yeetawayhn

"Innocent until proven guilty" does not prevent a suspect from being arrested. Being released with no charges is not a statement of innocence or guilt, but of whether the prosecutor believes there is enough evidence to go through with prosecution.

No, you just misunderstand what the presumption of innocence means. It means that people are assumed to be innocent and that it is the duty of the prosecution to show their guilt.

It doesn't mean that you can't arrest people suspected of a crime. That's how arrests work, FYI.

> A reasonable observer could conclude that they are almost certainly American law enforcement. Is is difficult to tell that these German fellows are police officers? >https://i.redd.it/b6xjl7nugoq41.jpg

Based on the comments here, it is difficult for these people. Perhaps they are not reasonable observers?

Since when is officers arresting people tyranny? That sounds like a "sovereign citizen" kind of position.

The difference is that people aren't saying not to go after the bad actors in on tor.

So you've made your call, so confident in feeling you're in the right. Nice knowing you, "admiral".

> And to your point about referee: the cop isn't a referee. They're just another fighter. And if they lose, there's no ref to stop the person from seriously hurting or killing them. Combine this with the fact that most cops are just average people with little to no hand to hand combat experience, aside from a few confidence booster sessions at the police academy.

This is a good point that goes over some of the misconceptions that people may have about the level of training and proficiency of police.

>I think cops deserve a lot of criticism. But let's make it constructive criticism.

Or at least logically consistent criticism

The bodybuilder? Because that what shows up in the search results.

You're correct.

"Several major cities, including Seattle, Boston, New York and Minneapolis, have specific policies against police recording with body cameras at protests.

Protesters have long been worried about surveillance at demonstrations, the latest twist being police use of technology like facial recognition and social media monitoring to identify people in crowds. Using body cameras as surveillance tools at protests threaten people's privacy and could have a chilling effect on free speech."

https://www.cnet.com/news/police-body-cameras-at-protests-ra...

> At this point it appears you are disregarding facts all together and arguing from some type of religious fervor. Something like a young earth creationist. I don't mean this in an offensive fashion but just as a reality check for you.

That's optimistic, as the conflict between reality and their argument is probably what has elevated the fervor.

Commenter specified "high income jobs" of which only a small portion of the ~120 million qualifies.

> Interesting. So some people in Hawaiian shirts are fomenting unrest and trying to bring about a second civil war, whilst some other people in much more sober clothing are fighting for righteousness and justice by smashing up neighbourhoods and businesses and forcibly occupying parts of a major city.

That's about the gist of it, yes.

The fact that they are not being killed for the commission of the crime but to stop the danger to others.

Your problem is not with the definition, but in that the definition doesn't match the situation.

> Normal people have nightmares for years after killing someone, even in the most perfectly justified cases of self defense.

This isn't an answer to the question. It is in fact a non-answer that endorses the irrational as an enlightened state.

Summary execution is not what is happening when a police officer kills someone who is a danger to others.

You misconstrue the content to describe it like that. The justification is predicated on the a clear and present danger to others.

What reasoning do you have to support being remorseful for saving others from a clear and present danger?

Can you be more specific about what is harrowing?

I don't think downvoting them is going to change their mind by making them reassess their convictions after being subjected to the same treatment they support.

No, their claim isn't that they didn't throw tear gas at the police, but that they were justified in doing so.

>It’s up to me to prove that I was justified in shooting my neighbor

When did the tear gas throwers show they were justified in throwing tear gas at the police?

You just said that self-defense must show justification for the use of force. Are you going back on that now?

> that the civilian on which force was used did something to justify it

When was that proven like you demanded?

> I never said anything about self–defense.

If it isn't self-defense, then they just illegally assaulted one or more officers and deserve to be punished.

Exactly. There is no claim that they did not throw the tear gas back, but in order for it to be self-defense they have to show that the police did something to justify it, as you laid out in #2.

> The past week has shown that cops are absolutely willing to use injurious force without even the slightest shred of justification, and then lie badly about it.

But you just said you couldn't prove this above... Which is it?

This is just a misunderstanding of the burden of proof. If they are unjustified, then you should be able to prove that. Otherwise what you're talking about is the police having to prove their innocence. Exactly the kind of thing that you would complain about, if you hadn't gotten it all wrong.