Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Trump Administration
Author Message
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #11841
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(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?

Since you have such a huge stick up your ass about the use or threat to use force in riot, would your strategy be to sit down and have a yoga chanting circle with the scores of arsonist mobs?

Valid and equal rhetorical question as compared to yours above.
05-29-2020 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,378
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #11842
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 05:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(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:  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.

OK... in the context of the Minnesota riots with various buildings burning within a 10 mile radius... a cop sees a protester smash those Autozone windows and grab some merchandise. The looter has zero known association with setting fires or any threatening behavior. Shoot him? Because Trump said looters. And OO said shoot the looters. If a protester is setting fire to building then he or she is not a "looter".
05-29-2020 05:16 PM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,344
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1293
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #11843
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  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.
No it's not. 'Looting' all but requires some sort of civil unrest/disorder. A 'protest' does not reach this level. This is distinguishable from theft. If you're going to argue a generic, then at least use the proper context there. The guy above is a thief. Clearly the guy Trump is talking about is causing life threatening damages in conjunction with civil unrest, in many cases, to people who clearly had absolutely nothing to do with the thing being protested. Why would you rob an Autozone in protest of the police killing someone in their custody?

This is the sort of suspension of logic I'm talking about.


(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.

First, he specifically said 'depending on the circumstances'.
Second, I specifically didn't claim to know WHAT he meant... I said that is how I interpreted his comment. The fact that I seem pretty close (as I suspected) shouldn't give you carte blanche to assign my comments to him... because you're clearly missing the point.

The point is that I think we'd all agree that acts of domestic terrorism (and there appear to have been a number of them in Wisconsin, so much so that the Governor called up the National Guard) warrant different treatment than a guy robbing the AutoZone. Trump knows this too. He specifically spoke of it in the tweet. He also spoke of 'dishonoring' the victim, which only makes sense in the same context.

Sorry, but you and lad are just proving my point, that you're willing to suspend logic and even ignore context in order to CHOOSE to find some way to see everything Trump says in the most ridiculous light... no matter if it makes you look bad in the process.

Trump is clearly reacting to domestic terrorism (that's your word, not mine, but it's close enough) in Wisconsin; He very clearly said so. 'Looters' in his comment clearly does not disassociate from the events that warranted the tweet, nor from the other words in the tweet and somehow now magically refer to people passively robbing the AutoZone.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2020 05:37 PM by Hambone10.)
05-29-2020 05:36 PM
Find all posts by this user
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,378
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #11844
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 05:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(05-29-2020 04:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  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.
No it's not. 'Looting' all but requires some sort of civil unrest/disorder. A 'protest' does not reach this level. This is distinguishable from theft. If you're going to argue a generic, then at least use the proper context there. The guy above is a thief. Clearly the guy Trump is talking about is causing life threatening damages in conjunction with civil unrest, in many cases, to people who clearly had absolutely nothing to do with the thing being protested. Why would you rob an Autozone in protest of the police killing someone in their custody?

This is the sort of suspension of logic I'm talking about.


(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.

First, he specifically said 'depending on the circumstances'.
Second, I specifically didn't claim to know WHAT he meant... I said that is how I interpreted his comment. The fact that I seem pretty close (as I suspected) shouldn't give you carte blanche to assign my comments to him... because you're clearly missing the point.

The point is that I think we'd all agree that acts of domestic terrorism (and there appear to have been a number of them in Wisconsin, so much so that the Governor called up the National Guard) warrant different treatment than a guy robbing the AutoZone. Trump knows this too. He specifically spoke of it in the tweet. He also spoke of 'dishonoring' the victim, which only makes sense in the same context.

Sorry, but you and lad are just proving my point, that you're willing to suspend logic and even ignore context in order to CHOOSE to find some way to see everything Trump says in the most ridiculous light... no matter if it makes you look bad in the process.

Trump is clearly reacting to domestic terrorism (that's your word, not mine, but it's close enough) in Wisconsin; He very clearly said so. 'Looters' in his comment clearly does not disassociate from the events that warranted the tweet, nor from the other words in the tweet and somehow now magically refer to people passively robbing the AutoZone.

Which of the rioters in Minnesota would you have shot to kill?
05-29-2020 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #11845
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 04:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(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:  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.

I would assume the use of firearms is a last resort, but it is at the end of the possible chain that starts with stopping them. However, i would also not assume that Trump meant for the police to start mowing them down as step one, as your side has jumped to.
05-29-2020 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #11846
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 04:27 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(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:  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.

I think you need to re-examine the sequence of who said what.
05-29-2020 05:47 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #11847
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 05:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Because Trump said looters. And OO said shoot the looters.

Did I? did he? quotes, please
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2020 06:14 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
05-29-2020 05:50 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #11848
RE: Trump Administration
This is a protest

This is a riot

This is looting

left-wingers do not understand the difference.

In a protest, nobody loots. they clean up after themselves. Nobody gets hurt.

In a riot, not so much.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2020 06:18 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
05-29-2020 05:57 PM
Find all posts by this user
At Ease Offline
Banned

Posts: 17,134
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #11849
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 05:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Trump is clearly reacting to domestic terrorism (that's your word, not mine, but it's close enough) in Wisconsin; He very clearly said so. 'Looters' in his comment clearly does not disassociate from the events that warranted the tweet, nor from the other words in the tweet and somehow now magically refer to people passively robbing the AutoZone.

Don't you mean Mindianapolis?



The charming kinship of failing minds. [/Bix, Blix..]
05-29-2020 06:05 PM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,344
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1293
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #11850
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 05:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Which of the rioters in Minnesota would you have shot to kill?

When it happens, I'll let you know if I agree with the decision or not. In general (which is ridiculous, but I'll play) I'd say 'the ones where that keeps them from putting other people's lives at risk'.... you know, like the law allows.
05-29-2020 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11851
RE: Trump Administration
(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.

That post reminded me of Luther, Obama’s anger translator. I think Ham needs a position in the WH as Trump’s “problematic tweet assuager.”
05-29-2020 06:53 PM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,700
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #11852
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 05:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This is a protest

This is a riot

This is looting

left-wingers do not understand the difference.

In a protest, nobody loots. they clean up after themselves. Nobody gets hurt.

In a riot, not so much.

This has obviously changed from a protest. I just pushed back on the idea that lethal force is inherently necessary from law enforcement. We typically don’t authorize deadly force unless there is an immediate danger to life, right? This is property damage, and people should be held accountable for their actions. I just don’t think the act of looting inherently requires shooting, as Trump tweeted.
05-29-2020 06:58 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #11853
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 06:53 PM)RiceLad15 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.

That post reminded me of Luther, Obama’s anger translator. I think Ham needs a position in the WH as Trump’s “problematic tweet assuager.”

Cute comment from a guy burning 2k calories in trying to remove any and all context from the tweet. Bravo!
05-29-2020 07:11 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #11854
RE: Trump Administration
I think we are going to see the summer of '68 here very soon. I think this could be a real rough couple of weeks/months. We already have 60 businesses torched/looted in the Twin Cities; a violent death at a protest in Louisville; violence in Phoenix and Denver --- and the 'good people' (Antifa) now note that they are going to toss in.

This could be a very nasty weekend.

Adding a current crowd of 3000 at CNN HQ in Atlanta --- and the SWAT and riot gear police are there in response. Ongoing as this post is being edited.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2020 07:29 PM by tanqtonic.)
05-29-2020 07:25 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #11855
RE: Trump Administration
Elsewhere:

If it’s safe enough for domestic terrorists to burn down police stations and torch Targets, and for left-wing media to lie on scene about violent mass riots without wearing masks, then it’s safe enough for the entire economy to be reopened.

(This post was last modified: 05-29-2020 07:36 PM by tanqtonic.)
05-29-2020 07:33 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,160
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #11856
RE: Trump Administration
Burning question: will the rioters sign Colin Kaepernick?

Edited to add: maybe I shouldnt have used the word 'burning' above.....
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2020 08:03 PM by tanqtonic.)
05-29-2020 07:37 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #11857
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(05-29-2020 05:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  This is a protest

This is a riot

This is looting

left-wingers do not understand the difference.

In a protest, nobody loots. they clean up after themselves. Nobody gets hurt.

In a riot, not so much.

This has obviously changed from a protest. I just pushed back on the idea that lethal force is inherently necessary from law enforcement. We typically don’t authorize deadly force unless there is an immediate danger to life, right? This is property damage, and people should be held accountable for their actions. I just don’t think the act of looting inherently requires shooting, as Trump tweeted.

But the MSM keeps referring to them as protesters, not rioters. The MSM are your guys.
05-29-2020 08:00 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,786
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 857
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #11858
RE: Trump Administration
legal analysis

To support a third-degree murder charge, prosecutors don’t have to show the killing was intentional. But they need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer caused the death by acting with a “depraved mind without regard for human life,” according to Minnesota law. The video alone may not be enough evidence to secure a conviction, said Richard Frase, a criminal-law professor at Minnesota Law School in Minneapolis.

The medical examiner hasn’t determined a final cause of death. However, according to preliminary findings in the complaint, Mr. Floyd’s treatment by police, underlying heart disease and hypertension, “and any potential drugs in his system” likely contributed to his death.



Investigators will need to compile additional evidence beyond the explosive video that much of the public has seen, including witness statements, said Joe Van Thomme, a city prosecutor in Minneapolis and former chairman of the local bar association’s criminal law committee.

The medical examiner hasn’t determined a final cause of death. However, according to preliminary findings in the complaint, Mr. Floyd’s treatment by police, underlying heart disease and hypertension, “and any potential drugs in his system” likely contributed to his death.


The federal criminal statute commonly used to prosecute police misconduct requires proof an officer on the job not only acted with excessive force but willfully violated someone’s constitutional rights. A misperception or poor judgment alone isn’t enough to get a conviction.


-------------------

The family is wanting stiffer charges, but it looks like these are not a slam dunk. I bet we get a negotiated plea bargain of manslaughter.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2020 08:10 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
05-29-2020 08:01 PM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,344
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1293
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #11859
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 06:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That post reminded me of Luther, Obama’s anger translator. I think Ham needs a position in the WH as Trump’s “problematic tweet assuager.”

You clearly have skills in this... unfortunately, you also have a whole lot of competition for the 'let's ignore what people actually say and instead, make the most ridiculous assumptions and assign them to those people so that we can argue with that, even if it really makes US look bad' field.

(05-29-2020 06:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I just pushed back on the idea that lethal force is inherently necessary from law enforcement.

Said nobody I've seen, ever
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2020 08:33 PM by Hambone10.)
05-29-2020 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,378
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #11860
RE: Trump Administration
(05-29-2020 05:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(05-29-2020 04:57 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(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?

Since you have such a huge stick up your ass about the use or threat to use force in riot, would your strategy be to sit down and have a yoga chanting circle with the scores of arsonist mobs?

Valid and equal rhetorical question as compared to yours above.

If the having a problem with the President of the United States threatening to shoot looters is "having a huge stick up my ass" then so be it.

Perhaps there is a middle ground between murdering looters and your yoga circle in a police department's civil unrest plan?
05-29-2020 09:17 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.