and starting running.
As stated; The distance was significant, and she had no weapon in her hand, with all hands visible.
He could've waited until that point. Though even then, I'd call him a murderer.
If you cannot overpower a single unarmed woman, you are too pathetic to be a member of law enforcement.

>I dunno where you live, but in my state, in someone broke into my house and I shot them, my actions would be presumed to be lawful.
There is a difference between that and THE STATE.
This ought be exceptionally obvious.
Especially given I've only mentioned it some dozen times now, without you ever bothering to address that point.

Nonetheless; I highly doubt that if you shot someone who was clearly unarmed, while you stood well over a dozen feet away, before they've even climbed through the window, you would be arrested.

>Likewise, if I owned a store and was inside it, and BLM rioters broke the windows and started invading the premises, me shooting the intruders would be presumed to be lawful.
Again;
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SINGLE CITIZEN, AND A STATE BUILDING PROTECTED BY MULTIPLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS
This is such an exceptionally simple thing, and I really do not understand why you cannot grasp it.

I, alone, have little to no power over a mob.
I am just one single man.
I do not have the state behind me.
I do not have numerous armed guards at my beck and call.
I do not, as in that video, have a man with a loaded assault rifle posed right behind that crowd.
I certainly don't have access to riot police. Nor do I have the right to arrest people, imprison them, and so on.

And again; I do not agree at all that in any state, even ones with exceptionally loose self-defense law, would say it is acceptable for you to shoot someone who is clearly unarmed, dozens of feet away from you, who hasn't even finished climbing through a window, in broad daylight, while you have several other comrades right besides you.
I think you would, rightfully, be behind bars.
Likewise, I think this man must be put behind bars.

>, I guess you think that government property is different.  But I don't think it really it.
Well, I would say thank God you aren't in charge, but it doesn't seem like it matters.

I can only hope that if the state refuses to bring justice against this murder, honest citizens do so instead.
If the state refuses to prosecute such a blatant and clear abuse of one's power, the shooting of an unarmed woman in cold blood who quite clearly and as you yourself admit posed no immediate threat, then I would say it is the responsibility and duty of citizens to ensure that man is punished, by whatever means may be necessary to ensure it is.

I can only hope more people on the right wake up to the reality that police is not on their side.
The way that politics works right now, the left is allowed to do their riots without consequence, as they terrorize innocent people, while anyone on the right who even behaves slightly the same is immediately murdered.

 No.8649

File: 1611464440251.jpg (12.62 KB, 360x360, 1:1, 10387816_462069257320777_9….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8648
>Lethal force is to be used for IMMEDIATE threats. Not threats for some later point.
That's for personal self-defense.  The state, having a monopoly on initiation of violence, is freer to use lethal force.  E.g., executing the death sentence of a convicted criminal.  Or if someone tries to break into a government facility housing top-secret information, the government may use lethal force to stop them even if the threat posed by leaking the top-secret is long-term rather than immediate.  I'd say ensuring the safety of the duly elected Congressional representatives falls into another category where lethal force is justified.

>>8648
>And again; I do not agree at all that in any state, even ones with exceptionally loose self-defense law, would say it is acceptable for you to shoot someone who is clearly unarmed, dozens of feet away from you, who hasn't even finished climbing through a window, in broad daylight
My state is a Castle Doctrine state; if someone breaks into my home, there is a legal presumption that they intend to do me serious harm and that I can use deadly force to stop them.  (The window was an interior window.)

Also, it was not clear (to the cop who fired his gun) that the woman in the Capitol was unarmed.  She could have had a pistol concealed under her clothing.

>>8648
>The way that politics works right now, the left is allowed to do their riots without consequence, as they terrorize innocent people,
I think those leftist rioters should also be arrested and prosecuted.

> while anyone on the right who even behaves slightly the same is immediately murdered.
Only one of the approximately 800 rioters in the Capitol was killed by police.  And only a few were even arrested on the spot.

 No.8650

File: 1611464821151.png (197.46 KB, 540x303, 180:101, 1498867794342.png) ImgOps Google

>>8648
Also, in case you're thinking that I'm left-leaning: I voted for Trump in 2016, and I strongly considered voting for him again in 2020.  The whole "election fraud" thing really turned me off to Trump, though.  Trump's actions were dangerously close to attempting a coup.  I do hope that our republic can grow stronger to resist such things in the future (and that includes better election security and transparency, to be able to provide some amount of proof that fraud hasn't occurred).

