Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 318: Markey Matchup

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik7 posted...

No, I have defended people who have followed the law and the law.

I understand you wish to change laws. I think your changes in the law are a bit under thought and would cause more problems than you realize. However, the law is the law. There is no legality to burning down a business.

So again, you're fine with police being able to murder whoever they want without oversight (unless there is OVERWHELMING evidence of wrongdoing, like a video of a cop choking a man to death by kneeling on his neck for eight minutes and forty-six seconds). You can just say that you're fine with police being able to murder whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, and they can justify themselves after the fact by claiming a threat to their life that may or may not have even existed.

Just stop trying to act like you're morally righteous and upstanding and superior to people who either support, or just don't care, about riots.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

How do you feel about sodomy laws and inter-race marriage bans that both have been on the book in some places in the US in your lifetime?

Some are still there.

Inter-racial bans have been ruled unconstitutional since 1967. Idk about sodomy. What I do know is that the proper course of action to change the laws were taken. You don't get to decide you dislike that law so it is acceptable to assault people, loot stores, commit arson, etc.

We are a system of laws. We have processes to change laws. I encourage people to vote if they feel changes need made. Society will dictate those changes.

---

the fact that corrik dismisses the concept of war crime as "nonsense" is telling, btw.

all the terrible atrocities and violations of human rights committed by the bush administration are totally fine but god forbid if a bunch of angry rioters destroy some buildings. and then WE'RE the "loons with worrying, badly warped views."

---

Inviso posted...

unless there is OVERWHELMING evidence of wrongdoing, like a video of a cop choking a man to death by kneeling on his neck for eight minutes and forty-six seconds).

Speaking of which, Chauvin is trying to get the judge to dismiss the charges

Corrik said that if Chauvin faced no legal consequences for his actions he would join the protests, so if this happens, I cant wait for the footage
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Lasa you realize thats always been his stance though right?

His entire concept of justice comes from what the laws say

yeah, you'd think i would have gotten used to this insanity by now but it just continues to baffle me.

---

Inviso posted...

So again, you're fine with police being able to murder whoever they want without oversight (unless there is OVERWHELMING evidence of wrongdoing, like a video of a cop choking a man to death by kneeling on his neck for eight minutes and forty-six seconds). You can just say that you're fine with police being able to murder whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, and they can justify themselves after the fact by claiming a threat to their life that may or may not have even existed.

Just stop trying to act like you're morally righteous and upstanding and superior to people who either support, or just don't care, about riots.

No. I have never said I am fine with cops murdering people. Especially not for any reason, whoever etc.

I am able to see sense for reason that the cops are dealing with many times criminals that are or could become violent.

I believe the issue is that some of you are taking a very extreme view here. Any cop who does not make a reasonable or justifiable decision should be punished according to the law. In order to do that, we should be providing funding to the police in order to have body cams on every cop at all times so they are accountable for their actions.

We should not be jumping to conclusions and mob justice based on clipped videos, vague information, or emotional reactions.

We have a system of the law that can mete out punishment for those officers who break the law. That doesn't just apply to use of force. It applies to everything regarding their behavior when working from falsifying information, drug and alcohol use, theft, etc. The cops need to be accountable just as much as everyone else. Due to the fact we must afford to the cops special circumstances due to job they have to do, we should also have special amounts of accountability to make sure they are doing the job the correct way.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Speaking of which, Chauvin is trying to get the judge to dismiss the charges

Corrik said that if Chauvin faced no legal consequences for his actions he would join the protests, so if this happens, I cant wait for the footage

The judge is not going to dismiss his charges. All 4 officers have filed for dismissal. Most cases with an attorney probably try to get their cases dismissed.

---

Corrik7 posted...

We are a system of laws.

might want to let our "chief law enforcement officer" know that

---

Corrik7 posted...

Inter-racial bans have been ruled unconstitutional since 1967. Idk about sodomy. What I do know is that the proper course of action to change the laws were taken. You don't get to decide you dislike that law so it is acceptable to assault people, loot stores, commit arson, etc.

We are a system of laws. We have processes to change laws. I encourage people to vote if they feel changes need made. Society will dictate those changes.

So before 1966 they were breaking the law and deserved to be jailed?


---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

So before 1966 they were breaking the law and deserved to be jailed?

If that is what society deemed the law to be, you as a citizen are to abide by it even if you disagreed with it. The proper course of action to change a law is via voting for representation that shares your views to help change it. Society dictates laws. There are laws I disagree with. It is not in my power to arbitrarily decide the laws though. If I choose to break a law, I do so with the understanding I am able to be prosecuted as so for the law. I am not above the law.

