@pusher_robot's banner p

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

				

User ID: 278

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 278

If it's legally controversial, then sure. But the vast majority of people don't know much about the law at all, so their intuition about what is legally controversial is irrelevant. I don't consider show trials acceptable.

It's possible to do both, though almost nobody, including myself, is "cheering." Declining to be emotionally devastated is not the same thing as cheering it, at all, and I feel this may be where the failure to model your interlocutors is occurring.

That kind of makes a mockery of your commitment to due process, if we're just making decisions based on public opinion.

Do you believe that the officer should be charged, or punished in some alternate way? I'm not asking what you think the result should be. I'm asking whether you think he should even be investigated and considered for punishment.

My personal opinion is that this agent is too trigger-happy, possibly due to his having been attacked with a vehicle in the past, and that it would be appropriate to reassign him to different duty while he conducted psychological examinations and additional use-of-force training. But that's me holding him to a much higher standard due to him being a police officer. I don't think he should be criminally prosecuted or personally liable.

Time, place, and manner restrictions, applied in a viewpoint-neutral manner, have been repeatedly held to be fully compliant with the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to scream directly in someone's face, if that would be disorderly conduct in any other circumstance.

So you really think that cowering in your home, as the cited person on twitter was saying, is a valid thing we should accept as a society?

After the government and media messaging circa 2019-2021, I think that would be an unequivocal yes from the vast majority.

People are regularly charged and very infrequently prosecuted. I have completely lost confidence in the ability of the judicial system to appropriately punish violence by left-wing agitators.

They're not obliged but neither should that be a veto of federal enforcement. From what I gather, more deportations have actually occurred in states that are cooperating, but with no real drama. If the locals do not want to cooperate even to the extent of refusing to enforce blatant lawbreaking when directed at targets they deem acceptable (and how's that for your selective enforcement, by the way), they can't complain that the enforcement measures are harsher there.

Was anyone anywhere unaware that the U.S. does in fact have the ability to seize Greenland by force? I understand it's politic to pretend that this is irrelevant, but I think a lot of people have started to think it really is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant, and it's fair to remind people: we're negotiating not because we have to, but because we want to.

I'd agree it's risky, but not reckless. People should generally be free to act under the assumption that someone will not try to murder them under any circumstance that they are not immediately threatening the lives of others. I have no interest in bending social convention to accommodate the homicidal.

I think it's relevant that the pardoned Jan 6 people, most of whom were nonviolent, had already served far more time in custody at the time of their pardon than almost any lefty protestors did. I happen to agree they should have been charged but the sentences were absurd.

I also thought his comment yesterday about how vital states rights are to resisting the federal government interfering with the agricultural productivity of its non citizens to be a little too on the nose. (The phrase "way of life" especially.)

Picked up Planet Crafter to play with my sister. It's a mild first-person survival game built on the concept of surviving, exploring, and terraforming a planet. Nowhere near the depth of, say, Terraforming Mars, and sometimes too much running around from one place to another, but reasonably good-looking and low on system requirements.

I am attacking the ICE agents for poor police work culminating in a legal but avoidable shooting.

I think it is a valid criticism that ICE agents are not well-trained for performing this kind of policework. But it is the local officials who have forced them into this role, by refusing to allow local police who are better-trained for this to do their jobs. If those officials truly want to de-escalate, they should start arresting people who obstruct ICE themselves, rather than treating them as outlaws.

What would be the basis for sanctions? Has not Denmark already committed to respecting the decision of the Greenlandic population on the question of political separation?

North American indigenous people have also been some of the most patriotic and fiercest fighters for the United States.

Additional possible reasons:

  • To exercise jurisdictional authority on territorial water. This seems like the strongest reason to me. Denmark allows US military bases, but Denmark can and will allow any activities in the Greenland territorial waters that they want. Interests may not be aligned because the U.S. is (almost entirely) responsible for naval security but Denmark has the policy authority. The U.S. would very much prefer to have both.

  • It is a prime location for Golden Dome ABM infrastructure. While Denmark has permitted military bases, they may not allow more distributed infrastructure deployments that such installations might require, and they may have agreed or will agree to anti-missile-defense treaties which would prohibit its deployment in their territory.

But it just seems obvious to me that "find a guy if you knew where he was yesterday, already suspected he might run, and had arbitrary amounts of time to tag him however you wanted" should not be a problem for an efficient state apparatus at our current level of technological development.

I don't understand why this seems obvious to you. This is a big country, with lots of people, and not a lot of patience for civic duties. It is far more than a trivial matter to track the activities of someone who does not want to be tracked. People here generally are not comfortable with PRC-levels of domestic surveillance, and if emulating China is the cost of being easy-going with illegal migrants, I doubt very much you will get many willing to pay that price.

There are, it seems obvious to me, technologies (social and literal) that could be employed at scale to make this kind of evasion obviously impossible and not worth attempting

If you are going to strongly stake out this position, I think you have an obligation to spell out what technologies those are. Ankle monitors? Those are usually used for people with ties to the place they are living, as it's much better at monitoring compliance than preventing flight. Common sense tells me recent arrivals with no strong ties to the community would simply throw the ankle monitor in the trash and hitch a ride out of town.

What else are you envisioning?

I think you would have an obligation to state with some precision what orders you think are illegal, or would be illegal, rather than trying to create a cloud of FUD.

If the car is being deliberately driven at you, getting out of the way may be impossible. It doesn't appear that was the case here, but the officer wouldn't have known that at the time.

Is this a Poe? If seems a little too on the nose.

Well, in this case it wasn't the officer who died. I believe most such cases would be similar.

It's entirely possible, probable even, that she both (a) didn't intend to kill ICE agents, but also (b) provoked them quite seriously. ICE agents have been attacked with vehicles already, so it's not all that unreasonable they would anticipate that possibility, and she accelerated right at one in the process of attempting to flee their traffic stop (already a potential felony).

This also doesn't fit your example. Standing behind your car has a clear and temporary purpose: holding the cart for someone. It's not for the purpose of obstructing the car, the car is just inconvenienced as a side effect. A better example would be the escalation into a bar fight.

I think this is where I disagree. The officer standing behind the car is also not for the purpose of obstructing the car, it's for the purpose of effecting the arrest of the person inside the car. This is not like a bar fight at all. Arresting people engaging in obstruction of legitimate police activity is something I want more of, not less of. It seems entirely correct that the police are deliberately constraining the options of someone they are trying to arrest. That's what arrest is.