Rittenhouse Trial Taught Us This

[Raptorsin7]

1 minute ago, AdroseAkise said:

I’m personally going to get a concealed carry permit, as well as carrying pepper spray when I don’t have a gun on me. These cities are so violent and American people become more and more uncivilized as the years go by.

No one will protect you but yourself.

The society is degenerating into more and more violence, look at all the recent hate crimes against asians in USA. Yet you hear nothing from the media or political channels. Meanwhile, there are calls for abolition of cops lol.

 

[AdroseAkise]

Those accusing Kyle of this or that have simply no knowledge of self defense laws in this country.

[AdroseAkise]

3 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

there are calls for abolition of cops lol.

I never understood the argument to abolish the police, who are we going to call if there’s something serious?

Edited November 20, 2021 by AdroseAkise

[Raptorsin7]

Just now, AdroseAkise said:

I never understood the argument to abolish the police, who are we going to call if there’s serious?

People don't think. They have ideological blinders and make decisions that are in alignment with their ideology.

Cops are a tool of the white supremacist patriarchy, how can you support their existence? Are you a racist bigot?

[DocWatts]

37 minutes ago, AdroseAkise said:

I never understood the argument to abolish the police, who are we going to call if there’s something serious?

This is a straw man argument.

Defund does not mean Abolish. No serious advocacy organization on the Left is calling for abolishment of the police.

What Defund means in this context is demilitarization and reallocating funding from bloated police departments to human services.

Much of what the police are asked to do could be better handled by Social Workers who have actual training on things such as mental health problems, domestic disputes, and substance abuse.

The police would still exist, but the scope of what they are asked to achieve would be reduced; namely responding to violent crime, rather than being asked to be warriors and diplomats and social workers. If someone breaks in to your house or an active shooter is present, you would still call the Police. 

If you're going to argue against Defunding at least respond to the actual arguments and proposals that are being made.

[DocWatts]

Here is what advocacy organizations are actually proposing, as opposed to the straw man characterization of these organizations being about Police Abolition.

[Raptorsin7]

@DocWatts Then why is ACAB a common slogan amongst so many leftists'? 

Or do you disavow the slogan and those who you use it?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_abolition_movement

Do you think most people in these movements are talking about sensible, reform and repurposing? 

I agree with everything on that poster.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Raptorsin7

[Danioover9000]

@Preety_India @Opo @DnoReally @Arcangelo

13 hours ago, Preety_India said:

If you think it is pure self defense, then you also need to consider why people jumped on him. They did it for self defense too. A guy carrying a huge rifle can easily be considered a threat given so many shootings in crowded places. 

The people who either jumped on him or pointed a gun at him thought that they are saving other people from a mad shooter. 

You never  know what is going on in a person's mind when he is carrying a gun through a crowd. 

People attacking him is equally justifiable. @DnoReally. This is not a case of political interpretations or personal delusions before you jump the gun. It is matter of public security. If someone wants to carry a gun for self defense they can hide it and use it when needed. But to carry a rifle around a crowd, walking around which might seem threatening to people is not a great idea, it obviously creates panic and fear at the very least and actions of a panicked crowd cannot be judged. 

He was wrong to do what he did. He was not a police officer to carry a gun. You cannot look at this situation through a hyper logical perspective. You have to take human nature into account and how humans are going to react (and in such a situation there is literally no time to interpret a reaction), to a person carrying a life threatening weapon, and that's not a police officer, that's a teen carrying a huge weapon, it almost has a terrorizing impact on people, that's why it wasn't just one person who jumped on him, many people felt threatened. 

What he did (although might not be criminal in the eyes of law) is an act of public intimidation. Can you blame the public if they felt intimidated? 

The difference is someone is dead. So he wasn't simply carrying a weapon, he actually discharged. 

He could have chosen to not be in that place and avoid provoking. Yet he didn't. It's like he was calling for it. 

Well in that case, it should have been a minimum manslaughter and public intimidation. 

He is kinda lucky that he was declared not guilty. 

Because people have died only on pure  suspicion of carrying a firearm by scared police officers. 

Yet he was actively posing as a threat 

Ridiculous laws. 

 

   Let's rewind a bit from the point of the incident. if it's self defense from the point of view from the rioters that attacked him, then why were they following and chasing Kyle? Is this another form of self defense, to follow and keep provoking a person clearly open carrying an assault rifle? Because from my understand it's self defense when you are defending yourself from an approaching attacker, and it's unusual for it to be considered self defense when the reverse is happening. 

   It's not like they just happened to know Kyle open carrying a rifle out of the blue, The people involved in the incident, the three rioters, were also present several minutes prior to the incident, protesting and shouting at a group of armed men in cameo gear and rifles, and Kyle was among them, and they see and have interacted with him, had a few exchanges with him, back and forth, which did escalate the situation and the group prior, so it's highly likely it's pre meditated for them to follow and give chase, not just to Kyle, but to anyone from that group that separated and wandered off alone.

   Also keep in mind you never know what's going on in the minds of Kyle, the three rioters that chased him, the group of protestors the rioters came from, and the group that Kyle was apart off. Most of what is said about their behavior, thinking and feelings are largely assumptions, both at the gun group and at the protestors, Kyle and the three included.

   Some of the motivations are politically motivated to a degree. The group carrying the guns went to that area in response to the few rioters and looters in the BLM movement destroying public/private property and business stores. They decided to be there as a form of protest against the looting and property damage that was occurring, and to show some support for the police in that area in their own distorted way.

   Yes, Kyle is in the wrong if he's in a different state with different gun laws, but the three that decided to escalate the chase and increase the provocation, and the one that decided to assault Kyle and go for his weapon, is also equally in the wrong, just like the gun group is in the wrong, and the protestors were in the wrong for not screening out the few that would riot, loot and attack anyone defending property.

   The three that decided to escalate the situation are also in the wrong for doing so.

   Kyle discharge in reaction  to the person trying to go for the weapon, and had little time to chose other ways of defending himself, and where to shot. The same person that used a skateboard, as a weapon, against Kyle, knowing full well he was armed. The end result was that person is dead from choosing to attack Kyle, and Kyle surviving that altercation. Another of the three attempted to shot at Kyle as well, making the situation more worse. Keep in mind the majority of the public at that location consisted mostly of BLM protestors, and the three looters that followed Kyle. Just those three and some passerby's were present.

   Keep in mind, this could play out similarly to the O. J. Simpson case, which is that they found him not guilty, but later after many years find hi guilty, from the exact crimes or other offences, so it might be that way.  

[DocWatts]

@Raptorsin7 You realize there's a difference between a serious advocacy organization that's working with policymakers and city governments, and inflammatory remarks said by randos on social media, right? Any social movement with tens of millions of people is to going to have at least some of this. 

Where such 'all cops are pigs' sentiments exist they're counter productive, reductionist, and uncompassionate. Police Abolition is idiotic. Police defunding and reform is sensible.

But at the same time these sentiments don't form in a vacuum, and tend to arise from the lived experiences of people in over policed communities where the lived reality of the Police is closer to an occupying army than as public servants.

Context is important here. A common tactic of reactionaries is to intentionally decontextualize, for example by quoting statistics about 'black on black' crime ignoring generations of socio economic discrimination which forced black communities in to ghettos.

Edited November 20, 2021 by DocWatts

[Raptorsin7]

5 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

and inflammatory remarks said by randos on social media, right? Any social movement with tens of millions of people is to going to have at least some of this. 

The largest political streamer on twitch does exactly that. So not really a few randos on social media is it?

5 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Context is important here. A common tactic of reactionaries is to intentionally decontextualize, for example by quoting statistics about 'black on black' crime ignoring generations of socio economic discrimination which forced black communities in to ghettos.

I agree people can bring this up in a disingenuous way, but wouldn't you agree that the issue of black on black violence is significantly more important and pressing than police violence against black people?

You would think if these movements and the people involved in them were clear thinking, that black violence within their own community would receive the most attention. but alas we have what we have. If you bring this up they label you a racist and shout you down lol. 

[Danioover9000]

@DocWatts

35 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

@Raptorsin7 You realize there's a difference between a serious advocacy organization that's working with policymakers and city governments, and inflammatory remarks said by randos on social media, right? Any social movement with tens of millions of people is to going to have at least some of this. 

Where such 'all cops are pigs' sentiments exist they're counter productive, reductionist, and uncompassionate. Police Abolition is idiotic. Police defunding and reform is sensible.

But at the same time these sentiments don't form in a vacuum, and tend to arise from the lived experiences of people in over policed communities where the lived reality of the Police is closer to an occupying army than as public servants.

Context is important here. A common tactic of reactionaries is to intentionally decontextualize, for example by quoting statistics about 'black on black' crime ignoring generations of socio economic discrimination which forced black communities in to ghettos.

   Police reforms are sensible, but I don't think police defunding is. The change in infrastructure of police would require better police education, training in more efficient self defense and behavioral calibration, adding infrastructures like access to social workers with experience dealing with highly mental/emotionally unstable people tag along with police units in call ins with a higher probability of dealing with such people based on the caller's report, better quality of equipment, mental/emotional/healthcare for the police members who are at higher risk of over stress. All those changes and more REQUIRE FUNDING. Defunding the police unfortunately will make the process of change more slower, not faster.

   I also think, which could be too simplistic here, that some kind of meditation program, use of background noises that induces slight forms of calming, maybe micro psychedelic doses (in a legal and clinically supportive setting) afterwards could help a lot for both the police and those they interact with. It's a bit of a stretch, and even this needs money as well...

[Raptorsin7]

19 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@DocWatts

   Police reforms are sensible, but I don't think police defunding is. The change in infrastructure of police would require better police education, training in more efficient self defense and behavioral calibration, adding infrastructures like access to social workers with experience dealing with highly mental/emotionally unstable people tag along with police units in call ins with a higher probability of dealing with such people based on the caller's report, better quality of equipment, mental/emotional/healthcare for the police members who are at higher risk of over stress. All those changes and more REQUIRE FUNDING. Defunding the police unfortunately will make the process of change more slower, not faster.

   I also think, which could be too simplistic here, that some kind of meditation program, use of background noises that induces slight forms of calming, maybe micro psychedelic doses (in a legal and clinically supportive setting) afterwards could help a lot for both the police and those they interact with. It's a bit of a stretch, and even this needs money as well...

Wait but actually improving the nature of policing would require even more funding for police? Then why would the wise and benevolent men and woman of the political movements rally around a slogan of defund the police?

But when you point out the schizophrenic nature of the movement they label you right wing and a reactionary lol

 

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, Raptorsin7 said:

The largest political streamer on twitch does exactly that. So not really a few randos on social media is it?

If there any streamer in particular you're referring to? If you're referring to Vaush (the one I'm most familiar with), he wants to defund and restructure rather than abolish the police.

1 hour ago, Raptorsin7 said:

I agree people can bring this up in a disingenuous way, but wouldn't you agree that the issue of black on black violence is significantly more important and pressing than police violence against black people?

You would think if these movements and the people involved in them were clear thinking, that black violence within their own community would receive the most attention. but alas we have what we have. If you bring this up they label you a racist and shout you down lol. 

The reason this line of argument is considered racist is because racists intentionally use it to imply that the problems faced by communities of color are caused by inherent flaws in people of color, rather than as a result of generations of structural oppression.

It's a way of victim blaming using eugenic arguments, and of making racism more  palatable. Rather than directly starting that communities of color are inferior to whites, it's implied with a thin veneer of plausible deniability.

That said I don't see everyone who advances this argument as intentionally bigoted, so much as failing to realize how this line of thinking racist in its implications and serves the interests of actual racists.

Edited November 20, 2021 by DocWatts

[Raptorsin7]

Just now, DocWatts said:

If there any streamer in particular you're referring to? If you're referring to Vaush (the one I'm most familiar with), he wants to defund and significantly reform rather abolish the police.

Hasan piker.

1 minute ago, DocWatts said:

The reason this line of argument is considered racist is because racists intentionally use it to imply that the problems faced by communities of color are caused by inherent flaws in black people, rather than as a result of generations of structural oppression.

An argument cannot be racist because those who use it are using it for racist purpose. 

If I said science is awesome, but then all the racists started saying science is awesome, we wouldn't then say that science is awesome is a racist statement.

2 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

imply that the problems faced by communities of color are caused by inherent flaws in black people, rather than as a result of generations of structural oppression.

I'd say almost all of black people's most pressing problems right now can be solved with personal responsibility first and foremost. Imagine having the mindset that the reason you are where you are in life is because of the system and white folk in power. I wonder how said person would succeed.

Go watch Kevin Samuels for a few hours and then tell me that the main issue in the black community is systemic racism

3 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

It's a way of victim blaming using eugenic arguments, and of making racism more  palatable. Rather than directly starting that communities of color are inferior to whites, it's implied with a thin veneer of plausible deniability.

It's about responsibility, not blaming ( but i'll grant that many people do blame). You know what's weird. No one on the left ever talks about the role of personal responsibility in improving the lives of POC. The only people who do it are on the right, so it gets dismissed.

 

[Average Investor]

I spent several hours actually watching the defense of this case and getting a feel for what actually happened. It seems as though the person that gave Kyle the gun was responsible for the gun charges, which they got dropped because the state wanted the person to testify against Kyle. That seemed to actually help his case. He came there to put out fires, provide first aid, and protect businesses. He was carrying the gun to protect himself if he did get attacked, which he did. 

Honestly, if he came there without that gun and was still with the same group, then Kyle would possibly be the one dead. Assuming that things still went similarly to how they did. He managed himself very well and did not just go spouting out bullets. All of the attackers were attempting to apply lethal force to him, and one literally pointed a gun at him. I am not sure how Kyle managed to remain so calm in selecting his targets after being hit in the head so many times. If you watch his own words on the defense it was extremely traumatic to him. He has some serious PTSD from this situation. 

Still he shouldn't have been there in the first place, but he had just as much rights to be there as his attackers. It boggles my mind that people are protesting and upset over the people who died, or got injured from that. Sure, it is sad that it happened, but who is seriously going to defend those guys trying to kill a 17 year old that was running away from them? 

[DocWatts]

51 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Wait but actually improving the nature of policing would require even more funding for police? Then why would the wise and benevolent men and woman of the political movements rally around a slogan of defund the police?

It would require less, not more funding, because it would involve a massive reduction in the scope of what policing would be expected to respond to.

The proper role of policing should be used to respond to violent crime. Literally every other role aside from this that the police are asked to provide would be far better handled by Social Workers and Human Services.

Contrary to popular belief, cops spend only a very small portion of thier time responding to violent crime. The vast majority of situations police respond to are non violent misdemeanors, domestic disputes, mental health problems, and traffic violations.

Right now police are given an impossible job. They're expected to be warriors, diplomats, family counselors, mental health therapists and substance abuse experts. These are far outside the scope of what one profession should reasonably be expected to accomplish.

Also cops do not prevent crime. At best they can respond to a crime that has already happened, or by their visible presence alter where crime happens.

This is because the vast majority of crime has poor material living conditions and economic desperation and despair at its root, that would better be responded to with social spending designed to lift the socio economic floor rather than continuing to pump billions of dollars in to militarized police forces.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by DocWatts

[Arcangelo]

^The world is changing for the better. Actualized.org is  changing for the better.

[Preety_India]

37 minutes ago, Average Investor said:

but who is seriously going to defend those guys trying to kill a 17 year old that was running away from them? 

It could be that they weren't trying to kill him but just disarming an active shooter. Also there are two people dead and 1 injured. Granted that Kyle was defending himself,but he could have chosen to not carry a big rifle and create panic in an already agitated crowd. He can't play cop. 

 

 

[Average Investor]

@Preety_India I've never seen an active shooter run away from their victims. 

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Hasan piker.

Hasan isn't someone who's work I follow, and have had some issues with some of his political takes, so I'll concede the point and won't try to defend someone that I'm not more familiar with.

 

1 hour ago, Raptorsin7 said:

No one on the left ever talks about the role of personal responsibility in improving the lives of POC. The only people who do it are on the right, so it gets dismissed.

The problem is that the Right (conservatives and libertarians) frame personal responsibility in highly self serving, egoic ways.

Framing societal problems with systemic causes as issues of 'personal responsibility' avoids the emotional labor of having to introspect and come to terms with privileges one has taken for granted that aren't available to other people.

Maybe that person you're shitting on isn't poor because they don't work hard, but because they've been dealt a shitty hand in life. No amount of budgeting is going to get somebody of poverty when there are structural barriers that prevent individuals from being able to acquire financial and social capital.

In America, that's taken the form of practices like Red Lining which was designed to prevent black households and communities from being able to purchase homes and aquire wealth, leading to entire communities shoved to the margins of society where economic opportunities were incredibly limited. Over time this becomes a self reinforcing cycle because people aren't given the tools and support they need to better thier circumstances 

You mention that the Left doesn't talk about personal responsibility. This is categorically untrue.

The reality is that the more conscious and developed version of Personal Responsibility is Social Responsibility, which is what the Left advocates for. It means being actively concerned about and advocating for the well being of other people.

It's a more expansive and mature form of responsibility, which is why it's invisible to somebody who has a far more narrow and restrictive circle of concern that's limited to only caring about yourself and your family.

Edited November 20, 2021 by DocWatts