I am not sure which is more cringey, the litany of erroneous assumptions you splayed out or the act of calling upon the student archetype with the intent of derision. Anti-intellectualism, check. src
The protest was peaceful until those two officers unlawfully committed assault and battery against those innocent people. The molotov was thrown as a mode of defending a defenseless person from a violent criminal. I don't contest that the person who brought to molotov to the protest probably had bad intentions and should be prosecuted for it.
I'm not contesting the notion that someone who comes to a protest with molotovs probably has bad intentions. But as it pans out, the protest was entirely peaceful until the police decided to use illegal and excessively violent means to disperse the protest, after which the use of those molotovs was absolutely in self defense. I would consider it to be analogous to somebody bringing a concealed firearm onto the Kent State University campus on the May 4th protest in 1970. Maybe it's illegal to bring a firearm onto that campus and maybe the person's reason for bringing the gun with them is malicious, but the bottom line is that when the national guard shoot first and he/she shoots back, it's still self defense using proportional force.
Do you think you've found a flaw in argument? If you have, I'd love to hear it. Or are you just making a statement about the type of people who bring molotovs to ACAB protests? If you are, you're in good company. I detest anarchists.
I feel that you have misconstrued the situation. If you have seen the video evidence, the first motorcyclist officer plows into a civilian member of the protest without provocation, and then the second officer (the one who gets a molotov to the helmet) who was confirmed as the first one's partner, plows his vehicle into another unarmed protester and in the process finds himself ejected from his seat. I know it's difficult to tell from the video link posted higher in this thread, but I reverse google image searched the image from the origin of the thread and in those sites I was able to view video recordings from three different angles that incontrovertibly proved that the second officer that got the molotov to the head was also the perpetrator of premeditated vehicular assault and battery of the unarmed protesters. Knowing this, I don't feel that the police officers' conduct was justifiable, and that the person who threw the molotov was justified in doing so. I do not contest that that thrower was most likely a person with has bad intentions. But as it pans out, the protest was entirely peaceful until the police decided to use illegal and excessively violent means to disperse the protest, after which the use of those molotovs was absolutely in self defense. I would consider it to be analogous to somebody bringing a concealed firearm onto the Kent State University campus on the May 4th protest in 1970. Maybe it's illegal to bring a firearm onto that campus and maybe the person's reason for bringing the gun with them is malicious, but the bottom line is that when the national guard shoot first and he/she shoots back, it's still self defense using proportional force.
I don't think I should need to say it, but fire is dangerous. Anyone who came there with fire bombs, they came prepared with to use it. It stops being self-defense when you use a tool of destruction that can harm anyone else in the way.
Can but didn't. Firearms also have the potential to hit bystanders in crossfire or due to overpenetration. Does that mean that under no conditions should the use of a firearm be considered self defense? That's not reasonable. The person who threw this used it in an appropriately restrained way, so why condemn it?
Yeah, I think I got it wrong. Still doesn't excuse the fact that he got lit on fire. Those were black bloc, they brought Molotov cocktails with the full intention of using them.
you missed a spot on that jackboot. If you're going to volunteer to lick kops' jackboots clean of the muck and mire, at least you can do is do a thorough job.
I don't approve of the running people over, m8: I think the keystone kops should be investigated for that. I also don't approve of black bloc bringing Molotov cocktails.
I don't think the protestors themselves came up with the name, it's a term used to refer to protestors that wear mostly or all-black clothing (and usually cover their face too).
But you see, they set this man on fire in self defense! Clearly setting him on fire with a Molotov is the only way they could have defended themselves!
If you intended this comment to be ironic, then I would suggest to you that your supposed prowess in responding to violent scenarios in which people are being victimized before you in unexpected ways is overestimated.
another moron who doesn't understand the concept of improvised weapons and imagines that someone has to 'bring' a molotov instead of just using an empty bottle of Mayo, an American National Security Blanket, and some bourgeois petrol siphoned from a Beemer....
Once again, I'll post a previous comment so as to avoid being misconstrued.
Here's an analogy I drew in another thread here:
I'm not contesting the notion that someone who comes to a protest with molotovs probably has bad intentions. But as it pans out, the protest was entirely peaceful until the police decided to use illegal and excessively violent means to disperse the protest, after which the use of those molotovs was absolutely in self defense. I would consider it to be analogous to somebody bringing a concealed firearm onto the Kent State University campus on the May 4th protest in 1970. Maybe it's illegal to bring a firearm onto that campus and maybe the person's reason for bringing the gun with them is malicious, but the bottom line is that when the national guard shoot first and he/she shoots back, it's still self defense using proportional force.
Do you think you've found a flaw in argument? If you have, I'd love to hear it.
So, the escalation argument is one I've hashed out already. My initial contention was that since molotovs used against police officers in full body armor should be considered non-lethal their use in defense of non-lethal assaults against civilians should not be considered an escalation of force. When /u/milescool101 posed the argument
If you throw a Molotov at a person in body armour, it can melt the material of the armour (rubber, etc....) into the victims skin/eyes/etc..., The smoke can suffocate the victim and the burns can be caused both by the flames themselves as they can reach inside of the armour (e.g. in the picture you can see flames within the helmet) and the heat from the flames. The effective thing about Molotov's is that they are liquid based so it's like throwing water on someone, wherever the waters goes, the flames go, in addition to the flames themselves leafing inside the armour
I was fully prepared to change my tune. However, in spite of these new strictures, I don't believe that it's a reasonable expectation expect greater restraint in this specific position, especially considering that he threw it in defense of a defenseless victim and within ~2 seconds of the initial assault. To criticize him for this would be to microanalyze the millisecond by millisecond analysis of appropriate use of force in the unfolding melee of uncertainty and hormones. I think that would be an unreasonable expectation of a human being in the given circumstances.
I don't believe that it's a reasonable expectation expect greater restraint in this specific position, especially considering that he threw it in defense of a defenseless victim and within ~2 seconds of the initial assault. To criticize him for this would be to microanalyze the millisecond by millisecond analysis of appropriate use of force in the unfolding melee of uncertainty and hormones. I think that would be an unreasonable expectation of a human being in the given circumstances.
They prepared a dangerous lethal weapon and brought it willingly to a high-stress situation. They clearly expected the protest to turn violent, so they can't claim they were caught off guard when the protest turned violent.
I've already ceded that they were likely bad actors. I'm only defending their use of those weapons in self defense in this one specific context. And I will still applaud their unexpected use of restraint until they were violently and illegally attacked by bad actors within the police force.
And I will still applaud their unexpected use of restraint until they were violently and illegally attacked by bad actors within the police force.
Uhh, yeah, how about we award them the Nobel Peace Prize for their outstanding accomplishments in the field of not burning people to death. Maybe next time they can get through the entire protest without attempting to brutally murder someone! Or is that setting too high of a bar for them?
It probably is tbqh. I don't know why you would expect me to defend their character. I'm only defending their use of those weapons in this specific context.
They brought the molotov with ill intent, and escalated a moderately dangerous situation to a life-threatening one by hurling an explosive at someone recovering from a vehicular crash. They were wrong in both having and using that weapon. I'm not sure how much of the context you've whittled away in order to find something righteous in what they did, but it was unacceptable on the whole.
You forget to mention that they disabled a violent man who was in the process of assaulting unarmed people with his vehicle. That's the entire reason he wiped out. He hit a guy. Intentionally. Right after his partner did. Like I said, when you commit battery against someone you run the risk of getting burned, and I have no sympathy if that happens to you.
Did you actually look at the videos? The only person the second bike went near was the one who knocked it to the ground. They took a swing at the recovering officers with their flagpole before running off into the crowd unharmed.
Can you extrapolate on that? I apologize for characterizing you in this manor, but I can't help but assume you're applying a lot of pre-conceived notions to me in a tribal sense. Whether you agree or disagree with that assumption, I ask you to try...fucking shit...holy fuck. I apologize for this fucking inferno....I'm high as fuck right now. I probably shouldn't have smoked up before trying to reply to all this bullshit and I've completely lost perspective.
At least this guy, a trained cop, knew and was being paid to be in the line of danger. The person who got run over might have been getting lunch. That’s why they call it in the line of duty...
With that argument, a person part of a "peaceful protest" (aka mob) knew what they were getting into too. And deserved to get run over.
The molotovs were used only in self-defence, prior to this attack (which can be ascribed to terrorism) there had been no istance in violence.
Basically they had the tools to defend themselves and, surprise surprise, they actually needed them when people started running them over for no fucking reason whatsoever.
I call bull on that. Setting people on fire is not "self defence". Also who brings those types of "tools" for defence - that's like the KKK buying assault rifles for "hunting".
So what should have they done to prevent those cops from harming other unarmed people? Just look and hope that the cops will change their mind as they're mauling innocent protesters?
Throwing that molotov was by definition self-defense. If someone starts running over people, you do whatever it takes to stop them.
Also who brings those types of "tools" for defence - that's like the KKK buying assault rifles for "hunting".
If it is likely to get attacked for illegitimate reasons, why shouldn't you care about self-defense?
Furthermore, gun ownership is much more strict in Greece. It is fair to assume that a molotov is one of the few effective weapons a civilian can put their hands on.
You're the one who is justifying terrorists running over innocent people, while also saying that those innocent people had no right to defend themselves.
I wonder what would have you said, had the Nice truck driver been stopped with a molotov. Would that have been "justifyin ISIS"?
