Recent Comments by Barbar subscribe to this feed

Bill Maher - Punching Nazis

Barbar says...

Might be worth mentioning that people did punch Nazis back when they were originally forming. All it did was teach them how to implement political violence.

dannym3141 said:

"if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide"

This is the pacifists dilemma though. There were numerous attempts to sway hitler from his course. Neville Chamberlain famously celebrating the Munich Agreement. At the end of the day, you can't peacefully stop someone if they are intent on causing violence.

I don't think you can really go down this road, either. It's a fun thought experiment, but it requires knowledge you only have once it's too late. You can't talk to the one kid who will grow up to be adolf hitler. There's very likely one out there now that we can't stop because we don't know them.

"At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities."

The pacifist's dilemma and this combined, to me, put this in a morally ambiguous place. If you accept that you can't stop someone bent on violence, and nazis arrive announcing that they are, then is it better for a little violence, visited upon those who pursue violent ends? Or is it better that we wait and see the violence occur before we react to it?

On further introspection, i think both of our positions exist in a similar ambiguity - you need to know who to speak to before you know who to speak to, and i need to know who to correctively punch before i know who to correctively punch. Yours might be better for short term, worse for long term. Mine might be worse for short term, better for long term.

In truth, i probably lean more towards agreeing with you, but i'm trying to point out that even though we think "be civil" is the best option, it doesn't have any divine right to be the best option. The best option (we would probably agree) is the one that causes the least overall harm, and we don't *know* what that is, and never can. I think it's important we reconsider accepted wisdom like that. (which is really why i decided to argue it..in honesty, i probably feel the same as you; disapprove but not loudly. My main problem with the position i'm taking is - how do you *stop* the nazi punchers once the nazis are suitably punched? And when do i become the nazi?)

@transmorpher
"leaving yourself and your loved ones open to the same treatment next time someone disagrees with one of your views."

I made it very clear in earlier comments that i'm only ok with someone being punched if they are openly calling for genocide and death to people. I'm ok with you ripping that argument apart (because i think it can be.. i'm leaving myself open on purpose), but that isn't what you've done. I don't accept there's an equivalence between my harmless beliefs and a genocidal maniac's.

Between Two Ferns With Zach Galifianakis: Hillary Clinton

Police Murder Oklahoma Man Terence Crutcher *Graphic Death*

Enough already, Eric3579 -- let us celebrate you! (Happy Talk Post)

A Women's Guide To Changing A Tire

Barbar says...

I wanted to say something like:

"Wait... some people need a guide to figure this out?"

But the relentless innuendo and mocking of modern feminism won me over by the end.

Foo Fighters Close Out Lollapalooza During Massive Rainstorm

Unarmed Man Laying On Ground With Hands in Air Shot

Barbar says...

Absolutely the officer should be charged. I think it's a huge disservice to everybody that these things are so often dealt with behind closed doors. It breeds contempt and distrust, and it eliminates an important opportunity for the public to understand some of the issues inherent in policing, and it seems to let horrible crimes go largely unaddressed.

But 'triple cuffed' can only mean a daisy chain of cuffs. Nothing else makes any sense, and to do so means that they are making some kind of attempt to accommodate the comfort of the individual during the cuffing. Or do you think it means having 3 sets of hand cuffs individually applied to your wrists? Come on... Doesn't excuse the cuffing of the guy, obviously, but thinking that triple cuffing is some heinous extreme version of cuffing is absurd.

You acknowledge that he had bad aim, and that the majority of shots missed the intended target, whichever target that was. You acknowledge that poor leadership, training, and protocol may have contributed to this outcome, but then you make the leap that because these this incompetency, it must have been intentional. It simply doesn't follow. You might ask them to be held responsible, but it doesn't mean it was the intent.

Saying 'I don't know' in the immediate aftermath of a charged situation where you are just coming to realize you made a huge mistake and nearly killed an innocent seems reasonable. It does not mean 'I meant to kill you and missed." It seems to indicate a state of confusion or shock.

I heard absolutely no reference to any time frame, or them preventing medical assistance for more than 15 minutes. I'll just remain agnostic on that angle.

I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought that intent combined with action was the very core of attempted murder. Murder is all about intent, and attempted is all about action. Attempted manslaughter of some degree seems the most realistic charge to make, but that's up to people that better know the law, and are willing to spend hundreds of hours analyzing the situation.

A huge problem with the system is the way that justice is delayed for so long (assuming it is ever meted out). People want instant karma, immediate redress for wrongs committed. People see something, get heated, and feel that a strong reaction is called for in the moment. The system on the other hand is meant to be about dispassionate discussion of the details of the situation, and can take a long time to play out. This is a big part of why it seems so reprehensible when it's carried out behind closed doors; it looks like it's being swept under the carpet. Similarly this is why media coverage over sensationalizes crime. But that's a discussion for another day.

Anyways, I've already typed too much about this I think.

newtboy said:

Well, the level of incompetence required for this to be 'accidental' is SOOO incredibly high that it's not reasonable to assume the police are that incompetent....but if they are, that's intentional on the part of their supervisors, no? So still the responsibility of the police as a whole.

There IS doubt that they could have killed him and made it look unintentional. He shot 3 times, and only hit once. Clearly, he's not a good enough shot to kill on the first shot, because cops ALWAYS shoot to kill, and he failed, no matter which target he was aiming at.

We can assume that because he said "I don't know" when asked why he shot the caregiver....not "I missed", or "I wasn't aiming at you" or any other mitigation. If, as you suggest, he was firing at the sitting, unarmed, severely mentally challenged man (also completely inexcusable, btw) then the negligence in discharging his firearm with an innocent victim between him and the target is not just gross negligence, it's intentional negligence. Shooting someone because you don't care that they are between you and your target makes you an attempted murderer. Period.

Um....if a cop was shot in the foot, medical care would be instant, there would be no handcuffing, much less TRIPPLE handcuffing. What was reported was they didn't call for medical attention for >15 minutes.

That level of incompetence from a police officer MUST, by definition, be intentional. They are well trained and equipped to avoid exactly this kind of fiasco. Ignoring that training is intentional, and that must be prosecutable if there is to be any effect. I don't have to ascribe intent to murder to claim culpability. That is not the metric by which the law is applied. If your actions are grossly negligent and end in near death of another, which is the absolute least criminal possible interpretation of the actions of this officer, that's criminal attempted murder/manslaughter1. Because (inappropriately) using a firearm is not unintentional, and officers ONLY use them to kill, this was not attempted manslaughter, which only applies when the intent is NOT to kill, it was an attempted murder.
Either way, that's a question for a jury to answer, not his superior, not the DA that he works with daily.

Unarmed Man Laying On Ground With Hands in Air Shot

Barbar says...

I think in a situation like this, where the potential shooter (assuming he had a gun and not a toy truck) is sitting in the open, and the police are behind cover, and nobody else is being threatened, "do not fire unless fired upon" really should be the protocol.
I expect it in fact is the protocol in many departments. If it isn't, that's somewhere that pressure should be applied.

artician said:

Whatever happened to "do not fire unless fired upon"?

I almost sifted this yesterday, but I get sick of the conversation.

Unarmed Man Laying On Ground With Hands in Air Shot

Barbar says...

This is where our views part: I am not ready to ascribe malice to what can be explained by incompetence. I am not willing to do so without something more to go on. I think this sort of sensationalism can be dangerous and polarizing.

There's no doubt that these two cops could have killed the caregiver had they the intent. Even just the cop that fired, had he really wanted to, could have killed the victim, easily. The fact that they did not do so doesn't exonerate them from all wrong doing, but it does stand in the face of your charges of attempted murder.

If three shots were fired, and only one of them hit the victim, why do we assume that he was firing at the caregiver, and not the other fellow? Either way, most shots missed, and we can see the prone man was between the sitting man and the shooting man. Horrible idea to be firing, but to ascribe motive at this point is to get ahead of yourself. Negligence seems more likely.

As for the delay in medical care, there are a lot of assumptions being made it seems. Where was he shot? Was he bleeding profusely? How many of those 15 minutes passed before medics were even on the scene? The cufffing is clearly a bad idea in this case, but also sounds like protocol, which can hardly be maintained constitutes attempted murder.

That is why it is damaging to jump to conclusions early. We can say that the shooting was clearly unjust and unjustified. We can say that the officer clearly acted incompetent in his job, causing significant harm to an innocent. Beyond that you're straying into the mind reading business.

newtboy said:

Yeah, if that's the best they have, and I think its giving him WAY too much credit, it's absolutely no excuse and he should be prosecuted for 3 attempted murders, and his partner(s) should be prosecuted for accessory to attempted murder if not simple attempted murder for not supplying treatment instantly.

If he couldn't tell it was a truck, he clearly couldn't tell if it was a gun, so shouldn't shoot.
If he couldn't hit the intended target, he shouldn't ever shoot.
If he missed the intended target, a mentally challenged boy playing with a non threatening toy sitting down and not moving, with all 3 shots, he should never be allowed to touch a gun ever again.
But, I don't think they were aiming for the boy, I think they hit exactly who they intended to hit, the prone black man with his empty arms outstretched begging "don't shoot". When asked why he shot the unarmed, prone, surrendered, non threatening caregiver, the cop didn't say "I missed", or "I hit the wrong guy" or "I feared for my life" or "I thought I saw a gun" (not that seeing a gun is a reason to shoot, like they seem to think), he said "I don't know".

Under no circumstance was there a reason to shoot in this instance.
Under no circumstance was there a reason to triple handcuff the unarmed, non threatening man they just shot.
Under no circumstance was there a reason to withhold medical treatment for >15 minutes.
This was an attempted murder, not a mistake.

Unarmed Man Laying On Ground With Hands in Air Shot

Barbar says...

I've been pretty clear that I think it is important to understand the perspective of the police in these situations.

One could make an argument about how they are justified about having guns drawn, since they are replying to a call concerning someone walking around with a gun, and maybe the truck could be mistaken for a gun.

But, at best, that leaves the cop that shot him with a real weak ass argument: "I mistook something he was holding for a gun. I didn't get close enough to see if it was a gun, despite the standoff being very calm. I also didn't maneuver to a position that gave me a proper shooting lane on the suspect. I then accidently discharged my weapon, and hit an innocent party, who was lying on the ground in an non threatening and submissive manner." Sorry, but if that is the best argument you have, you're pretty much fucked.

How To Be A Kiwi Dad

Truck plows into Bastille Day crowd in Nice, France

Barbar says...

The draws back the curtain on the absurdity of security theatre. There is no way in hell that we would put up with the level of security required to ensure that something like this doesn't happen. All it took was a truck rental.
I suspect this attack will up the stakes more than many of the previous ones, because there will be no way to make people feel 'safe' from this kind of horror.

Woman Refuses to Leave Uber Car

Why Recording The Police Is So Important

Barbar says...

Totally agree. I mean that after digesting far too much reporting that only covers the bad apples, it leaves everyone with a completely screwed opinion. Exact same way that when all you hear about the ghetto is that someone was shot or arrested. It's selling you a polarized narrative, even if it isn't doing so by design.

Babymech said:

The media's role isn't really to report on things performing according to expectations. We don't need headlines about non-corrupt politicians, planes landing safely, or cops doing their jobs, because that's where the bar is already set. The media should be a safety valve that alerts us when the systems we all agree to keep in place (our government, the police, the free market, etc.) are going haywire.

If a cop does his/her job in accordance with their training with the expected outcome, I don't need the media to tell me about it - that's what I was expecting when I agreed with society to have and fund and submit to a police force. If the outcomes are horrific, that's when I need media to step in, to give me a heads up that this thing I agreed to is going off the rails. I either need to change the kind of police I have, my funding of the police, or in a worst case scenario, my submission to the police.

Why Recording The Police Is So Important

Barbar says...

That's a big part of the perception problem. Typical cops doing typical cop stuff when they have good reason to do so just doesn't make it to us in any media form.

Enzoblue said:

would liked to have seen at least one example of a cop being exonerated, you know.. being 93% of the outcomes using dash cams and all....



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon