x-ray peat
Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 2,343
Thought that was pretty uncharacteristic of you to side with "the Man." lolI was mocking davidfoster but I blew my cover with the alluh akbar.
Merry christmas try not to get shot
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Thought that was pretty uncharacteristic of you to side with "the Man." lolI was mocking davidfoster but I blew my cover with the alluh akbar.
Merry christmas try not to get shot
He lied to the officer, then.I also heard on the Carolla podcast that the victim was intoxicated, which could easily explain him reaching for his shorts.
Sociopaths feign vulnerability.Wouldn't matter if they had used the appropriate protocol.
As far as I'm concerned, this incident was just a bad as the Walter Scott shooting. There is a reason that shooting/stabbing someone in the back has historically been seen as a shameful thing to do. Shooting someone who is several feet away on their hands and knees is equally disgusting. But I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
To be fair, you're referring to a criminal organization by any definition (monopoly on violence, theft (civil asset forfeiture), legal deception, etc), so this practice would fall pretty far down that list.
I was mocking davidfoster but I blew my cover with the alluh akbar.
Merry christmas try not to get shot
He lied to the officer, then.
Sociopaths feign vulnerability.
Nope, "criminal organizations", by definition, don't have a "monopoly" on coercive force (or "violence"). That would be the state, and a crime can't be committed without a state (laws).
That's an interesting perspective. The only hole in that argument is when the law is broken by the government only to be adjudicated and found guilty by the same government. In that case, they can actually be criminal by definition.
Theft and "civil asset forfeiture" are demonstrably separate- looking at the meaning of "forfeit", as opposed to "theft" which is an unlawful seizure of a person's property. Theft cannot be committed without laws, in a state of nature there are no laws and therefore no crimes, except for that of a fundamentally arbitrary code of ethics. Or if you are a Kantian then the morale code is objective but still an argument would inevitably entail some degree of interpretation.
You want to slide down a semantic rabbit-hole here, but we both have lives, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Taxation is therefore not theft, because taxation is an inherent function of the state, and theft being separate as it encompasses any such action not authorized by the state.
Taxation can arguably be called immoral but not theft. In the same way that theft could be called morale but not lawful.
Refer to my first point above.
I would like to remind anyone being moved by this footage that while disturbing, it is still an anecdote. The state is obligated to police/protect a country of well over 300 million inhabitants- many of whom are addicted to a culture of welfare, drugs, and violence. Many others are illegal immigrants formerly from violent cultures. The police department is significantly understaffed in major cities, hence the big pensions and lower standards. Occasionally an unfortunate, brutal, or malevolent incident/ tragedy will occur. It is inevitable.
Logically, one such incident does not equate to a pattern or an epidemic. Too many people, too often (generally with poor math backgrounds) will attribute one or two or a few incidents as indicative of a pattern. Looking at yearly killed by law enforcement seems high, until you look at the years number of violent crimes. The date seems to say that officers spare the lives of criminals, although certain situations such as this should not be tolerated by the judicial system.
That's a nice straw-man you built there, but I don't see a consensus for that argument on this thread. It appears that they failed to give him direct commands that he could reasonably follow, thus creating a confusing state of escalation where the end result was a man losing his life.
There's a rumor going around that the jurors never saw the body cam during the trial, which is false.
What happened at the trial is the prosecutors went with a more difficult charge to prove than they should have, which allowed the murderous cop to walk free (barring appeal).
Maybe foul play involved?
That would not be the first time prosecutors are in cahoots with the defense when it comes to prosecute their own law enforcement.
Joe Rogan is telling everyone the jurors never saw the video.
Missing the point as always.
He lied to the officer, then.
Sociopaths feign vulnerability.
Still trolling?
What's your cover for your #23 post, when Dave wasn't even here?
I think i'm gonna have to bodyslam you and lie on top of you until you choke.
You got that right. No justice. Look at how Hillary gets off scott-free for all her crimes, and the creeps who did 911 (who deserve to have their shitty little criminal country nuked), etc. The people in control think they can do whatever they damn well please, no matter how criminal.Watch the video.
WATCH: Daniel Shaver Police Shooting Video Released
Can you believe that a jury voted to acquit this cop? There is something deeply rotten about American society.
Because subterfuge should be obvious. It's not relevant whether or not Mr. Shaver had any ill intent, and his death should have been avoided.He was so obviously faking it what with the crying and begging for his life.
I'm glad we have officers on the force that can see through that subterfuge.
Maybe you should check out these guys for similar videos without context: https://blacklivesmatter.com/Still trolling?
What's your cover for your #23 post, when Dave wasn't even here?
I think i'm gonna have to bodyslam you and lie on top of you until you choke.
You're so right... but they should at least try to save the Sistine Chapel, and maybe remove all that Nazi gold first.You got that right. No justice. and the creeps who did 911 (who deserve to have their shitty little criminal country nuked), etc. The people in control think they can do whatever they damn well please, no matter how criminal.
You're so right... but they should at least try to save the Sistine Chapel, and maybe remove all that Nazi gold first.