AWistfulNihilist

Yeah, that's a fair point, honestly.

I feel you, it's for sure gray.

I get what you're saying, but my point is it's not really accepted. It's actually an incredibly controversial process that has recently been updated in the US to include not targeting civilians specifically.

Totally respect it's not your idea, I'm just pointing out that I think it's much more complicated when you involve civilian collateral damage, which is actually terrorism in a mask with an overcoat.

People are pretty universal in their condemnation of American attacks that kill civilians, that's why we see the names of those people less, Trump made that change. Biden rolled back those changes finally, but you're not gonna believe some of the new rules, stuff like stop fucking drone striking civilians you sociopaths: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/us/biden-drone-strikes.html

So yeah, America is both complicit in and has been (maybe still is) a sponsor of terror in many situations. And if one of those people affected by America in that way were to somehow get a bunch of cell phone bombs on GI's hips while they were out with their families, to those people it might be justified while I would still call it terrorism.

You know, I bet they have a problem with both! Shooting a rocket at a market is comparable to putting explosives on a possible combatant and detonating it while they are in a market. Let alone 3,000x that latter scenario.

Like I don't care for terroristic acts on civilians no matter where they come from. I'm unironically ok with them mass targeting the rocket sites, though!

Really? The advice I've seen for years at a traffic stop is to only roll down your window enough to talk to the officer and hand over paperwork and to close it immediately after. Along with not voluntarily providing any extra information and only answering questions as asked.

That's for your safety, not theirs. You can argue the full tints, but the vehicle was surrounded by officers and many of them were aware this person was playing football that day.

In context this is one of stupidest escalations I've seen since ever and I can't believe none of these other cops stopped it from happening. Give this a little more time and the rest of the guys are gonna get lit up along with the dude who's on administrative leave.

Like in order to make this shit look ok, you have to full on compare the reaction to someone who was engaged in a crash or hit and run, has a warrant, or is a sovcit. They could run this dudes plates in 7 seconds and understand this dude wasnt a threat, they probably should have escorted him the rest of the way after they gave him his citation! This was a physical response to disrespect, ridiculousintimidation and you shouldn't be ok with it.

Sov Cits don't have documentation and refuse to comply with lawful orders. This gentleman gave the police his documentation and they got mad he wasn't bending over and spreading his asshole.

It's funny cause this situation is so crazy with how the cops escalated this situation when it wasn't warranted, you actually have to compare them to someone doing an actual crime!

Like that's how crazy this debate even is. Rich dude in super car being an asshole vs a person who is willfully driving with fake paperwork hoping a cop pulls them over.

Hill just looked like a rich asshole in a hurry and I can't imagine anyone advocating that the police action was OK.

I really can't imagine thinking that no matter how disrespectful someone was during a traffic violation, that escalating to pulling someone out of the car and putting them in handcuffs is ok.

Office was never in any danger, he was actually surrounded by other officers. You should be able to disrespect an officer and that should not escalate being physically handled like that.

The expectation for a criminal in a criminal act is to have as much force as needed applied to them to get them to comply. The expectation of an asshole at a traffic stop should be to get his big ticket and keep moving.

If you don't want to be called a boot licker, stop licking boots!

I dunno, I'm way less terrified of the guy with a 40k watch in a 150k car than I would be in any other situation. Unless I was super jealous that this black dude was rich, and he didn't show immediate respect to me. Then I might pull him out of his car despite having everything I need to write the citation and being in 0 danger literally surrounded by other officers.

I was saying this elsewhere in the thread, but I don't even think that matters in this case, consent. Them consenting to shooting each other, drunk or not, wouldn't save either of them from a manslaughter charge. Imo, being drunk in this case would make their stupid decision worse. Doing this without consent would just be plain ol' attempted murder on one of their parts.

Like, consenting to a crime makes you culpable, and you can totally do that while drunk and get charged. Except for sex, where the rules about consent are different.

Yeah, that makes sense. This all tracking with my examples and I'm pretty sure we agree here! Is this person awake or not? Is informed consent required when delayed treatment would be dangerous if the person came in in an alerted state, comatose, etc.? Being voluntarily intoxicated to the point of being a danger to your own life gets your consent ignored in many cases because most of the time society won't allow a person to just die.

I think I take your point about consent being not just sex in that context, but the medical version doesn't really apply here.

"If we give someone benzos..."

Exactly! That would not be described as voluntary intoxication for this example, you as the hospital are responsible for his state.

If a person came in via the ambulance because they are in the midst of an episode of alcohol poisoning and are non-verbal, do you wait to take action until they can consent? You see what I'm saying?