But we prefer to distill things down to their essence and get to the real meaning behind the window dressing. So your real meaning is that you are against the rule of law. The rest is just filler.
Regards,
Shodan
Police being forced to comply with police directives without regards to whether those directives are lawful or reasonable is the direct opposite of the rule of law. If you think people have no right to resist illegal actions by police, you’re specifically placing the police above the law. Remember, there’s video out there of police beating a non-resisting person while yelling ‘stop resisting’, so it’s clear that there exist a good number of police who will fabricate probable cause in order to do violence to people. While someone getting beaten by police has no good option, I do not agree with your contention that they are doing something wrong by resisting the beating.
You can fuck off too, troll.
Was the photographer Steophan? Jeebus, I can’t wrap my mind around this. This cop almost KILLED you out of sheer incompetence, and you don’t want him to lose his job? What the mother fuck?!
Imagine if people were this willing to forgive this level of deadly incompetence around other “professionals”.
A lawyer that stabs you with his pen when you reach to grab a paper you were about to sign.
“It’s ok, you probably wanted to sign first, my bad”.
A Surgeon that takes out your left lung instead of your colon.
“It could happen to anyone!”
A Barista that throws a mug at your head when you go to reach for your wallet.
" I understand, my wallet DOES look like a gun!".
People are brainwashed. I can’t explain ti any other way.
Good! Now they should file charges on that asshole.
And you still ignore it, even though I specifically pointed it out. Which means you are now actively refusing to say you aren’t antisemitic or white supremacist.
When someone accuses you of something, and you don’t deny it they have every reason to believe that you are admitting it.
You are clearly authoritarian. You’ve said before that people should not question the police. You laughed at me for saying that, in a free society, we are always free to challenge an authority.
You deliberately choose to defend the freedom of speech of Nazis, but ignore the freedom of speech of Antifa and BLM. Those two are violent thugs, but the Nazis are just practicing freedom of speech.
And now you’re using the common technique by shitty people who don’t want to admit they are shitty. They start nitpicking words. What you have to do is pay careful attention to what they don’t say.
If you refuse to say you’re not antisemitic or racist after this has been brought up, people have every reason to think you are. No amount of calling me or others stupid will change this.
I gave you your chance. Now I will call you a Nazi. Because you refuse to actually offer evidence you are not one.
Oh, and it doesn’t matter if you just move up the chain to the courts. You’re still asserting that someone in power is the absolute authority, so you are in fact authoritarian. Nazi Germans had trials and courts, too. But that didn’t make what they did right.
When a court finds something contrary to fact, the court is wrong. When the court is biased towards cops, rather than treating everyone equally, the court is wrong.
Even lawyers I know say that it is unlikely this officer will actually be convicted of a crime. Not because what he did isn’t a crime, but because of how biased the system is.
You can’t seem to comprehend the basic concept that someone being in authority doesn’t make them right.
That is another Nazi issue. If people properly hated authority, fascism could have never happened.
The Utah cop who dragged the nurse out to his unmarked car has been fired as a paramedic.
I’ve repeatedly said both of those things, despite their being no need to do so as there’s no credible reason to think I am one.
No, that’s not how language or logic works.
You should challenge them in the appropriate time and place. Which is either in court if you think their actions are illegal, or in elections if you think the laws they uphold are wrong. You don’t get to resist an arrest or search because you disagree that there’s probable cause, for example.
There’s obvious exceptions. You can obviously defend yourself against a rape attempt, and you don’t have to obey a cop who tells you to harm someone else.
No one here is trying to prevent those left wing groups having freedom of speech, so there’s nothing to defend. All the groups you mention, on both sides, are collections of dangerous, violent people who deserve to have their right to free speech protected, and who’s violence the rest of society needs to be protected against.
They literally have no reason to do so, as I’ve done nothing to suggest I am. Ignoring rather than denying ridiculous accusations is the best thing to do, responding to them gives them credence.
That sums you up perfectly. You don’t care that there’s no evidence that I am one, you don’t care for the actual definition of the word Nazi, you just want to throw it around as petty insult and have made up a stupid rationalisation to do so. Ironically, by doing that you have neither upset nor offended me - I have the same combination of amusement and pity I normally feel when I bother to read your posts, you will convince no one who’s opinions are based on anything approaching fact, and worst of all - and this one actually matters - you are trivialising the word “Nazi” and disrespecting the suffering of those who were actually harmed by them. That last gives the lie to any idea that you might have good or noble intentions, it’s clear you are just being a dick.
I read this post, and the quotes from iiandyiiii simply do not say what you claim they say.
You have a well-developed, rather pedantic, sense of logic. Had one of your debating opponents made the egregious extrapolations you did here, you’d be complaining strongly.
But, according to Steophan, you’ve made the claim many times. You’re asking him to search a large haystack to find a … strand of hay! 
Oh boy, your excuses sure are convincing. Wait, not convincing, that other word…pathetic. Your excuses sure are pathetic.
Have you ever considered not lying about what other people say? Or is it too difficult to make arguments that way?
Hey, remember when you called that innocent black murder victim a thug? Boy, I bet if you claimed you never said that I’d be unable to provide a cite, because of how difficult it is to search a ten thousand post thread.
I doubt very much I called anyone who was innocent a thug. I suspect you’re talking about the guy who, upon being asked to turn his offensively loud music down instead turned it up. That’s intentionally confrontational behaviour, thuggish is a reasonable descriptor.
I’ve talked about many other thugs here, but I don’t recall any who were murder victims. Plenty killed in self defence by the victims of their thuggery, but no murder victims.
So, now you try admitting what you actually said, and maybe iiandyiiii can do the same, instead of pretending it didn’t happen.
I’ve said I want all those things to happen to, assuming they are actually proven. We agree, so by your somewhat incoherent standards you must be a Nazi too.
So DO SOMETHING UNPLEASANT TO YOURSELF IN CAPS FOR EMPHASIS.
I referred to a thread, and quoted salient posts, where you claim that the cops have harmed 50% of black people, and that - your exact words - you say that black people van reasonably “be distrustful of law enforcement and view them as dangerous enemies to be feared”.
How, exactly, is it a misunderstanding to take that as saying that you believe that the police are harming black communities and that black people should hate and fear them? Granted, you didn’t use the word “hate” in that particular quote, but it’s very clear from your posts that you think doing so is fine.
But hey, you have a perfect opportunity to clear things up. Instead of doing the “I didn’t say that” dance, say exactly what you mean. Explain how your comments actually reflect the massive benefits the police bring to society, and how they should (as a group, not necessarily as individuals) be respected.
Because that should be the position of anyone with the slightest understanding of history, of justice, and of the risks the police face making your life, and the life of almost everyone bar those few criminals who live in luxury, better.
“If people hated authority”?? You sound like a teenager who wants to stick it to “the man” by not doing their homework.
Authority is necessary to make any social group larger than a handful of people function. I mean, I know you’ve never been around any group larger than those who fit in your parent’s basement, but you can see just on this board the need for moderators and rules. The same happens in the real world, if you ever go outside you might see that.
What you are confusing, like many a deluded 15 year old anarchist, is having respect for legitimate authority and delighting in the abuse of authority. The former is necessary. The latter is both pathetic and dangerous, and is what leads to fascism.
Fortunately, you live in a country where abuses of authority can be stopped. As long as you report them when you see them, go to court if necessary to get them stopped, and vote any corrupt officials out. You can also try to improve matters, for example by supporting the use of police body cameras, and voting for politicians who would require them.
Or, you can sit in your basement and think that calling people who have different views to you “Nazis”, despite having no understanding of what that term means, and not caring that it’s deeply offensive to the victims of actual Nazis to downplay their suffering like that.
Steophan, will you do us a favor and open your own pit thread and quit shitting all over this one? Thanks.
dnftt.
This other thread is where he asserts as a statement of fact that the victim “threatened” the shooter and that the shooter was just “defending himself” against the victim (up to the point where he continued to shoot into the retreating car as the victim’s friends were fleeing, at least).
He based these assertions on the fact that that’s what the shooter claimed, arguing that the witnesses’ contradiction of the shooter’s claim was untrustworthy because they were friends of the victim. Despite the fact that the shooter was also contradicted by other people on his claims about several other points, such as his claim to have called a neighbor of his to discuss the shooting and his claim to have mentioned to his girlfriend the victim’s allegedly having a shotgun.
This looks like what they call a classic case of projection. You’re the one who is happy to take a white shooter at their unsupported word when they say that a black person was threatening them, and to demand that anyone who contradicts the shooter should be expected to prove their point.
No, refusing to turn down loud music does not disqualify someone from being “innocent”, in the sense of an innocent victim of somebody shooting them.
Huh, funny how easy that is.