Quote:
Originally Posted by LeatherFace
Why do people keep saying a person's criminal record if they have one is 'irrelevant' when its often VERY RELEVANT or at least it use to be until recently when looking someone's history was useful in seeing if that person had a pattern of bad behavior or criminality or if they were just a good person with no record.
Now that's somehow become 'irrelevant' because when you look closer at many people's records you find out they're not quite the angel you thought they were? Should we believe the media's portrayal of people and accept that without question? I was watching CTV news and how they reported the Jacob Blake shooting and all they said was 'UNARMED BLACK MAN shot 7 times in the back by police while trying to get to his vehicle where his 3 kids were'. And that's it. NOTHING ELSE.
Even now few if any major news outlets wants to bring up Blake's history or that he fought the cops and refused all police commands etc. and that maybe he's not exactly the greatest choice for athletes and companies to be taking a stand for.
|
I don't think anyone is excusing the bad behaviour of the victims in these shootings, but making a point of it IS irrelevant for two reasons: first, having been charged or convicted of prior offenses ought not ever subject a person to mob justice or police execution or irreversible physical harm. In the case of Blake, his prior offenses do not in any way absolve the police for permanently injuring him as they did. In the case of Rittenhouse's victims, he has no special insight into their past behaviour, so as far as he is concerned they are no different from any random passers by. From his perspective, he is shooting and killing nameless, faceless people whom he has identified as an immediate threat, and I find that totally reprehensible.
The only reason to introduce past prior behaviour of the victims is in a feeble effort to excuse the perpetrators, or otherwise in a despicable attempt to posit that they were somehow deserving of permanent disability or death. However you choose to play this, it's all gross.
Quote:
|
What about the effed up part where rioting, lawlessness, looting, seriously injuring and sometimes even killing innocent people, destruction and burning of property is allowed to go on without government trying to stop them? Maybe if political leaders did their jobs in protecting the citizens of their city, keeping them safe and not allowing these protests to get so out of hand that they felt bold enough to riot, loot and destroy neverendingly then perhaps some people wouldn't be fed up and finally decide enough is enough and its time to stand up against these not very 'peaceful protesters' and stop them from destroying the country that they love?
|
BAWADDABOU...!
BAWADDABOU...!
BAWADDABOU...!
Grow up, and stop retreating into these meaningless
tu quo que responses that don't do anything but detract from real issues.
Quote:
I just find it interesting that many protesters and/or people who use them as cover to commit crime, violence and destruction WANT chaos, lawlessness and anarchy. They WANT the police and government to stay far away from them so that they can loot and destroy as they wish, BUT as soon as any civilians DARE to stand up against them to and try stop their madness, they magically DO CARE about laws again and how Ritterhouse was illegally carrying weapons and how he came from outside the state. They suddenly DEMAND that the police they hate so much 'do their job' and arrest him. That the justice system they despise so much to convict a person who got in their way of all their fun and killed a couple of them.
But hey if they do THIS to someone its fine. They deserved it I'm sure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqUP...ature=youtu.be
|
They WANT chaos! They WANT to get shot!
Those are quite the assertions, there.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk