domain:firsttoilthenthegrave.substack.com
Blunicorn
53m ago
Do you have a source for vehicles being fired upon
Alamosa, Colorado - June 4. Alamosa Attorney Charged With Attempted Murder After Shooting Man Driving Through Protest (https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/06/15/alamosa-attorney-james-marshall-attempted-murder-shooting-danny-pruit-protest/) Video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WviznA_clis
Provo, Utah — Jun 30, 2020. Police arrest 2 after man shot during Provo protest. Gunman shot driver, then hid weapon and continued to protest, Provo police say (https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/6/30/21308526/gunman-shot-driver-then-hid-weapon-continued-protest-provo-police-say-blm) Video: https://streamable.com/e/2lpo4b Video (zoomed in and slowed): https://streamable.com/e/hsytix
Aurora, Colorado — July 25, 2020. Car drives through crowd, protester shot in Colorado (https://fox6now.com/2020/07/26/car-drives-through-crowd-protester-shot-in-colorado/) Video: https://streamable.com/e/1y8pbi
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
51m ago
I don't know. I think social norms around the treatment of women, LGBT people, people of different races and lots of other groups were much worse in the past, including in my lifetime. We got here from there somehow.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
44m ago
Sorry, Mods. I really tried not to, but then I did.
Yeah, you did.
History shows two previous warnings, four AAQCs. I don't see the point of a warning here, given that you obviously knew exactly what you were doing and that we don't want you to do it. Banned for a day. Please do not make a habit of this sort of thing; the bans will escalate if you do.
Forgotpassword
40m ago
The 2/10 was largely self-inflicted!
Forgotpassword
38m ago
Coffee Meets Bagel. Not sure how universal it is as an app but kind of focused on this demographic.
MaiqTheTrue
Zensunni Wanderer
38m ago
This is exactly why I think in the tactic of blockades must be made illegal and that law must be enforced. There’s a huge escalation in doing that, in taking over public roads because sitting in a vehicle puts people in a somewhat vulnerable position— escape is hindered by the need to first exit the vehicle, and that people naturally threatened when a crowd of people make moving their car or getting themselves out of their cars dangerous. And it’s hardly surprising that people who are trapped in a vehicle and have no way out are going to kill.
The_Nybbler
Does not have a yacht
34m ago
There is a narrative here where Rittenhouse was found not guilty (correctly) because he did not point his gun at someone and therefore was not threatening, and Foster also did not point his gun at someone so was not threatening and was thus murdered by Perry.
A "narrative" is all it is. It elides a bunch of significant detail in order to claim two things are far more similar than they are, and therefore make out defenders of both Rittenhouse and Perry as hypocrites.
hydroacetylene
32m ago
As the main trade hub for Western Europe it would have had a relatively consistent middle class and some insulation from food shortages.
VoxelVexillologist
Multidimensional Radical Centrist
24m ago
It's a minor thing, but I wonder about the coding of AK-pattern rifles (this case) versus AR types. I know right-leaning folks who own AK patterns, but every example of the right bringing guns to a protest seems to prefer ARs. I assume the American-designed AR is more 'patriotic' than a foreign platform? The AK specifically has all sorts of 'adversary' connotations.
But I suspect there are some here far more familiar with the thinking.
SSCReader
23m ago
Does it? Below someone said that because Foster had his gun angled down, but could have pointed it directly at Perry and fired in an instant that Perry was correct to have felt threatened. But we have video of Rittenhouse wandering around gun pointed low where he also could have brought it up and fired at any of the people around him.
If one of those is a threat then surely the other is, even if we removed them from protest situations and just had them standing on the street minding their own business.
Now i'd say neither should really be taken as a threat in and of themselves granted carrying the rifle around is legal. Because it would mean that we have a tension where a legal activity also grants enough of a threat to createthe right to legal lethal self-defence, which just seems problematicly circular.
non_radical_centrist
6m ago
I think some of those norms made sense in certain contexts. In a world with no condoms and no anti-biotics and no anti-virals, I personally would support some pretty harsh norms to stop the sort of disease spread that would occur if all men felt like they had a free pass to have orgies with each other. Since about the 40s, that began to be rapidly obsolete, with a backtick towards relevant in the 80s with AIDs, and today with even better medicine is back to being very obsolete.
It's interesting because the guy with the rifle was in some sense doing a right wing coded thing. Open carrying a rifle, which in Texas is legal. It's been a left wing talking point that this in and of itself should be considered a threatening act (see Rittenhouse, K). Which means in other circumstances it could quite well have been the case that the right was outraged by the shooting, as open carrying a rifle in and of itself should not be grounds to be seen as threat of violence, that justifies self-defence. In fact if Foster had shot and killed Perry as he was driving a car towards a protest he would have been in the Rittenhouse position! Arguing he brought a rifle to the protest to defend against just such an attack.
Which is why (as with Rittenhouse) the case hinged on whether the rifle was pointed at someone and if this itself constitutes a threat. Only without clear video in this case to show one way or another.
There is a narrative here where Rittenhouse was found not guilty (correctly) because he did not point his gun at someone and therefore was not threatening, and Foster also did not point his gun at someone so was not threatening and was thus murdered by Perry. In that case the left would have a case to argue that they did indeed play by the rules more than the right. Rittenhouse was acquitted. The jury set aside all the political stuff and acquitted him. Perry was found guilty then a political intervention happened. That's how I would contrast the two stories if I were still going to bat for the left in a political sense at least. The left left (hah) it up to the judicial system to decide the right (hah!) outcome, the right refused to do that and blatantly freed a convicted murderer. Might have some bad optics for squishy moderates. But of course plays well with those already convinced. Unlikely to make a difference in Texas, but might have some play if pushed nationally, perhaps.
I suppose to turn the discussion back to you, if you had clear video that Foster did not point his gun at Perry, and was just walking around, would you accept that he like Rittenhouse did not actually threaten someone and thus Perry shooting him was murder?
More options
Context Copy link