[Drlee]

@wat0n Peaceful protests should be allowed to proceed as usual. But if the protest turns into a riot, then it will need to be dispersed using whatever means necessary, and if the government doesn't do it, then people who are hit by looters and arsonists (let alone people who are attacked by these and the rioters) will do so on their own. And yes it's already began.

Look at the underlined. This is where your argument fails. There should be clear limits on "what means are necessary". Here is why. The argument is not that some means to disburse the looters/rioters should not be used. The argument is about what means should be used. There are actions by the police that are simply too much. A looter, for example, should not be shot. Police should not use excessive force in affecting an arrest. We have seen, in the news and on this very thread, myriad examples of excessive or unnecessary force.

I have no doubt that police face infuriating situations frequently. When train them and arm them to go into the community we are making a bargain with them. We are saying, "Here is deadly force AND the ability to arrest/detain and jail someone pending trial, based solely upon your informed opinion." This is enormous power. Police are trained and should be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us when it comes to maintaining their temper, their good judgement and adherence to the training they have been given.

Now @Pants-of-dog You may be quite right that the district attorney who charged these policemen has implanted a poison pill in the charges. IF, as you say, choke holds are not illegal it may offer a shred of defense for the cops. However. I think we are mistaking. This was not a "choke hold". A choke hold is quite a specific thing. This was three men kneeling on a restrained suspect for a prolonged period of time while a fourth watched. No reasonable person could conclude that this was necessary force.

The key to police use of force as determined by court after court is that the force should end when the threat ends. No doubt the police with assert a little known thing called "qualified immunity". I won't go into that here but suffice it to say that they probably won't prevail in this regard because they are not fighting a fourth amendment complaint and the video clearly shows reckless disregard.

But again POD. This case will go to trial or be plead out. Almost certainly the later. Will the third degree murder charge hold? I doubt it. But the lesser charge will probably stand. And the DA can always throw in a negligent homicide charge just to seal the officer's fate. IF the DA does NOT add that charge I will freely admit to you that the choice of charges appears to be a poison pill.

[Saeko]

I wasn't even thinking anything like that. Actually, aren't you the racist for assuming that the rioters who destroyed the Ben & Jerry's shop were black?

I was simply thinking that it was funny that Ben & Jerry's shop got destroyed despite their ridiculous virtue signalling.

But now that you mention it, your bigoted assertion about the blacks who turned on their Jewish masters is fucking hilarious

I never made such an assertion. I was simply pointing out how Nazis in general think.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't know what he's done on that issue but I doubt he's been any worse on it than any of his recent predecessors.

So you have no evidence to support your claim that Trump is somehow better than Dubya. Noted, and moving on.

Has the problem actually been exacerbated? Has there been a significant increase in incidents of police killing unarmed suspects under Trump than under Obama or Bush? I doubt it.

There has been an increase in right wing and white terrorism. Also, racist attacks have increased.

And some trends that lead to more police brutality, like increased militarisation of police, have continued to increase under Trump.

And it is undoubtedly true that Trump is doing absolutely nothing to stop the ongoing police brutality.

————————

@Drlee

I find it hard to believe that the DA is all about keeping police accountable for thieir brutality since the brutality is happening right now and it does not seem like any government officials are making any effort to stop it.

[wat0n]

Please follow the links to get the name.

It did, it gets me to a login page. Would you please post it?

The name does not matter. What matters is the fact that the law has been used this way and the DA knows it, which lends credence to the claim that they are trying to get the murdering cop acquitted.

The facts of that precedent and the arguments therein are of course important to know if it generated a precedent for this situation. As someone who lives in a country with common law, I'm sure you must be aware of this.

The law is quite clear: the choke hold is legal but discouraged.

But killing the person as a result of it, is not.

PS: I also defer to @Drlee's response as well, but I'm skipping the technicalities behind a choking maneuver.

If that is how you want to describe how the DA will use this to create reasonable doubt, feel free.

