Warbler

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

I implore others to not just listen to Mfm, and actually watch the videos I linked to and then see what you think of Mike The Cop.

I’m sorry, but I agree with mfm here. I don’t have the time, and I really am not interested in being required to invest half and hour each to such videos.

Fine, but then don’t make your mind up about the guy without watching what he has to say.

Who has time to sit down and watch an hours worth of shitty content just so they can argue with someone else online?

Warbler?

It wasn’t hours of content. Each video was about a half hour. I did not find the content s_____. I thought it was interesting.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Watch a video? Nah.

As I have repeated and never gotten an answer for: what is your problem with videos?

Yes you have gotten an answer for it, multiple times. chyron basically got it though, I’m not spending a bunch of time watching a video when I could read the exact same information in a minute or two.

Do what you wish, but don’t make judgments about the guy without hearing what he has to say as MFM did.

I didn’t.

Also I’m at work.

watch it later when you are home.

No.

ok

chyron8472 said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Consider a drive by shooting happens. You are a cop. You are given description of the vehicle, which includes make, and model and the fact that window was shot out. Soon after the shooting, around the area the shooting took place, you stop a vehicle that matches the description, make and model and a shot out window in the correct area of the car. You see two guns in the car. Suddenly one the occupants of the car takes off on foot. You have no idea if he is armed or not(even though two guns were in the car, it doesn’t mean another one wasn’t on his person). For all you know he was involved in the shooting. What do you? (and keep in mind you have less time to decide than it took you read this paragraph)

Certainly not shoot him because I’m not a fucking monster, and I don’t want to live in a world where cops can just execute people in the street for any reason.

Maybe Warbler thinks we should let a cop shoot a kid when he answers the door because the kid is holding a Wii Remote and the cop didn’t have enough reaction time to determine it wasn’t.

That is quite different from situation I described.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

More surprises!

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/02/nyc-private-school-end-racial-segregation-policy-homerooms/

wtf? How was this allowed in the 21st century? I thought Brown v. Board of Education made this unconstitutional? Why would the school even try it in 2018? What f___ made them think it was a good idea in this day and age???

It’s for a similar reason that we racially gerrymander congressional districts. It is supposed to be empowering.

How are segregated homerooms supposed to be empowering?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Watch a video? Nah.

As I have repeated and never gotten an answer for: what is your problem with videos?

Yes you have gotten an answer for it, multiple times. chyron basically got it though, I’m not spending a bunch of time watching a video when I could read the exact same information in a minute or two.

Do what you wish, but don’t make judgments about the guy without hearing what he has to say as MFM did.

Also I’m at work.

watch it later when you are home.

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

I implore others to not just listen to Mfm, and actually watch the videos I linked to and then see what you think of Mike The Cop.

I’m sorry, but I agree with mfm here. I don’t have the time, and I really am not interested in being required to invest half and hour each to such videos.

Fine, but then don’t make your mind up about the guy without watching what he has to say.

Additionally, if you don’t have a weapon, you shouldn’t be at risk of being shot. Period. Supreme Court ruling or no.

Police are not clairvoyant. Sometimes you don’t know whether a person is armed until the afterwards. As I said they ruling states that police can shoot if they believe the suspect poses an imminent danger to people around the suspect.

Consider a drive by shooting happens. You are a cop. You are given description of the vehicle, which includes make, and model and the fact that window was shot out. Soon after the shooting, around the area the shooting took place, you stop a vehicle that matches the description, make and model and a shot out window in the correct area of the car. You see two guns in the car. Suddenly one the occupants of the car takes off on foot. You have no idea if he is armed or not(even though two guns were in the car, it doesn’t mean another one wasn’t on his person). For all you know he was involved in the shooting. What do you? (and keep in mind you have less time to decide than it took you read this paragraph)

Mrebo said:

More surprises!

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/02/nyc-private-school-end-racial-segregation-policy-homerooms/

wtf? How was this allowed in the 21st century? I thought Brown v. Board of Education made this unconstitutional? Why would the school even try it in 2018? What f___ made them think it was a good idea in this day and age???

TV’s Frink said:

Watch a video? Nah.

As I have repeated and never gotten an answer for: what is your problem with videos?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.

Because people disagree. In a democratic system that is a really important fact. If I had my way, pot wouldn’t be legal. That is the law at the federal level. So ask the people in the nine states where recreational use or 30 states where medical use is legal “how that is better.”

I get your impulse of wanting your policy preferences enacted everywhere. Who doesn’t want that? But of course that’s not how reality works. Where the federal government is the first and last stop, change is stifled. The constituencies of the various states have different views so let them make the laws they want. Granted you won’t like all choices in all states, but that is inevitable no matter what level of government choices are made.

As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

Nonetheless, the differences in state laws can cause inconveniences. Sometimes the state boundary lines can go right through a house, meaning that pot could be legal in on part of the house but illegal in another part.

Can you cite an actual example? That sounds awesome.

No, but I am pretty sure it happens that state borders go right through some houses. I think it happened that the border between Canada and America when through someone’s house, and in prohibition alcohol was legal in one part of the house but illegal in the other part.

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

When I say I am not a “states rights absolutist” I mean the states don’t always win. Health insurance was an example.

It does not mean I think the federal government should exercise its authority to the maximum extent under the Constitution. There are areas where the federal government can act under the Constitution but I think should exercise restraint and instead respect state laws (eg marijuana).

How about medical marijuana?

The FDA should regulate that. In states where pot is legal it may not make much of a difference, but allow people in other states to have approved medication.

I’m not in favor of legalization and I never had an interest in the stuff. So my desire for the federal government to step back isn’t self-serving. It’s partly based on my view that the federal government is overstepping the bounds of its authority and partly on the view that there is value in states forging their own paths, especially where an activity is so broadly practiced with relatively little harm.

Okay, so the federal government can’t ban you from imbibing a substance, but the state can? Why is that any better? This is what I mean when I complain that states’ rights is bullshit when it’s all about the rights that states can deprive you of.

Because people disagree. In a democratic system that is a really important fact. If I had my way, pot wouldn’t be legal. That is the law at the federal level. So ask the people in the nine states where recreational use or 30 states where medical use is legal “how that is better.”

I get your impulse of wanting your policy preferences enacted everywhere. Who doesn’t want that? But of course that’s not how reality works. Where the federal government is the first and last stop, change is stifled. The constituencies of the various states have different views so let them make the laws they want. Granted you won’t like all choices in all states, but that is inevitable no matter what level of government choices are made.

As Jay said this isn’t difficult to understand. He and I both pointed out that national change has often happened because states had freedom to act.

Nonetheless, the differences in state laws can cause inconveniences. Sometimes the state boundary lines can go right through a house, meaning that pot could be legal in one part of the house but illegal in another part.

I implore others to not just listen to Mfm, and actually watch the videos I linked to and then see what you think of Mike The Cop.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!

More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.

Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you. Oh, but he might think it’s a tragedy afterward, which is cold comfort to the dead kid and his family.

Did you watched the whole video? If no, then maybe you don’t really know exactly what he believes.

To be exact, he does believe that he does believe a cop can shoot a fleeing person under certain circumstances and he sited a US Supreme Court ruling to back him up.

Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform in certain circumstances, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you, even if you’re unarmed. Is that better? I did watch parts of his videos and I saw some other videos of his and I think he’s dangerous. I wish people like him were not cops and didn’t have access to firearms.

And the Supreme Court has said all kinds of horrible shit in the past. The Supreme Court said Bush could be president without even finishing the Florida recount. The Supreme Court said segregation was A-okay. The Supreme court said black people were property, not people. Need I go on?

Nonetheless, US Supreme Court rulings are legally binding. The case he was referring to here was Tennessee vs Garner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

He supports a bad ruling.

It is a bad ruling in your opinion. Regardless, it is still legally binding.

Mike the Cop argued that a fleeing suspect can be shot if the cop believes the suspect poses an imminent danger to people around the suspect.

And his definition of “imminent danger” is not something I trust given the murders that he has justified. Both of the times I’ve seen him defend police executions, the suspect was unarmed. Plus, he’s opposed to California’s attempt to protect citizens from the police because it requires police to deem it “necessary” to use deadly force which he thinks is too stringent. This man is not safe. I don’t know where he lives, but I sincerely hope that he isn’t in my county because I would not want to be up against this guy. His notion, “Innocent people don’t run,” is fascist and horrifying. People like this man are why people want to run from the police. Cops are scary! They’re the only people (typically) that can get away with killing you no matter how young you are, no matter how unthreatening, and no matter how obviously unarmed. How can people possibly not understand why sane people of all races, but especially black people, are afraid of cops?

I don’t have the patience to address the above.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Warbler said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!

More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.

Take out the last sentence and it doesn’t seem any different than any other “reasoned” conversation.

?

Please elaborate.

He thinks the man is an apologist for brutality, because “Mike the Cop” seems to defend brutality (I didn’t watch the videos, I won’t comment any opinions on the matter). Sounds reasonable to me. The only part that makes it seem inflammatory or otherwise “unreasonable” is the “motherfucker” sentence.

Is it reasonable to come to that conclusion without watching the videos?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!

More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.

Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you. Oh, but he might think it’s a tragedy afterward, which is cold comfort to the dead kid and his family.

Did you watched the whole video? If no, then maybe you don’t really know exactly what he believes.

