211–220 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, specifically, do you think an “overwhelming show of force” by the military implies?
To me that reads as they’d send enough personnel to flood an area such that it would deter people from the worst aspects we’ve seen while allowing non violent protests. So any troublemakers would think twice about trying to hit an area to sew chaos (looting, rioting, setting property on fire, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Were they not supposed to shoot back when Taylor’s boyfriend shot at them? How about: they should be held responsible for the preventable death of this woman in a situation they directly and deliberately created? Is that not the problem? I don't think anyone is demanding a first degree murder conviction here. They didn't walk in with the intent to kill her. But they sure as shit did kill her, and it's all their fau…
People never talk about the judge in these cases. This only happened because a judge decided to sign a no-knock warrant. So, ultimately, doesn’t the judge bear a large portion of the responsibility for creating the situation, for the death that resulted? Shouldn’t the judge be the adult in the room, saying “no” to the police, saying that the circumstances are not extraordinary enough to justify the issuance of a no-k…
Same thing happens in pretty much any large gathering of people: "I only signed off on blah, nobody told me foo and bar would happen". "We only did foo because someone signed off on blah, we had approval it's not our fault". And round and round we go pointing fingers at each other rather than improving the world for anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being trained to break the law does not (legally) justify breaking the law. I'm not sure if shooting someone in "self defense" who is legally shooting at you is illegal under US law, it's an interesting thought though.
There's precedent to say its legal to return fire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon This is often part of the "rules of engagement" that military personnel are expected to follow; not only because they're expected not to shoot civilians, but also peacekeeping situations where firing on the wrong forces could cause WW3, as well as the very basic check that the target isn't wearing the same uniform as you and shooting in your direction by m…
I'm not sure what you're suggesting about military "rules of engagement", but military personnel always have the right to defend themselves, including with deadly force, if they are attacked. I suspect you're missing something here or not communicating what you're trying to say very well -- military personnel aren't going to sit around and do nothing if they're being shot at, they're going to return fire, call for ar…
Having the British Army fire on and kill civilians in Northern Ireland was extremely controversial. Several incidents resulted in murder trials. Some of this is still going on. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49721166
> Even "peacekeeping" forces are going to return fire if fired upon.
My point is that there have been lots of places in the 20th century where troops have been specifically ordered not to do that without senior authorisation, because of the potential political impact of an escalation.
Or at the very least carefully identify who they are going to be shooting at, and provide a warning, rather than firing blindly into residential buildings.
USA Today has the best coverage of this I’ve seen. The NYT coverage of this is awful: https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna-taylor-police.html A key fact is that the police shot Taylor after her boyfriend shot at the police, thinking they were intruders. While he was fully entitled to do that, the NYT doesn’t believe in gun rights so that’s a messy fact. To make the victim seem more sympathetic, the narrative under…
> Obviously nobody You mean you . I actually do. Without situational awareness the police should hold their fire lest innocent people be murdered. It isn't all that hard to understand, really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously nobody expects the police not to shoot back when fired upon Well, I do. We had a case in Germany a few years back where the police served some kind of no-knock warrant, the guy (a Hells Angel) thought they were from a rival gang, shouted at them and then shot at them. A Policeman died, the guy dropped his gun immediately after police identified themselves. The Case made the news later because the guy got…
The main takeaway here is that there is a difference between Europe and the USA. Death penalty, a military that goes on a shooting expedition every 10 years, no public healthcare, plice that shoot at protesters, you name it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I found fascinating in this story is that NYT claims with a straight face that the respective piece is dangerous specifically to their employees of color. I can see how one can hyperventilate 'military in the streets' to 'military shooting live ammunition indiscriminately into masses of peaceful protestors', and I can see how they'd imagine their brave reporters being in the front lines to keep us informed, but…
> but I just can't imagine the thought process behind 'and the bullets avoid white / asian NYT reporters and crew members and specifically target the ones with melanin above a certain level'. Bullets don't fly on their own accord. Someone aims them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone advocates for "taking no quarter", they're advocating for killing people. You may say the average person doesn't interpret that phrase that way, but a former Army captain like Cotton knows full well what it means. The thing about the whole argument of, 'we only advocate cracking down on rioters and looters' is how is someone supposed to get that distinction right in the fog of a chaotic situation? Arrest…
That's not from the op-ed, but since you brought it up, let's talk about it. > You may say the average person doesn't interpret that phrase that way Given that he used that phrase in a Tweet, and not in a military order, it's reasonable to assume he was speaking to "the average person" and using that phrase accordingly. And given that he has actually said that he was using the phrase colloquially, you're interpreting…
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People never talk about the judge in these cases. This only happened because a judge decided to sign a no-knock warrant. So, ultimately, doesn’t the judge bear a large portion of the responsibility for creating the situation, for the death that resulted? Shouldn’t the judge be the adult in the room, saying “no” to the police, saying that the circumstances are not extraordinary enough to justify the issuance of a no-k…
It's the whole "Somebody Else's Problem" field that bureaucracy generates. Same thing happens in pretty much any large gathering of people: "I only signed off on blah, nobody told me foo and bar would happen". "We only did foo because someone signed off on blah, we had approval it's not our fault". And round and round we go pointing fingers at each other rather than improving the world for anyone.