Non-IT News Thread
-
Why would anybody ever call american police for help?
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why would anybody ever call american police for help?
Well, you can't call the Mexican police for help.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why would anybody ever call american police for help?
To get a person of color removed from the premises... according to media.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why would anybody ever call american police for help?
Right, I'd just shoot the person I suspect first and investigate, once they're dead or proven to be allowed to be there would I call for an ambulance or hearse.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
But it is never the citizens responsibility to investigate. Ever. Period.
Basically you are stating that this new law can't exist due to same property of nature. But it can. All it has to do is be passed and your statement is provably false. There is no basis for saying that a citizen is never responsible for something, when we are discussing making a law to do exactly that.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
Why would anybody ever call american police for help?
Right, I'd just shoot the person I suspect first and investigate, once they're dead or proven to be allowed to be there would I call for an ambulance or hearse.
Texas is the place for you.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
But it is never the citizens responsibility to investigate. Ever. Period.
Basically you are stating that this new law can't exist due to same property of nature. But it can. All it has to do is be passed and your statement is provably false. There is no basis for saying that a citizen is never responsible for something, when we are discussing making a law to do exactly that.
I'm not stating hold a person accountable, I'm stating this flaw is fundamentally flawed, as it specifically labels people of non-color as racists for reporting what they believe to be a crime.
I wouldn't walk into the OJ Simpson house and start tromping through blood and then say "yup something has gone down here, dead body, better make sure she's not playing dead - before i call the police"
I'd then be charged with tampering with evidence.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
But it is never the citizens responsibility to investigate. Ever. Period.
Basically you are stating that this new law can't exist due to same property of nature. But it can. All it has to do is be passed and your statement is provably false. There is no basis for saying that a citizen is never responsible for something, when we are discussing making a law to do exactly that.
I'm not stating hold a person accountable, I'm stating this flaw is fundamentally flawed, as it specifically labels people of non-color as racists for reporting what they believe to be a crime.
Oh it is flawed, no doubt. As is the current one that doesn't punish what are clearly hate crimes. But creating more hate and damage to stop other hate is not an answer, of course. Next we will be pushing for using this law to punish white people a hate crime as well.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
I wouldn't walk into the OJ Simpson house and start tromping through blood and then say "yup something has gone down here, dead body, better make sure she's not playing dead - before i call the police"
I'd then be charged with tampering with evidence.
I think you are missing the obvious middle ground. As a white person, your responsibility is to NOT CALL. That's the purpose of the law. IF you WANT to report something you think is a crime, then it is your responsibility to prove it. You are free to not report.
-
@scottalanmiller That's my point, this law is a horrible attempt to stop something that should and is already punishable with the existing laws.
Like water bottle betsy or whatever her name is. Called the cops on a black girl who was selling water from her own home.
That lady needs to be charged with false reporting, etc and fined like any other case.
There isn't a need for an additional law. Use the ones that are in place and punish DA and or courts who throw out such cases.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
I wouldn't walk into the OJ Simpson house and start tromping through blood and then say "yup something has gone down here, dead body, better make sure she's not playing dead - before i call the police"
I'd then be charged with tampering with evidence.
I think you are missing the obvious middle ground. As a white person, your responsibility is to NOT CALL. That's the purpose of the law. IF you WANT to report something you think is a crime, then it is your responsibility to prove it. You are free to not report.
That bold part is patently false, if that's the case than I should also be the person in the courtroom trialing the case as the Judge, jury, DA, and executioner.
-
The courts, prove or disprove guilt
The police, jail and collect evidence of suspects
The community has no bearing on either of the above two. -
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
The courts, prove or disprove guilt
The police, jail and collect evidence of suspects
The community has no bearing on either of the above two.Correct. But that's not really here nor there in the discussion.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
I wouldn't walk into the OJ Simpson house and start tromping through blood and then say "yup something has gone down here, dead body, better make sure she's not playing dead - before i call the police"
I'd then be charged with tampering with evidence.
I think you are missing the obvious middle ground. As a white person, your responsibility is to NOT CALL. That's the purpose of the law. IF you WANT to report something you think is a crime, then it is your responsibility to prove it. You are free to not report.
That bold part is patently false, if that's the case than I should also be the person in the courtroom trialing the case as the Judge, jury, DA, and executioner.
It's what the propose new law is. I'm confused where you are missing this. You keep saying "should" and stuff like that. I'm just telling you what the new law is stated as being worded to be (obviously, we are going by how the wording is reported, the law isn't written yet and likely will be changed.) But the stated, proposed law is what it is. ANything "should" isn't relevant. We are just discussing the proposed reality, not an ideal state that doesn't exist or isn't proposed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
The courts, prove or disprove guilt
The police, jail and collect evidence of suspects
The community has no bearing on either of the above two.Correct. But that's not really here nor there in the discussion.
It absolutely is because and I quote "IF you WANT to report something you think is a crime, then it is your responsibility to prove it".
It isn't the citizen's responsibility to prove jack-diddly
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
I wouldn't walk into the OJ Simpson house and start tromping through blood and then say "yup something has gone down here, dead body, better make sure she's not playing dead - before i call the police"
I'd then be charged with tampering with evidence.
I think you are missing the obvious middle ground. As a white person, your responsibility is to NOT CALL. That's the purpose of the law. IF you WANT to report something you think is a crime, then it is your responsibility to prove it. You are free to not report.
That bold part is patently false, if that's the case than I should also be the person in the courtroom trialing the case as the Judge, jury, DA, and executioner.
It's what the propose new law is. I'm confused where you are missing this. You keep saying "should" and stuff like that. I'm just telling you what the new law is stated as being worded to be (obviously, we are going by how the wording is reported, the law isn't written yet and likely will be changed.) But the stated, proposed law is what it is. ANything "should" isn't relevant. We are just discussing the proposed reality, not an ideal state that doesn't exist or isn't proposed.
If this law passes I assume we are also getting rid of the Judicial system in NYS than. . . because that is what this law would have us do.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
I wouldn't walk into the OJ Simpson house and start tromping through blood and then say "yup something has gone down here, dead body, better make sure she's not playing dead - before i call the police"
I'd then be charged with tampering with evidence.
I think you are missing the obvious middle ground. As a white person, your responsibility is to NOT CALL. That's the purpose of the law. IF you WANT to report something you think is a crime, then it is your responsibility to prove it. You are free to not report.
That bold part is patently false, if that's the case than I should also be the person in the courtroom trialing the case as the Judge, jury, DA, and executioner.
It's what the propose new law is. I'm confused where you are missing this. You keep saying "should" and stuff like that. I'm just telling you what the new law is stated as being worded to be (obviously, we are going by how the wording is reported, the law isn't written yet and likely will be changed.) But the stated, proposed law is what it is. ANything "should" isn't relevant. We are just discussing the proposed reality, not an ideal state that doesn't exist or isn't proposed.
If this law passes I assume we are also getting rid of the Judicial system in NYS than. . . because that is what this law would have us do.
Nothing here is confusing. It's all very wide open and obvious. This simply makes certain citizens responsible for being able to prove a crime for certain circumstances. The judicial system is clearly unaffected as it still applies to normal crimes, and is needed to prove if the reporters are criminal. Nothing weird here. Horribly unethical, sure. But this is a super simple law (as described in the reports) and no reason for all this confusion. It simply does exactly what is stated, no extended changes to other laws.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
In other news, RojoLoco is testing Pi Hole with a big middle finger pointed at advertisers and Netflix.
-
@rojoloco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
In other news, RojoLoco is testing Pi Hole with a big middle finger pointed at advertisers and Netflix.
I wounder if the TV shows won't load if something is blocking it?
