Well, you forget the part that actually reinforces your point:
The judiciary created expeditious trials, the prosecutors threatened to throw the book at them, and the court-appointed attorneys told people to plead guilty on things that were literally not crimes.
They are also on record of not wanting to do mouth-to-mouth
Okay, now we know why he's ACTUALLY being charged. The NYPD and EMT's don't want to admit they accidentally let a guy die from Cardiac Arrest.
This is literally the same shit that happened to Eric Garner back in the day. A blood choke was applied to a resisting suspect who weighed damn near 500 lbs. He stopped breathing after the choke was released, after he was hand cuffed, and after the cops got off of him. However, the EMT's, basically let him lie on the ground for several minutes, preforming zero life-saving efforts to him in any way. They saw he was unconscious and that his chest wasn't moving so they just stood and looked at him until he went into cardiac arrest and died.
The cops didn't kill Eric Garner, the EMT's did.
With this guy, what the EMT's didn't want to do mouth-to-mouth despite having multiple ways of getting air into a patients lungs without putting their lips on him.
This was obviously the case in the moment. He clearly let the choke go loose when the guy complied / stopped fighting. Since his military service record is being used as a weapon against him by the prosecutor, his basic combatives training would have taught him to do exactly that by mere repetition with training partners.
This is why applying a blood-choke to someone should not be considered potentially deadly force simply because it's being applied. It could become that, but it isn't necessarily that.
I agree with this much more, but there's some nuance left out of it. Clausewitz has the best explanation:
War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will. Force, to counter opposing force, equips itself with the inventions of art and science. Attached to force are certain self-imposed, imperceptible limitations hardly worth mentioning, known as international law and custom, but they scarcely weaken it. Force - that is, physical force, for moral force has no existence save as expressed in the state and the law - is thus the means of war; to impose our will on the enemy is it's object. To secure that object we must render the enemy powerless; and that, in theory, is the true aim of warfare. That aim takes the place of the object, discarding it as something not actually part of the war itself.
War crimes are a self-imposition, since a true enemy already rejects the moral force of his opponent.
However, to be clear, the reason for this self-imposition is both political and spiritual. Atrocities unquestionably cause demoralization among a people claiming morality, because the crimes are so taboo and counter to the self-image of the people can be extinguished. We know of the "Melian Dialogue" in the first place because the Athenians were so appalled that their navy had genocide Melos without a pre-existing war, or even a warning to anyone, even on their own side. This demoralization creates the delegitimization of the people conducting the atrocity.
Further, mercy is inherently an act of strength. It pre-supposes that you are strong enough to grant that mercy in the first place, and that it is towards a defeated enemy. It effectively does the opposite of an atrocity. It legitimizes the power of the victor, as a benevolent ruler, showing that the war itself is inherently illegitimate because the fear of the victor's will is unfounded. It additionally moralizes the people by reinforcing their moral framework. It subversively tells the defeated that they are already conquered by the will of the merciful, and that all they need to do is relent.
This is also why false mercy is an atrocity in and of itself: a fake surrender, the execution of prisoners, rebuking an agreed peace deal, etc. It's admission by the person doing it: "I was never legitimate".
Just because I believe the Nazis when they say they did exactly what they did, and their rationale for it, and the physical evidence of it, doesn't mean your attempts at slander have any legitimacy.
Coincidently it was Soviets that were the first to report on the Holohoax AND also the first to report on the "Rape on Nanking" which makes things even more suspicious.
Okay, these are the things that make Holocaust Denial the most retarded conspiracy theory. All other conspiracy theories work off of low information, and then trying to follow up on it. The good ones actually follow the evidence and let the evidence speak for itself (like Pfizer's contract with Albania). The worst ones (like "moon is a hologram"), go down a rabbit hole of assumptions after a small amount information. You idiots operate off of no information. It's just motivated reasoning backed up by nothing. You don't want it to make your cause look retarded (even if you think it's a good thing and want to participate in the next one), so you just make shit up. You just 'say words' and hope for the best.
No, it was not the Soviets that reported the holocaust first, it was the witnesses, followed by the victims, followed by the aggressors. The Soviets, like Americans, got their information from those sources, down the line, as it slowly reached them by people who could communicate to them. That's how the Soviets would have found out about any of it, in any situation. You are literally ignorant of information gathering. You aren't equipped to have this conversation.
The first reports of the Rape of Nanking, came from the victims who fled the city, and Japanese officers who admitted that they had lost all control of their own men, and were unable to restore order. It's in their reports to their commanding officers, from the day. They don't admit that they ordered it, but they do admit that it happened. As with the Holocaust, it's their sources.
It's true that Communists lie. But so do Race Communists, also known as National Socialists.
One of the strangest and most alarming things I saw was someone did make a kind of Robo-Slut, but it was really more like an advanced fleshlight. The creators of the device said they put out several, uh, into the consumer space, for testing purposes to see how the device would fare.
Each device came back nearly destroyed.
Now, to be clear, this was effectively a large robotic fleshlight. Most of it was made of steel and electronics, only with a soft outer skin for, uh, use.
However, in no more than 2 weeks, most of the devices were nearly physically destroyed and no longer able to operate normally. Some were almost torn to pieces. This came back as a surprise to the engineers in that it was clear the devices needed to withstand far more abuse than they expected, but some did chime up with a legit question of: "Exactly how violent is a human male capable of being during intercourse?" Which lead to other questions around, "How violent is sex among the general population?", "How much danger are women actually in during intercourse?", "Is this what it looks like if men treat women as objects?"
From a dispassionate psychological perspective, I actually think a better question is "How much are men tempering themselves with women?" because it seems like their behavior can go to extremes when they are interacting with something that is an inanimate object. It's very obvious that most men always temper themselves, or hold themselves back, around women for status, for the safety of those women, for many reasons that indicate a fundamental psychological difference between the sexes. But when it's not women, and they're not holding themselves back, their behavior seems to be much more extreme. Women seem to be a moderator of men's behavior in almost all forms.
I guess, to your point about "increasing violence against women", I think that would definitely be a line of argumentation if this evidence continued to emerge with an actual Sex Bot; but it would be a wrong headed belief. Yes, if men see something as an object they will treat it worse than a woman; but in the opposite direction, men will personify objects as feminine and treat them much better.
That's basically what both governments agreed to. We kinda got everyone back for every atrocity they committed when we dropped two nukes on them, firebombed every major city, and killed nearly 100,000 people in one night in Tokyo.
I don't know why you would think that when I'm here.
I will accept the term Liberal, in so much that I agree with Liberals like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Barry Goldwater. This includes the recognition that Democracy is the most effective mechanism of Tyranny, and that Universal Suffrage must end. So sure I'm a "Liberal" of the original intent.
God, we really are running against nagging feminist harpies trying to shame everyone into liking them.
Vance really did hit the nail on the head with his crazy cat ladies comment. I mean basically dropped a bomb on the Feminist Fuhrer Bunker and they've been shitting themselves ever since.
Good thing that the Germans had been committing atrocities since the first day they entered Poland.