Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I read the plan. I’m not fully convinced it will work as well. But I am not going to judge it until I see it in effect in Minneapolis and see it in effect.
this isn't the sort of plan that can be enacted in a single city. that's like putting a bandaid on the plague. the problems inherent in the system are by design. the people who designed the american economy wanted the vast majority of wealth to go a tiny segment of society. No matter how well one city does to try to combat that, they can't succeed if the rest of the system perpetuates the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Guess what? Certain arms are already regulated from the public. Regulating and banning are two separate things.
ok, but a regulation that gives the president a blank check to decide when to use it may as well be a ban. because if he wants to ban it, he can decide that every occasion is a good time to regulate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because no constitutional right is without exceptions, duh.
ok, but if the president has the right to decide what those exceptions are, then those rights do not exist. Because the president can decide that "this" is an exception whenever he wants. That is a police state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
This is a terrible analogy lol. The Court didn’t stop the freedom to assemble. Banning guns totally stops the freedom to bear arms. One is regulation, other is getting rid of the right all together. Use a better analogy.
fine, the courts rule you have the right to bear arms, but only the kinds of guns the government says you can have. lets say .22 or less. Or even better, you can bear any arms that existed at the time the constitution was written.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is the president violating 2nd A rights to illegal aliens they confiscate guns from?
i have no idea how this question has anything to do with topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I don't claim to know everything about the topic. but my understanding is that it is not about abolishing the police. It is about refocusing funding away from repressing poor people towards helping poor people.
It is usually poor people who engage in crime (at least the petty crimes police most care about) because they are more desperate and have less to lose. In america, huge amounts of money are funneled into arming police to the teeth so that they can crack down on and suppress these people. The argument is that if you deal with the underlying poverty that causes people to turn to crime, then you do far more to deal with crime than if you spent it on police. you get far more bang for your buck helping people than in trying to bash their heads in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You must have missed the part where I showed you a Supreme Court Case buddy.
I want to make sure I have this right. If the supreme court says that the president can violate your constitutionally protected rights at will, that is perfectly fine with you? So if the supreme court rules that the government could take your guns, you would happily turn them over, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Plus, I don't know what the big deal is over trannys in Lafayette Park.
you don't know why a US president sending soldiers to shoot peaceful protesters is a big deal? I thought the right cared about the constitution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The police didn’t say stop protesting, they said move back. The right to peacefully assemble is not absolute.
if the government has the absolute right to control when and where people can protest, then it isn't protesting any more. It is people standing around in whatever out of the way corner the government wants to cram people. The whole point of protesting is to get attention to the issues. If the government can order you to only protest in areas they dont have to see it, then it isn't protesting.
think it’s pretty safe to say a curfew is a time and the prior night’s events constitute concerns for public safety.
It was before the curfew that the military and police attacked. They attacked so that trump could hold up a bible for a photo op. Trump ordered people be shot so that he could pretend he cares about the bible. it is disgusting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If the police tells you to back up multiple times and you don’t back up, especially with curfew about to come, then you are no longer a peaceful protestor. Simple.
so let me get this straight. If a cop orders you to stop carrying out your constitutionally protected right to protest, and you do not immediately comply, then you are not peaceful and can be attacked and assaulted without consequence? Do I have that right? What you are describing is a police state where the government can use deadly force on you at any time for no reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even if all you say is true, if Trump stayed indoors and the church was vandalized a second time, the media would blame him for that as well, calling for impeachment because he couldn't protect the country.
A church being vandalized is a crime. It is terrible and should be avoided. A president ordering soldiers into the streets to shoot unarmed, peaceful protesters is a much, much greater crime. It is exactly what the founding fathers were afraid governments might do. That they would use the force of the US military to crush dissent. And that is exactly what trump is trying to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, this is evidence enough for me to corroborate the Park Police.
that video is at night. trump had the military attack the peaceful protesters during the day. That is obviously not from the same time/day the military attacked.
also, that video shows one, single person throwing something. It also shows at least 1 protester trying to get him to stop. That is not a justification to open fire on hundreds of people.
