Whattrees

You make a great point. I can see why cops would be on edge and would rather risk taking someone into custody unnecessarily rather than putting their life at risk. Based on your reasoning they would probably be hyper vigilant for signs a stop might go wrong. Given an employers responsibility to provide a safe workplace, they are probably trained to err on the side of caution, right?

No. Absolutely not. "Officer safety" isn't a blank check. Officer's first duty is to the law and the constitution, even before their own safety. You don't get to violate someone's right because you were scared, especially when the officers never once mention a safety threat. The only thing they say when they pull out the driver is "when we tell you to do something, you do it." You can keep imagining that this is about safety, but it's transparently not. It's about an officer who got butt-hurt when someone didn't suck his dick hard enough.

A rather obvious diss and strawman argument, but I see your point. What you are ignoring though is the reasonable person who is employed as a cop.

You are not a cop I assume, which is why I said person. The legal standard is "reasonable officer". The point still stands, nothing he did was objectively reasonable by the legal standard.

If you had that job, how much would you be willing to risk death on a daily basis to give people the benefit of the doubt?

If I was a cop, I would recognize that I volunteered for a dangerous job where my primary responsibility is to the rights of the citizens I supposedly protect. I would not violate someone's rights just because I had a completely unjustified fear. Are we just going to brush past the fact that this unjustified fear just happened to be directed towards a black man? That must just be coincidence, right?

So sue the fuck out of him! That's what the courts are for. That's a separate issue from whether the cop decided he was non-cooperative at a level that warranted intervention.

Well, no it's not. The courts determine what is reasonable and legal. The cop doesn't get to violate rights or laws even if he thinks the situation warranted intervention. He must have an objectively reasonable and legal reason for that intervention. Short of that, what he did was unreasonable and illegal. That's the whole point. And again, you haven't pointed to a single thing he did as showing non-cooperation, especially not enough to warrant all that followed in a legal way. As I've outlined numerous times now, he didn't refuse any order given. The only one he didn't comply with fast enough for the officer was the order to exit in which the officer gave him 7 seconds before resorting to violence.

That's the whole point of qualified immunity. Cops are the ones willing to wade into the shit on a daily basis. They put their lives on the line, so they get the discretion to decide they are going to cuff you for the rest of the interaction if they feel unsafe.

It's shocking how little you understand about how this all works. QI gives them legal protection for things that are not well established at the time of the interaction. It gives them cover for interpreting a law in the grey. Pulling someone out without reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous is not a grey area, it was decided by the Supreme Court decades ago. Not using excessive force is per-se well established (meaning QI does not apply when using unreasonable and unjustified force, like say punching a handcuffed suspect). I'll gloss over your completely insane framing of officers as "putting their lives on the line" and "willing to wade into this shit" and just say, do yourself a favor and look up the Castle Rock case and Uvalde before trying to suck them off next time.

If they break the law, sue them. If policy is bad, lobby for change. People wrote the laws, people set the culture, people can change it. But just whining online that some sports guy you like wasn't treated as politely as you would have liked is like having a quick wank, it makes you feel good, but won't change anything.

I don't give a shit about sports ball or this guy in the slightest. I had never even heard his name until this news broke. This isn't about "not being polite enough". The driver was treated in an illegal manner by a power-tripping cop because he didn't act as nicely and apologetically as this officer thought he was entitled to. That officer can get fucked. And the fact that the police union stated their full support of him before the video even came out should tell you something.

What exactly would you suggest to make things better? This kind of talk online led to the largest protests in American history just a few years ago and after months that led to nothing. And you aren't here advocating for change, you've been defending the officer and presuming he is right about everything this whole conversation.

If you think you can do better, go apply for a job with the force, show us what the police could be. If you are going to let someone else do it so you don't have to take the risk and can sit safely at home whining about it. Sure you can get some attention, but you aren't going to be taken very seriously.

Oh yes, the classic "our job is so hard, why don't you try it". Got any more stereotypical cop defense lines you wanna throw out? Maybe a "he should have just complied" in there? No thanks, I have too much self-respect to be a pig. That being said, I don't have to be a quarterback to know when a footballer makes a bad play. I don't have to be a doctor to know not to listen to a quack. I don't have to be a cop to know a power-tripping tyrant when I see one.

your version of "pacifism" is completely meaningless, and that by your standards, you could still call yourself a pacifist while taking any side in any conflict.

Hey buddy, I'm not a pacifist. Never claimed to be one. I also never provided a personal definition of pacifism. You are the one who said that the encyclopedia of philosophy must be wrong in their definition because you don't like it. You are the one trying to condense a topic of much discussion for thousands of years into a black and white "for or against violence in all forms" kind of pacifism. If you don't like the definition, take it up with the people who wrote them and the people who have argued over the specifics for thousands of years. Once again, someone is not not a pacifist simply because you don't agree with their definition. Your definition of pacifism is identical to appeasement.

Your definition of pacifism is indeed meaningless, manipulative, and self-aggrandizing, intending to steal valor from the association with people who actually stand by their strongly held moral convictions against violence.

Lol. Yes, listening to the people who believe a thing and explaining how it's complicated to an outsider intent on painting it in black and white terms is totally stolen valor. Jesus Christ dude, get over yourself. You're not a vanguard. Just because you want appeasement in this conflict doesn't mean anyone else should give a shit about your opinions, especially considering that you didn't even know there was debate about this among pacifists until today. You don't get to define that term for them.

yOu KnOw YoUr PrEvIoUs CoMmEnTs ArE sTiLl ViSiBlE, rIgHt?" God you people can be insufferable. I stand by everything I said in my previous comments, none of which in any way contracts what I'm saying.

Ya, it's totally me that's been an insufferable cunt this whole conversation. Definitely. And you totally didn't say "I'm a communist" or "I look to Lenin" in your previous comments. Got it.

How on earth does being a communist and referencing Lenin have anything to do with the positions you invented for me?

Oh ya, it's totally a coincidence that you have been shilling for Russia this whole conversation, identified as a communist, referenced Lenin as an authority, and said Ukraine should "seek peace." Totally unrelated things that definitely have no connection whatsoever. You think I was born yesterday? You think this is the first time I've interacted with a tankie too chicken-shit to say their true opinions?

Look I'll show you what it looks like to have conviction in your opinions:

People like you are a plague on the movement to make a better world. Your insistence on providing support and cover for totalitarian ass-holes with red paint makes it impossible for anyone to take actual socialists and communists seriously. Your defense of genocide and war crimes shows the rest of the world that people like you don't actually want a better world, you want one where American doesn't exist, even if every civilian on earth had a worse quality of life. You make actual change impossible by pretending that you will one day have enough influence for "the revolution" while doing shit-all to actually make things better in the mean time. You reject democracy and anything that would help people now and are somehow delusional enough to think that if we let people get fucked over enough we will have our "revolution" in a way that totally wouldn't result in far worse outcomes for everyone. You are larping and it hurts the people who actually give a shit about making things better now on the road to making them even better later. You are the reason that our movement is forever chained around the neck to the failures of the past. Men who claimed to want to support the workers of the world while killing and disappearing anyone who got in the way of their personal pursuit of power.

Again, putting words in my mouth, inventing positions whole cloth based on nothing and assigning them to me. You sure like assigning things to people just so long as they don't happen to be phrased as labels, huh?

What the fuck did you mean by "Russia should seek peace" then? If they want peace they can fuck off! They don't need to seek anything, they need to get fucked. By painting both sides of this as equally needing to "seek peace" you are creating the image that they are morally equal. Combine that with your weak-ass attempt at what-abouting the Donbas shows me all I need to know.

Obviously not. I've stated my positions numerous times. I even offered to explain the theoretical influences behind my positions. This time, you're taking words out of my mouth lmao. I guess that's a nice change of pace.

No one cares about the "theoretical influences" of your opinions. You've been "just asking questions" while defending Russia and claiming Ukraine should stop defending itself. Constantly trying to act like both parties are equally wrong and both should just stop fighting the other. One party started this war by invading the other. One party has been documented kidnapping, raping, and killing civilians. One party has had to make mass graves. One party has been condemned by practically every other country for their abhorrent actions in this war, the other hasn't.

You seem to think that I don't understand that language is mutable and collectively defined.

You literally still don't get it. It's not that it can change and is collectively defined, it's that language is entirely defined by the meanings used by the specific members of the conversation. General uses and society at large have nothing to do with it.

What I also understand is that language can be used as a tool of manipulation.

Ahhh ok. So you think it's manipulative to use a word like pacifism if they don't use it the way you, a person who isn't a pacifist and has apparently never looked up the definition or works discussing it before, define it. Got it. Good to know your intuition about what a word means is the gold standard of what other people can do without being manipulative.

You literally made everything up whole cloth, and the positions you made up for me were obviously absurd and incoherent.

Oh, so you didn't say any of those things? You didn't say you were a communist? You didn't reference Lenin? Are you trying to say that you haven't been excusing Russia's actions (like talking about "Ukraine bombing civilians in the Donbas" ) and trying to argue against Ukraine's? You know your previous comments are still visible, right?

Are you saying you don’t support Russia?

No, they should seek peace.

That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders?

No, they should seek peace.

Of course not!

Incorrect.

I love that you think that using the same words would imply that you think they are on equal footing. They aren't. If Ukraine wants peace, they will continue to fight for peace. What you really mean is that they should capitulate so that Russia gets to keep the land they stole and rule over the citizens they haven't raped, kidnapped or killed yet. If Russia wants peace they can fuck off back to their own country. I love that you somehow think that both are equally wrong in a situation where one autocratic government invaded a democratic neighbor and continues to attempt to steal land and rape and murder civilians.

Just man-up and state your positions with gusto.

I have. The "secret positions" that I'm supposedly hiding are entirely your invention

Cool. So we're just going back to pretending that you've been commenting on this thread for hours because you really have no opinions whatsoever. You were just asking questions! Good to see you upholding the long-standing tradition of Nazi apologists and MLs alike of hiding your true positions because you're incapable of defending them!

As long as we both understand the definitions being used there is no issue here. Again, you seem to think that words have objective meaning and that uses outside of that are "wrong". That's not how words work. You can call yourself a noble prize winner in this conversation since I know what you mean, but might have a harder time once you try that with someone else who doesn't know your definition. Your argument isn't a gotcha just because you think it sounds ridiculous.

I haven't said anything about my positions on any topic. I'm not sure how you gathered what I support. I have called out your ridiculous attempt to define pacifism in a way that most self-identitfied pacifists don't, claim that others are using it wrong, claim that the definition from an authoritative source is wrong because you don't like it, and now collapsed into "I guess all words are meaningless then". It's not my problem that you don't understand how words work.

You said you are a communist, you talked about following Lenin, you have been doing everything you can to justify why Ukraine should not fight back against the aggressor in this conflict. I don't have a reach very far to find your actual opinions on things. If you think I'm wrong, you can correct me. I didn't assign any label to you or tell you what words you can or cannot use. I extrapolated from what you have given so far, which is a defense of everything Russia has done and a sideways condemnation of everything Ukraine has done. Add a splash of references to Lenin and complaints about America bad, what else do you think someone reading this thread is going to see?

Are you saying you don't support Russia? That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders? Of course not!

Just man-up and state your positions with gusto. Why do people in your camp always play the same "I'm just asking questions, I have no opinions" bullshit the right always plays? Just say it. Just say "America bad, Ukraine bad because America supports them, Russia good because America doesn't like them."

Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you don't understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You don't get to tell them it's wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.

I don't give a shit at all about your understanding of Communism other than as an example about how rude and condescending it is to tell other people that they are using words wrong. While I don't think you are an actual communist by my definition, you are free to use the word to describe yourself based on your definition.

How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you can't see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I can't help you. Maybe get your eyes checked. If you can't tell the difference between troops crossing into another country in order to bomb civilians and take control of land and troops fighting them back to regain land and save the civilians from the invaders I can't help you. It's not my fault that you are incapable of seeing the very obvious harm caused by Russia's invasions.

As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You aren't one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. "Ukraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves." That's all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say "Ukraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America bad"?

You're implying here that he failed to comply with lawful orders, which ones exactly did he fail to comply with? As I outlined before he was ordered to not roll his window back up again and he did not (even if he had, that alone is not a lawful order as no case law or Florida law allows an officer to order someone to roll it all the way down and keep it down for the duration of the stop). He was ordered out of the car (a lawful order as outlined by case law if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he is armed and dangerous. The officer makes no claim to the driver being armed and dangerous, much less having reasonable suspicion of such. This was not an armed robbery stop) and within 7 seconds was dragged out of the car. The driver never said no and was not given time to comply. While you must exit when ordered (again, if the officer has what he needs to make that order lawful), it is not reasonable to drag someone out after only 7 seconds.

If he had failed to follow lawful orders, why didn't they charge him with that?

Having distain or reluctance are not illegal acts and are not grounds for reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and dangerous. While a person intent on hurting officers would likely have distain, they would be more likely to act cool and calm until they pull out their gun as to keep the officer from sensing a threat and reacting to it. There are also far more people who have distain for officers and do not which them harm. It is not objectively reasonable for an officer to believe that every person who does not show them sufficient deference is a safety concern, especially not a sufficient concern to justify physical violence against them.

If he had wanted to, why wouldn't he have already done it? Why didn't he pull out a gun (there is no indication by him or the officers that a gun was involved)? Why wouldn't he have tried harming them as they pulled him out? Again, your what-ifs are not relevant to a discussion about the reasonableness of the officer's actions. An officer doesn't get to do whatever he feels like as long as he can imagine a possible harm.

Take a look at all of the officer's actions and attempt to see them from a reasonable person's perspective. He pulled over a guy for speeding, not armed robbery. He got upset only after the driver rolled the window up as he was walking away. He gave the driver only 7 seconds to respond before using physical violence. He punched the driver while he was handcuffed. He lied about a 25ft law and then expanded it beyond what the made-up law would allow. After 18 minutes of having him in handcuffs, he only started to write the citations, the whole reason for the stop, when a supervisor asked him if they were already done. Officers can only hold a personal as long as it would reasonably take to accomplish the goal of the stop, in this case to write the tickets. Every step of the way, the officer acting unreasonably. I don't care if you can imagine a different scenario where he might have been justified. In this case he was not.

You're arguing that we should defer to the officers because of a million imaginary what-ifs. That's not how this works.

If a person uses a term you don't think fits them you should ask them about their definition of it. It's not up to you to decide what labels people are allowed to apply to themselves. At best your complaint is about people not using a word "correctly" even though that's not how words work.

For example, you call yourself a Communist but appear to be supporting the government of Russia in their actions by attempting to discourage Ukraine from defending itself and its citizens. Communism is anti-state by definition, do I get to tell you you're not an actual communist? Or would it be better for me to ask you about your definition and get to understand the nuances of your position?

Do the people drafted to go across a border and bomb civilians and the people drafted to stay in their country and defend it against an opposing army have the same morality behind it? Can you understand how one of those actions might be more justified than the other? How one of them could be violence in the hope of future peace for others vs violence in hope of gaining more land and more bodies for the meat-grinder?

If your county was invaded by what you see as a great evil because of their actions against civilians (I'm just going to assume the US would fit that from your perspective) would you say it was immoral to fight back in the hopes of lowering civilian deaths and injustice after the land is taken?

Oh definitely, and the way we get that change is by instinctively supporting the officer's decisions because of a thousand imagined what-ifs. Of course that officer had to shoot Sonya Massey because she might have thrown the water at them while cowering with her hands up. She might have had a wmd under her night dress! /s

Here's a good breakdown of the discussions over the past 100 years including different types of pacifism. Only absolute pacifism argues for no self defense and no defense of others. There is also this that argues specifically that pacifism doesn't always mean a lack of self defense.

As you note in the next section, the 100 years was only in reference to the time since pacifism as a term was coined and I continued to talk about religious groups that have had similar options for thousands of years.

The Jains are only one example. You should probably talk to some Jains as there is much discussion in that community about this. Not all Jains believe the way you think they do. See here as a start.

If you're not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.

Since you're not, I take it you agree with what Ukraine is doing then. Good to know we are on the same page.

Police don't get to act on every imaginable what-if, they must act reasonably based on the specifics of the case in front of them. Watch the video again and pay attention to the time in the body cams.

The officer knocks on the window and the driver rolls it down and hands him his paperwork while complaining about the knocking. As the officer goes to walk away the driver rolls the window back up. The officer tells him to roll it back down, the driver opens it some. The officer tells him not to roll it up again or he would be taken out of the car. Within 7 seconds the officer changed his mind, ordered him out, and then dragged him out.

Important notes here. 1) not rolling the window all the way down or rolling it back up while the officer walks away are not illegal acts. There is no case law saying you must roll it all the way down and leave it down. 2) while it's down the officer could see inside and did not note any obvious safety concerns. 3) he wanted the window down while he was walking away and couldn't see inside anyway. 4) the driver never refused exiting the car and was not given a reasonable amount of time to comply. He said something like "just a moment" when asked once and was dragged out within 7 seconds. 5) the officers don't later say that they had a safety concern, they say "when we tell you to do something you have to do it" in reference to the window, which again is not an order backed up by case law unlike the order to exit which again was not refused and not given reasonable time for the driver to comply.

You could always imagine a what-if that lets the cops off, but that's not the way the courts do or the public should view these cases. The primary officer was unreasonable at almost every point. Later in the video he points to a 25ft law that isn't in effect yet and then says that he has suddenly changed it to 50ft. He was on a power trip because the driver didn't immediately show him proper deference.

Then your definition of pacifism is inherently flawed. You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers (and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have "do no harm" as a tenant) into a single "pacifism is when you never fight back or fight to protect others". Only one type of pacifism defines itself that way.

Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?

You also have a right to collect Nazi memorabilia if you want, doesn't mean I'm not going to call you weird.

Do you think there might be anything different between collecting swords and collecting guns? Do you think most people who live in urban environments have a need for a semi-auto military style, magazine-fed rifle? What about multiple of them? What about machine guns?