To be exact, he does believe that he does believe a cop can shoot a fleeing person under certain circumstances and he sited a US Supreme Court ruling to back him up.

I sure hope he believes that he believes something. 😉

The post has been corrected.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!

More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.

Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you. Oh, but he might think it’s a tragedy afterward, which is cold comfort to the dead kid and his family.

Did you watched the whole video? If no, then maybe you don’t really know exactly what he believes.

To be exact, he does believe that he does believe a cop can shoot a fleeing person under certain circumstances and he sited a US Supreme Court ruling to back him up.

Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform in certain circumstances, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you, even if you’re unarmed. Is that better? I did watch parts of his videos and I saw some other videos of his and I think he’s dangerous. I wish people like him were not cops and didn’t have access to firearms.

And the Supreme Court has said all kinds of horrible shit in the past. The Supreme Court said Bush could be president without even finishing the Florida recount. The Supreme Court said segregation was A-okay. The Supreme court said black people were property, not people. Need I go on?

Nonetheless, US Supreme Court rulings are legally binding. The case he was referring to here was Tennessee vs Garner. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Mike the Cop argued that a fleeing suspect can be shot if the cop believes the suspect poses an imminent danger to people around the suspect.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!

More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.

Mike the Cop literally believes that if you run away from him while he’s in uniform, then he has the legal right to shoot you multiple times in the back and kill you. Oh, but he might think it’s a tragedy afterward, which is cold comfort to the dead kid and his family.

Did you watched the whole video? If no, then maybe you don’t really know exactly what he believes.

To be exact, he does believe that a cop can shoot a fleeing person under certain circumstances and he sited a US Supreme Court ruling to back him up.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!

More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.

Take out the last sentence and it doesn’t seem any different than any other “reasoned” conversation.

?

Please elaborate.

moviefreakedmind said:

Yes. I thought it was funny, and kind of disturbing, that a cop would be endorsed by such a person. I’m calling Mike the Cop an apologist for police brutality and excessive force. 'Cause that’s what motherfucker is, dude!

More proof that reasoned conversation is not to be had with you.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4F4N2SV94E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcbiWdqW_mY

Nothing more horrifying than a cop that wants less restrictions on who he can shoot to death. Disgusting!

I also find it funny that this man thinks being on Gavin McInnes’s show is a good thing. That guy borders on being a white identitarian and he lies about almost everything.

EDIT: I can’t watch all of the videos because I don’t have time, but there’s a really frightening fascist statement where he said, “Innocent people don’t run.” Cops don’t decide who is innocent or not in this nation, or at least they are not supposed to. I’m so sick and goddamned tired of cops saying that running should be a death sentence.

Identitarian?

Extremely nationalistic, white-pride, anti-immigrant. Gavin McInnes has repeatedly said that white people should be proud of the achievements of the white race and he said that the camps the immigrant children are kept in are actually really nice and they should be happy to live in them. He described MLK as a “leech,” and is opposed to gay rights. That sort of thing. He’s very much an alt-right mouthpiece.

So you were calling McInnes an Identitarian, not Mike The Cop.

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4F4N2SV94E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcbiWdqW_mY

Nothing more horrifying than a cop that wants less restrictions on who he can shoot to death. Disgusting!

I also find it funny that this man thinks being on Gavin McInnes’s show is a good thing. That guy borders on being a white identitarian and he lies about almost everything.

EDIT: I can’t watch all of the videos because I don’t have time, but there’s a really frightening fascist statement where he said, “Innocent people don’t run.” Cops don’t decide who is innocent or not in this nation, or at least they are not supposed to. I’m so sick and goddamned tired of cops saying that running should be a death sentence.

Identitarian?

Mrebo said:

I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:

Let try to re-word it. You said you were not a “states rights absolutist”. Are situations where you are not absolutist in that regard, situations where we either

1. are dealing with a power delegated to Feds by the Constitution

and/or

2. are dealing with a power prohibited to the states by the Constitution

When you say you are not a “states rights absolutist”, you mean that you are not pro-states-rights in situations where the Constitution is not pro-states-rights, correct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4F4N2SV94E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcbiWdqW_mY

Collipso said:

what

I corrected my post so that it no longer looks like I am talking to myself.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:
Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not).

You’re not?

You read right.

Could you elaborate? In what way aren’t you a states’ right absolutist? Are you a 10th amendment absolutist?

Mrebo said:

But I recognize the sincere argument, that you previously made, that a person can support state authority and also limited federal action without offending the 10th Amendment.

I made that argument?

Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not).

You’re not?

The fact I can recognize a sincere argument doesn’t mean I agree with it.

it seemed like you were agreeing with it.

Mrebo said:

DOMA did at least concern federal benefits that states don’t naturally have the authority over, so it wasn’t clearly a 10th Amendment violation.