Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LoudmouthMormon

Any Violence in Your Neck of the Woods?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

If I were to post some of Pres. Young's more inflammatory sermon quotes, you'd be shocked -- hanging federal officials and the president.

Oh my!

I'm so glad you didn't say that! 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

A close study of the sermons of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith shows that they despised or distrusted the federal government and the constitution.  Sure, Joseph Smith said things about the constitution being inspired, as does the D&C, but his view of the constitution was that it was deeply flawed and needed changing.  His constitutional views can be seen from his presidential platform where he advocated, among other things, abolition. Brigham Young's views were more fiery in denunciation. 

When you think about the worldwide church and what it teaches today, one must wonder what Mexicans think when right wing Mormons go on and on about their constitution and their right to bear arms and kill people with those arms.  Or Canadians. 

You don't seem to be denying it.  Ok.

You're ignoring the question of "how are freedom and rights [including the right to bear arms] maintained without constitutional protections?"

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, pogi said:

You don't seem to be denying it.  Ok.

You're ignoring the question of "how are freedom and rights [including the right to bear arms] maintained without constitutional protections?"

You operate from the flawed right-wing position that legislation is necessary to entrench power and keep down the riff-raff.  I operate from the presumption that freedom, and the right to establish one's religion freely and adhere to the tenets of that religion without compulsion, is the optimal result.  To the extent police powers are necessary to reduce crime, we delegate that task to the police, not to a dad who fails to lock up his handguns.  In any event, I think that legislation favoring handgun manufacturers but not numchuck makers is senseless.

Edited by Bob Crockett
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You operate from the flawed right-wing position that legislation is necessary to entrench power and keep down the riff-raff.  

Actually, I am talking about entrenching rights and freedoms. 

20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I operate from the presumption that freedom, and the right to establish one's religion freely and adhere to the tenets of that religion without compulsion, is the optimal result. 

That is the optimal result , agree.  Remove such protections and it is a bit of a naive presumption however.  What makes you think that the government is going to honor your right to bear arms based on the "presumption" alone that they should?

20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

To the extent police powers are necessary to reduce crime, we delegate that task to the police, not to a dad who fails to lock up his handguns.

I am confused, are you for or against the right to bear arms?  I thought it was you who said this: 

Quote

We can be a free people bearing arms without special protections like this.  

See, I thought you were for the right to bear arms, but just against the protections for that right, which didn't make much sense to me.  But now I am even more confused as to where you stand. 

  •  

 

 

  •  
Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Yes, we need some dangerous products. But I cannot understand why a handgun maker is exempt from most tort laws while the maker of a plastic fake knife is not. 

It probably has something to do with the fact that there aren't very many people who want to eliminate plastic knife ownership and who are willing to use tort law to try and hold plastic knife manufacturers liable for the criminal use of a properly functioning product. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Huh?

Is that a "thing"?  Never heard of Boogaloo boys

Here's the local article about the protest and the presence of the Boogaloos.

https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/2020/06/02/hundreds-gather-peaceful-vigil-las-cruces-honor-george-floyd/5314449002/

Scroll down a bit and you'll find the section on them. Here's a picture from the article:

ab73b613-9dae-4af1-a4f6-40937b9f54fc-Pro

From wikipedia:

Quote

The boogaloo movement is a loosely organized American far-right anti-government extremist movement. Adherents of the movement are often referred to as boogaloo boys or boogaloo bois.[3][4][5][6] The movement has also been described as a militia.[7][8][9]

Participants often identify themselves as "libertarian"[10][11][12] and say they are preparing for, or seek to incite, a second American Civil War which they call the "boogaloo".[13][14] The term boogaloo has been used on the fringe imageboardwebsite 4chan since 2012, but did not come to widespread attention until late 2019.[1] Adherents use the term boogaloo, including variations so as to avoid social media crackdowns, to refer to violent uprisings against the federal government or left-wing political opponents, often anticipated to follow government confiscation of firearms.[1][15][16]

The movement consists of pro-gun, anti-government groups.[1][7] The specific ideology of each group varies, and views on topics such as race differ widely. Some are white supremacist or neo-Nazi groups who believe that the impending unrest will be a race war; however, other groups condemn racism and white supremacy.[note 1] The boogaloo movement primarily organizes online and participants have appeared at in-person events including the 2020 United States anti-lockdown protests and the May–July 2020 George Floyd protests. Heavily armed, they are often identified by their attire of Hawaiian shirts and military fatigues.[1][12][17][18]

 

Edited by MiserereNobis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Such idiocy.  How far could these loons lug their treasures up a flight of stairs?   One flight?

Apropos of nothing, this article points out how abortion is a race war against people of color.  When the Republicans should have been advancing a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v Wade they were fighting the battle for guns. and against flag burning and kneeling at NFL games.

The time has come to find peace in the teachings of Jesus Christ and persuade others to believe, rather than advance the interests of Satan.  Again apropos of nothing, I've found lots of peace in reading Wayment's translation of the NT; great for times like these. 

Edited by Bob Crockett
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Such idiocy.  How far could these loons lug their treasures up a flight of stairs?   One flight?

Apropos of nothing, this article points out how abortion is a race war against people of color.  When the Republicans should have been advancing a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v Wade they were fighting the battle for guns. and against flag burning and kneeling at NFL games.

The time has come to find peace in the teachings of Jesus Christ and persuade others to believe, rather than advance the interests of Satan.

I had a mission companion who was, still? a member of a militia group. He used to post these kinds of photos on facebook, he believed he and his 30 out of shape friends were the solo hope of the US, everyone was infiltrated or something. He would post these poorly worded manifesto's to ISIS and some other groups, telling them to beware of him and friends. He even mentioned once or twice storming the White House to physically remove Obama-and that is when I removed him from facebook, the last last thing I need is the RCMP kicking down my door at 330am asking me about this guy, so I want to avoid all that. I always thought it was the height of arrogance for him to assume that ISIS or whoever is even reading his facebook posts, or even read Missouri english? like, I think we are done here buddy!🙄

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I had a mission companion who was, still? a member of a militia group. He used to post these kinds of photos on facebook, he believed he and his 30 out of shape friends were the solo hope of the US, everyone was infiltrated or something. He would post these poorly worded manifesto's to ISIS and some other groups, telling them to beware of him and friends. He even mentioned once or twice storming the White House to physically remove Obama-and that is when I removed him from facebook, the last last thing I need is the RCMP kicking down my door at 330am asking me about this guy, so I want to avoid all that. I always thought it was the height of arrogance for him to assume that ISIS or whoever is even reading his facebook posts, or even read Missouri english? like, I think we are done here buddy!🙄

Hah hah.  So funny.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

What borders on stupidity?  Mexico and Canada.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, longview said:

You call police standing down and stepping back brutality?  What a strange perspective you have!  I am sure you knew ACORN holdovers currently manifested as Antifa and extreme marxist members of BLM are the ones conducting terrorist operations.

I would posit that I have watched more footage of the protests than you have. Probably by at least a factor of ten if not a hundred times more. If you think police standing down and stepping back was the general stance of the police in the protests you are just downright ignorant. I am 

This is some of what I am calling brutality (warning for violence, profanity, gore/blood, and for possibly being triggering or depressing):

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Here's the local article about the protest and the presence of the Boogaloos.

https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/2020/06/02/hundreds-gather-peaceful-vigil-las-cruces-honor-george-floyd/5314449002/

Scroll down a bit and you'll find the section on them. Here's a picture from the article:

ab73b613-9dae-4af1-a4f6-40937b9f54fc-Pro

From wikipedia:

 

The boogaloos usually are opposed to both the government and the protesters and are putatively there to escalate things. The Proud Boys/militias are generally extreme right wingers who back law enforcement, at least sort of. They usually come from the prepper crowd who do not trust government generally but sort of trust the current administration and dislike the protesters a lot more. Proud boys (or whatever you want to call them) get some aid and collaborate some with the police. There is a recording of police warning them to get off the street when the police are about to escalate to tear gas. I couldn't find the video just now but if anyone is really interested I can try to hunt it down. The look on the cop's face when he realized a protester was recording the warning is pretty priceless.

They have also done some pretty disgusting things:

Virtually every one of those people imitating the murder were doxxed and at least two lost their jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I had a mission companion who was, still? a member of a militia group. He used to post these kinds of photos on facebook, he believed he and his 30 out of shape friends were the solo hope of the US, everyone was infiltrated or something. He would post these poorly worded manifesto's to ISIS and some other groups, telling them to beware of him and friends. He even mentioned once or twice storming the White House to physically remove Obama-and that is when I removed him from facebook, the last last thing I need is the RCMP kicking down my door at 330am asking me about this guy, so I want to avoid all that. I always thought it was the height of arrogance for him to assume that ISIS or whoever is even reading his facebook posts, or even read Missouri english? like, I think we are done here buddy!🙄

What was fun was having people in the military critique these guys when they showed up. Many look like they are a walking military surplus store and most have no clue what they are doing. Their gear is all out of place and would be hard to use due to positioning and many carry stuff they could never need. The concern is also that their trigger discipline is equally lackluster. Watching them on video it was jarring how often their weapons ended up pointing at their buddy's knee or whatever. Many desperately need some training on basic firearms safety.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I've noticed one thing about these photos.  You must be wearing a seed company's hat on backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What was fun was having people in the military critique these guys when they showed up. Many look like they are a walking military surplus store and most have no clue what they are doing. Their gear is all out of place and would be hard to use due to positioning and many carry stuff they could never need. The concern is also that their trigger discipline is equally lackluster. Watching them on video it was jarring how often their weapons ended up pointing at their buddy's knee or whatever. Many desperately need some training on basic firearms safety.

they are wannbe GI Joe's, it's cosplay for adults, skip the convention fee!

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would posit that I have watched more footage of the protests than you have. Probably by at least a factor of ten if not a hundred times more. If you think police standing down and stepping back was the general stance of the police in the protests you are just downright ignorant. I am 

This is some of what I am calling brutality (warning for violence, profanity, gore/blood, and for possibly being triggering or depressing):

 

 

Most of this does not show the full context of the situations. 

If the Police tell/command a rioting mob to disperse and members of the mob continue to just stand there while ignoring or insulting them, the Police may use force to try to get the rioting mob to disperse.

The rioting mobs should not be surprised by this, because when it comes down to a battle of wills, the Police will win.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would posit that I have watched more footage of the protests than you have. Probably by at least a factor of ten if not a hundred times more.

I'm certainly no apologist for police brutality or other police misconduct, nor am I an apologist for paramilitary or "wannabe" foolishness.  That said, often, you often "posit" a lot of things about your alleged/proclaimed moral, intellectual, and other forms of superiority to others that are only so in your own mind.  Here is your basic modus operandi: (1) proclaim your own moral, intellectual, or other superiority as though it were an established fact; (2) proclaim, by virtue of (1), victory over your interlocutors; and (3) move on.

I don't know about anybody else, but, personally, I'm never impressed when you do that, Anonymous Internet Entity.  (I suppose I simply lack the intelligence to know when I should genuflect reverentially to my intellectual superiors, Alas!) <_< :rolleyes:

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Most of this does not show the full context of the situations. 

If the Police tell/command a rioting mob to disperse and members of the mob continue to just stand there while ignoring or insulting them, the Police may use force to try to get the rioting mob to disperse.

The rioting mobs should not be surprised by this, because when it comes down to a battle of wills, the Police will win.

Of course it doesn't show the complete context. If it did the video would be two hours long. I have seen the context of some (though not all) of those incidents. I did not find the context compelling to place the actions in a better light. Well, except for one of them. I still think it was a police overreaction but it made it more understandable but not justifiable.

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm certainly no apologist for police brutality or other police misconduct.  That said, often, you often "posit" a lot of things about your alleged/proclaimed moral, intellectual, and other forms of superiority to others that are only so in your own mind.  Here is your basic modus operandi: (1) proclaim your own moral, intellectual, or other superiority as though it were an established fact; (2) proclaim, by virtue of (1), victory over your interlocutors; and (3) move on.

I don't know about anybody else, but, personally, I'm never impressed when you do that, Anonymous Internet Entity.  (I suppose I simply lack the intelligence to know when I should genuflect reverentially to my intellectual superiors, Alas!) <_< :rolleyes:

I posited that I watched more footage because in the early days I was watching hours of footage almost every night for weeks (often staying up until 4 am) and did some minor work on getting the word out to people in support as I mentioned in another thread. It is not sure how it is a moral or intellectual act of prowess to stay up that late watching videos and going to work on less than four hours of sleep. Some could even argue that it was proof of my stupidity or at least poor judgement (the latter is from a friend of mine in my bishopric who saw my exhaustion). It does mean that I have probably conservatively watched a hundred times more footage than the average American who got a few videos on the news and maybe watched a few minutes of videos from a news site or a Facebook feed so I would argue I have a wider context in which to view the incidents and whether they were exceptional or normal. Maybe I am wrong and someone else here has watched that much livestream footage. Hence why I only "posited" that this was the case.

To those who have doubts about my read of the situation and want to investigate go do some deep dives. Most of those hours of video are still out there. If you just want to dismiss the events with a wave of the hand that there could have been something else going on it is clear this person does not care that much so yeah, I will declare victory and move on. Why debate someone whose counterargument is that they are ignorant of the details? What is there to discuss?

You may not be impressed but based on your responses you seem very emotionally invested in responding to this Anonymous Internet Entity's comments. I am flattered by your interest. :vader:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm certainly no apologist for police brutality or other police misconduct, nor am I an apologist for paramilitary or "wannabe" foolishness.  That said, often, you often "posit" a lot of things about your alleged/proclaimed moral, intellectual, and other forms of superiority to others that are only so in your own mind.  Here is your basic modus operandi: (1) proclaim your own moral, intellectual, or other superiority as though it were an established fact; (2) proclaim, by virtue of (1), victory over your interlocutors; and (3) move on.

I don't know about anybody else, but, personally, I'm never impressed when you do that, Anonymous Internet Entity.  (I suppose I simply lack the intelligence to know when I should genuflect reverentially to my intellectual superiors, Alas!) <_< :rolleyes:

To be fair, that is only one of his modes of operating amongst us here.  He does have other modes of operation, but I think it is one of his favorites.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Of course it doesn't show the complete context. If it did the video would be two hours long. I have seen the context of some (though not all) of those incidents. I did not find the context compelling to place the actions in a better light. Well, except for one of them. I still think it was a police overreaction but it made it more understandable but not justifiable.

I've noticed that many people think some Police actions are overreactions, and I often wonder why they think that way.  Police are legally authorized to use force to control situations, so how does one determine when too much force is used?

When someone dies from something stupid, like George Floyd did, sure, I can see how that was an example of too much force being used by a Police officer, even if it was only because it was used for too long a time.

Other times, though, I am not so sure if it was too much force.  Someone being pushed back or down to the ground may not have been too much force in those situations. I think some people just don't like to see any force being used.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, pogi said:

You don't seem to be denying it.  Ok.

You're ignoring the question of "how are freedom and rights [including the right to bear arms] maintained without constitutional protections?"

At the outset, I wish to make it absolutely plain that I support the Bill of Rights and all of the freedoms contained therein.  Again, I support the Bill of Rights and all of the freedoms contained therein.  And once again, just in case anyone missed it the first two times, I support the Bill of Rights and all of the freedoms contained therein.  That said ...

The argument of proponents of the Bill of Rights was, basically, that government would fill in whatever void the Constitution might leave with respect to individual rights, and that's why it was so important that such rights be enumerated.  On the other hand, one of the arguments made against the Bill of Rights during debates over ratification of the Constitution is that rights are not, and, indeed, cannot be, bestowed by the government.  Rights are innate; they are inherent; I have rights not because government enumerated them on paper, but, rather, simply because God gave them to me in the very nature of my existence.  As soon as a supposed "right" is reduced to ink and paper, it is the very nature of men and of the governments they administer to try to test the contours of that right (and, thereby, potentially, to try to infringe it), by asking, "Okay, so you have this 'right'; fair enough.  Nevertheless, that means that, still, the government can do a-sub-one through z-sub-infinity vis-a-vis this 'right' ..."

From a historical perspective, any "bill of rights" promulgated in England only came into being because the king agreed to cede some of his power, whether to the House of Lords, to the House of Commons, or whatever the entity may have been.  In America, a "Bill of Rights" was unnecessary because ultimate power rested, not in a king by divine right, but, rather, in the people themselves.  Since the people have ultimate power anyway, the people cannot "cede" power to themselves. ;)

I understand and agree ... with both arguments, actually.  For whatever that's worth.

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Most of this does not show the full context of the situations. 

If the Police tell/command a rioting mob to disperse and members of the mob continue to just stand there while ignoring or insulting them, the Police may use force to try to get the rioting mob to disperse.

The rioting mobs should not be surprised by this, because when it comes down to a battle of wills, the Police will win.

When I saw this happen, my first thought was not violence by the police, but a misjudgment on how feeble an old man is. I was recently very ill, lost about 80 lbs. and was a bag of bones walking about...when I could walk. To lose my balance was too easy. If someone just barely bumped me I could go flying and was incapable of regaining my balance. 

The fellow in the picture was certainly not aggressively pushed, but he fell like a bag of old bones. There was error on behalf of the police in not immediately responding to his condition, but it was not violence on their part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

When I saw this happen, my first thought was not violence by the police, but a misjudgment on how feeble an old man is. I was recently very ill, lost about 80 lbs. and was a bag of bones walking about...when I could walk. To lose my balance was too easy. If someone just barely bumped me I could go flying and was incapable of regaining my balance. 

The fellow in the picture was certainly not aggressively pushed, but he fell like a bag of old bones. There was error on behalf of the police in not immediately responding to his condition, but it was not violence on their part. 

The video shows one of the officers calling for a bus, as they call it (what I call an ambulance), which was I think the best way to respond to it at that point.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Ahab said:

The video shows one of the officers calling for a bus, as they call it (an ambulance), which was I think the best way to respond to it at that point.

If I recall correctly, one officer immediately attempted to go to his aid and another officer held him back. I did not understand that action.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I've noticed that many people think some Police actions are overreactions, and I often wonder why they think that way.  Police are legally authorized to use force to control situations, so how does one determine when too much force is used?

When someone dies from something stupid, like George Floyd did, sure, I can see how that was an example of too much force being used by a Police officer, even if it was only because it was used for too long a time.

Other times, though, I am not so sure if it was too much force.  Someone being pushed back or down to the ground may not have been too much force in those situations. I think some people just don't like to see any force being used.

If your taillight is out and the police shoot you would you consider that too much force or would you reason since they can use force it is up in the air whether stopping you and giving you a warning or citation is basically just coercive force and so is shooting you so what is the difference? Police willing to use any degree of force as long as it stops the undesired behavior is the hallmark of authoritarian regimes.

What was the stupid thing that George Floyd did exactly? Allegedly passing a counterfeit bill? All they had was that he resembled a description of someone passing a fake 20. Even if it was him it is not evidence that he is counterfeiter. He could have been given the fake by someone else. The idea that he resisted arrest was shot down by witness accounts and later by surveillance video footage. He was murdered. Where did George Floyd do something stupid that contributed to that event happening?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...