---

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

summary of corrilk's argument

---

Corrik7 posted...

If that is what society deemed the law to be, you as a citizen are to abide by it even if you disagreed with it. The proper course of action to change a law is via voting for representation that shares your views to help change it. Society dictates laws. There are laws I disagree with. It is not in my power to arbitrarily decide the laws though. If I choose to break a law, I do so with the understanding I am able to be prosecuted as so for the law. I am not above the law.

It was illegal for slaves to run away from their masters. At some point disobeying unjust laws and violently overthrowing people is going to happen. History of the world

---

Putting all your faith in the law is such an alien concept to me. It's like ceasing to be a person and just becoming a drone controlled by people in power, and while that statement is hyperbolic, I don't think it's inaccurate.

---

Corrik7 posted...

No. I have never said I am fine with cops murdering people. Especially not for any reason, whoever etc.

You're right. Silly me for misinterpretting your regular arguments of "if that drunk man lying prone on the ground, desperately trying to comply with police orders, didn't want to get shot and killed, he shouldn't have moved his hands towards his waist" or "if that twelve-year-old boy didn't want to get shot and killed, he shouldn't have possessed a modified toy gun" as condoning murder. Silly for me thinking that examining any police murder with a fine-toothed comb to find ANY possible legal justification for murder, never once considering whether some quibbling details are morally right, equates to condoning murder.

I am able to see sense for reason that the cops are dealing with many times criminals that are or could become violent.

And many times they're dealing with non-violent or drunk or just completely non-threatening civilians, who often times are given less than five seconds of warning before being fired upon, and rational people think that perhaps they should be better trained or held accountable when they're incapable of differentiating between violent criminals and non-violent civilians.

I believe the issue is that some of you are taking a very extreme view here. Any cop who does not make a reasonable or justifiable decision should be punished according to the law. In order to do that, we should be providing funding to the police in order to have body cams on every cop at all times so they are accountable for their actions.

I believe the issue is that 99 times out of 100, you think EVERY action taking by a police officer involved in shooting an unarmed civilian is reasonable or justified. Because under the current system, the police have almost no accountability, and they can justify almost ANYTHING. You think body cams are going to help when A. they can be turned off for whatever reason, and B. the police can still make an argument that they felt their lives were threatened, and it's kinda hard to prove otherwise?

We should not be jumping to conclusions and mob justice based on clipped videos, vague information, or emotional reactions.

Right, we should only do this with riots and looting and property damage.

We have a system of the law that can mete out punishment for those officers who break the law. That doesn't just apply to use of force. It applies to everything regarding their behavior when working from falsifying information, drug and alcohol use, theft, etc. The cops need to be accountable just as much as everyone else. Due to the fact we must afford to the cops special circumstances due to job they have to do, we should also have special amounts of accountability to make sure they are doing the job the correct way.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-still-so-rare-for-police-officers-to-face-legal-consequences-for-misconduct/ Approximately 15,000 on-duty police shootings (not killings, so George Floyd or Eric Garner wouldn't even be included), and of those 15,000, only 110 resulted in charges or murder or manslaughter, and of those 110, 50 were acquitted, 18 are still in process, and only 42 were convicted. So out of approximately 15,000 shootings, ONLY a maximum of 60 were unjustified in the eyes of the law. 0.4%. And keep in mind that Philando Castile, an incident in which you yourself have admitted the police were in the wrong, is NOT part of that 0.4%, indicating that perhaps police can get away with murder in certain situations.

The system is set up to make life very easy for police to avoid consequences for their actions. They would first need to be investigated by their fellow police officers, and then they would need to be prosecuted by prosecutors who have a vested interest in maintain a good relationship with police departments. And after all of that, police have qualified immunity to help further remove any responsibility for their actions. So ultimately, you're right that police have special amounts of accountability for their actions. It's special in that they have less accountability than average citizens.

---

Corrik7 posted...

We are a system of laws. We have processes to change laws.

So what do you propose people do if:

1. The laws are unjust or insufficient.
2. All attempts to change the laws have ended in failure
3. People are demonstrably being hurt or killed while the laws remain as they are.

There's a good chance you disagree with these presumptions but I'm really looking for an answer assuming the above are true.
---

pyresword posted...

So what do you propose people do if:

1. The laws are unjust or insufficient.
2. All attempts to change the laws have ended in failure
3. People are demonstrably being hurt or killed while the laws remain as they are.

There's a good chance you disagree with these presumptions but I'm really looking for an answer assuming the above are true.

"nobody is above the law. the law is the law. bleep bloop"

---

corrik is someone who hears the words "police state" and his eyes sparkle with joy

---

Inviso posted...

NYTHING. You think body cams are going to help when A. they can be turned off for whatever reason, and B. the police can still make an argument that they felt their lives were threatened, and it's kinda hard to prove otherwise?

A should never happen and should be punishable as a crime imo.

B. Yes, and they should be able to make any argument they want to and a judge and/or jury can decide if they agree.

---

Inviso posted...

indicating that perhaps police can get away with murder in certain situations.

So can civilians.

---

pyresword posted...

So what do you propose people do if:

1. The laws are unjust or insufficient.
2. All attempts to change the laws have ended in failure
3. People are demonstrably being hurt or killed while the laws remain as they are.

There's a good chance you disagree with these presumptions but I'm really looking for an answer assuming the above are true.

1. Vote to get representation to try and change the laws.
2. Society disagrees the laws need to be changed as a whole based on voting representation then.
3. Back to 1 or understand society deems that is reasonable or justified.

---

https://twitter.com/robferdman/status/1300474368120819713

Wow. Just. Wow. The corruption doesn't stop, does it?

---

lawful stupid
---

Corrik7 posted...

So can civilians.

Moreso police though. Plus, let me ask: if a civilian shot and killed a police officer, do you genuinely believe they weould be treated as laxly as when a police officer murders a civilian? Do you genuinely believe that the civilian, fearing for their life (reasonable, given how easily police are allowed to murder without consequences), would be given the same benefit of the doubt?

---

Hbthebattle posted...

lawful stupid

Welcome to the real world. That's how it works.

I think more people would claim those justifying assault, arson, robbery, looting, and etc as stupid than a person stating how society and the law works. But, hey, again... enjoy your bubble! Even the own party you vote for doesn't agree with you for the most part.


---

Corrik7 posted...

Welcome to the real world. That's how it works.

I think more people would claim those justifying assault, arson, robbery, looting, and etc as stupid than a person stating how society and the law works. But, hey, again... enjoy your bubble! Even the own party you vote for doesn't agree with you for the most part.

"Welcome to the real world. That's how it works." in response to a post commenting on how police tried to retroactively get an arrested criminal to implicate Breonna Taylor in his criminal activities, well after they shot and killed her.

Yeah, that's how the real world works. It's why there's a problem with the system and many of us don't trust the police any longer.

---

Inviso posted...

Moreso police though. Plus, let me ask: if a civilian shot and killed a police officer, do you genuinely believe they weould be treated as laxly as when a police officer murders a civilian? Do you genuinely believe that the civilian, fearing for their life (reasonable, given how easily police are allowed to murder without consequences), would be given the same benefit of the doubt?

I would suppose that anyone of a common group would moreso give the benefit of the doubt to a person they didn't expect a crime from.

I believe there is likely many cases where a person was given the benefit of the doubt of self-defense in situations.

Police that make unreasonable and unjustified actions should have to face the repercussions just like any other person. They aren't immune to the law. I believe the police need better accountability so we can deem when that is more often, not even in the cases of a person dying. Not every cop is a good cop, as not every person is a good person. We just need to do a better job at finding them through better accountability. Luckily, technology has provided us means to do so a lot better. It's getting the funding where it is needed to implement it now.

---

Inviso posted...

"Welcome to the real world. That's how it works." in response to a post commenting on how police tried to retroactively get an arrested criminal to implicate Breonna Taylor in his criminal activities, well after they shot and killed her.

Yeah, that's how the real world works. It's why there's a problem with the system and many of us don't trust the police any longer.

Yeah, my post wasn't in response to that. It was in response to what I quoted which was a jab at me.

Regarding that, I don't know enough details of that case but offering a plea to someone in order to narc on others isn't exactly uncommon.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Police that make unreasonable and unjustified actions should have to face the repercussions just like any other person.

but they don't

Corrik7 posted...

They aren't immune to the law.

But they effectively are
---

Corrik, would you be okay with slavery if it was still legal?

Because it sounds to me your postion is 'the law is the law, and fuck anyone who happens to be disenfranchised by it'

---

PrinceKaro posted...

Corrik, would you be okay with slavery if it was still legal?

Because it sounds like me your postion is 'the law is the law, and fuck anyone who happens to be disenfranchised by it'

I would support ending slavery if it was legal. I would not be burning down peoples property, assaulting people, or etc. If when the nation as a society decided to change the laws, those places refused to accept that change and rebelled (and over their flawed states' rights reasoning), I expect military action to put down that insurrection. I also would not probably not have been so lenient in the aftermath of it if I were the one deciding.

