ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th March 2017, 07:46 AM   #1721
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
No they don't but, they can easily negate the self-defense "Defense".

For example, if some guy talks to a Mexican or a Biker about his Gonads on his Mother's Chin, then whatever happens next may not be determined "self defense". Self-Defense, would be conflict de-escalation...and no provocation! Many people lose sight of this and end up on the wrong side of the law too often.

Lots of guys in Prison for this.
In my state, either party probably could still claim self-defense. If the biker claimed that the nads-on-chin remark put him in fear of eminent bodily harm (that the guy was clearly about to start swinging), he could legally launch preemptive defense. The first guy could say that 'talk is cheap/just kidding around' and claim self-defense over any assault by the biker. Self-defense laws are dicey as hell, juries can find almost any outcome.
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 07:54 AM   #1722
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Using violence to suppress speech? That's not what MD is talking about.
That's right. MD is talking about responding to a provocation.
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 09:39 AM   #1723
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 6,615
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Yes.

People respect strength.
Good luck with that. I guess it's time to pick a 3rd party and try to find some viable candidate. Both our 2 main ones are going down in flames.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 09:44 AM   #1724
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 6,615
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
No they don't but, they can easily negate the self-defense "Defense".

For example, if some guy talks to a Mexican or a Biker about his Gonads on his Mother's Chin, then whatever happens next may not be determined "self defense". Self-Defense, would be conflict de-escalation...and no provocation! Many people lose sight of this and end up on the wrong side of the law too often.

Lots of guys in Prison for this.
You've misunderstood the scenario. Or I failed to explain it well. Either one is sufficient.

Situation:

Bob: Says words that are offensive and inflammatory
Steve: Punches Bob
Cop: Arrests Steve for assault
Steve: Claims it was self-defense because of "fighting words"

Me: No... it doesn't work that way.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 09:46 AM   #1725
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 6,615
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
I think the hilited is highly subjective, in particular with loosely defined terms like provocation (ie: what is and isn't reasonable). Would you consider any words to be sufficient to get rowdy in response to? If the words suggested a credible threat to your personal safety, would you?
Prohibitions against assault are just and fair. I don't think that's at all subjective.

Credible and immediate threat is the only case in which I would sanction preemptive violence as self-defense.

Calling someone names isn't a threat. None of the things that you seem to accept as "fighting words" that justify or excuse violence in response qualify as threats in my eyes. I'm fairly confident that the law would agree with me on that assessment.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 09:47 AM   #1726
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 6,615
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
That's right. MD is talking about responding to a provocation.
Your bar for what constitutes justifiable provocation is too low for limbo.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 08:54 PM   #1727
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Your bar for what constitutes justifiable provocation is too low for limbo.
Challenge accepted

MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2017, 09:19 PM   #1728
Jules Galen
Illuminator
 
Jules Galen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,576
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You've misunderstood the scenario. Or I failed to explain it well. Either one is sufficient.

Situation:

Bob: Says words that are offensive and inflammatory
Steve: Punches Bob
Cop: Arrests Steve for assault
Steve: Claims it was self-defense because of "fighting words"

Me: No... it doesn't work that way.
This is true, and it works that way where I live. However, there is more:

Bob: Says words that are offensive and inflammatory
Steve: Punches Bob
Bob: Defends himself from Steve's onslaught.
Cop: Arrests Steve and Bob for fighting
Steve: Claims it was self-defense because of "fighting words" No...just no.
Bob: Claims he was innocent and just defending himself. Nope...won't work.

That's what I meant.
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:38 AM   #1729
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Prohibitions against assault are just and fair. I don't think that's at all subjective.

Credible and immediate threat is the only case in which I would sanction preemptive violence as self-defense.

Calling someone names isn't a threat. None of the things that you seem to accept as "fighting words" that justify or excuse violence in response qualify as threats in my eyes. I'm fairly confident that the law would agree with me on that assessment.
The provocation defense is legally recognized in the U.S., though, and is considered mitigating in sentencing (commonly used to reduce murder to manslaughter bc 'heat of passion'). If provocation/fighting words are mitigating in capital cases, I cannot for the life of me understand why they would not reasonably apply to lesser crimes. Is it not more reasonable for a person to be provoked into an assault than a killing?
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:21 PM   #1730
mgidm86
Master Poster
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,846
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
The provocation defense is legally recognized in the U.S., though, and is considered mitigating in sentencing (commonly used to reduce murder to manslaughter bc 'heat of passion'). If provocation/fighting words are mitigating in capital cases, I cannot for the life of me understand why they would not reasonably apply to lesser crimes. Is it not more reasonable for a person to be provoked into an assault than a killing?
Then read about the laws and gain understanding. I just read about provocation defense to address your quote. Now I know more than I did.

I don't think "fighting words" equals provocation in most cases, if ever.

Heat of passion is first of all, difficult to prove, and second, we're talking about punching someone whom you disagree with, not dismembering someone you just found in bed with your spouse.

Issues of the heart have been deemed important enough to sometimes "excuse" bad behavior to an extent. Right or wrong, it has been that way for a very long time. Apparently, humans are known to snap under certain extreme conditions.

Did the guy who punched Spencer lose control of himself, or did he just happen to be passing by and willingly insert himself into the incident?

Did the Berkeley rioters come to the school intent on doing damage to it? Seems that way, after all they arrived masked with bats, pepper spray and other items.

Perhaps I am not explaining this well, but I don't really feel I should need to.

It's simple, sticks and stones. Most people here seem to agree so that's as far as I'm going with this.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:34 PM   #1731
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,885
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
The provocation defense is legally recognized in the U.S., though, and is considered mitigating in sentencing (commonly used to reduce murder to manslaughter bc 'heat of passion'). If provocation/fighting words are mitigating in capital cases, I cannot for the life of me understand why they would not reasonably apply to lesser crimes. Is it not more reasonable for a person to be provoked into an assault than a killing?
If your head is clear enough to think "I'm just going to strike this person once as I don't want a murder charge" is clear enough to make you liable.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:44 PM   #1732
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Then read about the laws and gain understanding. I just read about provocation defense to address your quote. Now I know more than I did.
Thank you for the constructive advice. Surprisingly, I already have.

Originally Posted by mgidm86
I don't think "fighting words" equals provocation in most cases, if ever.

Heat of passion is first of all, difficult to prove, and second, we're talking about punching someone whom you disagree with, not dismembering someone you just found in bed with your spouse.
Yes. I know. I think the same principle applies, to a lesser degree. I would think it is easier to be provoked into punching that to be provoked into freaking dismembering someone, and I thought that would go without saying.

Originally Posted by mgidm86
Issues of the heart have been deemed important enough to sometimes "excuse" bad behavior to an extent. Right or wrong, it has been that way for a very long time. Apparently, humans are known to snap under certain extreme conditions.
Good point. But murder is something I think many people are normally incapable of, but can still be legally considered to have been provoked into it. Isn't it reasonable to be more easily provoked into a lesser offense? In Demeritt v Trahan (1999), linked below, the Louisiana Appellate court found:

Quote:
Simply put, defendant argues this court should find that words alone, no matter how provocative, will not defeat the aggressor defense under any circumstances absent reasonable fear of physical harm.

We do not agree.   Words may, under certain circumstances, justify a battery under La.R.S. 23:1081.
This case had a lot to do with examining the meaning of the words provoked/unprovoked, but the Opinion got me really thinking about this. Another interesting Comment from the University of Chicago poses defining designated fighting words, and demonstrating that we may be moving back towards the original Chaplinsky v N.H concept of fighting words (in a more limited sense):

Quote:
However the harms and benefits of such an approach balance out, the mere likelihood that a law designating a particular offensive word or symbol as a type of per se fighting word is constitutional illustrates the direction in which the Supreme Court jurisprudence is moving.

Originally Posted by mgidm86
Did the guy who punched Spencer lose control of himself, or did he just happen to be passing by and willingly insert himself into the incident?
No one is suggesting that the provocation standard for murder precisely applies here, but that the principle transposes.

Originally Posted by mgidm86
Did the Berkeley rioters come to the school intent on doing damage to it? Seems that way, after all they arrived masked with bats, pepper spray and other items.
Yeah, I've been saying that for pages now. I don't get your point?

Originally Posted by mgidm86
Perhaps I am not explaining this well, but I don't really feel I should need to.

It's simple, sticks and stones. Most people here seem to agree so that's as far as I'm going with this.
Yeah, appeals to popularity are a getting to be a theme.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-...l/1357184.html

http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/c...context=uclrev
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:48 PM   #1733
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
If your head is clear enough to think "I'm just going to strike this person once as I don't want a murder charge" is clear enough to make you liable.
Ok, but is it fair to say that it might not be a calculated decision? I'm thinking more like a rage response than a weighed choice. Also, a lot of people might consider punching someone else, but (hopefully) very few would ever actually consider a murder for any reason.
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:56 PM   #1734
Jules Galen
Illuminator
 
Jules Galen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,576
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Then read about the laws and gain understanding. I just read about provocation defense to address your quote. Now I know more than I did.

I don't think "fighting words" equals provocation in most cases, if ever.

Heat of passion is first of all, difficult to prove, and second, we're talking about punching someone whom you disagree with, not dismembering someone you just found in bed with your spouse.

Issues of the heart have been deemed important enough to sometimes "excuse" bad behavior to an extent. Right or wrong, it has been that way for a very long time. Apparently, humans are known to snap under certain extreme conditions.

Did the guy who punched Spencer lose control of himself, or did he just happen to be passing by and willingly insert himself into the incident?

Did the Berkeley rioters come to the school intent on doing damage to it? Seems that way, after all they arrived masked with bats, pepper spray and other items.

Perhaps I am not explaining this well, but I don't really feel I should need to.

It's simple, sticks and stones.
Most people here seem to agree so that's as far as I'm going with this.
That's not how it works at all. See, ya' punch a loud-mouthed right-winger in the mouth and he goes home, and stays home. He quits talking and he doesn't vote. Because he ashamed of being whipped. That's why Liberals punch right-wingers in the mouth.

And it's going to happen more and more as Liberals figure oout that they can not reason with the right-wing hate.

If ya' don't like it...if ya' find it shocking...then, what can I say, It's just the way things are going to happen.

Yeah, there are a lot of derogatory terms the Right uses: Pinko, Libtard, Tree-hugger, bleeding-heart, Moonbat...but those days are coming to a close, with a punch-in-the-mouth.

Last edited by Jules Galen; Yesterday at 10:06 PM.
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:06 PM   #1735
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 13,798
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
That's not how it works at all. See, ya' punch a loud-mouthed right-winger in the mouth and he goes home, and stays home. He quits talking and he doesn't vote. Because he ashamed of being whipped. That's why Liberals punch right-wingers in the mouth.

And it's going to happen more and more as Liberals figure oout that they can not reason with the right-wing hate.

If ya' don't like it...if ya' find it shocking...then, what can I say, It's just the way things are going to happen.
Wow, if there were more liberals who weren't girly-men and women, that might just terrify me.

Still, it seems a little too perfect that you support violence against those who have different beliefs. Especially with your pro-IRA views; it all fits.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:10 PM   #1736
Jules Galen
Illuminator
 
Jules Galen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,576
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Wow, if there were more liberals who weren't girly-men and women, that might just terrify me.

Still, it seems a little too perfect that you support violence against those who have different beliefs. Especially with your pro-IRA views; it all fits.
Where did you get that? I am not supporting violence and I'm a bit shocked at your hysteria.

What? Do you think everyone who has a different opinion than yourself must be unhinged?

Get a grip. Grow the hell up.
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:04 AM   #1737
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,185
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Sad doesn't even come close.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/P...C-10901829.php

Yet look who started all of the violence. Look who is being targeted. This is bad even for Berkeley.

Berkeley is in a world of its own. If it's 12 noon in San Francisco, it's midnight in Berkeley.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:01 AM   #1738
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,885
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Ok, but is it fair to say that it might not be a calculated decision? I'm thinking more like a rage response than a weighed choice. Also, a lot of people might consider punching someone else, but (hopefully) very few would ever actually consider a murder for any reason.
But if your defense is "I lost it" that kind of breaks down when you obviously were thinking rationally in regards to long term consequences.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:51 AM   #1739
varwoche
Philosopher
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 9,945
Masked goons pepper-sprayed Trump supporters in Orange County. They are reported to be "antifa" (a term I was unfamiliar with until this thread). Does anyone care to support these actions?
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
SCOTUS death watch
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:17 AM   #1740
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
But if your defense is "I lost it" that kind of breaks down when you obviously were thinking rationally in regards to long term consequences.
You're right, the 'lost control' defense falls flat in anything short of the most extreme circumstances. What I am kicking around is basically the older interpretation of fighting words defense- that some words are so vile that they are the equivalent of throwing a first punch. This is still actually a legitimate basis for an assault charge in the U.S., that the words alone inflicted enough damage to qualify as assault. What is not supported is a physical response to the assault, and that's where I am proposing a slight modification to existing law. Simply put, that you should be able to claim that you were goaded into throwing the first punch, when the adversary had (metaphorically) already thrown the first.
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:55 AM   #1741
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Masked goons pepper-sprayed Trump supporters in Orange County. They are reported to be "antifa" (a term I was unfamiliar with until this thread). Does anyone care to support these actions?
How about this:

The counter protesters claimed they were forming a human wall in a legal protest, abt 30 counter-protesters against 2000 marchers. Based on the link, sounds like only a few of the counter-protesters had spray, and used it when the 2000 Trupmeters had closed in on them, possibly with enough menace as to pose a credible threat to the safety of the few opposers. Then the Trumpeters apparently beat one to the ground, kicking and punching him. Sounds like a violent mob attacking some civil counter-protesters (who were prepared for self-defense by bringing spray) to me. Anything in the link to rule out this scenario?
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:04 AM   #1742
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,174
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Bob: Says words that are offensive and inflammatory
Bob's followers: Walk around in the neighbourhood surrounding Bob's talk and assault people as per Bob's talk.
Steve: Punches Bob
Bob: Defends himself from Steve's onslaught.
Cop: Arrests Steve and Bob for fighting
ftfy
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:09 AM   #1743
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,174
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Masked goons pepper-sprayed Trump supporters in Orange County. They are reported to be "antifa" (a term I was unfamiliar with until this thread). Does anyone care to support these actions?
Do you have evidence? Police claims do not constitute evidence.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:14 AM   #1744
varwoche
Philosopher
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 9,945
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
How about this:

The counter protesters claimed they were forming a human wall in a legal protest, abt 30 counter-protesters against 2000 marchers. Based on the link, sounds like only a few of the counter-protesters had spray, and used it when the 2000 Trupmeters had closed in on them, possibly with enough menace as to pose a credible threat to the safety of the few opposers. Then the Trumpeters apparently beat one to the ground, kicking and punching him. Sounds like a violent mob attacking some civil counter-protesters (who were prepared for self-defense by bringing spray) to me. Anything in the link to rule out this scenario?
Showing up with pepper spray and masks doesn't exactly paint a picture of honorable intention.

Yes, it was just a few of them. Typical.

I'll try to dig up some better reporting later on.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
SCOTUS death watch
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:22 AM   #1745
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,784
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
How about this:

The counter protesters claimed they were forming a human wall in a legal protest, abt 30 counter-protesters against 2000 marchers. Based on the link, sounds like only a few of the counter-protesters had spray, and used it when the 2000 Trupmeters had closed in on them, possibly with enough menace as to pose a credible threat to the safety of the few opposers. Then the Trumpeters apparently beat one to the ground, kicking and punching him. Sounds like a violent mob attacking some civil counter-protesters (who were prepared for self-defense by bringing spray) to me. Anything in the link to rule out this scenario?
I don't know about anyone else, but I only wear masks for Halloween.

It will be up to the police to sort out what happened, and who was acting in self defense, but if the only claim that this guy has was based on some sort of feeling, he's got no claim at all. Moreover, the police are going to start out biased against the guy, and they should. There's one group of people with a permit, and some other dude, with no permit, masked and with pepper spray. It's going to be a really tough sell to convince anyone that the masked man was not the troublemaker in that scenario.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:28 AM   #1746
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 5,685
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Simply put, that you should be able to claim that you were goaded into throwing the first punch, when the adversary had (metaphorically) already thrown the first.
Metaphorical punches merit metaphorical defenses.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:28 AM   #1747
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,174
These so-called "Trump Supporters" of Sacramento:

Edited by Darat:  Removed "hotlinked" images. Please see Rule 5.

https://itsgoingdown.org/wp-content/...17/03/1-58.jpg
https://itsgoingdown.org/wp-content/...17/03/1-6.jpeg
https://itsgoingdown.org/wp-content/...17/03/1-65.jpg

Apparently they have the habit of stabbing the untermenschen around them at their rallies.

How dare anyone even think about bringing pepper-spray as a self-defense measure against this?! It's an utter affront to the glorious ideals of liberalism!
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by Darat; Today at 09:49 AM. Reason: Removed img tags from links
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:30 AM   #1748
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,060
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
How about this:

The counter protesters claimed they were forming a human wall in a legal protest, abt 30 counter-protesters against 2000 marchers. Based on the link, sounds like only a few of the counter-protesters had spray, and used it when the 2000 Trupmeters had closed in on them, possibly with enough menace as to pose a credible threat to the safety of the few opposers. Then the Trumpeters apparently beat one to the ground, kicking and punching him. Sounds like a violent mob attacking some civil counter-protesters (who were prepared for self-defense by bringing spray) to me. Anything in the link to rule out this scenario?
You can't intentionally expose yourself to a "threat" and then use that as an excuse to attack the "threat."
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:49 PM   #1749
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Showing up with pepper spray and masks doesn't exactly paint a picture of honorable intention.

Yes, it was just a few of them. Typical.

I'll try to dig up some better reporting later on.
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I don't know about anyone else, but I only wear masks for Halloween.

It will be up to the police to sort out what happened, and who was acting in self defense, but if the only claim that this guy has was based on some sort of feeling, he's got no claim at all. Moreover, the police are going to start out biased against the guy, and they should. There's one group of people with a permit, and some other dude, with no permit, masked and with pepper spray. It's going to be a really tough sell to convince anyone that the masked man was not the troublemaker in that scenario.
Admittedly a bit of Devil's Advocate here, but I don't think the masks and pepper spray are necessarily ominous. Pepper spray is a non-lethal self-defense aid, deregulated and perfectly legal to carry in California (linked below). Trump marches may have trouble-making white supremacists, fascist types etc in their ranks (these groups overwhelmingly support President Trump) who could plausibly attack a civil counter-protester.. The most telling trait of the use of pepper spray is that it is non-lethal, hence somewhat humane. If they carried Molotovs and pipes, a harder sell for justifiable self-defense.

Re: masks, it is reasonable to not want your mug posted on a neo-nazi website, with a 'Wanted For Treason-Dead or Alive' caption, so masks my be prudent for self-protection as well. The counter-protesters see the marchers as violent fascists, so they may have good reason to fear unlawful retaliation if identified.

And the obvious: 30 counter protesters versus two thousand marchers. Did they have a tanker truck full of pepper spray? If not, sounds more like some were carrying personal (and legal) self-defense aids, not weapons to launch against legions. These cats may not be that bright, but I don't think they're that dumb.

http://consumerwiki.dca.ca.gov/wiki/...Mace/Tear_Gas)
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:37 PM   #1750
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You can't intentionally expose yourself to a "threat" and then use that as an excuse to attack the "threat."
Do you suggest that one cannot engage in political expression if there is a chance of possible conflict, or at least cannot justifiably defend themselves if attacked...because they intentionally put themselves there? You sure about this argument?
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:09 PM   #1751
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,784
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Admittedly a bit of Devil's Advocate here, but I don't think the masks and pepper spray are necessarily ominous. Pepper spray is a non-lethal self-defense aid, deregulated and perfectly legal to carry in California (linked below). Trump marches may have trouble-making white supremacists, fascist types etc in their ranks (these groups overwhelmingly support President Trump) who could plausibly attack a civil counter-protester.. The most telling trait of the use of pepper spray is that it is non-lethal, hence somewhat humane. If they carried Molotovs and pipes, a harder sell for justifiable self-defense.

Re: masks, it is reasonable to not want your mug posted on a neo-nazi website, with a 'Wanted For Treason-Dead or Alive' caption, so masks my be prudent for self-protection as well. The counter-protesters see the marchers as violent fascists, so they may have good reason to fear unlawful retaliation if identified.

And the obvious: 30 counter protesters versus two thousand marchers. Did they have a tanker truck full of pepper spray? If not, sounds more like some were carrying personal (and legal) self-defense aids, not weapons to launch against legions. These cats may not be that bright, but I don't think they're that dumb.

http://consumerwiki.dca.ca.gov/wiki/...Mace/Tear_Gas)
I've seen some videos. There are undoubtedly more. The police will have to look through them and see if they can determine who initiated the violence. However, if there's a group of people who followed proper procedure, got permits, and clearly had a right to be where they were, and someone shows up, interferes with that, while wearing a mask and carrying pepper spray, it's just hard to picture that person as having acted in a totally benign manner.

The "I felt threatened because I was surrounded by crazy people" defense is certainly not going to fly. At the very least, they will have to show that there were actual threats to their safety. I think even that would be insufficient unless the threats were specific and credible. I think they would have to show that the Trump supporters actually initiated violence in order to justify using pepper spray on them.

Some of the video I've seen looked fairly damning of the pro-Trump crowd, but it also looked heavily edited. Hopefully, the police can make sense of it. This sort of violence is very, very, bad, and I hope they can clearly pinpoint a responsible party.
__________________
Dave
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:37 PM   #1752
MostlyDead
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I've seen some videos. There are undoubtedly more. The police will have to look through them and see if they can determine who initiated the violence. However, if there's a group of people who followed proper procedure, got permits, and clearly had a right to be where they were, and someone shows up, interferes with that, while wearing a mask and carrying pepper spray, it's just hard to picture that person as having acted in a totally benign manner.

The "I felt threatened because I was surrounded by crazy people" defense is certainly not going to fly. At the very least, they will have to show that there were actual threats to their safety. I think even that would be insufficient unless the threats were specific and credible. I think they would have to show that the Trump supporters actually initiated violence in order to justify using pepper spray on them.

Some of the video I've seen looked fairly damning of the pro-Trump crowd, but it also looked heavily edited. Hopefully, the police can make sense of it. This sort of violence is very, very, bad, and I hope they can clearly pinpoint a responsible party.
I'm running with 'natural adversaries who are likely to throw down any time they meet'. The LA Times for example reports that the pro-Trump marchers attacked photographers and reporters, linked below (whitelist the site to read), and yes the video I have seen showed exclusively naked aggression by the marchers. Others paint the counter-protesters as the instigators. Good guess that while one antifa may have sprayed first, the pro-Trump crowd was more than willing to rough up anyone in range.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...326-story.html

ETA: the LA Times reports that the pro-Trumpers attacked the media first, then the pepper spray happened. For funsies, they also include a pic of Trump supporters...wearing bandanna masks

Last edited by MostlyDead; Today at 10:09 PM.
MostlyDead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:58 PM   #1753
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,056
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Something I found that applies to this discussion, a quote from actual anarchists:

"Instead of attacking impersonal symbols of justice, we think that it is very important to transpose our hostilities to the personal environment of the enemy, their homes, offices, hangouts and vehicles. We know that to authority ”nobody is irreplaceable” but we also know that a personal hit against one of them would instill fear in another 100. "

https://insurrectionnewsworldwide.co...open-proposal/

Hooboy! Doesn't that just make you ache to live in a world of their creation?
Free to attack mine, but they will not be happy with the results.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.