Sign in to follow this  
Mid

Black Lives Matter

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

:lol: guy championing the communist party line towards protesters lamenting socialism

You are a lying sack of shit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

:lol: guy championing the communist party line towards protesters lamenting socialism

You take issue that I trade with Chinese people because you are a racist?  You don't like Chinese people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I see the federal forces, who display no identifying information and operate outside the parameters typically followed by a police force as being brought in as a show of power.  President Trump wants to be perceived as a "wartime President" and Erik Prince seems like just the guy to make that happen.  That was exemplified by the clubbing, gassing, and shooting of US citizens - all captured on videotape.  The violence grew out of their presence.  The Mayor and the Governor asked them to leave, knowing their presence and actions were incendiary.

The first violent rioting occurred on May 29 following protests against the systemically racist police and long before the occupation by the fascist federal storm troopers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

The first violent rioting occurred on May 29 following protests against the systemically racist police and long before the occupation by the fascist federal storm troopers.

 

So.... it’s not about damage to federal property anymore. It’s about you rubbing a good law n’ order out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jzk said:

If you don't agree with my socialist ideology, then you are a racist.  Same song, different day.

She is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of that particular right wing trope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jzk said:

You take issue that I trade with Chinese people because you are a racist?  You don't like Chinese people?

There's a lot more than "race"

If that's the only thing, or the primary thing you see, then you are a racist

I take issue with you proclaiming the joys of capitalism (in the stupidest, least correct way possible) while profiting from Chinese labor abuse and pollution.

And you apparently believe that citizens do not have the right to protest without getting shot in the face by unidentified federal agents.

Perhaps you should simply go and live in China, it's a better fit.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, jzk said:

You take issue that I trade with Chinese people because you are a racist?  You don't like Chinese people?

And again, jerkz takes a Chinese communist party Line.  This one that the party = the people. It’s amazing how you are the dumbest motherfucker here jerkz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks as if she needs to use the thumb to hold down her index finger or it doesn’t work.

116017212_10223099863353731_532440962173

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dog said:

The first violent rioting occurred on May 29 following protests against the systemically racist police and long before the occupation by the fascist federal storm troopers.

 

Were the state and local officials overwhelmed and requested Federal help?  No.  They weren't, and they didn't.

President Trump said he would "dominate" these cities.  I guess that tough talk sends a tingle up your leg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

There's a lot more than "race"

If that's the only thing, or the primary thing you see, then you are a racist

I take issue with you proclaiming the joys of capitalism (in the stupidest, least correct way possible) while profiting from Chinese labor abuse and pollution.

And you apparently believe that citizens do not have the right to protest without getting shot in the face by unidentified federal agents.

Perhaps you should simply go and live in China, it's a better fit.

- DSK

Try making a case for something without lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

You've changed your mind?

- DSK

Of course I have changed my mind.  A few years ago, I changed my mind about immigration.  But what does that have to do with you being a lying sack of shit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

Of course I have changed my mind.  A few years ago, I changed my mind about immigration.  But what does that have to do with you being a lying sack of shit?

Projection is the tool the reichies like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2020 at 2:49 PM, Steam Flyer said:

So, how many people in your family have been lynched? How many times has your family's home been burned to the ground, and they (you) fled with nothing? How many times has your family had a business burned? How many years has your family paid excessive interest rates because banks knew they could refuse you altogether? Or paid excessive rent because landlords etc etc? College etc etc....

The black/white disparity in wealth and income is very largely a result of white supremacy and white privilege

- DSK

Are you seriously suggesting that the lack of occurrence is indicative of extra privilege?   Not being similarly disadvantaged != being privileged. 

I think that you're being myopic if you think that financial institutions only took/take advantage of minorities - even today, banks and unscrupulous lenders are preying on anyone, w/out regard to race, doing what you're trying to ascribe as "white privilege".     Just stop. We can agree that our nation and its institutions have a sordid history of repression and exploitation.  We don't agree that that history means that everyone who's not black enjoyed some extra privilege. There's an awful lotta poor struggling white people too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Are you seriously suggesting that the lack of occurrence is indicative of extra privilege?   Not being similarly disadvantaged != being privileged. 

