The dishonesty of their screeching is shown by the fact that they'll advocate for Michael Brown, who assaulted and tried to kill a cop, and want to give a medal to the guy who murdered Ashli Babbitt, a short, unarmed woman who was no threat to anyone.
Of course, it's not just about white/black, but it helps - I'm sure they'd love it if a black Trump supporter was murdered too.
and want to give a medal to the guy who murdered Ashli Babbitt, a short, unarmed woman who was no threat to anyone
I've always thought it wasn't completely unreasonable for him to shoot, but no way should he get a goddamn medal for it. Any call to give him one is politically motivated and is essentially saying 'it's virtuous to shoot right wingers'.
Which shouldn't be a big surprise from the 'Punch a nazi!/You're a nazi!' crowd.
It might not be 'completely unreasonable', maybe 1% reasonable or something, but when there is a barrier between you, the person you're killing is so unthreatening, and you neither warn nor fire warning shots, I do regard it as murder.
But murder in defense of the rich and powerful is always justified. I'm no John Brown supporter, but he said it exactly right.
Warning shots don't exist unless you're in the middle of nowhere. There is no such thing as firing a shot that isn't a threat to anybody unless you're at a firing range.
The point that stands out to me is that she was in the process of climbing over/through the barrier when she got shot, and there were a lot of people behind her who likely would have followed. I can understand feeling like you have to shoot in that circumstance.
But I still wouldn't put it past them to have planned murder in advance, in order send a message. Everything else about that day was staged after all.
But murder in defense of the rich and powerful is always justified. I'm no John Brown supporter, but he said it exactly right.
Agreed. There's far too big a divide here when there shouldn't be one at all. If a civilian had done the same thing, in the same circumstances, the response would be very different.
The point that stands out to me is that she was in the process of climbing over/through the barrier when she got shot, and there were a lot of people behind her who likely would have followed. I can understand feeling like you have to shoot in that circumstance.
Shooting based on piled-up contingencies? This actually makes it sound much less justified to me.
It's striking that the right attempts to justify the murder of people on the right, whereas the left just does a who-whom analysis.
But I still wouldn't put it past them to have planned murder in advance, in order send a message. Everything else about that day was staged after all.
Risky if true. Because in many such cases, murdering actually inflames the crowd. Maybe that is what they wanted.
Agreed. There's far too big a divide here when there shouldn't be one at all. If a civilian had done the same thing, in the same circumstances, the response would be very different.
I didn't mean a civilian. I meant if a cop had done it in defense not of the ruling class (or its puppets), but in defense of you and me.
The dishonesty of their screeching is shown by the fact that they'll advocate for Michael Brown, who assaulted and tried to kill a cop, and want to give a medal to the guy who murdered Ashli Babbitt, a short, unarmed woman who was no threat to anyone.
Of course, it's not just about white/black, but it helps - I'm sure they'd love it if a black Trump supporter was murdered too.
Well yeah, see the compilations of them literally calling Clarence Thomas a "fucking nigger" and shit like that.
I've always thought it wasn't completely unreasonable for him to shoot, but no way should he get a goddamn medal for it. Any call to give him one is politically motivated and is essentially saying 'it's virtuous to shoot right wingers'.
Which shouldn't be a big surprise from the 'Punch a nazi!/You're a nazi!' crowd.
It might not be 'completely unreasonable', maybe 1% reasonable or something, but when there is a barrier between you, the person you're killing is so unthreatening, and you neither warn nor fire warning shots, I do regard it as murder.
But murder in defense of the rich and powerful is always justified. I'm no John Brown supporter, but he said it exactly right.
Warning shots don't exist unless you're in the middle of nowhere. There is no such thing as firing a shot that isn't a threat to anybody unless you're at a firing range.
Don't bother explaining that to a eurotrash Turk who's never handled a gun. He spouts ignorant shit like that all the time.
You cant just fire at the ground? Genuine question, I dont know
He should at least go to trial. A jury (not in DC) can decide if he was being reasonable or not.
The point that stands out to me is that she was in the process of climbing over/through the barrier when she got shot, and there were a lot of people behind her who likely would have followed. I can understand feeling like you have to shoot in that circumstance.
But I still wouldn't put it past them to have planned murder in advance, in order send a message. Everything else about that day was staged after all.
Agreed. There's far too big a divide here when there shouldn't be one at all. If a civilian had done the same thing, in the same circumstances, the response would be very different.
Shooting based on piled-up contingencies? This actually makes it sound much less justified to me.
It's striking that the right attempts to justify the murder of people on the right, whereas the left just does a who-whom analysis.
Risky if true. Because in many such cases, murdering actually inflames the crowd. Maybe that is what they wanted.
I didn't mean a civilian. I meant if a cop had done it in defense not of the ruling class (or its puppets), but in defense of you and me.