Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 193 to 213 of 213

Thread: Charlottesville Car Death

  1. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by HungSowel View Post
    If your argument is that people should be assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, nobody will disagree with you, there is no reason why you should latch onto this particular incident to illustrate your point. I have said before that you are seeing much more importance to this incident than it actually is, the way black people had an unhealthy obsession with the OJ simpson trial because in their view it was some litmus test on race; I feel you are doing the same.
    There is good reason to pay attention to this particular incident, but you're just making me repeat what I've already said in previous posts. If you don't think this incident is all that important, you're not watching much news. There is perpetual reference to this incident as a terrorist attack by those debating the rights of white nationalists (and other unpopular/undesirable groups) to conduct protests and demonstrations (recently, of course, in connection with the return of the white nationalists to Charlottesville only a week ago). It's as simple as this, if the public can be convinced that some groups are too vile/socially dangerous to be allowed to protest/demonstrate, even peacefully, you can expect local authorities to start denying permits for demonstrations, instructing crackdowns by police, and co-ordinating violent counter protests to justify their positions. This approach weakens, not strengthens democracy. That's why the ACLU supported white nationalists against the City of Charlottesville. I'm very interested to see whether this debate will take place on the footing of accurate facts, or on the emotional wave of an unsubstantiated (at this point) narrative.

    On a technical legal level, it is extremely rare in a case involving a high profile (from a media perspective) death in a public place where there was an abundance of video evidence gathered by citizens that the police would release absolutely no information establishing the causation of death relative to the person charged. Don't think so? Find me another recent example. Las Vegas - we've been told who the shooter was, where he was, where he shot from, what the firing trajectory was, what guns and other equipment he used, who he killed, etc. Same thing at the Pulse nightclub. When I see something unusual in the way the police are releasing their information, and how the media are reporting on an incident, that gets my attention. There is absolutely no reason I can think of for the police/DA not to release that information, except for the very practical reason that they feel that they haven't figured it out themselves yet. There are other technical concerns here, but I don't think you're that interested. It's also extraordinarily rare for a terrorist (or the group he represents) to make no statement about his objectives before, during, or after his act of terror. Failing to do so undermines the primary objective of terrorism - to terrorize on the basis of an identifiable enemy. In Charlottesville, the only group alleged to be associated with Fields has denied that he is a member or that he represents them. Nor have any of the KKK or white nationalist groups asserted that anyone would be justified in intentionally killing counter protesters. This same analysis is the very reason that no one is calling the Las Vegas shootings an act of terrorism at this point.

    If none of this interests you, so be it. No doubt we have other respective interests that are not common. I'm a big fan of the Flaming Lips. Are you?

    However, your "feelings" about my motivations for being interested in this subject matters as much to me probably as much as my "feeling" that you are just projecting your own motivations onto me matters to you.

  2. #194
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    \_(ツ)_/
    Posts
    81,705
    Blog Entries
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Plug View Post
    There is perpetual reference to this incident as a terrorist attack by those debating the rights of white nationalists
    ... such as yourself, people who believe that America is for white people, or as you put it, who think only white values are American values.

  3. #195

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by fuji View Post
    If he wants to read it and reply he can, or if he wants to not read it that's fine. But clearly everyone else can read it.

    I don't care either way.
    My god ,... you are dumb,... members put other members on ignore so as to NOT read their cowardly bull shit fuji.

    For you and the other cowards to post your usual childish insults and lies behind members backs,... only continually confirms what you and they are.

    When people are in the same room as you,... do they all stand with their backs to the wall,.... wouldn't blame them.

  4. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Plug View Post
    There is good reason to pay attention to this particular incident, but you're just making me repeat what I've already said in previous posts. If you don't think this incident is all that important, you're not watching much news. There is perpetual reference to this incident as a terrorist attack by those debating the rights of white nationalists (and other unpopular/undesirable groups) to conduct protests and demonstrations (recently, of course, in connection with the return of the white nationalists to Charlottesville only a week ago).
    White Nationalists, or really, White Supremacists, are a group that attack the democratic principles of the US and Canada, of equality of races.

    And lets check the context of this case of suspected terrorism.

    1) White Supremacists joked about ramming their cars into protesters.
    http://www.theroot.com/leaked-chats-...t-p-1798531208

    2) Trump encourages attacking protesters.
    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-told-w...hey-did-650622

    3) Republicans were in the process of trying to pass legislation making it legal to drive your car into protesters and injure/kill them.
    https://thinkprogress.org/republican...-4da6e6ebaa59/
    https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...ttesville.html

    Including this bill:
    North Carolina: House Bill 330, introduced by Republican representative Justin Burr in March, sets aside civil liability penalties for any motorist who strikes and injures a protester with his or her car, so long as the protest doesn’t have a permit. The bill passed the North Carolina General Assembly 67-to-48 back in May and is currently waiting for action in the state Senate.
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...can-proposals/

    So we have white supremacists planning attacks with cars, encouraged to act through Trump and with the Republican party trying to make these kinds of attacks legal.

  5. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Plug View Post
    For those of you with unflagging confidence in the competence of police investigations,...
    I have way more confidence in the US legal system than I have in random youtube ramblings lifted from white supremacist groups.

    Instead of trying to invent conspiracy theories, why don't you wait until the actual evidence is presented in the trial. And yes, it is a conspiracy theory. Your belief that the police and DA are intentionally ignoring evidence to railroad this guy is completely unsupported.

  6. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Plug View Post
    There is good reason to pay attention to this particular incident, but you're just making me repeat what I've already said in previous posts. If you don't think this incident is all that important, you're not watching much news. There is perpetual reference to this incident as a terrorist attack by those debating the rights of white nationalists (and other unpopular/undesirable groups) to conduct protests and demonstrations (recently, of course, in connection with the return of the white nationalists to Charlottesville only a week ago). It's as simple as this, if the public can be convinced that some groups are too vile/socially dangerous to be allowed to protest/demonstrate, even peacefully, you can expect local authorities to start denying permits for demonstrations, instructing crackdowns by police, and co-ordinating violent counter protests to justify their positions. This approach weakens, not strengthens democracy. That's why the ACLU supported white nationalists against the City of Charlottesville. I'm very interested to see whether this debate will take place on the footing of accurate facts, or on the emotional wave of an unsubstantiated (at this point) narrative.....
    And you admit that your focus on this case is because you are worried that the rights of "white people" are being infringed.


    And it is idiotic to expect that DA to publicly release all their information before trial. Except disclosure to the defense, it never happens and it takes a pretty big ego to think that the DA must satisfy you before the charges can stand. The only times I've ever seen things released is when they are looking for more witnesses.

    And you might want to look up what a grand jury is and the role the people play in determining if there is enough evidence to continue the case.

  7. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    White Nationalists, or really, White Supremacists, are a group that attack the democratic principles of the US and Canada, of equality of races.

    And lets check the context of this case of suspected terrorism.

    1) White Supremacists joked about ramming their cars into protesters.
    http://www.theroot.com/leaked-chats-...t-p-1798531208

    2) Trump encourages attacking protesters.
    http://www.newsweek.com/trump-told-w...hey-did-650622

    3) Republicans were in the process of trying to pass legislation making it legal to drive your car into protesters and injure/kill them.
    https://thinkprogress.org/republican...-4da6e6ebaa59/
    https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...ttesville.html

    Including this bill:

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...can-proposals/

    So we have white supremacists planning attacks with cars, encouraged to act through Trump and with the Republican party trying to make these kinds of attacks legal.
    Sorry but including Trump and the North Carolina legislature have no bearing on the case. The online comments will only have relevance if it can be shown that the accused was involved in those posts.

    When the DA sees plenty of actual evidence against the accused, trying to implicate Trump and the GoP is ridiculous.

  8. #200
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    \_(ツ)_/
    Posts
    81,705
    Blog Entries
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by FAST View Post
    My god ,... you are dumb,... members put other members on ignore so as to NOT read their cowardly bull shit fuji.
    I don't give a fuck what he wants or you want. He posted some white supremacist nonsense about how American values are white values and I pointed it out.

    You are violating the forum rules with these insults, and you are wrong: the ignore feature does not control what others post, That's not what it does. Not what it's used for. Not what it's meant for. Get that through your thick skull.

  9. #201
    No
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    way out there
    Posts
    7,334
    Quote Originally Posted by fuji View Post
    I don't give a fuck what he wants or you want. He posted some white supremacist nonsense about how American values are white values and I pointed it out.

    You are violating the forum rules with these insults, and you are wrong: the ignore feature does not control what others post, That's not what it does. Not what it's used for. Not what it's meant for. Get that through your thick skull.

    Fast was right, you are dumb. He was talking about what can be seen, not controlling what people post. Reading is fundamental. Yikes, for someone who thinks he is so superior you sure screw up a lot. No wonder you like Obama.
    swollen member

  10. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by basketcase View Post
    Sorry but including Trump and the North Carolina legislature have no bearing on the case. The online comments will only have relevance if it can be shown that the accused was involved in those posts.

    When the DA sees plenty of actual evidence against the accused, trying to implicate Trump and the GoP is ridiculous.
    You really don't think its going to come up at the trial?

  11. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by basketcase View Post
    And you admit that your focus on this case is because you are worried that the rights of "white people" are being infringed.
    You've got to start reading other people's posts more carefully, or else stop trying to intentionally misrepresent other people's positions. It is a pervasive problem with your posts. It isn't persuasive, and it gets in the way of real discussion of issues. When I talk about the context within which an issue arises, that is exactly what I am talking about, nothing else. It is a either a reading comprehension problem or intellectual dishonesty to attribute such a statement to represent my own personal view. I make my personal views clear in my posts. Perhaps you don't accept my own views as the basis for debate because they are harder to criticize than views you wish to attribute to me?

    Despite the fact I'm merely repeating myself, my concern (which happens to be the same concern that noted far right conservative group the ACLU has ) is that government should not be shutting down free speech, or enabling groups that would effectively shut down the speech of others, regardless of the unpopularity, immorality, or offensiveness of that speech. The unpopular and offensive speech of white nationalists is just ONE EXAMPLE of such speech. THE most important element of a democracy is the ability to speak out in opposition to the policies of the government of the day. Democracy can't survive without it. Of course, that also entails that others can speak out against those views in turn.


    Quote Originally Posted by basketcase View Post
    And it is idiotic to expect that DA to publicly release all their information before trial. Except disclosure to the defense, it never happens and it takes a pretty big ego to think that the DA must satisfy you before the charges can stand. The only times I've ever seen things released is when they are looking for more witnesses.
    Your observations are simply incorrect. The police have a role that goes beyond just completing criminal investigations. In North America, our local police forces are not "secret police". The police are accountable to the public through various political structures. That's one of the reasons they have press conferences to discuss their activities. It bolsters public trust (which in turn is good for the police, because it reinforces the utility of public spending in this area) to report on productive police activities. Put another way, it helps the police as an institution and it fulfills their accountability to the public to provide information to the public concerning important investigations. Contrary to your belief, these press releases/conferences are not all tactical.

    Police forces understand this. That's why they are happy to report when they make progress on investigations and/or make arrests. Conversely, it is embarrassing to them to admit when they haven't made progress. They are also happy to tell the public why they are so sure that they've made arrests that will hold up in court.

    You actually have their motivations backwards. The only time they withhold information that supports their actions is when releasing it would compromise their ability to gather further required evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by basketcase View Post
    And you might want to look up what a grand jury is and the role the people play in determining if there is enough evidence to continue the case.
    I didn't think you were a lawyer. Certainly no signs in your previous posts that you are. It takes a pretty big ego to lecture people on the law if you aren't a lawyer. In fact, it's ridiculous.

  12. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by basketcase View Post
    why don't you wait until the actual evidence is presented in the trial.
    I will, if you and rest of the world discussing these issues will! But you haven't, and you won't. What you're really asking for is everyone to accept your own unsupported theory of an incident until proven wrong at trial. That's not the way the world works. You don't get to be right just because you want to be right. Besides, isn't it a healthy society which scrutinizes the activities of the police?

  13. #205

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by fuji View Post
    I don't give a fuck what he wants or you want. .

    You are violating the forum rules with these insults, and you are wrong: the ignore feature does not control what others post, That's not what it does. Not what it's used for. Not what it's meant for. Get that through your thick skull.
    Of coarse the ignore function does not control what other people post,... nobody said otherwise,... liar.

    But what it does do,...is every time you and the other cowards quote a members post and/or their name while they have you on ignore,... is to confirm you are a coward,... and have absolutely no character,... and I'm being kind here.

    Get that through your thick skull,... assuming there is anything to be found there.

  14. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Plug View Post
    I will, if you and rest of the world discussing these issues will! But you haven't, and you won't. What you're really asking for is everyone to accept your own unsupported theory of an incident until proven wrong at trial. That's not the way the world works. You don't get to be right just because you want to be right. Besides, isn't it a healthy society which scrutinizes the activities of the police?
    There is a video showing James Field driving his car into a crowd of protesters, there are 18 injured and 1 dead, there are multiple eye witnesses, there is video of Field driving the car calmly away and there are charges of murder and assault laid on Field. The unsupported theory in this case is that Heyer wasn't killed as a result of a white supremacist driving his car into a crowd of protesters.

    There are plenty of other examples where you could argue that police need more supervision or media reports aren't accurate, but in this case the only 'evidence' appears to be unsupported claims that were floated by white supremacists.

    So basically Bud Plug is taking the word of white supremacist trolls over video, eye witnesses, the media reports and police.

    That along with his statement that he feels American (white) values are under attack clearly identify his politics.

  15. #207
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    \_(ツ)_/
    Posts
    81,705
    Blog Entries
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by FAST View Post
    Of coarse the ignore function does not control what other people post,... nobody said otherwise,... liar.

    But what it does do,...is every time you and the other cowards quote a members post and/or their name while they have you on ignore,... is to confirm you are a coward,... and have absolutely no character,... and I'm being kind here.

    Get that through your thick skull,... assuming there is anything to be found there.
    You missed the part where I don't give a fuck about your opinion. Ignore does not exempt you and your racist pals from being called out for your racism. What it highlights is how desperate you guys are to avoid pointed criticism of your reprehensible views.

    Here we have a guy who is claiming America is only for white people (American values are white values). It's disgusting and it needs to be called out.

  16. #208

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by fuji View Post
    You missed the part where I don't give a fuck about your opinion. Ignore does not exempt you and your racist pals from being called out for your racism. What it highlights is how desperate you guys are to avoid pointed criticism of your reprehensible views.

    Here we have a guy who is claiming America is only for white people (American values are white values). It's disgusting and it needs to be called out.
    You missed the part that you are simply a coward,... and your opinion on members is worthless.

    And once again you don't have the intelligence to understand that Ignore doe not exempt a member from anything.

    To be desperate to not have to put up with your lies, and childish insulting,... yep,... maybe,... but that would be assuming you are not a coward.

    But just what the fuck do you think the Ignore function is for fuji,... it isn't for cowards to hide behind, as you seem to think.

    You say you are being insulted when being called a coward,... facts are not insults,... and besides,... you are the very definition of the ultimate insult here.

    But lets have your opinion on what you would call some one who, responds to and use a members tag in their posts,... knowing full well the member cannot, and will not respond,... because they don't see you childish insulting posts.

    The Ignore function is here for a reason,... but the site management assumed that members here would have some character,... and not be cowards,.... when they decided to institute it.

  17. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    You really don't think its going to come up at the trial?
    It has no legal relevance. Just like you in this discussion, it would make his lawyer look dumb.

  18. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Plug View Post
    You've got to start reading other people's posts more carefully, or else stop trying to intentionally misrepresent other people's positions.
    I've been reading well including what is quite obviously between the lines.

    is that government should not be shutting down free speech,
    What does this paranoid rambling have to do with the case? The government is not shutting down free speech. The racist fucks were allowed to march. In case you missed it, the case is about one racist fuck who drove his car into a crowd, injuring 19 and killing 1.


    You actually have their motivations backwards. The only time they withhold information that supports their actions is when releasing it would compromise their ability to gather further required evidence.
    Are you saying that the DA/Crown routinely makes all evidence public before trial? Interesting claim.



    I didn't think you were a lawyer. Certainly no signs in your previous posts that you are. It takes a pretty big ego to lecture people on the law if you aren't a lawyer. In fact, it's ridiculous.
    I'm not a lawyer but I am aware of the basics of the US legal system. Seriously, google what a grand jury is and how it works.


    p.s. I guess you don't realize the irony coming from a guy who started a tread about the law in the US.

  19. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by Bud Plug View Post
    I will, ...
    Yet you started this thread demanding evidence before the trial. Hmm.

  20. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by FAST View Post
    ...
    But what it does do,...is every time you and the other cowards quote a members post and/or their name while they have you on ignore,... is to confirm you are a coward,... and have absolutely no character,... and I'm being kind here...
    Only you would claim that (semi)publicly stating one's opinion is cowardly.

  21. #213
    [Administrator]
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    UP ABOVE SMILING
    Posts
    13,447
    Blog Entries
    1
    Had enough of the verbal insults and non stop flagging of this thread. Since you cant have a discussion like adults then you leave me no choice.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •