Total posts: 2,799
@RM
The truancy law was even more generous than that. It was if more than 10% of the school year was missed without a valid reason. Definitely strikes me as some type of neglect at that point.
I actually somewhat liked her early career tough-on-crime stances. Quite surprised you don't disagree with her choices.
But as of right now, she has abandoned everything that I would have liked about her. My vote: definitely not the best VP
Created:
@RM
I'm surprised you seem to like her because of her hard crackdown on weed possession and even fighting to make truancy a misdemeanor for parents when she was DA
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
*sigh* Diversity hires, amirite?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Boy what does that have to do with the topic XD
Created:
Answer: no
Reason: Richard Nixon was VP
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
We need a Hawley but without the whole "stolen election" baggage.
Big Ron is looking promising based on his anti-riot legislation and wrecking of lib journos, but I'm not sure what his positions would be on immigration and how nationalist he is in terms of free trade.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
my same name and description had recently assaulted a police officer
That is a really insane coincidence!
The cops were whooping and yelling faggot, etc and just essentially terrorizing law-abiding citizens for no reason beyond personal prejudice.
I have never seen anything remotely close to that.
I don't know, maybe your city's cops are just dreadful. I'd guess that it varies considerably by city and state how nice and ethical officers are. I usually hear bad things about big city cops, but I'm from a moderate-sized city and have never had an issue with them nor heard of one. Maybe the high crime rates in cities push a lot of the better and more qualified people from the profession or maybe all of that danger wears on them.
Anyway, I appreciate you sharing your experiences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
90,000 rape cases annually
Where are you getting that number? The FBI only reported 16,599 arrests for rape in 2019.
so using a statistic that gets it samples from less than 40 cases is non-representative
Comments like these (after I have explained it like 3 times by now) are why I condescended.
There were more than 40 reported. I am at a loss: what are you not understanding about less than forty binge within a year of the call???? There were many more than forty in the data set cases reported from the 16,000 respondents. If you don't understand that, just stop responding.
so that "17.6%" is wrong at best.
Until I see a source better than the Department of Justice, I'm going to have to disagree ^_^
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hah, reminds me of when the Joker said in a comic that he hates Nazis and all of the nerds went nuts over it. They thought it was compelling or something.
Loved when people started pairing that comic with pictures like this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1c/Batmanthekillingjoke.jpg/220px-Batmanthekillingjoke.jpg
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
This is an absolutely absurd portrayal of what BLM is arguing here. No one is out in the streets rioting because they think George Floyd or Jacob Blake are saints. That’s just a right wing talking point used to manipulate the ignorant into hating the left.
They literally painted murals of Floyd with angel wings and a halo. They gave him a golden casket.
"Depictions included Floyd as a ghost in Minneapolis, as an angel in Houston, and as a saint weeping blood in Naples."
And you guys do plenty of stuff to make normal people hate you. No need to use talking points lol. For instance, burning small businesses and saying "oh it's okay, you have insurance. Lives over property!"
This is about the fact that police officers are not the judge, jury and executioner. They don’t get to decide whether someone’s life is worth being concerned about, and if they kill someone they are to be held accountable for their actions. They’re not calling Floyd a saint, they’re calling him a human being. They’re not rising up for Floyd, they’re rising up for themselves because they fear any one of them could be next. What is so hard about that?
Sure, there should have absolutely have been a trial. But that trial should have been moved out of the city and the jury should have been sequestered the entire time. A court case should be the used for many police-involved deaths that don't involve imminent danger.
But your groups aren't looking for justice. You're looking for a conviction. That's why the national guard needed to be called in before the verdict was read.
Plus, a riot happened every time some black guy got shot by police all summer, even if no death occurred. They didn't care if it was justified or not, they just wanted to Burn.Loot.Murder.
None whatsoever. Police officers are public servants. They are working on the taxpayer’s dime, trained with our tax dollars, given a gun, a badge, and entrusted with the authority to use them. If they cannot handle their tempers or someone not following their instructions, they are in the wrong job.
And when you vilify cops and defund them, guess what? Only the bad ones will stay. Thousands of officers are taking early retirement. Nobody wants to be a cop when they have to deal with lefty bullshit because it lowers morale, as well as having worse equipment/compensation. And then, standards get lower! Yay!
We have a system of justice in this country for a reason. If someone resists arrest that is a violation for the courts to adjudicate. George Floyd never got that chance, so I couldn’t give a shit less about whatever he did. Justice in this situation was not for Derek Chauvin to impose.
No, it wasn't. I don't disagree with courts' role. I don't think it was optimal that a death occurred. However, it is also not the role of the public to threaten the jury into giving them the verdict they want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The fact that there was a high INTERVIEW RATE does not correspond with the rate of cases observed, in other words less than 40 cases of rape were in that statistic you cited - because you read it wrong. You see - I'm taking my interpretation straight from the actual study, you are misinterpreting it, and your condescension is getting annoying. They, in total, interviewed that many people - but the amount of people's case s they actually followed (as in - knew whether the person alleged with rape was arrested and charged) was less than 40. As I said - a small sample size.
The only reason I mentioned the 16,000 people interviewed was to demonstrate that it was a large, and I'd argue likely pretty representative sample.
The sample size is not less than forty. Of the people who reported being raped, only 32 occurred within one year of the call. The other accusations of rape occurred over some point in the lifetimes of the respondent that was longer than 12 months ago. So, if you want to say that the others don't matter because they happened more than one year ago and take them out of my sample size, I would like to know on what grounds you are justifying that.
From your direct quote of the study: Because only 24 women and 8 men reported during their interviews that they had been raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. All that says is that the hundreds of other reported cases occurred more than 12 months ago so annual estimates should be taken with a grain of salt.
You act like all of the data is based solely on the 32 and they threw out all of the others.
your condescension is getting annoying
I agree. As are your false attributions of malintent. Let's be civilized here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Police brutality is literally defined as the excessive and unwarranted use of force. It is by definition, no one else’s fault. What you’re trying to do is excuse it, which is absurd. You’re holding professionals paid with your tax dollars to the same standard as the people they are sworn to protect.
Yeah, it is the definition. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that the term is generally overapplied to things that were warranted. So, to clarify, I'll say most times something bad happens to a criminal during the arrest, such as batons getting used, it is the fault of the criminal and not violent cops just jumpy to beat a stranger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And what’s hilarious about this mentality is that it comes from the same segment of our population ranting and raving about government tyranny because someone told them to put on a mask.
I put it on. It is a mild annoyance, but that is all.
So fixing police brutality is not the responsibility of the police, it’s the responsibility of the private citizens being arrested. Got it.
For the 10-20% that it is their fault, it is the responsibility of the police. But most of the time when there is a police-involved ass whoopin', it is because the perp fights with the cop. I think that it is the responsibility of citizens to not dig around in their glove compartment during traffic stops and be confrontational/aggressive towards cops. Chris Rock made a hilarious clip about this over a decade ago https://youtu.be/uj0mtxXEGE8 Funnily enough, he mentioned Rodney King lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Between Scylla and Charybdis, thx for asking.
That's just what you love to see, ladies and gentlemen!
My point exactly. Better than half of all incidents police respond to involve alcohol but these cops mistake simple drunkenness for a drug that enjoyed a lot of frightened mythology among police but was in fact a fairly rare street drug by 1991. Color me skeptical.Rodney King taunted some angry cops after leading them on a dangerous high speed chase. My assumption was and remains that The cops decided to teach King lesson (as cops have traditionally done with perps after a chase) and used a scary popular 15 year old mythology as justification.
That's definitely possible. The more I look at the case, the less clear cut it looks to me.
But that doesn't change the fact that I believe it wouldn't have been even 1/10 as bad if he had actually just laid on the ground like he was supposed to. His friend did unjustly get a laceration on his head from what I've seen. The other supposedly got kicked. So, maybe that was his "lesson" as you say.
He was quite drunk and resisting arrest/attempting to flee though, and the taser didn't work. So, they had to use batons. Regardless of the reason he was trying to flee, they kept using the batons because he kept trying to rise to his feet.
I really think that the way to stop police "brutality" is like 80-90%% on the perps to just comply with reasonable orders. Instances similar to these seem to come with the nature of the job. They had a huge guy who was on some type of drug running in their general direction. Not many optimal decisions to make there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yet another demonstration of just how the point to all of this went way over your head.
You kept saying this in our previous conversation. Condescension is not a substitute for actual valid points. Sorry to disappoint you, but someone had to say it.
Please explain the context that excuses an officer for kneeling on a man’s neck for 9 minutes, including 3 minutes after he stopped breathing.
Do you think that there is no value added by seeing him struggle with officers to not get in the car first? No value added by context of why he was there? Do you think there is no value added by the toxicology report and his health information? I'm going to wager a guess and say "no" because all you saw was a sad video, and now you're unwilling to actually consider the context of the case.
Exactly as I said it: someone "enraged" cannot be fit to make an objective decision.
No. The fact that a man was killed slowly, in broad daylight while posing no threat whatsoever to the cop who killed him and your response to this is not to be bothered by what the cop did, but to talk about the person that he killed and how that person’s life wasn’t worth caring about shows not only that you have an incredible bias in this but that you are exactly what this movement is fighting to rid the world of.
And there is your issue. You're still stuck presuming that the cop "killed him". You choose to be willfully ignorant of the impact of drugs on a guy with heart disease. During a previous arrest, he had to be taken to the hospital because he swallowed Percocet. The video footage looks like he might have swallowed more drugs during this arrest. But no, he DEFINITELY couldn't have OD'd
A "movement" that literally considers George Floyd, a drug addict that pressed a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach while robbing her, a saint? I'm fine having enemies such as those. I'm fine with being the enemy of the movement that lied to the public about "hands up, don't shoot".
I defend decent people and that is all. Once you start defending rapist Jacob Blake and robbers of pregnant women, don't expect most people to come aboard. :P
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think you need to calm down. You obviously did not look through the study and perhaps a nice nap would make you think more clearly. You read the first page and stopped, and it shows.
Do you... just like only using studies with a horrendously low sample size? Or you know - ones that say: "NVAWS most likely underestimates the actual number of annual rapes," the study literally says to take its results with caution, but nope - generalizing andy here likes to pull it off as if it was all-authoritative. Oh what else is that? Is that a 20 year old source this time?
If you'll actually look at the table that the data came from, you'll see that the total sample size n was 734 for the initial question of if it was reported to the police, 135 for if they were prosecuted, and 54 asked about conviction of rapist based on if the question was applicable. I don't see how 16,000 respondents is a "horrendously low sample size" for a whole survey over two years......
Because only 24 women and 8 menreported during their interviews that theyhad been raped in the 12 months preceding the survey, the annual estimatesshould be viewed with caution.
This doesn't mean that the sample size was small. It just said that only 32 rapes of those surveyed occurred in the last 12 months and so projections for yearly averages should be taken with caution. Not sure how this was supposed to be some type of own. I'm not making yearly forecasts for the number of false accusations, I'm using percentages based on outcomes.
Your getting closer there, but dang it - your off by 20 years. Furthermore, the mere fact that someone was not prosecuted is not necessarily evidence that they did not do the rape, ESPECIALLY not 1995, but you know... that's even without the data being 20 years old, or the sample of actual rape victims (yes - 8000 people were interviewed, the actual number of people who they studied the court case of that rape is the ACTUAL sample size used for that data).
I agree this data should be more relevant. I'm sure the rate of false accusations is much higher now in this "metoo" era where accusing people is now a bludgeon for anyone you may dislike for any reason, even politically (ie. Brett Kavanaugh). But, from one of the most reliable sources, I hardly doubt you'll find anything better than a large DoJ survey
but if something can either be TRUE or FALSE - the crime either happened or it didn't - then their is no situation like this. Let me ask you - what is the third scenario in this situation - the rape allegation was true, the rape allegation was false - and? What's the third thing, I'm waiting. No - that's you going with something either be dismissed for lack of evidence, but we were not originally talking about THIS study, we were talking about the:
I'll say this very very clearly for you: those percentages are known false allegations. That does not mean all others are true. In that particular study, it was either known false or it was not. That means all others were either false and they couldn't prove it or they were true.
Which reported the rate that allegations were FALSE - do you know what that means? That means if an allegation is found to be NOT FALSE - as in THE ALLEGATION HAPPENED - then it is? Come on, you can do it- it means its TRUE! The amount of mental gymnastics you try to pull is astounding. Just admit that you didn't actually read more than what supported your conclusion and get on with it.
Read above. Keep reading until you understand it ^_^
Plus, some of those Rumney studies have over 1,100 respondents and produced percentages larger than your desired range. Another broke it down into false and possibly true/possibly false. They all used different methodologies, which explains the large range.
Again, take a deep breathe. High blood pressure is bad for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
please specifically cite the study which says that "17% of rape allegations are proven true"
"According to victim accounts, 37 percentof the rapes against women that werereported to the police resulted in the rapistbeing criminally prosecuted. Of the prosecuted rapists, 46.2 percent were convictedof a crime,"
So, .462*37%= ~17%
I'll explain it in case you need it. Of all accusations, only 37% have enough evidence to prosecute by a grand jury. Of those 37%, less than half actually lead to convictions (since they have a higher burden of proof than an indictment). So, multiplying the percentages, you find that about 17% of all initial accusations are proven true.
d ignored that the "study" that was cited to have a "90%" false allegation rate was 1981, and from less than 20 allegations! What?
I was simply showing that there are huge variations in estimates, and to say that is it definitely a tiny percentage is silly. I highly doubt it is as high as 90%
if something is reported as rape, and that report is found to NOT BE FALSE, then that thing is NECESSARILY TRUE. Again your blatant lying here is gross.
LMFAO, WHAT? I don't know if this "disingenuous" talk is just purposeful trolling or if you don't understand what you are saying.
You think if something isn't proven to be false then it is automatically true?
I'm 6'5. Prove that I'm not 6'5. Oh, you can't? Guess it must be true. Wow, I sure love being 6'5.
That is absurd. The only way that it could be proven false is that the accused has a concrete alibi, or the accuser wrote it down somewhere/told someone that they lied about it/admitted they lied about it.
If accuser lied and the accused was home alone or with the accuser at the supposed time of the incident and she tells nobody about the lie, guess what? It really can't be proven false many other ways.
If there is no evidence that it was lied about or that it actually happened, it goes in that huge middle area between at the lowest 2% false and 17% true. That means, with me being as generous as possible to your position, 81% of the time, we have no clue whether it is true or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Like your lying is so blatant that its kinda gross - rapes are reported TRUTHFULLY at between a rate of 90 and 96 percent according to the study that Wikipedia cites.
Even if that was true, having 10% (or even 5% to be fair about it) be false is insane when you people think we should socially ostracize anybody who gets accused lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... did you just cite a study that was Wikipedia...?
I'm referring to the sources listed in Wikipedia, not whoever wrote the page.
Also -actually reading the section is pretty helpful, wouldn't you agree?
Cool, and I was referencing the Rumney study that took multiple studies from 1974 to 2005, and the range was, as I stated, 1.5% to 90%.
and you wonder why people find you disingenious
Allow me to interpret what you pasted for you: rape allegation are agreed to be PROVEN false 2 to 10% of the time. Only ~17% are proven true. So, are you saying that every instance that isn't proven one way or the other are all true? If so, I'd like for you to provide me with a reason to believe that.
extremely old source, 1993... like - seriously?
And yet you provided no newer one to debunk what I provided. Curious.
This isn't really a good source for 2021 regarding the amont of allegations that are true or false. Ya know.. cause there are more allegations now, 40 years later.
It doesn't matter if there is a larger amount of allegations because.... it is a percent. :^)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
The opinion in question has to actually be based for them to take the call
They picked right up. Didn't put me on hold or anything
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
It is tragic what happened to Floyd. Drug addiction is a big problem in our country, and it affects too many people.
He might not have driven at the "peak" of his high, but he probably still would have driven while high, as you mentioned. Driving is dangerous enough when everybody is sober and lucid.
The criminal justice system has roles to punish and rehabilitate criminals, sure. Neat goals, but the most practical purpose is to keep dangerous people out of our neighborhoods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Are you saying we should repeal the 19th Amendment 😵
Hello, Based Department?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Not necessarily; it just means there is no evidence to confirm if they are true or false.
You must not have read what I said. Upwards means top estimate, not the real number. If we don't know what the heck happened in 90% of cases, that means that 90% CAN be false, and you don't know better.
Having 1 guilty person roam free leads to more murders.
You're assuming that all murderers would continue to murder if they didn't get locked up? Are we assuming everyone is a serial killer that does so for the fun of it?
Even though there is a trial, 4% of people convicted of murder are innocent. Do we get rid of the death penalty on the basis of this, or is a little collateral damage inevitable in justice unfortunately?
You need to actually think this through, Alec. If 4% of them are false after a TRIAL, wouldn't that number be much higher if we believed people without ANY evidence being presented?
Millions of men have girlfriends and they almost never get accused of rape by those girlfriends. Most men who break up have pissed off their girlfriend. This doesn't mean that their girlfriend reports them to the police over a false rape incident.
They don't all do that. But would a few thousand do that? Absolutely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wiki's numbers are all over the place, so on this issue, I don't think they are an accurate source since they aren't being consistent with their claim.
It is showing that we have no clue how many claims are actually true. So your claim that most are true is absolutely a lie. Most never lead to a conviction because there is not any available evidence. If there is not enough evidence for 90% of cases, then that would mean upwards of 90% are false. You cannot pretend that you know that all cases without enough evidence are all true.
I don't think it's tens of thousands of guys every year, but I'd probably the group of falsely accused people them that it's better for them to be in jail (because rapists should get life in jail or a punishment influenced by the victims (death penalty isn't an option)) then for genuine rapists that outnumber them over 230 to one to be running free raping more people, just like it's better to have one innocent person locked up than one guilty murderer roaming free because that murderer could kill way more people than one innocent person being locked up.
That's a pretty hot take. Pretty much everybody says it is better to let guilty people roam free than to lock up innocent people.
And there are 17k rape arrests per year. Which means that at minimum over 200 false arrests and even more accusations. If the real number is 90%, then that would be 15k per year.
But if you're fine with literally thousands of people having their lives ruined for doing nothing wrong, then you'd best hope you never piss off a girlfriend really badly in the future. I'm not donating spare change while you live on the streets. I might even chuckle
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Some bicycles are good for fish. Just not as many as I'd like lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Based on the study, the false reporting rate is at a minimum 1.5% and at maximum 90%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#:~:text=DiCanio%20(1993)%20states%20that%20while,of%202%25%20to%2010%25.
So, for the tens of thousands of guys who get false accusations and are now unemployable and their families disown them, what is your message? Tough luck? Shouldn't have made that crazy, lying woman mad at you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
And many conservatives don't support believe women out of the fear that some are innocent. However, most conservatives also support the death penalty even though there is a chance that some convicts are innocent.
The difference is, the death penalty is issued after a lengthy trial. Ruining a guy's life through a false accusation? Not so much. No evidence is often ever presented, just someone says it happened.
Now, an apt comparison would be executing someone when the only evidence was someone saying "he killed a guy" which.... nobody supports
Do you support the lives of thousands of guys being permanently ruined because an angry ex spews lies about them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yeah, there was a study that found that BLM, which attempts to solve a nearly non-existent problem, is an utter disaster. Even Vox reported on it.
In places with BLM protests, there were 300 less police "homicides" (I'm not sure if they are referring to unjustified shootings or all shooting deaths in general. As you'll see soon, that doesn't matter).
These areas, however, also saw an uptick of between 1,000 and 6,000 murders. So, even on the low end, there are over 3x as many people dying as there would be without BLM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
There are far more injustices against whites by blacks than vice versa (10x more violent crimes committed by blacks against whites a year than the reverse in fact) that get exactly zero non local press so spare me the histrionics about accountability
Also, I've seen plenty of melanin-rich "white supremacists" killing and stomping Asians. Doesn't get much attention once the mugshot comes out, oddly enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
and I’m sure the fact that he’s black has absolutely nothing to do with that
No, it doesn't. Whenever drug addict, criminal whites are killed by the police while resisting arrest, I never loot a Target or support them.
