U.S. Elections

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
A “good shooting” is a justifiable shooting.
No shooting is ever good, since all shootings are morally bad. It is morally bad to harm another human being(do the least harm). Therefore, shootings can only be justified or unjustified(unlawful). Hence why there are always INTERNAL investigations. So a GOOD shooting should never be the equivalence to a JUSTIFIABLE shooting.

But you are correct, it is "cop-slang", for a justifiable shooting.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I reckon @SethBullock has underestimated the impact of his comment that the victim must have been provocative in some way. No amount of provocation warrants an attack by 30 pricks. I don't reckon it is anything more than a misjudgement on his part. In no way do I read his comments as endorsing the mob attack. The obvious question was asked.....what provocation would motivate 30 arseholes to beset one bloke?
I think I know Seth well enough to agree with you in part. I know that he does not endorse any mob attacks, or any civil disobedience, regardless of the group. However he IS a big boy now, with more experience in service to the community than most of us combined. So, he is certainly capable of defending himself. We all have our "senior moments". Even me!! It is okay to to make a mistake, or to have a lapse in judgement. But it is not okay to defend either.
I don't condone political violence at all. We should all be able to assemble and demonstrate without intimidation or assault from anybody, and that applies to everybody.

A couple weeks ago I was driving to work. I was driving down a country road that has a 55 MPH speed limit. Now in the couple of weeks prior to that day, I had noticed a sheriff's deputy working radar speed enforcement on the stretch of road I was on, so I was being pretty mindful of the speed limit, probably going around 60. Some guy came screaming up on my tail and then passed me and the car ahead of me. At the rate he left us behind, I would estimate his speed at about 85-90 MPH. I thought to myself ... "He's askin' for it." In a matter of moments he was waaaay ahead of us, and what did I see up in the distance? Red and blue lights of that sheriff's deputy pulling out of a side road. A mile or so later, I passed them. The deputy had stopped him, and I'm sure he was getting a nasty old citation that was going to cost him a bundle.

I had to chuckle.

Actions have consequences. The guy played a stupid game, and he got a stupid prize.

Now perhaps there is little or no equivalence to what happened to the Antifa fascist and what happened to the speeder. But maybe there is a little bit of equivalence. The speeder took a chance, and he got a consequence. The Antifa thug also took a chance. And it is absurd to think that he should not expect a predictable consequence. When I said "he earned it", that's all I meant.

Jesus! I triggered the whole site it seems. :h
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Actions have consequences. The guy played a stupid game, and he got a stupid prize.
Seth, you are just digging a deeper hole, my friend. There is no moral or legal justification, for 30 people to assault one person. I don't care if he was attacking a little girl in the center of main street. I would personal kill him myself, but NOT a crowd of 30. There is no example you can conjure up, or logically construe, that would justify 30 people attacking one person!! Unless you want to include the bloodlust of a mob as part of your cause and effect theory. Your example is far too general, and assumes that the driver's actions were deliberate, and without any justifications(medical emergency, medical conditions, rare occurrence, fleeing, etc.). to just assume that this will apply directly to 30 people assaulting 1 person. You are essentially saying, that it was the victims fault for just being there! Therefore, it was the victim's fault for causing his own assault. This is wrong on so many levels. And, the more you defend this irrational position, the deeper you will bury your true position.

Why do you call Antifa(anti-FAscist), fascists and thugs? Do you support the ideology of the "proud boys" neo-Nazis, white nationalists, the ku klux klan, or any other far right extremist groups? Are you suggesting that this anti-fascist movement condones racism, is anti-liberal, promotes violence, is a militant group, or is anti-constitution and the rule of law? Trump is a moronic megalomaniac, an authoritarian fascists, and a divisive separatist. But, our constitution has prevented him from doing too much harm. He is suppose to be the President for ALL the people, NOT just for his base.


I can understand voting for Trump the first time. But, after four years of his insanity, there is no justification for voting for him for a second term. I also don't understand your obsession with ideologies. People are NOT one dimensional thinkers. Fascism, liberalism, and conservatism are not real things to label real people with(reification fallacy). They are just social ideologies, and abstract beliefs. No person can be characterized as an ideological label.

