@ArjinFerman's banner p

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 626

ArjinFerman

Tinfoil Gigachad

2 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:31:45 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 626

Verified Email

You can conduct yourself in war the way Russians do in Ukraine, or the way Israelis did in Gaza (not to mention, heavens forbid, Americans in WWII). Existential war is no excuse for savagery.

What do you mean "do we actually know that"? She's dead, so I doubt they'll be pressing any charges, and I can't read minds over video, so I don't know what was going through their head when they decided to arrest her.

You asked what federal offense was she committing, and I gave you a link to a specific law that the situation seems to fall under under. Do you disagree? If not, how the hell was that an insufficient answer?

But I'm pointing out that they seem to be deliberately exploiting the right to self defense by putting themselves in danger in order to be allowed to defend themselves.

That seems like assuming the conclusion to me. It was a chaotic situation, and I doubt Agent Chud was scheming to manipulate people into suicide-by-cop. If you want to make that argument, you'll have to point what, specifically, implies this was all deliberate.

The hostility of the IRS is quite a thing to behold. Way back when, when I was still on Reddit, I ran into a thread where someone asked for advice on what to do with some income they, or someone in their family didn't declare. In my naivete I asked why don't they just come clean, and got told ny someone else this could land them in prison. Now I don't know if this was just Redditors spreading Redditisms, but I was rather surprised. This actually works in Europe! If you actively confess before they catch you, they don't even charge interest.

Integrating Substack felt too tedious so I opted for something more fun, which was hooking to https://gptproto.com/ to and have it describe and transcribe all bookmarked images. I think I'll focus on some neglected UI stuff like search and pagination.

How have you been doing @Southkraut? You've been reporting good progress the last couple of week, any cool screenshots to share?

Sure! For example a long time ago I heard of a case where the police was executing an arrest warrant, but got the wrong address. The owner thought he's being burgled and opened fire, and luckily for him, he managed to survive the whole ordeal that resulted from that. He got taken to court, where it was indeed determined that he was justified in shooting.

I mean, it's not great, but have you seen any top-level "DAE the outgroup are evil hypocrites?"

To start with, does an analogous top-level post come to your mind?

If "OP has to know this offends the local circlejerk, so he must be consciously baiting"

If it's just about offending the local circlejerk, why did you call it "not great"?

(...and either way, the Gabbard thing seems rather interesting and was new to me, so I don't think you can argue this is just bait.)

I dunno, it's kinda hard to have a discussion based on the post. Best I could do is something like "this kinda reminds me of..." the way functor did, which is essentially completely separate from the top-level post.

This is reminiscent of the Obama era.

Obama campaigned on a paradigm shift from Bush and the forever wars in the middle east.

And, for that matter, of the Bush era, as Bush himself campaigned on a humble foreign policy, and no nation building, to contrast himself from Clinton.

You're going to keep posting stuff like this at the top level, and when you finally get another mod warning, you're going to act like you're being targeted for your political views, aren't you?

First, the car is both the weapon and the means of transportation. The chef could easily drop the knife and then charge the police officer which, while they definitely should not do, would not be deadly force and not deserve death, even if it does deserve harsh punishment.

The car being the means of transportation is irrelevant. Like I said in the other post, there is no right to escape from cops, so she's not entitled to use the most efficient means of escape possible. From there it follows she could just get out of the car and make a run for it, the same way the chef could drop the knife. So choosing to escape by means of driving at an agent is roughly equivalent to charging at them with a knife

and not deserve death

This is a completely dishonest framing. Nothing short of an execution-style shooting implies that a death is "deserved".

Second, the police officer has a legitimate means of stopping the chef by physically blocking the door. Because people can stop people, but people cannot stop vehicles.

I can agree that detaining a suspect by standing in front of a car might be a bad idea, but I don't see how it nullifies the suspect's free will, or the agent's right to self-defense.

When Moloch has already sunk his teeth deep into the former norm, when the line is being trampled every day by millions of people, the calculus is completely different.

I don't know about that. Immigration under Biden was out of control, people here were saying even Trump won't be able to do much about it, but his policies fixed it practically overnight. The teeth might still be sunk deep, but you at least don't have millions more trampling the line each day.

It seems very hard for me to picture how a given illegal immigrant, individually, is doing any kind of "harm" to anyone at all.

Which just shows the folly of analyzing harm exclusively on an individual level. If a counterfeiter prints $1000 per month in fake money, his individual impact on the economy will be basically nil. If the government decided that throwing their ass in prison would cause more harm than he's causing the US economy, and as a result every American resident starts printing their own $1000 every month, this would result in total economic chaos. Many laws serve to guide collective, rather than individual, action towards a more beneficial trajectory, and I don't see a reason to suddenly stop and carve out an exception for immigration.

yes, the person the cops were trying to arrest chose to try to flee with a motor vehicle (resp. with the wire/handcuffs), but the cops previously chose to position themselves in the way of the car such that fleeing would entail driving the car at them, resp. chose to attach the wire.

Like I said, this is not a valid analogy. The reason they'd be wrong in the "attaching the wire" scenario is because they had the chance to restrain the suspect and chose to forgo it in favor of putting themselves in danger, not because they put themselves in harm's way in an attempt to restrain them. The latter is a completely normal part of police work. If it was somehow wrong, the police wouldn't be allowed to attempt to restrain any armed suspect.

If you barge into a restaurant kitchen and the chef is holding a knife and you dive underneath him, he is not threatening you with the knife. You threatened yourself

That would be a great argument, if she was just driving her car, minding her own business, they jumped out in front of her, and shot her. When the car is stopped, and she's surrounded by cops trying to detain her, the correct analogy is the police busting into a kitchen because the Chef is a suspect, and him charging at the only exit, which is blocked by an armed police officer, while holding a knife.

I think you’re conflating “made a bad choice” with “escalating.” She didn’t make the options life or death,

The officer didn't. Just standing in front of a stopped car is not a life and death situation, even civillians are allowed to do it, and any driver charging at one, would be found guilty of some sort of a crime. She's the one who made it a lot closer to life and death, which is why she was the one escalating.

I made no mention of a right to escape.

I'm saying the only way your argument makes sense is if there was such a right.

I’m just observing that it’s silly to unnecessarily make an escape attempt put your life at risk then hide behind fear for your life when an easy to anticipate behavior occurs.

By that logic arresting any armed suspect would be "silly" because you'd be putting yourself in the same situation when someone has a gun, and you want detain them.

...people pretty obviously have a right to not be shot by police unless they've in some sense 'deserved it' or some other interest is served to ameliorate a certain rate of accidents. A "right to life" ring a bell?

You're the one that said "I think framing it purely as 'X right exists [and trumps everything]' and leaving it at that is not a helpful framing, because especially when talking about law enforcement various "rights" come into conflict with each other all the time", so right off thr bat you've originally argued against your case, which was my point.

My case rests on a specific right (one to escape), NOT existing. If the suspect does not escape, by means of charging at an officer with a deadly weapon, at no point is their life in danger, so framing the discussion as a "right to life" id completely absurd.

If a right like that existing wouldn't make the argument clear cut, doesn't make that my case, which depends on such a right not existing, even stronger?

The "non-central fallacy" is a pretty dubious construct to start with, but in any case: no it's not. You can apply the same reasoning to the convoluted contraption from his scenario: handcuffs are not a deadly weapon, and neither is a wire, but they become one when the wire is wrapped around your neck. A car, by itself, is not a deadly weapon, but a car driving at someone is. There's a reason why they became so popular with Muslim terrorists.

The police always travel in pairs, and instead of normal handcuffs they carry one cuff with a long thin wire dangling off them. When a police officer cuffs someone it doesn't directly restrain them in any way, but the police officer ties the wire around their own neck.

Uh... sure, if the officer had the perfect opportunity to restrain a suspect, but instead chose to arm them with a deadly weapon, the use of which completely depends on the officer willingly exposing himself to it through a series of convoluted steps, I'd say any pretense of feeling threatened is illegitimate.

I fail to see how this is a useful analogy for a case where the suspect is already in possession of a deadly weapon, prior to restraint.

Also imagine if the roles were reversed. If instead a normal guy was trying to get away from some anti-ICE protestors and got gotten, I'm sure the enemy would be all over it calling the driver an evil nazi and whatever.

We already had that. In Charlottesville.

I'll take a wild guess and say it's random chance, and the mean of the population has the highest chance of manifesting in the individual.

There is no "right to escape from cops", and if she doesn't escape, she won't be putting anyone's life in danger, so she's the one escalating.

Part of the bargain we make with the state is that the violence is structured, measured, constrained, fair, etc. right?

Which means you shouldn't be roughed up for shits and giggles, not that the cops should let you run away or attack them.

Presumably he stands in front of the car to make it less likely she’ll drive away, but the stakes are now higher than they probably needed to be, right?

No, why?