There is evidence, but even if there was not, it doesn't remove the obligation of the government to protect property.
the protesters weren't damaging property when trump ordered them attacked. They were peacefully protesting.
It's a shame that the same protesters in DC didn't form a protective line around the burned-out church like they did the Nike store, prompting the government action to protect the church.
the government attack had nothing to do with protecting the church. We know that because the church was in no danger when they attacked. We also know that because trump went and did a photo op like 5 minutes after soldiers were done shooting protesters. Trump ordered american citizens to be shot so he could take a photo with a bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
In many cases they have fought against the looters.I don't see this being reported, can you provide a link?
It doesn't make main stream news (especially right wing news that wants to paint protesters as antifa) because it goes against the narrative many of them are trying to tell. Looters burning things makes for more exciting news than peaceful protest or stores protected.
Here is some I found of protesters condemning and trying to stop looters
This topic is specifically about the illegal assault on peaceful protestersBrick and Icebottle throwers are not peaceful. The police can't just wade into the crowd and pick out the bad apples.
There is no evidence they threw bricks or bottles. The police claim they did, but police have been regularly lying about stuff to justify their use of force. Without evidence, we cannot believe what the police say. There are far too many proven cases of them lying.
Protesters didn't give a fuck about the church, so we needed someone who did.
no one in that crowd damaged the church. It had been damaged the previous day. No one in that crowd was about to damage the church. They were peacefully protesting when trump sent in soldiers to attack them so he could have a photo op at the church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the protesters will not condemn violence, then we need someone who will.
they are condemning violence. In many cases they have fought against the looters.
But again, you are off topic. This topic is specifically about the illegal assault on peaceful protesters ordered so the president could have a photo op.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The "peaceful protesters" are as complicit as the 3 officers watching passively as Chauvin killed a man. If they can't or won't protect the church, then we need the government to do it.
what are you talking about? The church was not under threat at the time the police attacked. there was a crowd of peaceful protesters. There were not attacks there at that moment. The police were ordered to attack the crowd specifically so that trump could do a photo op at the church.
I'm so sick of the "not my problem" attitude. Rioters need to be condemned BY THE PROTESTERS, not encouraged and coddled. This isn't a time for armed revolt.
they are being condemned by the protesters. There have been many cases of protesters being attacked by the rioters as the protesters stop them from attacking stores. But you don't know that because you only watch right wing news sources that paint all of them as terrorists and antifa.
And another thing that's being glossed over. Park Police reported bricks and frozen water bottles being thrown at them.
ok. and the guys who murdered george floyd said that he was resisting arrest. That was a lie. The police said that a 75 year old man "tripped and fell", that was a lie. (2 cops shoved him down and cracked his head open) Just because the police say it, does not make it true. Cops get caught lying all the time to try to explain why they used excessive force.
There is video of police attacking peaceful protesters. I haven't seen any evidence the police were being attacked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As someone who lived through the riots of Katrina, you can go fuck yourself with your "rights".I for one welcomed the National Guard in New Orleans. The Constitution allows for peaceful demonstrations, not for riots and church burnings and widespread looting.
That seems to be entirely off topic. He is talking about the attack on peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park. They weren't rioters. They weren't burning churches or looting. They were peacefully protesting. And trump ordered soldiers (among other federal employees) to shoot them so he could have a photo op. That is a terrible crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Wrong. AGAIN. I am condemning the murder and violence and vandalism, and you clearly know I am. show me where it is that I have "lumped them all together. I have wrote only of the murder and violence and vandalism by rioters.
ok, perhaps i have misunderstood your point. so a couple of questions.
- Do you acknowledge that the looters and protesters are separate groups?
- Do you acknowledge that the protesters have very good reasons to protest?
no. My point is that when one citizen murders another citizen, that is a crime that should be investigated and prosecuted, as our system is designed to do. When the police abuse their power and murder citizens, that is something much more serious that requires protest.And that is opinion. And mine is completely opposite to yours. It should be other way around.
The purpose of protest is to get the government to do something. Citizens killing other citizens is terrible, but there is no specific government action that people need the government to take. Police killing citizens is a much more serious problem. They have a monopoly on legal use of force. They are allowed to hurt anyone they want, and as long as they can come up with a flimsy pretext they can usually get away with it. That very much does require government action.
america is a place still badly marred by racism.It is a fact of life. Stop crying. Murder and violence and vandalism is not the answer.
ok, so you see that the police are racist and murder people and your response is "stop crying"? That is horrendous. The police are there to protect and serve the public. Not to harass and kill them. You are right that murder is not the answer. But as I keep saying, the looters and protesters are 2 different groups. The protesters are, for the most part, peaceful and are regularly being attacked by police and the military anyway.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And now you are just plain lying about the woman in the video. She clearly addressed the "unlawful murder of Floyd". Nowhere does she imply or suggest that "he should get way with anything" she states the opposite. But she also clearly address's the unjust and unwarranted over reaction to this murder.
my point is that bringing up someone's history in this context is despicable. It is an attempt to smear someone so that people do not sympathize with what happened to them. Lawyers defending rapists by trying to make the victim sound like a slut. Cops trying to get away with murder to this by making their victims sound like "thugs". What he did 10 years ago, 5 years ago, hell what he did 2 weeks ago is irrelevant. And trying to draw attention to it is to try to undermine the seriousness and credibility of the crime committed against him.
But it won't stop you excusing the vile murderous actions of those black rioters who filmed a "brother" taking his last gasps on earth.
I have never excused murder. I have been quite clear that the people looting and the people protesting are 2 different groups. I support the protesters, i condemn the looters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I find that you try to be willfully ignorant when you address my posts. I will not respond to you anymore.
i find your posts are ignorant in general. They seem to lack alot of thought being put into them.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
To the defense attorneys it will though since that helps their case. Even if the Prosecution can convince 80% of the 12 man jury that the past doesnt matter, that still leaves 2-3 jurors that think it does matter, which can help Chauvin get off.
fair enough. however it is just as despicable a defense when rapists use it as it is in this case.
There are many ways this can go wrong for the Prosecution in terms of getting a conviction, upping the charge from Murder 3 to Murder 2 may be their biggest roadblock of all, and the fact that it was self-imposed just adds to the irony of it all
we will need to see the details of their case before we know that. they have more evidence than the public does and may have evidence which speaks to chauvin's intent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
And that is exactly the point being made in the video that you want to purposefully alter to suit your own beliefs and narrative.
and if you were attacking the rioters and applauding the protesters I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But you aren't. You are lumping the 2 groups together and condemning them both. Unless I have misunderstood your intention.
No. It proves that thee people are not there to protest about a black man - one of their own- being unlawfully killed. They are there to rob , destroy , vandalize , maim and murder if needs be... and to film their dying brother take their last breath on this planet.
I agree. Those people are not protesters. They are taking advantage of the protests as cover to do terrible things. I condemn them for it. But the protesters are right and they have things they need to fight for.
I think I do. So let me take a leaf out of your book; You are saying even when a "brother murders and other brother" it is insignificant and no one can gain from it. Where as, when a white man murderers a black brother then there are legitimate excuses and reasons to riot, rob , murder, maim and burn buildings and black, hard - worked for businesses to the ground.
no. My point is that when one citizen murders another citizen, that is a crime that should be investigated and prosecuted, as our system is designed to do. When the police abuse their power and murder citizens, that is something much more serious that requires protest.
"racist" . A word that has been so used and abused by black and white that it lost all true sense of meaning and definition, by libtards.
Some people do overuse it. I won't deny that. But sadly, america is a place still badly marred by racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Like classes and tribalism.those are have little to do with racism in modern times afaik, you have examples?
Class and tribalism are interwoven. Take political affiliation. Black people are much, much more likely to be a democrat than a republican. So when you see a black person you know they are unlikely to be "like you" in that respect. So your political affiliation takes on parts of a racial identity.
for example you see a black person and think of them as an "other" even if the guy might have the exact same belief system as you do. But you see a black guy and don't ever know what his values and interests are.incorrect judgements or mistakes are not racism, often we react based on your past experiences, right or wrong that's part of being human.
If you are making judgments about someone based on someone's race, that is racism. That is the definition of racism.
So most racists hide it behind a veneer of something else.I would never claim it went away, but what you are describing is hunting ghosts.
no, i'm talking about hunting what black people experience all the time. it's not like it's this rare thing no one ever sees.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are justifying killing someone in cold blood.How am I?
You are attempting to try to blame the victim of the crime by bringing up their past. It is a common tactic for rapists. EX. "she was a slut". In this case trying to paint him as thug to make murdering him ok.
I have simply stated that the OP " may have a case" & why. What's your problem?
the info about george's past has absolutely nothing to do with his murder. It doesn't matter what he has done in the past. It matter what was done to him now.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
This is the exact same narrative that rapists use to try to get away with raping women. They try to turn to the narrative to be about the victim rather than the criminal. If you can convince a jury that she was "a slut", then they stop sympathizing with the victim. This defense is pretty much the same thing. Paint the victim as some sort of scum bag criminal, then people won't sympathize with the victim and it won't matter that he was murdered.
It doesn't matter if George was a saint or a complete asshole. He was murdered. The police who murdered him are the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If I prefer to not associate with a person who looks like the belong in ms-13 is that racist?
that depends. Do you think that being in MS-13 means that they are a person of color? if you look at a white person, a black person and a hispanic person who are dressed similarly and think all three look like ms13, then perhaps that's not racist. However, that isn't usually the case. Part of the problem is that the racism is built into other systemic things. Like classes and tribalism.
isn't it natural that we tend to gravitate to those we have or probably have common values and interests?
sure
do you think people mistake these things for racism?
it can be. But just as often, those 2 things are woven together. for example you see a black person and think of them as an "other" even if the guy might have the exact same belief system as you do. But you see a black guy and don't ever know what his values and interests are. You just assume you know. In that case it is a mixture of both.
have you ever or know anyone who has ever encountered a true/real racist?
yeah. But in the modern world it is socially unacceptable to overtly show your racism. So most racists hide it behind a veneer of something else. But just because the number of people in white hoods, burning crosses has diminished, doesn't mean the underlying racist has gone away.
if it's systemic that should be a pretty fair number shouldn't it?
well 2 things 1) it has become socially unacceptable to be outwardly racist. So racist people usually try to hide their racism behind something else to avoid social stigma.
2) The issue is that it is more complicated than that. it isn't the case where there is a sea of "unracist" people and a few "bad apples" who are outliers. That is what republican politicians would have you believe. (Although since alot of those republicans politicans are also racists, most wouldn't even go that far)
But take the police for example. A guy could get hired onto the force and not be a racist. But he is trained on how to be a cop by other cops and lives in that culture. That culture is a very "us vs them" mentality. it breeds racism. If you are trained to pull your gun on a black guy alot easier than a white guy, then then you internalize that. You start to learn that using excessive force on black guys is fine, but not on white people. Most of them probably don't even realize the way they do things is racist. To them that is just how they do their job. And then they in turn teach that same mentality to future officers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The problem is that the employer of police is YOU, and the police unions claim you are abusing the police.
well, sort of. The employer of police is the municipality that hires them. The people running that municipality work for their voters. Without a union, police could be forced to take actions that are unsafe or overly intrusive in their lives and they would have little to no recourse to protect themselves. I don't believe that this is a good thing. I think all employees need a safe way to object to unfair or unsafe circumstances in their place of employment.
