Jean Charles de Menezes verdict

Um, I don't think the police were responsible for that.The reason that the Menezes shooting is so much more disturbing to any reasonable person is that terrorists with the power of terrorists aren't all that scary. Sure, a few bombs here and there. To put it in perspective, the most famous act of terrorism - 9/11 - killed less people than died in motorcycle accidents that year.On the other hand, terrorists with the power of a modern state is pretty fuckin' scary indeed. The Constitution doesn't defend itself, NJ, not even in the UK; if we don't push back against government encroachment towards our freedoms, the freedoms aren't going to push back on their own. Well, they weren't. Now what? I'm curious what corrective measures you think can be taken that, were we to suggest them, you wouldn't accuse us of "agitating against the state" or some such nonsense.

One person killed by the police, though, for no good reason. You don't find that just a little more significant? I don't think one post constitutes a "soapbox", and the reason that I'm making the argument is because it's important.Don't you agree? Don't you think its a cause for concern when the government starts encroaching on personal liberty? I find freedom fairly important, personally, but I can appreciate how a right-wing authoritarian follower finds slavish devotion to authority so much more important. It's completely consistent with your personality type to find a positive defense of liberty objectionable. Communist what now? You've lost me. On soapboxes, perhaps? I don't see how they can. The concept of double jeopardy is in English courts as well as American.Remember that it took riots in the streets of LA - with deaths and millions in damages - just to get a Federal trial in the Rodney King case, is that what you're suggesting here? Burning London to the ground for justice? I kind of hope there's a more constructive solution. It kind of looks like they can, because they just did, and they got away with it. When the state turns a blind eye to murder by the police, what precisely do you suggest be done? A political what? Any time you're talking about something the government is responsible for - like the police - that's politics. How could it not be?

So, no good reason, like I said.It's not clear what you're objecting to, here, NJ. "No good reason" doesn't mean "no reason", it means "none of the reasons were good." They shot that guy on the subway because they thought he was a threat. Unfortunately, they had no good reason to believe that. Well, look up there at the top, NJ, where it says "Jean Charles de Menezes verdict". That's the topic of this thread. When other injustices are the topics of other threads, I comment on them in that situation when I feel like I have something meaningful to say. I'm distrustful of human beings in authority, as any reasonable person should be. The fact that you're not, NJ, is indicative of a recognized personality condition called "right-wing authoritarian follower" as first identified by Altemeyer, and as corroborated by about 40 years of research on the subject.Remember when conservativism was about how natural it is to be distrustful when human beings are in positions of authority? Remember things like checks and balances, which are predicated on the idea that we can't simply trust those in power to always do what is right without some oversight? It's funny how people like you completely forgot about all of that. I don't romanticize murderers, no, and I don't consider the agenda of organizations like Al-Queda to be one of freedom, but rather the institution of religious totalitarianism throughout their small sphere of influence. It's not me that sees it that way, NJ. It's the entire psychological community. You have a personality abnormality that leads you to support authority and the status-quo wherever you perceive it. Whenever you recognize a situation as one where some persons are resisting authority, you come down on the side of the authority.That's what it means to be a right-wing authoritarian follower. You've lost me, again. It's abundantly obvious that the liberal nations are the most free, and the conservative nations are the least free. Nobody's ever been oppressed by accessible health care, reproductive choice, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and protection against business exploitation. On the other hand, "limited government" has always been a transparent cover for government intrusion into the lives of marginalized groups. Um, yes, abundantly incorrect.Seriously, where on Earth did you get the idea that I'm some kind of "communist sympathizer"?And who the fuck even talks like that anymore? "Communist sypmathizer"? Who are you supposed to be, J. Edgar Hoover? And when they ignore the protests, because it's just a bunch of dirty hippies, then what? What hope can there be for justice when there's an endless supply of right-wing followers like yourself, taking the side of authority at every turn in every situation? What? No, NJ, I assure you, the police are a branch of the government. Part of the executive branch, in fact. That's why it's meaningless to complain that a police incident has become "politicized"; setting police procedure and investigating/prosecuting violations of that procedure is, by it's nature, part of politics.

Right, exactly. That would seem to indicate the end of that person's aggressions to your home, at least for the time being. When they run away, that's the sign that you've successfully completed the task of defending your home.Thus, if you put a bullet in their back, that's murder. Seems pretty obvious to me. Violence in self-defense includes neither violence to prevent non-imminent future acts nor violence in retribution for past acts. Both of those are murder.