the right wing ethos that boils my blood the quickest is when people drool out shit like ‘play stupid games win stupid prizes’ under a story about some guy getting brutally beaten by police for being at a protest or stealing a dvd
Who got beaten by police for stealing a dvd?
Yeah, of course the video doesn’t show any of the events leading up to the arrest, so we can only speculate what really happened.
Yes it doesn’t look like fun and I’m all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt, but the guy also looks and acts like he might be on drugs, and he’s out in public not wearing a shirt, which already shows at least a tendency towards blatant disregard for the rules, but either way, we should be careful to jump any conclusions when seeing something like that, because there’s definitely a big part of the story that’s missing here.
But the good news is, it looks like he survived, so I’m sure he’ll get to have his day in court to prove his innocence, and I sure hope that he won’t be punished excessively or unjustly.
I’m all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt
Well that’s a good first step
but the guy also looks and acts like he might be on drugs, and he’s out in public not wearing a shirt
As yes, those two infamous crimes of “possibly being on drugs” and “no shirt, no presumption of innocence”
Come on man. Be better.
If you automatically side with the supposed victim despite the clear lack of any information about prior events leading to this scene, I might as well accuse you of “uniform and badge, no presumption of innocence”. It’s just as biased and therefore bigoted as the opposite stance.
That’s why we have the courts, though. The cops will have to prove that they had a legitimate reason to make an arrest or the judge will just let the guy go. Happens often enough, believe it or not.
Arrest, yes. I’m less on board with the violence. I’m all about a proportionate response.
And that’s in general terms. There’s a reason people think all cops are bastards and it’s not because they dislike the colour blue.
Again, without being able to see what happened before the video started, it’s hard to judge whether this was a proportionate response or not.
If your default assumption is ACAB and they’re just doing this to hurt him because they can, then you’re just as biased as you’re accusing me of being. And I’m not saying the cops are by always innocent by default, but I’ve also seen enough people like this guy act like major dickheads before claiming to be a victim of police brutality.
But once again, if he did nothing wrong, I hope he goes free. And with a nice check to boot, if they did use excessive force. But that’s up to the judge to decide, not me.
Happens often enough, believe it or not.
For people who can afford a half decent lawyer, sure. For people stuck with a public defender, it’s a crapshoot.
That’s IF the case goes to trial at all. If the cops can’t make a good enough case for why you should be charged with something, they often won’t even bother with that and just let you go. Remember, they ARE allowed to arrest you if they think you’re posing a danger to the public, but they’re not allowed to keep you locked up indefinitely without charging you with something.
Sure, it sucks if you get arrested when you did nothing wrong, but at least we can be pretty sure this guy is not going to a gulag for buying a pizza.
I urge you to look up cases of people only convicted of resisting arrest.
Ok but resisting arrest IS a crime. If you haven’t done anything wrong, just let them arrest you, they can’t keep you locked up without charging you with something.
Every single case of someone being convicted only for resisting arrest is a case where it would have been better for them to comply since the cops clearly either didn’t find anything else or couldn’t make any of the other charges stick.
Did you not see that video of a cop trying to murder someone over an acorn? As long as courts consistently give cops the benefit of the doubt, you should assume the worst of them.
Yeah, well, the cops were clearly in the wrong there.
It’s just an example. Like Breonna Taylor, who did nothing wrong, whose boyfriend (Kenneth Walker) did nothing wrong, while the police did multiple things wrong and ended up killing her.
But even looking beyond individual examples, the data shows police killed over 1,200 people in 2023. That’s a problem.
1,200 out of how many interactions with the public? Or even out of how many attempted arrests? Remember this is a country of over 300 million people, and 1,200 is 0.0004% of that. For comparison, over 45,000 people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2021 (source), so your chance of being killed in a car accident is almost 40x as high as that of being killed by police.
Yes, I looked at your source, it has tons of graphs but conveniently seems to forget to include that.
Among the 61.5 million U.S. residents age 16 or older in 2018 who had contact with police during the prior 12 months, 1.3 million (2%) experienced threats or use of force from police
Yes, there are 300 million but that negate the problem of police violence. You could make this argument about anything: gun violence, car crashes, even cancer. Their deaths are all a percent of a percent of the population.
No one is saying police violence is the number one killer in the country. The issue being raised is one side is saying it’s a problem and the other is saying actually it’s not a problem at all.
Okay, but let’s not move the goalposts now. If 61.5 million US residents had contact with the police, and out of those, 1,200 were killed, that’s approx. 0.002%.
Again, let’s compare that to the death by car accident rate, which is approx. 45,000/300,000,000 * 100 = 0.015%, which means driving a car is about 7.5x as dangerous to your life as interacting with the police. And I’m not saying there isn’t a problem, but do you see why some people are saying this isn’t really worth talking about?
Not a DVD theft, but Eric Garner was killed in the altercation of his arrest for selling single cigarettes
How is this a right wing problem not a both sides problem?
Right wingers say this about protestors or whistleblowers.
Left wingers say this about forced birthers or antivaxxers.
You with your amazingly void intellect: bOtH SiDeS
Left wingers say this about forced birthers or antivaxxers.
The left wing version is usually about people getting cancelled after saying unwoke things. And the phrasing they usually use is something along “Oh no! It’s the consequences of my own actions!”
Getting fired from your job for calling someone the n word is not the same as getting beaten because a cop think you might have committed a crime
Yeah corporations have no recognition of human rights in their charter, so when a corporation mistreats you that’s just your own fault for putting your life in the hands of a corp.
Do you really not understand the difference betweene me calling you an asshole, and being stalked by glowies?
That’s not my point though.
I’m not trying to claim that the “consequences” are the same. The cancel culture thing is more than “being called an asshole” and can ruin or at least severely damage a person’s career, but it’s still not as bad as systematic persecution or abuse of power.
I’m not trying to claim that the “actions” are the same either. Mainly because I think it’s futile - any internet discussion on that topic will be 100% political disposition and 0% actual attempt to analyze the severity of said actions.
I will mention though - risking that merely mentioning this will derail the entire discussion - that both you and @starman2112@sh.itjust.works have each elected to diminish one of these parameters (“calling you an asshole” vs ruining one’s career, and “a cop think you might have committed a crime” vs exercising a politically controversial right). In both cases there was no need for that - in both cases the right-wing practice is worse than the left-wing practice even if you don’t try to manipulate the argument. So why do it?
(this is more aimed at you than at starman. Like I said before - when it comes to the “actions” part, the political bias is very strong, and I can totally see how a conservative would claim that participating in a protest is worse than using racial slurs. Still - that’s no excuse to use a strawman)
But the real point I was trying to make is about the sin shared by both left and right: trying to present the “stupid prizes” or “consequences” as an unavoidable law of nature, where it is in fact the intentional actions of humans trying to punish that behavior. If you think certain actions deserve punishment, stand behind this - don’t try to disguise it as a “consequence”. The punishment is derived from your beliefs, not from the laws of nature.
You have just framed it in a way that makes the right look bad, but the left is just as bad. Literally the left calls for punching “Nazis”, and they define Nazis as people that have different opinions than them.
Different opinions like?
Anything that includes one of the -ism or -phobias. They will call people like Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro Nazis.
That’s cause Tucker and Ben are nazis you halfwit.
The funny part is I cant tell if you are joking or not, and that is the problem with the left.
I mean, you just re-affirmed it is both sides. The difference is that you agree with one of the sides.
There’s a fundamental difference between someone getting hurt trying to fight for their human rights, versus someone getting hurt fighting to take away other peoples human rights.
There is no such thing as human rights (at least in my country). Calling it that probably makes you feel your cause is superior and the other side is evil. Quite convenient. All my rights are guaranteed by the constitution, and federal/state/local laws. If it’s not listed in these examples, it is not a right.
I was just referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which applies to every country across the world, your country included.
This was created by the UN, which has no power to enforce such a document. It does not apply to every country. Not every country is a member of the UN. A group of powerless humans can’t go around enforcing their views on others. According to your link, member states: “have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms”. With that said…
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude
I believe leftists feel being forced to perform manual labor while imprisoned is a form of slavery/servitude. China is a member of the UN, and their treatment of Uyghur muslims is pretty well known at this point.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
There have been many reports (long ago and recently) of the US government using torture as a means to produce information.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest
I don’t have to tell you how often someone is frivolously arrested in the US.
I could go on but you get the picture. My own country doesn’t enforce these “universal human rights” thus, in the US, they are meaningless and basically don’t exist. Maybe other countries do a better job, and good on’em, but for the United States, there is no such thing as “human rights” only what the law allows and doesn’t allow, as I stated previously.
All my rights are guaranteed by the constitution, and federal/state/local laws. If it’s not listed in these examples, it is not a right.
A quick glance shows that even your constitutional rights have no weight. The system makes exceptions all the time and wields ambiguity like a weapon. All rights mean nothing when promised by a hypocritical and opportunistic state.
And they’d probably say the opposite is the case.
Removed by mod
Rule 1
They’d be incredibly stupid – bordering on braindead.
I mean, isn’t that what most sides say about their opponents? Or that they’re evil
The difference is that one group is getting excessively hurt because of government response, which is something that can be changed through policy; while the other gets hurt by their own actions because they’re fucking r******d and thought disregarding a pandemic was a good idea, not because of the response the government might take
Your disagreement can be justified, that doesn’t make it not something said it by both sides.
They’re referring to different things, plus when it’s referred to disproportionate police action, it serves as justification for the police replying with illegal brutality, rather than investigating and punishing police officers who break the law
Yeah, again, they can be different levels of justified, there is still two sides doing it. Celebrating the death of someone evil vs celebrating the death of someone good is still celebrating someones death.
I have great news for you: advances in biomedicine project that you might be able to grow a brain in the next 50 years.
Rule 1
A right to remain silent. A right to a competent attorney regardless of ability to pay. A right to due process. A right to a timely trial by a jury of peers. A right to healthy food, shelter, healthcare, and other accommodations while incarcerated. I’m probably missing a few.
The right to a fair wage while imprisoned. Or else your justice system only serves to produce slaves.
Slavery is legal in prisons here in the U.S.
Yes, precisely.
written into the constitution
That’s why the rights of people today shouldn’t be dictated by a document written over a century ago. Idolizing a document over human rights is terrible.
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
- George Santayana
That’s the full quote that people like to reduce to the final sentence.
Documents are a species’ way of remembering the past and establishing core ideals so that future generations don’t have to reinvent those wheels.
Not to say any given document is without flaws or captures the right values, and as our societies grow and mature so too should the values that we align ourselves with.
Idolizing a document over human rights is terrible.
Well, to be clear, human rights, other than being a vague philosophical concept, are also a document. Much younger, and much more sensible and uncompromising, but still also a document.
Hopefully if new rights are deemed to be needed, they can be added.
I mean, if a document has specific rights written on it and society moves forward and has need for new rights to be added then we should be ready to rewrite and add rights as opposed to treating the document as divine and unchangeable.
Well you benefit from that very same document right here (free speech). The first thing tyrants do is get rid of things like constitutions.
I meant the ability to add rights and amend, not destroy the document.
Sadly. We should change that, but you-know-who would be against it, like they had been throughout the nation’s history.
Should they then also pay rent in prison? :D (not serious)
Oh boy, let me tell you about pay-for-stay.
At $249 per day, prison stays leave ex-inmates deep in debt - AP News (2022)
Essentially, that already happens. They get charged for rent. And food. And medical care. And whatever else can be charged.
Ok not funny anymore. What a dystopia! Thanks for the info.
I know you’re not being serious, but for the sake of the argument, if we’re going to force a person, against their will, to be in a certain place for a certain amount of time then we should have to cover all the basic needs that that person may have.
You lose your rights when you go to prison. Murderers shouldn’t have a right to wage laws.
I totally disagree. Why, someone could frame you for murder and have you for a slave before you know it. I wouldn’t take that chance as long as the Justice system is fallible.
The right to vote, regardless of criminal convictions or incarceration.
Prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. It’s one of the most fundamental rights that criminals have and it must constantly be revisited to ensure we aren’t brushing aside the cruelty we’re simply accustomed to
deleted by creator
Absolutely. The right say they’re pro-freedom but they’ll strip you of the right to vote if you smoke weed.
Coincidentally one of the reasons that led to the prohibition of cannabis.
Who smoked weed? Black people, brown people, and when the war on drugs really ramped up…hippies.
Nowadays most rational people realized the war on drugs was bunk and people of all walks and colors smoke weed.
I doubt it’s a coincidence that the states that haven’t decriminalized yet are the ones that still love to hassle PoCs and hippies the most.
It was Mexicans too. It’s where the “lazy Mexican sleeping in the shade” comes from.
If you’re willing to question cannabis legality maybe look at other drugs too. Coca leaves were chewed by native tribes millennia ago to help with long journeys. Kratom was used in Asia to help with long harvest days. Celts were eating shrooms millennia ago.
Humanity has a LONG history of drug use with nothing off-limits and there was no societal collapse from it. It’s the past century puritan ideals that are a serious aberration.
Did you know it’s statistically more dangerous to go horse riding than take Molly? The toilets in the UK Parliament were tested for cocaine and all tested positive. No drug should be illegal.
Ref:
- Chasing the Scream - Johann Hari
- Drugs Without the Hot Air - Prof David Nutt
I love how stereotypical Mexicans are portrayed as both lazy and hard working at the same time.
And through yellow lence
They also didn’t have highly processed drugs. I think the war on drugs is bad but this isn’t a good argument.
Which is why I refuse to call it ‘marijuana.’ It’s a word making it sound Spanish and therefore a threat from down south. It’s from Asia, not Latin America. The name, in English, makes no sense- unless you want to demonize it.
I didn’t actually know that but I suspected it, with indica being one of the two most familiar species.* It was actually a shower thought I had last night, just before I ultimately forgot to take an edible (or ultimately didn’t bother because tbqf these gummies are just revolting).
*I thought sativa might have indicated a south Asian origin but that is actually just the Latin for “cultivated”.
The plant originated in an area that is located in what we call
AfghanistanTibet. According to the Hindu faith, Shiva has to smoke some every day, so he didn’t get mad and destroy the universeI think my colleague is Shiva
Actually the earliest known plant was around Tibet 2 million years ago.
Gotcha, will edit.
John Ehrlichman literally admitted it. https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional
That’s a very good way of putting it. Reminds me of the developments in Russia.
You mean how Putin killed Navalny? Yes.
Yes, but not only that. His murder is emblematic of a general culture of taking away the rights of people who do not fall in line with the regime.
Russia’s got a history of stripping the rights from soldiers returning from battle, because having been in a foreign land meant they were now infected with capitalism and had to be imprisoned so as not to spread it.
Well, and take a look what the Russian government is doing to the people in Russia who have the audacity to want to mourn Navalnyjs death.
Countries that are known for corruption often have massive bureaucracies that are full of little seemingly inconsequential laws that most people can safely ignore all the time. The result is that nearly everybody’s breaking some rule just to function with some level of efficiency in society. In fact if you wanted to follow every rule it would break you.
The result is that whenever a vengeful government official wants to bring someone down all they have to do is investigate for a few minutes and figure out which is the most recent rule that was broken and poof that person’s a criminal.
This is why “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” is a fallacy. They could invent a reason to get rid of anyone they don’t like because the law is convoluted on purpose.
But if you allow criminals to immigrate, give house arrest to assassins and such, never punish anyone for corruption and the rest of the world allows corrupt ex president’s to calmly live in Brussels and pay foreign agencies for social media attacks against political and judicial enemies… That’s what happens when you let the extreme left win (Ecuador)
I’m not sure how you made the jump from “removing rights” to “removing punishments.” Even the U.S. constitution has explicitly protected rights for the convicted and we definitely still have prisons.
I’m just saying it’s VERY real and happening in lots of South American countries that the left (communist) is making it too easy for gangs to explode and abuse jails as their private training camps, since those and other politicians are either blackmailed threatened or paid by narco groups
That is a very drastic slippery slope fallacy. You’re claiming that if convicted criminals have rights, then crime will take over and run the country. You are incorrectly conflating the preservation of rights with the removal of deterrents.
By the way, which South American countries are communist? If you are thinking of Cuba (which is not South American), then they actually use the criminal justice system to suppress rights, which is what this thread is claiming will happen if the rights of the convicted are removed.
Not just rights. Let them have Playstation like back home in Holland.
But not a way to take over charge of the entire penal system and government… Not a joke here, literally what happened in LOT of South middle American countries. NARCOCOMUNISMO
There are so many other problems at the root of stuff like this too.
First question is why do people actually turn to the gangs in the first place? Usually its because the government/society isn’t providing something those people need to survive, and the gang does. Either money or community, typically.
Foreign cartels from Colombia and Mexico came in. The literal FARC supported their campaign…
The great thing about Florida is that the people voted to give them the right to vote back after prison but Republicans in the state’s Congress hated that and did everything they could to stop it.
While voting rights CAN be restored, they ensured that the process to accomplish it was a Byzantine maze that could not be navigated. I don’t just mean it’s hard, I mean it’s impossible because some of the requirements can’t be met (eg they can’t pay all court costs if the government doesn’t know, or won’t say, the amount owed).
Fuck the will of the people I guess.
Your first problem was being in the South. Your second problem was expecting a red state to give rights to people. They’re pretty big on taking them away. Nothing “Civil” about it.
Just for reference everyone reading has almost definitely committed multiple felonies. Three felonies a day was published 13 years ago, and while the title might be exaggerated, the argument is even more true today.
Flordia voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2018 that ended felony voting prohibitions and the state just ignored it.
And free speech. Don’t forget that.
If you don’t support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you’re against free speech.
Being against free speech is tyrannical. Also…Can you point to any time in history where the people censoring controversial things were the good guys in the ensuing conflict?
Can you point to any time in history where the people censoring controversial things were the good guys in the ensuing conflict?
Whether there’s “good guys” in a war is debatable. But if you’re under the belief that there are good guys in wars, then we can point to basically every war in history.
Censorship during wars was actually the norm in the past. The Spanish influenza didn’t originate in Spain, it’s just that it was first reported there. Because Spain wasn’t a part of WWI. The news in the countries involved in the war were censored and couldn’t report on it.
Nazi propaganda was banned in the US and other allied countries in WWII.
People in the American Revolution were publicly tortured (tarred and feathered) for speaking out against the revolutionary government.
Sorry, history just isn’t as clean and simple as you might think.
Just to add to this, shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire is a phrase often used to define to limits of free speech. However, this was an analogy used by Oliver Wendell Holmes to describe what it is like to oppose the draft in WWI. That part of the ruling stood for about 40 years.
How about Poland in ww2? I’d say they were “the good guys” since they were attacked unprovoked.
But if you’re under the belief that there are good guys in wars, then we can point to basically every war in history.
Fallacious logic. “If case X is true then it must be true in every case.”
Germany made being a Nazi illegal and everyone is fine with it. Except Nazis, but who gives a shit.
Germany made being a Nazi illegal and everyone is fine with it.
Denazification was something of a joke.
West German President Walter Scheel and Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger were both former members of the Nazi Party. In 1950, a major controversy broke out when it emerged that Konrad Adenauer’s State Secretary Hans Globke had played a major role in drafting antisemitic Nuremberg Race Laws in Nazi Germany.
Between Operation Paperclip, the incorporation of the CIA, and the Cold War formation of NATO, Nazis were rapidly reformed and reintroduced to the public sphere over the next decade.
Operation GLADIO in Europe transformed a bunch of the Italy / Greek / Belgium / France WW2-era fascists into cartel bosses and arms dealers spread all across the continent. Fascist ideology, in the wake of WW2, was returned to its original Communist roots and was justified as a means of compelling Europeans to stay true to their nationalist roots and not fall victim to the Soviet Internationalism sweeping through the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa.
If you don’t support the free speech rights of the people you hate the most, then you’re against free speech.
The one snag in this philosophy I run into is that “We have to protect the rights of the accused!” only ever seems to apply to the folks that can pay for the good PR and lawyers. Meanwhile, the Sinclair owned broadcaster in your neck of the woods spams “Black man behaving blackly in black part of Blacksburg! Officers on the scene to assist in the kinetic engagement of criminal suspect!” headlines headlines 24/7/365 and then the same limited government enthusiasts create this enormous mental carve out for people they identify as Violent By Nature.
Then you get a local jail full of Sandra Blands and the only people who bat an eye are casually dismissed as Far-Left Defund the Police BLM Rioters.
On the one hand, an ex-President with 91 indictments who moves through the criminal justice system at the speed of a snail. On the other, George Floyd getting his neck flattened because he passed a retailer a bad $20. And if you question the glacial pace of the first case, you’re accused of advocating the second. But also, if you oppose the casual police murder of suspects, you secretly want Donald Trumps doing industrial scale counterfeiting all over Minneapolis uncontested.
Thanks to you fucking assholes we now have shitloads of Nazis and thousands of far right radicalizing conspiracist talk shows over all forms of media. You couldn’t budge on even the least amount of reasonable regulation and now you have entirely fucked up nearly all of the civilized western world.
Fucking idiot
This is a huge mixture of a problem with how we raise kids, a problem with the education system, and problems with people’s livelihoods. Not really anything to do with free speech.
Anybody can just have a child and we’re coming out of 3 generations of fathers going to wars, lots of our kids aren’t raised well and don’t realize they need to see a psychologist.
Our education system is pretty shit, fails to motivate kids or understand how a child in 2024 retains information, and so the kids don’t care and they don’t learn and now you have millions of young adults who don’t know that you can’t just take what some youtuber says at face value.
And lots of people struggling to make ends meet means there are going to be a lot of people who don’t understand what they’re doing wrong and will look for a scapegoat.
Free speech is never the problem.
Give everyone the right to have rights.
That’s actually a classic blunder. If you give everyone rights then that implies that they can be taken away
There are definitely additional levels of tyranny.
Some are are simply called HOA
And all need to be subdued.
That’s what a criminal would say
/s just in case.
Better get on it fast. They did that shit to me despite the law and nobody involved in any step of the process helped. They have no oversight.
What’s your story?
Tired of telling it. It’s a cliche anyhow.
Fair enough
Very true.
Western legal systems are based not on jailing criminals but on keeping the innocent out of jail. This does result in more criminals roaming free but I’ll take that a hundred times over the alternative
The hell they are. Getting accused of ANYTHING in America VERY quickly becomes a matter of providing proof that you are innocent. And not having said proof will probably lead to a guilty verdict. Get a GOOD lawyer. Prosecution will basically fuck off if they have nothing but accusations and your defense lawyer is annoying enough to deal with. Otherwise they will waste as much of your time as they have to in order to make you think it won’t end until you admit to something you didn’t do. They’ll even offer to reduce the false charges. Western legal systems are a fucking joke.
Western legal systems are a fucking joke.
Do not confuse Western and American just because America is to the west. Western European nations operate differently from America which is a 3rd world country with a Gucci handbag.
They’re better than systems that pre-suppose guilt and actually make you prove your innocence.
In those systems by the time you end up charged it’s pretty much too late to do anything but get a softer sentence.
It’s also worth noting that many of our justice system rights in the US have been severely eroded. Like the right to a jury trial, the prohibition on search and seizure without cause, the right to a lawyer, and the prohibition on cruel or unusual punishment. With all of that compromised the predisposition of innocence is itself severely compromised.
But the long arm of the law can’t possibly be tyrannical! 🦖
Doing the Elon Musk “Well if you argue with me then you must be a pedophile” to justify locking up half of Twitter.
