I can’t speak about the SDS or Black Panthers, but the KKK is a real organization. Else, it couldn’t have lost its property to lawsuits:
https://www.courthousenews.com/forty-years-ago-they-changed-how-hate-groups-are-sued/
https://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/12/klan.sued/index.html
“In 2000, for example, the center won a $6.3 million jury verdict that forced Aryan Nations leader Richard Butler to give up the group’s Idaho compound. In 1987, a $7 million verdict in Mobile, Alabama, targeted the United Klans of America.”
You can’t sue an entity that doesn’t exist.
Doug
davefairtex wrote: The big mystery is the ticking clock. Someone appears to be under some serious time pressure. What the pressure is, I can't say. But there is a ticking clock at work here. If Trump isn't escorted out of the Oval soon, "something" will come to an end, so leadership in my old party is now acting irrationally.Dave, It really isn't a mystery to me. I see social security, medicare, promised government pensions, horribly underfunded. With the rapid aging of the populace, there will be more expenditures and less income (taxes.) All the social security and medicare taxes that have been collected over the years have been spent on pork barrel projects so politicians could gain favor from their constituents. Those tax moneys have been replaced by irredeemable bonds.
As of 8/26/2020, https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/pd_debttothepenny.htm
-
Intragovernmental Holdings: $5,909,612,962,437.01
-
Public Debt: $20,706,040,194,248.80
-
Total Debt: $26,615,653,156,685.81
In Portland the protests started out somewhat peacefully and were kind of petering out when the military showed up. And of course, human nature being pretty reliable, the protest became truly violent afterwards. Rather then let the embers die out, sending the military in whipped them up. This was no mistake. It’s a well known, well defined pattern.
Some people are on the streets battling for freedom, some are on the streets battling because they are young and it’s exciting, some are there to “get stuff.” I wouldn’t minimize or discount some negative intent there. But, ultimately, who benefits and who are the “hidden” donating agencies funding BLM? Varying agendas there as well, but I don’t doubt that some of them are funding protests in the hopes they DO become violent because it furthers their hard right fascist desires.
Republicans funded Ralph Nader in 2000. Just sayin’. You may think you’re enlightened because you don’t watch MSM, so good on you! You’ve removed the first layer of the onion! You get a gold star! Now, your next assignment is to approach YouTube videos and alternative media the same way. Understand that social media is as much or more compromised, not just by political forces but with a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense. It’s a crazy gossip mill on steroids.
The democrats are war mongers who are supported by limo-liberals who can’t see through the b.s. As far as black lives mattering, it was Clinton who passed the three strikes law that incarcerated and virtually enslaved a huge percentage of the young black and male population.
The first order of the day for any truly fair government in the U.S. should be to outlaw for-profit prisons, and bring alignment of sentencing for blacks and whites for the same offences.
Then policing has to demilitarize and change and people have to realize that is what ‘defunding’ means. It means eliminating the techniques and mindset of warfare, within the departments and teaching deescalation.
Doug said:
there is no organization called AntifaReally? But they have a flag. And decals. And a listing in Wikipedia. (Did you bother to Google them?) I guess if they don't file papers with the government they don't really exist. Or, Doug, that argument's a canard. The original Antifa was a direct action crowd active in Germany in the early 1930s. Same flag. Just reversed direction, and today 2 colors rather than just one. Huh. Curious coincidence for an organization that doesn't exist. Here's the kicker: the German Antifa was organized by the German Communist Party, the International version - which means, the one taking orders from Stalin. It's purpose was to battle with Hitler's Brown Shirts for control of Germany. Mr. Stalin was not happy that Mr. Hitler was a national socialist rather than international socialist. Mr. Stalin considered that unacceptable residual bourgeois sentimentality, hence hopelessly "right wing." He hoped his German goons could wrest control on the streets. Sadly for him, Germany's international socialists lost that battle and were purged and persecuted by Mr. Hitler. However, Mr. Stalin lived to advocate another day by joining the Allies to defeat Mr. Hitler. After the War, a great many intellectual and influential Western Europeans and Americans waxed euphoric about Mr. Stalin's progressive, scientific approach to government...while millions were starved and oppressed. Meanwhile, German international communists wandered across the pond and took up residence in various American universities, where they dutifully advanced the image of Stalin's advanced, communist culture through publications, public education institutions, and popular media. As a result, as late as today we have properly educated Democrat leaders advocating for the elimination of borders. After all, every worker should be free to travel to any country to work. You know: "workers of the world unite." International socialism. Apparently they brought Antifa with them. Or, Mr. Putin has resurrected it. Or, a bunch of scruffy post-adolescents really know their obscure German history and thought they'd model themselves after the first Antifa, right down to the thuggery and emblematic flag. Or, maybe it's all just a big fat coincidence. 'Cause whodathunkit? I mean, other than people who pick up history books written before PC made critical thinking a racist and elitist form of oppression against the poor, disadvantaged, distracted, and gullible.
You can't sue an entity that doesn't exist.What if they just don't have any land or quantifiable resources to go after? I see your point, but perhaps correlation is not causation? -Travis
If they don’t exist in a legal sense, they can’t own property. Also, if a real entity doesn’t own anything, they are “judgment proof.”. They can be sued, but you won’t get anything.
VTgothic. Ok, sue them. See how far you get.
If they are not incorporated as a legal entity they can’t be sued.
But, if they effectively act like a actual entity with significant influence and impact and real leaders who can communicate directly or indirectly with other organizations, why does the fact that they aren’t incorporated matter? To the individuals who have been taunted and beaten up as well as to the businesses that have been vandalized and looted, it sure doesn’t. Except that they have no recourse to sue anyone other than the individuals involved.
The police shooting: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/what-we-know-about-the-jacob-blake-shooting/
What is known: Jacob Blake had arrest warrants, he resisted arrest including an attempted tasing. He was reaching into his car when shot. There was a knife on the driver’s side floor. The officers mentioned the knife as he was walking around the car.
What is not known: Was he in possession of the knife before he reached his car?
Likely outcome: The officers involved will be acquitted. This was justifiable self defense. Of course, this case, like others should be examined to learn about making safer arrests and what we can do to create a society where everyone is better supported in living more functional and productive lives. We have a lot to learn in those areas.
Kyle Rittenhouse shooting: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/does-kyle-rittenhouse-have-a-self-defense-claim/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=blog-post&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=more-in&utm_term=first
What is known: Rittenhouse, 17, was driven to the scene by his mom with his rifle. He was apparently involved in some effort to protect a car dealership. He freely offered medical assistance to anyone. He was chased twice. The first chase ended when he shot the first person. He fell in the second chase and shot the 2nd murder victim as he was being rushed.
What is not known: What prompted the chases? Was he taunting or threatening those who chased him? Were they trying to hurt him or simply disarm him.
Likely outcome: He will likely be convicted of underage firearms possession and reckless-endangerment. Depending on what is learned about the events leading up to the shooting, he could be acquitted of murder on self defense grounds or convicted of 2nd degree murder. 1st degree murder is a stretch.
Lots of crazy stuff - like rioting to protest what is likely a justifiable homicide in self defense. But of course, allowing our country to degenerate to a point that there is so much rage or despair is an issue too. Then driving what is possibly a well-intentioned, but overenthusiastic and certainly inexperienced 17-year old to the scene of a likely riot armed with a rifle is perhaps the most serious parenting mistake I’ve come across.
7 shots in the back is better than 42. Real progress.
Shooting someone in retreat or egress is murder. Even if someone robbed or raped you in your home and then was leaving and running out the front with his back towards you, and you got your gun and fired, its not self-defense… You are cooked. you can’t do it after the fact. The same is with blake. I dont care who he was , and what he did. You don’t fire 7 times into ones back because he might or might not do somethign because who you think he is or what he had previously done. You fire when he is doing… what he is doing now… Sorry officer needed to wait to see what he was doing… its not hard to watch a guy when you already have your gun in your hand. You shot first and asked questions later… Time to go to jail if I am the Jury.
As for the, the kid - second shooting was clear self-defense. Did not see the first, But my guess is you dont taunt someone with a weapon… Its like saying please shoot me, It was clear by one witness who was trying to enter the parking lot that he taunted the the kid even before the victim did. So, you think there wasnt some gang mentality going on? I am sure the kid had to shoot for his defense. You think he started shooting because they just decided to leave an armed lot and head elsewhere? I know the answer to this… You do not need be on a private lot, when armed people are protecting it. FROM YOU BEING ON IT . Its this simple. UNLESS YOU WERE SHOT IN THE BACK WHILE LEAVING!!
But since our justice system doesnt care about justice and the good guy… Except who they deem to be the good guy because of bias, I am sure they will get it 100% wrong and the cop walks, and the kid is locked up for 25 years.
QB:
What is known: Jacob Blake had arrest warrants, he resisted arrest including an attempted tasing. He was reaching into his car when shot. There was a knife on the driver's side floor. The officers mentioned the knife as he was walking around the car. What is not known: Was he in possession of the knife before he reached his car? Likely outcome: The officers involved will be acquitted. This was justifiable self defense. Of course, this case, like others should be examined to learn about making safer arrests and what we can do to create a society where everyone is better supported in living more functional and productive lives. We have a lot to learn in those areas.I like to take the attitude that nothing is “known” until the jury or judge has ruled what the facts are. Until then we are working with incomplete or faulty information (but it can still be fun). The Kenosha officers were duty-bound to arrest Blake for his felony warrant, for felony assault on police officers, for violently resisting arrest, and for whatever other domestic crimes he committed that day. They could not let him go. My information is that the police did “mention” the knife as you say, as in the cops saying, “Drop the knife! Drop the knife!” And then there are these stills from a cell phone video:
That looks to me like a lethal Karambit knife.
One MSM news outlet conceded he probably had a knife in his left hand but that “he was otherwise unarmed.” Hilarious. From the same people who brought you “mostly peaceful protests.”
I’ve also heard that once Blake got away from fighting with the officers he said he was going to get his gun (in the car). The officers were aware of Blake’s criminal history with handguns. Also, apparently TWO Taser attempts failed while he was walking to the driver’s door with a knife in his hand. So the officers tried overcoming Blake’s resistance with hands only and when that failed they tried TWO Taserings which also failed. And then, I’ve heard the vehicle may not have been owned by him and the three kids in the car may have been kids he didn’t have legal custody of. So what happens to the officers if they let Blake get in and steal the vehicle, he drives away (committing three kidnappings), has a DUI accident or murders the children then kills himself? Finally, it is not WHERE in the body you shoot a bad guy, but WHY? There are plenty of scenarios in which shooting the bad guy in the back is completely justified. Here’s one: a SWAT sniper sneaks behind a murderer holding a hostage in front of him at gunpoint. If the SWAT officer reasonably believes the hostage-taking murderer is about to kill that hostage he’s justified to shoot him in the back of the head. So, is the officer who fired seven times (only getting five hits at arms-length distance) going to testify that he reasonably feared Blake was reaching for a handgun and that he had to fire to protect everybody on the scene? I suspect he will. That should be ruled 100% justified.
I have one question. Many celebrities (eg. LeBron James) and many ordinary people say that black men are terrified of being shot and killed by the police. When you watch Blake’s “interaction” with the police in that video, does that look like a black man who is terrified of the police? Or does that look like a man out of his mind on rage and possibly alcohol/drugs, who is behaving violently and self destructively while putting everyone around him in danger? And to think many people are advocating for social workers to respond to incidents like this instead of armed police.
I’m sure police around the country would be glad to hear from the public about how they can make safer arrests. How about this novelty? I’m sure it would work about as often as the Taser does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY2pVK44KtE
The knife could be the handle of some kind of bag he is carrying. Look closely at the pics.
Is that all his warrants, all his crimes, the police must use lethal force. Because that is the punishment for the crimes. They could and should not use this level off force. This is why people resist. But walking away from police is not resisting. Further, saying " drop the knife , drop the knife" is not permission to shoot someone. OR I could execute anyone on the street - to prove my justification in shooting someone. So, whether they said that or anything is not relevant. The bottom line is he was shot in the back. Perhaps he would escape the police. But his crimes are not the type that require use of this force. I understand if he is wanted for killing a child two hours ago. But the problem is the level of force that is used to apprehend people for minor crimes. That is exactly where the problem is. You have just assumed that the police had this obligation to arrest him as you say. NO NO NO. In fact police never ever ever go to someones home to arrest them when they have a warrant. They wait to pick them up at some traffic infraction or some other happenstance. THAT in itself shows the level of culpability of these police.
Basically this is the way it breaks down
- good shot - ( if you are over 65 and you were raised and told cops are always right and always good people)
- good shot - ( you are republican - all BLM and blacks resist - their fault )
- bad shot - ( you are democratic - cops use lethal force against blacks unnecessarily)
- bad shot - ( you believe police want to kill black people and are racist )
- bad shot - ( you support BLM - cops cant/shouldn't kill blacks, at any reason )
I looked real hard at the images and I would say bag handle is a real stretch. Knife is my working assumption.
Whether or not he said he had a knife there had been no complete search of his car at this time. A loaded gun under the seat was not ruled out. Whenever a police officer would tell me to keep my hands on the steering wheels I would do it. Better to keep the situation low key. As far as waiting for Blake to reach inside and possibly turn around with a hand gun you don’t see right away, the job doesn’t pay enough for that. Black or white, when it gets to that point it doesn’t matter.
Doug wrote: Another point, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this forum, there is no organization called Antifa. There are no incorporation papers, no command structure, no board meetings, none of the trappings of a real organization. Antifa is an abbreviation for anti-fascist. So, apparently anyone who shares that belief can be thought of as member in good standing. I don't know why anyone wouldn't share that particular belief.Doug, There's a lot of legal type questions being thrown out on this thread. Is Antifa real? Are the cops justified for shooting Jacob Blake? It got me thinking. You like things that are provable in a court of law. Does that mean provable "facts" are true? If something isn't provable in a court of law ... does that mean it isn't true? What is the legal status? What is the real status? So, how do you know things that just don't have enough evidence to be provable in court? For instance, how do you know that I'm an artificial intelligence application written by "Evil" Adam Taggart? How do you know I'm not? What if I'm a real human who pretends to be smarter than he/she really is? Given enough time and money, I'm sure you could ascertain my status. In the meantime, how do you really know? It's the same for various other aspects in life. For instance, either hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin + zinc is a wonder drug for Covid-19 (if given early and/or prophylactically) or it simply isn't. Does its abilities change the moment that there is a peer reviewed scientific journal printed article? Is it the legal status that changed or is it the curative properties? What happens if the powers that have money don't want the truth to come out and simply do everything to thwart the truth? Does that mean HCQ+ doesn't work (in your mind?) Are you so sure of that conclusion that you're willing to ban me from procuring it? Essentially, that is the legal status of this wonder drug combination when State bureaucrats dictate that doctors can't prescribe it and pharmacists can't dispense it without suffering legal consequences. Hmmm. Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of that draconian treatment for any other drug that a doctor might prescribe? Looking back at the words you wrote, does it really matter if Antifa is a legal entity? It sure matters in a court of law, but in the court of life, does it really matter? Do you honestly believe that since they haven't filed proper papers that they simply do not exist? If so, who is carrying out the heinous crimes carried out daily and reported on your MSM? I've never filed legal papers claiming the nom de plume "Grover" on this website. Does that mean that "Grover" doesn't exist here? Does that mean that I don't exist? What if nobody challenges me for that name? Does that mean that neither of the two entities exist? Can we both inhabit the same space at the same time in the legal sphere? Grover, (the AI experiment ... or not)
Grover-
I get the sense that Doug’s role is providing public representation for a pretty interesting group of people.
So who does he represent? Well in the past few weeks, that’s been the Podestas, and now, Antifa.
Do you recall who else he has represented?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/looting_a_powerful_tool_to_bring_about_real_lasting_change_in_society_california_da_says.html
Courts of law may not be the perfect arbiter of justice when irrationality has a seat on the bench.
If looting is a remedy for unequal property distribution, it won’t be a remedy for long, because it is an unsustainable enterprise. Once the stores are looted there will be no restocking of goods for the next generation of looters.