Trump simply tapped into, and have exposed the real underbelly of American's xenophobes, separatists, racists and closet bigots, Islamophobes, homophobes, cons, simpletons, nationalists, liars, thieves, and other criminals like himself. He ran his presidency like his business. It was entirely based on fear and blind loyalty. Fortunately, all the king's men and lackey's will also leave with him. Hopefully, this stain in American history will be removed, and my country will begin the process of healing.

I respect your opinions greatly. And, you have always been the voice of reason. But in this case, your loyalties are misplaced, and your view is legally, and morally just plain wrong.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
Mothra, now for the third time ... I do not condone violence against peaceful demonstrators. Period.

On the other hand, I do believe in defending oneself from attacks from thugs.

No, that wasn't one on one, but it was predictable. A legal and peaceful demonstrator stands on the sidewalk with his anti-Trump sign and chants a slogan. Do you seriously think those Trump supporters just randomly chose a legal and peaceful anti-Trump demonstrator to pick on?

Or do you think it is more likely that the Antifa fascist assaulted them in some typical fashion first?

I'm not asking you to say definitively what happened. I'm asking you to take a guess. If you had to bet a month's pay on one answer or the other, which way would you bet? Don't deflect. I answered your question, you answer mine.

Doesn't common sense matter? Actions have consequences, often predictable consequences. "You mess with the bull, you get the horns." "If you lie with the pigs in their sty, don't complain if you smell like pig shit." "What you give is what you get." "You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes."

You guys either don't get it, or else you're just being willfully blind. The truth is, the Antifa fascists went there to create a fight. That's what they do. That is always their goal.

And I just shake my head at all of you who think it is so utterly horrifying and despicable that the pro-Trump demonstrators would stick up for themselves, instead of simply cowering in fear in the face of various and sundry assaults by those thugs.

I'm shaking my head at all of you on this site. Sadly predictable, you guys don't say spit about the depredations of the Antifa fascists as they murder, assault, burn and loot. But one instance of Trump supporters standing up for themselves and you guys act like it's the end of the world.

Sheesh!

Seth, now for the second tine, you do not need to repeat yourself. We understqnd your position., it's just that we overwhelmingly think it is reprehensible.

And for the umpteenth time, you have no idea if this man did anything at all, you are merely assuming he did because of your very own prejudice. But what's even worse is that without knowing what he did )or didn't do) you are sanctioning a beating from 30 odd individuals to atone for that imagined crime. It's beyond disgusting.

Again, for the umpteenth time, there is nothing a person can do that justifies (or earns as you revoltingly put it) that kind of abuse.

And for the second time, it gives me tremendous cause for concern that you hold these beliefs and these prejudices and are an officer of the law. You acre in reality a disgrace to the office of law. The fact that you defend these thugs is without excuse.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth, now for the second tine, you do not need to repeat yourself. We understqnd your position., it's just that we overwhelmingly think it is reprehensible.

And for the umpteenth time, you have no idea if this man did anything at all, you are merely assuming he did because of your very own prejudice. But what's even worse is that without knowing what he did )or didn't do) you are sanctioning a beating from 30 odd individuals to atone for that imagined crime. It's beyond disgusting.

Again, for the umpteenth time, there is nothing a person can do that justifies (or earns as you revoltingly put it) that kind of abuse.

And for the second time, it gives me tremendous cause for concern that you hold these beliefs and these prejudices and are an officer of the law. You acre in reality a disgrace to the office of law. The fact that you defend these thugs is without excuse.
That man was legally obligated to stand peacefully and counter protest with his voice or a sign. Do you think he did, and the Trump supporters randomly picked him out to fight with? Or is it more likely that he chose to engage in some sort of threatening or assaultive behavior?
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
That man was legally obligated to stand peacefully and counter protest with his voice or a sign. Do you think he did, and the Trump supporters randomly picked him out to fight with? Or is it more likely that he chose to engage in some sort of threatening or assaultive behavior?

You're not getting it. It doesn't matter what he did. He didn't deserve to be beset by 30 thugs.

And you've no idea he did anything at all. You're just blaming the victim because you don't like the victim.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
You're not getting it. It doesn't matter what he did. He didn't deserve to be beset by 30 thugs.

And you've no idea he did anything at all. You're just blaming the victim because you don't like the victim.
And you are avoiding the question.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
The question serves only one purpose an that is to cement your position. I refuse to do that. I find your position reprehensible.

More to the point your question is irrelevant.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
The question serves only one purpose an that is to cement your position. I refuse to do that. I find your position reprehensible.

More to the point your question is irrelevant.
You won’t answer it precisely because it IS relevant, but you are cemented in your position. So now we can be mutually disappointed with each other.
 

mothra

Administrator
Staff member
You won’t answer it precisely because it IS relevant, but you are cemented in your position. So now we can be mutually disappointed with each other.
What a load of garbage. The reason i'm not answering it, beyond it being utterly irrelevant to the point, is that to answer it serves no purpose other that to tacitly validate your outrageous position. I flatly refuse.

And if your disappointment of me is based on the fact that i won't fall into your unsophisticated, loaded trap and mine on yours that you believe a person can deserve being beaten by 30 thugs based entirely upon your own prejudice, then i assure you, our mutual disappointment is of very different weights and validity.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
@mothra My remarks did not speak to what is legal or to what he “deserved”. My remarks are speaking to personal responsibility and considering the probable consequences of our actions.

I’ll bet you a paycheck that if you or I had been an anti Trump demonstrator at that event that neither one of us would have ended up in a physical fight with anybody.

Why?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Maybe I ought to ask the question in The Who wants to not become a Millionaire thread.

If Seth was an anti Trump demonstrator, why would he NOT end up in a fight at a pro-Trump march?
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth, you are just digging a deeper hole, my friend. There is no moral or legal justification, for 30 people to assault one person. I don't care if he was attacking a little girl in the center of main street. I would personal kill him myself, but NOT a crowd of 30. There is no example you can conjure up, or logically construe, that would justify 30 people attacking one person!! Unless you want to include the bloodlust of a mob as part of your cause and effect theory. Your example is far too general, and assumes that the driver's actions were deliberate, and without any justifications(medical emergency, medical conditions, rare occurrence, fleeing, etc.). to just assume that this will apply directly to 30 people assaulting 1 person. You are essentially saying, that it was the victims fault for just being there! Therefore, it was the victim's fault for causing his own assault. This is wrong on so many levels. And, the more you defend this irrational position, the deeper you will bury your true position.

Why do you call Antifa(anti-FAscist), fascists and thugs? Do you support the ideology of the "proud boys" neo-Nazis, white nationalists, the ku klux klan, or any other far right extremist groups? Are you suggesting that this anti-fascist movement condones racism, is anti-liberal, promotes violence, is a militant group, or is anti-constitution and the rule of law? Trump is a moronic megalomaniac, an authoritarian fascists, and a divisive separatist. But, our constitution has prevented him from doing too much harm. He is suppose to be the President for ALL the people, NOT just for his base.


I can understand voting for Trump the first time. But, after four years of his insanity, there is no justification for voting for him for a second term. I also don't understand your obsession with ideologies. People are NOT one dimensional thinkers. Fascism, liberalism, and conservatism are not real things to label real people with(reification fallacy). They are just social ideologies, and abstract beliefs. No person can be characterized as an ideological label.

Trump simply tapped into, and have exposed the real underbelly of American's xenophobes, separatists, racists and closet bigots, Islamophobes, homophobes, cons, simpletons, nationalists, liars, thieves, and other criminals like himself. He ran his presidency like his business. It was entirely based on fear and blind loyalty. Fortunately, all the king's men and lackey's will also leave with him. Hopefully, this stain in American history will be removed, and my country will begin the process of healing.

I respect your opinions greatly. And, you have always been the voice of reason. But in this case, your loyalties are misplaced, and your view is legally, and morally just plain wrong.
I think that if you read through my other remarks on this thread, you will find that I do not condone violence by anyone on any side. However, I do think people do have a right to defend themselves - even Trump supporters. The idea of a Trump supporter actually fighting back against an unprovoked assault is horrifying to the members of this site, but their horror is unsurprising. I have also made the point that ultimately it is the choices we make that usually control the consequences. The Antifa fascist who fought the Trump supporters made a choice.

People on the site are having a hard time grasping what I’m saying, even though we go through our daily lives constantly making choices and considering consequences. It seems that when there is a political component to the conversation, reason and comprehension get thrown out with the bath water.

To answer your questions, I can’t stand white supremacists. I have dealt with them directly in my law enforcement career, and I really can’t stand them. I have nothing in common with them.

You say there is no justification for voting for Trump a second time. The problem is that I don’t agree with the Democrats’ agenda, and my belief is that Joe is corrupt and that he is owned by China. Under the circumstances, there was no way I could vote for him. I voted for Tulsi Gabbard in the primaries and Trump in the general election.

And the Antifa fascists? That is an epithet, with notes of irony and a sprinkling of sarcasm added in. And they have more similarities with fascists than they do differences, in my opinion, so that shall be how I describe them.
 
Last edited:

hatty

cynical profane bastard
I think that if you read through my other remarks on this thread, you will find that I do not condone violence by anyone on any side. However, I do think people do have a right to defend themselves - even Trump supporters. The idea of a Trump supporter actually fighting back against an unprovoked assault is horrifying to the members of this site, but their horror is unsurprising. I have also made the point that ultimately it is the choices we make that usually control the consequences. The Antifa fascist who fought the Trump supporters made a choice.

People on the site are having a hard time grasping what I’m saying, even though we go through our daily lives constantly making choices and considering consequences. It seems that when there is a political component to the conversation, reason and comprehension get thrown out with the bath water.

To answer your questions, I can’t stand white supremacists. I have dealt with them directly in my law enforcement career, and I really can’t stand them. I have nothing in common with them.

You say there is no justification for voting for Trump a second time. The problem is that I don’t agree with the Democrats’ agenda, and my belief is that Joe is corrupt and that he is owned by China. Under the circumstances, there was no way I could vote for him. I voted for Tulsi Gabbard in the primaries and Trump in the general election.

And the Antifa fascists? That is an epithet, with notes of irony and a sprinkling of sarcasm added in. And they have more similarities with fascists than they do differences, in my opinion, so that shall be how I describe them.
seth you certainly didn't condemn it............. just admit it...... america is a shit show where thugs are fighting in the streets.

and its trumps fault!........... i don't remember this shit when obama was in office.

hhhmmmmm ......... more guns and ammo is the cure methinks

/sarcasm
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
Trump is STILL denying he lost the election! Lots of law firms have stopped working for him, his cases presented no evidence of vote rigging and were all thrown out by judges. Now he is hiring less reputable lawyers, still thinking he has won the election.

ProTrump protests were a yawn.

He might even start that war with Iran he has always wanted.

A dangerous situation for the USA!
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Trump is STILL denying he lost the election! Lots of law firms have stopped working for him, his cases presented no evidence of vote rigging and were all thrown out by judges. Now he is hiring less reputable lawyers, still thinking he has won the election.

ProTrump protests were a yawn.

He might even start that war with Iran he has always wanted.

A dangerous situation for the USA!
I have always said that Trump was not interested in getting involved in a new mideast war, and I have watched him work to lower our troops in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. After firing his Defense Secretary last week, today Trump announced troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Troop strength in Iraq is being lowered to 2500. Troop strength in Afghanistan is being lowered from 5000 to 2500. I think the previous Defense Secretary did not want to make these moves, and was dragging his feet, which is why he was replaced.

I got a laugh out of a CBS News broadcast I listened to on my way home from work. The news reporter reported this troop reduction in Iraq, adding that U.S. troops in Iraq are under threat by Shiite militia groups. CBS doesn't report on Iraq or Afghanistan at all, honestly. But now, when Trump is reducing troops in Iraq, they have to put a negative spin on the decision, implying that he is weakening our strength at a time that our troops are under threat. This is the Democratic Party-run mainstream media doing what they do. And it is this way on every single broadcast, every single day.

Trump will not start a war with Iran.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
Yes I know what you said. He clearly wanted a war with Iran and he may strike their nuclear reactor and when Iran responds—I have to stay as POTUS to combat the unprovoked attacks from Iran.
 
Top