by mell ➕follow (10) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 18 - 57 of 68 Next » Last » Search these comments
SunnyvaleCA saysIn the legal system whataboutism goes by another name: precedence
You're really reaching here. If you want to run with equivocating your casual off the cuff whataboutism with the legal concept of precedence, then let's see you make a good faith effort to approach the standards for argumentation and evidence that the legal system demands, instead of dropping it as unsupported non-sequiturs in discussions of different topics, as if it settles the matter and ends the proceedings like a dramatic Perry Mason script.
Imagine taking an oath to uphold the Constitution, and ending up gunned down forcing your way into a secure Federal property, by someone who took the same oath, only seriously?
You didn't say anything in that response.
The question is, why are BLM and Antifa allowed to break into Federal buildings and burn, and loot, and murder - and that's fine and unprosecuted
but when Ashli Babbitt climbs through a broken window in the capital, while she's unarmed,
I'm warning you that you're helping to overthrow a system, and you might think this is going well for you now
I'm literally saying you're not saying anything with the whataboutism you bring to the discussion, and to hold it to the standards of the legal process you invoked to fix your problem. Instead, you're doubling down sperging on about BLM and Antifa.
I already said I'm surprised the riots were allowed the way they were, and that the rioters should have met with swift, certain, and severe to the point of potentially deadly pushback for their lawless and destructive acts
Behold the right wing version of the "He was a good boy, on his way to bible study" formula. Trump fans have a huge blind spot around the ethics of Jan. 6.
richwicks saysI'm warning you that you're helping to overthrow a system, and you might think this is going well for you now
Once again, no idea WTF you're talking about. You're addressing a weird strawman of what you think I believe and support here. Has nothing to do with what I've typed in the thread.
I'm literally saying you're not saying anything with the whataboutism you bring to the discussion
richwicks saysThe question is, why are BLM and Antifa allowed to break into Federal buildings and burn, and loot, and murder - and that's fine and unprosecuted
I already said I'm surprised the riots were allowed the way they were, and that the rioters should have met with swift, certain, and severe to the point of potentially deadly pushback for their lawless and destructive acts
richwicks saysI'm warning you that you're helping to overthrow a system, and you might think this is going well for you now
Once again, no idea WTF you're talking abouAutoman Empire saysrichwicks sayst. You're addressing a weird strawman of what you think I believe and support here. Has nothing to do with what I've typed in the thread.I'm warning you that you're helping to overthrow a system, and you might think this is going well for you now
Once again, no idea WTF you're talking about. You're addressing a weird strawman of what you think I believe and support here. Has nothing to do with what I've typed in the thread.
Look, all the talk about "shoot on sight whoever enters a Fed building w/o permission" is sexy and all that, but in reality there must be valid threat to the officer or people whom he protects in order to use deadly force. The need to escalate to the deadly force also might arise when an attempt to arrest the individual deteriorates to the point officers life becomes endangered. Antifa/BLM operatives simply entering a federal building doesn't check all necessary boxes,
let's see you make a good faith effort to approach the standards for argumentation and evidence that the legal system demands
Eric Holder saysLook, all the talk about "shoot on sight whoever enters a Fed building w/o permission" is sexy and all that, but in reality there must be valid threat to the officer or people whom he protects in order to use deadly force. The need to escalate to the deadly force also might arise when an attempt to arrest the individual deteriorates to the point officers life becomes endangered. Antifa/BLM operatives simply entering a federal building doesn't check all necessary boxes,
Exactly. That's why I called what Sunnyvale wrote "casual Whataboutism" and implored him to bring legal standards and precedent to the discussion instead of hypocritical and BS false equivocations.
How is it "whataboutism"? More like recollection of a precedent.
Then there is that argument wrt "lives in danger".
Eric Holder saysThen there is that argument wrt "lives in danger".
The Capitol police and especially the USSS are NOT like regular cops. They are sworn to protect congressmen, President etc, they do NOT fuck around with warning shots or disabling shots, in fact they will literally fight to the death to fulfill their mission.
Automan Empire saysEric Holder saysThen there is that argument wrt "lives in danger".
The Capitol police and especially the USSS are NOT like regular cops. They are sworn to protect congressmen, President etc, they do NOT fuck around with warning shots or disabling shots, in fact they will literally fight to the death to fulfill their mission.
Are you sure? So they have permission to simply drop anyone just for being present in a federal building w/o even attempting to arrest them? I seriously doubt this is true.
I get where you're coming from, but just look. He's getting off, cleared of any wrongdoing, no punishment or anything. If that isn't explicit approval from the government for what he did, I don't know what to tell you.
Automan Empire saysEric Holder saysThen there is that argument wrt "lives in danger".
The Capitol police and especially the USSS are NOT like regular cops. They are sworn to protect congressmen, President etc, they do NOT fuck around with warning shots or disabling shots, in fact they will literally fight to the death to fulfill their mission.
Are you sure? So they have permission to simply drop anyone just for being present in a federal building w/o even attempting to arrest them? I seriously doubt this is true.
I wanted to point out that the officer has glaring issues with his training.
permission to simply drop anyone just for being present in a federal building
Eric Holder sayspermission to simply drop anyone just for being present in a federal building
"Just for being present in a Federal building?" Really?
OK, I see you're not arguing rationally or in good faith here. Peace out.
DhammaStep saysI wanted to point out that the officer has glaring issues with his training.
Do you know how many years the officer was in that position?
There are places on the internet where I participate in good faith discussion of topics like this.
Do you know how many years the officer was in that position?
What is the relevance of that question? Someone can fail miserably at their job on the first day or 30 years in. Being poorly trained and lacking discipline is not something that should be handwaved away, especially when OUR TAXES PAY FOR THEM. We technically don't even know who the officer is.
Automan Empire says
Do you know how many years the officer was in that position?
Too many. Should've been fired for leaving loaded duty weapon in a public restroom.
Chauvin was trained in the knee to neck restraint.
Eric Holder saysAutoman Empire says
Do you know how many years the officer was in that position?
Too many. Should've been fired for leaving loaded duty weapon in a public restroom.
Yep.
Cop Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Never Interviewed By Investigators, Now Back In Charge Of House Security
BY: PAUL SPERRY
JANUARY 12, 2022
« First « Previous Comments 18 - 57 of 68 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,245,814 comments by 14,877 users - Misc online now