Total posts: 4,222
-->
@TheUnderdog
In Europe and Canada, the conservatives support free college and UHC from what I have heard. So what separates them from the liberals? Why don’t they become liberals if they agree with the left on everything?
the thing you are missing is that the US is WAY to the right of virtually every other 1st world country. Things that are right wing in the US are off the scale crazy in other countries. Things that are "left" in the US are middle of the road normal in most modern countries.
Take universal health care. The idea that poor people should be allowed to die because they can't afford basic health care wouldn't fly for a single second in canada or most of Europe. Anyone so far right wing as to advocate for that would probably be tossed out on their ass. Obama's health care plan was super right wing by European or Canadian standards. But to the right in america it was some sort of communist plot.
So it isn't that liberals and conservatives agree on everything in other countries, it is that the political spectrum in America is super fucked up. So by comparison, it seems like they do.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Similarly, Parler should not be accountable for the DC violence. It was out of their control.
you seem to misunderstand what is happening. They are not being held accountable for the DC violence. If that were true they would be in handcuffs. They are being held accountable for what is happening on their app. Specifically, people calling for the murder of government officials or the overthrow of democracy.
That violates the terms of service of pretty much any company. So they are being removed from app stores. This is exactly what the right has advocated for. They want companies to be able free to do what they want. They want the free market to decide. Well guess what, the market decided it doesn't like advocating for murder and sedition.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
In the seven minute long Scarborough rant, they exclusively showed clashes between police and protestors.
Scarborough is talking about how the police let them in. So your objections seems to be they aren't playing the specific footage you want them to show while the cover the story you claim they aren't covering.
STRANGELY NO QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO GAVE THE ORDER FOR THE POLICE TO "STAND DOWN".
That question is being asked. There are investigations being started into what happened. Why are you insisting no one is asking questions when they are?
IT'S PRETTY HANDY TO BE ABLE TO CALL EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU "TERRORISTS".
they attacked the US government to stop them from counting the results of a democratic election. They were chanting that they wanted to murder the vice president. They brought guns, pipe bombs, molitov cocktails etc. They attacked police.
The definition of a terrorist is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." That describes what those people did to a tee. They came to use violence and intimidation to influence the outcome of a democratic election.
Created:
-->
@Conway
they took down 1 message. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people saying the same or similar things on parler. Taking down one of them doesn't make them heroes. It doesn't make them even ok.
Tech companies have rules about what kinds of stuff can be put on their app stores. Parler broke those rules. They can either prevent people from calling for murder, or they can not be on the app store. It's pretty simple.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you have a link perhaps?
I don't watch alot of network news. I saw several segments about the police not stopping them the day of.
Here is a link to a rant by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. There takeway chunk being "“You opened the fucking doors for em!”
Here is an article from business insider.
I GUESS I'M JUST A BETTER JOURNALIST THAN THE PROFESSIONALS...
you're quoting a politician who was in the siege saying he didn't see it, then criticizing journalists. The 2 things aren't related.
I GENERALLY EXPECT THE PROFESSIONALS TO BE BETTER INFORMED THAN MYSELF.
this story has been covered on the news. They just used other clips. That has nothing to do with how well informed they are.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Parler wouldn’t even be known without Big Tech lol. Look at the the root of the problem not the symptoms.
the root of the problem is people urging violence. Parler allows this to happen all the time.
I’m referring to the fact that Chinese propagandists and Iranians who chant death to America are still allowed on Twitter. Hell even Democrats who call for uprisings are not deplatformed.
The reason they took it down is the very specific calls to violence. Not against the country in general but against very specific targets. Especially all the calls to murder mike pence. It's one thing to rails against a system, it's another to advocate specific acts of murder.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I specifically suspected that somebody else had already uploaded the video and mine would be flagged as a duplicate.
then why would you care? taking down duplicates of something is hardly evidence of any ill intent on the part of anyone.
I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THE 57 SECOND CLIP IN QUESTION COVERED BY ANY "OFFICIAL" "NEWS" SOURCES.
so the news has been covering the exact topic you want them to, but because they didn't use the exact video clip you want them to, it must be evidence they are covering it up? even though they are covering the exact story you are talking about?
