This doesn't hold to scrutiny. The ICE agent that was first to shoot was the same agent to fire the most shots, I'm led to believe he was the ONLY one that fired shots.
>"The video clearly shows him resisting arrest and reaching for something."
Tell me the EXACT time in the video you see this happen.
In the video, there are 4 ICE agents on him and there's not ONE frame where the tackled protester reaches for ANYTHING with his arm/hand. There is, however, a gray-masked ICE agent consistently reaching for what appears to be the protestor's sidearm. And at 0:17, the ICE agent that shoots first reached for his own sidearm, and the ICE agent next to him retrieves what appears to be the protestor's concealed firearm at the same time, and walks away from the pile with it BEFORE shots are even fired. The "threat" - the protestor's right to bear arms - was eliminated before a shot.
There is not a single indication that ICE agents were in danger from anyone besides each other. If he was shot dead for possession, there's your answer for 2A, right there. They're shooting people like dogs in broad daylight for recording police interactions (1A) and possessing a firearm (2A), the tree of liberty needs replenishment.
"Mechanics lien" are a thing, and the government has plenty of machinations to avoid someone from registering their car or updating a registration, which does have case law for being an action prior to taking someone's vehicle as an asset seizure. Civil asset forfeiture also has extensive case law for being used with vehicles.
When it comes to brass text and if the chips are down, your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one. Whether it should be or not, and regardless of how much an individual's mobility and freedom is reliant on them owning a car in modern America, it's still a de-facto "privilege" rather than a "right".
> your right for vehicle ownership is HEAVILY skewed state-side if they don't want you to have one.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you and SoftTalker appear to be writing under the influence of some questionable assumptions.
The fact that the government can excuse and routinely do something while getting away with it doesn't mean that the getting away or the actions themselves are right or justified.
The discussion here is about the compatibility of government's actions with the spirit of the Constitution which doesn't provide an exemption for habituated wrongs.
While a generalization has the flaws of being, well, a generalization; I've noticed that this trope is at least more true than not when you qualify what TYPE of Democrats and Republicans you're talking about.
I think one is true of the representatives - Democrat constituents generally fall in line without question; whereas I think the other is true of the people - Republican voters generally fall in line without question.
The rot is deep for the constituents on either side, however. There's a LOT of incentive to preserve party/ideological status quo regardless of where you land.
You can also do this today by telling someone to take a picture of their vote by smartphone or you'll shoot them. Millions post a picture of their ballot on high-energy political forums every 2 years already. This hypothetical is unhelpful.
Where I live, ballot are a piece of paper slipped into an envelope (not sealed). It's mandatory to take at least two different ballots before entering a voting booth. You can take a picture with one ballot inside the envelope and switch before leaving the booth.
>"but it certainly doesn’t feel better than the BBC to me"
BBC was cutting-edge for creating and fostering methodologies that went on to become most of the "impartial reporting" practices from journalists. So, even if it's not feeling any "better" than BBC, that's still a pretty good step in the right direction!
The parent poster was saying X was better than the BBC, I certainly wouldn't have picked that one, but it's likely because they get their news from conservative outlets outraged by the recutting of Trump's speech on January 6th.
That phrasing sounds like you're not yourself outraged by it. It wouldn't be surprising given the institutional attitudes seen at the BBC (and Channel 4 which got caught doing something even worse) - clearly, leftists have decided that framing politicians and publishing entirely fake news is acceptable if it's to attack right wing people.
Anyone who knows about that event and is still watching the BBC afterwards is saying they don't care about the truth of their own beliefs. Dangerous stuff.
>So, even if it's not feeling any "better" than BBC, that's still a pretty good step in the right direction!
The step in the direction of decentralized filter bubbles isoating society? With no channels to hold info accountable and checked/upfated for accuracy?
GP made a pretty good case for X being a good-faithed attempt at a new distributed structure for mass media that at least TRIES to have conflicting viewpoints or objectivist "fact checks", even if it occasionally misses the mark. I was VERY early on the "hate-Elon" bandwagon and even earlier on not being an active Twitter/X user (search my username).
In a post-Fairness Doctrine world, what else would satisfy you?
I don't think we're in a post fairness doctrine world, for one. So no, I haven't given up on the idea of he 4th estate. Your solution to bias is, as always, to not take any one source for granted. Take time to actually read articles from multiple angles that fall in line with the Fariness Doctrine. Then from there, use your own lived experiences to form your own viewpoint.
Outsourcing that to soundbites from randos on twitter with middle school lieracy is insanity. But let me use a charitable lens here.
Any notion of X being a good faith attempt at being a community-lead fact checker got broken with the introduction of Grok. Then those hopes were shattered to pieces when Grok was shown to be massively compromised by yet another central figure. One who, yes, has the literacy of a middle schooler. We somehow ended up with the worst of both worlds having centralization of a bad knowledge hub and stupidity.
>what else would satisfy you?
if using our brains is out of the equation and lack of censorship is truly the most important metric of "free discussion": let's just bring back 4chan. no names or personalities, 99% free-for-all, it technically has threading support to engage in conversations. There is centralization, but compared to the rest of the internet the moderators and admins stay very quiet.
There's a lot I hate about modern social media, but surprisingly 4chan only has like 2 things I strongly dislike. Big step up from the 20+ reasons I can throw at nearly every other site.
Not saying it's good, but if you put people through a rudimentary hypothetical or prior history example where killing someone (i.e. Hitler) would be justified as what essentially comes down to a no-brainer Kaldor–Hicks efficiency (net benefits / potential compensation), A LOT of people will agree with you. Is that objective or a moral absolute?
Does traveling through time to kill Hitler constitute murder though? If you kill him in 1943 I think most people would say it's not, the crimes that already been committed that make his death justifiable. What's the difference if you know what's going to happen and just do it when he's in high school? Or putting him in a unit in WW1 so he's killed in battle?
I think most people who have spent time with this particular thought experiment conclude that if you are killing Hitler with complete knowledge of what he will do in the future, it's not murder.
>"The universe has no concept of morality, ethics, life, or anything of the sort. These are all human inventions. I am not saying they are good or bad, just that the concept of good and bad are not given to us by the universe but made up by humans."
The universe might not have a concept of morality, ethics, or life; but it DOES have a natural bias towards destruction from a high level to even the lowest level of its metaphysic (entropy).
The SEP is not really something I'd put next to Ayn Rand. The SEP is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it's an actual resource, not just pop/ cultural stuff.
reply