mrcleanup @ mrcleanup @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

276

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ah the age old riddle "if a voters pamphlet has a statement on a page no one reads, is it really there?"

The list and statement are on page 26, where they list all the candidates.

People do have the right not to make intelligent decisions.

Sure, doctors and lawyers have their obligations, but a victim has the right to nope the fuck right out of there to avoid additional mental trauma. It isn't up to you.

In my eyes you forcing them to know just so you can sleep at night makes you one. You might as well make them watch footage and really relive it if you are going to deny their right to decide. After, you said they need the information of what happened to them. You just like your arbitrary line of where to stop. All I suggest is giving the victim that choice, and I'm the monster?

"Please watch the following 15 hours of video we found on your uncle's laptop of you getting raped when you were 12 so you can understand what level of trauma you should be feeling."

Vs.

"We found out some horrible things that happened to you as a child, do you want to know?"

One of these options is kind and also empowers the victim, can you guess which one?

it's not a choice you are entitled to.

Just... Wow.

The true test of being kind is not just empowering others when it makes you feel good, but empowering others when their choice makes you uncomfortable.

Someone absolutely has the right to say "my life has been fucked up enough already, don't tell me, I don't want to know."

The truth is you would take that way from them just so you can feel good about yourself, whether it caused depression, or suicide, or hurt. You would take their choice away because you don't agree with it so you could feel "just" whether it re victimizes them or not.

Look around you, being informed is absolutely a choice. This place is a great example of people choosing pleasant fictions over uncomfortable realities every day.

Just because you think it is an unacceptable choice doesn't mean it isn't one.

Right, so the answer to my earlier question is "yes" in this instance your are anti-choice. Is fine, but own it or we end up going on a big circle to get where we should have been three or four comments ago.

And we could have had a conversation about that, but honestly, I'm just not that invested in the conversation anymore, it's been a long day and I'm out of patience for random strangers who are more interested in being right than communicating.

I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about morality.

"we found out about some bad things that happened to you as a child, do you want us to tell you what we found out?" Is a perfectly valid way to ask for informed consent before doing something to them they may not want.

So you are arguing against consent?

How old is your Bowden tube? Could you be getting more friction when it is bent certain ways leading to inconsistent feeding?

Because everyone is switching from a custom ui to a css standard so they can have a web app that is also a desktop app.

To sum up, your app became a web page.

Like I said, if all you do is complain online, nothing will change, you said it yourself that they just ignore protests these days.

I'm not saying there aren't problems, I'm saying that all your answers are cop outs. (Unintentional pun, but I'll take it)

If you won't be a cop because they are all degenerates, then don't be surprised if the only ones who want to the job are power trippers. If you can't talk about the problems in a way policymakers relate to, they are going to ignore you. Have you talked to county or city commissioners? Have you gotten involved at a local level? I'm not saying you personally have to solve this, but if everyone has the same attitude, who steps up?

But it's easy to talk about sucking dicks and otherize, and whine online.

And to answer the question you dodged earlier, according to the news, he later told the cops he did have a 9 mil in the car. So it isn't unreasonable of them to assume anyone they come across could be armed, he actually was.

While a person intent on hurting officers would likely have distain, they would be more likely to act cool and calm until they pull out their gun as to keep the officer from sensing a threat and reacting to it.

You make a great point. I can see why cops would be on edge and would rather risk taking someone into custody unnecessarily rather than putting their life at risk. Based on your reasoning they would probably be hyper vigilant for signs a stop might go wrong. Given an employers responsibility to provide a safe workplace, they are probably trained to err on the side of caution, right?

Take a look at all of the officer's actions and attempt to see them from a reasonable person's perspective.

A rather obvious diss and strawman argument, but I see your point. What you are ignoring though is the reasonable person who is employed as a cop. If you had that job, how much would you be willing to risk death on a daily basis to give people the benefit of the doubt?

He punched the driver while he was handcuffed. He lied about a 25ft law and then expanded it beyond what the made-up law would allow. After 18 minutes of having him in handcuffs, he only started to write the citations, the whole reason for the stop, when a supervisor asked him if they were already done.

So sue the fuck out of him! That's what the courts are for. That's a separate issue from whether the cop decided he was non-cooperative at a level that warranted intervention.

You're arguing that we should defer to the officers because of a million imaginary what-ifs. That's not how this works.

That's the whole point of qualified immunity. Cops are the ones willing to wade into the shit on a daily basis. They put their lives on the line, so they get the discretion to decide they are going to cuff you for the rest of the interaction if they feel unsafe.

If they break the law, sue them. If policy is bad, lobby for change. People wrote the laws, people set the culture, people can change it. But just whining online that some sports guy you like wasn't treated as politely as you would have liked is like having a quick wank, it makes you feel good, but won't change anything.

If you think you can do better, go apply for a job with the force, show us what the police could be. If you are going to let someone else do it so you don't have to take the risk and can sit safely at home whining about it. Sure you can get some attention, but you aren't going to be taken very seriously.

Again, I'm not talking about any instance other than the one we have been looking at together here. Personally, I believe cops should always assume they are going too be on trial every time they shoot someone they should know it is always going to be a potentially life altering event for them.

I'm this case, the driver didn't say "oh buddy, you fucked up, see you in court" while complying, he showed the officer his distain and reluctance every step of the way and at that point the officer is going to ask themselves if they might be in danger, and if they think they might be, they are trained to do something about it. In this case taking him into custody.

Question for you. If he wanted to, could he have shot the cop? Was there a gun in the car?

That's a lot of words to admit you have trouble finding common ground so that people can make meaningful change.

So In this specific instance, the specific instance we are talking about, the instance that is the topic of this discussion, no one.

The obvious follow up question is, if he were rolling up the tinted windows so he could retrieve a weapon without the cop seeing, or if he had taken off at high speed in his little sports car and run a high speed chase before crashing, could multiple people have died?

I'll just give you the obvious answer, "yes".

The reason your answer is naive isn't because cops don't do terrible things, they do, and they should absolutely be held accountable. It is because cops are also often on unpredictable situations and if you can't look at something like this and see where pulling him out of the car could be justified, you can't argue in good faith where the line is between this and a true abuse of power.

And if you can't do that, the people in power will never take your argument seriously, and your will continue to be largely ignored.

That's just naive. And that's a big claim, a "massive risk" to the public, so back it up... Who got hurt in this instance?

Sure, but once they establish a pattern of non-compliance it doesn't reset with each new instruction. They expect he will resist getting out of the car based on his refusal to roll down the window. At that point they have to choose whether to get him out of the car quickly, or risk non-compliance issue with that, which could involve fleeing or hitting people with his car.

When officer or public safety are at risk they will always choose to take someone into custody to stabilize the situation and then reassess from there.

The situation with the window can't be separated from the treatment with the door.