I find it unlikely he'll be able to create reasonable doubt when the examiner states it was an homicide. Let alone after watching the videos, taking into account the independent forensic report provided by the Floyd family (why are you ignoring that by the way?) and whatever new evidence shows up.

Why did over 200 killings never go to court, then?

I don't know, how many were unjustified under Minnesota law? How many of those killed were unarmed?

The arguemnt is that systemic racism is one of the reasons why cops get away with obvious murder.

That's a claim, not argument. And it's one that needs to be qualified as well.

Sure.

Let me know when systemic racism is over.

Sure, it seems to be on its way to be.

If you want to go back and reread our discussions m you will see that this part of our discussion has always been about police brutality.

No, this discussion is about the unjustified use of lethal force in the case of George Floyd and other instances of law enforcement, not riot control.

We know this because the thread predates the riots.

As we speak, cops are attacking peaceful protesters, teargassing kids, stopping the press from filming their actions, and firing rubber bullets at people filming them.

Do they have “latitude” for this? Yes or no?

Depends on whether among those peaceful protesters there are violent ones who are attacking the cops, rioting and/or looting. It also depends on whether there have been violations of the curfews.

But no, when this has not been the case it is not.

Anyone who wants can read your evidence and see how the cops were the main cause of violence back then.

Just like now.

So it would actually make sense to get rid of all the cops right now.

How would you conclude that from the Boston Police Strike? Please, feel free to entertain me.

This is not a game. People are being killed by police for this and getting away with it.

If debates are just a game to you, please start a thread about whether a hot dog is a sandwich or some other topic that does not involve actual police killings and brutality that are happening as we speak.

I take it that you are aware that you would not be able to get away with it in Canada, despite your whiteness.

How are these “reforms” addressing the systemic racism that lets cops off the hook for killing innocent people?

By having video evidence of the incidents, it becomes easier for the broader society to exercise oversight and thus punish illegal behavior. And indeed, that's what's happened in some of the more recent cases, such as the shooting of Laquan McDonald - where jurors themselves said bodycams were essential for getting the second degree murder verdict, since the culprit was already about talking about shooting someone before even arriving there and being aware of the situation.

Would you explain why would this transparency be the wrong course to follow, even in light of research showing it does affect police behavior and in light of concrete police brutality trials?

@Drlee using the force that is necessary to deal with violent protesters doesn't mean using more force than that is acceptable. I'm surprised I need to state something as evident as that.

I also think it's entirely possible that the third degree murder charge will stand in court, and can't rule out second or first degree murder charges may be added if it turns out that George Floyd and Derek Chauvin know each other.

[Sivad]

I would imagine in the eyes of Sivad it's necessary to sacrifice the lives of Americans to protect the rest of the world from US imperialism.

There goes Donna imagining shit again.

That is how authentically left-wing he is, unlike the stupid woketard left

I always took left to mean a commitment to honesty, decency, fairness, peace, freedom, and prosperity. If I'm mistaken and left means rigid dogmatic fanaticism and violent fascistic authoritarianism then I guess you are the real mccoy and I'm the faker.

[Donna]

Sivad you seem a bit downcast today. Cheer up.

In other news, it appears Trump has been completely cucked. By the governors, by the Pentagon, by his own staff, by the protesters. He's now trying to deal with the bunker bitch meme lol

[Pants-of-dog]

It did, it gets me to a login page. Would you please post it?

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2 ... -wahlberg/

The facts of that precedent and the arguments therein are of course important to know if it generated a precedent for this situation. As someone who lives in a country with common law, I'm sure you must be aware of this.

Exactly, and since there is a precedent for using third degree murder to charge people who endangered random people and not specific individuals, the DA could use this precedent to get the cop acquitted.

But killing the person as a result of it, is not.

PS: I also defer to @Drlee's response as well, but I'm skipping the technicalities behind a choking maneuver.

Regardless, the government will not punish the cop for using this choke hold.