But on the other hand, I can very much see that police unions are often acting in such a way as to protect members even if they are acting improperly or even criminally. Since the police "protecting their own" is one of my primary points of concern about the police, I can definitely see how disbanding the unions would be a positive force for society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Okay, read this article and tell me what you think about it.
thank you. That was very helpful.
It sounds like you certainly have a point. In a general sense, I support workers rights to unionize. I think they are very important in ensuring that employees are not treated as expendable tools and gives workers a position to negotiate with their employer.
However, this article makes a compelling case that police unions are a core part of the problem with police abuse of power. If there were a way to strip the unions of that power without abolishing them, that would probably be a better idea in my opinion. For example passing a law limiting what police unions are permitted to do. But I will admit this is not an area I am particularly familiar with, so i don't know if that is possible. If not, then it certainly sounds like abolishing police unions would help to improve the situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am challenging you.
except that you haven't. You make some vague claim about how it would be positive to do something. But you won't tell me why it would be positive or what you think it would do. Tell me what you think it will do and maybe I can respond to you. But if you won't actually tell me what your position is and why, I cannot respond to it.
You're a Marxist coward too afraid to explain why authoritative Police need a worker union to shield them from civilian oversight.
1) im not a marxist. I don;'t think you know what that word means
2) I'm not saying I agree or disagree that the police need a union. I don't know alot of the details of how police unions function. i'm willing to read your opinion and respond to it. But you keep refusing to tell me what your point is.
Enough with the dog-whistles, just say what you really feel. Be brave.
What I feel about what? I don't think I've hidden anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
But they must have their union that shields them from justice. Explain why the police need that again. Or don't, I don't really care for your non-arguments.
again, you are supposed to be making your own point. You haven't actually described what disbanding their union would do. You just keep challenging me to disprove the claim you haven't made. If you tell me why you think it would be positive to do that, maybe I could respond to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I asked HB if he was willing to eliminate police worker unions that shield all cops, even the racist ones, from justice, and he went into a batshit frenzy.
No, i asked you to actually describe why it would be useful. You said that i should do research to try to figure out what your argument I was. I said that is your job.
They have no proposals for a non-racist "system"
I gave several proposals in that very conversation. There are lots of others like banning them from having military equipment, ending and kind of rewards for police from civil forfeiture, ensuring that the investigation and rulings on all discipline for police are done by civilians and not by police. There are lots of things that could be done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
An "us vs. them" mentality.that is a problem, however I would call that tribalism, not racism.
ok, but if your "tribe" is both socio-economical as well as racial, then it can be a mixture of racism and tribalism. the 2 are not mutually exclusive.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
as a side note, the cop remained unemotional, calm if you will, that does not mean he didn't care, that alone can't prove that.
the fact that he was unemotional makes it weirder. I read somewhere that he and the victim knew each other. They both worked at the same club as security. Being that unattached as you choke the life out someone, but especially someone you know is kinda weird.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
staying 6 feet away is better than most masks generally available now.
true, you should be staying 6 feet away from people. But wearing a mask is probably the least intrusive measure you can take. You aren't changing your life in any way, just wearing an extra piece of clothing. Maybe you won't get covid and pass it on and it will be a waste of time. But lots of people get it and don't realize it's covid and spread the disease around. You could be one of them and not know it. Everyone is much better off if we can all just take the basic steps to control the outbreak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
systemic: fundamental to a predominant social, economic, or political practicewhich practice is systemic racism or other predominant social etc give one example of a systems or institution that is racist.
