deathgrips

Or completely replace departments that train and arm murderers.

I want all the brutality to stop, not just the murders. Any effort to prosecute will get so watered down that only the worst will be punished so we can act like we're doing something about the problem.

Criminal cases are a red herring. We need to address the structures and institutions that make tasing pregnant women possible.

Let's put it like this: if you came into your office one morning and the guys in the cubicles next to you are shooting up black tar heroin (and no one acts like they're doing anything wrong), does the problem lie with the individuals or with the corporation?

This actually prevents case law from being established. If it's plainly evident that tasing pregnant women for refusing to sign paper is bad, but no high profile case has established it, no lawyer will pursue such a case because there will be no payout. It's a mechanism for cops to do what they want and face no civil consequences.

Cops can't be held liable for violating case law until another cop has been held liable for that same act. The solution is left as an exercise for the reader.

It just works :^)

>such costs are virtually always paid by the officer’s municipality, insurance, or unions.

Gangs keep supporting their own until you harm the gang.

> Mark is in charge and has full control of the company to do as he pleases when he pleases.

Which is why we need to break it up. Facebook has massive unaccountable influence over elections.

Silicon Valley people live in a bubble where everyone they know is smart and liberal. After a while they forget that there exist smart people who are not liberal and implicitly think that if someone disagrees with them, they are uneducated and just wrong. Consequently they take it upon themselves to demand that people not be allowed to say incorrect and uneducated opinions (really just anything the Silicon Valley hivemind disagrees with).

When nearly everyone in your bubble has the same beliefs on politics and culture you will react violently towards threatening ideas.

>when people are scared, they want the government to protect them and theirs

Should someone tell him?

My state is one of the poorer states and worst educated states in America.

>But can you point out an example of when a militia or an insurrection won against the US police or national guard?

Afghanistan, 2016.

My state has basically no gun control. You can buy an AR-15 with no background check from a third party and not get it registered. No registration necessary for open carrying rifles or pistols. We still have one of the lowest crime rates in America. I fail to see the correlation between gun control and gun crime in America.

Presumption of innocence is a principle, not computer code.

>Not being US resident or citizen I wonder if this is the effect of the gun availability

Almost no effect. I live in a state where over 2/3 of people own guns (usually multiple guns) and we have one of the lowest murder rates in America and a very low rate of police killing.

I think that in order to determine if a shooting was justified, you must determine if the victim was committing a crime. That should be the standard. If you kill someone who was not committing a crime, you should be punished, regardless of what you believed at the time or what police department policy you are following.

>citizens don't have the right to use violence against each other

Do people have the right to self defense? Are police legally obligated to keep you safe?

>there is absolutely no way American citizens could fight their own police and their own army

Please tell me the last time America won a war against a militia or insurrection embedded in the civilian population.

Do you think people have the right to use violence for self defense? If so, who can people defend themselves from? Who can't they defend themselves from?

If the suspect started shooting at police first, he is guilty of attempted murder, since intentionally shooting someone with a gun implies intent to kill. It's not necessary to obfuscate the issue with "justified shooting" which inevitably gets biased by the officer's subjective fears, biases, and paranoia. If I wrote down rules on a piece of paper in my house stating cases in which I could shoot other people, you wouldn't give a damn about my use of force policies if I killed someone because I feared for my life. Why should we do that for police departments? Their use of force policies are arbitrary and not legally binding. It shouldn't matter one bit if a police department allows their officers to shoot a detained driver if he quickly reaches into his glove compartment. Murder is murder regardless of the bureaucratic justification.

The definition of the state as the "monopoly on violence" only works if you think that states inherently have the right to their power. America, on the other hand, believes that the government gets its power from the people and the people have the right to take away that power if it is misused. In effect, Americans have contractually given the state the essential powers of violence but still keep the means to take that power back. That's why Americans have had the right to firearms before the United States even existed.

>What if there are x12 more black guys committing a crime?

There's a difference between x12 black guys committing a crime and x12 black guys convicted of a crime.

>99% cases of no accountability? This assumes that all the suspects were innocent old ladies.

Yes, America presumes innocence.

Wrong. The rate of gun ownership is not the primary predictor of the murder rate in America. I live in a state where over two thirds of people own guns, but the murder rate (and police killing rate) is very low.

"Justified shooting" in American merely means that the police followed the protocols of his police department, which often say "shoot if you feel threatened". The rules of police departments should not in themselves be a shield from criminal liability. If cops shoot someone who was not guilty of a crime, they should be punished, much in the same way that if you or I shoot and kill an innocent person, we should be punished.

Until someone is convicted of a crime in America, they are presumed innocent. I don't see why that should change just because a suspect was killed before they could be tried. All police killings should be thoroughly investigated. The statistic that 99% of them do not lead to legal punishment is extremely suspicious.

Today I learned that Runescape is where the real men write backend game servers.

Unity and Unreal Engine are the only realistic options for 99% of indie developers. Yes, you can technically program your own game engine, but if you are asking advice for simple ways to make games, that is not the best option for you right now. There is a lot of really good education content for those two game engines. Most importantly, people use them to make and sell games.

More important than any particular route you take is merely sticking with it. The choice of game engine doesn't matter that much as long as you make and finish games with that engine. Everything else is secondary and mostly procrastination.

You are including civilian casualties for other countries but not for the US? That's what I call a pro gamer move...

Yeah, doesn't this just mean they didn't detect misuse?

Integers identify as male :)

I guess the difference is that white people don't care as much when a white person is murdered by a cop. We distance ourselves from it and try to rationalize it.

>There's definitely a tribal aspect

I disagree, I think it's historical context. The KKK used to infiltrate the police throughout the south. The police aided and abetted domestic terrorism against black people. There are people still living who remember this. It's not tribalism to point out that you are being targeted based on your race and being sensitive to that threat. If you want to call out tribalism, call out the group that is targeting others based on race. They are the tribal ones.