211–220 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If she tore it up and threw the pieces in their face then maybe it could be construed as assault. If she was tearing it up and smirking without physically threatening the cops then how could it possibly constitute assault?
Read assault laws. As is common, you are conflating assault with battery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Premeditation and planning is the difference between federal first and second degree murder.
Intent, essentially. This sounds the same as a hate crime designation, which is also a matter of intent.
You commit a crime because of a protected characteristic if you act “wholly or partially” because of that characteristic. This may be demonstrated by showing that you were biased against the victim.
Think of it this way: 1) what did you do 2) what were you trying to do 3) why did you want to do that 4) what led you to want that.
Bias plays into the last two while intent is more about the second.
There are some overlaps, but I would consider what intent to be different. Intent is what outcome you are trying to achieve. Motivation is Why you want to achieve that outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If she tore it up and threw the pieces in their face then maybe it could be construed as assault. If she was tearing it up and smirking without physically threatening the cops then how could it possibly constitute assault?
Read assault laws. As is common, you are conflating assault with battery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's harder to get a gun as a citizen anywhere in the US than it is to become a cop. I'm normally the last one to be licking boots when it comes to discussions of the role of law enforcement in our society. With that said, this is hyperbole and obviously falsifiable. There are lots of places in the US where it is very easy to get a gun and at least somewhat difficult to become a cop.
How about: It's harder to kill anyone (and get away with it) as a citizen anywhere in the US than it is as a cop Some cops have bloodlust and/or are in cop-gangs that have initiation-rituals that demand commiting murder before you can join.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cops have always been triggered by the mildest of disrespect, this has nothing to do with people worrying about social micro-aggressions. What’s actually happening is that cops are being filmed and because of that people are losing respect for them faster than ever and the cops hate it and want to do anything they can to prevent people from disrespecting them.
SJWs have always been triggered by the mildest of disrespect, which is why we’re here in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your only example is a law that is not currently a law? People propose crazy laws all the time. They get used by politicians to get attention and by media outlets to drive clicks from their outrage pornography addicted audience. In both cases it's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet people still want to eliminate the right for private citizens to carry semi-automatic firearms! Generally, it's the the same people complaining that complain about police abusing their powers and vulnerable groups of people.
If you think that the left and marginalized groups don't also have firearms, I think you'd be rather surprised. Check out the John Brown Gun Club, for example. You can be for sensible gun control and still have firearms as a pragmatic measure.
Without defining sensible gun control and pragmatic measures, I'm not sure that statement is agreeable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't see why that should ever change based on if you are holding a camera or not. It should not, but I believe that holding a camera is a strong signal that a person is operating as a journalist. It could be argued that a person watching an incident can easily be operating in the same capacity. I was wrong, the SCOTUS hasn't directly addressed filming of police, but that seems like it never got a chance to make i…
Why does it matter if they are a journalist or not in this context?
Also, let me just say our first amendment gives us very strong protections from tyranny, as it is with our current state of rogue police departments and officers. If it weren't for the first amendment protections, we would be making very little progress here and probably regress. For people who want to chip away at first amendment protections for political points, you do so at your own and all our peril.
Make no mistake, Derek Chauvin is in prison and that is progress. Progress partially made possible by the right of the people who filmed his murder of George Floyd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not sure how someone wearing body armor and carrying multiple weapons that can incapacitate or kill someone can be intimidated by a smile. They're wannabe military tough-guys with laughably worse training and culture, much of which tells them they should be pee-pants scared all the time (seriously—folks very-successfully sell some wacko training courses to cops; or, just look at the disconnected-from-reality-an…
Yeah, this is becoming more and more the case. I have friends who are associated with or in law enforcement and if you ever end up at a bar with them they will endlessly talk about the "threats to their safety" on the job. I often hear stories where they're checking out a house that has supposed drug use (or similar) and they play it up like they're a marine in a war zone, going to have a man-down shoot out. In reali…
Our neighbor pushed for an investigation repeatedly (which would have taken her off the job until complete, since she was the commanding officer on the scene), but it was denied. She was fired shortly after. She is filing a lawsuit to get her job back and the family of the police brutality victim is also suing. I hope they both win, but I do worry about our neighbor's life expectancy if she gets her job back.
The tech industry has strong incentives to invade privacy, push inflammatory content, and for otherwise good people to look the other way. Nevertheless, I am opposed to broad brush denigration of employees in the sector, many of which do push back in quiet ways against dark patterns, even if not enough. I feel the same way about law enforcement. The biggest difference between tech and law enforcement is that police work involves stakes that are higher in the short-term and more visible, but tech is far more dangerous in the long-term through, e.g., inflammatory social media, persistent surveillance, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet people still want to eliminate the right for private citizens to carry semi-automatic firearms! Generally, it's the the same people complaining that complain about police abusing their powers and vulnerable groups of people.
And in the most egregious cases of police violence, the people who value their right to own & carry weapons are a strong base of police support. There is actually nothing contradictory about either set of positions though. Guns don't protect you from cops. Guns are power and violence, and who we consider to have rightful access to it. So are police.
And no, "we" don't get to consider who has lawful or rightful access to firearms - unless you got to vote for the last class of police cadets at your local precinct.