The American Politics thread

[GIMH]

Doubt anyone here has ever said that either, but feel free to prove me wrong as I wouldn't swear to it.

I mean he clearly just implied it but okay.

Post trolled me directly and without subtlety, I did the decent thing and bit.

[Munificent_Fool]

No its not. Hate speech falls (loosely) under assault and intimidation laws. Just like you can`t stand in a pub, demeaning and shout at somebody just because you don`t like them, that would constituent a form of verbal abuse and assault.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d1329f927205

Um why did you post an accompanying article which undermines your own argument?

'Supreme Court reaffirms there is no hate speech exception to first amendment.'

Did you read the article? They unanimously voted that it is unconstitutional to prevent the registering of a trademark entitled 'The Slants' despite any supposed offence towards Asian-Americans.

Justice Alito:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

[Niall]

Nazi's v Juggalo's. what a time to be alive.

https://twitter.com/jesticide/status/897941541221670912

[Burgey]

Unbelievable. It's like, actually I dunno what it's like, I have no words.

[Burgey]

Meanwhile, this transcript of the jury selection in the Martin Shkreli securities fraud trial is pretty amazing.

https://harpers.org/archive/2017/09/public-enemy/

[straw man]

Before we smash the cops too much for not shutting down any of the protests, it's worth bearing in mind that North Carolina Virginia is an open carry and shall issue state. There's a culture and balance at play that both sides need to and probably do respect. It's a place where the right to peaceably assemble is enshrined by the constitution and to do so with firearms open and at the ready is lawful. Noone got shot by anyone who was armed because then they'd get smashed by the government response so, even though the gun-nuts were being dicks, that they kept their cool gives them the moral high-ground in their minds. I'm guessing that's why the militia types turned up heavily armed, to send a message to the cops that they're outgunned but, by the same token, all they have is their guys on the ground. If **** down down, cops can call in bigger guns and quickly. They have a vested interest in playing nice with police, cops have a vested interest in not cracking down on people exercising their rights, the obvious bad actors who run down and murder people aside who, I'm sure, would be turned over to the police fairly quickly by the gun-nuts.

In that environment, doesn't take much to imagine the outrage and possible very bloody reaction if agents of the state i.e. local cops tried to strong-arm these guys. I'd guess it would be very difficult to do whilst remaining within the boundaries of the law and then you have a wholly different proposition at the next protest.

I agree that the US's unique gun culture needs to be taken into account. It's not my personal preference, but I've seen comments from or talked to plenty of reasonable US people who own guns, like guns, consider themselves responsible gun owners and probably are.

I think there are a few extra things that are affecting the equation here though:
- when these groups see that they have tacit support from those in the white house. '**** went down', someone else may well be blamed.
- when these groups probably know that they have sympathies from some in the police in some places. Though fortunately the Charlottesville police seem fairly level-headed, based on the comments I've read.
- I think 'noone got shot by anyone who was armed because then they'd get smashed by the government response' gives too much credit to human nature being able to make rational self-preservation decisions (if that is indeed the aim) in moments of confusion and mayhem. Or even that there are more immediate self-preservations decisions - if there are heavily armed groups standing off against one another surely all it takes is one gunshot and it's all on, with lots of unarmed people likely caught up.
- You're still going to think twice or three times about being a peaceful opposition protester facing such heavily armed groups. Someone ****s up, you might get killed. Scant consolation if they're then arrested or shot by police.

[straw man]

Meanwhile, this transcript of the jury selection in the Martin Shkreli securities fraud trial is pretty amazing.

https://harpers.org/archive/2017/09/public-enemy/

Easiest jury duty to avoid ever.

[straw man]

Who said don't look at white supremacists in this thread?
...
Grouping Brexit and the Tory party in with it is beyond parody.

strongly awta

[social]

Ha

Good luck with getting an impartial jury on that one

[Spark]

In genuinely and totally unrelated news: https://t.co/aKB0b2yk8P

After searching her car, police claimed to have found .02 ounces of marijuana. That was enough, they apparently felt, to justify a full-body cavity search. When Corley refused to remove her clothes in the dimly lit parking lot where she was being detained, one of the officers threw her to the ground, pushed her partially underneath her own car, and yanked Corley's pants down to her ankles. For the next 11 minutes, dash cam video of the incident shows, she was held down by two officers while being searched. Corley claims that fingers repeatedly probed her ****** and that the officers ignored her protests. A third officer stood nearby holding a flashlight. No drugs were found on Corley's person.

what the fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-

[Munificent_Fool]

All three of them should be dismissed and imprisoned. The two who conducted the search should be charged with sexual assault.

That is beyond reprehensible.

[Gnske]

Meanwhile, this transcript of the jury selection in the Martin Shkreli securities fraud trial is pretty amazing.

https://harpers.org/archive/2017/09/public-enemy/

juror no. 59: It’s my attitude toward his entire demeanor, what he has done to people.

the court: All right. We are going to excuse you, sir.

juror no. 59: And he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.

Amazing

[Top_Cat]

- I think 'noone got shot by anyone who was armed because then they'd get smashed by the government response' gives too much credit to human nature being able to make rational self-preservation decisions (if that is indeed the aim) in moments of confusion and mayhem. Or even that there are more immediate self-preservations decisions - if there are heavily armed groups standing off against one another surely all it takes is one gunshot and it's all on, with lots of unarmed people likely caught up.

Sure, if both sides turned up armed. I'm not trying to give them credit for being angels, there are mutual interests.

I'm not excusing any of the extremists or their behavior. Just saying, considering the legal and cultural factors, the Police couldn't just come in and stomp on legal activity, no matter how jerkish the behavior. To arrest, one needs arrestable offenses occurring and when that **** started, people got pinched. There's even some footage of one of the subjects of the Vice doco having a tear-jerked whinge on YT about how he's got a warrant now. A worse outcome would be if the police response was seen as instigating anything, though. That's dangerous for everyone.

- You're still going to think twice or three times about being a peaceful opposition protester facing such heavily armed groups. Someone ****s up, you might get killed. Scant consolation if they're then arrested or shot by police.

Again, though, whilst this is true and absolutely why the gun nuts turned up with, well, lots of guns, it's outside my point that standing in public with a group of dudes armed to the balls is protected behaviour. I'd guess a lot of the police are quite sympathetic to their side too. That's why there should be (and probably is) communication and enforcement of cultural norms between these groups and police. I don't know about VA but for sure it does happen elsewhere and, even in Oz, gun clubs tends to have a decent relationship with police. There are vested interests in the norm not being massacres because the law doesn't protect 100% of the people 100% of the time. As I've said before, the role of the police absolutely must be seen as of and from the community, not above and in control of it.

EDIT: Here we go. Won't someone please think of the poor Nazis.

http://uproxx.com/news/white-suprema...cries-warrant/

In this video you can hear him talk about the relationship they have with local law and yet he's still playing the victim. Imagine if they thought the police were the enemy.

[Burgey]

https://pushtrumpoffacliffagain.com/...86rNct.twitter

[harsh.ag]

Juror no. 59's got the right idea.