Originally posted by Silent Master
No, we never moved past it being your opinion. Hence all the talk about infer vs. Imply
then why bother trying (and failing) to apply other meanings to Trump's statement? why didn't you just lead with your silly implication=opinion copout and claim your pretend-win from the start? 🤪
Originally posted by Silent Master
Your argument is based on what you think he was implying by his statement
nope. I can see that you believe that repeating the same falsehood will make it true, but you're wrong again. any other tricks or stunts you'd like to engage in? or is this indeed your final concession-via-copout
I relied on what trump directly implied. no opinion was added. you are attempting to negate that with your own feelings and baseless unsubstantiated opinions (and misapplication of the word "opinion*). your arsenal of time-waster tricks appears to be depleted, so I accept your concession-via-copout 👆
Originally posted by Silent Master
My offer expires in 30 minutes.
I have no desire to get you banned (that's surt's schtick, not mine).
more importantly, your challenge is based on the false premise that Trump's direct implication is just my "opinion", making it d.o.a.
any more stunts, or should I accept your concession-via-copout now?
The History Behind "When The Looting Starts, The Shooting Starts"
Trump told reporters Friday evening that he didn't know the racially-charged history behind the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts."
He tweeted the phrase Friday morning in reference to the clashes between protesters and police in Minneapolis following George Floyd's death.
It dates back to the civil rights era and is known to have been invoked by a white police chief cracking down on protests and a segregationist politician.
In 1967, Miami police Chief Walter Headley used the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," invoking angry reactions from civil rights leaders, according to a news report at the time.
"He had a long history of bigotry against the black community," said professor Clarence Lusane of Howard University.
According to Lusane, Headley may have borrowed the phrase from Eugene "Bull" Connor, who had been the notorious public safety commissioner in Birmingham, Alabama.
Connor was a segregationist who directed the use of police dogs and fire hoses against black demonstrators.
Segregationist presidential candidate George Wallace also used the phrase during the 1968 campaign.
"So often Trump has engaged in dog whistles," Lusane said. "But he also engages in blaring trumpets. And this is a pretty clear and very loud message that the response should not be let's try to address the justice issues that are involved here but let's be hard-line."
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the law is not conditional pending your approval. it is illegal for looters to be shot just for looting (except for in Texas apparently. I have yet to research ddm's claim about that)how was he not inciting murder?
Search no more:
Texas law allows you to use deadly force to protect property if you would be justified in using force, and you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of specific enumerated property crimes. These are arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.
https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/
It's the only state I am aware of that is like that.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Search no more:https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/
It's the only state I am aware of that is like that.
Fortunately, if you are protecting your property a determined looter is very likely to try to go through you and once that happens you are now defending yourself and even Minneapolis allows that
Originally posted by Silent Master
Fortunately, if you are protecting your property a determined looter is very likely to try to go through you and once that happens you are now defending yourself and even Minneapolis allows that
That's probably true. But it is not a situation I would recommend anyone put to the test.
Get cameras if you are going to try this so you don't get those manslaughter charges.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's probably true. But it is not a situation I would recommend anyone put to the test.Get cameras if you are going to try this so you don't get those manslaughter charges.
I just think that whole duty to retreat is crap, the last thing you want to do when someone is threatening you is turn your back on them.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Search no more:
https://www.uslawshield.com/defend-property-texas/
It's the only state I am aware of that is like that.
texas is f*cked, innit
Originally posted by Silent Master
Fortunately, if you are protecting your property a determined looter is very likely to try to go through you and once that happens you are now defending yourself and even Minneapolis allows that
irrelevant to what trump said:
"when the looting starts, the shooting starts"
So lets say the laws uniformly said "No shooting for looting".
In a riot, How hard is it to prove they didn't shoot in self defense?
If the shopkeeper is standing there and the looter advances on him, is that justified self defense?
Is there such a thing as a non violent riot? Would any judge say "Prove you feared for your life", instead of immediately assuming riots are inherently dangerous?
Like all things in US law, there is an "exploit" that can make shooting legal anywhere.
It's called provoking a response. Its perfecrly legal to use non lethal means against looters. And then if the situatiion gets escalated, you can shoot them.
This catch 22 probably means even if a shop keeper skipped to step 3, the only way they wouldn't get away with it is being caught on camera.
Originally posted by cdtm
So lets say the laws uniformly said "No shooting for looting".In a riot, How hard is it to prove they didn't shoot in self defense?
If the shopkeeper is standing there and the looter advances on him, is that justified self defense?
Is there such a thing as a non violent riot? Would any judge say "Prove you feared for your life", instead of immediately assuming riots are inherently dangerous?
looting ≠ rioting.
all the looting I've seen on video is basically people walking into a store, taking what they want, and walking out. just looks like they're having a leisurely day of sunday shopping, except when they stroll about they're surrounded by smoke, ash, and rubble from rioters being rioters. do some rioters take a break for some looting and vice versa? maybe. f*ck if I know.