Scott Atlas 
The bad (typically gun related) things happening in America thread
- Thread starter calodo2003
- Start date
The replies ffs. The USA is beyond repair. It really is fecked.
Yup, this is real. It's not satire, not a joke, not a parody account. It's absofeckinglutely real.
I've said it twice in 24 hours now, but seriousl,y, we as a species are absolutely fecked. There really is no fecking hope for us at all.
Christ...
3-year-old shot and injured 2 people in Indiana, including man wanted for murder, police say
Armed toddlers are fairly effective at law enforcement, apparently.
Armed toddlers are fairly effective at law enforcement, apparently.
I'll wait for more information to come out on this one. It's become politicised so highly likely to have a lot of misinformation around it.
No doubt, but any lawyer defending him wouldn't want him to go to the likes of NY Post & giving interviews.
More information? There’s literally video. Find a single clip show the guy doing something worthy of death.
I'm not going down this rabbit hole again. If you want to virtue signal as if 'bad outcome = crime' go for it. The law relies on the mental state of the accused and we'll need an actual trial to determine that.
Virtue signal? Bad outcome? He choked another man to death. It’s on video. What possible information could come to light that would justify the “bad outcome”?
If the accused was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, or the same for others, for example.
It's not a question of deserved to die and it's a manipulation or some sort of so called righteousness to try and reframe things to make it about good or bad, deserved or not, rather than reasonable or not. You can be completely mistaken in a reasonable belief and it's not a crime.
There will be many witnesses that will provide more context to the video and provide their own present sense impression of the events that video doesn't necessarily capture,and will be able to say what happened before etc.
The talk is that a lot of people on that subway were genuinely scared for their safety from the decedent but what is said at trial that matters
You literally used the phrase "bad outcome", which is why I repeated it back.
Will he get off legal repercussions? Probably, after all, he is a white ex-marine while the victim was a homeless black man. Flip the roles and there is 100% certainty dude would be in prison. Did he have a weapon? No. Was he violently attacking people in a manner that presented an immediate danger? Doesn't sound like it. Besides, even if 1 and 2 were true, it is not a justification for choking the life from him.
This notion that "fear" for one's safety, not ACTUAL and unavoidable danger, is a justification for violence, up to and including death, is an abomination. It is the same bullshit we hear every time a cop guns down yet another unarmed civilian, or when a white supremacist drives to another state and guns down people, or when a driver plows into protesters and then shoot one of them, and on and on. But sure, let's wait and see if the guy who is being lauded as a hero by the entire right wing media is served any justice.
And you question why I say you are virtue signalling. Have fun with it.
I pity you. To have so little empathy and compassion is sad and not a way one should live.
I have plenty of empathy. It's just not contingent on ideology or identity, and I strongly believe in innocence until proven guilty, and being truthful when evidence points against the concensus.
You are just being blinkered if you can't see how a reasonable jury could go either way depending on what additional information is presented at court. Easily done in these politicised cases, but it is what it is.
I do not base my concept of right and wrong on what a jury decides. In no world should the death of another human be viewed as justified unless that person was exhibiting an actual immediate and unavoidable physical threat that could only be negated by killing them. There are no circumstances being suggested that would come close to satisfying that criteria. This has nothing to do with ideology or politics. I would feel the same if it was a hate spewing neo-nazi, a 90 year old nun, or a child.
So if it's proven he and the other 2 people who were restraining him were reasonable in their belief that he was a threat and the use of force was proportional and necessary, since it resulted in an accidental death they should be in prison for over a decade because of the outcome. Gotcha.
If it can be proven that the only option available to prevent serious/grave injury to others was to kill him then yes, I will say that no prison time should be served.
It's very very funny to me that the guy one could most reasonably accuse of virtue signalling in this thread is the chap accusing others of virtue signalling.
Why do people think the only way of eliminating a threat is killing someone? (Assuming he was a threat in the first place)
@Drainy, are you American?
@Drainy, are you American?
Assuming you are talking about the subway death, not even the prosecutor is arguing that it was an intentional killing, at least from the charge. The defence will have a defence of others element l but the underlying charge is more of a culpable negligence death case and as I've said can go either way depending on the facts as they are presented at the trial.
I'm not American
For the avoidance of doubt, of course people should have a lot of empathy with the decedent and more help and support should be provided to try and avoid people getting to the level of desperation he was reported to be at, but when judging the defendant's actions that is only relevant to the extent he was aware of them and should be judged on the reasonableness at the time. That actually cuts both ways because a lot of the nastier elements of support for the accused are referring to the arrest history of the deceased, which is irrelevant for judging this guy.
The outcome is without a doubt awful but it's established that people should be judged based on what they knew or should have known at the time and not with perfect hindsight and to do that effectively people should wait for the full facts to come out, because in these politicised cases there is often a lot of misinformation, which was my original point.
Bonkers thread…
The poem:
When day comes, we ask ourselves where can we find light in this never-ending shade?
The loss we carry, a sea we must wade.
We’ve braved the belly of the beast.
We’ve learned that quiet isn’t always peace,
and the norms and notions of what “just” is isn’t always justice.
And yet, the dawn is ours before we knew it.
Somehow we do it.
Somehow we’ve weathered and witnessed a nation that isn’t broken,
but simply unfinished.
We, the successors of a country and a time where a skinny Black girl
descended from slaves and raised by a single mother can dream of becoming
president, only to find herself reciting for one.
And yes, we are far from polished, far from pristine,
but that doesn’t mean we are striving to form a union that is perfect.
We are striving to forge our union with purpose.
To compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters, and
conditions of man.
And so we lift our gazes not to what stands between us, but what stands
before us.
We close the divide because we know, to put our future first, we must first
put our differences aside.
We lay down our arms so we can reach out our arms to one another.
We seek harm to none and harmony for all.
Let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true:
That even as we grieved, we grew.
That even as we hurt, we hoped.
That even as we tired, we tried.
That we’ll forever be tied together, victorious.
Not because we will never again know defeat, but because we will never
again sow division.
Scripture tells us to envision that everyone shall sit under their own vine and
fig tree and no one shall make them afraid.
If we’re to live up to our own time, then victory won’t lie in the blade, but in
all the bridges we’ve made.
That is the promise to glade, the hill we climb, if only we dare.
It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit.
It’s the past we step into and how we repair it.
We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it.
Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.
This effort very nearly succeeded.
But while democracy can be periodically delayed,
it can never be permanently defeated.
In this truth, in this faith, we trust,
for while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us.
This is the era of just redemption.
We feared it at its inception.
We did not feel prepared to be the heirs of such a terrifying hour,
but within it, we found the power to author a new chapter, to offer hope and
laughter to ourselves.
So while once we asked, ‘How could we possibly prevail over catastrophe?’
now we assert, ‘How could catastrophe possibly prevail over us?’
We will not march back to what was, but move to what shall be:
A country that is bruised but whole, benevolent but bold, fierce and free.
We will not be turned around or interrupted by intimidation because we
know our inaction and inertia will be the inheritance of the next generation.
Our blunders become their burdens.
But one thing is certain:
If we merge mercy with might, and might with right, then love becomes our
legacy and change, our children’s birthright.
So let us leave behind a country better than the one we were left.
With every breath from my bronze-pounded chest, we will raise this
wounded world into a wondrous one.
We will rise from the golden hills of the west.
We will rise from the wind-swept north-east where our forefathers first
realized revolution.
We will rise from the lake-rimmed cities of the midwestern states.
We will rise from the sun-baked south.
We will rebuild, reconcile, and recover.
In every known nook of our nation, in every corner called our country,
our people, diverse and beautiful, will emerge, battered and beautiful.
When day comes, we step out of the shade, aflame and unafraid.
The new dawn blooms as we free it.
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
Amanda Gorman
The loss we carry, a sea we must wade.
We’ve braved the belly of the beast.
We’ve learned that quiet isn’t always peace,
and the norms and notions of what “just” is isn’t always justice.
And yet, the dawn is ours before we knew it.
Somehow we do it.
Somehow we’ve weathered and witnessed a nation that isn’t broken,
but simply unfinished.
We, the successors of a country and a time where a skinny Black girl
descended from slaves and raised by a single mother can dream of becoming
president, only to find herself reciting for one.
And yes, we are far from polished, far from pristine,
but that doesn’t mean we are striving to form a union that is perfect.
We are striving to forge our union with purpose.
To compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters, and
conditions of man.
And so we lift our gazes not to what stands between us, but what stands
before us.
We close the divide because we know, to put our future first, we must first
put our differences aside.
We lay down our arms so we can reach out our arms to one another.
We seek harm to none and harmony for all.
Let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true:
That even as we grieved, we grew.
That even as we hurt, we hoped.
That even as we tired, we tried.
That we’ll forever be tied together, victorious.
Not because we will never again know defeat, but because we will never
again sow division.
Scripture tells us to envision that everyone shall sit under their own vine and
fig tree and no one shall make them afraid.
If we’re to live up to our own time, then victory won’t lie in the blade, but in
all the bridges we’ve made.
That is the promise to glade, the hill we climb, if only we dare.
It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit.
It’s the past we step into and how we repair it.
We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it.
Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.
This effort very nearly succeeded.
But while democracy can be periodically delayed,
it can never be permanently defeated.
In this truth, in this faith, we trust,
for while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us.
This is the era of just redemption.
We feared it at its inception.
We did not feel prepared to be the heirs of such a terrifying hour,
but within it, we found the power to author a new chapter, to offer hope and
laughter to ourselves.
So while once we asked, ‘How could we possibly prevail over catastrophe?’
now we assert, ‘How could catastrophe possibly prevail over us?’
We will not march back to what was, but move to what shall be:
A country that is bruised but whole, benevolent but bold, fierce and free.
We will not be turned around or interrupted by intimidation because we
know our inaction and inertia will be the inheritance of the next generation.
Our blunders become their burdens.
But one thing is certain:
If we merge mercy with might, and might with right, then love becomes our
legacy and change, our children’s birthright.
So let us leave behind a country better than the one we were left.
With every breath from my bronze-pounded chest, we will raise this
wounded world into a wondrous one.
We will rise from the golden hills of the west.
We will rise from the wind-swept north-east where our forefathers first
realized revolution.
We will rise from the lake-rimmed cities of the midwestern states.
We will rise from the sun-baked south.
We will rebuild, reconcile, and recover.
In every known nook of our nation, in every corner called our country,
our people, diverse and beautiful, will emerge, battered and beautiful.
When day comes, we step out of the shade, aflame and unafraid.
The new dawn blooms as we free it.
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
Amanda Gorman
Last edited:
Speaking as someone who spent a lot of time as a 13 year old shooting shit with a sling shot, the lad who clipped this guy must be feeling ten feet tall.
Boom! Head shot!
Aren't you the guy who was a big advocate for Rittenhouse?
Oh yes, the classic 'can a 'win' be a loss' thread where even though I was correct about more than 90 percent of what I said I still come away looking and feeling like shit.
I mean, being correct wasn't difficult since I was actually watching the trial rather than working from reporting so realised just how different the facts were from perception, but I don't have time to relitigate those arguments.
I was also right about his attempts to sue people being completely frivolous, by the way, which he will have known and has seemingly grifted the money.
In regards to the Jordan Neely case, the police in the U.S. are not even allowed to use chokeholds anymore, so it would be a tough sell to argue that what Daniel Penny did what proportional, unless Jordan Neely was legitimately a threat to the lives of others. There are other ways to avoid or mitigate a moderate threat than to place someone in a lethal chokehold.
I don't think anyone is arguing that he intended to kill him, but it is pretty standard in judicial systems that both the intent and the outcome of an action impacts the sentence. You get a longer sentence if you punch someone in a bar fight and they die, than if they just get a black eye. So if you take it upon yourself to restrain someone not posing a lethal threat, using a method that you should know could be fatal and the restrainee dies - yes, you go to prison.
I don't think anyone is arguing that he intended to kill him, but it is pretty standard in judicial systems that both the intent and the outcome of an action impacts the sentence. You get a longer sentence if you punch someone in a bar fight and they die, than if they just get a black eye. So if you take it upon yourself to restrain someone not posing a lethal threat, using a method that you should know could be fatal and the restrainee dies - yes, you go to prison.
So, yes then.
It's funny, it's only white on POC violence that you seem to deem self defense, I haven't seen you arguing this point in any other threads.
Frankly its an appalling accusation. I'm trying not to get upset, especially after our conversations around you saying I'm a white supremacist in that thread which I recall you said was a debate tactic.
To focus on the actual stuff, just to point out Rittenhouse shot at 3 white guys and 1 black man, with a number of other people who were POCs who stopped attacking him and were not shot at, by the way. His weakest claim of self defence was ironically against the black man, who was booting him in the face while he was on the ground.
The white survivor admitted on the stand that he was only shot after he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse. To point out, I also had the empathy enough (which I am supposedly lacking) to say that if Gaige Grosskreutz also would have a reasonable defence of others argument if he genuinely believed Rittenhouse was a mass shooter, though that would have to play out in court.
Also, around the same time as the Rittenhouse trial there was the McDaniels trial (Murder of Ahmaud Arbery), which I said when the video first came out that it seemed awful but we'd need to know what happened before to explain what the pursuers were doing in case there was a justifiable reason - then at the trial it showed that they had no reason to be pursuing him and his attempt to grab the gun out of the attackers hands was justified self defence and therefore they had no argument for self defence and should be found guilty of murder.
I appreciate you may not have seen my posts in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery trial thread as it was not as active a thread as Rittenhouse.
Also I've literally said on Penny that we should wait until the facts come in because it's politicised and depending on what comes out about before the video a reasonable jury could go either way
Also I've literally said on Penny that we should wait until the facts come in because it's politicised and depending on what comes out about before the video a reasonable jury could go either way
Just out of curiosity, what kind of facts are you waiting for? We already have witness statements about Neely's behavior, which was threatening and erratic but not violent, with the possible exception of throwing trash at people. And we know that he was placed in a chokehold for at least 3 minutes, which led to his death. I'd say there is enough information out there to paint a good picture of what happened. The guy was killed for something that absolutely did not justify him being killed.
Only in America does this become political, because everyone has to pick a side on everything, and you can't possibly agree with the opposition.
I'm literally taking an apolitical position.
Witnesses have been known in these types of cases say one thing to the media and another under oath. I've seen people say they feared he would become violent so it will be interesting to see what that was based on. I do note a few people were restraining him so want explanation about why a few people were all minded to it.
I'm also interested in why the hold was used, if the decedent was flailing in a way that it was meant as a stabilizing hold rather than a choke etc. and the death is completely accidental with the accused not intending to restrict the throat
Obviously the video doesn't look good for the defence on that but I'm open to an argument, particularly given the charge means that the prosecution isn't looking like arguing intended use of deadly force, just reckless.
There is a good chance of conviction, I'm not someone who thinks he shouldn't be facing a trial, there is definitely probable cause.
Yeah, I wasn't accusing you of being political about it. It was more of a general comment about these kinds of cases in the U.S. Although I will say you are doing some incredible reaching with stuff like "maybe witnesses thought he would become violent" and "maybe he didn't know his chokehold restricted the throat". People will interpret these kinds of arguments as political, because it has become the norm for right wingers to bend over backwards for explanations when white men kill black men without justification.
Obviously the killer should get a fair trial just like anyone else, but personally I find it hard to see how he is not deserving of a manslaughter conviction.
Again, the mental state of the accused is an essential part of a crime in any court that evolved from English law
We are judging based on a tape that (at least the version I saw) doesn't show anything leading up to the hold being in place and again witnesses say they feared he was going to seriously hurt people so not much of a reach to think there are some dots that lead to a successful defence of others defence since it's a reasonable person standard especially others were helping with the restraint or in the alternative him not being seen as using deadly force to his mind and therefore the use of force being proportional based on the risk of harm.
Is it more likely than not, no, should there be a rush to judgement, also no.
Considering the spat of violence at the NYC subway (i.e. countless people being thrown onto the tracks of oncoming trains and dying - see below), a highly agitated man got on a subway and shouted that he didn't care if he died or spent the rest of his life in prison it was absolutely a threat.
Just to say that this background could be admitted into court as evidence if the defendant can prove he was aware of particular incidents, otherwise it's not able to be presented.
Yeah, well the prosecutors would then be likely to say 1) Thinking someone might hurt another person does not justify using lethal force as a restraint, and 2) The defendant should know that several minutes in a chokehold could lead to death.
We will see what happens in court, but obviously it will be many months before any kind of decision is reached. It's both sad that many people reach the desperate situation Neely found himself in, and also that these kinds of cases split the U.S. along party lines, when it really shouldn't.
I'll agree there and leave it at that