NHL NHL will resume play on Saturday

[jgatie]

Nothing about what I’m saying is cartoonish, and I’ve already acknowledged that it’s a difficult job that traumatizes people.

they shouldn’t be shooting people in the back, or kneeling on necks for 8 minutes, or busting into houses in the middle of the night and killing an EMT. And they shouldn’t be allowing little vigilante dipshits go free after killing people. I just want them to do their f***ing job.

I don’t know what else to tell you. I’m not saying they need to be shot at to fire but they sure as hell need major reform. You know, maybe train more than a barber? Takes a lawyer 8 years of school to study the law, why does it take a handful of months to enforce it? But whatever you’ve already admitted this is too personal to you so I’m not gonna get too much deeper into it.


They are humans but at the end of the day they voluntarily chose to put themselves in this authority position. They have to be held to a higher standard than a drug dealer as a result. I just do not know what to tell you.

It may be personal to me, but you are the one losing your cool. I'll not cause you any more anguish.

By the way, you've still not answered my question about Sgt. Chesna. If he had shot the person of color before he had a chance to throw the rock, would he still be a "good man"?

 

[LouJersey]

I think I’m being entirely fair when they voluntarily put themselves in that position of authority knowing that they will have to be cool under pressure some day and then are shown to be trigger happy, or just shitty people.

And most are cool under the same circumstances. Do you not think the exact Jacob Blake scenario has happened thousands and thousands of times without the tragic ending? Do you think there aren’t a load of police that allow themselves to be in danger before they do anything so drastic?

 

[CDJ]

It may be personal to me, but you are the one losing your cool. I'll not cause you any more anguish.

By the way, you've still not answered my question about Sgt. Chesna. If he had shot the person of color before he had a chance to throw the rock, would he still be a "good man"?

you should read the last paragraph of my last post and you can probably figure out the answer to that. He would be. But you can play your hypothetical “HE WOULD HAVE BEEN VILLAINIZED” game if you’d like. Do our cops wear body cams? If so then he wouldn’t be.

and I’m not losing my cool at all. You’re the one calling what I’m saying cartoonish when it’s imo pretty reasonable.

 

[LouJersey]

It may be personal to me, but you are the one losing your cool. I'll not cause you any more anguish.

By the way, you've still not answered my question about Sgt. Chesna. If he had shot the person of color before he had a chance to throw the rock, would he still be a "good man"?

Not saying CDJ would be saying it but all you would be reading is “it’s a rock! He had a gun! And yada yada yada

 

[CDJ]

And most are cool under the same circumstances. Do you not think the exact Jacob Blake scenario has happened thousands and thousands of times without the tragic ending? Do you think there aren’t a load of police that allow themselves to be in danger before they do anything so drastic?

I don’t even know what you’re getting at but I think the people who have done this properly thousands of times demonstrate why the people in the Jacob Blake shooting were in the wrong. The people that have done this properly thousands of times did their job.

 

[jgatie]

you should read the last paragraph of my last post and you can probably figure out the answer to that. He would be. But you can play your hypothetical “HE WOULD HAVE BEEN VILLAINIZED” game if you’d like. Do our cops wear body cams? If so then he wouldn’t be.

and I’m not losing my cool at all. You’re the one calling what I’m saying cartoonish when it’s imo pretty reasonable.

If you don't think a cop shooting a guy for holding a rock would not have been villainized a year after Ferguson, you are living in La La land. Hell, you'd be leading the charge (and you know it). You just have the luxury of hindsight to bail you out.

 

[CDJ]

If you don't think a cop shooting a guy for holding a rock would not have been villainized a year after Ferguson, you are living in La La land. Hell, you'd be leading the charge (and you know it). You just have the luxury of hindsight to bail you out.

Yeah you’re not taking this personally at all.

And no I really wouldn’t be. Especially if there was a body cam. And again my post on the last page:


“There have been 750+ police killings this year, 1000+ over the last calendar year. I’m not saying they’re all unjustified. As a matter of fact I bet most WERE justified. I’m just saying we have work to do. I don’t think that’s groundbreaking“


So you can live in your hypothetical little “what if” Land, I’ll continue to live in reality and call out bad policing where I see it. Jacob Blake was bad policing. Breonna Taylor was bad policing. Eric Garner was bad policing. Philando Castile was bad policing. Im sorry. It is what it is.

 

[HumBucker]

I think I heard that the family of the teenager who was killed in CHOP has brought a $3 BILLION wrongful death suit against the City of Seattle. If people are honest, I would bet that many here supported that takeover. It tragically points out that anarchy, burning, looting, destruction leads to nothing positive. When I moved to DC nearly 30 years ago, there were MANY burned out blocks from the 1968 civil rights riots which were still there 25 years later. And they stayed that way for another 15 additional years. Violence and destruction solve nothing, no matter the underlying reasons.

Like all those thugs dumping tea into the harbour?

I lived across the river from Detroit for 6 years, and saw some of the burned out neighbourhoods from the 60s riots - still there at the time (early 90s). And only a few blocks from the downtown core. But didn't those riots lead to (or at least contribute to) the Civil Rights Act getting signed?

I'm not condoning violence or looting, but from a historical perspective, pretty much every "revolution" – from France to America to Ireland to Russia – or uprisings of various kinds, has involved mobs and destruction at some point. Maybe not always perpetrated by the main political actors/activists, but it happens, and whether anyone supports it or not, it's part of what shakes up the powers that be. Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it is an unfortunate reality.

You don't think the American colonists' uprising didn't involve bystanders getting attacked, killed, families run from their homes, buildings burned down, hangings, mob justice?

 

[LouJersey]

I don’t even know what you’re getting at but I think the people who have done this properly thousands of times demonstrate why the people in the Jacob Blake shooting were in the wrong. The people that have done this properly thousands of times did their job.

I don’t even know what you’re getting at but I think the people who have done this properly thousands of times demonstrate why the people in the Jacob Blake shooting were in the wrong. The people that have done this properly thousands of times did their job.

You’re lunping the entire profession in with the horrible acts of a few, that was my point

 

[CDJ]

You’re lunping the entire profession in with the horrible acts of a few, that was my point

I don’t think I am. I think I’m very fair to the ones that do the job well every day. I’m just saying we can do a lot better. We can. And not just law enforcement, we can do a lot better with the entire criminal justice system

btw for the record they make it really hard not to do that when a couple of them give brain trauma to a senior citizen, say he fell, then they all quit the emergency task force in protest when a witness video is released and people are outraged.

I and many others just want accountability.

I think I’ve given my million cents for the night

 

[HumBucker]

I'm sorry I know this was a few pages ago but are you serious with this statement? I was always taught that a person should listen to, digest, and analyze new information. By doing this, a person is able to form a more solid opinion on a particular subject and, in some cases, change their opinion entirely. Learning, wisdom, personal growth - these are GOOD things. The idea that learning new information, or being presented a world view you hadn't considered before, and changing your belief is somehow a BAD thing is flabbergasting.

Agreed, however there is the reality of what psychologists call cognitive dissonance. When people are presented with new information that conflicts with a closely held belief or opinion, for instance, some will change or alter their opinion; others will reject the new info and find any kind of rationalization to keep clinging their belief. I think we're seeing a lot of that these days - and that probably includes all of us to one degree or another.

 

[LouJersey]

I don’t think I am. I think I’m very fair to the ones that do the job well every day. I’m just saying we can do a lot better. We can. And not just law enforcement, we can do a lot better with the entire criminal justice system

btw for the record they make it really hard not to do that when a couple of them give brain trauma to a senior citizen, say he fell, then they all quit the emergency task force in protest when a witness video is released and people are outraged.

A very unfortunate incident indeed. Not sure why the guy was walking up to them to begin with but to push him like that? Not ok. I guess they could have arrested him for obstructing instead maybe?

 

[HumBucker]

A very unfortunate incident indeed. Not sure why the guy was walking up to them to begin with but to push him like that? Not ok. I guess they could have arrested him for obstructing instead maybe?

I think a better takeaway is, maybe they shouldn't have lied about it and tried to cover it up by blaming the victim? If they were so right in their actions, why did they lie?

 

[LouJersey]

I think a better takeaway is, maybe they shouldn't have lied about it and tried to cover it up by blaming the victim? If they were so right in their actions, why did they lie?

They weren't right about it. they shouldn't have lied either. Two cops got fired and rightfully so. As far as blaming the victim, it's right there on video, he walked right up to them waving arms and nonsense...He didn't deserve what happened to him, so that's why I said he should have been arrested and not pushed away

 

[LouJersey]

I'm looking forward to tomorrow where we can all reunite and celebrate or wallow together lol

 

[Gonzothe7thDman]

I think a better takeaway is, maybe they shouldn't have lied about it and tried to cover it up by blaming the victim? If they were so right in their actions, why did they lie?

Agreed.

I think the hero worship of military/police is out of control in this country and you are starting to see the ill effects of that with the way a lot of police carry themselves.

 

[TheReal13Linseman]

Like all those thugs dumping tea into the harbour?

I lived across the river from Detroit for 6 years, and saw some of the burned out neighbourhoods from the 60s riots - still there at the time (early 90s). And only a few blocks from the downtown core. But didn't those riots lead to (or at least contribute to) the Civil Rights Act getting signed?

I'm not condoning violence or looting, but from a historical perspective, pretty much every "revolution" – from France to America to Ireland to Russia – or uprisings of various kinds, has involved mobs and destruction at some point. Maybe not always perpetrated by the main political actors/activists, but it happens, and whether anyone supports it or not, it's part of what shakes up the powers that be. Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it is an unfortunate reality.

You don't think the American colonists' uprising didn't involve bystanders getting attacked, killed, families run from their homes, buildings burned down, hangings, mob justice?

The blunt force instrument of violence can work, and has worked, but it would be preferable to achieve public policy through reasoned dialogue and thoughtful actions. Violence won the Fair Housing Act battle, but the lack of law and order lost the war with 2 (almost) terms of Nixon. That could repeat in November eerily similarly.

Most of the unskilled and uneducated Nihilists who have taken over BLM have no goals except anarchy. There’s no rationale for their revolutionary acts. Others, who are Marxists masquerading as social justice warriors just want to turn the country into a socialist dystopia. In either case, neither is positive.

And, in the 21st century, we should be beyond violence as a tactical catalyst for change.

 

[Jdavidev]

You are correct, we don't know if he hesitated. So, regardless if he hesitated or not, would he have been in the right for shooting a person of color holding a rock?

Unfortunately, if he shot the guy before he threw the rock, then no, he wouldn't be justified. There would be no action to qualify it. We would have no idea that the suspect intended to throw the rock at his head, nor steal his gun and murder him. It's so shitty, but we can't allow killing in the name of pre-crime. Again, it was a hit and run, there would be no way to suspect this piece of shit was ready to kill

 

[TheReal13Linseman]

I'm a lawyer, and from what I have seen I highly doubt Rittenhouse will be convicted of any homicide charges. The fact that he shouldn't have been there, the fact that he was inciting trouble by his mere presence and even the fact that he was illegally in possession of the gun will not be factors because they don't have bearing on self-defense. Self defense is all about the moment, and whether the defendant had a reasonable fear that he would be killed or suffer great bodily harm. In both shooting instances, Rittenhouse is running away and being pursued by a large group. In the first, a gun goes off behind him just seconds before he discharges his weapon at a man (who I believe was armed) and had gotten close enough to him to grab the barrel of his gun. In the second shooting, moments later, Rittenhouse is clearly being chased an attacked by a large group and I think in reasonable fear of great bodily harm.

The only way he gets convicted is if the State can show that in the first shooting, the people attacking him were themselves acting in self-defense against him. From what I've seen, that is a little far fetched, as he is running away, gun barrel down. It will take more than just showing he had a weapon, there will have to be evidence of him brandishing it and threatening people. That isn't in the evidence that's out there now, but it could emerge. Ironically, whether the second shooting is lawful may depend largely on whether the first shooting was self-defense. If Rittenhouse is fleeing after what has been determined a justified homicide, then the crowd has no right to attack him, and his use of force against them is now lawful. However, if the first homicide was not justified, then one could conclude that the crowd was acting in self-defense (or defense of others) when then chased him down to subdue/disarm him.

All in all, I think there is far too much gray area for a murder conviction. All it takes is one juror to vote against, and I think there will be more than that. He will definitely get convicted of some lesser charges though.

I was waiting to see the videos and now that I have, I agree. For some insane reason, people are chasing down, taking swings at, and trying to wrest a long gun away from the guy. (Regardless, of whether the resulting shootings were justified, that’s never a good idea.). Looks like there’s enough there based upon those events for self defense in part, at least.

 

[HumBucker]

The blunt force instrument of violence can work, and has worked, but it would be preferable to achieve public policy through reasoned dialogue and thoughtful actions. Violence won the Fair Housing Act battle, but the lack of law and order lost the war with 2 (almost) terms of Nixon. That could repeat in November eerily similarly.

Most of the unskilled and uneducated Nihilists who have taken over BLM have no goals except anarchy. There’s no rationale for their revolutionary acts. Others, who are Marxists masquerading as social justice warriors just want to turn the country into a socialist dystopia. In either case, neither is positive.

And, in the 21st century, we should be beyond violence as a tactical catalyst for change.

I just realized I got my facts mixed up. The Civil Rights act was signed in 1964, I believe. The riots came later – 1967 and later. My bad.

Agreed, violence is not the preferable route. But when all else fails, and people feel oppressed and have had enough, what else is there? Nice to think we might outgrow it, but I don't think that will happen. It's a natural response under certain conditions. We're human - which encompasses the good and the bad.

I think some of the looting and destruction is being done by shit-disturbers who latch onto the chaos of these events just so they can cause mayhem and break and steal stuff. Some of it may be "black flag"-ish (remember the umbrella guy? WTF was that?). A friend of mine who lives in NYC (Brooklyn) saw some weird stuff in her neighbourhood at the beginning of the Floyd mayhem. On her relatively quiet street, late at night, a white rental van stops, several white guys get out with baseball bats, smash up some stuff, mailboxes, newspaper dispensers, etc., get back in the van and drive away. Provocateurs? Boogaloo Bois? Who knows. You need a program to keep track of who's who these days.

 

[HumBucker]

I was waiting to see the videos and now that I have, I agree. For some insane reason, people are chasing down, taking swings at, and trying to wrest a long gun away from the guy. (Regardless, of whether the resulting shootings were justified, that’s never a good idea.). Looks like there’s enough there based upon those events for self defense in part, at least.

But not if he had just murdered someone, and if that was not in self-defence.

 

[Sevendust]

This is exactly my point. She wasn’t asleep. I thought the same. She was actually awake in the hallway with her boyfriend, as the police were banging on the door. Her bf fired through the door at police (he claims he didn’t know they were police) hitting an officer with a bullet in the leg. The police returned fire through the door (I’m not sure if this is allowed under police protocol). Her boyfriend ducked, unfortunately she didn’t, and was killed.

Wow somebody showed up some FACTS, still people are glamouring that she got murdered and was victim of a racist police

 

[TheReal13Linseman]

But not if he had just murdered someone, and if that was not in self-defence.

Yeah, i still can’t figure it all out, seems like more facts and video will continue to come out. If he did kill someone beforehand, he could catch an M1 for that but could still potentially escape the latter. It all depends on the facts which is why I hate to comment on these things. Too many guns in America is a real problem, no denying that.

 

[Sevendust]

Here’s another article on her murder. It quotes why the officer who murdered her was fired.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/us/breonna-taylor-police-shooting-invs/index.html
What a CNN review of evidence shows happened in Breonna Taylor's case - CNN

She should have never been murdered.

Stop that nonsense. She was killed because her boyfriend opened fire on police and they fired back.

 

[LouJersey]

Of course they are hazardous but what else can they do? 'Hello, Mr Drug Dealer? We have a warrant for your arrest, what would be a convenient time for you to have us stop by?' Just a guess, but I doubt El Chapo would be hanging around when 5-0 arrives.

Much like taking plain clothes police officers off the streets has increased gun violence in NYC, no knock warrants disappearing will lead to more drugs on the streets and suburbs of your neighborhoods. Now I get it, things need to change, but when these other problems pop up I hope people aren’t shocked.