It certainly seems "news-worthy" to me.
it is newsworthy. which is why it has been covered by the news.... they just used other clips of the police letting people through.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I hadn't "heard a peep" about THE 57 SECOND CLIP IN QUESTION.
ok, but his point is that the police letting people through has been getting coverage. So the fact that you personally haven't seen it is kind of irrelevant. It is getting covered.
AND, I am genuinely surprised the upload wasn't insta-banned.
this says more about you than anything else. You are surprised that some secret cabal hasn't taken down your post.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Democrats would rather censor the views they dislike than discuss them rationally. Discuss-ting!
how do you have a rational discussion with someone who wants to hang the vice president of the united states because he did what he was constitutionally required to do? That kind of thing is somewhat beyond the ability to rationally discuss.
I agree that rational discussion with people whose views are different than yours is very important. But i think when calls to violence cross the line.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
It's a bit of a complicated question to me. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of big tech companies getting to decide what is and is not allowed to be said. If they have that power then they can easily use it against anyone they don't like.
2nd, they are a private company that needs to protect their interests. Having people use their hardware and software to spread violence and hate is bad for business. If they aren't allowed to police what people can do with their hardware/software then they have no way of protecting their business. this sort of behavior clearly violates their terms of service. If they can't enforce their terms of service, then they have no control over their software.
And 3rd, this sort of online mob is not healthy for democracy or society in general. Allowing people to isolate themselves into little bubble where they can spread increasingly extreme and violent rhetoric is toxic. This sort of thing simply wasn't possible before. People had to interact with others around them. So isolating yourself into an angry, violent little bubble was quite difficult. Now angry, violent and/or crazy people from all over the country or all over the world can connect and spread this insanity. And then it can leak out and infect a larger population.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If Trump is the best authority government can offer in your eyes, then anarchy is already here.
the president is the most powerful person in the world. If he isn't "authority" then no one is.
Luckily the president is the weakest of the 3 branches by far and away, and the past 4 years proved it. Con-gress dictates what a president can do, not you.
no, trump is the weakest person, not the office. Trump is an idiot. He has no actual principles (or morals). So when McConnel didn't want to do something, he could distract him with appointing a judge or doing a rally etc. Trump accomplished very little in his presidency and it is because he is stupid and incompetent. He allowed the people around him to distract him like a small child gets distracted by toys.
You can claim Trump has authority all day long, but the past 4 years proved without question where the real government power always was.
the past four years proved he is an incompetent idiot more interested in playing golf, tweeting, and doing political rallies than in actually doing any real work.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Con man is not authority.Con gress is.Now shutup and trust authority harder. Thanks
lol the president isn't "authority"? He is literally the top of the government. If he isn't authority, no one is.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why would they let people into the building AFTER "the invasion"?
at some point the decision was made that they were not going to be able to hold them out because the perimeter was already breached. At that point their priority changed from keeping them out of the building, to protecting the people inside the building. So it is conceivable that certain parts of the building were "sacrificed" to keep them away from the areas where they were moving the congressmen, senators etc.
But there have not been enough details about when, how and why decisions were made. The videos of police just letting people through, taking selfies etc are disturbing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
the question is, WHY DID THE TRUPPIES STORM THE CASTLE?the answer is, BECAUSE THEY LACK FAITH IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM.
the answer is because they believe there was widespread fraud and that the election was illegitimate. They believe that because trump and groups like fox and news max say it constantly even though it is all lies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
that isn't true. You said it was because of lack of faith. I responded specifically referring to the fraud claims trump was making. You then went on your tangent about unrelated stuff.AND I NEVER MENTIONED FRAUD CLAIMS.
this topic is about the insurrection at the capitol and whether trump should be punished for it. That relates to trump's fraud claims. It does not relate to whatever other crap you feel like brining up.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
even if that were true, the time to sue over it is before the election. There was lots of time to test that in court. If no one chose to do so, then you can't invalidate the votes after the fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're the one who questioned me SPECIFICALLY about the general LACK OF FAITH in the election system.