Nor do I see you defend criminal whites killed while resisting arrest, so I'm guessing Floyd's race is why you are defending him. Call that race blind(ed). :P
People like you are too busy painting George Floyd as human trash who’s life is not worth being concerning about
He really isn't worth being concerned about. He has been arrested many times in his life, one time for robbing a pregnant woman. He clearly never changed, and he probably would have killed someone while driving under the influence of fentanyl. But the fact that I don't care that he died probably makes me a lot more objective when looking at the evidence than someone who is "enraged" by the incident, no?
to understand the basic idea of what people are enraged about.
No, I understand exactly what people are enraged about. They are very ignorant people who think that cops waltz around and indiscriminately kill black people. Then they watch a video with no context and raze a city to the ground. Now, in a year or two, they will complain that no businesses want to invest there. Detroit all over again, and I could not care less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Racist transformers shall save us! (No, not the Bruce Jenner kind)
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Well if he kept getting complaints, maybe he was a sucky cop that kept making mistakes. And he knew Floyd was on some type of drug, which is why it was harder to detain him. He did not know Floyd had a bad heart and had a drug that slows your heart rate.
And you are correct about my Illuminati allegiances. REEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Hey, Oro! How ya been?
But the police are never in possession of all the facts at the time of arrest
Well, they were able to discern that the suspect was on some type of drug. They incorrectly thought he was on PCP because of his erratic behavior. Apparently, he was just drunk. I'm not saying that the criminal record was relevant to the arrest conduct, simply that two lifelong criminals were saints to similar movements.
You know the funny thing? Had Rodney King simply laid on the ground instead of resisting arrest, he would have left the whole incident perfectly safe. Had George got in the car when asked, he would have been fine as well (except for, ya know, the fentanyl). I'm beginning to sense another pattern between these two cases: don't resist arrest and you'll be fine 99.99% of the time! Thanks for helping me discover more similarities.
Solano is now one of the highest ranking officers in LAPD.
Sounds like there are benefits to trying to convict your buddies in a post-LA Riot Los Angeles. Pretty sucky place to live now, too.
Let's note that bmdrocks21 is taking the perps word for it in spite of overwhelming contradicting testimony by more objective witnesses.
Duly noted.
The defendent officers claim "charging" but most other testified "fleeing" King testified that he was simply trying to survive electroshock and would not ascribe any intent to any of his actions after the tasers hit him.
"members of the jury said this cut footage was essential to their decision to acquit the officers, who had claimed this step represented the first of a charge at them". The jury decided to acquit because of the footage cut out of the beginning. They decided to acquit based on evidence that most of the rioting public was not even aware of.
That was another connection to the recent trial. Similarly, the general public did not see the full arrest in the Floyd case. They didn't see that he was given multiple chances to comply and that's why more aggressive measures were used.
Let it be known that Oromagi is taking the word of King, who has a strong incentive to say he wasn't charging at officers. He knew he would "survive" considering that his friends were allowed to leave with little incident after they complied with police orders.
Here is the whole of the video
I am not going to pretend that Chauvin and the LAPD reacted perfectly. They probably did hit him a few more times than they should have (a couple past the 50 second mark were when it appeared he was not trying to get up), but you'll notice that during the vast majority of the blows, he is trying to rise to his feet. Considering they thought he was combative and charged them, you would think they would not want a big violent guy on drugs getting back on his feet, wouldn't you?
- Koons improperly took over the arrest of King.
Wikipedia said he was the ranking officer at the scene, so I'm not sure that's true.
Lets also recall that although Allen and Helms did not resist arrest in any way both also received multiple injuries from Powell and Wind. The fact that neither is even mentioned in any LAPD report on the night reveals much about the officer's culpability and intent.
One had a laceration. One was supposedly kicked. Very minor, but should not have happened, considering it sounds like they were compliant.
They were charged but not convicted because the trial was moved to SImi Valley, which is known as "Copland" in LA and considered the most racist white enclave in So. Cal.
Wasn't aware of that. Will have to look into it.
- In fact, the hospital found
And would have had at worst a laceration if he had simply complied like his friends. But he had to try to charge them or "flee" and continue to try to get up. Yeah, he got beat up badly and ideally that should not happen during arrests, but he kept trying to get up when he clearly should not have. You mention taser burns, so obviously the taser did not work. They did not really have many other choices here.
We need not wonder whether the LAPD knew they'd done Rodney King wrong that night because they covered up their crimes.
You seem quick to ascribe motives to the police but not to Rodney. I wonder why that is. Assuming they bragged about it to nurses (I didn't see that, but I'll take your word for it), do you think they would brag about committing what they had believed to be a crime to random people? Probably not. So, since they probably did not believe they did anything wrong, then why would they make a report?
So then you would argue that the rioters who attacked the US Capitol on Jan 6th ought to have been constrained by massed volleys of deadly force? I don't think would have de-escalated the situation very effectively.
I would say that the national guard should have been called in. I don't, however, see a need for deadly force in that situation. The only damage was really related to breaking and entering. Contrast that with the BLM riots in which stores were looted of all valuables (destroying livelihoods of private citizens) and many buildings were burnt to the ground. The violence was not even comparable to what was seen at the Capitol. The only "violence" was on the part of the police by shooting a woman in the neck. Contrast that with the hundreds or thousands of brutal beatings and over ten murders that happened in the BLM riots.
Let's recall that Pat Buchanan lost all credibility on the subjects of force, justice, and morality when he called for an instant trial and public hanging (lynching) in Central Park of the Central Park Five (all black and hispanic 14 and 15 years olds) in 1989. All five served long prison sentences for rape before being exonerated in 2002.
They all confessed to one of the most heinous crimes and then later took it back. Looking back now, I'm sure it is easy to say "how could people say something bad about what should have been done to them" when they believed that they gang raped a woman. Can't speak for Trump, I'm here to defend Buchanan.
And the difference is, they waited for the trial and did not raze businesses to the ground.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
It isn’t unreasonable. Chauvin knew the size of the person he kneeled on. He didn’t know the health conditions and drugs in his system. So, had someone of the same size that didn’t do a bunch of fentanyl and didn’t have heart disease get kneeled on in that manner, they would probably have been fine for the duration.
You keep comparing what happened to Floyd with what would happen to a much smaller person. But a much smaller person wouldn’t need close as much force to bring under control. So, I’m comparing Floyd to a healthy version of himself because, again, the only info that Chauvin had was visual: Floyd’s size and strength and not invisible (things in his blood and heart functionality)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It’s not a platform. Just how to deal with the type of violence we witnessed over the past year
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
According to an Atlantic Article, the coroner's note was that Floyd became unresponsive at 5:53 (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/george-floyd-kneeling/612409/). So, someone who had bad arteries, a bad heart, and one of the most dangerous drugs on the streets in his system lasted about six minutes.
I think that someone who is in average health and has no drugs in their system could probably last a few extra minutes. Is that an unreasonable assumption, and if you think it is, why?
Because if officers should assume that everyone they arrest has heart disease and drugs in them, then they would struggle to find any gadget or hold that would suffice to detain criminals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Don't forget to also obtain heart disease to make it even. Better start eating those Big Macs!
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Floyd's narrowed arteries and enlarged heart made him much more susceptible to death in this manner. When police are making arrests, they don't know the underlying health conditions that the person they are arresting have. Chauvin, we are assuming, was not be aware of Floyd's conditions, unless you can prove otherwise.
Floyd was alive for most of the time he was under restraint restraint. Wouldn't it be logical to believe that somebody of a similar size without heart disease, without narrowed arteries, and without drugs in their system could have lasted the full nine minutes?
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
How do you know I'd die? How many pounds of pressure were on Floyd? Dr. Andrew Baker said that there were no bruises on the neck and you typically would see those. He also said pressure on the back of the neck doesn't result in asphyxiation or strangulation.
I don't understand where you got the idea that I was telling racist jokes. The only time I mentioned the race of anyone was in reference to the heroic Korean business owners that defended their stores from a mob of psychos.
You have always seemed to have a very high opinion of yourself. The truth is you watched a deceptive video and immediately determined that Chauvin was guilty and there was no way that this couldn't be the case. Your cognitive dissonance and blatant partisanships is why you refuse to recognize that there is a high likelihood that Floyd OD'd.
To think that it is a conspiracy that the media can emotionally manipulate masses of people through partially reporting on issues that they don't have most of the facts on is laughable. We saw it over Treyvon Martin and Michael Brown, both of whom deserved to be shot. Yet there were plenty of riots over ol' police-punching, gun-grabbing Michael.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hopefully, the looters won't care when the media covers the appeal.
The rooftop Koreans won't be caught off-guard this time!!!
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
They aren't perfect mirrors, but the general details are the same. One exception being that drugs killed Rodney King many years after the video of the arrest.
Floyd didn't charge the cops, but both resisted arrest.
"Irrefutably murdered". I guess no jury has ever been wrong before, huh?
I fail to see how you don't draw the connection between Floyd's heart disease, deadly drugs in his system, and stress from being arrested for multiple felonies (drug crimes and using counterfeit money) resulting in his OD. You are obviously biased beyond reasoning if you don't think there is any possibility that poor health, drugs, and stress killed him.
Because that is the burden of proof: "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Created:
Posted in:
The arrest of a career criminal, who was under the influence of drugs and resisted arrest, had their incident caught on video camera. This video was sent to the press and a deceptive clip eventually led to massive riots.
Sounding familiar? It should, but not for the reason many of you are expecting.
I'm talking about the arrest of Rodney King. King, who was on parole for a robbery, attempted to flee police at over 100 mph because he did not want to be caught driving under the influence. After eventually being cornered, he was ordered to lay on the ground, which he refused to do. Four officers attempted to execute an unarmed arrest on King, who was 6'4 and well over 200lb, but he threw them off. They unsuccessfully tried to use a taser, and he charged at them. Then, they began using their batons, but he kept trying to get up to flee until eventually eight officers were able to cuff him.
The video aired by the media showed none of the violent resisting of arrest or the charging at the officers- only the beating completely out of context.
An article from the Missouri Kansas City Law School noted that the deceptive clips "turned what would otherwise have been a violent, but soon forgotten, encounter between the Los Angeles police and an uncooperative suspect into one of the most widely watched and discussed incidents of its kind".
I'd think that the fentanyl overdose of a career criminal after resisting arrest would have also fallen back into obscurity without the meddling of the media that grossly misrepresented the case.
The LA Riots resulted after the police were not charged in King's beating, as the jury was shown the full clip with all of the facts present. After 5 days of massive riots and $1 billion in damage, the national guard quelled the savage mob.
However, some of the police were eventually charged by the DOJ with "depriving King of his civil rights". This moment taught the mob one important lesson: rioting works. If you riot enough, you can get a conviction, and today, you can get over a billion in donations for looting and burning business. With last year's riots fresh in the mind of Chauvin's jury, they knew that for the safety of themselves and their city, they must convict Chauvin.
So, we must take similar lessons. The national guard quelled the mob nearly instantly. We must not hesitate to deploy any means necessary to uphold the safety of the public from rioters and to protect the sanctity of our justice system. We only have the mere semblance of being a First World country when we allow officers to be sacrificial lambs to please angry mobs who deify felons. We cannot accept living under the tyranny of these unhinged, violent activists and opportunists.
To stop the mob, we need, as Patrick Buchanan once said about the LA Riots "the one thing that could stop it: force, rooted in justice, and backed by moral courage."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I think that Republicans are quite the opposite of consequentialists. They don't care about the result of a policy if it violates their "principles". They fight a lot of policies that would materially benefit their constituents' wellbeing because of some stupid axiom of free trade or whatever the current case is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It looks like a lot of people are taking a very literal interpretation of this (it might be the best, I don't know the context of the quote), but I think the quote could also be applied in another way.
An excess of freedom, at least for individuals, can lead to our own personal enslavement. Freedom or 'liberty' to do drugs opens us up to be enslaved to an addiction or really any other vice.
The anarchy leading to tyranny interpretation works well for the state, but I think that is another interesting way to read it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You blaming Vietnam on women?
We didn't lose the war. We demolished them, had a ceasefire, and never reengaged after North Vietnam attack the South again because we stopped caring.
Sorry but flying a plane, driving a tank and shooting a gun are not just male activities.
They clearly should be.
We don't fight with swords anymore.
On this, we agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Another "White people bad" show. Wowza! Very creative! Just what we needed!
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
They're both based
#Death2Infidels
Created: