Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 299: George Floyd

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I 100% agree that riots are just and moral when properly targeted and when solid goals and metrics are in place. I don't see that being the case here, but maybe I am ill-informed.

For the record, local businesses that contribute to the community have been mostly untouched.

Also man, even though I knew it was a thin, Corriks strict adherence to laws are always good, breaking them is always bad shocks me every time.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I think it is safe to say that rioting, rebelling, and so on comes with legal consequences.

Right, which is why we're talking about the MORAL justification for rioting. Moral =/= legal.

---

Corrik7 posted...

The American Revolution is not justification to riot or to own guns. It's always been a dumb argument.

It really boggles my mind that you can say this and then also say that our laws and justice system, which all stem from this, are infallible
---

For the record, local businesses that contribute to the community have been mostly untouched.

By which you mean "local businesses that credibly claim to be owned by blacks." Because the only coherent philosophy bringing all of these rioters together is "white people bad"

---

Ushi, you okay in your literal made up world? Nothing at all you have said towards me is even close to accurate lol.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Reminder that "law and order Corrik" once when on a multi-topic self pitty party about how he kept getting drunk driving tickets.

That is a good reminder. Sometimes I just think he's "Lawful" without understanding the spirit of the actual law.

But I forgot he was a drunk driver, someone who didn't give a shit about the lives of others.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

It really boggles my mind that you can say this and then also say that our laws and justice system, which all stem from this, are infallible

I think he's basically saying that might makes right.

---

White people ARE bad. We just struggle to acknowledge it.

---

Also I am so shocked that Corrik would be so cavalier about breaking the law himself given his philosophy of legalism.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Yeah, the penalty for treason in 1776 was death. If they lost the war, the Declaration of Independence was the signers' own death warrant.

The penalty for being black around cops in 2020 is often death too!

---

red sox 777 posted...

I think he's basically saying that might makes right.

A true conservative
---

SmartMuffin posted...

By which you mean "local businesses that credibly claim to be owned by blacks." Because the only coherent philosophy bringing all of these rioters together is "white people bad"

You of all people should be celebrating the capture of a police station by the people, even if it was temporary
---

Same deflections yinz always make. Lol. Been already debunked repeatedly. Can't win your argument, so you deflect made up moral high ground arguments.

---

https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1266446067442372608

Dems should definitely run ads on this. They would be about 100x more effective at discouraging turnout among potential Trump voters than all the "OMG TRUMP IS RACIST" messaging in the world could ever possibly be.

But they won't.

---

You of all people should be celebrating the capture of a police station by the people, even if it was temporary

I'm 100% okay with the destruction and occupation of government buildings.

Less so the private ones. Although it's hard to feel sympathetic to Target, who is unabashedly a member of and supporter of Woke Capital.

---

Just caught up on the last topic. Seph, you (and apparently every single Trump-supporting Republican) completely misunderstand 230. Entities are not permanently classified as platforms or publishers. They can be both, depending on the context; they are publishers of the content they produce, and platforms (without the same liability) for content their users post:

https://twitter.com/normative/status/1266392603852931073?s=21

What you and Trump are essentially trying to argue is that to provide a platform to without risking being sued into oblivion, a company has to give up their right to free speech. I hope you can appreciate how absurd (and antithetical to American values) that is!


---

Corrik7 posted...

Same deflections yinz always make. Lol. Been already debunked repeatedly. Can't win your argument, so you deflect made up moral high ground arguments.

whats been debunked?

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Dems should definitely run ads on this. They would be about 100x more effective at discouraging turnout among potential Trump voters than all the "OMG TRUMP IS RACIST" messaging in the world could ever possibly be.

But they won't.

People like Ann Coulter are doing that instead

And thats someone a Trump voter might listen to!
---

Corrik7 posted...

Been already debunked repeatedly.

No, now that I think about it I'm pretty sure you had your license taken away at some point.

But that aside, you still have this issue where you believe the letter of the law over the spirit of it. You seem to live in a world of hypotheticals, as opposed to the real world.

---

People like Ann Coulter are doing that instead

And thats someone a Trump voter might listen to!

I do! I have about 10x more respect for Ann than I do for Trump, that's for sure!

---

But seriously though, if a Dem says Trump didnt build the wall and Trump says Yes I did, who would a Trump voter believe? No matter how much evidence you showed them?
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

whats been debunked?

Everything ushi has said has been said repeatedly and has been debunked. I never did anything of the sort he said. The new one is that I want a check. Which is just another thing to debunk easily as the rest as well. Since that has literally never happened either. I been railing against Mnuchin since the first act. An act that costed me my job, pretty definitively.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Just caught up on the last topic. Seph, you (and apparently every single Trump-supporting Republican) completely misunderstand 230. Entities are not permanently classified as platforms or publishers. They can be both, depending on the context; they are publishers of the content they produce, and platforms (without the same liability) for content their users post:

https://twitter.com/normative/status/1266392603852931073?s=21

What you and Trump are essentially trying to argue is that to provide a platform to without risking being sued into oblivion, a company has to give up their right to free speech. I hope you can appreciate how absurd (and antithetical to American values) that is!

No, he's saying that by censoring posts made on it, a company is no longer a platform but is now publishing the posts made on it. That has nothing to do with the company's own free speech. That is a completely independent issue. But if they are policing posts users make and approving some and disapproving others, they are adopting the speech they approve as their own, which would lead to liability.

---

https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence/status/1266425861730959372

Such pathetic cuckery. This will not win them a single vote.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

But seriously though, if a Dem says Trump didnt build the wall and Trump says Yes I did, who would a Trump voter believe? No matter how much evidence you showed them?

Dems don't have to say it. You run it as a super-PAC ad that appears to be attacking Trump from the right. Hell include some screenshotted Ann Coulter tweets if you want!

---

Corrik, you really trying to say that shit never happened? We were all here, none of have forgotten it, whether it be the specifics or the vague details.

That's like Ulti trying to claim he was OBVIOUSLY just trolling when he insisted he got the free unpublished book straight from the writer.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Corrik, you really trying to say that shit never happened? We were all here, none of have forgotten it, whether it be the specifics or the vague details.

That's like Ulti trying to claim he was OBVIOUSLY just trolling when he insisted he got the free unpublished book straight from the writer.

You are 100% definitively incorrect on all matters that you have stated. Not even debate. The only woeing I did was over a clerical error where I was punished harsher than my punishment should have been.

Nothing you said has been correct in any way at all.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Officer charged with 3rd Degree Murder

Doesn't third degree imply accidental? How do you accidentally not remove your knee from someone's neck when they say "I can't breathe"?

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Doesn't third degree imply accidental? How do you accidentally not remove your knee from someone's neck when they say "I can't breathe"?

I posted the third degree charge criteria.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Doesn't third degree imply accidental? How do you accidentally not remove your knee from someone's neck when they say "I can't breathe"?

i assume the argument isnt that he accidentally had his knee there, its that he didnt intend for the knee being there to kill the guy

its the classic im a dumbass defense
---

Corrik perfectly demonstrating that you dont need to know what gaslighting is to do it.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Doesn't third degree imply accidental? How do you accidentally not remove your knee from someone's neck when they say "I can't breathe"?

It means you dont have to prove intent to kill, which is a much higher hurdle to a conviction

I think a conviction that says that he murdered Floyd would be more helpful than chasing a 2nd degree murder conviction and failing
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik perfectly demonstrating that you dont need to know what gaslighting is to do it.

For real, at this time you just gotta let him live in his own little world.

SmartMuffin posted...

https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence/status/1266425861730959372

Such pathetic cuckery. This will not win them a single vote.

what about it is cuckery

why should they be on the cops side in this
---

red sox 777 posted...

No, he's saying that by censoring posts made on it, a company is no longer a platform but is now publishing the posts made on it. That has nothing to do with the company's own free speech. That is a completely independent issue. But if they are policing posts users make and approving some and disapproving others, they are adopting the speech they approve as their own, which would lead to liability.

No, thats wrong. Its the exact same as moderation. The only way Twitter would be liable is if the edit to Trumps tweet itself was something they could be sued for (like if they edited in a download link to some pirated material). By having a TOS and enforcing it imperfectly, a website does not open itself up to liability (in fact, given that there are, what, hundreds of millions(?) of twitter users, it should be obvious that it would be impossible to do so).

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

i assume the argument isnt that he accidentally had his knee there, its that he didnt intend for the knee being there to kill the guy

its the classic im a dumbass defense

I do think whatever the defense draws up will be fascinating to see. Hes toast in court regardless though, even if they had video evidence showing the hand of god forcing him into that position.

I think his best case is a conviction on the manslaughter with a nonmax sentence. No way this guy doesnt do some time, unless america is ready to disappoint itself again

---

iiaattgg posted...

I do think whatever the defense draws up will be fascinating to see.

Mr Floyd unfortunately perished while in the custody of Officer Chauvin, who was operating as he was trained to subdue a suspect. There was no negligence demonstrated. I imagine

I think someone said that this precinct actually DOES train the officers to use the knee-on-neck maneuver, though thats just hearsay on my part.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

No, thats wrong. Its the exact same as moderation. The only way Twitter would be liable is if the edit to Trumps tweet itself was something they could be sued for (like if they edited in a download link to some pirated material). By having a TOS and enforcing it imperfectly, a website does not open itself up to liability (in fact, given that there are, what, hundreds of millions(?) of twitter users, it should be obvious that it would be impossible to do so).

Is there precedent on that? If so, how high up is the court that set it? Also, there's a big difference between having a TOS for profanity, obscenity, illegal activities, copyright violations, etc. and censoring political messages based on their content.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

why should they be on the cops side in this

I think he's more disappointed that they aren't taking the side of the people who killed a man for trespassing on property that didn't belong to them, freedom to murder! (Murder, okay! Trespassing? Worthy of death!)

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

No, thats wrong. Its the exact same as moderation. The only way Twitter would be liable is if the edit to Trumps tweet itself was something they could be sued for (like if they edited in a download link to some pirated material). By having a TOS and enforcing it imperfectly, a website does not open itself up to liability (in fact, given that there are, what, hundreds of millions(?) of twitter users, it should be obvious that it would be impossible to do so).

I'm genuinely looking for the truth of how this works. I have been seeing things akin to what Cruz tweeted, but I figured Wang or red sox would have the legal background to confirm.

---

Oh, if Ted Cruz made a statement on it, he's probably right. The guy was a frequent practitioner before the Supreme Court and knows his stuff.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

For real, at this time you just gotta let him live in his own little world.

That would be my response too if I literally just made up stuff too and got called out on it.

Time to change the line of attack! Yeehaw!

---

TheRock1525 posted...

White people ARE bad. We just struggle to acknowledge it.

This is what racism looks like btw.

---

Corrik is correct that people mischaracterize the drunk driving thing. His complaint was entirely about his punishment not fitting the letter of the law. He had no objection to being punished.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Mr Floyd unfortunately perished while in the custody of Officer Chauvin, who was operating as he was trained to subdue a suspect. There was no negligence demonstrated. I imagine

I think someone said that this precinct actually DOES train the officers to use the knee-on-neck maneuver, though thats just hearsay on my part.

I think that is possible for sure but i know that defense counsel on the macro level has evolved to know the societal implications of what a specific defense can create outside of typical due process thinking

Could that defense work in a vacuum? Absolutely and it has before and in less vacuumed vacuums. But i dont see a 2020 jury in that state acquitting him on a defense that minimizes his role or actions. Theyre gonna have to get real creative which is why i think it will be fascinating

---

https://www.siouxcityjournal.com/kathleen-parker-bidens-best-bet-for-running-mate-amy-klobuchar/article_bdf7c04a-9c04-5034-9a15-fd9960070c22.amp.html

Extremely funny article posted TODAY.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Oh, if Ted Cruz made a statement on it, he's probably right. The guy was a frequent practitioner before the Supreme Court and knows his stuff.

He knows stuff, sure, but he also knows how to interpret stuff in a way that favors him in an argument. I wouldnt trust that whatever he says is an objective assessment of the circumstances.
---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Corrik is correct that people mischaracterize the drunk driving thing. His complaint was entirely about his punishment not fitting the letter of the law.

Well it's a shame if he was overly punished, but that's how driving while drunk goes. You're bound to be punished.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I'm genuinely looking for the truth of how this works. I have been seeing things akin to what Cruz tweeted, but I figured Wang or red sox would have the legal background to confirm.

Justin Amash actually has a pretty good thread summarizing it:

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1266105211044663298

It also has a link to the text of the law at the end if you want to read that. In particular:

(c) Protection for Good Samaritan blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

---

Dark Young Link posted...

Well it's a shame if he was overly punished, but that's how driving while drunk goes. You're bound to be punished.

I agree. I think him driving drunk while being as lawful as he is is pretty hypocritical. But attack him for THAT, don't put words in his mouth.

---