I think that you're being myopic if you think that financial institutions only took/take advantage of minorities - even today, banks and unscrupulous lenders are preying on anyone, w/out regard to race, doing what you're trying to ascribe as "white privilege".     Just stop. We can agree that our nation and its institutions have a sordid history of repression and exploitation.  We don't agree that that history means that everyone who's not black enjoyed some extra privilege. There's an awful lotta poor struggling white people too.  

Well, sure. Not EVERY black family has had a home or business burned out.

BTW this didn't just happen, oops. This was a deliberate assault on black people, as a group.

Yes, there are a lot of struggling poor white people.

However, as a group, there is a big gap in wealth and income, and there is a big LOSS on the part of one group that the other did not have.... inflicted on them by the other....

This is the raw basic facts. Don't like it, tough. Hard to deal with reality when you keep sticking your head in the sand.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, sure. Not EVERY black family has had a home or business burned out.

BTW this didn't just happen, oops. This was a deliberate assault on black people, as a group.

Yes, there are a lot of struggling poor white people.

However, as a group, there is a big gap in wealth and income, and there is a big LOSS on the part of one group that the other did not have.... inflicted on them by the other....

This is the raw basic facts. Don't like it, tough. Hard to deal with reality when you keep sticking your head in the sand.

- DSK

The reality that you seem to be avoiding is that somehow or another every person not of color is responsible for the plight of every person of color, without regard to any other consideration of circumstance or behavior.  It's that attitude that I challenge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Were the state and local officials overwhelmed and requested Federal help?  No.  They weren't, and they didn't.

President Trump said he would "dominate" these cities.  I guess that tough talk sends a tingle up your leg.

They didn't need an invitation to do their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

They didn't need an invitation to do their job.

Policing cities is the job of the Federal government?  That's news to me.  And, to folks far more knowledgeable about the US Constitution than either of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Trump’s Use of Federal Forces in Cities Differs From Past Presidents

This moment is notably different from 1968, when local officials requested federal troops to restore order in Washington, Chicago and Baltimore because they believed they could not do it themselves. It’s different from Oxford, Miss., in 1962, or Little Rock in 1957, when local officials were openly defying federal court orders to desegregate.

“I don’t think there’s anywhere near the same kind of consensus at the federal level that federal authority is actually being subverted” today, said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “What’s new and troubling here is we have a very, very contested factual predicate. And it’s not remotely clear to me what federal laws are going unenforced.”

If the federal presence in Portland were meant to restore order, it would have made more sense to send in National Guard officers, who have served and trained for such a role, not Customs and Border Protection agents, Mr. Vladeck said. Confrontations there have escalated since the arrival of federal forces, with a line of protesting mothers facing tear gas, and then, Wednesday night, Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland experiencing the same.

“This is the very thing that scared the heck out of the framers of the Constitution,” said Barry Friedman, a law professor at New York University. “There’s been an over-tendency to cry wolf,” he said of the president’s critics over the past four years. “Well, this is wolf. This is it.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Policing cities is the job of the Federal government?  That's news to me.  And, to folks far more knowledgeable about the US Constitution than either of us.

Protecting federal property is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Protecting federal property is.

Are you of the opinion they stayed on Federal property and limited their actions to protecting Federal property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Federal Agents Push Into Portland Streets, Stretching Limits of Their Authority

Federal agents are venturing blocks from the buildings they were sent to protect. Oregon officials say they are illegally taking on the role of riot police.

Isn't the federal jurisdiction described by the borders of the country?   Seems to me that they aren't bound by the geographical boundaries that state/local PDs are.  So - I'd posit that "venturing blocks away" isn't really the issue, but would agree that interfering in local enforcement actions w/out being asked to do so is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

However, as a group, there is a big gap in wealth and income, and there is a big LOSS on the part of one group that the other did not have.... inflicted on them by the other....

This is the raw basic facts. Don't like it, tough. Hard to deal with reality when you keep sticking your head in the sand.

 

The reality that you seem to be avoiding is that somehow or another every person not of color is responsible for the plight of every person of color, without regard to any other consideration of circumstance or behavior.  It's that attitude that I challenge. 

You're ain't "challenging" shit, you're just continuing to deny and play up your sense of white victimhood.

Poor you, you feel like you're getting blamed when you never owned a single slave, never burned a single black family's house. Maybe if you did, you'd feel better about getting blamed for it?

When a disaster befalls a group of people, the human thing to do is to at the very least extend sympathy.

Unless you don't see them as human.

Getting mad at the people who acknowledge it is a shitty reaction.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Isn't the federal jurisdiction described by the borders of the country?   Seems to me that they aren't bound by the geographical boundaries that state/local PDs are.  So - I'd posit that "venturing blocks away" isn't really the issue, but would agree that interfering in local enforcement actions w/out being asked to do so is. 

How about the lack of identity

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Isn't the federal jurisdiction described by the borders of the country?   Seems to me that they aren't bound by the geographical boundaries that state/local PDs are.  So - I'd posit that "venturing blocks away" isn't really the issue, but would agree that interfering in local enforcement actions w/out being asked to do so is. 

There is broad agreement among legal scholars that the federal government has the right to protect its buildings. But how far that authority extends into a city — and which tactics may be employed — is less clear.

Robert Tsai, a professor at the Washington College of Law at American University, said the nation’s founders explicitly left local policing within the jurisdiction of local authorities.

He questioned whether the federal agents had the right to extend their operations blocks away from the buildings they are protecting.

“If the federal troops are starting to wander the streets, they appear to be crossing the line into general policing, which is outside their powers,” Professor Tsai said.

Homeland Security officials say they are operating under a federal statute that permits federal agents to venture outside the boundaries of the courthouse to “conduct investigations” into crimes against federal property or officers.

But patrolling the streets and detaining or tear-gassing protesters go beyond that legal authority, said David Lapan, the former spokesman for the agency when it was led by John Kelly, Mr. Trump’s first secretary of homeland security.

 

“That’s not an investigation,” Mr. Lapan said. “That’s just a show of force.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You're ain't "challenging" shit, you're just continuing to deny and play up your sense of white victimhood.

Poor you, you feel like you're getting blamed when you never owned a single slave, never burned a single black family's house. Maybe if you did, you'd feel better about getting blamed for it?

When a disaster befalls a group of people, the human thing to do is to at the very least extend sympathy.

Unless you don't see them as human.

Getting mad at the people who acknowledge it is a shitty reaction.

- DSK

There's a HUGE difference between "offering sympathy" ( and I don't think that sympathy is the appropriate reaction - EMPATHY is) and refuting an absolute BS narrative that incites opposition to what should be a universally supported cause.   I don't have any sense of "white victimhood" - and my disagreeing with the concept of "white privilege" and the way that that phrase is being used today doesn't in any way equate to what you allege. Funny how you think you know what every one else is feeling/thinking/doing, and how they should move to what YOU think they should be feeling/thinking/doing.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

How about the lack of identity

- DSK

In all sincerity - I don't know *what* the law says about that, but I think that if they expect to be afforded the consideration of a legitimate law enforcement entity, that they oughta be wearing SOME external indication of being a member of that entity. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

There's a HUGE difference between "offering sympathy" ( and I don't think that sympathy is the appropriate reaction - EMPATHY is) and refuting an absolute BS narrative that incites opposition to what should be a universally supported cause.   I don't have any sense of "white victimhood" - and my disagreeing with the concept of "white privilege" and the way that that phrase is being used today doesn't in any way equate to what you allege. Funny how you think you know what every one else is feeling/thinking/doing, and how they should move to what YOU think they should be feeling/thinking/doing.   

OK, so you have EMPATHY for black people, and that's why you think they don't have 2A rights, and why it pisses you off to mention that they have suffered lynching and mob violence, inflicting on them tremendous social and economic costs that continue to this day.

And instead of acknowledging this, you get mad when it's mentioned... that's how much EMPATHY you appear to have

Thanks for clearing that up.

