A Sad Anniversary

[latefordinner]

Edited for you boro (edit: meh time limit gone for editing, but I'll retract that statement until I can find any quotes that assert the same. I'm certain someone recently said that it was okay to shoot a poor person stealing bread, but it may have been a vulgar conservative troll not a decent AC debater), been nipping into the tequila pre cinco de mayo and it has me a little feisty. rest of the post holds though.

yes my reply was to Phil, but in response to your strawman assertion Copernicus. I'm positing a situation where I'm actively throwing teargas canisters back at police officers after they have given a lawful order to get off property that I don't own which i am refusing. Is it justifiable for them to shoot me or not?

[Phil153]

latefordinner,

You appear to have misunderstood me. Sometimes I don't write clearly. Using deadly force to quell protesters is never justified, except in the last extreme of defence of a policeman or bystander's life. It certainly wasn't justified here, although the situation was far more extreme and tensions far more heightened than your teargas example. I'm merely saying that this tragic mistake isn't really the fault of the government. Probably far less than half, in fact.

Myrtle,

Note the language OP uses, and the facts he chooses to highlight:
[ QUOTE ]
Just three weeks after California Republican Governor Ronald Reagan's declaration about student protests, "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with"...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does he mention this if not to suggest the government may have done this deliberately, or callously? What possible relevance could it have? He mentioned this strange fact, and yet didn't mention the sheer terror and disruption these students were causing in the local community through daily violence.

He then mentions that a song was wrapped in a bill of rights to highlight "the right to peaceful assembly". Nothing about any of these protests was peaceful assembly - it was the complete opposite, which was the reason they called the armed national guard in the first place, after weeks of regular violence.

The tragedy here has nothing to do with free speech or the right to peaceful assembly, or even government brutality. Is has to do with the dangers of protesters using violence to make their point, and the lack of effective non violent techniques for crowd control back in the 70s.

Perhaps OP would state if he thinks the government was complicit in this shooting, or if this was just an accident. Because if it was just an accident, he's missing the most important points of this tragedy. If it wasn't, then there's something to talk about.

And yeah, lol @ free speech zones. I'm with you on that.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Edited for you boro (edit: meh time limit gone for editing, but I'll retract that statement until I can find any quotes that assert the same. I'm certain someone recently said that it was okay to shoot a poor person stealing bread, but it may have been a vulgar conservative troll not a decent AC debater), been nipping into the tequila pre cinco de mayo and it has me a little feisty. rest of the post holds though.

yes my reply was to Phil, but in response to your strawman assertion Copernicus. I'm positing a situation where I'm actively throwing teargas canisters back at police officers after they have given a lawful order to get off property that I don't own which i am refusing. Is it justifiable for them to shoot me or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Force should be used only in sufficient strength to quell the immediate threat and to eliminate the risk of it escalating. An isolated individual throwing a tear gas canister can be subdued without killing them, and there is no threat of escalation.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
latefordinner,

You appear to have misunderstood me. Sometimes I don't write clearly. Using deadly force to quell protesters is never justified, except in the last extreme of defence of a policeman or bystander's life. It certainly wasn't justified here, although the situation was far more extreme and tensions far more heightened than your teargas example. I'm merely saying that this tragic mistake isn't really the fault of the government. Probably far less than half, in fact.

Myrtle,

Note the language OP uses, and the facts he chooses to highlight:
[ QUOTE ]
Just three weeks after California Republican Governor Ronald Reagan's declaration about student protests, "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with"...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does he mention this if not to suggest the government may have done this deliberately, or callously? What possible relevance could it have? He mentioned this strange fact, and yet didn't mention the sheer terror and disruption these students were causing in the local community through daily violence.

He then mentions that a song was wrapped in a bill of rights to highlight "the right to peaceful assembly". Nothing about any of these protests was peaceful assembly - it was the complete opposite, which was the reason they called the armed national guard in the first place, after weeks of regular violence.

The tragedy here has nothing to do with free speech or the right to peaceful assembly, or even government brutality. Is has to do with the dangers of protesters using violence to make their point, and the lack of effective non violent techniques for crowd control back in the 70s.

Perhaps OP would state if he thinks the government was complicit in this shooting, or if this was just an accident. Because if it was just an accident, he's missing the most important points of this tragedy. If it wasn't, then there's something to talk about.

And yeah, lol @ free speech zones. I'm with you on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil, Reagans bloodbath comment was not in response to Kent State, it preceeded Kent State and was in response to the burning down of a Bank of America building at UC Santa Barbara.

I think the implication that the poster who quoted that was that Reagan somehow was sanctioning and therefore at least created an atmosphere where Kent State could happen.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Edited for you boro (edit: meh time limit gone for editing, but I'll retract that statement until I can find any quotes that assert the same. I'm certain someone recently said that it was okay to shoot a poor person stealing bread, but it may have been a vulgar conservative troll not a decent AC debater),

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that any ACist would claim that shooting someone in the back as he was running away from your property with a single loaf of bread would be acceptable. On the other hand, shooting someone who was invading your property in search of a loaf of bread might well be acceptable. Do you see the difference?

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Responding to you is a complete waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT

Unfortunately, we live in a somewhat free society, so idiots can say things without fear of being shot in the head.

[/ QUOTE ]

The irony of you saying this is startling.

NCAces

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A link in this context is a tacit endorsement of the accuracy of the information. Wiki by its very nature is unreliable and subject to inaccuracies and bias. If your intent was as is stated in your follow up try suggesting search terms in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

...responding to you is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

reading your posts is a waste fo time, doesnt seemed to have stopped either of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I woould opine that that is because we both have a certain amount of time to choose to 'waste'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any time spent here at all is inherently wasted. Not that it isn't fun, but it certainly isn't productive. Not that I'm going anywhere. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

NCAces

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
shooting someone who was invading your property in search of a loaf of bread might well be acceptable. Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
shooting someone who was invading your property in search of a loaf of bread might well be acceptable. Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the second, you don't know what their intentions are. Even if they tell you they're just going to steal a loaf of bread, they could easily be lying and intending to kill you or whatever when you let your guard down.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
shooting someone who was invading your property in search of a loaf of bread might well be acceptable. Do you see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the second, you don't know what their intentions are. Even if they tell you they're just going to steal a loaf of bread, they could easily be lying and intending to kill you or whatever when you let your guard down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ayeup......

Let's shoot the corksackers because they might be lying....or lost....or need help.....or.....whatever.