HEY FUCKHEADS STOP DOWNVOTING SHIT YOU DON"T LIKE. WHAT ARE YOU FUCKING REDDITORS?
To /u/we_are_compromised on behalf of the less retarded users of /r/drama I apologize for the spaz's/fags/asslicks/dickholes who believe downvote button = power. They are Simple Jacks.
merican who literally bombs en tire countries for their kebab views
*entire
Also "kebab views" is an interesting way of decribing Al qaeda and ISIS. But hey I suppose both you and them love burning people alive - so you have that in common.
Only if you assume that they brought molotovs to start shit. They didn't and they used only in self defende when w lone cops started running people over with their motorcycles.
You don't realize how dumb that sounds? Let me empathesis how awful that reasoning is by changing a couple words:
Only if you assume that the KKK brought molotovs to start shit. They didn't and they used only in self defende when w lone black people started running people over with their motorcycles.
Oddly enough, they were right in bringing the molotovs to the protest, since they ended up getting attacked for no reason whatsoever
They had the right to protest, and they knew it was very likely for someone to attack them. Also, they did not use the molotovs on someone who threw a punch: they used it on someone who, in every other context, would have been called a terrorist.
Now, about your example
They didn't and they used only in self defende when w lone black people started running people over with their motorcycles.
Are you so stupid you think such a terrorist act should not be stopped only because the terrorist is black? Again, they threw it at a terrorist, not at a guy who was throwing some punches
Oddly enough, they were right in bringing the molotovs to the protest, since they ended up getting attacked for no reason whatsoever
So, if I want to protest, and I know that it is very likely (you're probably too ignorant about Greece current political climate to concieve this) that you will be attacked, harmed, even killed for it (and for illegitimate reasons) I can't still bring on a protest something that might literally save either my life or someone else's?
Also, they did not use the molotovs on someone who threw a punch: they used it on someone who, in every other context, would have been called a terrorist.
Are you so stupid you think such a terrorist act should not be stopped only because the terrorist is black? Again, they threw it at a terrorist, not at a guy who was throwing some punches
Ah so a cop who did nothing is a terrorist ? (another cop had the motorcycle). Also setting people on fire is a cruel way of "fighting" (as defined by the UN). Do tell me which country captures terrorists by trying to burn them alive? Let's be honest - you are defending ISIS style tactics.
So, if I want to protest, and I know that it is very likely (you're probably too ignorant about Greece current political climate to concieve this) that you will be attacked, harmed, even killed for it (and for illegitimate reasons) I can't still bring on a protest something that might literally save either my life or someone else's
So Greece is more dangerous then protesting in Pakistan, Saudi, Venezuela, Syria etc where the authorities do not have to obey EU human rights? Please, you are a spoiled mayo who literally has never experienced a dangerous political situation. It's easy to protest in EU nations - just don't be a mob and bring reporters. They failed on the first one.
Ah so a cop who did nothing is a terrorist ? (another cop had the motorcycle).
Check again the reports, they both run over people. The one who got the molotov was the second one.
Also setting people on fire is a cruel way of "fighting" (as defined by the UN).
If a thief gets into your house and you have only a spray can and a lighter you might try to set them on fire. Furthermore, gun ownership is very strict in Greece. It's not like they could go there with guns. And if guns are bad too, then you're saying that protesters can't defend themselves.
Do tell me which country captures terrorists by trying to burn them alive?
They were not captured, when the second cop was hit he was still on his motorcycle. In fact even in the pic posted in OP you can see the bike still at its feet while he is on fire.
Let's be honest - you are defending ISIS style tactics.
You are the one doing it, by saying that innocent people cannot defend themselves from terrorist attacks that LITERALLY mimic a very common ISIS' modus operandi.
Ah so a cop who did nothing is a terrorist ? (another cop had the motorcycle).
Check again the reports, they both run over people. The one who got the molotov was the second one.
Also setting people on fire is a cruel way of "fighting" (as defined by the UN).
If a thief gets into your house and you have only a spray can and a lighter you might try to set them on fire. Furthermore, gun ownership is very strict in Greece. It's not like they could go there with guns. And if guns are bad too, then you're saying that protesters can't defend themselves.
Do tell me which country captures terrorists by trying to burn them alive?
They were not captured, when the second cop was hit he was still on his motorcycle. In fact even in the pic posted in OP you can see the bike still at its feet while he is on fire.
Let's be honest - you are defending ISIS style tactics.
You are the one doing it, by saying that innocent people cannot defend themselves from terrorist attacks that LITERALLY mimic a very common ISIS' modus operandi
So Greece is more dangerous then protesting in Pakistan, Saudi, Venezuela, Syria etc where the authorities do not have to obey EU human rights?
Where the authorities obeying EU human rights as they were running over innocent people? We are dealing with an example that directly diaqualifies this objection of yours: yes, participating in this peaceful protest was dangerous, and we now have actual proofs for that.
Your objection would make sense if protesters had not been literally met with a terrorist attack.
Please, you are a spoiled mayo who literally has never experienced a dangerous political situation.
Yes, not getting run over by police motorcycles for illegitimate reasons is being a "spoiled mayo". Keep thinking in memes, my troglodyte friend.
It's easy to protest in EU nations - just don't be a mob and bring reporters. They failed on the first one.
What's a mob? A group of people in general? If that's the case, protesters should be a mob, there's nothing wrong with that. If to you being a mob means being rabid, violent and chaotic, then they were not being a mob, since the only istance of violence in the protest was in self-defence against terrorists.
So Greece is more dangerous then protesting in Pakistan, Saudi, Venezuela, Syria etc where the authorities do not have to obey EU human rights?
Don't underestimate Greece. Greece is a place where the anarchists are so fearsome that the British realized they made a mistake after WWII and put the Nazis back into power.
Lol anarchist scum. So fucking dumb. Good thing that everyone with power in the word thinks you’re a fucking moron so your opinions will never amount to anything.
I agree, that’s why they let the cops use tear gas and riot shields to disperse rioters. Then some fucking “peaceful protester” goes and throws a Molotov cocktail at a cop doing his job and you try and justify it because you are scum.
A) even according to some anarchist sympathizers it wasn’t this cop who ran over anyone, it was some other guy
B) if you just believe anarchist morons for every claim of police violence at face value you are very gullible and young. They probably surrounded some cop on a bike or someone threw themselves in front of him and got barely clipped, then they start spreading shit in order to incite and justify a violent riot.
C) even if it were all true (it fucking isnt) how is the justified retaliation “throw a Molotov cocktail” and set someone on fire? Put all these rioting scum in prison for attempted murder. Get fucked.
A) even according to some anarchist sympathizers it wasn’t this cop who ran over anyone, it was some other guy
Read the reports again. They both run over peaceful civilians.
if you just believe anarchist morons for every claim of police violence at face value you are very gullible and young. They probably surrounded some cop on a bike or someone threw themselves in front of him and got barely clipped, then they start spreading shit in order to incite and justify a violent riot.
There's footage from 3 point of views. I wasn't speculating.
) even if it were all true (it fucking isnt) how is the justified retaliation “throw a Molotov cocktail” and set someone on fire? Put all these rioting scum in prison for attempted murder. Get fucked.
Would have you said the same thing if someone stopped the Nice truck driver with a molotov? Keep in mind that when the cop was hit he still was on his motorcycle, which meant he could have easily run again over other people.
The protesters who were run over were fleeting, and unarmed. The black blocs were far back, and launched the first molotov only when those 2 terrorists started running people over. In the footages you won't see any sign of molotov usage prior to that
I'd unironically shoot every single person in that crowd if they were lighting people on fire. Don't care if it was only a few in the crowd, given that they're not going to do anything to stop it and are generally amused when a human being is intentionally burned alive.
101 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-06-15
I am not sure which is more cringey, the litany of erroneous assumptions you splayed out or the act of calling upon the student archetype with the intent of derision. Anti-intellectualism, check. src
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-06-15
Is this not how gyro's are made?
1 wisty 2018-06-15
No need for the apostrophe. And if you call them "kebabs" then everyone will know what you mean.
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-06-15
kebabs come on a stick. gyros come in a pita.
1 scatmunchies 2018-06-15
Probably a europoor - they call gyro-like products kebabs because of the Turks.
1 wisty 2018-06-15
Nah, convict scum.
But I like to remind Greeks that all their best food was just ripped off from Turks. Not that we're jealous.
1 wisty 2018-06-15
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doner_kebab
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-06-15
In the US this is a kebab.
And this is a gyro
1 wisty 2018-06-15
Fair enough. I'd call them shish kebabs (the kind you grill), as opposed to doner kebabs (the kind you get when you're drunk, basically gyros).
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-06-15
In, at least some parts of, Canada they call gyros 'donair'.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-15
We just call that shawarma in Pakistan lol.
1 aliceunknown 2018-06-15
Kebabs come with explosives, gyros come with debt.
1 ferongr 2018-06-15
In a Greek context, kebab is minced lamb/beef meat, ideally on a thin, wide stainless steel skewer (can substitute for wood) like so.
1 Mexagon 2018-06-15
An gyro.
1 dratamard 2018-06-15
/u/we_are_compromised
Because he hit some trash in the road he deserves to be burned alive?
I love the smell of bacon but where I live this same kind of human garbage would love to molotov you for your mayo views
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
If you describe a peaceful protester as 'some piece of trash in the road' I'm not going to engage you in this discussion.
1 dratamard 2018-06-15
i just want to make sure you keep yourself safe when you run into "peaceful protesters" with weapons after your next klan rally
1 Awayfone 2018-06-15
Peaceful protest
Lights a man on fire
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
The protest was peaceful until those two officers unlawfully committed assault and battery against those innocent people. The molotov was thrown as a mode of defending a defenseless person from a violent criminal. I don't contest that the person who brought to molotov to the protest probably had bad intentions and should be prosecuted for it.
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-15
Those peaceful protestors brought molotovs just in case. You never know when you need one.
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
Here's an analogy I drew in another thread here:
Do you think you've found a flaw in argument? If you have, I'd love to hear it. Or are you just making a statement about the type of people who bring molotovs to ACAB protests? If you are, you're in good company. I detest anarchists.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-15
Just FYI, those "peaceful protestors" were black bloc, and the dude who got molotov"d was a different person from the one who ran people over.
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
I feel that you have misconstrued the situation. If you have seen the video evidence, the first motorcyclist officer plows into a civilian member of the protest without provocation, and then the second officer (the one who gets a molotov to the helmet) who was confirmed as the first one's partner, plows his vehicle into another unarmed protester and in the process finds himself ejected from his seat. I know it's difficult to tell from the video link posted higher in this thread, but I reverse google image searched the image from the origin of the thread and in those sites I was able to view video recordings from three different angles that incontrovertibly proved that the second officer that got the molotov to the head was also the perpetrator of premeditated vehicular assault and battery of the unarmed protesters. Knowing this, I don't feel that the police officers' conduct was justifiable, and that the person who threw the molotov was justified in doing so. I do not contest that that thrower was most likely a person with has bad intentions. But as it pans out, the protest was entirely peaceful until the police decided to use illegal and excessively violent means to disperse the protest, after which the use of those molotovs was absolutely in self defense. I would consider it to be analogous to somebody bringing a concealed firearm onto the Kent State University campus on the May 4th protest in 1970. Maybe it's illegal to bring a firearm onto that campus and maybe the person's reason for bringing the gun with them is malicious, but the bottom line is that when the national guard shoot first and he/she shoots back, it's still self defense using proportional force.
1 Yiin 2018-06-15
Hint: Accelerationism and accelerant are not interchangable words.
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
Could you extrapolate on that statement more? I'm not sure what you mean by that.
1 Yiin 2018-06-15
I don't think I should need to say it, but fire is dangerous. Anyone who came there with fire bombs, they came prepared with to use it. It stops being self-defense when you use a tool of destruction that can harm anyone else in the way.
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
Can but didn't. Firearms also have the potential to hit bystanders in crossfire or due to overpenetration. Does that mean that under no conditions should the use of a firearm be considered self defense? That's not reasonable. The person who threw this used it in an appropriately restrained way, so why condemn it?
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-15
Yeah, I think I got it wrong. Still doesn't excuse the fact that he got lit on fire. Those were black bloc, they brought Molotov cocktails with the full intention of using them.
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
Totally understandable.
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-15
you missed a spot on that jackboot. If you're going to volunteer to lick kops' jackboots clean of the muck and mire, at least you can do is do a thorough job.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-15
I don't approve of the running people over, m8: I think the keystone kops should be investigated for that. I also don't approve of black bloc bringing Molotov cocktails.
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-15
did a 12 year old come up with the name?
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-15
Welcome to anarchism.
1 EternallyMiffed 2018-06-15
probably
1 shallowm 2018-06-15
I don't think the protestors themselves came up with the name, it's a term used to refer to protestors that wear mostly or all-black clothing (and usually cover their face too).
1 llapingachos 2018-06-15
covering their faces and dressing the same doesn't help people to figure out which guy to set on fire. they should reconsider that uniform policy.
1 VictoriousTeapot 2018-06-15
But you see, they set this man on fire in self defense! Clearly setting him on fire with a Molotov is the only way they could have defended themselves!
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
If you intended this comment to be ironic, then I would suggest to you that your supposed prowess in responding to violent scenarios in which people are being victimized before you in unexpected ways is overestimated.
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-15
I bet yours was one of the loudest, most obnoxious voices in the aftermath of "muh 9/11" calling for the bombing of.....(wait for it) Afghanistan.
Fucking clownshoe.
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-15
LOL
another moron who doesn't understand the concept of improvised weapons and imagines that someone has to 'bring' a molotov instead of just using an empty bottle of Mayo, an American National Security Blanket, and some bourgeois petrol siphoned from a Beemer....
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-15
clam down
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-15
Peaceful Democracy
Wages endless wars stores nuclear weapons all over the planet bombs people in mud huts who had nothing to do at all with "muh 9/11"
I could go on but I suspect I've surpassed the limits of your attention span already.