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

OK, so you have EMPATHY for black people, and that's why you think they don't have 2A rights, and why it pisses you off to mention that they have suffered lynching and mob violence, inflicting on them tremendous social and economic costs that continue to this day.

And instead of acknowledging this, you get mad when it's mentioned... that's how much EMPATHY you appear to have

Thanks for clearing that up.

- DSK

Where in the world do you come up with this BS?  I've NEVER said anything even remotely like that.  Mebbe you oughta try slowing down on your replies, to give yourself at least a few seconds to read and understand what was written before you rub more of the paint off the keyboard. 

Look up the definition of each word, and tell me which one you think is more appropriate, and why.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Where in the world do you come up with this BS?  I've NEVER said anything even remotely like that.  Mebbe you oughta try slowing down on your replies, to give yourself at least a few seconds to read and understand what was written before you rub more of the paint off the keyboard. 

Look up the definition of each word, and tell me which one you think is more appropriate, and why.  

If you have expressed something recognizable as EMPATHY for the tremendous losses inflicted on black people in America, by white people, then I apologize. I have not read every single one of your posts, ever.

But the ones I do read, you express anger that it is even mentioned. If that's not your intention, perhaps you should think a little more about what you're trying to communicate, and do it better. My reading comprehension, or your poor writing? Dunno, but in all honesty, I have never seen you post ANYTHING that suggests you have "empathy" for the inequities black Americans are burdened with.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Where in the world do you come up with this BS?  I've NEVER said anything even remotely like that.  Mebbe you oughta try slowing down on your replies, to give yourself at least a few seconds to read and understand what was written before you rub more of the paint off the keyboard. 

Look up the definition of each word, and tell me which one you think is more appropriate, and why.  

What you actually say is of no consequence to SF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jzk said:

You are a lying sack of shit.

You love you some hard-ass police tactics against people interfering with traffic.

Chicom started, Trump continues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If you have expressed something recognizable as EMPATHY for the tremendous losses inflicted on black people in America, by white people, then I apologize. I have not read every single one of your posts, ever.

But the ones I do read, you express anger that it is even mentioned. If that's not your intention, perhaps you should think a little more about what you're trying to communicate, and do it better. My reading comprehension, or your poor writing? Dunno, but in all honesty, I have never seen you post ANYTHING that suggests you have "empathy" for the inequities black Americans are burdened with.

- DSK

Probably a combination of both.   I suspect that you equate my haranguing on the posters in here who ( I think wrongly) project their own personal prejudices as someone else's sinister intent w/a lack of understanding and empathy.  I get that - and appreciate the push.  I *do* have empathy, and an understanding based upon spending several of my childhood years living in the projects outside Baltimore after my folks split up, and remaining in contact to this day with several of the families I met back then. 

So - I understand the inequities.  I haven't lived them personally, but, I've lived with the folks who did.

While it's a factor, I disagree with the suggestion that in the past 50 years that intentional discrimination is the biggest contributor to those inequities, while intentionally discounting any other contributing factor.   Are folks experiencing the impact of post-civil war era discrimination, felt exponentially thru generations?  No doubt.  

If we waved a magic wand and made everyone color blind tomorrow, those inequities would persist, because we haven't done enough to address any of the other causalities.  I also think, and based upon the many people I've seen rise above the circumstances of their childhood, that addressing those other causalities would have a bigger positive impact in personal outcomes.  That improvement in personal outcomes also results in a reduction of discrimination.  SO - I can understand how you think that my focus on those other causalities would seem like a lack of empathy, but, what it really is is a different idea about the best way to help change things to improve personal outcomes by addressing the causal factors, and while many of those are systemic, a good many are individual as well.  

So - the discussion, IMHO, shouldn't be "are you a racist because...."  it should instead be: How do we identify and correct any discriminatory barriers, while simultaneously identifying and discussing solutions for the other causalities that I mention, while being careful not to dilute either focus by conflating the two. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Protecting federal property is.

Are you of the opinion they stayed on Federal property and limited their actions to protecting Federal property?

Waiting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Waiting....

I believe their operations have been atypical for a occupying force. Early on they operated in the area around the court and more recently have stayed on federal property itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

I believe their operations have been atypical for a occupying force. Early on they operated in the area around the court and more recently have stayed on federal property itself.

So, you admit they strayed from Federal property.  There may be hope for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

I believe their operations have been atypical for a occupying force. Early on they operated in the area around the court and more recently have stayed on federal property itself.

So, you admit they strayed from Federal property.  There may be hope for you.

Lotta wiggle room in that statement.

But it was not a blatant and obvious fuckin' lie.

Good Dog

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

So, you admit they strayed from Federal property.  There may be hope for you.

Federal agents do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Are they permitted to do that?

Of course. They do it every day all across this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Of course. They do it every day all across this country.

They operate as law enforcement on non-federal property "every day all across the country"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

They operate as law enforcement on non-federal property "every day all across the country"?

Absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

When did non violent protest become a federal crime?

When Wm Barr took over as AG? What do I win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dog said:
6 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

They operate as law enforcement on non-federal property "every day all across the country"?

Absolutely.

Amazing how an architect believes he has a better grasp of limitations brought about by the Constitution than Law professors and Constitutional scholars.

Maybe you could contact some of those scholars who don't get it featured in the link I provided In Post #2123 and straighten them out. 

I am sure they would appreciate the correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Amazing how an architect believes he has a better grasp of limitations brought about by the Constitution than Law professors and Constitutional scholars.

Maybe you could contact some of those scholars who don't get it featured in the link I provided In Post #2123 and straighten them out. 

I am sure they would appreciate the correction.

I don't know about that but I do know federal agents are at work today all across this country enforcing laws and making arrests. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't know about that but I do know federal agents are at work today all across this country enforcing laws and making arrests. 

He's playing with you gents, at some point he'll say "The FBI works all over the USofA"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dog said:

I don't know about that but I do know federal agents are at work today all across this country enforcing laws and making arrests. 

On that point, I would agree.  They are also identifiable and follow due process. 

Much different than what has been happening in Portland.

I trust even you can see the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

On that point, I would agree.  They are also identifiable and follow due process. 

Much different than what has been happening in Portland.

I trust even you can see the difference.

Not so, many are undercover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dog said:

Not so, many are undercover. 

Identification is not limited to a name badge.

Do they hide their identity (even refusing to do so) when throwing people in unmarked vehicles for transport to undisclosed locations without Mirandizing them?

Asking for people interested in the Rule of Law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dog said:

Not so, many are undercover.

:lol::lol:

Post of the week here..... federal cops HAVE to be undercover when protecting federal property from graffiti....

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal eagle on YouTube has a long and comprehensive video on the laws regarding federal police activity. Solid analysis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raz'r said:

You love you some hard-ass police tactics against people interfering with traffic.

Chicom started, Trump continues

Just enough force to remove them.  They can decide how much that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Identification is not limited to a name badge.

Do they hide their identity (even refusing to do so) when throwing people in unmarked vehicles for transport to undisclosed locations without Mirandizing them?

Asking for people interested in the Rule of Law.

Do you think it is required to read the Miranda rights to every suspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a very easy solution to the issue of Federal troops in PDX...... the protesters can stop their attempts at destroying or defacing federal property and the Fed troops will go home.  Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

There's a very easy solution to the issue of Federal troops in PDX...... the protesters can stop their attempts at destroying or defacing federal property and the Fed troops will go home.  Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

:lol: gold!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jzk said:
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Identification is not limited to a name badge.

Do they hide their identity (even refusing to do so) when throwing people in unmarked vehicles for transport to undisclosed locations without Mirandizing them?

Asking for people interested in the Rule of Law.

Do you think it is required to read the Miranda rights to every suspect?

When they are being arrested, yes.

But, these goons weren't arresting anyone.  What they did was akin to kidnapping.

Do you think the paramilitary corps in Portland was acting as undercover federal officers, like Dog suggests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

There's a very easy solution to the issue of Federal troops in PDX...... the protesters can stop their attempts at destroying or defacing federal property and the Fed troops will go home.  Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Because graffiti justifies unidentifiable Fed agents kidnapping American citizens... on top of all the beating and gassing and rubber-bullet-shooting that went on....