that isn't true. You said it was because of lack of faith. I responded specifically referring to the fraud claims trump was making. You then went on your tangent about unrelated stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The system itself is demonstrably broken from top to bottom.
you've veered wildly away from what this topic is about. It is about the riots in the capitol and trump's part in that. This topic relates to trump's lies about the election so I was going to discuss those. But you are now jumping to random other things that have nothing to do with the topic, so i'm going to stop responding to those.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm merely pointing out how reasonable it is to LACK FAITH IN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM.
so let me get this straight. There is no evidence that anything went wrong with the election. But we should believe that things went wrong with the election? We should just fear and spread conspiracies based on absolutely nothing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No. I'm not claiming a specific "fraud" in 2020.
That, right there. That is the core of the idiocy of the republicans these days. They are not claiming a specific fraud. They have nothing. no evidence that anything significant went wrong. This has been one of the most scrutinized elections in history and no one can come up with any kind of fraud.
But right wing loons continue to tell anyone and everyone they can that fraud was rampant, they just can't show you any evidence of it because..... reasons. But you should totally take their word for it....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgYvf3Ckdsothis has nothing to do with fraud.This is the very definition of "election rigging".
so you are arguing fraud happened. You link something that has absolutely nothing to do with fraud. And your response essentially just confirms that you understand it has nothing to do with fraud. So why did you bring it up in a discussion about fraud?
All electronic voting systems are extremely vulnerable to undetectable fraud.
ahh yes, the best friend of the insane conspiracy theorist is the fraud that there is no evidence for and cannot be evidence for. Your argument boils down to:
1) you don't like the results
2) you choose to believe the results are fake even though there is absolutely ZERO evidence that there was any significant fraud.
3) you make up excuses about why the results are fake and the evidence is just invisible.
If the results had been faked, then why the hell would republicans have won down ballot? There are lots of places where trump lost and other republicans won. It would have been so much easier and better for the democrats if the down ballot races went to democrats. The reason is that people wanted trump gone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I hope he is too. The people need to be taught a lesson here. When you decide to invade the capitol building, the result will be a 2-year Congressional impeachment of an ex-president.
No. He can be impeached by next week if they want to. McConnel could easily block a senate vote for that long if he felt like it. I hope he doesn't.
But impeachment doesn't prevent Trump's arrest. That also should happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgYvf3Ckdso
this has nothing to do with fraud. So how is it at all related to the lies trump is spreading?
Not to mention that this company was funded and run by republicans. Steve Bannon (who was a big part of trump's campaign and joined his cabinet) was also heavily involved. So you are pointing to shitty things done by republicans (that don't involve fraud) as evidence that we shouldn't believe election officials about fraud.
ELECTRONIC VOTING: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
what exactly is this link supposed to tell me? How does this, in any way, relate to the 2020 election? Are you under the impression this is evidence of some kind? Or do you accept that there is no evidence of any fraud and are just attempting to peddle in fear mongering without anything to back it up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The ONLY POINT is that the American public has LOST FAITH in the process (and for good reason).
yeah, that reason is that the republicans lie about it for political gain. Even though not one of them can provide a shred of actual evidence that fraud on any kind of significant scale actually occurred, many of the republican leadership continue to tell people it did. outlets like fox news and news max run coverage of it constantly, even though they have no evidence of it. And they have no evidence of it, because it didn't happen.
Protesters blocked freeways in Los Angeles and gathered in front of Trump properties in New York City.
this describes a protest.
Tens of thousands of demonstrators took to the streets in cities across the country Wednesday to protest Donald Trump's election victory, in mostly peaceful gatherings that nonetheless resulted in at least 124 arrests and reports of damage, vandalism and injuries in several locations.
so.... there were protests and a few of them engaged in vandalism. You are comparing a few cases of vandalism to an assault on the center of democracy. Do you not see how silly this sounds?
And the trump cultists weren't protesting the results of the election. They were advocating an alternate reality where there was fraud and the election was stollen even though every single investigation and every single lawsuit has come to the same conclusion, that that didn't happen. And they didn't just come to this conclusion on their own. They were told over and over and over by trump and his allies that this complete bullshit is reality.
Trump organized this and he incited the attack. Reports indicate that when the attack began he was happy about it. And that he initially resisted attempts to call in the national guard. And then when he finally released a video, he egged them on telling them that he loved them and spreading lies that would aggravate them (that he won, that it was stolen etc).
Trump should be impeached for this. I hope McConnel lets it happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
On November 9–12, 2016, protests occurred in Oakland, California against the election of Donald Trump.
fair enough. there was as small riot where 3 people were injured in 2016.
In 2021 dozens have been inured, we still don't know how many, and 5 people are dead including 1 police officer. And the target of the insurrectionists wasn't burning some garbage cans on the street. They attacked the center of democracy specifically to prevent the results of a democratic election being carried out.
1 was a group of angry college students acting out. The other was 10's of thousands of people flown in from across the country to violently attacked the center of democracy to prevent the results of a democratic election from being recognized. And they were egged on by the president of the united states.
Those 2 events are on an entirely different scale.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because their president lost. What happened whenever Hilary lost in 2016, were there riots?Yes.There were riots.
please provide evidence for this claim
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
no one in "authority" is saying these things.
that video is a banker talking. No one thinks a banker is "authority". So why are you linking it?
You need to stop sucking Trump's balls and start listening to authority.
a banker is not "authority". If you think that it is, then "authority" seems to mean whatever the hell you want it to, and is therefore absolutely useless.
The world isn't going to end when Trump leaves Jan 20.
no one thinks that it will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No one believes everything was fine before trump. No one believes everything will be fine the moment he leaves office.Well, that's a shame those people have not yet learned to trust authority.
no one in "authority" is saying these things. This is the laziest, stupidest, straw man argument I have ever heard. You are basically just making up nonsense and not even ascribing it to a person, but to "authority". This is sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
According to Authority, people were just fine with Congress before Trump. You just need to trust authority a little harder. They know what is best. You do not.
you realize this statement is stupid right? if you don't want to actually discuss something, why bother even posting?
No one believes everything was fine before trump. No one believes everything will be fine the moment he leaves office. And neither of those things have anything at all to do with the topic. The topic is, trump incited an insurrection against the government and should be punished for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because we have been indoctrinated for 4 years from state media that Trump is the source of all problems.
so a mob assembled in DC because trump told them to. They marched on the Capitol because trump told them to. Trump told them he would march with them and that they needed to take action and that they "can't take back our country with weakness". Trump's attourney told the crowd they needed a trial by combat. Trump has spent months lying to them and goading them on telling them that some secret cabal is out to steal the election when the reality is he just lost.
Trump is not the source of all problems. But he is absolutely the reason that mob attacked the capitol.
If you trust authority, these people will go home and not make any more trouble after Jan 20.
this sentence makes no sense. How are those 2 things connected in any way? Trump is a giant asshole who is going to keep lying to these people and egging them on. More violence is likely to happen because trump won't man up and admit he lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's okay because if you trust authority, these people will go home and not make any more trouble after Jan 20.
I know you aren't big on making sense in general, but it seems like you are making an extra effort to say nonsense lately. That sentence makes no sense. Why would trusting authority mean that lunatics won't engage in violence? Did you really think that makes sense?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
If SCOTUS is the original curt of jurisdiction, that is EXACTLY what Article III is saying. Sorry.
you are misunderstanding. That means that they are the court of last resort. If you have exhausted other options, you can appeal to the supreme court. It does not mean you can go there 1st.
Yeah for individual to individual cases. But not State to State. I am not a State. Per Article III, jurisdiction of justice is different.
The supreme court literally just told you that is wrong. A state still needs standing to sue. That is exactly what they just ruled. Even a state needs standing to sue a person or a state.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
"shall have" is a declarative statement of obligation, being the court of original jursidction, and from which, as a result, Plaintiff has no further recourse for relief.
you have just hit the nail on the head. "plaintiff has no further recourse for relief". That doesn't mean you can go straight to the supreme court. That means that you can appeal to them after going through the other courts. And even if you did go through the other courts, the supreme court doesn't have to hear any case they don't want to.
