Discussion:
Another sport killing by a cop
Add Reply
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-24 14:46:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/23/wisconsin-police-shooting-kenosha-cops-shoot-man-sunday-evening/3427347001/>

Video at the link makes it pretty clear it was beyond pointless.
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-24 17:18:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 07:46:00 -0700, Terry del Fuego
Post by Terry del Fuego
<https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/23/wisconsin-police-shooting-kenosha-cops-shoot-man-sunday-evening/3427347001/>
Video at the link makes it pretty clear it was beyond pointless.
It wasn't a sport killing (yet), it was merely a sport shooting. The
victim is still alive. I overreacted and went illiterate when I read
about the *seven* shots.
Travoltron
2020-08-24 17:35:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I won't comment too much until we get the full story.
Post by Terry del Fuego
I overreacted and went illiterate when I read
about the*seven* shots.
This seems to be standard police procedure now. Watch any cop shooting
videos and you'll see them empty all their rounds into the guy.

I don't know why this is and it's something that does need to be addressed.
Lenona
2020-08-25 01:47:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The subject needs to be changed (and either GG or this iPad won't let me do it).

As of three hours ago, Jacob Blake is in stable condition.


Lenona.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-25 02:10:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lenona
The subject needs to be changed (and either GG or this iPad won't let me do it).
As of three hours ago, Jacob Blake is in stable condition.
I'd be a little more concerned that Terry del Fuego trolled Usenet with
"Another sport killing by a cop" and not everyone posting followups has
called him on his bullshit.
Steve Hayes
2020-08-28 11:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:35:39 -0700, Travoltron
Post by Travoltron
I won't comment too much until we get the full story.
Post by Terry del Fuego
I overreacted and went illiterate when I read
about the*seven* shots.
This seems to be standard police procedure now. Watch any cop shooting
videos and you'll see them empty all their rounds into the guy.
I don't know why this is and it's something that does need to be addressed.
Why, after several months of protests against police brutality, do the
US police persit in being, well, brutal?

What kind of morons do they employ that haven't got the message yet?
--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-28 12:54:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:29:02 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
What kind of morons do they employ that haven't got the message yet?
Excellent phrasing, considering:

<https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836>

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
ByABC News
8 September 2000, 07:32
2 min read

N E W L O N D O N, Conn., Sept. 8, 2000 -- A man whose bid to
become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an
intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against
the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower
court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert
Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took
the test.

"This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America
against people of a certain class," Jordan said today from his
Waterford home. "I maintain you have no more control over your basic
intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else."

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and
scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London
police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory
that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and
leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police
officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little
above average.

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination.
He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was
denied equal protection under the law.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had "shown a
rational basis for the policy." In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd
Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a
rational way to reduce job turnover.

Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
Steve Hayes
2020-08-29 07:34:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 05:54:04 -0700, Terry del Fuego
Post by Terry del Fuego
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:29:02 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
What kind of morons do they employ that haven't got the message yet?
<https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836>
Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
Well that explains it, then.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Kenny McCormack
2020-08-29 10:16:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 05:54:04 -0700, Terry del Fuego
Post by Terry del Fuego
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 13:29:02 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve Hayes
What kind of morons do they employ that haven't got the message yet?
<https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836>
Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
Well that explains it, then.
It seems to me that if it is legitimate and legal to bar somebody because
their IQ is too low (i.e., below a specified range), then it is equally
legitimate to bar them because they are out of spec at the other end of
the range.
--
The motto of the GOP "base": You can't *be* a billionaire, but at least you
can vote like one.
Scott Brady
2020-08-28 13:13:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Why, after several months of protests against police brutality, do the
US police persit in being, well, brutal?
Go fuck yourself.
Post by Steve Hayes
What kind of morons do they employ that haven't got the message yet?
Courageous ones.
Scott Brady
2020-08-28 14:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Why, after several months of protests against police brutality, do the
US police persit in being, well, brutal?
What kind of morons do they employ that haven't got the message yet?
So we should end law enforcement in this country because the criminals demand it.

Let's divert the resources to providing people in Hell with ice water.
Scott Brady
2020-08-28 15:10:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
Why, after several months of protests against police brutality, do the
US police persit in being, well, brutal?
What kind of morons do they employ that haven't got the message yet?
So we should end law enforcement in this country because the criminals demand it.