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

When they are being arrested, yes.

But, these goons weren't arresting anyone.  What they did was akin to kidnapping.

Do you think the paramilitary corps in Portland was acting as undercover federal officers, like Dog suggests?

This is no obligation or right to be read Miranda rights.  Only if the police want to be able to question the suspect while in custody and admit the suspect's statements as evidence does Miranda need to be read.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

This is no obligation or right to be read Miranda rights.  Only if the police want to be able to question the suspect while in custody and admit the suspect's statements as evidence does Miranda need to be read.  

These unidentifiable goons took those protesters, using unmarked vehicles, to undisclosed locations, and started asking them questions without reading them Miranda. 

You cool with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

5 years? Get a fucking life, or at least graduate out of middle school , anonymous moron. 

Tom's, like, the least anonymous person here.  He's posted under his real name, he's posted pictures of himself, I know what part of Florida he lives in... like, seriously, WTF?

 

 

7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Not being similarly disadvantaged != being privileged. 

Well, actually... Privilege just means you have rights or immunities that others don't.  So... yes.  Not being similarly disadvantaged IS a type of privilege, pretty much by definition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

These unidentifiable goons took those protesters, using unmarked vehicles, to undisclosed locations, and started asking them questions without reading them Miranda. 

You cool with that?

I bet the suspects are.  Without Miranda, the answers are not admissible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jzk said:

I bet the suspects are.  Without Miranda, the answers are not admissible.  

I didn't ask if that type of tactic was acceptable to the person enduring it.  I asked about YOU.

Are you okay with the government employing such tactics against US citizens?

Before you answer, think about Jade Helm and how you felt about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, frenchie said:

 

Well, actually... Privilege just means you have rights or immunities that others don't.  So... yes.  Not being similarly disadvantaged IS a type of privilege, pretty much by definition

In the context of "immunity", I could come closet to accepting the perspective.  That is, if I was legally exempt from prosecution for a behavior that someone else would be prosecuted for.  That hasn't been the case since 1965, though, has it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

I didn't ask if that type of tactic was acceptable to the person enduring it.  I asked about YOU.

Are you okay with the government employing such tactics against US citizens?

Before you answer, think about Jade Helm and how you felt about that.

Were they federal officers/agents?   Did they have a reasonable belief that the suspects committed federal crimes?  

If you commit a crime such as destruction of property, you get arrested.  It is just not all that remarkable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

Tom's, like, the least anonymous person here.  He's posted under his real name, he's posted pictures of himself, I know what part of Florida he lives in... like, seriously, WTF?

Nobody and everybody is anonymous on the internet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jzk said:
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I didn't ask if that type of tactic was acceptable to the person enduring it.  I asked about YOU.

Are you okay with the government employing such tactics against US citizens?

Before you answer, think about Jade Helm and how you felt about that.

Were they federal officers/agents?   Did they have a reasonable belief that the suspects committed federal crimes?  

If you commit a crime such as destruction of property, you get arrested.  It is just not all that remarkable.  

Well, now, nobody really knows who they are, as they refused to identify themselves when asked, and displayed no recognizable markers. If they had a reasonable belief, they didn’t care to communicate that with anyone. 

What they did was abduct US citizens, not arrest them. An arrest carries with it a report. They kidnapped people, held them against their will for hours, then let them go. 

You seem to find this to not be problematic behavior on behalf of the US government, against US citizens, on US soil. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Well, now, nobody really knows who they are, as they refused to identify themselves when asked, and displayed no recognizable markers. If they had a reasonable belief, they didn’t care to communicate that with anyone. 

What they did was abduct US citizens, not arrest them. An arrest carries with it a report. They kidnapped people, held them against their will for hours, then let them go. 

You seem to find this to not be problematic behavior on behalf of the US government, against US citizens, on US soil. 

Not really.  I just asked you what you knew about Miranda, which wasn't very much.  I think it quite reasonable that our public servants be required to identify themselves upon being asked, perhaps with the exception of a truly undercover officer.  

I am a limited government guy.  I have little use for police that harass law abiding citizens.  I would end the war on drugs which would then probably require we have half as much police.  

However, they do have one job.  That is to protect the people from harm from other people including both physical harm and property damage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jzk said:

Not really.  I just asked you what you knew about Miranda, which wasn't very much.  I think it quite reasonable that our public servants be required to identify themselves upon being asked, perhaps with the exception of a truly undercover officer.  

I am a limited government guy.  I have little use for police that harass law abiding citizens.  I would end the war on drugs which would then probably require we have half as much police.  

However, they do have one job.  That is to protect the people from harm from other people including both physical harm and property damage.  

Jerkz loves the jack boot on his uvula. Limited government for him, beatings detention rape and murder for others. It’s why he loves the Chicoms.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

In the context of "immunity", I could come closet to accepting the perspective.  That is, if I was legally exempt from prosecution for a behavior that someone else would be prosecuted for.  That hasn't been the case since 1965, though, has it? 

SF was pointing to the lingering effects of lynching, redlining, etc.  That was the context for your saying:

20 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

We don't agree that that history means that everyone who's not black enjoyed some extra privilege.

But, since later you acknowledge that:

17 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Are folks experiencing the impact of post-civil war era discrimination, felt exponentially thru generations?  No doubt.  

We're basically only arguing about semantics, at this point, I think. Otherwise, you're contradicting yourself?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 618,000 guys killed in the civil war their families and descendants did not benefit from slavery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bus Driver said:
17 hours ago, Dog said:

I don't know about that but I do know federal agents are at work today all across this country enforcing laws and making arrests. 

On that point, I would agree.  They are also identifiable and follow due process. 

I think the "equitable sharing" practiced by drug war joint task forces would be more appropriately described as doodoo process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 11:00 AM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

You do every day.

just pointing out that your bullshitting about racism falls apart there. It’s ok - this is all fiction for your entertainment so you can rub one out imaging you are swinging the truncheon against a leftist. It’s violence perpetrated by the feds for viral content. It’s beating up white suburban moms on trumps command for you to get a boner.

No one believes that rhetoric.  The far left DEMs and leftist MSM can push it,  you can copy it and continue to push it, but no one actually believes.  Too much evidence to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Were the state and local officials overwhelmed and requested Federal help?  No.  They weren't, and they didn't.

President Trump said he would "dominate" these cities.  I guess that tough talk sends a tingle up your leg.

The state and local officials abandoned their responsibility.  That is why the FEDs are there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 11:07 AM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Because police beat them up. what kind of dumb fucking white African doesn’t get police violence ain’t a long term solution?

What is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2020 at 11:07 AM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Because police beat them up. what kind of dumb fucking white African doesn’t get police violence ain’t a long term solution?

What is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Venom said:

Looks as if she needs to use the thumb to hold down her index finger or it doesn’t work.

116017212_10223099863353731_532440962173

More proof this is not about race.  If if race isn’t the issue, and the rate of whites getting killed during confrontations with the police is not a concern,  what exactly needs to change to reduce the rate at which blacks are killed during confrontation with police?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

The 618,000 guys killed in the civil war their families and descendants did not benefit from slavery.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur.

?

And while I've got you  -  why are you avoiding the "spelling is racist" thread you started?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, frenchie said:

That's a bit of a non-sequitur.

?

And while I've got you  -  why are you avoiding the "spelling is racist" thread you started?

Now he gonna avoid this thread, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

The 618,000 guys killed in the civil war their families and descendants did not benefit from slavery.

Mine did, ya dumb bitch. Shit, the termination of reconstruction was all about preserving & restoring white rule & white power in the south. It was about making sure the benefits didnt go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

The 618,000 guys killed in the civil war their families and descendants did not benefit from slavery.

??

This is one of the stupidest lies you've tried to push

Did the Confederate soldiers that owned slaves benefit from slavery? Their families and descendants who kept thier slave-built property (ie the majority)? Did Jefferson Davis benefit from slavery?

- DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites