n_huffhines
What's it gonna cost?
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 88,219
- Likes
- 53,174
No, but it's way too long of a conversation to have in the wrong thread.
Think of explaining democracy to somebody 1000 years ago. It would take you 2 months for them to understand but they'd just call you crazy. "You mean to tell me the leader of the country is just going to hand over power peaceably when he loses an election?"
They wouldn't understand cause they are too stuck in their framework. It takes a lot of thinking and discussion/reading to understand the theory of anarcho-capitalism. You may never agree with it, but everyone should understand it, IMO.
Rolling up within 5 feet and surprising the child who is supposedly dangerous. The kid didn't have time to think clearly and comply or refuse to comply. That's an obvious fact because the cops claim the kid went for a toy gun. Why would he do that if he had time to think clearly?
Why would he go for his toy gun either way? And what makes this fact obvious? Maybe he was trying to show them it was fake. Maybe he wanted to die? Going for the weapon proves nothing.
So in that split second he thought "I want to die so I'm going to go for my gun"?
If he was trying to show them it was fake then he wasn't thinking clearly. Obviously they are going to shoot him cause they see him going for the gun. He didn't have time to process that. If he had even 3 seconds to say it's fake this could have been avoided. He may have been saying it's fake while he was going for the gun. The cops didn't give him or themselves any time to make a good decision.
Basically. Private security companies that work on government contracts in war zones.
When someone pulls out a gun, you don't give them time.
The only way the cops could have handled it worse is shoot out a rolled down window and keep driving. I've said this 8 damn times in this thread, and I keep getting the same question you asked me, so for the last time:
The cops made the fatal error before the kid allegedly went for the fake gun in his waistband.
No, actually the major difference in us is the fact I can admit when a cop is in the wrong as I've done before.
And you would never admit they were right about anything. And always look for even the most remote inkling of impropriety to justify your prejudice.
Rolling up within 5 feet and surprising the child who is supposedly dangerous. The kid didn't have time to think clearly and comply or refuse to comply. That's an obvious fact because the cops claim the kid went for a toy gun. Why would he do that if he had time to think clearly?
God lord this 100x this. :good!:
Imagine advocating democracy a thousand years ago. You sketch your basic idea: "Every few years we'll have a free election. Anyone who wants power can run for office, every adult gets a vote, and whoever gets the most votes runs the government until the next election." How would your contemporaries react?
They would probably call you "crazy." Why? Before you could even get to the second paragraph in your sales pitch, they'd interrupt: "Do you seriously mean to tell us that if the ruling government loses the election, they'll peacefully hand the reins of power over to their rivals?! Yeah, right!"
The expectations necessary to sustain anarcho-capitalism are highly unlikely to ever arrive. But the same was true for democracy a thousand years ago. Yet somehow, expectations radically changed and stable democracy arrived. How did expectations change so dramatically? It's complicated. But can expectations change dramatically? Absolutely.
Good points. The Brown/Wilson case is a good example across the board. Had the total evidence shown he shot a fleeing or surrendering Brown (regardless of his recent crimes) he should have been "vigorously" prosecuted as the Gov stated months prior. Of course when he made that comment he was either ignorant, ignoring, or not willing to wait for a full picture.