3 ms·

The "protestors" shot someone, if that's not the wrong way to protest then what is?

by Manuel_D 3mo ago

mulmen 3mo ago
[flagged]
thunderfork 3mo ago
An individual shot someone, unless you think multiple people were helping pull the trigger.
- Manuel_D 3mo ago
  This was a coordinated group of people who procured body armor, radios, and firearms, and planned to break into a Federal facility. Responsibility for this incident doesn't rest exclusively on the hands of the shooter. An analogy is Enrique Tarrio's arrest in the wake of January 6th. Right wingers complained that he wasn't even in the capital during the riot. But of course that's not evidence his innocence. Even though he didn't personally participate in the putsch, he was still held responsible for organizing it (not for long on account of his pardon, unfortunately, but he was still rightfully convicted).
  - thunderfork 3mo ago
    Responsibility is a separate question from correctly reporting on the events that occurred. "A protestor shot someone" is correct, "a protestor shot someone and the group is culpable" could be argued, but "the protestors shot someone" is simply untrue.
    - Manuel_D 3mo ago
      No, it's entirely viable to say a group of people did something. E.g. "a lynch mob killed ______." Sure only one member of the mob actually tied the noose, but the mob as a collective took that action.
      - thunderfork 3mo ago
        "one can say a group took an action in some cases, so it must be right to say a group took an action in this case" is not compelling.
        Manuel_D 3mo ago
        The point is they're both cases where a group of people get together to carry out a criminal act of violence. The fact that only one individual actually fired the gun or tied the noose doesn't alter the fact that the group as a whole carried out the criminal plan.
Griffinsauce 3mo ago
This depends a lot what evil you're protesting.
the_real_cher 3mo ago
America shot a bunch of people in the 1700s protesting the King of England
- Manuel_D 3mo ago
  No, the colonies didn't protest the rebelled. The colonies procured arms, raised an army, and fought attempts by the British to reassert control. It wasn't a protest, it was a war.
  - the_real_cher 3mo ago
    Are there wars where one party isnt protesting?
    - Manuel_D 3mo ago
      This is just a nonsensical question. The US Revolutionary War was a war. Whether or not there were non violent protests happening contemporaneously doesn't change the fact that it was a war.
      - mafuy 3mo ago
        No. It became a war, but civil wars tend to not start all at once and out of the blue. What would the situation look like at the very beginning?
wak90 3mo ago
The "officer" was chasing people on foot and drew his weapon. He was then shot. Given the Pretti and Good murders, in my opinion this is a clear cut case of self defense.
- Manuel_D 3mo ago
  Resisting arrest isn't a justification for shooting a law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer had a pretty solid reason to draw his firearm, given that the rioters also had firearms. I'm really baffled by the line of reasoning here. People, armed with guns, tried to break into a government facility. The law enforcement officers proceeded to try and arrest the rioters, and the rioters shot one of the officers. In what world is this justifiable self defense?
  - wak90 3mo ago
    Your interpretation of the facts and institutions here are thoroughly alien to me. There's so much unpacking to be done I'm not sure I have the time on my smoke break but I'll give it a shot. First, law enforcement as a concept is not static. It is a social construct. For me, the only acceptable reason for LE to draw a firearm is to exercise deadly force to protect civilians from a deadly force. For you, it seems you find it justifiable for agents of the state to exercise deadly force against people for vandalism and protest. I do not accept your view. Calling people rioters doesn't really change any facts except to bias the reader against them. Stating that the protesters were armed is not a good argument either. In Texas it is legal to open carry firearms so that is not a justification for deadly force. You don't actually know that these people tried to break into a government facility. The case centers around the protesters allegedly luring law enforcement out of the facility. Sort of the opposite. Then the prosecution said the intent was to create an ambush. But all of that is "well technically". The root here is that ICE is now an unaccountable irregular military equipped occupation force. When someone, anyone, raises a firearm toward you, you can either get shot to death and hope they get convicted after the fact (and again I point to Pretti and Good) or you defend yourself and then deal with survivor problems later. Just because someone has a badge and a uniform does not mean you don't have a right to defend yourself from them, even if the courts are not honoring that right.

The "protestors" shot someone, if that's not the wrong way to protest then what is?

mulmen 3mo ago

[flagged]

thunderfork 3mo ago

An individual shot someone, unless you think multiple people were helping pull the trigger.

Manuel_D 3mo ago
This was a coordinated group of people who procured body armor, radios, and firearms, and planned to break into a Federal facility. Responsibility for this incident doesn't rest exclusively on the hands of the shooter. An analogy is Enrique Tarrio's arrest in the wake of January 6th. Right wingers complained that he wasn't even in the capital during the riot. But of course that's not evidence his innocence. Even though he didn't personally participate in the putsch, he was still held responsible for organizing it (not for long on account of his pardon, unfortunately, but he was still rightfully convicted).
- thunderfork 3mo ago
  Responsibility is a separate question from correctly reporting on the events that occurred. "A protestor shot someone" is correct, "a protestor shot someone and the group is culpable" could be argued, but "the protestors shot someone" is simply untrue.
  - Manuel_D 3mo ago
    No, it's entirely viable to say a group of people did something. E.g. "a lynch mob killed ______." Sure only one member of the mob actually tied the noose, but the mob as a collective took that action.
    - thunderfork 3mo ago
      "one can say a group took an action in some cases, so it must be right to say a group took an action in this case" is not compelling.
      - Manuel_D 3mo ago
        The point is they're both cases where a group of people get together to carry out a criminal act of violence. The fact that only one individual actually fired the gun or tied the noose doesn't alter the fact that the group as a whole carried out the criminal plan.

Griffinsauce 3mo ago

This depends a lot what evil you're protesting.

the_real_cher 3mo ago

America shot a bunch of people in the 1700s protesting the King of England

Manuel_D 3mo ago
No, the colonies didn't protest the rebelled. The colonies procured arms, raised an army, and fought attempts by the British to reassert control. It wasn't a protest, it was a war.
- the_real_cher 3mo ago
  Are there wars where one party isnt protesting?
  - Manuel_D 3mo ago
    This is just a nonsensical question. The US Revolutionary War was a war. Whether or not there were non violent protests happening contemporaneously doesn't change the fact that it was a war.
    - mafuy 3mo ago
      No. It became a war, but civil wars tend to not start all at once and out of the blue. What would the situation look like at the very beginning?

wak90 3mo ago

The "officer" was chasing people on foot and drew his weapon. He was then shot. Given the Pretti and Good murders, in my opinion this is a clear cut case of self defense.

Manuel_D 3mo ago
Resisting arrest isn't a justification for shooting a law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer had a pretty solid reason to draw his firearm, given that the rioters also had firearms. I'm really baffled by the line of reasoning here. People, armed with guns, tried to break into a government facility. The law enforcement officers proceeded to try and arrest the rioters, and the rioters shot one of the officers. In what world is this justifiable self defense?
- wak90 3mo ago
  Your interpretation of the facts and institutions here are thoroughly alien to me. There's so much unpacking to be done I'm not sure I have the time on my smoke break but I'll give it a shot. First, law enforcement as a concept is not static. It is a social construct. For me, the only acceptable reason for LE to draw a firearm is to exercise deadly force to protect civilians from a deadly force. For you, it seems you find it justifiable for agents of the state to exercise deadly force against people for vandalism and protest. I do not accept your view. Calling people rioters doesn't really change any facts except to bias the reader against them. Stating that the protesters were armed is not a good argument either. In Texas it is legal to open carry firearms so that is not a justification for deadly force. You don't actually know that these people tried to break into a government facility. The case centers around the protesters allegedly luring law enforcement out of the facility. Sort of the opposite. Then the prosecution said the intent was to create an ambush. But all of that is "well technically". The root here is that ICE is now an unaccountable irregular military equipped occupation force. When someone, anyone, raises a firearm toward you, you can either get shot to death and hope they get convicted after the fact (and again I point to Pretti and Good) or you defend yourself and then deal with survivor problems later. Just because someone has a badge and a uniform does not mean you don't have a right to defend yourself from them, even if the courts are not honoring that right.