- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 26,629
- Reaction score
- 6,661
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
OK, yeah. You go ahead and keep believing government employees like politicians are treated MORE HARSHLY than the average citizen. I'll be over here laughing at you.
Cops are not civilians; they're armed agents of the local govt. Armed govt. agents should never have the same rights as the People. To allow them the same rights compromises freedoms.
This happens. Not all the time, but it does happen. And when it does, it SHOULD be investigated, prosecuted where warranted, and punished accordingly.
But the only time it matters (and the OP so very clearly illustrates it) is when it is a WHITE cop and a black victim.
Not a ton of outrage when it is a white guy shot by a cop. or a Latino. And if the cop is black? Fuggedaboudit....
But what do the headlines say in THIS case?
"Video Shows Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back In South Carolina"
Cause it only matters when the victim is a black man.
They ARE civilians. Anyone not actively serving in the military is a civilian.
Wrong. To qualify as a civilian, one must be unaffiliated w/any kind of military role, regardless of whether that military is called the "police force" of the national military.
Since US cops are already militarized, they serve in a military role and are therefore not civilians.
I think we can guess how things would have played out if not for that video.
No, just because they are armed with military weapons doesnt mean they are military
No, just because they are armed with military weapons doesnt mean they are military, to be military you have to fall under UCMJ and cops are not under that, they are civilians.
This happens. Not all the time, but it does happen. And when it does, it SHOULD be investigated, prosecuted where warranted, and punished accordingly.
But the only time it matters (and the OP so very clearly illustrates it) is when it is a WHITE cop and a black victim.
Not a ton of outrage when it is a white guy shot by a cop. or a Latino. And if the cop is black? Fuggedaboudit....
But what do the headlines say in THIS case?
"Video Shows Officer Michael Slager Shooting Unarmed Black Man In The Back In South Carolina"
Cause it only matters when the victim is a black man.
Whether they're officially designated "military" or fall under the UCMJ is irrelevant. To qualify as civilian, one must not serve in any military role.
However, in the US, cops today do serve as a domestic military force. Therefore, they're not civilians.
The only way cops can be civilians is if they were de-militarized.
The fundamental problem in the US is that cops are still subject to the civilian justice system in spite of their military role, and that creates problems.
95% chance the cop is acquitted, unless the Feds get involved.
There is no hypothetical when it comes to UCMJ- that is what separates military from civilian. Its as simple as that.Here's the flaw in that logic: suppose, hypothetically, that Congress passed a law that no longer made US military members subject to the UCMJ.
By your definition, then, members of the US military would automatically become civilians.
TRANSLATION: over on some right wing websites, they are defending this cop. sigh
I know that "impossible to hack" isn't achievable. "Very hard to hack without making it obvious" is do-able and should suffice most of the time, I'd think.
This happens. Not all the time, but it does happen. And when it does, it SHOULD be investigated, prosecuted where warranted, and punished accordingly.
But the only time it matters (and the OP so very clearly illustrates it) is when it is a WHITE cop and a black victim.
Not a ton of outrage when it is a white guy shot by a cop. or a Latino. And if the cop is black? Fuggedaboudit....
But what do the headlines say in THIS case?
Cause it only matters when the victim is a black man.
There is no hypothetical when it comes to UCMJ- that is what separates military from civilian. Its as simple as that.
What do you base that on?
Youre not making any sense. What "non-US military forces" are you talking about? :roll:Illogical. According to that reasoning, the members of all non-US military forces would be considered civilians, since they're not to the UCMJ.
It means something because you want it to. It is an opportunity to salivate over racial injustice. Nothing more.It means something because he was pulled over and he was driving a nice car. There is a term for that, "driving while black", and it happens a lot. Yeah, it is relevant.
Youre not making any sense. What "non-US military forces" are you talking about? :roll:
To the contrary. My point is that why is it ONLY the one story that is 'celebrated'?And yet another right winger posts links to the media reporting on a story to prove that such stories are ignored.
Obviously they are not US military. Other countries have their own versions of UCMJ.The members of the militaries of all other countries. None of them are subject to the UCMJ.
Really? He was pulled over for being black and driving a nice car?It means something because he was pulled over and he was driving a nice car. There is a term for that, "driving while black", and it happens a lot. Yeah, it is relevant.
-- He was reportedly pulled over for a traffic violation. How did they end up in the lot? Also...stop the tape 17 seconds into it. At 18 seconds you will see the victim (yes...I said victim) dropping a black object after some sort of physical contact with the cop, then he turns and runs.
When he shot, it is obvious he was not at risk and should NOT have shot. What happened prior doesnt justify the shooting, but it may give it some context.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?