Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 322: Anarchist Jurisdiction Since 2016

(+) Yeah! (+)

Corrik7 posted...

lmfao see how predictable and childish he is? He makes no sense at any time. It's hard to tell me I don't know what I am talking about while he sits over here saying nonsense that doesn't make sense, and you just take it in like nothing is wrong with it.

Idk bruh I'm just tryna understand the mental gymnastics you force yourself to jump through

---

Corrik7 posted...

I think it's the opposite way around. That people don't know how the legal system works. You have little ol' peaf over hear going Fuck the Police and shit because a grand jury decided there wasn't enough probable cause to indict on charges he wanted. It shows full well the problems many of you have with understanding the complexities of things.

I won't speak for anyone else but the issue at hand is the legal system is broken.

---

Peace___Frog posted...

Any and all complexities of this event are entirely because one side, who is proven to be untrustworthy (please refer to their initial assessment of the situation, where they reported that she had sustained no injuries), is fabricating said complexities.

Again. The case is complex. The jurors have their hands full. I could see a not guilty coming out of it. But, I will await what the jurors feel. It's hard to get unanimous results sometimes on highly complex cases like these.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I think it's the opposite way around. That people don't know how the legal system works. You have little ol' peaf over hear going Fuck the Police and shit because a grand jury decided there wasn't enough probable cause to indict on charges he wanted. It shows full well the problems many of you have with understanding the complexities of things.

We understand how the legal system works. I've been saying since Breonna Taylor became known to the general population that nothing was going to happen to the cops because, for once, there was actually a threat to their life that justified the use of force. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean the law shouldn't be changed if an innocent woman can be murdered as collateral damage for the enforcement of a warrant that had no reason for existing. The laws can be wrong, Corrik. And people are right to protest and demand change.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I won't speak for anyone else but the issue at hand is the legal system is broken.

What charges were you expecting to come out of this case?

---

you're the guy on work projects who throws his hands up in the air and says "it's too hard we can't do it" aren't you

---

Inviso posted...

We understand how the legal system works. I've been saying since Breonna Taylor became known to the general population that nothing was going to happen to the cops because, for once, there was actually a threat to their life that justified the use of force. That doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean the law shouldn't be changed if an innocent woman can be murdered as collateral damage for the enforcement of a warrant that had no reason for existing. The laws can be wrong, Corrik. And people are right to protest and demand change.

That's an infinitely better stance to take than Peaf's, tbqh.

---

Corrik7 posted...

What charges were you expecting to come out of this case?

Expecting? None. Part of the problem.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That's an infinitely better stance to take than Peaf's, tbqh.

Lmao

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Expecting? None. Part of the problem.

Then where was your discrepancy with what I said? I said I think the complexity of the case I could see coming back with a not guilty due to being hard to get a unanimous result. I said I would eagerly await to see how the jurors decided. I am saying this seems like a grey case that could go without a guilty plea due to the complexity in the surroundings.

It isn't black and white like the Antwon Rose case, where I assured you he would get off and be found not guilty.

So, where is the discrepancy, Chris? If anything, you seem to be agreeing with me.

---

Mass shooting occurs.
People say "we should reform gun control"
Republicans say "stop politicizing a tragedy"
Gun control doesn't change.
Republicans "This is fine."

Rinse. Repeat.

Some terrible tragedy occurs involving a police officer.
People say "that cop is guilty"
Republicans say "Well, no, he isn't technically guilty because the RULES say they are ALLOWED to do X, Y, Z."
People say "well then the rules are F***ing busted"
Rules don't get change.
Republicans: "This is fine"

Rinse. Repeat.

You can claim all you want that the liberals just "dont understand" why cops are ALLOWED to do the things they do because THE RULES say they can, but if you are truly the only educated people in the room then where is YOUR outcry to change the rules? Instead you say "you are mad about the wrong thing" and nothing changes.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Then where was your discrepancy with what I said? I said I think the complexity of the case I could see coming back with a not guilty due to being hard to get a unanimous result. I said I would eagerly await to see how the jurors decided. I am saying this seems like a grey case that could go without a guilty plea due to the complexity in the surroundings.

It isn't black and white like the Antwon Rose case, where I assured you he would get off and be found not guilty.

So, where is the discrepancy, Chris? If anything, you seem to be agreeing with me.

You seem accepting of the current structure, whereas I am disgusted by it.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

You seem accepting of the current structure, whereas I am disgusted by it.

I am discussing a case bound currently by the laws that pertain to the case and what I will feel will happen with such laws.

---

Corrik, the problem is that you see the case as "the law properly judged the police officers as mostly innocent, given the boundaries of the law itself". Whereas most of us see it as "the law is broken if it's legal for police to kill innocent civilians".

---

Corrik7 posted...

I am discussing a case bound currently by the laws that pertain to the case and what I will feel will happen with such laws.

So you are discussing wholly different things. He is talking about whether the law should be changed.

Actually, I think a simpler explanation might be this...

The phrase "the law is broken" has two meanings. You're interpreting it as "a person broke the law and should be punished" thus your questions to Chris about what law he thinks was broken. But Chris' interpretation is that the law ITSELF is broken, in that it's crafted in such a way that the outcomes resulting from the law are neither fair nor just.

---

FFDragon posted...

I like how their response was they weren't involved in the planning and were only following orders.

"Just following orders"

Deja Vu

---

Also though I can't see his posts I am all for bringing up the fact that Corrik is a repeat offendor of attempted murder and should be locked up :)

---

Corrik acts as if we are all passive observers to the law, which is immutable and can't be affected by any of us.

Corrik, if none of the current laws existed but you were the sole judge in this case, how would you personally solve it?

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

"Just following orders"

Deja Vu

It really does baffle me that people think that's an excuse. We've been over this!

---

@Mr_Lasastryke I got modded, nkl. Lol if you're wondering the stance on it:

"Calling another user an "asshole" is abusive."

---

We don't know what went on in the Grand Jury, but judging from the Attorney General's own statements it appears that he sided with the police in that it was a legally justified shooting. (Which is a matter of some debate). Him holding that stance is certainly problematic to say the least. A 27-year-old woman was killed in her own home, and nobody will be held responsible for it, in part because it appears the Attorney General decided to represent the police officers involved in the shooting rather than the victim.

---

"the legal system in the US is fucking broken and bad" can't be said enough.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

@Mr_Lasastryke I got modded, nkl. Lol if you're wondering the stance on it:

"Calling another user an "asshole" is abusive."

oh ok. like i said, interesting how i always immediately get modded when i post something like this and with your post it took hours and hours but at least the mods are consistent. disregard all my whiny posts about this!

---

re: Breonna Taylor

I could have told you this would be the outcome. I knew it from the start. It's been too long and if they did convict them of everything people wanted (and very arguably deserved) and given everything there and how the disciplinary system is set up for police, there just wasn't going to end up with enough to convict serious charges. And everyone using hashtags and stuff and constantly bringing it up were going to be upset and disappointed by the result.

I don't need to go into another huge rant, but these situations here don't change until police unions are in the way, and there's obvious reasons why politicians aren't bringing that up. People like Biden and Harris are going to continue going "Boy howdy, we should start giving them better training, that'll solve these problems!" It sounds nice, and it's hopeful, but nothing changes until we can actually punish these cops. As it stands, police unions have worked hard to ensure that cops cannot be punished.

People can be outraged all they want. They can yell about this injustice, among others. They can funnel all the money they want into training. None of this matters until there is accountability. If these cops were punished like they should reasonably be, the next cops are going to think twice before they do this negligent shit. That's the training they need. Until people can put pressure on politicians to actually do something about police unions, politicians will continue to act blissfully unaware that those are the real issues blocking change.

---

Addendum:

This is kind of why I hate these hashtag politics. Like all of these celebrities saying Justice for Breonna and spamming it, and this is all it gets them. But they won't bring up what really needs to change, because saying Justice for Breonna sounds nice and while I don't think they don't necessarily not care about justice for her, and I appreciate them actually bringing more notice to it, they haven't bothered to look into why there is no justice for Breonna and probably won't aside from "our justice system is broken and needs to change."

If all of these celebrities and whatnot got together and started something like #AbolishPoliceUnions, that's how they'll end up making significant change. I don't think anything like that will happen, and people will just say it's bullshit and not fair. And they're right, but it doesn't change anything and we'll get the same circular process we did with this where they rally people to support justice for the next person unfairly murdered by cops without addressing the reason there is never actual justice for them.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

#AbolishPoliceUnions

Maybe start with something more attainable and targeted like "#AbolishNoKnockWarrants"?

---

I mean start with whatever problems. I was just throwing something out there. My point is we're going to go through this whole social media circle again and nothing will change until the focus changes from the individual and to the actual issue behind why this happened to the individual.

---

Changing the hashtag is not going to meaningfully affect the engagement level of the politics, which is what you're really complaining about here. I mean, look at what happened to Defund the Police. People refuse to understand or engage with it because it's too divisive. There's no magical catch-all slogan that will fix everything. You even note that "Abolish Police Unions" will draw criticism.

Really the important thing here is that it drives the conversation and engagement, and gets people more involved through donations to people doing the work, or getting involved in local politics, or even just educating themselves on the issue. A lot of this stuff has to start at the bottom anyways. To that extent, extracting justice on a case-by-case level can work. I mean, Minneapolis is taking steps to disband their police force over one incident. What we should want is to keep the momentum going.

Oh I will grant you though in this case Breonna Taylor pretty much became a meme, which didn't help anything. But in general, I don't see the issue.

---

#ChangeNothingAboutThePolice

Terrible idea, but it's about as far as we can go if we want a hashtag that's realistic, popular, and doesn't require any work to achieve other than posting on Twitter.
---

HeroicCrono posted...

So you are discussing wholly different things. He is talking about whether the law should be changed.

Correct. Though they were not clear about what they were talking about while I was, yet they attacked my arguments despite that.

That said, it's okay to think laws should change. I have said I think laws should change with body cams and some other things.

However, flipping out over the people not going to jail when they were sent through the legal process seems a bit weird. It shouldn't be fuck the police. It should be we need to change the laws, if that is how you feel.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

they haven't bothered to look into why there is no justice for Breonna and probably won't aside from "our justice system is broken and needs to change."

It helps accelerationism at least, if there is no better alternative
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Corrik acts as if we are all passive observers to the law, which is immutable and can't be affected by any of us.

Corrik, if none of the current laws existed but you were the sole judge in this case, how would you personally solve it?

It's a complicated case. You could make arguments both ways.

---

If no laws existed, then how could Corrik or anyone else be a good judge in the case? Laws need to be established before whatever event triggers their application.

---

red sox 777 posted...

If no laws existed, then how could Corrik or anyone else be a good judge in the case? Laws need to be established before whatever event triggers their application.

I know you arent lawful neutral too
---

red sox 777 posted...

If no laws existed, then how could Corrik or anyone else be a good judge in the case? Laws need to be established before whatever event triggers their application.

In this scenario, Corrik is the sovereign and his word is law. You should be familiar with this argument since you constantly invoke it.

Corrik7 posted...

It's a complicated case. You could make arguments both ways.

And luckily God-Emperor Corrik has declared moral relativism so our anarchist jurisdiction may continue!

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

In this scenario, Corrik is the sovereign and his word is law. You should be familiar with this argument since you constantly invoke it.

And luckily God-Emperor Corrik has declared moral relativism so our anarchist jurisdiction may continue!

Earlier, you said Corrik was supposed to be a judge, not an all-powerful absolute monarch.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

This is kind of why I hate these hashtag politics. Like all of these celebrities saying Justice for Breonna and spamming it, and this is all it gets them. But they won't bring up what really needs to change, because saying Justice for Breonna sounds nice and while I don't think they don't necessarily not care about justice for her, and I appreciate them actually bringing more notice to it, they haven't bothered to look into why there is no justice for Breonna and probably won't aside from "our justice system is broken and needs to change."

If all of these celebrities and whatnot got together and started something like #AbolishPoliceUnions, that's how they'll end up making significant change. I don't think anything like that will happen, and people will just say it's bulls*** and not fair. And they're right, but it doesn't change anything and we'll get the same circular process we did with this where they rally people to support justice for the next person unfairly murdered by cops without addressing the reason there is never actual justice for them.

Those kinds of hashtags exist and circulate too.

The reason to use hashtags like JusticeForBreona is that it helps avoid turning the person into a statistic.

Same reason that when aid groups are trying to get you to help starving children in Africa, they don't start quoting statistics about percentages of undernourished children. They show you a picture of one kid and ask you to sponsor that kid and tell you that you'll be able to send letters to that kid.

Getting people to picture one individual human being is just more effective at getting them to care than getting them to picture a spreadsheet of statistics.

And when one of the main issues raised by BLM was that people seemed to not care or notice when black people were dying in high numbers, that people weren't treating those deaths as important and something to solve, yeah, seems like a reasonable approach.

---

There's also like...I say this as a game developer, but people are very good at noticing when something is wrong with a game, but not very good at diagnosing how to fix it. Like...I remember getting playtest feedback that included "the camera is too close" and "the camera is too far away" and "the camera moves too slow" and "the camera moves too fast". We looked at that feedback, and decided we needed to improve the camera.

Do I, personally, know how to most effectively fix police departments? No. Can I notice that something is wrong? Yes. Should the police departments hire me personally in order to implement a 3 word hashtag? No, they should hire someone who knows the subject; maybe a police chief from a city that has had successful reforms, cause there's a few such police chiefs out there.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I know you arent lawful neutral too

What am I?

---

https://twitter.com/sethdunlap/status/1308857884948729864

Is this also a complicated case, or do they just need to be trained to not shoot whenever they want to?

---

red sox 777 posted...

Earlier, you said Corrik was supposed to be a judge, not an all-powerful absolute monarch.

If you can arbitrarily substitute monarchy for any wielding of power than it's only fair I can too dude

---

red sox 777 posted...

What am I?

Chaotic neutral
---

I can't make a big post replying to people now, but I wanted to say I appreciate your perspectives and I've come around on being less critical on these hashtags. I just wish those with more reach could use the hashtags to point out the specific issues more of use it to encourage people to become more educated on it.

Respect.

---

Peace___Frog posted...

https://twitter.com/sethdunlap/status/1308857884948729864

Is this also a complicated case, or do they just need to be trained to not shoot whenever they want to?

Video?
---

https://twitter.com/steventdennis/status/1308856629027377159?s=21

Basically admitting hes gonna try to steal the election

---

metroid composite posted...

There's also like...I say this as a game developer

Stfu foolmo


---

Trump when asked about peaceful transfer of power:

https://twitter.com/andrewsolender/status/1308895713422647296?s=21

---

Get rid of the ballots... So dont let people vote?

---

RaidenGarai posted...

Get rid of the ballots... So dont let people vote?

I think he means to throw out the "fraudulent" (read: all mail-in) votes

---

I remember when I said years ago that Trump might not leave office and people here said I was overreacting

Foolish of them to not put trust in KP's doomsaying. I have like a 100% prediction right for the last four years. All I had to do was always bet on the negative outcome!

---