 No.8651

>>8649
>That's for personal self-defense.  The state, having a monopoly on initiation of violence, is freer to use lethal force.
You're switching your argument, now.
You were saying it was fine for the state because it's fine for a citizen... Now you're saying it's fine for the state because the state is not a citizen.

Nonetheless; Just because the state has a monopoly on violence doesn't mean it's acceptable.
The Nazis were able to kill millions of Jews. Hardly an acceptable act, even if as the state, with the monopoly on violence they held, it was in their power to do so.

>I'd say ensuring the safety of the duly elected Congressional representatives falls into another category where lethal force is justified.
Only when there is an immediate threat.

Otherwise, once again, you would have no moral argument for the state going into your home and shooting you, due to fears you'd revolt in the event of a new policy restricting freedom.

>My state is a Castle Doctrine state; if someone breaks into my home, there is a legal presumption that they intend to do me serious harm and that I can use deadly force to stop them.  (The window was an interior window.)
I do not believe castle doctrine allows you to shoot someone who is several dozen feet away from you, clearly unarmed, and not even through the window, while you have several other armed comrades right besides you, not to mention additional ones armed with rifles right behind her.

>Also, it was not clear (to the cop who fired his gun) that the woman in the Capitol was unarmed.  She could have had a pistol concealed under her clothing.
Then what is your moral argument for the police not simply shooting every single person they see on the street?
Everyone could have a firearm under their clothing.
Should everyone be assumed to be a lethal threat, and immediately shot?
Of course not.

Her hand were well away from her body, and for that matter actively engaged.
She could not have drawn a weapon at that moment.
The requirement for an IMMEDIATE threat was not met.
If an immediate threat is not required, the state would be justified in simply gunning down every single firearm owner, because they could be a threat later.
It's an absurd standard, that does not consistently follow.

>I think those leftist rioters should also be arrested and prosecuted.
But not shot?
What's the difference?

>Only one of the approximately 800 rioters in the Capitol was killed by police.  And only a few were even arrested on the spot.
The "riot" was a rather small portion of the event. This is why there were few arrests.

And I'm more concerned that the person who was murdered by police was blatantly not an immediate threat, as an objective and undeniably fact.
You yourself are unable to argue this point. You're having to claim she could be a threat, at a later point.
I do not believe the state ought have the power to murder people who could be a threat.
Otherwise, I'd sure as hell be dead.

>Trump's actions were dangerously close to attempting a coup.
I'd disagree. He's not the one locking down the capitol, holding an inauguration unattended by the people, and keeping an army garrisoned at hand.

All he's done is try to fight blatant corruption, and resist the theft of the election through illegitimate means.

 No.8652

File: 1611502063585.png (174.66 KB, 391x440, 391:440, 1498894011524.png) ImgOps Google

>>8651
>Otherwise, once again, you would have no moral argument for the state going into your home and shooting you, due to fears you'd revolt in the event of a new policy restricting freedom.
The justification for shooting her was that she was illegally breaking-and-entering into a restricted government area.  If the government is the one breaking into your home, then there is no similar justification for the government shooting you.

>Then what is your moral argument for the police not simply shooting every single person they see on the street?
Because those people are not illegally breaking into a security-sensitive facility.

>But not shot?
The leftist rioters should be shot if they're committing a felony that threatens people's safety (e.g., arson or breaking into an occupied building).  And, e.g., a rioter who is trying to hit a retreating 17-year-old over the head with a skateboard also may be shot in self-defense.

>The "riot" was a rather small portion of the event. This is why there were few arrests.
There were thousands of people at the protest, of which approximately 800 illegally broke into the Capitol.

>All he's done is try to fight blatant corruption, and resist the theft of the election through illegitimate means.
I'd say that Trump was trying to steal the election himself through illegitimate means (such as by pressuring Raffensperger to throw out some popular votes for Biden and by having Congress toss out the votes of electors).  What makes you think that the 2020 election was fraudulent but the 2016 election wasn't?  What would be your thoughts if Obama had done the same things (that Trump did) to try to get Hillary into office in 2016?

 No.8653

>>8651
>I do not believe castle doctrine allows you to shoot someone who ...
Below is relevant text of the statute.  There is nothing about distance or whether the intruder appears to be unarmed.

>(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist:
>
>(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle;  or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.
>
>(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.
>
>(2.2) The presumption set forth in paragraph (2.1) does not apply if:
>
>(i) the person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee;
>
>(ii) the person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the protective force is used;
>
>(iii) the actor is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity;  or
>
>(iv) the person against whom the force is used is a peace officer acting in the performance of his official duties and the actor using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer.

 No.8654

>>8651
>>8652
To make my position clearer: I think the government is generally justified in using deadly force against a suspect if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) the suspect is knowingly committing a felony, and
(2) the suspect's course of action, if unstopped, has the potential for grave harm.

 No.8656

>>8652
>The justification for shooting her was that she was illegally breaking-and-entering into a restricted government area
I do not think this should be all that is required.
It should never be acceptable to gun down unarmed civilians, just because the area that they are in is "restricted".

> If the government is the one breaking into your home, then there is no similar justification for the government shooting you.
Why?
What is the moral difference between a government killing you because it declared the area you are in as "restricted", and the government just killing you?
What constitutes the use of lethal force to murder an unarmed woman whom objectively, as a simple matter of fact, does not pose an immediate threat, just because of where they are?
Why is it acceptable to murder an unarmed civilian in a restricted area, but not in a non-restricted area?

>And, e.g., a rioter who is trying to hit a retreating 17-year-old over the head with a skateboard also may be shot in self-defense.
The difference is, unlike this thug, Kyle Rittenhouse waited until they were an IMMEDIATE threat, as is required to constitute self defense.

He did not just start opening up into the BLM crowd, because they could be a threat.
He did not just start firing on anyone approaching him.

>I'd say that Trump was trying to steal the election himself through illegitimate means (such as by pressuring Raffensperger to throw out some popular votes for Biden and by having Congress toss out the votes of electors).
And I would disagree, as I think there is legitimate reason to suspect foul play.
Most prominently, the consistent forcing out of ballet watchers, which has been well documented at this point.

>What makes you think that the 2020 election was fraudulent but the 2016 election wasn't?
We had an investigation.

We have not had an investigation in this case.

> What would be your thoughts if Obama had done the same things (that Trump did) to try to get Hillary into office in 2016?
They tried. They held an investigation. That investigation came up with nothing.

No such investigation has been done in this case.

>>8653
>>(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist:
As has already been established, as an objective fact that you yourself have not been able to argue against, there was NO immediate threat.
This statue would not apply.

>(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle;
Not a dwelling; This statute wouldn't be applicable.

So, yeah, if you did what that officer did, you would, rightfully, be behind bars.

>>8654
I think that simply gunning down people because they're fellons is wrong.

Likewise, I think murdering anyone just because they might be a threat at a later point, is wrong.
We've already established, and you've already conceded, she was objectively not an immediate threat.
This is a fact.
I do not think government being allowed to murder people, even if they're declared 'felons' for what they're doing, is right when they do not, as an objective fact, pose any immediate threat.

That is the kind of precident that results in mass graves and concentration camps, you ask me.
I can only hope they pull back on this insanity before too late, and properly punish the thug who murdered this lady.
Or, at the very least, stand aside when people rightfully enact justice on that man.

 No.8658

File: 1611515343898.jpg (42.75 KB, 527x496, 17:16, 1505359329805.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>8656
>What is the moral difference between a government killing you because it declared the area you are in as "restricted", and the government just killing you?
In the first case, you have clear notice that what you're doing is liable to get you killed, yet you deliberately disobeyed the law anyway.  In the second case, you have no notice and haven't deliberately disobeyed the law.

At common law, the rule was that deadly force was lawful to stop any fleeing felon.  (I recognize that Ashli wasn't exactly a fleeing felon, but I'm just pointing out 'immediate danger' traditionally hasn't been considered necessary for the use of deadly force.)  The Supreme Court modified the 'fleeing felon' rule in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) to restrict the circumstances in which the government may use deadly force.  I take it that you would restrict it even further.

>>8656
>We had an investigation.
>
>We have not had an investigation in this case.
Do you have a source for that?  My understanding is that the 2016 investigations were not timed or intended for being able to alter the outcome of the election.

>>8656
>They tried. They held an investigation. That investigation came up with nothing.
This year they don't have any evidence of massive fraud either.  So what would be your thoughts if Obama had done what Trump did, alleging without proof that Hillary was the true winner?

>>8656
> forcing out of ballet watchers
> legitimate reason to suspect foul play.
In the case that I'm familiar with, in Philly, it is indeed bad that the ballot watchers weren't allowed within 100 ft of some of the ballot counting.  But this could be explained by Coronavirus concerns and the unprecedented amount of mail-in ballots in 2020.  Did the Republicans sue to examine the outer envelopes after the election?  That wouldn't be able to address any individual invalid ballots, but at least it would provide an upper bound of how many ballots were tainted by mistakes or fraud that could have be caught by the ballot watchers.  

>>8656
>Not a dwelling; This statute wouldn't be applicable.
>
>So, yeah, if you did what that officer did, you would, rightfully, be behind bars.
Well, yes, if I did what the officer did outside by home, then I would be committing a crime.  

>>8656
>I do not think government being allowed to murder people, even if they're declared 'felons' for what they're doing, is right when they do not, as an objective fact, pose any immediate threat.
What if a Chinese spy broke into a top-secret facility and stole blueprints for nuclear-weapon systems?  Would the government be justified in using deadly force to stop him from escaping and delivering that data to China?

 No.8659

>>8658
>In the first case, you have clear notice that what you're doing is liable to get you killed, yet you deliberately disobeyed the law anyway.  In the second case, you have no notice and haven't deliberately disobeyed the law.
Law is not inherently just.  Whether or not someone breaks the law ought have no basis when it comes to whether they ought live or die.  Legality has no moral basis in and of itself.

>At common law, the rule was that deadly force was lawful to stop any fleeing felon.  (I recognize that Ashli wasn't exactly a fleeing felon, but I'm just pointing out 'immediate danger' traditionally hasn't been considered necessary for the use of deadly force.
If that is the case, I would say common law in that regard is immoral.
A felon does not necessitate someone is violent, let alone an immediate threat.

>My understanding is that the 2016 investigations were not timed or intended for being able to alter the outcome of the election.
They literally tried to impeach him because of this nonsense conspiracy theory.

This said, wouldn't that be reasonable, if we were to presume that Trump won through cheating with the Russians, we ought reverse that illegitimate process, or at least redo the vote?
As far as I understand, we do the same for athletic competition, so why not for things like this?
Again, what's the moral reasoning at play here?

>This year they don't have any evidence of massive fraud either.  So what would be your thoughts if Obama had done what Trump did, alleging without proof that Hillary was the true winner?
I would disagree with the premise of the question.
There is evidence of fraud, there is evidence that ballot watchers were prevented from doing their job, there are multiple "glitches" and "mistakes" that raise doubt, and we have numerous testimony.
There is surely enough for an investigation, at the very least.

None the less, if Obama or Hillary tried this, I certainly wouldn't accuse them of trying to engage in a coup, or treason, or try to have them impeached post their term as president.
That would be exceptionally extreme.

>But this could be explained by Coronavirus concerns and the unprecedented amount of mail-in ballots in 2020.
Then workers should not have been allowed to work close together as they were, if that is the concern.

As with the bulk of the Corona restrictions, the blatant hypocrisy is far too convenient.

>Did the Republicans sue to examine the outer envelopes after the election?  That wouldn't be able to address any individual invalid ballots, but at least it would provide an upper bound of how many ballots were tainted by mistakes or fraud that could have be caught by the ballot watchers.  
Some did as I understand it, but were dismissed as either not alleging enough fraud, lacking standing, or for jurisdictional constraints, which rather furthers the issue.

Frankly, it shouldn't even be on them.
There ought be a proper investigation, not simply a civil suit.
As is, it's a worthless election.
Biden supporters will say Biden won legitimately, Trump supporters will say he cheated, and without an investigation, we're stuck neither side willing to concede, as there is evidence of fraud, which doesn't seem to be pursued at all minds you, but not enough without an investigating to say if it would've gone the other way.
An investigation has to happen.

And this is ignoring what Texas had brought up.
If the constitution doesn't apply to some states, what's the point in the rest of us staying in the union?

>Well, yes, if I did what the officer did outside by home, then I would be committing a crime.  
You seem to have ignored the other portion, but yes, it's not applicable and what the officer did is a crime even in loose laws states.

>What if a Chinese spy broke into a top-secret facility and stole blueprints for nuclear-weapon systems?  Would the government be justified in using deadly force to stop him from escaping and delivering that data to China?
I would say morally, no.
Though there is, of course, a difference between foreign government agents, and your own civilians.
That difference ought be obvious, but you have been bouncing back and forth between them for a bit..


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]