yeetawayhn

13 ms·

91.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
"Innocent until proven guilty" does not prevent a suspect from being arrested. Being released with no charges is not a statement of innocence or guilt, but of whether the prosecutor believes there is enough evidence to go through
92.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
No, you just misunderstand what the presumption of innocence means. It means that people are assumed to be innocent and that it is the duty of the prosecution to show their guilt. It doesn't mean that you can't arrest people suspe
93.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
> A reasonable observer could conclude that they are almost certainly American law enforcement. Is is difficult to tell that these German fellows are police officers? > https://i.redd.it/b6xjl7nugoq41.jpg Based on the
94.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
Since when is officers arresting people tyranny? That sounds like a "sovereign citizen" kind of position.
95.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
The difference is that people aren't saying not to go after the bad actors in on tor.
96.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
So you've made your call, so confident in feeling you're in the right. Nice knowing you, "admiral".
97.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
> And to your point about referee: the cop isn't a referee. They're just another fighter. And if they lose, there's no ref to stop the person from seriously hurting or killing them. Combine this with the fact that most cop
98.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
The bodybuilder? Because that what shows up in the search results.
99.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
You're correct. "Several major cities, including Seattle, Boston, New York and Minneapolis, have specific policies against police recording with body cameras at protests. Protesters have long been worried about surveillance at dem
100.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
> At this point it appears you are disregarding facts all together and arguing from some type of religious fervor. Something like a young earth creationist. I don't mean this in an offensive fashion but just as a reality check for y
101.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
Commenter specified "high income jobs" of which only a small portion of the ~120 million qualifies.
102.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
> Interesting. So some people in Hawaiian shirts are fomenting unrest and trying to bring about a second civil war, whilst some other people in much more sober clothing are fighting for righteousness and justice by smashing up neighbourh
103.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
The fact that they are not being killed for the commission of the crime but to stop the danger to others. Your problem is not with the definition, but in that the definition doesn't match the situation.
104.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
> Normal people have nightmares for years after killing someone, even in the most perfectly justified cases of self defense. This isn't an answer to the question. It is in fact a non-answer that endorses the irrational as an enlight
105.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
Summary execution is not what is happening when a police officer kills someone who is a danger to others.
106.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
You misconstrue the content to describe it like that. The justification is predicated on the a clear and present danger to others. What reasoning do you have to support being remorseful for saving others from a clear and present danger?
107.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
Can you be more specific about what is harrowing?
108.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
I don't think downvoting them is going to change their mind by making them reassess their convictions after being subjected to the same treatment they support.
109.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
No, their claim isn't that they didn't throw tear gas at the police, but that they were justified in doing so.
110.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
>It’s up to me to prove that I was justified in shooting my neighbor When did the tear gas throwers show they were justified in throwing tear gas at the police?
111.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
You just said that self-defense must show justification for the use of force. Are you going back on that now? > that the civilian on which force was used did something to justify it When was that proven like you demanded? > I never sa
112.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
Exactly. There is no claim that they did not throw the tear gas back, but in order for it to be self-defense they have to show that the police did something to justify it, as you laid out in #2.
113.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
> The past week has shown that cops are absolutely willing to use injurious force without even the slightest shred of justification, and then lie badly about it. But you just said you couldn't prove this above... Which is it?
114.
by yeetawayhn 6y ago
This is just a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. If they are unjustified, then you should be able to prove that. Otherwise what you're talking about is the police having to prove their innocence. Exactly the kind of thing that y