January 6 rioter pardoned by Trump is killed by police in traffic stop : usa

[–] superkret@feddit.org 101 points 1 week ago

Don't worry, Trump will sign an executive order to resurrect him tomorrow.

[–] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 59 points 1 week ago (1 children)

“Our condolences go out to the family of the deceased as any loss of life is traumatic to those that were close to Mr Huttle,” Sheriff Patrick Williamson said.

“We technically have to seem like we feel bad for someone here”

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 19 points 1 week ago

I mean, he's not wrong I don't think. He didn't attempt to say that he felt bad that it happened. He was just saying that he understands and respects that the family of the dead guy will probably feel sad.

[–] PapaSkwat@lemy.lol 41 points 1 week ago

Absolutely zero talk about the actual traffic stop. The body cam footage must be quite entertaining up until it isn't...

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Belongs in https://lemmy.world/c/upliftingnews

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Larry David dot gif.

Too many traffic stops in the US are deadly for no sensible reason.

But fuck this guy.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

Cops and Jan 6th participant engaging in a gun fight

Me - Let them fight dot gif.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Excuse me? Article says 2017?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

2021

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, author is confused. Later down the article it says 2021.

Daniel Ball of Florida was detained for an illegal firearm possession charge, a case that predated but emerged from his involvement in the 2021 Capitol insurrection.

[–] over_clox@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Ah, honest mistakes do happen, glad I'm not the only one that noticed. Still, facepalm 🤦‍♂️

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

As a famous Chinese Idiom says:

以毒攻毒 - Use the Poison, to eradicate the Poison

(Or in western terms: I used the ~~stones~~ nazis to destroy the ~~stones~~ nazis)

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 15 points 1 week ago

Final Destination: J6 Edition

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (8 children)

If this wasn't a Jan. 6th person, people would be all up in arms about this. Nobody should be shot during a traffic stop, there is zero reason to pull out a weapon unless one is pulled on you.

[–] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 20 points 1 week ago

That's because context matters. I assure you, this individual celebrated whenever unarmed POC were murdered by the police. It's a bit poetic that this was his end.

[–] Loce@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But being a Jan 6th person says a lot abot that person. I do believe he resisted arrest. I imagine a sovcit type of mentality, or worse.

The other guy (from the other day) from J6 end up back in prison when they immediately bought arms after being released. The brain rot on these people...

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Resisting arrest also doesn't warrant death. This shit is out of control. I don't care if it's a piece of shit Jan 6th person or a black dude, or any other brown person. Nobody should die because cops have itchy trigger fingers.

[–] Loce@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

That is true and I agree.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Would they? Or would they just not have heard about it? It happens about a hundred times each year, yet how many do we hear about in the news?

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This happens literally every single day. If it wasn't this piece of shit, then people would be doing exactly the same thing they normally do about injustice: jack shit.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

Considering he participated in a failed coup d'etat riot, I'm more inclined to think he pulled a gun.

Might still be something awful that happened for no reason, but coincidentally, happened to an awful person. We don't know, at this point. But we know he was an awful person - so either way, fuck him. If it turns out the cops murdered him then fuck them too.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

The account I heard says he did but they didn't specify if that was from the report in which case probably from a cop or if it was someone on scene.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

Oh please, a small few will scream while the rest of America thinks it’s great that a VIOLENT DISGUSTING CRIMINAL was given EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESERVED.

America is a sick place that revels in violence and killing.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Did you read a different article than I did? Cause the one I read didn't mention the stop at all. Unless you read a different article on this already, there no information at all about whether or not a weapon was pulled. You assume there wasn't.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good.

[–] FilthyHands@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

RISE CHICKEN

[–] Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 week ago

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Was expecting most of them to go back to jail, but this makes sense too.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

"Ain't that a shame," the sheriff should receive a paid vacation to Hawaii. Hopefully, we will watch a video with popcorn and beer.

[–] Cold_Brew_Enema@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Hahahaha. Good. Rest in shit, asshole

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Two wrongs occasionally make a right, or maybe just a lack of a wrong, when they're pointed at each other in just the right way.

Still a bad system that needs to be fixed.

[–] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

lol.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Let them fight

[–] wildcat@midwest.social 3 points 1 week ago

Wow, that was a quick.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Got to hand it to the cops. They let the rule of law have an try first before dealing with it themselves.

[+] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net -21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Gonna point to this one next time people want to pretend brownshirts and police are exactly the same haha.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There is a very specific point, in the collapse of a democracy into an autocracy, where the "irregular police" that are loyal to the leader, and the civilian police who have to obey rules and restrictions and are answerable to a more-or-less-democratic system, merge and intermingle, and they both become in practice subject to the leader.

We're right on the inflection point right now, on a knife edge. A lot of cops are Trump "supporters," in a general kind of way. Then there are a handful of sheriffs and other leadership people who clearly think they should be obedient to Trump instead of to the law. There are also a whole lot, though, who aren't. The people who are downvoting you are apparently ignorant of this whole distinction, and how vital and lucky we are that Trump and his people have decided to gratuitously pick a fight with the civilian police. That's a gift. It doesn't mean that the brownshirts won't overmaster and combine with the police in the end. But it's a rare gift in times like these for any obstacles come to the table that might make it less likely to happen. Let's not take it lightly just because of the fun and emotional satisfaction of screaming 'ACAB shut the fuck up' in the face of anyone who tries to have this type of conversation.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

All good points. I hope you are wrong that these two factions are going to merge but I definitely can't say it's impossible. But my point was more that people have been saying they're one and the same for decades and it's just a bad analysis.

By the way, I still agree with the ACAB people that police are a harmful institution. But they're a different harmful faction than fascists and it's important to understand that. The fact that these factions sometimes fight is very important and useful to people who oppose both of them.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh, I wasn't saying they're going to. Just that it's one possibility and there are definitely some police in leadership positions who are itching for it to happen so they can start banging up Hispanics and protestors whenever they want to. I mean... more so than now. You get what I mean hopefully.

And yeah, I feel like we may not see eye to eye vis-a-vis police completely, but civilian police who are abusive to whatever degree are a totally different animal than deputized Proud Boys stomping people in the street because they looked funny, and then taking them away to a farm-labor camp because they weren't loyal to the leader.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Well... yeah I guess we don't see eye to eye on this completely because I think there are certainly similar elements, but there are also important differences. Police are more accountable to the existing powers and institutions of society (and therefore less accountable to Dear Leader), which can be both good and bad in different contexts. But in some situations, like for racialized people in rural areas the difference is only minor, and what you described can more or less happen with maybe a few more bureaucratic bumps along the way.

I've been wanting to make a post somewhere about how ACAB is just a bad analysis and bad politics even if you are anti-police as an institution... but I feel like I'll just get downvoted and shouted down so I'm not sure it would be worthwhile. I often find myself trying to find the nuance between the more liberal and leftist lemmings and their conflicting ideas, but it doesn't seem like there are many people who value this perspective or effort.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, agreed. To me the key factor is this: Nobody's got all the answers. Whatever ideology it is, it can be gangbusters in some situations, but then there are going to be places and times and situations where it isn't true or doesn't work. As soon as people get themselves wrapped up into this thing where such-and-such is always the answer, and it's universal, for all police departments in and outside the US for example, and in all cities, and across all modern time periods, as long as the situation is "police" then the answer and judgement of the situation is: (blank)... as soon as people start thinking that way I feel like they start making basic mistakes because nothing in the world works like that.

There are principles that hold true pretty widely, and some models are better than others, but as soon as it's like "this is my way, and it is ALWAYS right, shut up so I can tell you about it," I feel like the productive conversation and thinking just stops. And unfortunately that's how a whole lot of people tend to look at issues in the world, like they just have to pick the right ideology and then go HAM with it applying it to all situations, and then it'll all be simple and clear.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Very true. And this is why I would like to see a more pluralistic world. Although I have very strong opinions about what kind of politics is best (I usually identify as anarchist or libertarian socialist), I also acknowledge that I can't necessarily see my own blind spots, and the only way to sort through the miasma of political disagreements is through empirical experimentation. If we can find a way to live and let live and allow different communities to follow their own ideas more free from top-down interference, we can learn a lot more about what works and what doesn't than we do in the present world.

A funny alignment for me is that despite disagreeing on almost everything else I absolutely loved Marjorie Taylor Green's suggestion of a national divorce... let the right devolve into some kind of insane dystopia if they want to, as long as they don't impose it on anyone else. And the rest of us with more sane politics can try out our ideas too, and hopefully make a lot more progress than the current divided and paralyzed system we have had for the past few decades.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, I know what you mean. I feel like that was the original idea of each state doing its own thing, and the federal government basically only being around for refereeing and standardizing stuff between the states, or organizing things when we had to fight a war. And other than that it was just your state.

I feel like a national divorce between two sides, which is what it would be, would mean war, and also we've gotten a lot of mileage out of being one massive unified economic and military force instead of a little Europe-style bunch of little ones. But also that kind of ruined us, spiritually and karmically, so maybe you're right. During Covid it somewhat collapsed back down to state governors in charge of a lot of things, and I feel like maybe that wasn't the worst thing in the world. And it might happen, like it or not, or it might be the only alternative to a unified fascism.

As Trump likes to say, we'll see what happens.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It’s hard to predict. Frankly I’m not sure whether staying with the current federal tug of war or some kind of separation is more likely to lead to war. If I knew better then that would strongly influence my thinking because that is perhaps the worst possible outcome aside from maybe some kind of systematic mass-murder like under the USSR or Nazi Germany. Terrifying that these do not seem impossible anymore.

To be clear I don’t think it’s a good idea for blue states to unilaterally secede. I think it has to be some kind of compromise where both sides take their ball and go home. I’m not sure Trump would allow this though so I don’t see it happening immediately. In the current context secession would likely lead to a war and one we might lose since Trump would have a stronger grip on the military.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 1 week ago

Trump would have a stronger grip on the military

I wouldn't be so sure. He might, but then again, the high-level leadership of the US military is extremely constitutionally minded. All their training and a lot of their pride in what they do is rooted in it. He might decide, as the real horrors are starting to begin and no one really knows what to do about it, to fire anyone in the military who isn't loyal to him, and he might get quite a severe shock when they took the loyalty of most of their troops with them when they left.

Firing the military because they won't do what you want, so that then they're kicking around loose in civilian society ready to be slotted into the rebellion and increase its power tenfold, is a pretty traditional rookie coup mistake.

[–] Ioughttamow@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It may not be a perfect circle, but there is a troubling overlap

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago

True. But I think the differences are also important to understand. Even the same individuals are going to behave differently when in a different context.

United States | News & Politics