Iconochasm
All post-temple whore technology is gay.
No bio...
User ID: 314
Is it accurate to the situation on the ground, in either case?
No. Babbit was trying to pry apart a shut door that someone else had already partially broken and having little success because she was a relatively small woman. There were numerous other armed officers around who didn't seem to consider her a particular threat. She might have been able to get through and then post a threat to someone, but it probably wasn't happening in the next 30 seconds. The officer who shot her had a history of bad decisions. It's much closer to a "cop just felt like he could get away with murdering a white bitch" situation than the comparable, valence-flipped situation where left-wing psychics intuit that the officer had murderous intent.
OTOH, she was part of a group that had stormed the building and had a lot of threatening rhetoric. If shooting her was good for that reason, then all the J6 protestors should have been killed, along with most left-wing protestors over the last 10 years.
Conversely, Good gunned the engine on her car while pointed at an ICE agent who was just a couple feet away. She did turn away from him, but if he had been a bit slower to get aside, or if she had turned the wheel just a few degrees less to the side then she could have very easily run him over and killed him.
One of those woman very much appeared to be a deadly threat to another person within the next second, and the other could plausible have posed a threat in a minute or two, presuming she managed to break down a door with her bare hands, to whatever extent you think an unarmed woman is a threat. For that last point, generally speaking, leftwingers usually argue that the threat of an unarmed woman to a male cop is "no threat at all, he should just manually restrain her, and also opening a door shouldn't be a death sentence!"
If you think one was an innocent martyr and the other got what she deserved, I would really like to hear the arguments for that.
We've been doing that for days, and I believe you specifically mentioned in a subthread yesterday that you didn't care to follow closely because it was tiresome or some such thing, which I interpreted as "This looks bad for the side I like aesthetically and I want plausible deniability that the MAGAts were right".
Bare minimal respect for democracy, the law, and all norms and standards of our shared civil society. He behavior was a more central example of domestic terrorism than it was sitting in the front of a bus.
"Somali's aren't a cohesive block, they're actually 2 cohesive blocks that are using American Democrat politics as a proxy for their eternal clan war" is maybe not so much of a reassuring counterargument.
Actually perfect example. Exactly the kind of guy who would find himself hosting a classic book club, while being so generally ignorant that he couldn't fake up "Moby Dick is an allegory for obsession and revenge".
I recall one that featured an unprepared book club hostess "cunningly" asking an LLM just before the guests arrived to "suggest themes for discussion for the book Moby Dick".
What level of pretentious sub-midwit is that marketing towards?
Why? Right-wingers dislike those governments, and would love to see them lose popular support, legitimacy, and power.
Same reason left-wingers get excited about domestic civil disruption.
... Jews?
FWIW, I first saw that quote a few weeks ago and my immediate thought was "Holy shit, I know exactly what he's talking about! I've had that exact same experience a thousand times! I'd just call the person responsible a leftist instead of a Jew."
Given historical realities, it's quite possible that the specific people he's referring to (presuming such exist) happened to be both.
But that pattern... it's like God of the Gaps on steroids, run by a person with absolutely no concern for internal consistency or intellectual honor/shame. It's the purest essence of Arguments as Soldiers, the final form of "There's no such thing as objective truth, just competing power narratives". Maybe it shows up on the right too, and I don't argue with them enough these days to see it. But in all my years of internet atheisting and libertarding I don't think I ever encountered a fundie or neocon who went full... whatever that is.
And it is basically a particularly vicious form of nerd sniping against the kind of systematizing autists who frequent this place. But it's not actually against the rules. And it's effective, to an extent, because there's no real defense against it except to go full @gattsuru "He's an exhaustive list of every time this was explained to you and you failed to rebut the fact claims in any way."
I don't have any useful suggestions for wrangling this as a moderator (except to unchain The Gattsuru). Good luck, I guess.
Ironically, that was one of the least heated posts I made in that 24hr span. My mood was tongue-in-cheek joking. "Cops planted that SUV" sounds like a Gun Rack line. Ah well, text and tone, name a less iconic duo.
But I thought if anyone would be sympathetic towards a stand your ground approach, it would be Republicans.
