Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  Next

A Vancouver rioter speaks

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/a-vancouver-rioter-speaks.html

   

Well, for someone not trying to defend it, he seems to be trying pretty hard
to defend his actions.






Bullshit.

   

I agree with you there. Others have talked about the rush they felt being part of that mob, he likely did too. And likely felt different the next day. I think we've all been caught up in something that we felt different about the next day. The only illegal thing I can think of I did in that situation is drink (road race also) and drive. Never had an accident, never got caught. But if I did I'd have to have faced up to it and realized how stupid it was.

But does that mean this guy should msgs tying in his being gay with what he did? Or others that get physical threats? That's where there is a limit to what is said to these rioters. Calling them scum for what they did is OK. Trying to get them fired is OK. Bringing in their sexuality or race, or making actual threats to them or their employer is not.

   

Have we gotten any public apologies from a rioter who wasn't caught on camera, or even better, one that was but wasn't Internet shamed?

Didn't think so.


...and if we did, sorry.

   

You may want to re-word that. You make it sound like you have not faced up to it and have not realized how stupid it was, just because you didn't get caught.

   

As a matter of fact, it is bullshit.

How do we propose to square this 'apology' compared to this article.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/ ... story.html

It was then that he figured he caught, oh and then he decided it was good time
to 'turn himself in'.

   

this part:



Honestly, when I read it, I thought it was a misprint.
Even scrolled back up to make sure the article was about a guy.

Ok, so the guy actually is gay.. so what ?

Should have seen the names people were calling Camille and Alex, or little Jason
for that matter.


All kinds of promises of dropping soap in the shower, and much worse...
just people blowing off steam.
In this case, the guy really is gay, but I only just noticed 5 mins ago.

People aren't being homophobic, there being angry.

   

Oh, for Christ's sake. Everybody here is a moral paragon.

   

Go ahead and be angry. But keep it about the rioting. There's a way to be angry and not lose your head, then make excuses that you couldn't help it 'cause you were so angry. I don't know why it's not possible to keep a little perspective.

   

Not everybody.


Just you.



At least that seems to be how you've been telling it so far.

   

What, because I say keep some perspective in how you act toward the rioters? Vs the anything is OK because the rioters are so bad and I'm so pure attitude?

   

There you go again making sh*t up.

No one has said that "anything is OK".

We're all in agreement that criminal threats are inexcusable, but we're also saying that writing letters and outing the rioters online most definitely does not constitute 'vigilantism' anymore than some reporter posting public pictures of Mel Gibson online constitutes vigilatism.

If you do things in public then you're in the public eye and whatever befalls you originated with your choices...good or bad.

Have you noticed that all the people who didn't riot have had no such problems?

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

   

And you're making shit up claiming I say outing protesters and writing letters is not OK, even tho I've repeatedly said I agree with it. See how that works - quit arguing against something I'm not saying.

You chose (in your first post) to cast the lawyer who was just making observations about what might cross the legal line as a liberad asshat who's promoting letting the rioters off and that nobody should be expressing their anger. I tried to point out that there are limits, and you've been trying to twist that into my excusing the rioters.

Then you go on to say this: You may want to think about whether you really mean that the way you wrote it, because on the face of it, that's pretty dangerous thinking. (I'm generous enough to believe you didn't mean it quite like you wrote it.)

   

I’ll play with you for another trolled out page andy.

This lawyer is giving his interpretation of the events. He’s not even saying any offences have been committed by those asking for the rioters to be held accountable. He’s just doing a bit of grandstanding that criminal-lawyers do to up their profile to potential customers.

Even the baying hordes of right-wing reformacons saying ‘they should be strung up’ aren’t committing a criminal offence.

“Utter threats” is a tough one to prove on internet chatter.

There are several specific points to prove before the offence is complete, none of them apply to ‘they should be strung up’. It’s not even an indirect threat . Look it up.

These veiled ‘warnings’ you are handing out come from zero knowledge of the law and as such hold no credibility or weight other than their inherent trolling factor.

Now run along before I taunt you for a second time.

   

Truer words were never spoken.

Drinking and driving and street racing was wrong... but only if he got caught.

Yep. Retard.

   

Previous  1 ... 5  6  7  8  9  Next