1 TheRootinTootinPutin 2018-06-15
Are you just looking for a reason to whine about amerifats at any given turn?
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-06-15
Thanks comrade! 20 Rubles have been deposited into your account!
1 Eternal_Mr_Bones 2018-06-15
Has a more obvious deflection ever existed?
1 Power_Incarnate 2018-06-15
People don't wear masks and bring weapons to peaceful protests.
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
Once again, I'll post a previous comment so as to avoid being misconstrued.
Here's an analogy I drew in another thread here:
Do you think you've found a flaw in argument? If you have, I'd love to hear it.
1 scatmunchies 2018-06-15
Sounds like you’re just trying to justify your obvious desire to escalate the situation to violence under the guise of self-defense.
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
So, the escalation argument is one I've hashed out already. My initial contention was that since molotovs used against police officers in full body armor should be considered non-lethal their use in defense of non-lethal assaults against civilians should not be considered an escalation of force. When /u/milescool101 posed the argument
I was fully prepared to change my tune. However, in spite of these new strictures, I don't believe that it's a reasonable expectation expect greater restraint in this specific position, especially considering that he threw it in defense of a defenseless victim and within ~2 seconds of the initial assault. To criticize him for this would be to microanalyze the millisecond by millisecond analysis of appropriate use of force in the unfolding melee of uncertainty and hormones. I think that would be an unreasonable expectation of a human being in the given circumstances.
1 EarnestNoMeta 2018-06-15
shut the fuck up, retard
1 Jetz72 2018-06-15
They prepared a dangerous lethal weapon and brought it willingly to a high-stress situation. They clearly expected the protest to turn violent, so they can't claim they were caught off guard when the protest turned violent.
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
I've already ceded that they were likely bad actors. I'm only defending their use of those weapons in self defense in this one specific context. And I will still applaud their unexpected use of restraint until they were violently and illegally attacked by bad actors within the police force.
1 Jetz72 2018-06-15
Uhh, yeah, how about we award them the Nobel Peace Prize for their outstanding accomplishments in the field of not burning people to death. Maybe next time they can get through the entire protest without attempting to brutally murder someone! Or is that setting too high of a bar for them?
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
It probably is tbqh. I don't know why you would expect me to defend their character. I'm only defending their use of those weapons in this specific context.
1 Jetz72 2018-06-15
They brought the molotov with ill intent, and escalated a moderately dangerous situation to a life-threatening one by hurling an explosive at someone recovering from a vehicular crash. They were wrong in both having and using that weapon. I'm not sure how much of the context you've whittled away in order to find something righteous in what they did, but it was unacceptable on the whole.
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
You forget to mention that they disabled a violent man who was in the process of assaulting unarmed people with his vehicle. That's the entire reason he wiped out. He hit a guy. Intentionally. Right after his partner did. Like I said, when you commit battery against someone you run the risk of getting burned, and I have no sympathy if that happens to you.
1 Jetz72 2018-06-15
Did you actually look at the videos? The only person the second bike went near was the one who knocked it to the ground. They took a swing at the recovering officers with their flagpole before running off into the crowd unharmed.
1 friend1y 2018-06-15
You are trash and I mean that respectfully.
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
Can you extrapolate on that? I apologize for characterizing you in this manor, but I can't help but assume you're applying a lot of pre-conceived notions to me in a tribal sense. Whether you agree or disagree with that assumption, I ask you to try...fucking shit...holy fuck. I apologize for this fucking inferno....I'm high as fuck right now. I probably shouldn't have smoked up before trying to reply to all this bullshit and I've completely lost perspective.
1 friend1y 2018-06-15
High there.
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-15
With that argument, a person part of a "peaceful protest" (aka mob) knew what they were getting into too. And deserved to get run over.
Oh and said cop could also just be getting lunch.
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
Why? They were being peaceful. And "mob"? Do you know why they were protesting?
Yes, when cops go out for lunch it is normal for them to run over a few people.
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-15
Just like It's normal for a "peaceful protest" to have molotov cocktails and light people on fire
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
The molotovs were used only in self-defence, prior to this attack (which can be ascribed to terrorism) there had been no istance in violence.
Basically they had the tools to defend themselves and, surprise surprise, they actually needed them when people started running them over for no fucking reason whatsoever.
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-15
I call bull on that. Setting people on fire is not "self defence". Also who brings those types of "tools" for defence - that's like the KKK buying assault rifles for "hunting".
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
So what should have they done to prevent those cops from harming other unarmed people? Just look and hope that the cops will change their mind as they're mauling innocent protesters?
Throwing that molotov was by definition self-defense. If someone starts running over people, you do whatever it takes to stop them.
If it is likely to get attacked for illegitimate reasons, why shouldn't you care about self-defense?
Furthermore, gun ownership is much more strict in Greece. It is fair to assume that a molotov is one of the few effective weapons a civilian can put their hands on.
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-15
..... Wow.. If you converted to Islam, you'd probably try to justify ISIS. That's how crazy you are.
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
You're the one who is justifying terrorists running over innocent people, while also saying that those innocent people had no right to defend themselves.
I wonder what would have you said, had the Nice truck driver been stopped with a molotov. Would that have been "justifyin ISIS"?
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
I don't know why you're responding to me because I never made this argument.
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-06-15
HEY FUCKHEADS STOP DOWNVOTING SHIT YOU DON"T LIKE. WHAT ARE YOU FUCKING REDDITORS?
To /u/we_are_compromised on behalf of the less retarded users of /r/drama I apologize for the spaz's/fags/asslicks/dickholes who believe downvote button = power. They are Simple Jacks.
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-15
Also pls don't "peaceful protest" (aka mob) us and light us on fire in "self defence".
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2018-06-15
downvoting lolcows
MDEgenerates OUT OUT OUT
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-15
LOL say s the American who literally bombs en tire countries for their kebab views
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
Please don't take the bait.
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-15
You've already admitted you are a horrible person who likes violence... What is there left to bait?
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-15
*entire
Also "kebab views" is an interesting way of decribing Al qaeda and ISIS. But hey I suppose both you and them love burning people alive - so you have that in common.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-15
If it was the same cop who mowed them down it is undesirabe but not unexpected in the heat of the protest.
If it was a different cop fuck them.
1 Awayfone 2018-06-15
Breaking news from the thread:
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-15
There were times when cops would just open fire if protesters got too uppity. Those times should come back tbqh.
1 BrotherToaster 2018-06-15
God I wish this were us
1 wisty 2018-06-15
whatever happens we have got the maxim gun and they have not
1 MERCYLOVER163 2018-06-15
That quote makes me hard.
1 wisty 2018-06-15
https://archive.org/stream/moderntraveller00belluoft/moderntraveller00belluoft_djvu.tx
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-15
The Zulus or the prototype mayos?
1 EternallyMiffed 2018-06-15
Mow the mother fuckers down
1 LightUmbra 2018-06-15
"it's his job. He knows the risks."
Ni✡️✡️a Noone should be lit on fire.
1 myshl0ng 2018-06-15
I wonder if they apply the same reasoning to themselves.
"he was at a protest, protesting. He knew the risks."
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
The logic was: if yoi start runming over unarmed protesters with 2 motorcycles, a motolov or 2 might be thrown at you.
Sounds reasonable tbh
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-15
Except that was a different person. And that mob just happened to have weapons.
You're reasoning is clearly wrong, otherwise they would not have weapons in the first place.
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
Check the reports above. Both run over people, the one who got the molotv was the second one.
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-15
You don't realize how dumb that sounds? Let me empathesis how awful that reasoning is by changing a couple words:
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
They had the right to protest, and they knew it was very likely for someone to attack them. Also, they did not use the molotovs on someone who threw a punch: they used it on someone who, in every other context, would have been called a terrorist.
Now, about your example
Are you so stupid you think such a terrorist act should not be stopped only because the terrorist is black? Again, they threw it at a terrorist, not at a guy who was throwing some punches
So, if I want to protest, and I know that it is very likely (you're probably too ignorant about Greece current political climate to concieve this) that you will be attacked, harmed, even killed for it (and for illegitimate reasons) I can't still bring on a protest something that might literally save either my life or someone else's?
1 reallyrunningnow 2018-06-15
Ah so a cop who did nothing is a terrorist ? (another cop had the motorcycle). Also setting people on fire is a cruel way of "fighting" (as defined by the UN). Do tell me which country captures terrorists by trying to burn them alive? Let's be honest - you are defending ISIS style tactics.
So Greece is more dangerous then protesting in Pakistan, Saudi, Venezuela, Syria etc where the authorities do not have to obey EU human rights? Please, you are a spoiled mayo who literally has never experienced a dangerous political situation. It's easy to protest in EU nations - just don't be a mob and bring reporters. They failed on the first one.
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
Check again the reports, they both run over people. The one who got the molotov was the second one.
If a thief gets into your house and you have only a spray can and a lighter you might try to set them on fire. Furthermore, gun ownership is very strict in Greece. It's not like they could go there with guns. And if guns are bad too, then you're saying that protesters can't defend themselves.
They were not captured, when the second cop was hit he was still on his motorcycle. In fact even in the pic posted in OP you can see the bike still at its feet while he is on fire.
You are the one doing it, by saying that innocent people cannot defend themselves from terrorist attacks that LITERALLY mimic a very common ISIS' modus operandi.
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
Check again the reports, they both run over people. The one who got the molotov was the second one.
Also setting people on fire is a cruel way of "fighting" (as defined by the UN).
If a thief gets into your house and you have only a spray can and a lighter you might try to set them on fire. Furthermore, gun ownership is very strict in Greece. It's not like they could go there with guns. And if guns are bad too, then you're saying that protesters can't defend themselves.
Do tell me which country captures terrorists by trying to burn them alive?
They were not captured, when the second cop was hit he was still on his motorcycle. In fact even in the pic posted in OP you can see the bike still at its feet while he is on fire.
Let's be honest - you are defending ISIS style tactics.
You are the one doing it, by saying that innocent people cannot defend themselves from terrorist attacks that LITERALLY mimic a very common ISIS' modus operandi
Where the authorities obeying EU human rights as they were running over innocent people? We are dealing with an example that directly diaqualifies this objection of yours: yes, participating in this peaceful protest was dangerous, and we now have actual proofs for that.
Your objection would make sense if protesters had not been literally met with a terrorist attack.
Yes, not getting run over by police motorcycles for illegitimate reasons is being a "spoiled mayo". Keep thinking in memes, my troglodyte friend.
What's a mob? A group of people in general? If that's the case, protesters should be a mob, there's nothing wrong with that. If to you being a mob means being rabid, violent and chaotic, then they were not being a mob, since the only istance of violence in the protest was in self-defence against terrorists.
Also reporters were there.
1 llapingachos 2018-06-15
Don't underestimate Greece. Greece is a place where the anarchists are so fearsome that the British realized they made a mistake after WWII and put the Nazis back into power.
1 newprofile15 2018-06-15
Lol anarchist scum. So fucking dumb. Good thing that everyone with power in the word thinks you’re a fucking moron so your opinions will never amount to anything.
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
I'm not an anarchist, I just think people should have the right to defend themselves from terrorist attacks.
1 newprofile15 2018-06-15
I agree, that’s why they let the cops use tear gas and riot shields to disperse rioters. Then some fucking “peaceful protester” goes and throws a Molotov cocktail at a cop doing his job and you try and justify it because you are scum.
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
That cop's job was running over peaceful protesters (again, until then there had been NO istance of violence) with a motorcycle? How dense are you?
1 newprofile15 2018-06-15
A) even according to some anarchist sympathizers it wasn’t this cop who ran over anyone, it was some other guy
B) if you just believe anarchist morons for every claim of police violence at face value you are very gullible and young. They probably surrounded some cop on a bike or someone threw themselves in front of him and got barely clipped, then they start spreading shit in order to incite and justify a violent riot.
C) even if it were all true (it fucking isnt) how is the justified retaliation “throw a Molotov cocktail” and set someone on fire? Put all these rioting scum in prison for attempted murder. Get fucked.
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
Read the reports again. They both run over peaceful civilians.
There's footage from 3 point of views. I wasn't speculating.
Would have you said the same thing if someone stopped the Nice truck driver with a molotov? Keep in mind that when the cop was hit he still was on his motorcycle, which meant he could have easily run again over other people.
1 sooth_ 2018-06-15
1 PierligBouloven 2018-06-15
The protesters who were run over were fleeting, and unarmed. The black blocs were far back, and launched the first molotov only when those 2 terrorists started running people over. In the footages you won't see any sign of molotov usage prior to that
1 Shitposting_Skeleton 2018-06-15
I agree with both TBH.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2018-06-15
👏and👏that's👏a👏good👏thing👏
🐷🐽oink oink🐽🐷
1 BigPriceToupee 2018-06-15
I love the smell of burning kops in the morning. It was morning. Somewhere.
1 Regergek 2018-06-15
How else do you make bacon?
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-06-15
Cook, not make. In order to make you need to butcher first, then smoke the underbelly.
1 bat_mayn 2018-06-15
I'd unironically shoot every single person in that crowd if they were lighting people on fire. Don't care if it was only a few in the crowd, given that they're not going to do anything to stop it and are generally amused when a human being is intentionally burned alive.
1 Thhueros 2018-06-15
Yes.
Not because they're cops, but because they're Greek.
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2018-06-15
This but ironically
1 CarnistHappyCamp 2018-06-15
/u/dootwiththesickness
you're our guy. thanks for fighting the good fight. if there was a :brofist: emote i'd be doing a whole page of 'em right now
1 Plexipus 2018-06-15
He is our guy. Literally
1 DamnesiaVu 2018-06-15
Stop downvoting the lolcows you fucking MDEfugee scum
1 error404brain 2018-06-15
It's not complicated for fucks sake !
👏 You 👏 burn 👏 cars 👏 not 👏 people 👏
1 we_are_compromised 2018-06-15
I never expected the people at /r/drama to be so fucking based. It's pretty glorious desu. I can use a little levity after that shit show.