Systemic in the sense that it affects the entire system. I don't mean one particular piece, or 1 particular practice the police use is racist. I mean the system has these qualities built into. You agreed that police see themselves as separate from other people and as largely above the law. With that comes a sense of being better than other people. An "us vs. them" mentality. And the closer people are to being like "us", the superior group of people, then the less of an "other" they are. So if you are a well dressed white person, you are much more like "us" than if you are a black person wearing jeans and a T-Shit. This kind of thinking causes them to treat certain groups of people much worse than others. It isn't strictly racist, i'm sure they treat some poor white people terribly too, but it is a systemic problem.
Things like the militarization of the police since 9/11 (they gave the police huge amounts of military surplus) and allowing cops to keep money seized in civil forfeture (this causes them to see criminals as sources of funding, but this has ballooned to anyone they think that can get away with robbing) also make this problem worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
That was their naive mistake. They learned nothing from all the past riots. And millions more will learn nothing from this current situation.
what lesson is it you want them to learn? That they should take a gun to a crowd of people and get themselves and a bunch of other people killed? That is a really shitty lesson.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Most especially for not wearing a mask and telling those who tell me I should to mind their own business. MASK NAZIS!!!!!!
yeah, shame on people for not wanting a man to spread disease and death. shouldn't they know that your freedom is more valuable than anyone else's lives?!?!?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
intent is very difficult to prove, he would say I intended to hold him down, that's all, if I used too much force that was accidental. you get the gist of it
i honestly don't know. I think the average person would say if you put your knee and your body weight on someone's neck, the obvious effect is that they can't breathe. He told chauvin he couldn't breathe and begged him. Chauvin ignored him and kept choking him. To me that seems like intent to injure.
Extreme Indifference to Human Life?extreme being to opperitive word, Imabench is correct I think, I'm not a lawyer either, it's just very interesting to me to talk about legal issues.
I think the critical conditions here would be the guy begging chauvin and telling him he couldn't breathe. he then stopped moving entirely (because he was unconscious) and chauvin continued for several minutes until long after he was dead. That seems extreme to not watch the guy you are pinning and see that he stopped begging, stopped moving, and stopped breathing. He obviously didn't care at all about the guy's well being because he didn't even notice he was dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
they are protesting the killing of the poor soul.
yes, and murdering someone who is offering no resistance is a terrible crime. But what if he hadn't died? What if he had only been injured? His death is a tragedy, but if he hadn't died he would just be one more stat of a black man "resisting arrest" and being abused by police. His death is the extreme end of the spectrum, but the problem is way deeper that that.
Alot of those peaceful protests (and just random people) are then being attacked by the police while doing nothing wrong.I have not seen that on the news, can you provide some sources?
this one is national guard opening fire at people for standing on their own porch on a peaceful street.
This one is police pepper spraying, throwing flash bangs, then shooting a protest
This only further highlights that the police do not give a shit about people of color.so I shouldn't see the cops doing anything to non blacks then right? what about the black cops do they not give a shit about p.o.c.?
the problem isn't only just racism. The police had developed a militarized culture. They see themselves as seperate from other people and as largely above the law. In many cases they are. This sees them treat lots of people like shit, but due to systemic racism people of color get it worse.
They don't care that the protesters' complaints are valid, or that the police are actually proving their complaints are valid as the police commit more crimes attacking peaceful protesters.who is they? just white cops? all cops? the complaints I hear is cops killing black people which does happen, rarely.
Police as a group. I am quite certain there are good cops. But as an institution, they have an internal culture. they see themselves as a separate group that looks after their own. They see themselves as above the law. This doesn't apply to every individual, but as a collective that is the prevailing culture in alot of police forces.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
again, I don't pretend to be a legal expert so I am legitimately asking. Did you see the info I posted on Intent to Cause Only Serious Bodily Harm and Extreme Indifference to Human Life? Do you think those apply in this case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
the riots and looters are doing it under the guise of police killings, this is the false narritive b.l.m. rose from.
ok, but that is kinda my point. The riots and the looters are not protesters. They are using the protesters as cover to steal and burn stuff. That does not delegitimize the issues of the protesters.
there are alot of people who are peacefully protesting abuses by police. Alot of those peaceful protests (and just random people) are then being attacked by the police while doing nothing wrong. This only further highlights that the police do not give a shit about people of color. They want them to shut up and get back in line. They don't care that the protesters' complaints are valid, or that the police are actually proving their complaints are valid as the police commit more crimes attacking peaceful protesters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
but for arguments sake lets assume the values should be double what is reported, that's still pretty low numbers contextually speaking.
those studies are only about deaths. That is one part of the problem, sure. But the problem goes way, way deeper than that. Police can harass and do alot of damage to black people without killing them.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
what felony did he commit?
i'm not certain. Like I said, i'm not a legal expert. I'm sure it could be argued that using that much force on a man who wasn't resisting was assault.
I looked a bit further and found this. They could argue he was trying to cause bodily harm, which chauvin knew could lead to death. kneeling on someone's neck for like 10 minutes could meet that threshold. It could also be considered extreme indifference to life. He was choking a man begging for air and continued doing it for several minutes after he was already dead.
A second situation that constitutes second-degree murder is where the perpetrator intends only to cause serious bodily harm but knows that death could result from the act. For example, in the situation above, instead of shooting Bill, Adam grabs a shovel and whacks Bill in the head with all his strength. While Adam didn't specifically intend to kill Bill when he hit him, he did intend to strike him with the shovel knowing that such a blow to the head carried with it a distinct possibility of death. Adam killing Bill in this way would be classified as murder in the second degree.
Extreme Indifference to Human Life
The third main type of second-degree murder occurs when a victim dies as a result of the perpetrator's extreme indifference to the value of human life. Generally speaking, extreme indifference means an utter disregard of the possibility that an act will kill someone.
Going back to Adam and Bill, imagine that instead of hitting Bill over the head with a shovel, Adam grabs his gun and wildly fires toward a crowd of neighbors that have gathered to observe the argument between Adam and Bill. Adam didn't necessarily mean to kill anyone, but also didn't give any thought to the harm that his actions could cause to people in the crowd. This demonstrates Adam's extreme indifference to human life. If one of Adam's bullets struck and killed anyone in the crowd, then Adam has probably committed a murder in the second degree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not hyperbole at all as all our Marxist political leaders vocally support the riots and claim that somehow America deserves this.
this is evidence that that education clearly doesn't work on everyone. There are no marxist political leaders. Even the furthest left politicians in mainsteam politics don't scratch the edge of marxism. Most of what you would call marxists actually push right wing economic policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Could you show us the time line where it is that this black man actually says "you should lay down and die because it's better for other people!!!!" ?
i'm recaping his point. It is basically, "what are you accomplishing by protesting?" and "don't do that, it is hurting businesses". So basically, do not protest, do not fight back, because people who much better off than you might lose some of their stuff.
Maybe you can tell us what has been accomplished by the death of this black Ex police officer that someone - a black man - took the time to video instead of attempting to save his life?
nothing. this is a massive, continent wide event. some individual actions are going to go badly. but on the whole, the expression of outrage and the protests are very much necessary.
So tell us , what has been accomplished by the rioting and burning down buildings to the ground?
nothing. but most of the people doing that aren't actually protesters anyway. They are just people out looking to steal and destroy. These sorts of people show up in all sorts of pubic unrest.
Interesting this black man pointed out that blacks are quick to riot and vandelise and loot and murder when a white kills a black - "BUT when a brother kill a brother, you don't care". He was talking about YOU, to YOU . You fell silent and skipped over my comment on just that point here
no, it is just a really irrelevant point in the terms of protest. when one citizen kills another citizen that is tragic. When police (representives of the government) systematically abuse their power and position to marginalize, harass, and outright murder black people, that is a critically important thing that needs protest. Protest is a means of getting change from the government. So when government employees are committing crimes and being protected by the system, that needs protest. When citizens harm other citizens, what would be the point of the protest?
You are no better than the animal videoing this brave black mans last gasps of life on the earth; a disgrace to humanity.
so wanting a corrupt, abusive system to be reformed is "a disgrace to humanity"? That either means you don't understand my point, you don't understand the issue, or you are really racist.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
I'm not an expert on legal proceedings, but I went and did a search of the state laws for Minnesota. Here is a link.
Here is the text for 2nd degree murder:
Minnesota law prohibits intentional and unintentional killings under most circumstances. Those killings prohibited as second-degree murder include:
- Killing a human intentionally, but without premeditation (not thinking about or preparing for before)
- Killing a human while committing or attempting a drive-by shooting
- Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony other than criminal sexual conduct (rape or sexual assault which would be first-degree murder) or a drive-by shooting
- Causing a death unintentionally, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict great physical harm on the victim when the murderer is currently restrained by a protection order (including for domestic violence, harassment, divorce, or any similar protection order) and the victim was the protected party in that order
I believe the 3rd point might be what they are going for. That Chauvin didn't intent to cause his death. But if he killed him while committing a felony, then it is 2nd degree murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Yes, one reason actually. That it is systemic and widespread. But it's circular reasoning, the issue is systemic and widespread and therefore the numbers are vastly underreported because it is systemic and widespread.Honestly, if you still arent getting your point is self-defeating, because it is conjecture that need only be refuted by inverse conjecturing. Then idk what else to tell you bud except you are acting cult-like in your adamancy that it couldn't possibly be anything other than what you claim it is.
The argument is that there is systemic racism. If that is true then the records are obviously flawed because the people keeping the records are part of the problem. So whether or not systemic racism exists, those records would say the same thing. You want to use those records to argue that there is no systemic racism. That is completely pointless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
lol what a joke. basically, what have you accomplished by fighting for your rights?!?!?! you should lay down and die because it's better for other people!!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Your argument, like Bench's, is distinctly the opposite of truth-seeking to the best of ones capabilities and a perfect example of "the perfect being the enemy of the good."
what? no. My arguement is that those stats are missing a HUGE swath of the problem for reasons I have already explained. It isn't that I am looking for perfect information. I am saying that even remotely accurate stats do not exist. You are using data that isn't even remotely accurate to try to argue there is not problem.
Basically the TLDR version of your post is that massively flawed stats exist, since there are no accurate stats we should just assume the stats we know are wrong are actually right. That is ridiculous.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
while it is good this piece of shit won't be in congress, the reason the other republican leadership turned on him is not that he is racist, it is that he was saying the quiet part out loud. Having him around saying the extremely obviously racist comments, made the dog whistle racist comments of much of the rest of the GOP be more obvious for what they were.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
You may have noticed, I included exonerated within the statistical analysis of valid complaints. Specifically because this it is a fair point that lying occurs. This is true of both sides of that equation though.
i did notice. but you only included that caveat in exonerated. all the other categories could have been the results of lying as well. "insufficient evidence" could easily be the cop in charge of investigating simply discounting evidence or not looking for it.
Now, even if we take it that all filed complaints were valid, that still leaves us with miniscule percentage points. Even if we double the total number of complaints, you are still left with a miniscule percentage point.
ok. but that's like saying the only coughs that have ever happened in the world are the ones that are officially documented. You will probably find examples of people coughing that are documented, but since coughing is something that happens so frequently, it isn't usually documented. Arguing that the official reports of misconduct are, in any way, and accurate measure of the amount of misconduct is a bad joke.
Otherwise, do you have a way to quantify the unknown? Because I dont, leaving such things as entirely conjecture based.
This is the problem. The people committing the crimes (the cops) are also in charge of the taking statements, investigating, using force on people they don't like etc. There is no way to get an accurate count on the crimes they commit when they act as judge, jury, and it many cases executioner. There are no accurate stats.
Created: