Is Punching A Nazi OK?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by ElectricFetus, Feb 3, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    no, it is perceived to be legal
    it is imagined to be legal
    it is believed to be legal
    it is not legal if there is a specific explicit law that states it is illegal, per 18 U.S. Code § 249

    this is what i keep trying to point out
    i know that people have gotten away with it. and people have used stand your ground as an excuse. but the refusal of the PA to act upon the law is not the same thing as being legal
    and again, this is irrelevant as federal statute trumps state
    you are not understanding that just because people are getting away with it doesn't mean it's legal - nor does the fact that the lack of prosecution under the law imply or demonstrate something is legal
    I can't stress this enough. just because someone is not prosecuted for a law doesn't mean that what they did was legal.
    - it is exactly like saying that because everyone else you know is christian then their god is real because the numbers and perception of "real" is in favour of the superior numbers
    i really do understand what you are saying, but you are not understanding what i am saying
    you are, quite literally, making the point of a miscarriage of justice and then saying that because there is a miscarriage of justice then it's legal - but that is not factually correct any more than the christian example is

    perhaps this example is more clear: serial offenders who haven't been caught
    is what they do legal since they haven't been prosecuted under the law which explicitly states it is illegal to commit their crime?
    no, it is not "legal", they simply haven't been prosecuted under the law

    what about those serial offenders who were caught and charged with a lesser crime - is it then, legal, that they got away with their crime?
    no. they were simply charged with a lesser crime.
    that is it. really!
    it doesn't change anything other than the perception of justice

    this is the same thing. people are being prosecuted under the law using stand your ground and getting away with miscarriages of justice. this doesn't mean that whatever crime is then legal. it only means that they were not prosecuted under the law.
    now, take a look at what you just did
    you have justified that god is real because:
    someone believe it and as evidence of proof that said someone was taking communion and they weren't stricken down by lightning as a heretic

    - can't you see the problem here?
    perception or even the refusal to act upon a law is not the same thing as actually being legal
    absolutely true - so you have now just validated my point: just because something isn't prosecuted doesn't mean it's legal

    i really can't stress that often enough... it's like speeding in your car. just because you regularly get away with it and / or a cop doesn't pull you over and give you a ticket doesn't mean it is legal to speed. this even applies to warning tickets, and i think that is a fair example in this case. if you get a warning ticket for speeding, is it then legal to speed?
    nope.
    no, i am not
    i never once said anything to even imply this
    i am simply making a point that just because you get away with a crime, or because a crime is not prosecuted, doesn't mean in any way, shape or form, that said crime is legal
    see analogy about speeding
    1- the law you state is irrelevant as it's a state statute, not federal
    2- i am not attempting to absolve any facts, i am trying to establish a fact that you are overlooking due to your perception of the law

    and you just validated my point again - refusal to prosecute is not the same thing as being legal
    just because you didn't get a speeding ticket doesn't mean you are now legally or otherwise absolved of the responsibility to maintain speed per the law
    i do see what is going on around me, but that doesn't change the facts
    and i am not just saying that's just illegal. i am an advocate for prosecution under the law. always have been. it was my job at one point. it is still my job as i see it.
    and if more people like you and i stood together and fought to prosecute people who justify hate crimes with stand your ground laws ....
    again - no
    if the driver of that truck was speeding down the road and the same thing happened (a cop did not pull him over and issue a citation), is it then legal for said truck driving idiot to blatantly speed as wished?
    nope
    i can't keep stressing this enough - refusal to prosecute is not the same thing as being legal
    it just isn't
    the refusal to prosecute you for exceeding the posted speed limit is not then proof that speeding is legal just like the refusal to prosecute an explicit law of hate crimes is not then proof that killing blacks is legal

    this is also demonstrated by speed limits: people know that exceeding the speed limit by around 5 mph or less is typically not prosecuted under the law, so you perceive this to be legal
    however, if you were then pulled over for doing 58 in a 55 and taken to court (or issued a citation), and subsequently prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit, you are guilty under the law
    same thing
    perception of legality isn't the same thing is being legal
    see speeding point above
    refusal to prosecute the law is not the same thing as being legal
    so, because you have never gotten a speeding ticket for doing 60 in a 55, then it is legal to do 60 in a 55 and as such, you cannot be prosecuted for speeding?
    the law, literally, allows for the exceeding of the speed limit by up to 10mph in certain circumstances (like overtaking), so if you get a ticket, then you can't be prosecuted, right?

    that is essentially the same argument you're making above
    really... no joke

    so how do you think it would go over if you entered a court and was prosecuted per the law, but you used the excuse that it's legal because no one ever gave you a ticket for speeding before?

    it doesn't matter that the law isn't being utilised - that is just a miscarriage of justice
    it doesn't then mean that the speeding is legal
    the stand your ground laws are not the problem - this is the same logical fallacy Tiassa uses when she attempts to justify gun bans because criminals don't obey the law

    the problem is that the federal hate crimes laws are not being used to prosecute

    so you can't change the situation by repealing the stand your ground laws because they don't apply - they are being used to justify a hate crime, and i know this because, as i've repeatedly noted, you are demonstrating this
    but that doesn't change the fact that a hate crime is explicitly illegal
    it simply means that PA's aren't prosecuting the law

    it doesn't mean hate crimes are legal

    all it means is that it is illegal under the law and prosecutors aren't prosecuting it under the law
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    see above

    state law and stand your ground is superseded by federal law

    just because something isn't prosecuted doesn't mean it is then legal
    see speeding point above
    ignorance of the law is no excuse

    prosecuting attourneys do or do not prosecute for any number of myriad reasons - as you and i have shown, and you've often complained about WRT guns
    if they think they can't get a conviction then they might not even try to prosecute
    this doesn't mean something is then subsequently legal - it only means it was not prosecuted under the law
    period
    full stop

    this is no different than my example of serial offenders above to Bells:
    if a serial offender is prosecuted for a lesser crime, is it then proof that their more heinous crime is legal?
    No
    it is proof that the PA didn't prosecute or push for prosecution of a more heinous crime

    your examples are perfect examples of this
    it isn't evidence that something is legal
    it is evidence that something isn't prosecuted
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    i think i can explain this another way that may make it more clear for you

    we have newtonian gravity and SR/GR that everyone uses. Newtonian is intuitive, but GR/SR is not in some cases. it is clearly spelled out (explicit)
    we use newtonian physics to launch rockets to orbit and travel our solar system

    does that mean that GR/SR is then invalid and subsequently not relevant?
    does that mean that because we use Newtonian physics that GR/SR doesn't apply?

    no

    it means that it wasn't used

    now, you may argue that it wasn't used because it wasn't necessary - and you may have a valid point
    but not being necessary in this case isn't proof that GR/SR is invalid, nor is it proof that Newtonian physics is more accurate than GR/SR
    .

    .

    .

    another example, but using law:
    a man goes to court and is tried, and then found guilty, of a felony crime

    a judge presides over the hearing, examining the evidence
    the jury finds the defendant guilty
    then judge decides to issue a sentence of probation and 3 months in jail (felony means not less than 365 days in jail by law and SCOTUS: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_7 )

    does this mean that all felonies are now misdemeanors in the law?


    .

    so again: a miscarriage of justice is not the same thing as being legal

    if something is legal you cannot, in any way, shape or form, be prosecuted, cited, or even charged with anything

    the above demonstrates this - your examples and mine, Bells

    so let me reiterate: the failure to prosecute is not the same thing as something being legal
    it is a miscarriage of justice
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    I agree, that's pretty much what I implied in the portion that was not quoted re: "punching a communist": the Nazi is inherently threatening; the communist is not.

    Still, however bizarre or fucked up or whatever, the comparison would be between "punching a Nazi" and "punching a transgender," not the object and the object. Trifling maybe, when people can't even seem to agree whether they are discussing ethics, legality, justice or "just OK," whatever that is, but we live in a nation where public school students are no longer taught grammar and are not corrected when they label something as ironic, when it is, in fact, simply coincidence.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    From #334↑

    • There is no court in the nation that is going to stop this ....

    • No court has put a stop to it, yet; we have no reason to expect any will.

    • And no court yet has put a stop to this farce.

    • I am perfectly happy to agree with you [Randwolf], and thus have another friend to commiserate with when we lose that argument over and over and over and over and over again.

    • And while your [Randwolf] point has especial strength in this [other thread] context, there is also the matter of statute and the fact that the higher courts―especially the Ninth, for heaven's sake!―aren't stopping this.

    At any rate, that's the post you responded to, and ...


    ... that leads us to the present moment, and guess what? What we can both agree looks like some manner of miscarriage of justice passes muster. This isn't some new issue the courts just haven't managed to get around to. This is the way it goes. No amount of suing or demanding prosecution has brought a federal court to bear against this law or its outcomes.

    And good people will keep trying. One day something will happen that is so grotesque and awful that the courts will feel obliged to pay attention. Or, you know, perhaps the people will actually pass an initiative and the police will have to decide whether or not to initiate labor action.

    But right now, under statute and process, these outcomes you and I can agree seem miscarriages of justice are perfectly appropriate and legal by statute and process.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    I think it's a functional difference that is very important. Go read the argument↑. We're probably better off comparing Nazis to something that actually poses a threat. Does identifying as Daa'ish cross some threshold, or need we wait until ... what ... to regard that person differently? You know, as long as they're not attacking anyone? How about NAMBLA? The reason we don't thrash these people on sight is entirely different from the reason we don't thrash Chris Vance voters.

    (I can see a threshold by which Daa'ish is an inappropriate comparison for the question of active versus historical warring enemy, but where does NAMBLA stand in the realm of cosmic evil compared to the seemingly unique Godwin status of the Nazi?)​

    There is exactly no reason to invoke Vance voters' free speech rights as a reason why I need to let them speak in the public square.

    We have every reason to invoke free speech when defending the right to speak of those who would utter fighting words. And, quite frankly, if a NAMBLA member wants to campaign in front of parents his right to have sex with their little boys, I want to know what jury is going to convict the parent who responds with a fist. And if they do, they are going to invoke free speech and reminders that the measure of a society is how it regards its most despised.

    And I'm sorry, but the people who voted for and supported the losing "GOP Party"° candidate for U.S. Senate in my state just aren't like the guy campaigning to have sex with their sons, or, you know, a Nazi.

    To borrow from an earlier post↑:

    The basic difference in function between one who chooses to identify as a Nazi and advocate such outcomes, to the one, and whole lot of other choices, to the other, is kind of obvious, I would think.

    The basic difference in function between choosing to identify as a Nazi and advocate such outcomes, to the one, and merely existing, to the other, ought to be extraordinarily obvious. This isn't some weird question about someone identifying as "Christian", and everyone else having to wonder whether we're meeting a reflection of Christ or a Republican. Even still, I cannot accept that the argument why punching a Republican is inappropriate would be the same as the argument for why punching a Nazi is inappropriate. These aren't Christians or Republicans. We're talking about Nazis. This is the threshold; we don't have an equivalent to the Godwin Corrollary for accusing someone of being a Christian, and, yeah, there's kind of a reason why.

    Nazis just got a promotion out of the Godwin cellar. I am not prepared to accept that just for the sake of simplicity. The differences 'twixt justifications are significant and important.

    Or, y'know ... so says me.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° In Washington state instead of listing a specific party affiliation, we list a party preference. Thus, Patty Murray (prefers Democratic Party) versus Chris Vance (prefers Republican Party). There was an occasion a few cycles ago when state Republicans felt really vulnerable, so they listed as GOP, resulting in candidates listing, prefers GOP Party" It was one of those moments of personal reckoning as I looked around and realized just how few people recognized what they were seeing.


    Edit note: Correction/syntax.
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    I think I hear a
    bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
     
  11. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    1- i have never stated otherwise about agreeing this is a travesty of justice and or a miscarriage of justice. i have specifically made a point that it is
    ... it is not, however, legal

    2- when you claim "No amount of suing or demanding prosecution has brought a federal court to bear against this law or its outcomes" you're making the statement that because it has been, thus so it must be - and that isn't how change is made, is it?
    that isn't how women got the vote, blacks got the vote, or native americans were finally able to practice their own religion... perseverance and a fight about justice is how things change.

    and being an annoying squeaky wheel that your congressperson and senator know by name because of the continual pressure being pushed and the relentless drive for equality

    it doesn't have to be some heinous horrible crime that brings this to the attention of the public and or the courts system

    sigh...
    you can say that they happen
    you can say that this is regular
    but you still can't say it's legal because it is not

    really and truly, it is not.
    it cannot be legal when there is a federal statute that explicitly states it is illegal

    just like having a friend regularly break the law by speeding and never getting a ticket because she/he is hot and willing doesn't mean that it is then legal for anyone to speed and drive reckless

    i can't really make this more clear if you're not capable or willing to comprehend the difference between how something appears to the public and the legality of said situation (like speeding, etc above)

    there is a process that is used to define what is legal and what is not legal, and as such, this doesn't fall into that category as legal
    the reasoning is simple, regardless of whether anyone actually gets away with it or not - it's explicitly stated in the law, and the law is federal

    the true travesty is much like the argument you and i had about guns and responsibility - it isn't that a crime was committed, but that the PA isn't actually prosecuting the crime
    you remember the conversation: the man who shot his kid with the "unloaded gun" and wasn't prosecuted

    this is the exact same situation as above
    that situation provided evidence of negligent homicide and more, yet the PA refused to prosecute for their own reasons
    and that is exactly what we are seeing here, above, in the examples where state stand your ground gets away with a racial hate crime
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    How long are you guy going to BS to make a decision, to punch or not to punch the Nazi
    Not all nazi were bad , I was a kid , one of them give me a piece of bread while I was hungry.
     
  13. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    i've already made it clear - a while back
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Your interpretation of that law does not match that of the designated authorities in the matter.
    Multiple refusals to prosecute because no law has been broken - that stated reason, by the designated authorities - combined with acquittals, refusals to arrest, and so forth, likewise by the designated authorities, likewise for that stated reason,

    mean that whatever was done is legal.
    Being legal is one of the reasons for not prosecuting. In these cases it is the official, given one.

    Meanwhile, one hopes we are not going to get stuck on legalisms in evaluating when, where, and why it is ok to punch a "nazi" (small n, originally and in all posts from me).
     
  15. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    please demonstrate how i am interpreting an explicitly stated quote

    you're confusing the refusal of a PA to prosecute with something being legal
    so per your own argument that would mean :
    because [insert random US citizen] has previously gotten away with speeding in [insert state name here] by justifying their excessive speed to overtaking, regardless of the legality explicitly stated in said laws, then it is now legal to speed in the US regardless of where you live

    either you're now completely unable to read or you've forgotten the explicit law i quoted

    not interpreted, not imagined, not believed in... explicitly stated and quoted verbatim from the federal statutes
    18 U.S. Code § 249

    if there is no law you can't be prosecuted - but there is a law, and it's explicit
    therefore this is not about anything other than the refusal to actually prosecute per the law

    and again, this means, per your own argument:
    if a serial killer can't be prosecuted under the law due to evidence for a serial crime, and is instead prosecuted for a lesser crime, then said more heinous crime is legal under the law

    it's nonsensical when there is an explicit law
    this isn't about what you want to believe or see
    this isn't about miscarriages of justice becuase a PA didn't prosecute the law
    this is about the legality of something which is explicitly stated by federal statute

    you keep dragging in that people got away with a crime because they weren't prosecuted
    yeah... and people also frequently receive warning tickets for speeding, or they just get a stern talking to on the side of the road
    that does not in any way make speeding legal. it simply means they weren't charged with the infraction

    see also the above example

    except it's not legal if there is an explicit legal statute that specifically states it is illegal, as noted above, linked and repeatedly showed to you in various quotes verbatim from the federal statute

    again: there is no other way to look at this
    you are saying that because you believe something to be true, and you can show an example that you misinterpret, then it must be true

    that is not the case
    especially when there is a legal statute that explicitly states you're wrong
    and more than wrong, but blatantly wrong and repeatedly wrong as you keep stating it's legal when it clearly states, in concise language, that it is not legal

    not legal means illegal
     
  16. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    ok, i am repeating this because this has been repeated, and repeated, and repeated to me for a while as justification
    now, you say i am making an interpretation
    i said it is illegal to kill blacks in the US, and you said it is legal

    we're clear on that, so i am going to list a quote
    i am keeping it simple for the moment

    so we can see it is explicitly stated that, and again, let me quote for clarity
    so it is not my interpretation
    and lets look at the following as well, to insure why it's important
    the law explicitly states that the PA has to abide by the guidelines issued by the AG (or designee)
    the PA can refuse to prosecute per the law above

    but you argue that the state stand your ground laws are applied and the verdict makes said action legal... except that it doesn't and they can be further tried per the federal statute at any later date per the law as well
    let me show you
    but, you say... the state...
    let me show you more
    so you may now state double jeopardy, except that the original argument of stand your ground is due to the perceived threat
    however, the federal statute above explicitly states that if race is used as cause, and there is a death, and there is no statute of limitations on murder, nor, per the above, on racial hate crimes involving a death, then this is not double jeopardy as it is a separate charge of hate crime that resulted in death and not for the specific crime of [just] homicide
    now, that is explicit and clear. it is concise and spelled out per the law above
    it is not a matter of debate, nor interpretation, and it is not my belief
    it is the law, and it is federal, superior and superseding state law

    this is why i kept linking 18 U.S. Code § 249 for pete's sake

    do ya get it yet?
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2017
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click for distraction: Harold was right.

    Okay, look, Stumpy, here's the problem with your ... okay, I'm going to use the phrase, failure to actually make an argument for a reason:

    "you're making the statement that because it has been, thus so it must be - and that isn't how change is made, is it?" ― For whatever reason, you seem to be failing to consider the proposition of what it means if a court sees before it something that violates the law and a judge will simply take a pass in order to leave it be. Or maybe not. But that's an example of why I just used the phrase, "failure to actually make an argument". You haven't accounted for that part.​

    Look, at no point has law successfully equaled justice in these United States. Indeed, it has not occurred in human history, near as I can tell. This is why our Constitution explains its own purpose with phrases like "more perfect union", "establish justice", and "preserve the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity".

    Has it occurred to you that maybe a prosecutor refuses to file charges because that's how the law works? For instance, in the case of RCW 9A.16.040(3)↑ and your objection, 18 USC § 249↑ would run approximately:

    (statute + process) - court = Justice

    That is, the statute says [this], and process requires [that], but, as you point out, the courts might or should proscribe.

    What if c = 0 ?

    That is say, what if the courts don't proscribe?

    I mean, you're aware that, historically, one of the really big reasons people get so pissed off at cops and prosecutors, legislators, and even judges is that statute and process do not in and of themselves require justice. Or, more accurately, they don't necessarily require what you or I might agree is justice. But, yeah, you already know this; it seems to be the heart of your argument for denial. Then again, I confess I find it an innovative twist, at the very least.

    But, yeah. When you run out of courts to review, what is permissible under law is legal. And that's the thing. Proving malice beyond a shadow of a doubt is virtually impossible. Consider that, technically, a certifiable antisocial personality disorder could rightfully demonstrate indifference, and thereby pass muster, though, yeah, that ain't happening anytime soon. Well, unless I'm overestimating the police.

    (Honestly, your indictment against law enforcement in my state is broader and heavier than, well, mine; it's staggering.)​

    More realistically, though, proving the basis of malice will be even harder.
     
  18. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    it's not a failure on my part because:
    1- i don't have to provide an account for the actions of the judge to excuse his behaviour because i do not know the mind of the judge, and until (or unless) you can provide a specific worded adjudication then you're not providing a reason for the refusal to prosecute.
    2- the refusal of anyone to act upon the law in no way demonstrates the legality of shooting blacks if there is an explicit law stating it's illegal, just like the inaction of getting a ticket for speeding once doesn't then excuse all speed laws in the US, regardless of what you may think
    3- my argument is about the legality of shooting blacks per your claim, and you've still not actually proven it's legal. you've proven it's not been prosecuted, and you've proven that it's been ignored, and you've proven there is a miscarriage of justice. you have yet to prove it's legal. and legal has a definition that i've linked more than once.
    and that is not my claim, nor was it your own claim that i refuted
    this is about the legality of shooting blacks in the US
    don't change the subject
    has it occurred to you that the PA didn't file because there is not enough evidence per the mandate of 18 U.S. Code § 249 ?
    has it occurred to you that the PA simply chooses not to waste taxpayer money for a trial that may not even be able to find an impartial jury?
    has it occurred to you that there is no statute of limitations on Hate Crimes involving a death and they can still be tried per the law?

    none of this has occurred to you per your posts, from what i can tell
    mostly because you're ignorant of the legal process and how trials work
    until you actually are a part of one you are speaking from your interpretation of events you perceive, not from experience, nor from reality at all
    you are limited only to the information you choose to read, and that is biased. and i can tell that simply by your choice of supporting evidence
    (and experience with you in the past on similar situations)
    my objection is clearly as follows:
    1- RCW 9A.16.040(3) is a state statute and not federal
    2- if someone utilises RCW 9A.16.040(3) as justification for a hate crime as spelled out per 18 USC § 249, then even if found innocent per the state statute then they can still be prosecuted under 18 USC § 249
    3- even if all states had stand your ground laws and people used them to justify their actions, and a subsequent court found them not guilty of murder, they are still subject to prosecution of a hate crime for violations of 18 USC § 249

    double jeopardy means you can't be tried for the same crime twice, however, these are two separate charges and as such anyone who is in your list that violated 18 USC § 249 is still prosecutable under the law for a hate crime

    this means, by definition, that it is not legal to shoot someone because they're black, regardless of how many articles you present where people have appeared to gotten away with the crime utilising any state or local statute, because once there is a death, per the law, then there is no statute of limitations for prosecution, as explicitly stated

    you keep trying to state that becuase someone got away with shooting someone and no one seems to be prosecuting them, it's legal
    show me where that is proven true per the legal statutes and i will capitulate
    you can't demonstrate this because that legal statue doesn't exist

    this is not relevant to the legality of the situation nor the argument
    it is still illegal
    it is simply not currently acted upon (and in some cases the statute of limitations may well run out)
    that doesn't change the legality
    it simply changes the "justice" or the "appearance of justice"
    and that is a completely different argument that you would be justified in making with your examples

    but you didn't make that argument
    you made the argument that it was legal


    my denial of what, exactly?
    the only think i'm denying is the legality of shooting blacks in the US... i am denying that it's legal
    i am denying that you've provided evidence that it is legal because i've given explicit legal statutes proving you wrong

    so, what do you think i am denying?
    reality?
    i can see there is a problem. i've stated it. i know there is. i've been there. this was my job at one time... i know far better than you that there is a problem
    which is also why i know that it's not legal
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yes.
    Always quote - you are incapable of accurate paraphrase.
    I said it is legal in some circumstances to kill somebody because they are black, in the US. My evidence is that it has been declared legal to do that, by the very authorities charged with interpreting and applying the law to the real world, in hundreds of relevant and precedent-setting cases.

    I even posted what seems to me the common and visible argument, or process of reasoning, by which this verdict of legality is normally arrived at - you can see, thereby, what happens to what you regard as incontrovertible and explicit law making such behavior illegal,
    You can quote the language of laws all day long, but you aren't addressing my argument. Argue that point with the judges, AGs, police, Federal agencies, and so forth, not me.
     
  20. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    separating this for clarification
    hold it. this isn't about proving malice. it is about proving racial motivation for a hate crime.

    so, if you specifically state that a suspect utilised race as justification for defense which then caused death, and even if said suspect was found to be justified per the stand your ground laws or your RCW 9A.16.040(3), then you can use the court transcripts as well as subject statements from said adjudication and investigation to justify the hate crime per 18 U.S. Code § 249

    it may not require anything more than that, or there may be a published (at least in this current administration) guideline that is more restrictive. this isn't part of the argument at this point becuase i've not been able to actually get anyone to acknowledge the law to date, nor the legality of the situation, so i've not even bothered to track down or FOIA the guidelines.

    if you won't read the law or refuse to accept what is written in a federal statute, then the guidelines will do nothing but piss you off worse
    and that is a fact - more often than not the guidelines for a law or local authority regarding prosecution of a law is what hamstrings investigations and prosecutions from happening

    feel free to dig that up if you like and read it, but i would not recommend that until you can wrap your head around the facts above
    more importantly around the fact that, just because someone isn't prosecuted or gets away with a crime, doesn't mean it legal

    and i am saying that as nicely as i can at the moment
    not likely
    not against law enforcement. against the judicial system... yes
    but not against law enforcement as i've not seen any investigation reports, evidence, forensics or anything else from them
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    But we don't have mere "refusal" here - we have justified decision. We have the courts and police and oversight agencies explicitly and overtly agreeing with the justifications offered by the killers, and declaring that the killing was established as legal by them.
     
  22. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    yet you can't show it at all
    now, how odd is that?
    especially since i just spelled it all out and proved i am not interpreting anything except your own posts (and i usually quote you on those anyway)
    i am especially not interpreting the law

    so that means you're either baiting or trolling now
    ok
    i will quote you: we'll start here when you quote Michael who said "His argument was that black Americans are being 'legally' killed without cause. That's not true."
    You stated
    regarding the same topic you said to Toad:
    you follow that up with a reply to me where you state:
    so you clearly have stated
    and you've repeated this claim multiple times to which i was chastised for repeatedly proving you wrong by using the same wording because you are ignoring the law
    and my evidence, which isn't state law, but rather is federal law, specifically proved you wrong
    no, you posted an argument for injustice, or miscarriages of justice. you have never once been able to prove the legality of shooting blacks
    that is called (again) a hate crime and it is not the same thing as being justified in battery or a shooting, which are separate legal statutes
    this is explicitly stated multiple times, and i even bold and red highlighted it for reference for you

    now you're ignoring it because you don't want to see it?
    what?
    or just trolling?
    i have specifically and explicitly addressed your argument using evidence from the law, Blacks Law dictionary and even using your own argument from a state legal statute
    refusal to prosecute is not the same thing as being legal
    and again, you have a "decision" on a state statute for a crime that is not a federal statute, nor is it a hate crime
    it is ruled a justified shooting, but that doesn't mean he isn't still legally culpable under the law, which makes the actions of shooting someone due to race a hate crime and thus illegal
    hence my continued argument that it is illegal, and explicitly so

    read the law again
    and again, you're making the assumption (and a delusional interpretation of events) that becuase someone got away with a crime, then it must be legal

    i repeat this: if you get pulled over for speeding and only get issued a warning, is it then legal to speed?
    no
    it is still illegal, you simply weren't prosecuted or cited for the event

    those are two separate arguments and you keep attempting to intimate that they're the same thing or justification for your belief
    if that is the case, then the next time you get pulled over for speeding, tell them it is legal because Truck Captain Stumpy didn't get a ticket, becuas that is the exact same argument that you are making above, and repeatedly through this thread
    See how far that gets you in court...
    let me know how that worked
     
  23. Truck Captain Stumpy The Right Honourable Reverend Truck Captain Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,263
    addressing this separately:
    you've made this false claim a few times already, and every time i've proved you wrong and lying. in this thread alone

    if you make it again without evidence, then i will simply consider this baiting and trolling per the MOD post

    i am tired of you continually just popping off with that comment and then making me prove you're a liar just to distract away from the fact that you can't justify your argument with evidence

    you make the claim, you bring the evidence
    just like i did above

    am i making myself clear?
    if i am going to be held to task because you refuse to actually produce an argument that is relevant or evidenciary, then i intend to hold you to task for the exact same thing
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page