catbarf on 24/11/2021 at 14:28
Quote Posted by Starker
I'm not refuting US or UK policy here, but rather your claim that the police in the US are not substantially more trigger happy than the police in other Western countries.
I never made that claim. Point me to where I made that claim. I facetiously suggested that if your explanation for US police not doing warning shots is because they're paranoid trigger happy lunatics, then logically so must UK police and Amnesty International who share the same policy.
You started this line of conversation by suggesting that he should have fired a warning shot or shot to wound, and have repeatedly suggested that these are reasonable, standard responses that should have been used before shooting to stop the threat.
Leaving aside US legality entirely, I have posted evidence that warning shots and shooting to wound are not standard practice, and that in many developed, Western countries police are neither trained nor permitted to fire warning shots and are explicitly forbidden from shooting to wound.
You then came back with this idea that if warning shots and shooting to wound aren't standard in the US, that's because our police are trigger happy and operating on a low level of paranoia and jump straight to killing, completely ignoring that I have been explicitly talking about police forces and international organizations outside the US.
And when I point out
again that multiple countries share the same policy, you come back at me with... statistics on US police killings of civilians. What? I explicitly said US police use lethal force far more often than their counterparts of other countries; this isn't news to me, nor is it relevant to the topic at hand.
From my perspective it seems like you've decided that anywhere outside the lawless hellhole of the US would share your exact views on reasonable use of force, and are ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary while repeating the 'US scary, everyone paranoid' narrative.
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Why is the character of one of the victims relevant, but not the character of the person doing the shooting?
Neither should be relevant. It's the usual 'he was no angel' character assassination. Rosenbaum allegedly being a pedophile doesn't have an iota of bearing on the case; it's just something for shitheads to cheer and congratulate Rittenhouse on after the fact.
Quote Posted by zombe
(*) He had to do that many times in his line of duty.
Super effective. My guess is that the shot serves as a wakeup call for the mind to help the prior verbal warning to sink in. For example, when you mentally are in "fleeing" mode then you do not really care what the police is yelling at you - you are not really listening. That will change after a few warning shots.
Relevant: A warning shot (
https://journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/the-actions-of-a-racine-county-couple-are-at-the-center-of-rittenhouses-trial/article_1d1954b0-01e8-5964-a254-5776ebbceef6.html) was apparently fired within a hundred feet of Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, two to three seconds before Rittenhouse made the decision to shoot. Maybe it wasn't close enough or loud enough, maybe it would have had to be Rittenhouse to have any effect.
Draxil on 24/11/2021 at 15:08
Character doesn't have anything to do with the case, as I said in my first post on the topic. Character was brought into this by lowenz, Starker et al., who brought up Rittenhouse's highschool scuffles, association with proud boys, etc. This same tactic was taken by the mainstream media, which did everything it could to downplay the violence happening in Kenosha, white-wash Rosenbaum and Huber, and demonize Rittenhouse. The media narrative is that if you're engaged in any activity connected to any protest against any actual or even possible injustice then you can do no wrong; "mostly peaceful protests" can cause billions of dollars in personal property damage, ruin livelihoods and lives, usually in minority neighborhoods, and cause enormous damage to a city and community--but it's in the name of social justice so it's "OK". I would note that the police shooting that started this crap-show only happened when a wanted and armed violent criminal scuffled with police, ingored repeated verbal warning, and was unaffected by less lethal means (Taser x2). Only then did the police officer non-lethally shoot Blake. 7 times. Which does seem a little excessive. But, hey, the cop took every action that Starker recommended Rittenhouse should have taken.
The character of the attackers in this case are as relevant or irrelevant as that of the shooter. I object to any of the people killed that night being referred to as "victims", when their actions, the court case against the defendant, and the video footage clearly show that they were the aggressors, just not very successful aggressors. Rittenhouse didn't fire a single shot at a protestor that didn't violently engage him first.
Starker on 24/11/2021 at 20:24
Quote Posted by catbarf
You started this line of conversation by suggesting that he should have fired a warning shot or shot to wound, and have repeatedly suggested that these are reasonable, standard responses that should have been used before shooting to stop the threat.
Yes, I listed them as an example among other things. You just happened to latch on to them. Why exactly should escalation to deadly force be the first thing if someone is following you? What's wrong with seeking other options or trying to warn someone first? In your mind, is waiting until the last moment and then silently turning around and shooting really the best or the most reasonable self-defence option here?
Quote Posted by catbarf
You then came back with this idea that if warning shots and shooting to wound aren't standard in the US, that's because our police are trigger happy and operating on a low level of paranoia and jump straight to killing, completely ignoring that I have been explicitly talking about police forces and international organizations outside the US.
I was talking generally about the entire conversation between you and me and how I perceived the differences to attitudes to self-defence in a situation where an armed person faces an unarmed person, I wasn't specifically responding to any particular point you made or quoting any part of your posts. Also, I wasn't talking just about your police. People in the US in general seem to have this low level of paranoia and fear that puts them slightly more on edge and makes them feel slightly less safe. And again, this isn't just based on me, but lots of people have made this observation. And there's also some evidence that seems to point to it... You have schools with guards and metal detectors, your political ads are full of scaremongering (which means it's probably working), tens of millions of your countrymen seem to be convinced that the elites are satanist pedovores, and so on.
I have to admit, though, that I was being a bit hyperbolic out of sheer exasperation of how eagerly you seemed to try to swat down any suggestion the shooter should have exercised more prudence against an unarmed man.
Quote Posted by catbarf
And when I point out
again that multiple countries share the same policy, you come back at me with... statistics on US police killings of civilians. What? I explicitly said US police use lethal force far more often than their counterparts of other countries; this isn't news to me, nor is it relevant to the topic at hand.
