Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 303316 times)

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 744
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2250 on: June 05, 2020, 01:27:46 PM »
Anyone see how Trump said Floyd would be looking down on the economic situation happy for America and happy for himself....

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5664
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2251 on: June 05, 2020, 01:33:06 PM »
Anyone see how Trump said Floyd would be looking down on the economic situation happy for America and happy for himself....

Just when you thought he couldn't possibly get more offensive.

LWYRUP

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2252 on: June 05, 2020, 01:37:03 PM »
Unemployment of 13.3% is being touted as "great" based entirely on the premise that "it could have been worse".
That's some serious spin. We are still higher than at any point since the 1930s.

EDIT:  Trump has just said his plan to address racism is "a strong economy".  Because when we had a strong economy (the BEST, really) six months ago there was no racism...???

I grant Trump that this pandemic is truly something out of the ordinary, including how it is affecting the economy.
But the whole way he was saying this is great, really great. And that George Floyd would be happy about it (not mentioning the much worse employment numbers for African Americans) is out of touch and incredibly tone deaf.

Beyond tone deaf.  If I had to guess, purposefully offensive to rub his opponents' face in it.  Almost as if the rudest kid in the 6th grade was made leader of the free world. 

Pizzabrewer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2253 on: June 05, 2020, 01:37:16 PM »
Counterpoint:

 Even if they lose the Senate in 2020, experience indicates they'll have a decent chance of regaining it in 2022. Unified government rarely lasts very long


I agree with almost all you've said, except for this.  I'm confident that Trump/McConnell/etc. have so poisoned the well that we are now experiencing the Republican death throes.  The Republican base is old and dying off.  The demographics are in favor of those (in the majority) who are appalled by what's happened the last 3.5 years.

Gerrymandering and voter suppression are real and may continue to be a factor.  Republicans will be increasingly desperate as their fate becomes more apparent.  But they can't hold back the tides forever.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2254 on: June 05, 2020, 01:38:40 PM »
It is my hope and dream that should Trump lose in November, in January we see him in handcuffs with no one to pardon him. It's a lofty goal, but my dream nonetheless.

0% chance. If/when Trump does lose he'll simply step down 1 day before his term is up and President Pence will issue him a blanket pardon. And the Republicans love him for it.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think a President can issue a blanket pardon to a person for any acts past, present, or future, that have not even been the subject of an indictment. So, for example, in my admittedly near-zero chance dream, the Attorney General of New York could announce criminal fraud charges against Trump after concluding he defrauded lenders, falsified tax returns, etc., as alleged by his former "fixer" Michael Cohen. In a scenario like that, I don't think any kind of pre-issued pardon would matter or stand in the way of a criminal indictment. In fact, I don't think it would even matter if a President Joe Biden issued a contemporaneous pardon, since it would be state charge, not a federal charge.

Still, your point is taken that it's all very unlikely, but hey a guy can dream.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13536
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2255 on: June 05, 2020, 01:41:15 PM »
Anyone see how Trump said Floyd would be looking down on the economic situation happy for America and happy for himself....

Just when you thought he couldn't possibly get more offensive.

Iím still reeling from his claim that a strong economy will solve our racial problems. When has it ever worked that way?

Just a couple years ago he was telling the black community ďwhat the hell do you have to lose?Ē by supporting him. Oddly, few did.

Pizzabrewer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2256 on: June 05, 2020, 01:41:25 PM »


I think yes. The instant that Trump fails to win a second term, Republicans will flip the switch from absolutely adoring him and excusing / praising everything he does, to "oh I never really supported Trump, I was just in it for the tax cuts / judges". Which is of course a lie, because if that were true they would have been perfectly happy with a President Pence. But watch it happen.


Absolutely agree.  The day he loses the election (and he will), the Republicans will be fleeing like rats from the proverbial sinking ship.  But it won't work, the Republican party will be forever stained by Trump.

Pizzabrewer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2257 on: June 05, 2020, 01:43:18 PM »
I bet he will at least try to play that role until he keels over and dies from a fast food induced heart attack. There's no way republicans can say they never supported him without significant backlash from him. He's not going to just let them trash him after he loses.

He'll be irrelevant.  No one will admit to supporting him.  Fox News, OAN, Breitbart, all the bullshit media will turn against him the day he loses.  It won't matter what he says, he'll be the crazy uncle sitting in the corner.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13536
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2258 on: June 05, 2020, 01:45:56 PM »
It is my hope and dream that should Trump lose in November, in January we see him in handcuffs with no one to pardon him. It's a lofty goal, but my dream nonetheless.

0% chance. If/when Trump does lose he'll simply step down 1 day before his term is up and President Pence will issue him a blanket pardon. And the Republicans love him for it.

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think a President can issue a blanket pardon to a person for any acts past, present, or future, that have not even been the subject of an indictment.


President Ford gave Nixon  a blanket pardon, including for potential crimes not yet the subject of an indictment, and it has held.  The actual wording was ď I, [President Ford]... have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
(Emphasis my own)

sixwings

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2259 on: June 05, 2020, 02:06:38 PM »
I bet he will at least try to play that role until he keels over and dies from a fast food induced heart attack. There's no way republicans can say they never supported him without significant backlash from him. He's not going to just let them trash him after he loses.

He'll be irrelevant.  No one will admit to supporting him.  Fox News, OAN, Breitbart, all the bullshit media will turn against him the day he loses.  It won't matter what he says, he'll be the crazy uncle sitting in the corner.

I hope this is what happens. Plus it would really hurt his feelings which would be hilarious.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2633
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2260 on: June 05, 2020, 02:08:44 PM »
Anyone see how Trump said Floyd would be looking down on the economic situation happy for America and happy for himself....

Just when you thought he couldn't possibly get more offensive.
I think by now we all expect that he certainly will say something more offensive.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3896
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2261 on: June 05, 2020, 02:31:45 PM »
Yeah I dunno, I think there's a lot of loyalty to Trump, not the republican party among the right wing.

That begs the question: What is the Republican party today without Trump?

Should he lose in November, it will be a very real question indeed.

It is my hope and dream that should Trump lose in November, in January we see him in handcuffs with no one to pardon him. It's a lofty goal, but my dream nonetheless.

More likely than Trump in handcuffs is Trump pardoned by President Mike Pence on 1/19/2021.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2262 on: June 05, 2020, 03:48:19 PM »
But again, I don't think Presidential pardons can absolve State crimes. Maybe a Constitutional lawyer can weigh in, but I feel pretty certain that's the case. Yes, Ford pardoned Nixon, but that was for federal crimes leading to his impeachment. I believe the NY Attorney General (or any other state) could charge Trump, and it's not pardonable (I mention NY because that state is actively investigating Trump's dealings). A state governor could pardon such crimes, but I don't think we'd see a blue-state governor doing that.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13536
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2263 on: June 05, 2020, 03:55:02 PM »
That is my understanding as well, though my constitutional law class was over a decade ago

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3203
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2264 on: June 05, 2020, 09:36:38 PM »
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/05/trump-maine-puritan-throw-away-coronavirus-swabs/3153622001/

Our toxic, narcissistic President is doing his best to ensure we all die of Coronavirus!  Moar gatherings, less testings!

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2265 on: June 06, 2020, 02:46:19 AM »
Iím still reeling from his claim that a strong economy will solve our racial problems. When has it ever worked that way?
Well, when the economy is stronger it's usually because people are employed, and employed people are less likely to get involved in crime. Prior to the virus and the lockdown things were improving for all Americans.

Now exactly what you consider the "racial problems" may or may not include unemployment and crime, but if it does, then a stronger economy goes a long way to dealing with those issues.

The virus and the lockdown have reversed all that, though, unfortunately.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2633
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2266 on: June 06, 2020, 06:49:32 AM »
Iím still reeling from his claim that a strong economy will solve our racial problems. When has it ever worked that way?
Well, when the economy is stronger it's usually because people are employed, and employed people are less likely to get involved in crime. Prior to the virus and the lockdown things were improving for all Americans.

Now exactly what you consider the "racial problems" may or may not include unemployment and crime, but if it does, then a stronger economy goes a long way to dealing with those issues.

The virus and the lockdown have reversed all that, though, unfortunately.
What does crime have to do with racial problems? Are less hate crimes committed when a black man becomes employed? I don't even get how that relates. Jobs don't solve racial problems.  And things were not improving for all Americans. That's such a ridiculously false statement. Have any idea how many millions have lost healthcare since Trump took office? That's just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps you can explain by what measure you have concluded things were improving for all Americans.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2267 on: June 06, 2020, 06:59:01 AM »
Iím still reeling from his claim that a strong economy will solve our racial problems. When has it ever worked that way?
Well, when the economy is stronger it's usually because people are employed, and employed people are less likely to get involved in crime. Prior to the virus and the lockdown things were improving for all Americans.

Now exactly what you consider the "racial problems" may or may not include unemployment and crime, but if it does, then a stronger economy goes a long way to dealing with those issues.

The virus and the lockdown have reversed all that, though, unfortunately.
What does crime have to do with racial problems? Are less hate crimes committed when a black man becomes employed? I don't even get how that relates. Jobs don't solve racial problems.  And things were not improving for all Americans. That's such a ridiculously false statement. Have any idea how many millions have lost healthcare since Trump took office? That's just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps you can explain by what measure you have concluded things were improving for all Americans.

They already said: by jobs. If you have a job, everything must be OK. Why, our fearlful leader just told us even George Floyd would be happy because jobs, how can you not get it?!

What you wanted to address inequalities, pay discrepancies, police harrassment, hate crimes, educational standards....

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2268 on: June 06, 2020, 07:04:22 AM »
Most crime in the US is confined to ethnic groups. You don't really want to kill someone unless you know them well, and people tend to associate with people like themselves. Simply killing someone because they're a different ethnic group is a rare thing in modern Western democracies. In the US blacks mostly kill blacks, whites mostly kill whites, hispanics mostly kill hispanics, and in Australia Lebanese mostly kill Lebanese, in the UK Nigerians kill other Nigerians, and so on.

This does not mean that racially-motivated homicide never occurs, but it is uncommon in the whole scheme of crime.

Now, healthcare is another matter. But if you are unemployed without a source of income then you are typically less concerned about healthcare or insurance and more concerned about a roof over your head and food on your table. And worldwide, as unemployment rises so does crime, as unemployment drops so does crime. The effect of unemployment on crime can be delayed or mitigated by a strong social welfare safety net and other factors, of course.

If you're broke and there are people selling drugs on street corners and threatening to beat you up, you quite simply do not have as good a quality of life as you do if you have some income, and there are few or no criminals in your neighbourhood. And until the virus and the lockdown, more and more people - including African-Americans (from 16.5% in 2010 Jan to 6% in 2020 Jan - source) - in the US were getting jobs and not suffering crime over the past few years.

Now, you can certainly argue the cause of those changes, whether it was due to Drumpf's protectionism or Obama's investment in education or the legalisation of abortion in the 1970s (leading to there being less fatherless young men a generation later, as Freakanomics notes), or global economic conditions, or whatever. But you cannot argue the fact that more Americans had jobs and fewer were committing crimes or victims of crimes in the past few years.

That's all wrecked now, of course.












« Last Edit: June 06, 2020, 07:07:36 AM by Kyle Schuant »

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2633
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2269 on: June 06, 2020, 07:23:09 AM »
Let's be honest here. Job numbers absolutely do not correlate with decreased racism. So no, jobs will not "solve" the race issue that has been so prevalent in this country for decades. Trump is just going from gassing people to gaslighting them. He's managed to make George Flloyds death about himself. Gee what a surprise.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5796
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2270 on: June 06, 2020, 07:33:24 AM »
Most crime in the US is confined to ethnic groups. You don't really want to kill someone unless you know them well, and people tend to associate with people like themselves. Simply killing someone because they're a different ethnic group is a rare thing in modern Western democracies. In the US blacks mostly kill blacks, whites mostly kill whites, hispanics mostly kill hispanics, and in Australia Lebanese mostly kill Lebanese, in the UK Nigerians kill other Nigerians, and so on.

This does not mean that racially-motivated homicide never occurs, but it is uncommon in the whole scheme of crime.

Now, healthcare is another matter. But if you are unemployed without a source of income then you are typically less concerned about healthcare or insurance and more concerned about a roof over your head and food on your table. And worldwide, as unemployment rises so does crime, as unemployment drops so does crime. The effect of unemployment on crime can be delayed or mitigated by a strong social welfare safety net and other factors, of course.

If you're broke and there are people selling drugs on street corners and threatening to beat you up, you quite simply do not have as good a quality of life as you do if you have some income, and there are few or no criminals in your neighbourhood. And until the virus and the lockdown, more and more people - including African-Americans (from 16.5% in 2010 Jan to 6% in 2020 Jan - source) - in the US were getting jobs and not suffering crime over the past few years.

Now, you can certainly argue the cause of those changes, whether it was due to Drumpf's protectionism or Obama's investment in education or the legalisation of abortion in the 1970s (leading to there being less fatherless young men a generation later, as Freakanomics notes), or global economic conditions, or whatever. But you cannot argue the fact that more Americans had jobs and fewer were committing crimes or victims of crimes in the past few years.

That's all wrecked now, of course.

You are failing to look at the bigger picture, and just picking out separate points and unrelated graphs on a subject I suspect you know almost nothing about and on which you are certainly tone deaf.  Just to start on your post -

1.  Not all crime is murder.

2.  Structural discrimination creates the conditions for unemployment, low wages, poor health and crime including drug dealing and murder.

3.  You have taken two separate graphs but shown no causality between them.

You are getting perilously close to becoming the first person ever to go on my ignore list.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4109
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2271 on: June 06, 2020, 08:02:47 AM »
Yes, and it doesn't say anything about what kind of jobs, and the reality of last hired, first fired which is the category a lot of African Americans are in. Just a small example, my ex husband works in restaurants. He was struck when we moved to the south the unstated racial line between front of the house, and back of the house. People in the kitchen with exception of a couple of the chefs either black or Hispanic making x number of dollars doing the hardest dirtiest work. People front of the house including managers (who have chance for promotion), and bar waitstaff (who get tips) almost all white. Another example. When I first came to NC I was struck at how few public swimming pools there were. There were neighborhoods with HOA with pools, the Y, and also private apartment complex pools. And the university had pools but you had to be student, faculty or alumni to use them. There was one municipal pool which was small and indoor for the number of people in the town. Someone explained it to me, that there used to me more public pools (pointing to some parks which had pools that were permanently closed) but after segregation the powers that be preferred to close the pools than open them up to everyone. There are too many examples but the simplistic jobs are good, does not directly heal deep seated and long standing racial inequities in this country. One thing that WOULD help? Universal healthcare. Also, just listening. Listen to understand, and what people are asking for.   

 

js82

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 469
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2272 on: June 06, 2020, 10:54:53 AM »
And until the virus and the lockdown, more and more people - including African-Americans (from 16.5% in 2010 Jan to 6% in 2020 Jan - source) - in the US were getting jobs and not suffering crime over the past few years.

Now, you can certainly argue the cause of those changes, whether it was due to Drumpf's protectionism or Obama's investment in education or the legalisation of abortion in the 1970s (leading to there being less fatherless young men a generation later, as Freakanomics notes), or global economic conditions, or whatever. But you cannot argue the fact that more Americans had jobs and fewer were committing crimes or victims of crimes in the past few years.

That's all wrecked now, of course.













You do realize that the graphs you included do not support your argument that crime and unemployment are correlated, right?

Per your own graphs, violent crime declined during the GFC, and has been essentially flat(with minor wobbles) from 2011 to 2018 as unemployment has fallen.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2118
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2273 on: June 06, 2020, 12:23:43 PM »
Just for a little statistics lesson:

The heading is "reported violent crime".

It does not show the UNreported violent crime. Or non-violent crime. E.g. hate speech or swindling millions of people out of their houses is not a violent crime. Showing only that one part of crime is hiding the other half if you talk about such a universal affecting thing as employment rate.

btw. the amount of employment - the quantitiy - does not say a word about the quality. With the neoliberal "Agenda 2010" in Germany unemployment did drop slowly and steady, but (and ignoring the question if it was not just demograpics), it came with the price of the biggest low wage sector in Europe. The lower 10% of income actually dropped in absolute amonuts (not to talk about after-inflation) and it took I think 14 years to reach the same level as before the reforms. At the same time upper 10% greatly increased their income. And a similar result for the lowest 10% was visibly in the non-monetary circumstances of their jobs. Less secure jobs with more work in the same time etc.   

Also using that graph alone in comparison to any trend in the US as a cause is total bullshit. You need to use it together with the graphs of other countries to see if there might be any effect.

If you do this for example you can show that the high incarceration rate in the US in the last 30 years (and please ignore here there are reasons to believe that is the result of racism) did not in fact lower crime at all, because other countries have a very similar curve and still the same amount (percentage) of prisoners. 


It is also true though that unemployment correlates to higher crime of many types. At the top probably is domestic abuse (right term?). Which is easy to see - if you have big worries and more time to get aggressive at each other...

btw. One of my favorite sites about statistics:
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Fireball

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 289
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2274 on: June 06, 2020, 06:44:26 PM »
Iím still reeling from his claim that a strong economy will solve our racial problems. When has it ever worked that way?
Well, when the economy is stronger it's usually because people are employed, and employed people are less likely to get involved in crime. Prior to the virus and the lockdown things were improving for all Americans.

Now exactly what you consider the "racial problems" may or may not include unemployment and crime, but if it does, then a stronger economy goes a long way to dealing with those issues.

The virus and the lockdown have reversed all that, though, unfortunately.

I don't think you have the slightest idea what racial problems exist in America. I would stop posting if I were in your shoes. Seriously.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2275 on: June 06, 2020, 06:52:53 PM »
Not all crime is murder.
Thankyou for this important information, of which I was previously unaware. It is, nonetheless, a fair and reasonable proxy for the overall crime in a country.

Quote
Structural discrimination creates the conditions for unemployment, low wages, poor health and crime including drug dealing and murder.
Yes, of course.

Quote
You have taken two separate graphs but shown no causality between them.
The relationship between unemployment and many kinds of crime is well-established in country after country. There are of course many factors, such as structural discrimination as you mention, substance abuse, the presence or absence of social services, the size of the community (10 x 1,000 person towns have less crime than 1x 10,000 person town) and so on and so forth. And not all jobs are equal, a casual part-time job on minimum wage does not have the same pacifying stabilising effect as a permanent full-time job at double the minimum wage.

But all other things being equal, if you take a bunch of unemployed people and give them some sort of job, they are less likely to do criminal things - and most of the criminal things they would have done would have been to other poor people, so there's less being a victim of crime, too. I am not sure why this is contentious, except for someone who's desperate to avoid giving old Drumpf any credit whatsoever. But if you don't want to give him credit, since he's a fucking idiot that doesn't bother me - just credit the changes to Obama's education reforms and other things, and in any case whatever good Drumpf might have done for the last few years is more than wiped out by the bad he's done in the last few months.

Quote
You are getting perilously close to becoming the first person ever to go on my ignore list.
I shall endeavour to bear this heavy burden without complaint. But consider why you would become so distressed by someone who is not insulting you, who does not deny structural racism or that the US has serious problems, but is only presenting facts - and hopeful facts about the world and your country.

Prior to the virus and lockdown, more people who previously had no job now had some sort of job, and fewer people were committing crimes or becoming victims of crime.

This does not mean all their jobs were good and secure ones. This does not mean crime had become zero. This does not mean everyone was living in a paradise. It does mean that bad lives were getting better. Not as good as they could or should be? Undoubtedly. But lives were getting better.

I am not sure why that is distressing and unwelcome news. You can certainly say, "it's not enough", of course. But better is better.

ysette9

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7031
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • The Best Is Yet To Come
Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2276 on: June 06, 2020, 08:34:44 PM »
Skimming through the recent discussions has me thinking that the problem here is trying to conflate crime with discrimination when they are two separate things they may have some overlap. Discrimination includes a thousand small and large slights that are perfectly legal. Giving someone the cold shoulder because they donít look like you, being less likely to call a candidate back if the resume shows a more typical black name than a white one (same effect has been shown for women vs. men), stricter lending standards applied to one race than for another, name calling, crossing the street to avoid someone, being more likely to get pulled over for doing nothing, calling the cops on someone for looking suspicious when you wouldnít do the same for someone of another race, and so many more. Even if illegal (hiring and lending practices), the problem persists, and the rest of the stuff is people being jackasses, not something that will show up in crime statistics. Full employment didnít solve racial inequality or discrimination in the past decade or two so I donít know why it would going forward.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2020, 03:24:19 PM by ysette9 »

Wrenchturner

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2277 on: June 06, 2020, 08:42:41 PM »
The murder of George Floyd had nothing to do with his employment status.  The same goes for many black people murdered by police.  I wholeheartedly agree that these protests have an economic aspect to them, but the central objection is built around racial inequity especially involving policing.  It could be a general "strike" so to speak, to address several societal injustices at once. 

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2278 on: June 07, 2020, 01:06:29 AM »
@Kyle Schuant you may be stating the bleeding obvious that someone with a job stands a better chance of having a nicer life than someone without.  However, your suggestion that merely having a job and experiencing less crime somehow has anything at all to do with the systemic racism in the USA (and, it must be said, every other modern Western society), is frankly, ignorant.  You should really consider not doubling down any further than you already have.

Are you next going to argue that over 400 Indigenous Australians dying will in custody since 1991 could have been prevented if Australia's unemployment rate was lower?

AnnaGrowsAMustache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Location: Noo Zilind
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2279 on: June 07, 2020, 02:00:21 AM »
@Kyle Schuant your argument smacks of victim blaming to me. It doesn't matter to racists whether their targets are employed.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2633
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2280 on: June 07, 2020, 05:21:59 AM »
The murder of George Floyd had nothing to do with his employment status.  The same goes for many black people murdered by police.  I wholeheartedly agree that these protests have an economic aspect to them, but the central objection is built around racial inequity especially involving policing.  It could be a general "strike" so to speak, to address several societal injustices at once.
This is a good point. One place to start addressing the systematic racism is by addressing economic inequality.

GreenEggs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
  • Location: Here & There
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2281 on: June 07, 2020, 05:57:23 AM »
The murder of George Floyd had nothing to do with his employment status.  The same goes for many black people murdered by police.  I wholeheartedly agree that these protests have an economic aspect to them, but the central objection is built around racial inequity especially involving policing.  It could be a general "strike" so to speak, to address several societal injustices at once.
This is a good point. One place to start addressing the systematic racism is by addressing economic inequality.


One of the main things that needs to be addressed is to fix the justice system.  A huge portion of black men end up in prison for unfair and/or minor crimes.  The things I would have gotten away with in my youth puts them behind bars.  Getting a university education versus a prison education is a huge advantage white folks have over black folks. 




GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16600
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2282 on: June 07, 2020, 06:39:57 AM »
@Kyle Schuant your argument smacks of victim blaming to me. It doesn't matter to racists whether their targets are employed.

Black employment during slavery was exceptionally high, and there was obviously no racism then . . .

Employment is a great measure of racism.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2283 on: June 07, 2020, 08:33:31 AM »
@Kyle Schuant you may be stating the bleeding obvious that someone with a job stands a better chance of having a nicer life than someone without.  However, your suggestion that merely having a job and experiencing less crime somehow has anything at all to do with the systemic racism in the USA (and, it must be said, every other modern Western society), is frankly, ignorant.  You should really consider not doubling down any further than you already have.

Are you next going to argue that over 400 Indigenous Australians dying will in custody since 1991 could have been prevented if Australia's unemployment rate was lower?

I didn't know that.    Canada also has a bad rep with regard to dealing with our indigenous people.   Indigenous people in Canada have roughly 5x the homicide rate of the rest of the population.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00016-eng.htm

There was an incident about 4 years ago where some first nations kids went to an isolated farm in Saskatchewan and started acting like hooligans.   They were armed with a small calibre rifle.   The farmer told them to leave and when they did not, he got his handgun and insisted that they leave.    One of the kids was shot and killed, Colten Boushie.      The farmer, Gerald Stanley, was later acquitted of 2nd degree murder by a jury with no indigenous people.

Many people thought the jury should have had indigenous representation.    There was a huge uproar over this, with our prime minister himself declaring that he was disappointed in the outcome of the trial.

By the standards of the US, I think the farmer would have been well within his rights in defending his family.    To this day I don't understand the opposing point of view.    And I would feel exactly the same way if they had been 4 white kids armed with a rifle and causing trouble.


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13536
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2284 on: June 07, 2020, 09:27:06 AM »
To me, thereís a very easy way of discrediting this notion that a strong economy will solve racial inequality: look at the recent past.  During even the strongest of economic times racism has remained, and been systemic.

Six months ago the overall unemployement was 3.5%, wages were increasing and our GPD was expanding at ~3%.  Yet racism remained; blacks were incarcerated at 3.5x the rate of whites, were less likely to get jobs with even the same qualifications, received lower compensation for the same position, were given harsher sentences for the same crime, were more likely to have higher interest rates with the same credit history, and had the police called on them for activities as ordinary as waiting at a Starbucks or BBQing in a public part (search ď____ while blackĒ).  And thatís just a small sub sampling of the systemic racism that we experienced during an economic boom. 

Putting people back to work will not solve racism.  If previous recessions are any indicator black and brown populations will continue to lag their white counterparts, furthering racial inequality.  In fact, weíve gotten another glimpse of that, as the black unemployment increased last month as the overall rate dropped.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16600
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2285 on: June 07, 2020, 09:57:54 AM »
@Kyle Schuant you may be stating the bleeding obvious that someone with a job stands a better chance of having a nicer life than someone without.  However, your suggestion that merely having a job and experiencing less crime somehow has anything at all to do with the systemic racism in the USA (and, it must be said, every other modern Western society), is frankly, ignorant.  You should really consider not doubling down any further than you already have.

Are you next going to argue that over 400 Indigenous Australians dying will in custody since 1991 could have been prevented if Australia's unemployment rate was lower?

I didn't know that.    Canada also has a bad rep with regard to dealing with our indigenous people.   Indigenous people in Canada have roughly 5x the homicide rate of the rest of the population.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00016-eng.htm

There was an incident about 4 years ago where some first nations kids went to an isolated farm in Saskatchewan and started acting like hooligans.   They were armed with a small calibre rifle.   The farmer told them to leave and when they did not, he got his handgun and insisted that they leave.    One of the kids was shot and killed, Colten Boushie.      The farmer, Gerald Stanley, was later acquitted of 2nd degree murder by a jury with no indigenous people.

Many people thought the jury should have had indigenous representation.    There was a huge uproar over this, with our prime minister himself declaring that he was disappointed in the outcome of the trial.

By the standards of the US, I think the farmer would have been well within his rights in defending his family.    To this day I don't understand the opposing point of view.    And I would feel exactly the same way if they had been 4 white kids armed with a rifle and causing trouble.

So, let me preface this by saying that the native kids were out for a night of breaking into cars and stealing shit while drunk.  In no way do I condone or excuse their behaviour.  They were being assholes.  But in Canada, you are not just allowed to just gun someone down who is on your property.  You are bound by Canadian law to use appropriate levels of force when reacting to a situation.  Blowing away someone who is trying to steal your ATV should land you in jail - that's an inappropriate level of force.  This isn't the Wild West, and you are not judge, jury, and executioner.

In the telling of the Bouchie/Stanley case above, a few important details that might help explain a bit were left out:
- The .22 in Bouchie's SUV was broken (broken stock) and was not used at any point to threaten any member of Stanley's family, or Stanley himself.  It's completely unrelated to the killing.
- Stanley shot Bouchie in the back of the head at point blank range after Bouchie crashed his SUV.  Stanley said that the killing was an accident, not that he felt it was necessary to protect himself or his family.
- Stanley claimed that his gun malfunctioned, causing Bouchie's death.  Investigators were unable to reproduce the malfunction described while testing the firearm.
- The police did not bring in a forensics unit to investigate this case.  In fact, the junior police officer who was placed in charge of it left the SUV that Bouchie was killed in with all doors open in two days of rain before he attempted to investigate it.
- The all white jury found that there was not enough evidence to convict Stanley of anything at trial. - - The jury was explicitly told that even if they believe Stanley most likely murdered Bouchie, the slightest doubt should case them to err on the side of innocent.

I have no idea if Stanley saw an opportunity to murder Bouchie, or if his weapon malfunctioned as claimed.  I do know that there is a long history of police prejudice against native people in Canada, and that this leads to open/shut sloppy investigations (as happened in this case).  It seems very likely to me that a killing involving white kids would have been treated quite differently by the police.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13915
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2286 on: June 07, 2020, 11:25:22 AM »
@Kyle Schuant you may be stating the bleeding obvious that someone with a job stands a better chance of having a nicer life than someone without.  However, your suggestion that merely having a job and experiencing less crime somehow has anything at all to do with the systemic racism in the USA (and, it must be said, every other modern Western society), is frankly, ignorant.  You should really consider not doubling down any further than you already have.

Are you next going to argue that over 400 Indigenous Australians dying will in custody since 1991 could have been prevented if Australia's unemployment rate was lower?

I didn't know that.    Canada also has a bad rep with regard to dealing with our indigenous people.   Indigenous people in Canada have roughly 5x the homicide rate of the rest of the population.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00016-eng.htm

There was an incident about 4 years ago where some first nations kids went to an isolated farm in Saskatchewan and started acting like hooligans.   They were armed with a small calibre rifle.   The farmer told them to leave and when they did not, he got his handgun and insisted that they leave.    One of the kids was shot and killed, Colten Boushie.      The farmer, Gerald Stanley, was later acquitted of 2nd degree murder by a jury with no indigenous people.

Many people thought the jury should have had indigenous representation.    There was a huge uproar over this, with our prime minister himself declaring that he was disappointed in the outcome of the trial.

By the standards of the US, I think the farmer would have been well within his rights in defending his family.    To this day I don't understand the opposing point of view.    And I would feel exactly the same way if they had been 4 white kids armed with a rifle and causing trouble.

So, let me preface this by saying that the native kids were out for a night of breaking into cars and stealing shit while drunk.  In no way do I condone or excuse their behaviour.  They were being assholes.  But in Canada, you are not just allowed to just gun someone down who is on your property.  You are bound by Canadian law to use appropriate levels of force when reacting to a situation.  Blowing away someone who is trying to steal your ATV should land you in jail - that's an inappropriate level of force.  This isn't the Wild West, and you are not judge, jury, and executioner.

In the telling of the Bouchie/Stanley case above, a few important details that might help explain a bit were left out:
- The .22 in Bouchie's SUV was broken (broken stock) and was not used at any point to threaten any member of Stanley's family, or Stanley himself.  It's completely unrelated to the killing.
- Stanley shot Bouchie in the back of the head at point blank range after Bouchie crashed his SUV.  Stanley said that the killing was an accident, not that he felt it was necessary to protect himself or his family.
- Stanley claimed that his gun malfunctioned, causing Bouchie's death.  Investigators were unable to reproduce the malfunction described while testing the firearm.
- The police did not bring in a forensics unit to investigate this case.  In fact, the junior police officer who was placed in charge of it left the SUV that Bouchie was killed in with all doors open in two days of rain before he attempted to investigate it.
- The all white jury found that there was not enough evidence to convict Stanley of anything at trial. - - The jury was explicitly told that even if they believe Stanley most likely murdered Bouchie, the slightest doubt should case them to err on the side of innocent.

I have no idea if Stanley saw an opportunity to murder Bouchie, or if his weapon malfunctioned as claimed.  I do know that there is a long history of police prejudice against native people in Canada, and that this leads to open/shut sloppy investigations (as happened in this case).  It seems very likely to me that a killing involving white kids would have been treated quite differently by the police.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/chantel-moore-indigenous-woman-shot-by-police-edmundston-1.5601097

So many questions here - why are police doing wellness checks, they are not the appropriate body.  Not enough funds for social work?  NB is not a wealthy province.  And why she is said to have a knife?  If someone I didn't know came to my apartment in the middle of the night (not clear about time, but call asking for a wellness check was made at 2:30 AM), I might grab a knife.  And there are links in this story that raise more questions.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2287 on: June 07, 2020, 02:43:08 PM »
@Kyle Schuant you may be stating the bleeding obvious that someone with a job stands a better chance of having a nicer life than someone without.  However, your suggestion that merely having a job and experiencing less crime somehow has anything at all to do with the systemic racism in the USA (and, it must be said, every other modern Western society), is frankly, ignorant.  You should really consider not doubling down any further than you already have.

Are you next going to argue that over 400 Indigenous Australians dying will in custody since 1991 could have been prevented if Australia's unemployment rate was lower?

I didn't know that.    Canada also has a bad rep with regard to dealing with our indigenous people.   Indigenous people in Canada have roughly 5x the homicide rate of the rest of the population.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00016-eng.htm

There was an incident about 4 years ago where some first nations kids went to an isolated farm in Saskatchewan and started acting like hooligans.   They were armed with a small calibre rifle.   The farmer told them to leave and when they did not, he got his handgun and insisted that they leave.    One of the kids was shot and killed, Colten Boushie.      The farmer, Gerald Stanley, was later acquitted of 2nd degree murder by a jury with no indigenous people.

Many people thought the jury should have had indigenous representation.    There was a huge uproar over this, with our prime minister himself declaring that he was disappointed in the outcome of the trial.

By the standards of the US, I think the farmer would have been well within his rights in defending his family.    To this day I don't understand the opposing point of view.    And I would feel exactly the same way if they had been 4 white kids armed with a rifle and causing trouble.

So, let me preface this by saying that the native kids were out for a night of breaking into cars and stealing shit while drunk.  In no way do I condone or excuse their behaviour.  They were being assholes.  But in Canada, you are not just allowed to just gun someone down who is on your property.  You are bound by Canadian law to use appropriate levels of force when reacting to a situation.  Blowing away someone who is trying to steal your ATV should land you in jail - that's an inappropriate level of force.  This isn't the Wild West, and you are not judge, jury, and executioner.

In the telling of the Bouchie/Stanley case above, a few important details that might help explain a bit were left out:
- The .22 in Bouchie's SUV was broken (broken stock) and was not used at any point to threaten any member of Stanley's family, or Stanley himself.  It's completely unrelated to the killing.
- Stanley shot Bouchie in the back of the head at point blank range after Bouchie crashed his SUV.  Stanley said that the killing was an accident, not that he felt it was necessary to protect himself or his family.
- Stanley claimed that his gun malfunctioned, causing Bouchie's death.  Investigators were unable to reproduce the malfunction described while testing the firearm.
- The police did not bring in a forensics unit to investigate this case.  In fact, the junior police officer who was placed in charge of it left the SUV that Bouchie was killed in with all doors open in two days of rain before he attempted to investigate it.
- The all white jury found that there was not enough evidence to convict Stanley of anything at trial. - - The jury was explicitly told that even if they believe Stanley most likely murdered Bouchie, the slightest doubt should case them to err on the side of innocent.

I have no idea if Stanley saw an opportunity to murder Bouchie, or if his weapon malfunctioned as claimed.  I do know that there is a long history of police prejudice against native people in Canada, and that this leads to open/shut sloppy investigations (as happened in this case).  It seems very likely to me that a killing involving white kids would have been treated quite differently by the police.

I obviously wasn't there, so I can't know definitively.

I do know that if I was in a remote location with my wife and son and 4 drunken 20 year olds drove onto the property, crashed into my car and tried to steal my ATV that I'd be pretty stressed about the threat to myself and my family.    As a 55 year old guy I know pretty well that a 20 year old is more physically capable than I am, and there were 4 of them.   If they refused to leave when they realized the property was occupied, that would just increase my stress level.       Things could go downhill very quickly from there.    And the fact that the stock on the rifle was broken doesn't mean it wouldn't fire, just that the stock was broken. 

So my impression is that the incident escalated because Stanley was worried about the threat to his family, not the potential loss of his ATV.    And we are allowed to use force in self-defence in Canada, at least so far.

I can understand the argument that the RCMP conducted a sloppy investigation because the victims were first nations.   That was wrong.    It's the uproar about the acquittal that I don't understand.




scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2288 on: June 07, 2020, 02:45:11 PM »
@Kyle Schuant you may be stating the bleeding obvious that someone with a job stands a better chance of having a nicer life than someone without.  However, your suggestion that merely having a job and experiencing less crime somehow has anything at all to do with the systemic racism in the USA (and, it must be said, every other modern Western society), is frankly, ignorant.  You should really consider not doubling down any further than you already have.

Are you next going to argue that over 400 Indigenous Australians dying will in custody since 1991 could have been prevented if Australia's unemployment rate was lower?

I didn't know that.    Canada also has a bad rep with regard to dealing with our indigenous people.   Indigenous people in Canada have roughly 5x the homicide rate of the rest of the population.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00016-eng.htm

There was an incident about 4 years ago where some first nations kids went to an isolated farm in Saskatchewan and started acting like hooligans.   They were armed with a small calibre rifle.   The farmer told them to leave and when they did not, he got his handgun and insisted that they leave.    One of the kids was shot and killed, Colten Boushie.      The farmer, Gerald Stanley, was later acquitted of 2nd degree murder by a jury with no indigenous people.

Many people thought the jury should have had indigenous representation.    There was a huge uproar over this, with our prime minister himself declaring that he was disappointed in the outcome of the trial.

By the standards of the US, I think the farmer would have been well within his rights in defending his family.    To this day I don't understand the opposing point of view.    And I would feel exactly the same way if they had been 4 white kids armed with a rifle and causing trouble.

So, let me preface this by saying that the native kids were out for a night of breaking into cars and stealing shit while drunk.  In no way do I condone or excuse their behaviour.  They were being assholes.  But in Canada, you are not just allowed to just gun someone down who is on your property.  You are bound by Canadian law to use appropriate levels of force when reacting to a situation.  Blowing away someone who is trying to steal your ATV should land you in jail - that's an inappropriate level of force.  This isn't the Wild West, and you are not judge, jury, and executioner.

In the telling of the Bouchie/Stanley case above, a few important details that might help explain a bit were left out:
- The .22 in Bouchie's SUV was broken (broken stock) and was not used at any point to threaten any member of Stanley's family, or Stanley himself.  It's completely unrelated to the killing.
- Stanley shot Bouchie in the back of the head at point blank range after Bouchie crashed his SUV.  Stanley said that the killing was an accident, not that he felt it was necessary to protect himself or his family.
- Stanley claimed that his gun malfunctioned, causing Bouchie's death.  Investigators were unable to reproduce the malfunction described while testing the firearm.
- The police did not bring in a forensics unit to investigate this case.  In fact, the junior police officer who was placed in charge of it left the SUV that Bouchie was killed in with all doors open in two days of rain before he attempted to investigate it.
- The all white jury found that there was not enough evidence to convict Stanley of anything at trial. - - The jury was explicitly told that even if they believe Stanley most likely murdered Bouchie, the slightest doubt should case them to err on the side of innocent.

I have no idea if Stanley saw an opportunity to murder Bouchie, or if his weapon malfunctioned as claimed.  I do know that there is a long history of police prejudice against native people in Canada, and that this leads to open/shut sloppy investigations (as happened in this case).  It seems very likely to me that a killing involving white kids would have been treated quite differently by the police.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/chantel-moore-indigenous-woman-shot-by-police-edmundston-1.5601097

So many questions here - why are police doing wellness checks, they are not the appropriate body.  Not enough funds for social work?  NB is not a wealthy province.  And why she is said to have a knife?  If someone I didn't know came to my apartment in the middle of the night (not clear about time, but call asking for a wellness check was made at 2:30 AM), I might grab a knife.  And there are links in this story that raise more questions.

Yeah, the thing in Edmundston stinks.   It reminds me of that police officer in the US who shot a black man in his own apartment because she got off the elevator at the wrong floor.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16600
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2289 on: June 07, 2020, 05:37:08 PM »
@Kyle Schuant you may be stating the bleeding obvious that someone with a job stands a better chance of having a nicer life than someone without.  However, your suggestion that merely having a job and experiencing less crime somehow has anything at all to do with the systemic racism in the USA (and, it must be said, every other modern Western society), is frankly, ignorant.  You should really consider not doubling down any further than you already have.

Are you next going to argue that over 400 Indigenous Australians dying will in custody since 1991 could have been prevented if Australia's unemployment rate was lower?

I didn't know that.    Canada also has a bad rep with regard to dealing with our indigenous people.   Indigenous people in Canada have roughly 5x the homicide rate of the rest of the population.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00016-eng.htm

There was an incident about 4 years ago where some first nations kids went to an isolated farm in Saskatchewan and started acting like hooligans.   They were armed with a small calibre rifle.   The farmer told them to leave and when they did not, he got his handgun and insisted that they leave.    One of the kids was shot and killed, Colten Boushie.      The farmer, Gerald Stanley, was later acquitted of 2nd degree murder by a jury with no indigenous people.

Many people thought the jury should have had indigenous representation.    There was a huge uproar over this, with our prime minister himself declaring that he was disappointed in the outcome of the trial.

By the standards of the US, I think the farmer would have been well within his rights in defending his family.    To this day I don't understand the opposing point of view.    And I would feel exactly the same way if they had been 4 white kids armed with a rifle and causing trouble.

So, let me preface this by saying that the native kids were out for a night of breaking into cars and stealing shit while drunk.  In no way do I condone or excuse their behaviour.  They were being assholes.  But in Canada, you are not just allowed to just gun someone down who is on your property.  You are bound by Canadian law to use appropriate levels of force when reacting to a situation.  Blowing away someone who is trying to steal your ATV should land you in jail - that's an inappropriate level of force.  This isn't the Wild West, and you are not judge, jury, and executioner.

In the telling of the Bouchie/Stanley case above, a few important details that might help explain a bit were left out:
- The .22 in Bouchie's SUV was broken (broken stock) and was not used at any point to threaten any member of Stanley's family, or Stanley himself.  It's completely unrelated to the killing.
- Stanley shot Bouchie in the back of the head at point blank range after Bouchie crashed his SUV.  Stanley said that the killing was an accident, not that he felt it was necessary to protect himself or his family.
- Stanley claimed that his gun malfunctioned, causing Bouchie's death.  Investigators were unable to reproduce the malfunction described while testing the firearm.
- The police did not bring in a forensics unit to investigate this case.  In fact, the junior police officer who was placed in charge of it left the SUV that Bouchie was killed in with all doors open in two days of rain before he attempted to investigate it.
- The all white jury found that there was not enough evidence to convict Stanley of anything at trial. - - The jury was explicitly told that even if they believe Stanley most likely murdered Bouchie, the slightest doubt should case them to err on the side of innocent.

I have no idea if Stanley saw an opportunity to murder Bouchie, or if his weapon malfunctioned as claimed.  I do know that there is a long history of police prejudice against native people in Canada, and that this leads to open/shut sloppy investigations (as happened in this case).  It seems very likely to me that a killing involving white kids would have been treated quite differently by the police.

I obviously wasn't there, so I can't know definitively.

I do know that if I was in a remote location with my wife and son and 4 drunken 20 year olds drove onto the property, crashed into my car and tried to steal my ATV that I'd be pretty stressed about the threat to myself and my family.    As a 55 year old guy I know pretty well that a 20 year old is more physically capable than I am, and there were 4 of them.   If they refused to leave when they realized the property was occupied, that would just increase my stress level.       Things could go downhill very quickly from there.    And the fact that the stock on the rifle was broken doesn't mean it wouldn't fire, just that the stock was broken. 

So my impression is that the incident escalated because Stanley was worried about the threat to his family, not the potential loss of his ATV.    And we are allowed to use force in self-defence in Canada, at least so far.

I can understand the argument that the RCMP conducted a sloppy investigation because the victims were first nations.   That was wrong.    It's the uproar about the acquittal that I don't understand.

The native kids were being assholes.  I'm sure it was upsetting for the farmer, his wife, and his twenty year old son.  Probably frightening too.  You're certainly allowed to use force (even deadly force) if the situation requires it for self defence under Canadian law.  That's not at all what happened though when Stanley shot Bouchie in the back of the head though.  It was either a mysterious accidental gun misfire (as Stanley said), or murder.  Thanks to the police not bothering to properly investigate the death of Bouchie we'll probably never know.  Again though - nothing to do with self defence.

While I don't have strong feelings either way, being upset about the aquittal if you believe Stanley murdered Bouchie makes sense.  People are innocent until proven guilty, so the police mishandling of the situation made it impossible to convict (if that's what the evidence that was never gathered would have done).  There was no possibility of justice being done if Stanley was guilty.

It seems to me from your comments though (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't really care about whether Stanley used excessive force.  You appear to be arguing that the drunk native kids were on his property, and were up to no good so it wouldn't matter if Stanley deliberately executed each one of them with a bullet to the back of the head at point blank range.  They were up to no good on someone else's property so deserved to die (or at least it doesn't matter if they're killed).  Am I reading you right on that?

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2290 on: June 07, 2020, 05:44:55 PM »
I obviously wasn't there, so I can't know definitively.

I do know that if I was in a remote location with my wife and son and 4 drunken 20 year olds drove onto the property, crashed into my car and tried to steal my ATV that I'd be pretty stressed about the threat to myself and my family.    As a 55 year old guy I know pretty well that a 20 year old is more physically capable than I am, and there were 4 of them.   If they refused to leave when they realized the property was occupied, that would just increase my stress level.       Things could go downhill very quickly from there.    And the fact that the stock on the rifle was broken doesn't mean it wouldn't fire, just that the stock was broken. 

So my impression is that the incident escalated because Stanley was worried about the threat to his family, not the potential loss of his ATV.    And we are allowed to use force in self-defence in Canada, at least so far.

I can understand the argument that the RCMP conducted a sloppy investigation because the victims were first nations.   That was wrong.    It's the uproar about the acquittal that I don't understand.
I always wonder about the sanity of someone who claims they are so terrified about the threat to their life that rather than bunkering down in a much more defensible position they instead choose to go out in the open, make more of a target of themselves and confront the threat in a way that makes the possibility of death or injury far more likely.

On the other hand if you don't really fear for your life but instead think that by brandishing a gun out in the open you can scare off the intruder and stop your ATV from being stolen, I can totally understand going out and confronting them.

And in my experience, mystery gun malfunctions that can't be replicated seem to occur much more frequently after someone has gotten legal representation and had time to think about what happened.

dandarc

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4022
  • Age: 37
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2291 on: June 07, 2020, 06:32:37 PM »
Yeah, the thing in Edmundston stinks.   It reminds me of that police officer in the US who shot a black man in his own apartment because she got off the elevator at the wrong floor.
She got 10 years, eligible for parole after 5. Trevor Noah of The Daily Show as always managed to capture the range of reactions to that verdict:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2819745691486134

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2292 on: June 07, 2020, 06:49:34 PM »
No, I don't think property crimes warrant the death penalty.    I see a farmer who's extremely stressed by a potentially violent situation and unfortunately it escalated to where Bouchie was shot.

As I understand it, Stanley's wife was out in the open cutting the grass, and he thought she had been injured.   It was too late to find a defensive position, hunker down and hope everyone leaves.  It wasn't about saving his ATV.   How would you live with yourself for killing someone just to save your ATV?

There's a saying I read once - "Violence is like dancing with a gorilla.   You might decide when to start, but the gorilla decides when to stop".    My take on the situation is that the kids initiated the confrontation.   I find it difficult to blame Stanley for the consequences.    Maybe another individual might have been able to de-escalate the situation, get the kids help with their disabled vehicle and send them off home without any further trouble.   Stanley wasn't able to do this.    But even trained police officers aren't able to do this consistently.

It seemed to me that the situation was not:   "There some damn natives driving around on my property.   I'm going to get my pistol and scare them off"  but rather  "My wife's in danger, what the hell do I do now?"

In terms of the misfire.   I assume this story was concocted by his defense attorney as a means of providing doubt that Stanley meant to shoot Bouchie.    I'm more interested in the question  "who should be considered responsible for the outcome?"    If Stanley shot Bouchie calmly and with forethought, than that's Stanley's fault and he should be convicted.     If Bouchie was shot in the midst of an altercation that he started, well...

In the context of the misfire, I can understand why people would be upset about the verdict.  "He got off because his lawyer made up a story about a misfire killing Bouchie."

I posted this story after PKFFW's comments about indigenous people in Australia.    I have a hard time relating to the first nations situation in general, so I'm looking for other points of view.   Which you all are providing...



GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16600
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2293 on: June 08, 2020, 05:43:17 AM »
No, I don't think property crimes warrant the death penalty.    I see a farmer who's extremely stressed by a potentially violent situation and unfortunately it escalated to where Bouchie was shot.

As I understand it, Stanley's wife was out in the open cutting the grass, and he thought she had been injured.   It was too late to find a defensive position, hunker down and hope everyone leaves.  It wasn't about saving his ATV.   How would you live with yourself for killing someone just to save your ATV?

Stanley's 20-something year old son attacked Bouchie with a hammer while Bouchie was attempting to steal the ATV.  When Bouchie was trying to escape, Stanley Jr. Smashed the front window of the SUV Bouchie was driving with this hammer.  This happened immediately before the crash that completely stopped the vehicle, dazed Bouchie, and enabled Stanley Sr to shoot Bouchie in the back of the head at point blank range.


Quote
There's a saying I read once - "Violence is like dancing with a gorilla.   You might decide when to start, but the gorilla decides when to stop".    My take on the situation is that the kids initiated the confrontation.   I find it difficult to blame Stanley for the consequences.    Maybe another individual might have been able to de-escalate the situation, get the kids help with their disabled vehicle and send them off home without any further trouble.   Stanley wasn't able to do this.    But even trained police officers aren't able to do this consistently.

You're right, the native kids initiated the confrontation.  The Stanley's were under no compunction to de-escalate the situation.  I agree with you, it's very difficult to control a situation once the descision to use deadly force has been made.  It's why you're not allowed to purchase a firearm for the purposes of self defence in Canada.  Firearms are not defensive.  They're designed to kill.


Quote
It seemed to me that the situation was not:   "There some damn natives driving around on my property.   I'm going to get my pistol and scare them off"  but rather  "My wife's in danger, what the hell do I do now?"

You might well be right.  Depends how you read the situation I guess.  If I was worried that my wife was in danger, my instinct would be to look for her and try to get her help, not ignore her, pick up a gun, and chase after people who are running away.  But people react differently under stress.


Quote
In terms of the misfire.   I assume this story was concocted by his defense attorney as a means of providing doubt that Stanley meant to shoot Bouchie.    I'm more interested in the question  "who should be considered responsible for the outcome?"    If Stanley shot Bouchie calmly and with forethought, than that's Stanley's fault and he should be convicted.     If Bouchie was shot in the midst of an altercation that he started, well...

I suspect you're right about the defence attorney and the misfire story.

The person who chose to use deadly force always carries the bulk of responsibility for the outcome.  Again - the native kids were up to no good.  They were doing wrong, and shouldn't have been on Stanley's property to begin with.  They shoulder responsibility for where they were and for making the Stanleys really angry at them.  They certainly should be charged with trespassing/theft/vandalism.  But I agree with what you wrote above . . . this was not sufficient reason to kill them.  Choosing to use deadly force was Stanley's descision - he bears responsibility for his actions.  It's not OK to just kill people, even if you're stressed because they're being an asshole.  Otherwise every person who has a punch thrown at them in a bar fight would be allowed to kill their attacker in retaliation.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3896
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2294 on: June 08, 2020, 06:46:43 AM »
The conversation seems to have moved on from this point, but I thought @Kyle Schuant 's original argument was

  • There are more protestors this time around because--with all of the people who are out of work--many more of them have the time to be doing it
  • Trump's strategy for re-election is persuading people to look past the racial tensions to the fact that many more of them have jobs

Both of these seem plausible to me.

sixwings

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2295 on: June 08, 2020, 09:05:53 AM »
Yeah but I also think it's a little simplistic. They might have jobs but the jobs may be low paying, living prices are increasing, and the rich are getting far richer while they work 2 jobs and cant get anywhere. I doubt talking about the stock market is going to really help there. There's a lot more to someones vote than just "do you have a job yes or no?". 

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2296 on: June 08, 2020, 10:43:23 AM »
No, I don't think property crimes warrant the death penalty.    I see a farmer who's extremely stressed by a potentially violent situation and unfortunately it escalated to where Bouchie was shot.

As I understand it, Stanley's wife was out in the open cutting the grass, and he thought she had been injured.   It was too late to find a defensive position, hunker down and hope everyone leaves.  It wasn't about saving his ATV.   How would you live with yourself for killing someone just to save your ATV?

Stanley's 20-something year old son attacked Bouchie with a hammer while Bouchie was attempting to steal the ATV.  When Bouchie was trying to escape, Stanley Jr. Smashed the front window of the SUV Bouchie was driving with this hammer.  This happened immediately before the crash that completely stopped the vehicle, dazed Bouchie, and enabled Stanley Sr to shoot Bouchie in the back of the head at point blank range.


Quote
There's a saying I read once - "Violence is like dancing with a gorilla.   You might decide when to start, but the gorilla decides when to stop".    My take on the situation is that the kids initiated the confrontation.   I find it difficult to blame Stanley for the consequences.    Maybe another individual might have been able to de-escalate the situation, get the kids help with their disabled vehicle and send them off home without any further trouble.   Stanley wasn't able to do this.    But even trained police officers aren't able to do this consistently.

You're right, the native kids initiated the confrontation.  The Stanley's were under no compunction to de-escalate the situation.  I agree with you, it's very difficult to control a situation once the descision to use deadly force has been made.  It's why you're not allowed to purchase a firearm for the purposes of self defence in Canada.  Firearms are not defensive.  They're designed to kill.


Quote
It seemed to me that the situation was not:   "There some damn natives driving around on my property.   I'm going to get my pistol and scare them off"  but rather  "My wife's in danger, what the hell do I do now?"

You might well be right.  Depends how you read the situation I guess.  If I was worried that my wife was in danger, my instinct would be to look for her and try to get her help, not ignore her, pick up a gun, and chase after people who are running away.  But people react differently under stress.


Quote
In terms of the misfire.   I assume this story was concocted by his defense attorney as a means of providing doubt that Stanley meant to shoot Bouchie.    I'm more interested in the question  "who should be considered responsible for the outcome?"    If Stanley shot Bouchie calmly and with forethought, than that's Stanley's fault and he should be convicted.     If Bouchie was shot in the midst of an altercation that he started, well...

I suspect you're right about the defence attorney and the misfire story.

The person who chose to use deadly force always carries the bulk of responsibility for the outcome.  Again - the native kids were up to no good.  They were doing wrong, and shouldn't have been on Stanley's property to begin with.  They shoulder responsibility for where they were and for making the Stanleys really angry at them.  They certainly should be charged with trespassing/theft/vandalism.  But I agree with what you wrote above . . . this was not sufficient reason to kill them.  Choosing to use deadly force was Stanley's descision - he bears responsibility for his actions.  It's not OK to just kill people, even if you're stressed because they're being an asshole.  Otherwise every person who has a punch thrown at them in a bar fight would be allowed to kill their attacker in retaliation.

Thanks for all that.   I have to wonder if I've been making the same mistake the RCMP did - at least a bit - thinking "it's just a bunch of native kids getting in trouble again, who cares."

we can move back to the orange guy again.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13536
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2297 on: June 08, 2020, 11:43:19 AM »

we can move back to the orange guy again.

Well not 'the orange guy', but one of his daughters...
Ivanka Trump is publicly seething that Wichita State University canceled her planned graduation speech in light of the civil protests, and has instead opted to have a single nursing student as a speaker.

In a tweet, Ivanka Trump said: Our nationís campuses should be bastions of free speech. Cancel culture and viewpoint discrimination are antithetical to academia. Listening to one another is important now more than ever!

Just because you have something to say doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to be a commencement speaker.  Her free speech is not being infringed upon.  And 'viewpoint discrimination' - as best as I can figure - is the claim that if someone or some institution doesn't agree with your views that is somehow discriminatory. 

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2118
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2298 on: June 08, 2020, 11:53:55 AM »

we can move back to the orange guy again.

Well not 'the orange guy', but one of his daughters...
Ivanka Trump is publicly seething that Wichita State University canceled her planned graduation speech in light of the civil protests, and has instead opted to have a single nursing student as a speaker.

In a tweet, Ivanka Trump said: Our nationís campuses should be bastions of free speech. Cancel culture and viewpoint discrimination are antithetical to academia. Listening to one another is important now more than ever!

Just because you have something to say doesn't mean you have a constitutional right to be a commencement speaker.  Her free speech is not being infringed upon.  And 'viewpoint discrimination' - as best as I can figure - is the claim that if someone or some institution doesn't agree with your views that is somehow discriminatory.
Well.... what can I say. For the fact that she has the father she has, that is actually quite a well thought out argument.
I more wonder why Ivanka Trump was slottet to a speech. Did she have remarkedly good grades?

And of course you could always say that she is right and that she has a perfect opportunity to start listening.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #2299 on: June 08, 2020, 12:08:19 PM »
Appears Ivanka's case hasn't been added, but one can use Disinvitation Database - FIRE to test various hypotheses on who is doing what regarding speakers on campus.