Maybe we can divert the resources to providing people in Hell with ice water.
J.D. Baldwin
2020-08-25 00:10:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Terry del Fuego
<https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/23/wisconsin-police-shooting-kenosha-cops-shoot-man-sunday-evening/3427347001/>
Video at the link makes it pretty clear it was beyond pointless.
I am responding to this only because I think that over the years I
have made it pretty clear that I am inclined to be suspicious of
police shootings. But this one looks righteous as hell to me. The
perp was brandishing a knife, which he refused to drop when confronted
by officers. Still they didn't shoot him. Then he turned and walked
away from them toward his car and they did not shoot him. (At some
point, I have heard, they attempted to tase him but the taser
malfunctioned, which is more common than most people would think.
They are not simple devices.)

When he shook off the officer's hand and reached into his car, that
was it. Was it "necessary" to shoot him seven times (which is the
figure I have heard)? With 20/20 hindsight, maybe, but when you've
made the decision to shoot and it's him or you, you shoot as many
times as is necessary to get him to *stop*. Graveyards are full of
officers (and others) who stopped shooting and were killed by a
wounded assailant.

Maybe more facts will come out later, but based on what facts we have
and the content of the video, this looks like it was as defensible as
a police shooting gets.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-25 13:12:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 00:10:30 +0000 (UTC),
The perp was brandishing a knife, which he refused to drop when
confronted by officers.
I see multiple references to the cops telling him to drop the knife
but no reference to him actually *having* one. That doesn't mean I'm
in any position to be positive that he didn't, but it's odd. And maybe
I'm just not searching properly.

As far as I know "drop the knife" has not become the new "stop
resisting" so it's certainly possible the cops were sincere, but I'd
expect to see more reporting about it. It's not even in Fox's stories,
at least not the ones I've found. In fact, the word "knife" doesn't
seem to appear there at all, not even quoting the police.
Maybe more facts will come out later, but based on what facts we have
and the content of the video, this looks like it was as defensible as
a police shooting gets.
I would never in a million years believe you weren't sincere, but I
just can't find anything to back this up. The video isn't exactly 8k,
but I can't see anything in his hand. What I see is a guy being held
by the back of his shirt with his back to the guy that's filling him
with holes.

At least some of yesterday's stories were claiming that Blake was
attempting to "break up a fight" but now all I'm seeing is that the
cops were responding to a "domestic disturbance". So far, I can't find
anything saying whether he was or wasn't a participant.

Who knows, maybe this will be the one that turns out to be justified.
I'm a little suprised that we haven't yet learned that Blake once
smoked pot or said the F word.
danny burstein
2020-08-25 13:25:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In <***@4ax.com> Terry del Fuego <***@hotmail.com> writes:

[snip]
Post by Terry del Fuego
I would never in a million years believe you weren't sincere, but I
just can't find anything to back this up. The video isn't exactly 8k,
but I can't see anything in his hand. What I see is a guy being held
by the back of his shirt with his back to the guy that's filling him
with holes.
There's a "still" taken from (or so it's claimed) from the video that's
pretty vague, but, per all the apologists, shows a dark object
sticking out of Blakes waistband, and they're claiming it was,
of course, a knife.

When they point it out on Twitter, I simply ask where's the
photo op with the DA next to a table and the knife on it?

No one's bothered to reply.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-26 12:51:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:25:26 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
Post by danny burstein
When they point it out on Twitter, I simply ask where's the
photo op with the DA next to a table and the knife on it?
No one's bothered to reply.
There still seems to be little information out there. Allegedly he's
now paralyzed from the waist down, but possibly not permanently.

Also, he apparently was *not* involved in the original domestic
disturbance, which is said to have been between two women.

As you say, you'd expect to at least see a photo op. Or everyone
trying to get their version of the story out first. Maybe my mistake
is starting at Google News, but I'm not finding much new beyond even
more shootings (apparently *not* by police) during the protests.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-26 18:25:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Terry del Fuego
Post by danny burstein
When they point it out on Twitter, I simply ask where's the
photo op with the DA next to a table and the knife on it?
No one's bothered to reply.
There still seems to be little information out there. Allegedly he's
now paralyzed from the waist down, but possibly not permanently.
Also, he apparently was *not* involved in the original domestic
disturbance, which is said to have been between two women.
As you say, you'd expect to at least see a photo op. Or everyone
trying to get their version of the story out first. Maybe my mistake
is starting at Google News, but I'm not finding much new beyond even
more shootings (apparently *not* by police) during the protests.
Liar.

Your mistake was falsely labeling it "sport killing", then changing it
to "sport shooting".

Everyone else's mistake is feeding your troll failing to call you out on
your venal behavior.
Travoltron
2020-08-26 19:05:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Everyone else's mistake is feeding your troll failing to call you out on
your venal behavior.
I dunno, what was I supposed to say? The law of Usenet used to be "don't
feed the trolls."
Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-26 19:31:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Travoltron
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Everyone else's mistake is feeding your troll failing to call you out on
your venal behavior.
I dunno, what was I supposed to say? The law of Usenet used to be "don't
feed the trolls."
If a Usenet user has made the decision to troll feed in a thread with
"sport killing" and "sport shooting" on Subject, and recognizes that
Terry del Fuego behaved in a venal manner, then say that in addition to
the comment being made. Why would anyone who finds his behavior to be
venal treat him like he's interested in any serious discussion?
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-27 12:55:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 12:05:19 -0700, Travoltron
Post by Travoltron
I dunno, what was I supposed to say? The law of Usenet used to be "don't
feed the trolls."
I killfiled the entity to which you're responding long ago over its
compulsive lying, so maybe I'm just missing context here, but is it
calling *you* venal because *I'm* a troll? If the bit you quoted had
been written in English, I might have been able to make more sense of
it.

(Just be be clear, of course I was trolling. And also sincere. As well
as, so far, really stupidly wrong to have initially written
"killing".)
Travoltron
2020-08-27 23:08:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Terry del Fuego
I killfiled the entity to which you're responding long ago over its
compulsive lying, so maybe I'm just missing context here, but is it
calling*you* venal because*I'm* a troll? If the bit you quoted had
been written in English, I might have been able to make more sense of
it.
I'm not entirely sure what he meant, but I understood it as saying we
should not have responded to you without chastising you for what you
said. Maybe I misunderstood.

I just didn't feel like it. I'm getting so tired of arguing with people
all the time. I'm been fighting with people on Facebook and Twitter all
year. Twitter finally banned me... I'm surprised they took so long.
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-28 12:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:08:23 -0700, Travoltron
Post by Travoltron
Twitter finally banned me... I'm surprised they took so long.
I think I'm on account number five at this point.
Scott Brady
2020-08-26 19:23:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Your mistake was falsely labeling it "sport killing", then changing it
to "sport shooting".
Meanwhile, sport killings, shootings and assaults by self-styled "protesters" continue unabated, to the unanimous glee of the left.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-26 19:34:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Brady
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Your mistake was falsely labeling it "sport killing", then changing it
to "sport shooting".
Meanwhile, sport killings, shootings and assaults by self-styled
"protesters" continue unabated, to the unanimous glee of the left.
And that's almost as venal.

But the 17 year old white man from Antioch Illinois who appears to have
brought a semiautomatic rifle to Kenosha to commit violence has been
taken into custody. He shot three people, two of whom died. That helps
to abate some of the harm, I guess.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-29 04:13:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Scott Brady
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Your mistake was falsely labeling it "sport killing", then changing it
to "sport shooting".
Meanwhile, sport killings, shootings and assaults by self-styled
"protesters" continue unabated, to the unanimous glee of the left.
And that's almost as venal.
But the 17 year old white man from Antioch Illinois who appears to have
brought a semiautomatic rifle to Kenosha to commit violence has been
taken into custody. He shot three people, two of whom died. That helps
to abate some of the harm, I guess.
The more I read about this, the less it seems like he went to Kenosha to
commit violence. Maybe he thought he could help. I'm no longer seeing
how he can be charged with crimes of intent.
J.D. Baldwin
2020-08-30 02:39:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The more I read about this, the less it seems like he went to
Kenosha to commit violence. Maybe he thought he could help. I'm no
longer seeing how he can be charged with crimes of intent.
You don't have to form intent that far in advance. Intent, and even
premeditation, can be formed a very short time ahead of a criminal
act.

That said: I have no idea what happened in the first alleged
shooting, he might have done something very very criminal there. But
he didn't carry a firearm unlawfully (per Wisconsin law) and the
three shootings that are on video are a pretty plain case of self-defense.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-30 21:05:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 30 Aug 2020 02:39:46 +0000 (UTC),
But he didn't carry a firearm unlawfully (per Wisconsin law)
<https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/suspected-kenosha-shooter-may-have-been-illegally-carrying-gun>

"Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning anyone who gets a gun
legally can carry it in most public places without a license or
permit.

"But that's not the case for minors like 17-year-old Kyle
Rittenhouse...

"Kenosha Police Chief Daniel Miskinis confirmed to reporters Wednesday
that you have to be 18 to open carry in the state of Wisconsin."

[snip]

"There are some exceptions in Wisconsin state law allowing minors to
carry guns, including if they are in the military and in the line of
duty, as well as if they are under adult supervision..."

There are people insisting that his egg donor drove him there, so
maybe he technically was under "adult supervision". But as far as I
can tell, no one really knows and the usual suspects may simply be
knee-jerking in reaction to the picture of her making the rounds
(NPI).
J.D. Baldwin
2020-08-31 14:27:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Terry del Fuego
But he didn't carry a firearm unlawfully (per Wisconsin law)
<https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/suspected-kenosha-shooter-may-have-been-illegally-carrying-gun>
"Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning anyone who gets a gun
legally can carry it in most public places without a license or
permit.
"But that's not the case for minors like 17-year-old Kyle
Rittenhouse...
"Kenosha Police Chief Daniel Miskinis confirmed to reporters
Wednesday that you have to be 18 to open carry in the state of
Wisconsin."
This is wrong, and what I told you above is correct.

I assume the journalist is merely stupid. The police chief is a lying
sack. You can read 948.60 for yourself, but it's easy to misread so
allow me to walk you through it:

(1) defines a "dangerous weapon" to include a firearm.

(2)(a) says "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes
armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
People seem to stop reading here, and our intrepid police chief hopes
you will, too. But ...

(3)(c) says, "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of
age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person
is in violation of § 941.28 or is not in compliance with §§ 29.304 and
29.593." That means that for long guns, 948.60 is not applicable
unless 941.28 is being violated[1] OR there is a violation of
29.304[2] or 29.593[3]. Because those other sections are not being
violated, 948.60 is not applicable to a 17-year-old carrying a long
gun. Open carry of *handguns* for 17-year-olds is unlawful in
Wisconsin. But Rittenhouse was not carrying a handgun.

[1] This is a provision concerning short-barrelled rifles and shotguns
that isn't applicable here.

[2] A provision that does not apply to anyone over 16, so also not
applicable here.

[3] This provision has to do with obtaining a firearm safety
certificate before one is allowed to hunt in Wisconsin. Obvious
dumb snark aside, he wasn't hunting, so this also does not apply
to the situation.

It doesn't upset me too greatly when journalists are morons. (If it
did, I'd never have a moment's peace.) A chief of police is a
politician more than he is a cop, so when one lies his ass off, I
don't get *too* worked up about it. But the DA who filed that charge
should be disbarred. It is a violation of professional ethics for a
prosecutor to prosecute someone without probable cause, and *that*
sonofabitch cannot be excused for misreading the statute.
Post by Terry del Fuego
"There are some exceptions in Wisconsin state law allowing minors to
carry guns, including if they are in the military and in the line of
duty, as well as if they are under adult supervision..."
That's all irrelevant here; it applies only to handguns.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-31 19:41:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:27:29 +0000 (UTC),
Post by J.D. Baldwin
but it's easy to misread
Almost intentionally so. Or, you know, not "almost".
Post by J.D. Baldwin
People seem to stop reading here, and our intrepid police chief hopes
you will, too. But ...
Again, almost as if it's intentional or something...but that can't be.

Trying a quick search to see if anyone else is raising your points and
I find
<https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20200827/guns-were-turned-in-after-kenosha-shooting-but-antioch-police-wont-say-who-owned-them>,
which contains: 'Wisconsin, which is an open-carry state, has "really
convoluted" gun possession laws for people under 18, Grieve said.'

<https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/>
agrees with you, at least sorta:

'Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed"
with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle
Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style
rifle he had.

'But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases,
believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow
people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.'

[Curious if "believes" and "could" are Monroe's actual words. They
strike me as somewhat noncommittal under the circumstances. Then
again, noncommittal is probably smart when it's not his client.]
Post by J.D. Baldwin
But the DA who filed that charge should be disbarred.
Well, "prosecutorial misconduct" *is* one of the most redundant
phrases in the English "language".

It suddenly strikes me as funny that we're talking about the law at
all when clearly the entire concept is outdated.

Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-31 01:29:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The more I read about this, the less it seems like he went to
Kenosha to commit violence. Maybe he thought he could help. I'm no
longer seeing how he can be charged with crimes of intent.
You don't have to form intent that far in advance. Intent, and even
premeditation, can be formed a very short time ahead of a criminal
act.
Ok.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
That said: I have no idea what happened in the first alleged
shooting, he might have done something very very criminal there. But
he didn't carry a firearm unlawfully (per Wisconsin law) and the
three shootings that are on video are a pretty plain case of self-defense.
ZZ
Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-31 01:30:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
ZZ
Sorry about that. I was trying to abort the post.
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-27 12:57:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 12:23:07 -0700 (PDT), Scott Brady
Post by Scott Brady
Meanwhile, sport killings, shootings and assaults by self-styled
"protesters" continue unabated, to the unanimous glee of the left.
Although I'm sure he's frustrated, I thank you for spitting out the
cop's cock long enough to post this. You're reminding me that I'm not
the only fucked up troll here and if I want to be Number One I'll have
to up my game.
J.D. Baldwin
2020-08-27 13:06:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Your mistake was falsely labeling it "sport killing", then changing
it to "sport shooting".
Thinking the "victim" was dead was obviously an honest mistake.

Calling it a "sport shooting" (or "killing") was making a point
through hyperbole. No one took that as a serious claim, and no person
of normal intelligence would take it as a serious claim. TdF's
general attitude toward police and policing in America might be on the
extreme side, and it's fair to argue that, but pretending he actually
believes the Kenosha cops literally shot that guy for "sport" is not
an honest way to do so. He was just underscoring his point forcefully
and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yes, all the above applies even if TdF facetiously identifies himself
as a craven troll, which is basically another device.

I've seen a lot of Usenet trolls over the years, and this thread
doesn't remotely match the profile.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Brady
2020-08-27 13:34:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Thinking the "victim" was dead was obviously an honest mistake.
Calling it a "sport shooting" (or "killing") was making a point
through hyperbole. No one took that as a serious claim, and no person
of normal intelligence would take it as a serious claim. TdF's
general attitude toward police and policing in America might be on the
extreme side, and it's fair to argue that, but pretending he actually
believes the Kenosha cops literally shot that guy for "sport" is not
an honest way to do so. He was just underscoring his point forcefully
and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Shove it up your ass.
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-27 15:03:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:34:40 -0700 (PDT), Scott Brady
Post by Scott Brady
Shove it up your ass.
While you and Falwell Junior watch from the corner?
Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-27 14:02:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Your mistake was falsely labeling it "sport killing", then changing
it to "sport shooting".
Thinking the "victim" was dead was obviously an honest mistake.
I didn't address that.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Calling it a "sport shooting" (or "killing") was making a point
through hyperbole. No one took that as a serious claim, and no person
of normal intelligence would take it as a serious claim.
I'm really not in the mood for his kind of lies told in extreme
rhetoric. People actually have been overreacting to such lies for the
last several months. Is this not apparent to you, or have you not been
reading the newspapers? Even people of normal intelligence can, at times,
be stirred up into violent overreation by the spread of extreme rhetoric.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
TdF's general attitude toward police and policing in America might be on
the extreme side, and it's fair to argue that, but pretending he actually
believes the Kenosha cops literally shot that guy for "sport" is not an
honest way to do so. He was just underscoring his point forcefully and
there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
He has joined those who spread lies and disinformation by contributing
to the spread of lies and disinformation, hoping to stir up violence
as a counterreaction.

It's not innocent nor naive behavior.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Yes, all the above applies even if TdF facetiously identifies himself
as a craven troll, which is basically another device.
Such craven trolling has been having real-world consequences, or have
you been turning a blind eye to what's been going on?
Post by J.D. Baldwin
I've seen a lot of Usenet trolls over the years, and this thread
doesn't remotely match the profile.
In Kenosha itself, a 17 year old boy from Antioch, Illinois, may have
listened to extreme rhetoric. He headed there to shoot random people. He
shot three, two of whom died.

A 71 year old man who was a friend of the owner of the mattress store
that was looted went to defend his friend's store was hit in the head by
concrete and had his jaw broken in two places. He was still recovering
from major surgery last year.

A police officer was hit in the head by a brick.

All of these instances, and plenty more, are violent reactions to extreme
rhetoric, although the looting are opportunists taking advantage of
the distraction of the violence and protests. There are ways to react
cynically to the use of police power without telling the very same lies
that appeal to people on the edge of anger who are looking to be pushed
over the edge into violence.

Knowing that lots of people are quite capable of behaving in a violent
manner when their emotions get stirred up, there are real world
consequences to the spreading of lies disinformation.
J.D. Baldwin
2020-08-27 17:43:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
In Kenosha itself, a 17 year old boy from Antioch, Illinois, may
have listened to extreme rhetoric. He headed there to shoot random
people. He shot three, two of whom died.
For someone who is so quick to call others liars, you sure do tell
enormous whoppers yourself with little or no provocation.

As for the rest of it, I'm not interested in this crap about
"rhetoric" that supposedly inspires or incites violence. First of
all, it's too easily abused. I am old enough to remember when Bill
Clinton twisted the very concept of truth to make a claim that one of
his political critics had somehow inspired the Oklahoma City bombing.
Second, to borrow from Robert Heinlein, incitement to riot is not an
excuse for rioting.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-27 18:54:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Adam H. Kerman
In Kenosha itself, a 17 year old boy from Antioch, Illinois, may
have listened to extreme rhetoric. He headed there to shoot random
people. He shot three, two of whom died.
For someone who is so quick to call others liars, you sure do tell
enormous whoppers yourself with little or no provocation.
I made the comment based on the charges of first-degree intentional
homicide. Is there some other interpretation of intent that you have in
mind? Do explain.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
As for the rest of it, I'm not interested in this crap about
"rhetoric" that supposedly inspires or incites violence.
Oh, ok. What has been the inspiration for all the protesting, violence,
and vandalism, if not rhetoric?
Post by J.D. Baldwin
First of all, it's too easily abused. I am old enough to remember when
Bill Clinton twisted the very concept of truth to make a claim that one
of his political critics had somehow inspired the Oklahoma City bombing.
Different words inspired him.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Second, to borrow from Robert Heinlein, incitement to riot is not an
excuse for rioting.
Heinlein was correct but that's irrelevant.
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-27 15:03:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:06:52 +0000 (UTC),
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Thinking the "victim" was dead was obviously an honest mistake.
It was complete illiteracy caused by my prejudice(s). I saw "police",
"Black man", "seven shots" and the video of a guy being shot in the
back. I then jumped to a conclusion that completely blinded me to the
fact that the article made it clear that he was still alive.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Calling it a "sport shooting" (or "killing") was making a point
through hyperbole. No one took that as a serious claim, and no person
of normal intelligence would take it as a serious claim.
I dunno. Maybe. I sincerely believe there is a subset--hopefully a
small one, but I really don't know--of police officers who are looking
for and will gleefully jump at the chance to kill people over the
crime of possession of melanin. I can't tell if it's truly getting
worse or if cell phones just mean we see more of it, but as far as I
can tell, the phenomenon is real. I createe a trollish subject line
over it because there's damned little else I can do about it and, like
any infant, I need to do *something* with the tantrum-like "energy".
Post by J.D. Baldwin
TdF's general attitude toward police and policing in America might be on the
extreme side
My wannabe-editor suggests that your inclusion of the phrase "police
and policing in" is technically accurate but also somewhat
whitewashing of my underlying attitude. Granted, my views have become
significantly more extreme under the current regime. I mean, way, way,
way more extreme. What little I post here these days is heavily,
heavily self-censored.

I was going to refer to myself as "reactionary" because my current
ultra-dark attitude is a *reaction* to what I've been experiencing for
the last several years, but in a rare moment of thinking things
through I actually looked up the definition of the word. Apparently it
officially only applies to the conservative side of things for some
reason. Weird. I guess we need a new word that means "Driven to a far
more extreme left than previous comfort levels would allow by an
intentionally high body count exacerbated by consant and extreme
lying, gaslighting and gleeful destruction of what little decency
previously remained."
Post by J.D. Baldwin
He was just underscoring his point forcefully and there is nothing
inherently wrong with that.
Yes, all the above applies even if TdF facetiously identifies himself
as a craven troll, which is basically another device.
I've seen a lot of Usenet trolls over the years, and this thread
doesn't remotely match the profile.
You never let me have any fun.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-27 15:26:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Terry del Fuego
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Thinking the "victim" was dead was obviously an honest mistake.
It was complete illiteracy caused by my prejudice(s). I saw "police",
"Black man", "seven shots" and the video of a guy being shot in the
back. I then jumped to a conclusion that completely blinded me to the
fact that the article made it clear that he was still alive.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Calling it a "sport shooting" (or "killing") was making a point
through hyperbole. No one took that as a serious claim, and no person
of normal intelligence would take it as a serious claim.
I dunno. Maybe. I sincerely believe there is a subset--hopefully a
small one, but I really don't know--of police officers who are looking
for and will gleefully jump at the chance to kill people over the
crime of possession of melanin. I can't tell if it's truly getting
worse or if cell phones just mean we see more of it, but as far as I
can tell, the phenomenon is real. I createe a trollish subject line
over it because there's damned little else I can do about it and, like
any infant, I need to do *something* with the tantrum-like "energy".
That's nice. It's always best to throw unfounded accusations out there,
like killing with intent or premeditation in complete and utter
ignorance, because extreme false accusations like that couldn't possibly
cause any harm.

I see no difference between your behavior and those who rile up an angry
mob to lynch a man accused of a crime without evidence.

You are immoral.
Post by Terry del Fuego
Post by J.D. Baldwin
. . .
J.D. Baldwin
2020-08-27 18:15:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Terry del Fuego
I dunno. Maybe. I sincerely believe there is a subset--hopefully a
small one, but I really don't know--of police officers who are
looking for and will gleefully jump at the chance to kill people
over the crime of possession of melanin.
Don't think so small. There are definitely officers out there who
joined the force to abuse authority -- up to and including contriving
excuses to kill their fellow humans -- and melanin doesn't necessarily
have anything to do with it. Google "Daniel Shaver," for example.

I think Tamir Rice was an auto-Darwination who might as well have been
*begging* to be shot, but I also think there is a strong case to be
made that the cops who shot him were in fact "gleefully" looking for a
chance to kill someone. I don't know that melanin had anything to do
with that one. And if you're waving a realistic-looking pistol around
in public, the police are going to take you down one way or another
and I can't imagine anyone not being okay with that. But those guys
rolled up in a car and, without even getting on their PA to order him
to drop it, they just *instantly* opened fire. I can't come up with
an explanation that fits what I see on the video other than "They just
wanted to shoot someone."

Sometimes these things are complicated and sometimes they aren't. A
lot more facts have come out about Jacob Blake and I am strongly
inclined to believe it was an entirely justifiable shooting. The only
other position to be taken is that ana armed suspect with a history
of, and warrants for, violent crime ought simply be allowed to reach
into his car after the police have ordered him to stop and show his
hands, and there's nothing the police can or should do about it. That
is patently ridiculous.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / ***@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry del Fuego
2020-08-27 19:40:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 18:15:18 +0000 (UTC),
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Don't think so small.
I think in proportion to the size of my "mind".
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Google "Daniel Shaver," for example.
My favorite thing about doing that was learning that Wikipedia has a
set of pages devoted to "killings by law enforcement officers in the
United States" by month with the exception of 2009 and 2011, when a
mere 72 and 173 were killed for their respective years. Second
favorite was learning that the LDS missionary cop engraved "You're
fucked" on his rifle.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
I think Tamir Rice was an auto-Darwination who might as well have been
*begging* to be shot, but I also think there is a strong case to be
made that the cops who shot him were in fact "gleefully" looking for a
chance to kill someone.
Again reinforcing my prejudices: People, by and large, are little more
than oxygen thieves.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
A lot more facts have come out about Jacob Blake
CNN is reporting as of about two hours ago that the regime is finally
telling its side of the story, more or less. The fact that it took so
long is, I'm sure, because they were being very cautious, thorough and
extremely dedicated to getting it right.
Post by J.D. Baldwin
and I am strongly inclined to believe it was an entirely justifiable shooting.
Could be. Yet somehow I forgive myself both for being skeptical and
for instinctively jumping to the opposite conclusion. (I should point
out that "could be" is sincere--my mind *is* changeable, it's just
going to take a bit more in this case than what I've seen so far.)

It would be nice to have both a press and regime that could actually
be, you know, *trusted*. Also, I'd like to win the Lotto and be able
to levitate.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-25 17:35:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Terry del Fuego
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/23/wisconsin-police-shooting-kenosha-cops-shoot-man-sunday-evening/3427347001/
Video at the link makes it pretty clear it was beyond pointless.
I am responding to this only because I think that over the years I
have made it pretty clear that I am inclined to be suspicious of
police shootings. But this one looks righteous as hell to me. The
perp was brandishing a knife, which he refused to drop when confronted
by officers. Still they didn't shoot him. Then he turned and walked
away from them toward his car and they did not shoot him. (At some
point, I have heard, they attempted to tase him but the taser
malfunctioned, which is more common than most people would think.
They are not simple devices.)
When he shook off the officer's hand and reached into his car, that
was it. Was it "necessary" to shoot him seven times (which is the
figure I have heard)? With 20/20 hindsight, maybe, but when you've
made the decision to shoot and it's him or you, you shoot as many
times as is necessary to get him to *stop*. Graveyards are full of
officers (and others) who stopped shooting and were killed by a
wounded assailant.
Maybe more facts will come out later, but based on what facts we have
and the content of the video, this looks like it was as defensible as
a police shooting gets.
The report I heard this morning was that Jacob Blake was not the
perpetrator, that he'd gone there to break up a fight between two women.
It's still not stated how the cops were called. He was leaving the
scene. A cop ordered him to remain, which appears to be the reason he ws
followed to his car. If his children really were in the car as a lawyer
claims, that would explain it.

The video isn't clear enough to me to show him brandishing a knife or
holding anything, but a report yesterday stated that someone on the
street heard cops yell "Knife!", which would get a cop's blood up and
explain why there were seven shots.

Reports keep claiming that the sound of seven shots is heard on the
video but I've never seen a clip with an audio track.
Adam H. Kerman
2020-08-27 01:18:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by J.D. Baldwin
Post by Terry del Fuego
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/23/wisconsin-police-shooting-kenosha-cops-shoot-man-sunday-evening/3427347001/
Video at the link makes it pretty clear it was beyond pointless.
I am responding to this only because I think that over the years I
have made it pretty clear that I am inclined to be suspicious of
police shootings. But this one looks righteous as hell to me. The
perp was brandishing a knife, which he refused to drop when confronted
by officers. Still they didn't shoot him. Then he turned and walked
away from them toward his car and they did not shoot him. (At some
point, I have heard, they attempted to tase him but the taser
malfunctioned, which is more common than most people would think.
They are not simple devices.)
When he shook off the officer's hand and reached into his car, that
was it. Was it "necessary" to shoot him seven times (which is the
figure I have heard)? With 20/20 hindsight, maybe, but when you've
made the decision to shoot and it's him or you, you shoot as many
times as is necessary to get him to *stop*. Graveyards are full of
officers (and others) who stopped shooting and were killed by a
wounded assailant.
Maybe more facts will come out later, but based on what facts we have
and the content of the video, this looks like it was as defensible as
a police shooting gets.
The report I heard this morning was that Jacob Blake was not the
perpetrator, that he'd gone there to break up a fight between two women.
It's still not stated how the cops were called. He was leaving the
scene. A cop ordered him to remain, which appears to be the reason he ws
followed to his car. If his children really were in the car as a lawyer
claims, that would explain it.
The video isn't clear enough to me to show him brandishing a knife or
holding anything, but a report yesterday stated that someone on the
street heard cops yell "Knife!", which would get a cop's blood up and
explain why there were seven shots.
Reports keep claiming that the sound of seven shots is heard on the
video but I've never seen a clip with an audio track.
The Wisconsin attorney general's press conference was held today, August
26, 2020.

KENOSHA, Wis. (CBS 58) -- A news conference was held Wednesday,
Aug. 26, regarding the officer-involved shooting of 29-year-old
Jacob Blake on Aug. 23.

According to Attorney General Josh Kaul, Kenosha police were
dispatched to the residence near 28th and 40th Street after a
female caller reported that her boyfriend was present and was
not supposed to be on the premises.

During the incident, officers attempted to arrest Jacob Blake.
Police officers deployed a taser, which was unsuccessful. Blake
walked around his vehicle, opened the driver's side door, and
leaned forward, according to officials.

While holding onto Blake's shirt, Officer Rusten Sheskey fired
his service weapon into Blake's back seven times.

Officials say no other officer fired their weapon. Kenosha
Police Department does not have body cameras.

The shooting officer, Kenosha Police Officer Rusten Sheskey, has
been a law enforcement officer with the Kenosha Police
Department for seven years.

During the investigation, Blake admitted that he had a knife in
his possession, according to the DOJ. Agents recovered a knife
from the driver's side floorboard of Blake's vehicle.

https://www.cbs58.com/news/ag-kaul-kenosha-officer-rusten-sheskey-fired-weapon-into-jacob-blakes-back-7-times
Loading...