I wasn't responding to the multiple countries having a policy of no warning shots, but your claim that the US is nothing special in regard of having trigger-happy cops. But it is. There's obviously something that results in a 60 times higher rate of police killings than UK. And yes, I do believe this has to do with the police being too trigger-happy. It is relevant to the topic at hand because your police also seems too eager to consider shooting someone as the first and best option.
To summarise: I made a general statement about our conversation in this thread and how the US seems to be more on edge compared to where I live, you pivoted to warning shots policy and suggested it was ridiculous to think US was different from other Western countries, I then responded to that latter statement.
Quote Posted by catbarf
From my perspective it seems like you've decided that anywhere outside the lawless hellhole of the US would share your exact views on reasonable use of force, and are ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary while repeating the 'US scary, everyone paranoid' narrative.
Despite you choosing the most ridiculous and over the top interpretation of my words, I really do think that US police are scary and people in the US do seem to be more on edge to me and I stand by it.
Quote Posted by Draxil
Character doesn't have anything to do with the case, as I said in my first post on the topic. Character was brought into this by lowenz, Starker et al., who brought up Rittenhouse's highschool scuffles, association with proud boys, etc. This same tactic was taken by the mainstream media, which did everything it could to downplay the violence happening in Kenosha, white-wash Rosenbaum and Huber, and demonize Rittenhouse. The media narrative is that if you're engaged in any activity connected to any protest against any actual or even
possible injustice then you can do no wrong; "mostly peaceful protests" can cause billions of dollars in personal property damage, ruin livelihoods and lives, usually in minority neighborhoods, and cause enormous damage to a city and community--but it's in the name of social justice so it's "OK". I would note that the police shooting that started this crap-show only happened when a wanted and armed violent criminal scuffled with police, ingored repeated verbal warning, and was unaffected by less lethal means (Taser x2). Only then did the police officer non-lethally shoot Blake. 7 times. Which does seem a little excessive. But, hey, the cop took every action that Starker recommended Rittenhouse should have taken.
The shooter partying with Proud Boys and taunting people by flashing a white power symbol afterwards for example shows that he didn't really feel remorse about what he did. Beating up a girl is just a shitty thing to do and I posted it in this thread because it seemed noteworthy that the guy was seeking out trouble already before the incident.
Also, the BLM protests don't happen because black people just want to riot. They happen because there's a long-perceived injustice, and based on statistics and how police have treated black people in the US, this belief seems to be completely justified. But oh no, why doesn't anyone think about the insurance companies' profit margins! You're wringing your hands about the few instances where there's property damage, but the overwhelming amount of protests have happened all over the country without any property damage.
Quote Posted by Draxil
The character of the attackers in this case are as relevant or irrelevant as that of the shooter. I object to any of the people killed that night being referred to as "victims", when their actions, the court case against the defendant, and the video footage clearly show that they were the aggressors, just not very successful aggressors. Rittenhouse didn't fire a single shot at a protestor that didn't violently engage him first.
He didn't happen to be in that place by accident. He chose to go to this protest and larp as a militia or police or security guard or whatever he thought he was completely unbidden and prance around with a weapon that he had to have someone buy for him. If he hadn't done that, none of this would have happened. His first victim was a protester who was following him and acting erratically and his next victims thought that he was an active shooter fleeing the scene and tried to stop him, like your NRA always suggests people do.
SD on 24/11/2021 at 21:55
Quote Posted by Starker
The shooter partying with Proud Boys and taunting people by flashing a white power symbol afterwards for example shows that he didn't really feel remorse about what he did.
I'm not exactly sure why anyone should feel remorse about defending themself. However this white power symbol does appear to be an epidemic... it's even spreading to Hollywood stars :eek:
Inline Image:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmSFWGbUUAAbOdo.jpgQuote:
He didn't happen to be in that place by accident.
Nor did any of the people who were shot.
Starker on 24/11/2021 at 22:07
The people who were shot weren't larping as militia or killing people. And you are either wilfully obtuse or blissfully ignorant that the OK sign has been adopted by right-wing extremists to "ironically" troll and taunt people and it being ambiguous and widely used is exactly the reason why. And any decent person would feel remorse after killing someone, especially when the deaths are entirely due to their stupid decisions.
Jason Moyer on 24/11/2021 at 22:11
Did you know that Eddie Murphy has been, on occasion, known to use the N word? Therefore it can't be racist!
june gloom on 24/11/2021 at 22:59
SD taking a bad-faith right-wing position, what a shock.
SD on 24/11/2021 at 23:28
Quote Posted by Starker
The people who were shot weren't larping as militia or killing people.
No, I'm sure three convicted felons were there out of the sheer goodness of their hearts. Like all the other peaceful protestors who burnt a city down to the ground.
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Did you know that Eddie Murphy has been, on occasion, known to use the N word? Therefore it can't be racist!
A truly outstanding straw man. But you've unfortunately blundered into a gigantic elephant trap there:
[video=youtube;t8kgAAeSpDo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8kgAAeSpDo[/video]
Quote Posted by june gloom
SD taking a bad-faith right-wing position, what a shock.
June Gloom outright lying about me - even less of a shock.
june gloom on 25/11/2021 at 00:27
Quote Posted by SD
No, I'm sure three convicted felons were there out of the sheer goodness of their hearts. Like all the other peaceful protestors who burnt a city down to the ground.
A truly outstanding straw man. But you've unfortunately blundered into a gigantic elephant trap there:
[video=youtube;t8kgAAeSpDo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8kgAAeSpDo[/video]
June Gloom outright lying about me - even less of a shock.
Bugger off with your gaslighting. Your bad takes are right here in the thread where God, Palutena and everyone else can see it.
