BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

Tell me how

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

What?

Do you understand what I’ve said at all?

What I mean is, how do you detemine whether or not someone should be charged for behaviour resulting the death of someone?

Do you simply take the police forces word that everything was ok, or do you look more closely at the events to determine if someone was culpable?

mynamejeff

Tell me how wrote: »

Hey look Gozunda, that video was posted again.

Do we all need to denounce it for a second time?

you didn't denounce it at all

which would suggest you support this kind of behaviour correct ?

ProfessorPlum

Tell me how wrote: »

What I mean is, how do you detemine whether or not someone should be charged for behaviour resulting the death of someone?

Do you simply take the police forces word that everything was ok, or do you look more closely at the events to determine if someone was culpable?

Isn’t that what happens? An investigation?

But you seem to jump from ‘death during police contact’ to ‘charge a cop’

One doesn’t necessarily lead to the other. There’s a way to go before getting to criminal negligence or murder, and rightly so too.

Tell me how

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Isn’t that what happens? An investigation?

But you seem to jump from ‘death during police contact’ to ‘charge a cop’

One doesn’t necessarily lead to the other. There’s a way to go before getting to criminal negligence or murder, and rightly so too.

There's no jumping here, the event happened 6 months ago and the circumstances would indicate that a more formal charge is warranted.

No evidence they announced themselves.
Evidence that at least one wore a body cam yet their department saying none of them did.
Evidence that the target was already in custody at the time of the incident.
One of the officers was fired for "wantonly and blindly" firing in to the apartment.

Given these points, what do you think should happen?

ProfessorPlum

Tell me how wrote: »

There's no jumping here, the event happened 6 months ago and the circumstances would indicate that a more formal charge is warranted.

No evidence they announced themselves.
Evidence that at least one wore a body cam yet their department saying none of them did.
Evidence that the target was already in custody at the time of the incident.
One of the officers was fired for "wantonly and blindly" firing in to the apartment.

Given these points, what do you think should happen?

Like I already said, an investigation. And if the evidence is that there was criminal negligence or worse, then charges should be brought.

However, none of your points definitively point to that. One can be fired for example for unprofessional conduct, but it does not necessarily follow that that conduct was criminal.

If police followed procedure, and that procedure was found wanting, again the officers are not necessarily guilty of anything criminal. Even if they didn’t fully follow procedure it doesn’t follow that they acted criminally.

Tell me how

mynamejeff wrote: »

you didn't denounce it at all

which would suggest you support this kind of behaviour correct ?

Incorrect.

Tell me how

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Like I already said, an investigation. And if the evidence is that there was criminal negligence or worse, then charges should be brought.

However, none of your points definitively point to that. One can be fired for example for unprofessional conduct, but it does not necessarily follow that that conduct was criminal.

If police followed procedure, and that procedure was found wanting, again the officers are not necessarily guilty of anything criminal. Even if they didn’t fully follow procedure it doesn’t follow that they acted criminally.

Seems a bizarre suggestion that you can be inside your own house and that someone outside it can not follow procedure and shoot in resulting in your death and that ultimately no one might have behaved criminally.

Any society which has a policing system which supports such practice would be absolutely correct in calling that it be reformed.

Biafranlivemat

Tell me how wrote: »

Not according to AbusesToilets evidence.

That aside, do you understand what vigilantism is?

Vigilantism can happen if the Forces of law and order do not carry out their jobs.
I know of two cases in the Irish community in Boston.
There nearly was a third, but that action was stopped.

Tell me how

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

Vigilantism can happen if the Forces of law and order do not carry out their jobs.
I know of two cases in the Irish community in Boston.
There nearly was a third, but that action was stopped.

So do you support such activity?

ProfessorPlum

Tell me how wrote: »

Seems a bizarre suggestion that you can be inside your own house and that someone outside it can not follow procedure and shoot in resulting in your death and that ultimately no one might have behaved criminally.

Any society which has a policing system which supports such practice would be absolutely correct in calling that it be reformed.

Not bizarre at all. Not every mistake or misstep is criminal. If it was, we would all have convictions.

It would actually be much more beneficial if rather than looking for individuals to blame and/or criminalise, more attention was given to examining systems. And yes, calls for police reform are often directed at systems, but making scapegoats of individual officers achieves nothing, or often worse than nothing.

So no, it’s not at all bizarre that no one may have behaved criminally.

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

you didn't denounce it at all

which would suggest you support this kind of behaviour correct ?

Frankly, how is the ethos behind your post here any different to BLM street activists harassing others to raise their fists etc?

gozunda

Tell me how wrote: »

Takes some closed mind to think a post highlighting several comments where I repeatedly identify behaviour as unacceptable and denounce it does not indicate that I would do so in relation to the latest piece of outrage. Why should I respond in a way you or anyone else wants me to to repeat my view?And you think it is acceptable to call me out for not commenting when again, you don't comment on a specific post asking for your input?

As detailed no I'm not referring to old / irrelevant comments. As with the recent video of blm violence - Is it futile to hope you are aware of the irony of posting tit for tat videos by way of a response and demand that others respond to them instead?

Anyway I'm going to put you on ignore for a while your such comments are little better than disingenuous.

Tell me how

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

.
It would actually be much more beneficial if rather than looking for individuals to blame and/or criminalise, more attention was given to examining systems. And yes, calls for police reform are often directed at systems, but making scapegoats of individual officers achieves nothing, or often worse than nothing.

You're doing 2 things here.

Agreeing with BLM calls for policing to be reassessed.
Suggesting that Breonna Taylor family should not want to see justice served for her killing.

I agree with the first point, Point 2 is still bizarre.

Tell me how

gozunda wrote: »

Anyway I'm going to put you on ignore for a while your such comments are little better than disingenuous.

I think that's a good idea for you.

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

Frankly, how is the ethos behind your post here any different to BLM street activists harassing others to raise their fists etc?

that's quite a stretch using any kind of logic
im not screaming at people or threatening to beat them , im not keeping them some place and refusing let them go until they submit , im not putting any one in fear or harassing any one ,

or are you alleging that I am ?

Biafranlivemat

Tell me how wrote: »

So do you support such activity?

Damn right I did, One of the acts involved a illegal Alien from Belfast.
he set fire to a business, arrested spent 30 days in Jail, not deported, released back into the community.
He beat up a Irishman in a pub, because the man put out his Fag in the belfastman's ashtray.
He assaulted a Irishwoman, after she played a song on the Jukebox, that he didn't like.
what did the police do, nothing.

The man was living above a pub in South Boston. As he came home from work one evening, two Belfast men, ordered the thug out of South Boston, They gave him 30 minutes...The thug left in 12 minutes.

The police, courts and ICE, did not do their jobs.

mynamejeff

Tell me how wrote: »

I think that's a good idea for you.

Christ , don't tell me you think you won an argument or something :pac:

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

that's quite a stretch using any kind of logic
im not screaming at people or threatening to beat them , im not keeping them some place and refusing let them go until they submit , im not putting any one in fear or harassing any one ,

or are you alleging that I am ?

Yet your post is clearly looking to peer pressure, brow beat etc. someone else into virtue signaling a condemnation of something you disagree with, under the threat of being labeled a sympathizer/supporter of that which you find condemnable. You can dress it up however you want but the activity is largely the same.

Gervais08

Overheal wrote: »

Yet your post is clearly looking to peer pressure, brow beat etc. someone else into virtue signaling a condemnation of something you disagree with, under the threat of being labeled a sympathizer/supporter of that which you find condemnable. You can dress it up however you want but the activity is largely the same.

Yet I doubt anyone saying no would be set upon by a mob - can you say the same about the idiots by the car or the wolfpack at the restaurant????

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

Yet your post is clearly looking to peer pressure, brow beat etc. someone else into virtue signaling a condemnation of something you disagree with, under the threat of being labeled a sympathizer/supporter of that which you find condemnable. You can dress it up however you want but the activity is largely the same.

Incorrect. There is no virtue signalling in giving an honest answer. Any decent person would condem same and not try to deflect 'cos well someone somewhere else did something" yada yada ....

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

Yet your post is clearly looking to peer pressure, brow beat etc. someone else into virtue signaling a condemnation of something you disagree with, under the threat of being labeled a sympathizer/supporter of that which you find condemnable. You can dress it up however you want but the activity is largely the same.

ha ha ha

so not supporting your and another posters pro BLM point is the same as screaming abuse at scared people on the street,

logic is lost on you people truly :pac:

ProfessorPlum

Tell me how wrote: »

You're doing 2 things here.