Texas had no grounds to sue. Someone in the state the election took place in can sue. You can't have a state run crying to the supreme court because they don't like the results of another state's election. it doesn't work that way. SCOTUS had no choice but to refuse to hear the case.
Standing? There is not elective allowance for making that determination. They are to hear the case, and only then determine results.
Blatantly not true. If someone wants to bring a lawsuit, they need to have standing. IE you can't sue someone because your neighbor's house got broken into. Your neighbor can sue, you can't. If you tried to sue you would get tossed out because you don't have standing. If you can't prove you have standing, they will not hear your case. That is how the law works.
Texas cannot sue another state because of the results of their election. They do not have standing to do so. If someone in that state wants to sue over it, they absolutely can. But they need to do it in that state's courts. They cannot go right to the supreme court. And Texas can't sue at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Witches began to be burnt when Christianity lost power, at the end of the middle ages the dominion of the church was already taken down.
when exactly did the church "lose power"? they were still extremely powerful right up to the modern era. The catholic church is still vastly wealthy. Though they have lost much of their political clout.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I am saying the group felt their vote was not counted.
ok. but they voted in the election. So their vote was counted. they lost. Believing bald faced lies in no way reduces their crimes and idiocy. And the people feeding them the lies that drove them to insurrection need to be punished for it.
This is what happens when both parties use division to keep their votes. Protesters, terrorist whatever it's disgruntled Americans.
no, this is what happens when republicans let trump get away with spreading bald faced lies. There is zero evidence of significant fraud in the election. It was tested in court over and over and over. Every judge found the same thing, no fraud. And yet republicans continue to push this nonsense, or at a minimum tacitly approve it by refusing to call it what it is. lies.
Now you have millions of americans who have completely disconnected from reality and believe insane nonsense and it is getting people killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Witches were not burnt in the middle ages
The practice first reappeared when Christianity lost power near the end of the middles ages.
you realize you just said it didn't happen in the middle ages, it started in the middle ages? those 2 sentences mean the exact opposite things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I guess people forget this is what our own nation started from.
you are comparing the rule of a king to the rule of a democratically elected government. Force was needed to overthrow the king because the people had no say in government. force is not needed in a democracy, because everyone already gets a vote. These idiots lost that vote and so decided to use violence to try to bring political change. There is a word for that. terrorist.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
That there is voter fraud is a fact.
true, there are cases going forward of people committing fraud to vote for trump.
That city and state governments were alleged to have engaged it is a charge worth having its day in court.
It did. there were dozens of cases brought before the courts. many of those judges were appointed by republicans, some of them by trump himself. Every single judge found that trump had no case. (with the exception of 1 case that had no bearing on anything and wasn't about fraud)
It may or may not have affected the election results, but particularly when SCOTUS is the first court of jurisdiction, and it was, it ought to have taken a higher view of its obligations than it did.
1st, there is no evidence it affected the results. 2nd, Scotus had no right to take the case. (i am assuming you are talking about texas' stupid case). Elections in america are run by the state. If someone has a problem with that election, it needs to go through the courts in that state. Scotus has no right to intervene in that before it works it's way through the lower courts.
And that doesn't even get into the myriad of problems with Texas' "case". I can link you a video going through them if you want. But basically, the entire thing was stupid, had no evidence, and texas had no standing to bring the case in the 1st place. It was a political stunt with no hope of ever being taken seriously by any court, anywhere.
Their objections were petty excuses. They did not want to be seen as an arbiter, period.
no, their reason was that texas didn't have standing to bring the case in the 1st place. Which they don't. Texas has no right to bring a case against another state's election. If someone has a problem with an election, it needs to be brought in that state. And it was. That was what the dozens of other cases were about. They all got tossed out because they had no evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If we are going to lock up politicians for lying they all need to be incarcerated.
the problem is not the lies per se, although trump does so on a magnitude far greater than post politicians would dream of, the problem is that he used those lies to incite a violent insurrection against the US government.
People make their own choices. If you choose to storm a federal building you might get killed.
very true. and every person who made that choice should go to prison. And the people who incited them to do so, should also go to prison. Inciting insurrection is a very, very serious charge of which trump is guilty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
He term is up, his run is done and still people aren't happy. It's a sad type or person who needs to see him jailed to because their team lost four years ago. America gets what is coming to it.
no one wants him jailed because of an election, let alone for winning or losing. They want him jailed for lying to the american people and inciting a violent insurrection against the american government which lead to the deaths of 4 people.
Created:
-->
@lady3keys
Most Republicans (office holders) are not so loyal to Trump, as they are loyal to his devoted VOTERS!
this is the only part of your post I disagree with. They aren't loyal to republican voters. They are bottom feeding parasites that are loyal to themselves. They don't back trump because they believe that is what the people want. They back trump because they fear losing their power and wealth. They are doing it out of self interest.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's fair, to be honest I thought the GOP was split and that Trump was just getting a bigger voter turnout
my impression, and the polling suggests it, that trump has a strangle hold on the republican party. That is why all the republicans in the senate and congress are terrified of pointing out his conspiracy theories are insane. Because trump is much, much more popular among republican voters than they are. If they criticize him, they will be primaried and lose their jobs. So instead they play along or hide and refuse to comment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
Was there fraudulent votes?
There is no evidence of widespread fraud. Of the few cases of fraudulent votes that have been found, the examples i have seen were votes for trump. but we are talking about a handful of votes and Trump lost by millions of votes.
Was Trump robbed or is he just salty he didn't win.
the results of this election have been checked and re-checked. In georgia I think they've counted the votes 3 times already. The FBI, the justice department and the states have all investigated allegations of fraud and found no evidence. Dozens of lawsuits were filed and almost every single one of them was tossed out or withdrawn because they had no evidence.
bottom line, Trump lost.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well I oop. I guess my benefit of the doubt was misplaced.
i would guess that if you asked people in that 90%, lots would say they disagree with things trump does and say. but i have little sympathy for them because they continue to support him even though they watch him commit crimes.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you Trust Authority, then you know those people will disappear after Trump leaves.
what does that even mean? which person in authority? which people will "disappear"? why would anyone disappear?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Honestly I feel bad for people who are just republicans, but don't support Trump
trump's approval rating among republicans is like 90-95%. They've watched him shit on democracy and engage in corruption and graft for years and 90% of them still support him. So while there are a group that are republican but disagree with trump, they are a very small minority.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Shut up and trust authority.
your response means absolutely nothing. I mean, trump is the president. If we shouldn't trust authority, shouldn't all republicans just refuse to trust anything he says? That definitely includes all his insane conspiracy theories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
When any average person accidentally kills someone, it's called MANSLAUGHTER.
i don't think that is true. An accidental death is an accidental death. it is not manslaughter.
Aren't we all supposed to be "equal under the law"?
yes. and self defense applies to everyone. IE equal.
But the fact remains that some jobs require you to take actions that could result in someone's death. If those actions are what is required to do that job, and we want people to do that job, then we need protections for people doing those jobs. Or no one would do them. So your options become no police, security guards etc, or protections for those jobs so that they can do them without risk of criminal penalties for doing the job they were hired to do. Now if they are doing them incorrectly and that results in someone's death, they should absolutely be liable for that. Like if they do a chokehold there are not allowed to use that results in death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you didn't intend to kill a person, then it isn't. It is an accident.It's also MANSLAUGHTER.
No it isn't. It's only manslaughter if you kill someone while committing another offense. IE if you were driving drunk and killed someone while driving, that is manslaughter. If you were obeying traffic laws and an accident occurs where someone dies, that isn't manslaughter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm going to hazard a guess that cops kill slightly more people with their service weapon than they kill by following proper police standard operating procedure (i.e. NOT resting their body-weight on a subdued suspect's neck or back).
my point is that even if you do everything you are supposed to do, people can die in any confrontation that involves physical contact. Presuming that this person is a murderer in this scenario is not a good idea.
Created: