RugbyRebels

In a country where gun rights take precedence over access to health care? Over worker advocacy? Yeah...

The second amendment is the laziest way of appearing to "fight" for your constituents and you can make a comfortable career based around that alone (ask Taylor-Greene and Boebert). The only way forward is to take the money out of the picture, which means getting money out of politics. A huge ask, but the only way forward.

Yeah. Not really on the cards is it. Biden of all people would be a surprising one to try and take that on.

The slow realisation in the UK this last week that 'lobbying' might just be a code word for 'bribery' has been sort of entertaining, but the US system seems to be fundamentally built on open corruption.

Why do you think Elizabeth Warren gets shut out of the picture so often?

Because she performs badly on a nationwide basis

Chauvin guilty on all counts. Jury unanimous. Please, please let this an agent for change

If the USA was on the verge of trying to be normal it'd be possible to know if this ad was an intentional farce

I share your cynicism, but now is not the moment for Big Dan.

There remains a reality to dealing with concerns about access to guns and reimagining the police, the courts, the prisons

Digby wrote:There remains a reality to dealing with concerns about access to guns and reimagining the police, the courts, the prisons

With today’s events being an important stepping stone . Big Dan is a sideshow in an increasingly redundant circus.

Trump lost by less than 50k votes. I have a certain lack of faith

Digby wrote:Trump lost by less than 50k votes. I have a certain lack of faith

There are communities here that would take issue with your lack of faith.

Trump lost the popular vote by just over 7 million incidentally. I take your point, but take issue with you lying down like an All Black team in a World Cup semifinal.

Be best baby.

morepork wrote:Chauvin guilty on all counts. Jury unanimous. Please, please let this an agent for change

I was not expecting that result at all, despite his obvious guilt. I was sure that the, "Yes, he continued kneeling on the guy's neck and refusing medical treatment for 3 minutes after he was noted to having stopped breathing and having no pulse, but maybe it was carbon monoxide, you can't know for sure," defence was going to see him get a maximum of manslaughter. Good sign for the USA and hopefully this is the precedent that means more juries will find guilty cops guilty.

I do worry that Trumpmerica will see it as a fix and a travesty and head even further to the nutjob side though.

Puja

That feeling of relief as the George Floyd murder trial verdict comes in.

American cops kill another black kid: http://www.thedailybeast.com/columbus-p ... comes-down

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:Trump lost by less than 50k votes. I have a certain lack of faith

There are communities here that would take issue with your lack of faith.

Trump lost the popular vote by just over 7 million incidentally. I take your point, but take issue with you lying down like an All Black team in a World Cup semifinal.

Be best baby.

It's not about lying down, it's just it's going to be hard to make progress. It's going to take patience, and that's something in precious short supply.

Which Tyler wrote: American cops kill another black kid: http://www.thedailybeast.com/columbus-p ... comes-down

This one isn't remotely in the same league, this one looks to be nailed on justified tbh given the risk she was presenting to others. Maybe something else could have been done earlier, and I also have no idea just wtf was happening here even before the police got involved, but this looks much more like saving someone in discharging a firearm then simply electing to harm someone

Lol. 'Nailed on justified' & 'I don't have a clue wtf was going on here'. Perfect.

It's clearly not the same scenario as Chauvin/Floyd, but I think the instinct to simply execute people in these situations is a large part of what people have an issue with. Maybe this 15 year old girl required several gunshots to prevent her from being a threat, but I'm not sure how you've concluded that without seeing the incident. Or is there a video?

There is video

I meant one that you'd seen and concluded she needed to be shot several times. I genuinely don't know, I haven't seen it.

At the point she's shot she's about to knife/stab someone else. So in the instant of the shooting I have little sympathy. I have however no idea what led to a situation wherein she felt the need to be attacking someone else, nor do I know if the police could have done anything earlier. But in the actual moment of the shooting it does seem reasonable to shoot first to protect others and then ask questions

Shoot first. Ask later. Brilliant. Why is it always the gun that is the response of choice in the first instance?


Social meja is alight with white culture war warriors claiming the justice system has bowed to a terrorist group, which they claim BLM is. When they say 'Muricans don't do irony, some of them do it less than others. Fuck me its pathetic how far the culture warriors will go out of their way to erect a flashing neon "I'm a racist bell end terrified of diversity and am struggling not to show it" sign on their front lawn.

I'm happy to agree in many instances, such as the recent confusion between a taser and gun, highlight police can be far too quick for search for a violent solution. This latest shooting where someone was about to be assaulted is just a bad example of that, in this instance the officer can choose to protect the person attempting the stabbing or the person about to be the victim of the stabbing, both once such point of escalation has been reached isn't an option. And in that instance I think protecting the person about to become a victim is a reasonable call

Digby wrote:I'm happy to agree in many instances, such as the recent confusion between a taser and gun, highlight police can be far too quick for search for a violent solution. This latest shooting where someone was about to be assaulted is just a bad example of that, in this instance the officer can choose to protect the person attempting the stabbing or the person about to be the victim of the stabbing, both once such point of escalation has been reached isn't an option. And in that instance I think protecting the person about to become a victim is a reasonable call

Frankly, I'm not sure I trust any initial information put out by the police after a shooting. The "young adult who had a gun in his hand" just recently who turned out to be an unarmed 13 year old boy who was running away springs to mind. Plus someone just shared this - the original police version of events in George Floyd's death:
Puja

Shoot once yeah, unload no

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm happy to agree in many instances, such as the recent confusion between a taser and gun, highlight police can be far too quick for search for a violent solution. This latest shooting where someone was about to be assaulted is just a bad example of that, in this instance the officer can choose to protect the person attempting the stabbing or the person about to be the victim of the stabbing, both once such point of escalation has been reached isn't an option. And in that instance I think protecting the person about to become a victim is a reasonable call

Frankly, I'm not sure I trust any initial information put out by the police after a shooting. The "young adult who had a gun in his hand" just recently who turned out to be an unarmed 13 year old boy who was running away springs to mind. Plus someone just shared this - the original police version of events in George Floyd's death:



Puja

So watch the video. It's not especially ambiguous, unless it's horrifically edited. The young lass killed is leaping to try and stab someone, maybe there was a spare 0.1 of second or so to think of something else, but if this incident gets tagged on to what are some problem killings it gets much easier to dismiss concerns

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm happy to agree in many instances, such as the recent confusion between a taser and gun, highlight police can be far too quick for search for a violent solution. This latest shooting where someone was about to be assaulted is just a bad example of that, in this instance the officer can choose to protect the person attempting the stabbing or the person about to be the victim of the stabbing, both once such point of escalation has been reached isn't an option. And in that instance I think protecting the person about to become a victim is a reasonable call

Frankly, I'm not sure I trust any initial information put out by the police after a shooting. The "young adult who had a gun in his hand" just recently who turned out to be an unarmed 13 year old boy who was running away springs to mind. Plus someone just shared this - the original police version of events in George Floyd's death:



Puja

So watch the video. It's not especially ambiguous, unless it's horrifically edited. The young lass killed is leaping to try and stab someone, maybe there was a spare 0.1 of second or so to think of something else, but if this incident gets tagged on to what are some problem killings it gets much easier to dismiss concerns

Its part of the same culture of wrong you fucking doughnut. Would two people be dead if the cop hadn't been there to kill one?