Agreeing with BLM calls for policing to be reassessed.
Suggesting that Breonna Taylor family should not want to see justice served for her killing.

I agree with the first point, Point 2 is still bizarre.

I believe that every incident should be reviewed, not just in policing btw, and afaik, that is police procedure already. I agree that policing in the US is on the heavy handed side, all kind of reasons have gotten us to that point. Lots of people agree with that point, BLM didn’t invent the idea. I don’t support BLM or agree with their reluctance to condemn violence and looting etc. I think their ideology can only drive further wedges through communities in the US, and ultimately that will damage poor communities most.

Where did you got the idea that I suggest that BT’s family should not want to see justice served? That is not what I said, but it wouldn’t be the first time you’ve misrepresented a poster who may have a different opinion to you. You see ‘police killing’ and jump straight to ‘criminal’.

I’m against witch hunts, I’m for justice and jurisprudence.

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Incorrect. There is no virtue signalling in giving an honest answer. Any decent person would condem same and not try to deflect 'cos well someone somewhere else did something" yada yada ....

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Overheal

mynamejeff wrote: »

ha ha ha

so not supporting your and another posters pro BLM point is the same as screaming abuse at scared people on the street,

logic is lost on you people truly :pac:

You 'logic' here, is that by not actively wasting time typing up a condemnation for it, that TMH supports it. That's the problem. It's the same logical fallacy employed by activists who bully bystanders into raising fists etc.

you didn't denounce it at all

which would suggest you support this kind of behaviour correct ?

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Yer a great man for the old fallacies alright ..

If you really believe that decent people would not condem that type of behaviour then sadly there is bigger problem than the flawed logic of your previous comment.

Tell me how

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I believe that every incident should be reviewed, not just in policing btw, and afaik, that is police procedure already. I agree that policing in the US is on the heavy handed side, all kind of reasons have gotten us to that point. Lots of people agree with that point, BLM didn’t invent the idea. I don’t support BLM or agree with their reluctance to condemn violence and looting etc. I think their ideology can only drive further wedges through communities in the US, and ultimately that will damage poor communities most.

Where did you got the idea that I suggest that BT’s family should not want to see justice served? That is not what I said, but it wouldn’t be the first time you’ve misrepresented a poster who may have a different opinion to you. You see ‘police killing’ and jump straight to ‘criminal’.

I’m against witch hunts, I’m for justice and jurisprudence.

Again, 'not jump straight' as you missed it the last time.

Possibility of evidence being supressed.
Probability the warrant should not have been carried out.
Reality that someone was fired for shooting blindly which resulted in her death.

We have people here trying to justify police shooting her because she may have been in a relationship with someone involved in a crime and people previously say that Jacob Blake and George Floyd deserved what happened to them because of prior convictions so please consider just who is misrepresenting things here.

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Yer a great man fior the old fallacies alright ..

If you really believe that decent people would not condem that type of behaviour then sadly there is bigger problem than the flawed logic of your previous comment.

So unless someone wastes time posting a perfunctory condemnation of the video dump, they aren't decent people?

Tell me how

mynamejeff wrote: »

Christ , don't tell me you think you won an argument or something :pac:

I've won several, thank you.

Not that it has an bearing on my post.

gozunda

Overheal wrote: »

So unless someone wastes time posting a perfunctory condemnation of the video dump, they aren't decent people?

I'd suggest reading the whole comment in context and not twist it to feign indignation

"Any decent person would condem same and not try to deflect 'cos well someone somewhere else did something" by posting a tit for tat video and demanding others condem that.

Prizes are normally awarded for that type of waltzing tbf ...

mynamejeff

Overheal wrote: »

You 'logic' here, is that by not actively wasting time typing up a condemnation for it, that TMH supports it. That's the problem. It's the same logical fallacy employed by activists who bully bystanders into raising fists etc.

don't you think its add that a very small number of people spend all their time pushing one specific radical agenda in another country ? regardless of evidence logic or facts

your fellow pro blm poster has called various posters racist on the biases that they disagree with his point of view ,

I find that disgusting but every one gets a opinion I guess