The counterpoint is that there were other armed officers nearby, and the only one who thought Babbit deserved a new hole was a known fuck-up retard who should have been off the force years ago. Guy was actually already famous for the "Capitol police officer left his gun on a urinal" story. He's actually in the news again as of a few days ago because his side gig is a government-subsidized daycare.
L.M.A.O.
Someone might say, “were I the officer I would have used my split second reaction time to get out of the way”.
I predict that there's maybe four people on this forum who could dodge a thrown water bottle from 10 feet away. "Just dodge the car bro" is Marvel movie thinking.
Aside from the question how how threatening it is to drive towards someone in a car, and if your explicitly antagonistic motivation in going to a protest matters when determining guilt.
Glassnoser is around this thread arguing that lightly hitting someone with a car is no big deal. I wonder if he would think the same about bumping into a morbidly obese smoker who then has a heart attack? Or if he would blame her for putting herself in front of a car?
Saying there's no relationship is just silly. There's plenty to compare and contrast, to tease out the differences and separate reason from who/whom.
While the situation is not perfectly analogous, I can't shake the mild fear that one of the officers could have believed that I was driving recklessly or intentionally into the blocked-off area, and viewed my action as a "deadly threat."
This is exactly why I think the other protestors bear moral blame for this woman's death, and ought to be legally disincentivized from behaving as they have been. A beat cop doing traffic control doesn't have any particular reason to worry about a driver accidentally going somewhere beyond the general high level of paranoia cops are taught to use.
Compare that to an ICE agent surrounded by protestors screaming the kind of insulting accusations that might morally justify vengeful violence against agents of the state. Physical attacks on ICE agents are already high, including numerous attempts to assassinate or perform mass killings of ICE agents.
This is obviously going to put them more on edge, raise the threshold for proper professionalism, and increase the likelihood of something unfortunate happening.
Props on the consistency.
The Charlottesville car guy got 4 life sentences because of his attitude and motivation towards the protest beforehand.
Are you calling for him to be pardoned and compensated by the state for his unjust incarceration?
Do they? How often? Based on what I see, it happens virtually never and leftists are just straight up lying about it for dramatic effect.
And this is an insane and delusional lie. The people who push this lie have blood on their hands. Believing this lie is retarded and delusional, not brave and reasonable.
I am not sure how the police can "convert" you not ramming them with your car into threats. Like, how that would work - they'd jump behind the wheel and ram themselves, and then say you did it? I have my doubts.
She was an innocent insurrectionist who didn't do anything! Corrupt cops planted that SUV!
If he had fired exactly once then virtually every single person being critical of the ICE agent would be treating it as positive proof that he didn't really fear for his life and this was just a deliberate murder.
She was leaving.
She appears to have traveled a considerable distance for the specific purpose of disrupting ICE actions, and was described by at least one bystander as a leader and organizer of the disruption. There is no reason at all to think she would have just left and stopped obstructing if she was not stopped. It is obviously much more likely that she would have just circled around and got right back at it.
Finally, the broad optics are just plain bad for Trump.
"God, I can't believe you idiots didn't let us murder you! It's your fault that we'll relentlessly lie about it!"
This strikes me as a motte and bailey - what does "basic immigration enforcement" mean? I don't object to deporting people. I object to grabbing them off the streets without warning. It's the difference between serving an eviction notice to a tenant-turned-squatter, and physically throwing them out without even letting them grab their stuff. The latter is inhumane behavior even in cases where a normal eviction notice would be legitimate and justified.
We've literally spent a year telling everyone that the party is over and it's time to leave, and offering them thousands of dollars if they just go willingly. You're the one doing a motte-and-bailey - "warning" in practice means a decade of catch and release, ignored court appointments and endless illegitimate appeals.
Is there anything about deportations that requires leftists to throw up road blocks to obstruct law enforcement and occasionally launch murderous militia attacks?
Public defenders too then, right?
Context matters. If I started pointing out that there are circumstances where it would be legal and moral to kill you, I expect you would take that as a bit more than a detached hypothetical.
I haven't seen any arguments about how they could be legal.
Then you haven't looked. Notice how that whole media stunt was dropped, instead of continuing with congressional hearings on these supposedly clearly illegal murders?
Take it a step further. Why do you think it's illegal? What law was violated?

Main Character Syndrome. Obviously, bad things only happen to other people. I have plot armor!
More options
Context Copy link