---

imagine you have been playing monopoly for 400 turns

for the first 250 turns any money you gained went to the other players

for the next 100 turns they reluctantly let you keep money but any time you actually start getting property and houses they just take it away

then the last 50 turns they mostly stop doing that too and declare the game is fair for all. when you point out the absurd advantage they've built up over the past 400 turns by fucking cheating they go "whoa there, this is a game of rules. if you have a problem with the rules you need to take it to the rules committee" and over the past 400 turns they have become the rules committee because the unspoken rule was that it often required money to get and stay on the committee

---

Corrik7 posted...

I would support ending slavery if it was legal. I would not be burning down peoples property, assaulting people, or etc. If when the nation as a society decided to change the laws, those places refused to accept that change and rebelled (and over their flawed states' rights reasoning), I expect military action to put down that insurrection. I also would not probably not have been so lenient in the aftermath of it if I were the one deciding.

but my question is would you be okay with the slaves breaking the law by escaping or harming their masters.

---

xp1337 posted...

imagine you have been playing monopoly for 400 turns

for the first 250 turns any money you gained went to the other players

for the next 100 turns they reluctantly let you keep money but any time you actually start getting property and houses they just take it away

then the last 50 turns they mostly stop doing that too and declare the game is fair for all. when you point out the absurd advantage they've built up over the past 400 turns by fucking cheating they go "whoa there, this is a game of rules. if you have a problem with the rules you need to take it to the rules committee" and over the past 400 turns they have become the rules committee because the unspoken rule was that it often required money to get and stay on the committee

It's not a good comparison because life isn't really a 400 turn monopoly game. Where would that end? How could you arbitrarily pick a starting and stopping point?

I think it is better to re-allocate wealth through opportunity. The problem right now with that is that there is too much allowed to be passed down upon death. I would support something like a cap on how much wealth you are allowed to transfer upon death with the rest being taken as tax and used to help continue providing opportunity to everyone as a whole in life.

I am sure I am biased because I have received nothing of the sort and was raised dirt poor, but I think the issue is compounding wealth, not past wealth.

---

Corrik7 posted...

It's not a good comparison because life isn't really a 400 turn monopoly game. Where would that end? How could you arbitrarily pick a starting and stopping point?

It started in 1619 and I don't know when it ends.

---

PrinceKaro posted...

but my question is would you be okay with the slaves breaking the law by escaping or harming their masters.

Whether I am okay with it or not, I would not be surprised if by committing a crime for repercussions for that crime to happen. Don't take me for a saint. I know some of you play one on here. However, if there is a law I break or choose to break, I do so with the understanding of the repercussions of the law and that I may be accountable to them.

---

xp1337 posted...

It started in 1619 and I don't know when it ends.

Life didn't start in 1619.

---

Corrik7 posted...

It's not a good comparison because life isn't really a 400 turn monopoly game. Where would that end? How could you arbitrarily pick a starting and stopping point?

I think it is better to re-allocate wealth through opportunity. The problem right now with that is that there is too much allowed to be passed down upon death. I would support something like a cap on how much wealth you are allowed to transfer upon death with the rest being taken as tax and used to help continue providing opportunity to everyone as a whole in life.

I am sure I am biased because I have received nothing of the sort and was raised dirt poor, but I think the issue is compounding wealth, not past wealth.

And, honestly to further this. I wouldn't be against starting here and slowly making it so that the average wealth of the average person was all you were allowed to pass on. With that first step, you could possibly build up that average to allow it to grow over time and become a more variable amount with it.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Whether I am okay with it or not, I would not be surprised if by committing a crime for repercussions for that crime to happen. Don't take me for a saint. I know some of you play one on here. However, if there is a law I break or choose to break, I do so with the understanding of the repercussions of the law and that I may be accountable to them.

So by your logic, when Derek Chauvin kneels on a prone man's neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, while being filmed and KNOWING he's being filmed...don't you think PERHAPS he had different understanding of what the consequences might be for his actions? That maybe, JUST maybe he thought "this is normal and acceptable behavior for me as a police officer, and I won't be punished for it"?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Whether I am okay with it or not, I would not be surprised if by committing a crime for repercussions for that crime to happen. Don't take me for a saint. I know some of you play one on here. However, if there is a law I break or choose to break, I do so with the understanding of the repercussions of the law and that I may be accountable to them.

You did not answer my question. I asked if you supported the right for slaves to break the law in order regain their humanity, or do you think they should just just sit there and be a good little bitch to massa and hope the laws someday get changed


---

Corrik7 posted...

It's not a good comparison because life isn't really a 400 turn monopoly game. Where would that end? How could you arbitrarily pick a starting and stopping point?

I think it is better to re-allocate wealth through opportunity. The problem right now with that is that there is too much allowed to be passed down upon death. I would support something like a cap on how much wealth you are allowed to transfer upon death with the rest being taken as tax and used to help continue providing opportunity to everyone as a whole in life.

I am sure I am biased because I have received nothing of the sort and was raised dirt poor, but I think the issue is compounding wealth, not past wealth.

Monopoly was designed to teach the evils of capitalism. The fundamental difference between Monopoly and the real world economy is that investment of capital generates a positive gain for society in real life, whereas in Monopoly it's a zero sum game. All the gains to the owners of hotels comes straight out of the pockets of the (involuntary) guests.

---

Inviso posted...

So by your logic, when Derek Chauvin kneels on a prone man's neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, while being filmed and KNOWING he's being filmed...don't you think PERHAPS he had different understanding of what the consequences might be for his actions? That maybe, JUST maybe he thought "this is normal and acceptable behavior for me as a police officer, and I won't be punished for it"?

I don't believe Derek Chauvin realized he was committing a crime at the time. So, yes, I believe that is exactly what he thought, or even moreso ambivalent to thought in that scenario because it didn't even cross his mind of what his actions were.

I think he didn't care that he was being filmed because of that and thus didn't adjust his actions to just hide for the camera. That's why I disagreed with a first degree murder there. I don't think he had intent.

---

PrinceKaro posted...

You did not answer my question. I asked if you supported the right for slaves to break the law in order regain their humanity, or do you think they should just just sit there and be a good little bitch to massa and hope the laws someday get changed

No, I don't support the rights to break the laws. I support the calls to change the laws so that the people being oppressed aren't subject to the laws in return for trying to do so if caught.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I don't believe Derek Chauvin realized he was committing a crime at the time. So, yes, I believe that is exactly what he thought, or even moreso ambivalent to thought in that scenario because it didn't even cross his mind of what his actions were.

I think he didn't care that he was being filmed because of that and thus didn't adjust his actions to just hide for the camera. That's why I disagreed with a first degree murder there. I don't think he had intent.

...so you understand why that's BAD, right? Why it's BAD that a system can exist in which Derek Chauvin (and other police officers who don't get punished and don't get media attention) can casually murder someone because he doesn't even consider it a crime?

---

But dont you see, it's your fault for voting wrong.

Just vote better.

-_-

---

Corrik7 posted...

No, I don't support the rights to break the laws. I support the calls to change the laws so that the people being oppressed aren't subject to the laws in return for trying to do so if caught.

Jesus CHRIST, what the FUCK man? They're being oppressed...what should they do? Sit quietly and continue serving as property until privileged white people feel guilty enough to vote to outlaw slavery?

---

Inviso posted...

...so you understand why that's BAD, right? Why it's BAD that a system can exist in which Derek Chauvin (and other police officers who don't get punished and don't get media attention) can casually murder someone because he doesn't even consider it a crime?

You misunderstand my post. It's not that he casually murdered someone because he didn't consider it a crime. I believe he negligently conducted his job that in return murdered a person. I believe the laws will also find him guilty for precisely this. He didn't realize what he was doing could cause harm to the person that could take their life. However, just because you are negligent and ignorant does not mean that you are innocent.

---

Corrik7 posted...

No, I don't support the rights to break the laws. I support the calls to change the laws so that the people being oppressed aren't subject to the laws in return for trying to do so if caught.

L A W F U L
S T U P I D
---

They should ask their masters to vote better.

"please vote for someone who will give me the right to vote. Then someday I can vote for someone who will make it illegal for you to own me".

This is clearly the only legal way to proceed.

---

Inviso posted...

Jesus CHRIST, what the FUCK man? They're being oppressed...what should they do? Sit quietly and continue serving as property until privileged white people feel guilty enough to vote to outlaw slavery?

So, you see why slavery was wrong then. They shouldn't have had to make the choice between waiting for change or facing the possibly legal ramifications if they broke the law. I am glad our society finally woke up to that and fixed that.

---

Though there has to be a strong argument to make that as considered property that enslaved people aren't really subject to the laws of a nation they are not citizens under. I believe you were discussing myself in my actions or others who were citizens actions in said scenario though.

---