(05-29-2020 02:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Separate this from the Minnesota situation. If a policeman sees a crook running out of a store with a stolen TV are you OK with said policeman killing that crook?
Yep. Depends on circumstances, of course. But I don't have a problem with it, per se.
Which circumstances? The cop knows nothing about the criminal but he knows that he has a stolen TV. Use deadly force? Really?
Do you think shoplifters should have their hands cut off as well?
I feel bad for the guy helping his friend pick up a new tv from the store, and is in a hurry. The cop was obviously in the right when he mowed him down
Well, if he is carrying the TV out through a broken window of a store that is on fire and full of looters, would you rather the cop said "excuse me sir, can I help you carry that?
I cannot believe you guys can look at the film of the looting and burning and say "Maybe they just bought something".
I will remind you, trump did not say shoot people with a TV nor did he say shoot black people. That is all from the MSM you guys think are journalists.
(05-29-2020 02:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Separate this from the Minnesota situation. If a policeman sees a crook running out of a store with a stolen TV are you OK with said policeman killing that crook?
Yep. Depends on circumstances, of course. But I don't have a problem with it, per se.
Which circumstances? The cop knows nothing about the criminal but he knows that he has a stolen TV. Use deadly force? Really?
Do you think shoplifters should have their hands cut off as well?
I feel bad for the guy helping his friend pick up a new tv from the store, and is in a hurry. The cop was obviously in the right when he mowed him down
Well, if he is carrying the TV out through a broken window of a store that is on fire and full of looters, would you rather the cop said "excuse me sir, can I help you carry that?
I cannot believe you guys can look at the film of the looting and burning and say "Maybe they just bought something".
I will remind you, trump did not say shoot people with a TV nor did he say shoot black people. That is all from the MSM you guys think are journalists.
I don't want the cops killing looters. I want looters identified and given the appropriate penalties.
(05-29-2020 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.
I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.
I think this is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of what Trump said, only surpassed by the 'I guess' comment you clearly think represents what anyone else meant.
Let me help you (and 93) with Owls comment.... from someone who shares a similar perspective. I'm not saying this is what he meant, I'm saying this is how I read it... and I'm betting I'm a whole lot closer
It depends, but he doesn't jump to the conclusion that the cop simply shot the person because he had a TV. That happens, but so rarely that it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption.
I'd say similar about Trump's comment. You changing the context from a specific situation to a generic 'guy with a tv' makes a difference.
He's talking about 'thugs'... and a guy stealing diapers or a TV isn't a 'thug'. He might be a jerk or someone who just really needs help. A thug' is the guy planting an explosive device and/or opening up gas valves in buildings to the point where the city is telling people what to do in case the building explodes. A Thug is the guy who doesn't just steal a TV, but injures people while doing it.... a Thug is the guy throwing rocks at the fire department trying to put out one of the 30 intentionally set fires in the city.
and yeah... I agree with Trump that shooting people who are planting bombs or setting places on fire or assaulting innocent people, especially first responders is
okay (if it could have the impact of protecting their victims).
Without the context, the statement (by Trump) is absurd. With the context of what he's speaking about, it makes sense.... even to you, it certainly makes 'more' sense. You have to throw out the context in order to make him 'absurd'. If you leave it in, your argument is reduced down to a question of ones 'default assumptions' about police and rioters.
(05-29-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.
I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.
I think this is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of what Trump said, only surpassed by the 'I guess' comment you clearly think represents what anyone else meant.
Let me help you (and 93) with Owls comment.... from someone who shares a similar perspective. I'm not saying this is what he meant, I'm saying this is how I read it... and I'm betting I'm a whole lot closer
It depends, but he doesn't jump to the conclusion that the cop simply shot the person because he had a TV. That happens, but so rarely that it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption.
I'd say similar about Trump's comment. You changing the context from a specific situation to a generic 'guy with a tv' makes a difference.
He's talking about 'thugs'... and a guy stealing diapers or a TV isn't a 'thug'. He might be a jerk or someone who just really needs help. A thug' is the guy planting an explosive device and/or opening up gas valves in buildings to the point where the city is telling people what to do in case the building explodes. A Thug is the guy who doesn't just steal a TV, but injures people while doing it.... a Thug is the guy throwing rocks at the fire department trying to put out one of the 30 intentionally set fires in the city.
and yeah... I agree with Trump that shooting people who are planting bombs or setting places on fire or assaulting innocent people, especially first responders is okay (if it could have the impact of protecting their victims).
Without the context, the statement (by Trump) is absurd. With the context of what he's speaking about, it makes sense.... even to you, it certainly makes 'more' sense. You have to throw out the context in order to make him 'absurd'. If you leave it in, your argument is reduced down to a question of ones 'default assumptions' about police and rioters.
Thanks, but I think that all of us (including OO) can make the distinction between "looters" and domestic terrorists.
(05-29-2020 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 12:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Looky at the tweet Twitter censored from Trump:
Quote:....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!
Yep, the fing tools at Twitter censored that one. In a statement, Twitter Comms said: “This Tweet violates our policies regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today.”
“We’ve taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the Tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the Tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance,” Twitter added. “As is standard with this notice, engagements with the Tweet will be limited. People will be able to Retweet with Comment, but will not be able to Like, Reply or Retweet it.”
As an example of public comments (from blue checks) that Twitter did not censor include:
"Black people have every right to burn down a country they built for free"
"burn it down. **** cops. **** property"
From Michael Moore:
"Good citizens burning down the evil police precinct in MN after all police were out & safe. All police should go home. No violence please. Police HQ must be demolished by the city tomorrow as a show of contrition to black America. Rebuild PD with decent kind ppl aka ppl of color"
I'm fine with them censoring Trump's calls for violence and, likewise, I think they should have censored the others as well.
Please do tell where is 'Trump's call for violence' there? If you are saying that 'Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts', I assume that this is the chief *law enforcement* official in the country speaking --- and noting that this country *will not tolerate* lawlessness.
So I am a little taken aback at your statement on "Trump's call for violence".
For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.
I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.
uhhh..... I hate to tell you lad, this is in the context of something called 'rioting'. like...... what has been seen on the streets of Minnesota two nights running, spreading to elsewhere.
Had you fing bothered to read the first tweet (which wasnt censored), and which the second is specifically linked to, you would understand the context is massive (yes, massive) mayhem that you are seeing in Minneapolis / St Paul / Wisconsin and reports of in Ohio presently.
And yes, in the context of that massive civil rioting, sometimes the fix *is* to use force. Ask Gil Garcetti from '92. So cut the crap caterwauling, and actually apply a smidgeon of context to the tweet. It just might help. Or, alternatively, the fix is the *threat* of force --- I mean using the exact opposite of the Mayor of Minneapolis who has apparently stood down for two nights, and, actually ordered the evacuation of a police precinct HQ and allowed the rioters to burn it to ground. ALong with 40 or so other businesses.
Trump is *not* referring to acing a dude who robs a store --- he is very specifically making a reference to the very time honored maxim that rioting (yes rioting) maybe should be met with the presentation of force. Funny that how that context makes a difference. A context that you either overlook or are unaware of, apparently.
(05-29-2020 03:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.
I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.
I think this is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of what Trump said, only surpassed by the 'I guess' comment you clearly think represents what anyone else meant.
Let me help you (and 93) with Owls comment.... from someone who shares a similar perspective. I'm not saying this is what he meant, I'm saying this is how I read it... and I'm betting I'm a whole lot closer
It depends, but he doesn't jump to the conclusion that the cop simply shot the person because he had a TV. That happens, but so rarely that it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption.
I'd say similar about Trump's comment. You changing the context from a specific situation to a generic 'guy with a tv' makes a difference.
He's talking about 'thugs'... and a guy stealing diapers or a TV isn't a 'thug'. He might be a jerk or someone who just really needs help. A thug' is the guy planting an explosive device and/or opening up gas valves in buildings to the point where the city is telling people what to do in case the building explodes. A Thug is the guy who doesn't just steal a TV, but injures people while doing it.... a Thug is the guy throwing rocks at the fire department trying to put out one of the 30 intentionally set fires in the city.
and yeah... I agree with Trump that shooting people who are planting bombs or setting places on fire or assaulting innocent people, especially first responders is okay (if it could have the impact of protecting their victims).
Without the context, the statement (by Trump) is absurd. With the context of what he's speaking about, it makes sense.... even to you, it certainly makes 'more' sense. You have to throw out the context in order to make him 'absurd'. If you leave it in, your argument is reduced down to a question of ones 'default assumptions' about police and rioters.
Thanks, but I think that all of us (including OO) can make the distinction between "looters" and domestic terrorists.
You apparently cannot distinguish the unique time that a riot bestows, though. Nor do you seemingly wish to consider the context of a riot in that analysis either. All your comment does is change a very specific context to a very general one -- which is amazingly shallow given the series of tweets in question.
Funny last I noted there are apparently about 60 stores overall in the Twin Cities that have been sacked or burned to the ground, in addition to a police precinct, and an 8 story construction project of affordable housing that have burned to the ground.
That context seemingly doesnt seem to cross the threshold of being considered by you, it appears from here. All you can do is talk about a 'guy walking out of a store with a TV'. Oh Tay!
(05-29-2020 02:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Separate this from the Minnesota situation. If a policeman sees a crook running out of a store with a stolen TV are you OK with said policeman killing that crook?
Yep. Depends on circumstances, of course. But I don't have a problem with it, per se.
Which circumstances? The cop knows nothing about the criminal but he knows that he has a stolen TV. Use deadly force? Really?
Do you think shoplifters should have their hands cut off as well?
I feel bad for the guy helping his friend pick up a new tv from the store, and is in a hurry. The cop was obviously in the right when he mowed him down
This retort takes the prize for the asinine comment of the day.
Looking at the list of businesses looted and burned to the ground kind of makes this amazingly idiotic when referring to the civil violence that Trump specifically mentions in context.
(05-29-2020 03:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.
I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.
I think this is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of what Trump said, only surpassed by the 'I guess' comment you clearly think represents what anyone else meant.
Let me help you (and 93) with Owls comment.... from someone who shares a similar perspective. I'm not saying this is what he meant, I'm saying this is how I read it... and I'm betting I'm a whole lot closer
It depends, but he doesn't jump to the conclusion that the cop simply shot the person because he had a TV. That happens, but so rarely that it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption.
I'd say similar about Trump's comment. You changing the context from a specific situation to a generic 'guy with a tv' makes a difference.
He's talking about 'thugs'... and a guy stealing diapers or a TV isn't a 'thug'. He might be a jerk or someone who just really needs help. A thug' is the guy planting an explosive device and/or opening up gas valves in buildings to the point where the city is telling people what to do in case the building explodes. A Thug is the guy who doesn't just steal a TV, but injures people while doing it.... a Thug is the guy throwing rocks at the fire department trying to put out one of the 30 intentionally set fires in the city.
and yeah... I agree with Trump that shooting people who are planting bombs or setting places on fire or assaulting innocent people, especially first responders is okay (if it could have the impact of protecting their victims).
Without the context, the statement (by Trump) is absurd. With the context of what he's speaking about, it makes sense.... even to you, it certainly makes 'more' sense. You have to throw out the context in order to make him 'absurd'. If you leave it in, your argument is reduced down to a question of ones 'default assumptions' about police and rioters.
Thanks, but I think that all of us (including OO) can make the distinction between "looters" and domestic terrorists.
And yet some of y'all cannot distinguish between looters and people buying a TV.
BTW, thanks for the "including OO". Dies this mean we have moved to the condescending portion of the discussion?
(05-29-2020 03:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Yep. Depends on circumstances, of course. But I don't have a problem with it, per se.
Which circumstances? The cop knows nothing about the criminal but he knows that he has a stolen TV. Use deadly force? Really?
Do you think shoplifters should have their hands cut off as well?
I feel bad for the guy helping his friend pick up a new tv from the store, and is in a hurry. The cop was obviously in the right when he mowed him down
Well, if he is carrying the TV out through a broken window of a store that is on fire and full of looters, would you rather the cop said "excuse me sir, can I help you carry that?
I cannot believe you guys can look at the film of the looting and burning and say "Maybe they just bought something".
I will remind you, trump did not say shoot people with a TV nor did he say shoot black people. That is all from the MSM you guys think are journalists.
I don't want the cops killing looters. I want looters identified and given the appropriate penalties.
I would agree. Now what should the cops do if the looters resist arrest or ignore orders to stop? What should the cops do if every arrest is accompanied by charges of racism and police brutality? How would you, a Chief of Police in Minneapolis, go about telling your officers how identify looters and take them into custody?
One common factor i see in these rioting/looting videos is the brazenness of the looters. they know they are safe. Nobody will stop them and nobody will get prosecuted.
(05-29-2020 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.
I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.
I think this is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of what Trump said, only surpassed by the 'I guess' comment you clearly think represents what anyone else meant.
Let me help you (and 93) with Owls comment.... from someone who shares a similar perspective. I'm not saying this is what he meant, I'm saying this is how I read it... and I'm betting I'm a whole lot closer
It depends, but he doesn't jump to the conclusion that the cop simply shot the person because he had a TV. That happens, but so rarely that it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption.
I'd say similar about Trump's comment. You changing the context from a specific situation to a generic 'guy with a tv' makes a difference.
He's talking about 'thugs'... and a guy stealing diapers or a TV isn't a 'thug'. He might be a jerk or someone who just really needs help. A thug' is the guy planting an explosive device and/or opening up gas valves in buildings to the point where the city is telling people what to do in case the building explodes. A Thug is the guy who doesn't just steal a TV, but injures people while doing it.... a Thug is the guy throwing rocks at the fire department trying to put out one of the 30 intentionally set fires in the city.
and yeah... I agree with Trump that shooting people who are planting bombs or setting places on fire or assaulting innocent people, especially first responders is okay (if it could have the impact of protecting their victims).
Without the context, the statement (by Trump) is absurd. With the context of what he's speaking about, it makes sense.... even to you, it certainly makes 'more' sense. You have to throw out the context in order to make him 'absurd'. If you leave it in, your argument is reduced down to a question of ones 'default assumptions' about police and rioters.
Thanks, but I think that all of us (including OO) can make the distinction between "looters" and domestic terrorists.
You apparently cannot distinguish the unique time that a riot bestows, though. Nor do you seemingly wish to consider the context of a riot in that analysis either. All your comment does is change a very specific context to a very general one -- which is amazingly shallow given the series of tweets in question.
Funny last I noted there are apparently about 60 stores overall in the Twin Cities that have been sacked or burned to the ground, in addition to a police precinct, and an 8 story construction project of affordable housing that have burned to the ground.
That context seemingly doesnt seem to cross the threshold of being considered by you, it appears from here. All you can do is talk about a 'guy walking out of a store with a TV'. Oh Tay!
Let’s say a protester is seen smashing the windows of an AutoZone, entering the store, and coming out with an armful of merchandise . Are you OK with the police shooting that person? Because that is what looting is.
(05-29-2020 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.
I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.
I think this is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of what Trump said, only surpassed by the 'I guess' comment you clearly think represents what anyone else meant.
Let me help you (and 93) with Owls comment.... from someone who shares a similar perspective. I'm not saying this is what he meant, I'm saying this is how I read it... and I'm betting I'm a whole lot closer
It depends, but he doesn't jump to the conclusion that the cop simply shot the person because he had a TV. That happens, but so rarely that it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption.
I'd say similar about Trump's comment. You changing the context from a specific situation to a generic 'guy with a tv' makes a difference.
He's talking about 'thugs'... and a guy stealing diapers or a TV isn't a 'thug'. He might be a jerk or someone who just really needs help. A thug' is the guy planting an explosive device and/or opening up gas valves in buildings to the point where the city is telling people what to do in case the building explodes. A Thug is the guy who doesn't just steal a TV, but injures people while doing it.... a Thug is the guy throwing rocks at the fire department trying to put out one of the 30 intentionally set fires in the city.
and yeah... I agree with Trump that shooting people who are planting bombs or setting places on fire or assaulting innocent people, especially first responders is okay (if it could have the impact of protecting their victims).
Without the context, the statement (by Trump) is absurd. With the context of what he's speaking about, it makes sense.... even to you, it certainly makes 'more' sense. You have to throw out the context in order to make him 'absurd'. If you leave it in, your argument is reduced down to a question of ones 'default assumptions' about police and rioters.
Thanks, but I think that all of us (including OO) can make the distinction between "looters" and domestic terrorists.
You apparently cannot distinguish the unique time that a riot bestows, though. Nor do you seemingly wish to consider the context of a riot in that analysis either. All your comment does is change a very specific context to a very general one -- which is amazingly shallow given the series of tweets in question.
Funny last I noted there are apparently about 60 stores overall in the Twin Cities that have been sacked or burned to the ground, in addition to a police precinct, and an 8 story construction project of affordable housing that have burned to the ground.
That context seemingly doesnt seem to cross the threshold of being considered by you, it appears from here. All you can do is talk about a 'guy walking out of a store with a TV'. Oh Tay!
Let’s say a protester is seen smashing the windows of an AutoZone, entering the store, and coming out with an armful of merchandise . Are you OK with the police shooting that person? Because that is what looting is.
I am OK with the usage of normal police practice, which usually includes telling the suspect to halt, raise their hands, get down on the ground, etc. Where things go from there depends on the looter, and the instructions given to police. Are you OK with the looters saying F U, Pig, get outta my face, and going about their looting knowing the cops will not be permitted to intervene?
As always, the Dems are on the side of the scofflaws and against the law enforcers.
This has been a perfect example of the way the left interprets everything to fit their agenda.
(05-29-2020 03:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.
I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.
I think this is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of what Trump said, only surpassed by the 'I guess' comment you clearly think represents what anyone else meant.
Let me help you (and 93) with Owls comment.... from someone who shares a similar perspective. I'm not saying this is what he meant, I'm saying this is how I read it... and I'm betting I'm a whole lot closer
It depends, but he doesn't jump to the conclusion that the cop simply shot the person because he had a TV. That happens, but so rarely that it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption.
I'd say similar about Trump's comment. You changing the context from a specific situation to a generic 'guy with a tv' makes a difference.
He's talking about 'thugs'... and a guy stealing diapers or a TV isn't a 'thug'. He might be a jerk or someone who just really needs help. A thug' is the guy planting an explosive device and/or opening up gas valves in buildings to the point where the city is telling people what to do in case the building explodes. A Thug is the guy who doesn't just steal a TV, but injures people while doing it.... a Thug is the guy throwing rocks at the fire department trying to put out one of the 30 intentionally set fires in the city.
and yeah... I agree with Trump that shooting people who are planting bombs or setting places on fire or assaulting innocent people, especially first responders is okay (if it could have the impact of protecting their victims).
Without the context, the statement (by Trump) is absurd. With the context of what he's speaking about, it makes sense.... even to you, it certainly makes 'more' sense. You have to throw out the context in order to make him 'absurd'. If you leave it in, your argument is reduced down to a question of ones 'default assumptions' about police and rioters.
Thanks, but I think that all of us (including OO) can make the distinction between "looters" and domestic terrorists.
And yet some of y'all cannot distinguish between looters and people buying a TV.
BTW, thanks for the "including OO". Dies this mean we have moved to the condescending portion of the discussion?
Was it not obvious that it was because it was in reference to your original statements about the use of force against looters?
(05-29-2020 04:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ][quote='RiceLad15' pid='16839000' dateline='1590781462']
For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.
I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.
I think this is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of what Trump said, only surpassed by the 'I guess' comment you clearly think represents what anyone else meant.
Let me help you (and 93) with Owls comment.... from someone who shares a similar perspective. I'm not saying this is what he meant, I'm saying this is how I read it... and I'm betting I'm a whole lot closer
It depends, but he doesn't jump to the conclusion that the cop simply shot the person because he had a TV. That happens, but so rarely that it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption.
I'd say similar about Trump's comment. You changing the context from a specific situation to a generic 'guy with a tv' makes a difference.
He's talking about 'thugs'... and a guy stealing diapers or a TV isn't a 'thug'. He might be a jerk or someone who just really needs help. A thug' is the guy planting an explosive device and/or opening up gas valves in buildings to the point where the city is telling people what to do in case the building explodes. A Thug is the guy who doesn't just steal a TV, but injures people while doing it.... a Thug is the guy throwing rocks at the fire department trying to put out one of the 30 intentionally set fires in the city.
and yeah... I agree with Trump that shooting people who are planting bombs or setting places on fire or assaulting innocent people, especially first responders is okay (if it could have the impact of protecting their victims).
Without the context, the statement (by Trump) is absurd. With the context of what he's speaking about, it makes sense.... even to you, it certainly makes 'more' sense. You have to throw out the context in order to make him 'absurd'. If you leave it in, your argument is reduced down to a question of ones 'default assumptions' about police and rioters.
Thanks, but I think that all of us (including OO) can make the distinction between "looters" and domestic terrorists.
And yet some of y'all cannot distinguish between looters and people buying a TV.
BTW, thanks for the "including OO". Dies this mean we have moved to the condescending portion of the discussion?
Was it not obvious that it was because it was in reference to your original statements about the use of force against looters?
I wasn't the one who likened a looter to a person buying a TV. That was your lad.
(05-29-2020 04:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:11 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Which circumstances? The cop knows nothing about the criminal but he knows that he has a stolen TV. Use deadly force? Really?
Do you think shoplifters should have their hands cut off as well?
I feel bad for the guy helping his friend pick up a new tv from the store, and is in a hurry. The cop was obviously in the right when he mowed him down
Well, if he is carrying the TV out through a broken window of a store that is on fire and full of looters, would you rather the cop said "excuse me sir, can I help you carry that?
I cannot believe you guys can look at the film of the looting and burning and say "Maybe they just bought something".
I will remind you, trump did not say shoot people with a TV nor did he say shoot black people. That is all from the MSM you guys think are journalists.
I don't want the cops killing looters. I want looters identified and given the appropriate penalties.
I would agree. Now what should the cops do if the looters resist arrest or ignore orders to stop? What should the cops do if every arrest is accompanied by charges of racism and police brutality? How would you, a Chief of Police in Minneapolis, go about telling your officers how identify looters and take them into custody?
That is a hard answer on the stopping looting in progress. I assume that is why they have specific training in managing a riot and I assume there are also specialists within their units to provide leadership on this? I’m pretty sure the answer is not to go ahead and shoot them.
(05-29-2020 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 04:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ][quote='RiceLad15' pid='16839000' dateline='1590781462']
For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.
I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.
I think this is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of what Trump said, only surpassed by the 'I guess' comment you clearly think represents what anyone else meant.
Let me help you (and 93) with Owls comment.... from someone who shares a similar perspective. I'm not saying this is what he meant, I'm saying this is how I read it... and I'm betting I'm a whole lot closer
It depends, but he doesn't jump to the conclusion that the cop simply shot the person because he had a TV. That happens, but so rarely that it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption.
I'd say similar about Trump's comment. You changing the context from a specific situation to a generic 'guy with a tv' makes a difference.
He's talking about 'thugs'... and a guy stealing diapers or a TV isn't a 'thug'. He might be a jerk or someone who just really needs help. A thug' is the guy planting an explosive device and/or opening up gas valves in buildings to the point where the city is telling people what to do in case the building explodes. A Thug is the guy who doesn't just steal a TV, but injures people while doing it.... a Thug is the guy throwing rocks at the fire department trying to put out one of the 30 intentionally set fires in the city.
and yeah... I agree with Trump that shooting people who are planting bombs or setting places on fire or assaulting innocent people, especially first responders is okay (if it could have the impact of protecting their victims).
Without the context, the statement (by Trump) is absurd. With the context of what he's speaking about, it makes sense.... even to you, it certainly makes 'more' sense. You have to throw out the context in order to make him 'absurd'. If you leave it in, your argument is reduced down to a question of ones 'default assumptions' about police and rioters.
Thanks, but I think that all of us (including OO) can make the distinction between "looters" and domestic terrorists.
And yet some of y'all cannot distinguish between looters and people buying a TV.
BTW, thanks for the "including OO". Dies this mean we have moved to the condescending portion of the discussion?
Was it not obvious that it was because it was in reference to your original statements about the use of force against looters?
I wasn't the one who likened a looter to a person buying a TV. That was your lad.
You were the one that said to use deadly force against looters and then Hambone came to your defense to say that you meant domestic terrorists. I specifically mentioned you in my subsequent comment to point out that I am pretty sure you know the difference between the two.
(05-29-2020 04:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]You were the one that said to use deadly force against looters and then Hambone came to your defense to say that you meant domestic terrorists. I specifically mentioned you in my subsequent comment to point out that I am pretty sure you know the difference between the two.
The looters that I saw in the videos looked pretty much like domestic terrorists to me.
(05-29-2020 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 04:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]You were the one that said to use deadly force against looters and then Hambone came to your defense to say that you meant domestic terrorists. I specifically mentioned you in my subsequent comment to point out that I am pretty sure you know the difference between the two.
The looters that I saw in the videos looked pretty much like domestic terrorists to me.
Which people in the videos would you have killed if you were a cop?
(05-29-2020 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-29-2020 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.
I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.
I think this is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of what Trump said, only surpassed by the 'I guess' comment you clearly think represents what anyone else meant.
Let me help you (and 93) with Owls comment.... from someone who shares a similar perspective. I'm not saying this is what he meant, I'm saying this is how I read it... and I'm betting I'm a whole lot closer
It depends, but he doesn't jump to the conclusion that the cop simply shot the person because he had a TV. That happens, but so rarely that it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption.
I'd say similar about Trump's comment. You changing the context from a specific situation to a generic 'guy with a tv' makes a difference.
He's talking about 'thugs'... and a guy stealing diapers or a TV isn't a 'thug'. He might be a jerk or someone who just really needs help. A thug' is the guy planting an explosive device and/or opening up gas valves in buildings to the point where the city is telling people what to do in case the building explodes. A Thug is the guy who doesn't just steal a TV, but injures people while doing it.... a Thug is the guy throwing rocks at the fire department trying to put out one of the 30 intentionally set fires in the city.
and yeah... I agree with Trump that shooting people who are planting bombs or setting places on fire or assaulting innocent people, especially first responders is okay (if it could have the impact of protecting their victims).
Without the context, the statement (by Trump) is absurd. With the context of what he's speaking about, it makes sense.... even to you, it certainly makes 'more' sense. You have to throw out the context in order to make him 'absurd'. If you leave it in, your argument is reduced down to a question of ones 'default assumptions' about police and rioters.
Thanks, but I think that all of us (including OO) can make the distinction between "looters" and domestic terrorists.
You apparently cannot distinguish the unique time that a riot bestows, though. Nor do you seemingly wish to consider the context of a riot in that analysis either. All your comment does is change a very specific context to a very general one -- which is amazingly shallow given the series of tweets in question.
Funny last I noted there are apparently about 60 stores overall in the Twin Cities that have been sacked or burned to the ground, in addition to a police precinct, and an 8 story construction project of affordable housing that have burned to the ground.
That context seemingly doesnt seem to cross the threshold of being considered by you, it appears from here. All you can do is talk about a 'guy walking out of a store with a TV'. Oh Tay!
Let’s say a protester is seen smashing the windows of an AutoZone, entering the store, and coming out with an armful of merchandise . Are you OK with the police shooting that person? Because that is what looting is.
And (once again) you work *furiously* to scrub *any* context whatsoever out of a statement. Perhaps you should go back, read the series of tweets, and add just an iota of context if. (then come back to us with a report, to make the statement of another quote that you worked furiously to wholly scrub context out of previously).
Kind of a nice counterpoint to the unflinching ability of lad to add tons of not even implied context in with other statements --- y'all are fing amazing in that dogged determination. Glad you two werent Cong sappers in Saigon.