I find it unlikely he'll be able to create reasonable doubt when the examiner states it was an homicide. Let alone after watching the videos, taking into account the independent forensic report provided by the Floyd family (why are you ignoring that by the way?) and whatever new evidence shows up.

The prosecutor can simply refuse to call the examiner as a witness, can refuse to show videos, and can refuse to introduce the independent investigation as evidence.

I don't know, how many were unjustified under Minnesota law? How many of those killed were unarmed?

As I said it is a non-zero number.

Now, why were these killings never brought to trial?

Sure, it seems to be on its way to be.

I have not seen anything addressing the systemic racism.

No, this discussion is about the unjustified use of lethal force in the case of George Floyd and other instances of law enforcement, not riot control.

We know this because the thread predates the riots.

Unjustified use of force has been pervasive in the police response to the protests.

Depends on whether among those peaceful protesters there are violent ones who are attacking the cops, rioting and/or looting. It also depends on whether there have been violations of the curfews.

But no, when this has not been the case it is not.

Are you arguing that cops have the latitude to use violence against children, innocents, and the press simply because looters exist?

Can you show me an example of justified police brutality against anyone in the last few days?

How would you conclude that from the Boston Police Strike? Please, feel free to entertain me.

The evidence clearly states that the majority of killings were at the hands of cops, or people defending themsleves against cops.

I take it that you are aware that you would not be able to get away with it in Canada, despite your whiteness.

At this point, you are no longer being clear as to what argument you are making.

By having video evidence of the incidents, it becomes easier for the broader society to exercise oversight and thus punish illegal behavior. And indeed, that's what's happened in some of the more recent cases, such as the shooting of Laquan McDonald - where jurors themselves said bodycams were essential for getting the second degree murder verdict, since the culprit was already about talking about shooting someone before even arriving there and being aware of the situation.

Would you explain why would this transparency be the wrong course to follow, even in light of research showing it does affect police behavior and in light of concrete police brutality trials?

This says nothing about systemic racism.

How does this deal with systemic racism?

[blackjack21]

I don’t know. Let’s get them and find out. Probably more embarrassing shit than illegal.

That's called a lack of probable cause... yet another legal norm you're ready to dispense with. Wait until they start doing it to you and see how you like it. What's your position on stop-and-frisk for example?

He has asymmetrical power that he is abusing so I say let the gloves come off.

Do you know why people blast me as racist, other than making fun of liberals and their impossible political correctness and sensitive feelings? It's that I openly reject the notion of absolute equality. Keep in mind that you do too. You even reject the notion of equality before the law, which is what you've done in the last two quips--something that I don't support. That is the very same intellectual mechanism that allows for different classes and oppressing people. Liberals believe that insisting everyone be treated equally will fix this problem. I say it is time to look beyond equality as a tool to extend dignity. There should be more than one way.

So no, it does not bother me.

If the law is to be applied equally, that means that everyone would get to look at everyone else's tax returns. Are you ready to make that leap? A lot of young people don't care about privacy; yet, there are others that consider it a right. I imagine a kid today would be fine with a cam in their shower livestreaming their bits and pieces to the world. Others would consider it a gross violation of their privacy.

“Medicare for all, super far left” except canada has it, the UK has it, Germany’s has it, Japan has it... so yeah... all of those countries are far left.

Those are all nationalist policies from the mid-20th Century when nationalism was at its peak and popular. They're more akin to facist/national socialist policies than communist. Germany's model differs from the Beveridge model.

Yeah, keep trying to blame only democrats when it is the whole country that is going in flames, likely due to having a maniac at the driving wheel.

Only a week ago, Bill de Blasio was threatening to send police into the water to drag individual swimmers out of the water and arrest them for not obeying the lockdown orders. Democrats were calling for the arrest of a solitary man in his kayak, 1000s of yards from anyone. Now, their cities are burning. NYC has rioters swarming fifth avenue, and de Blasio is not doing a thing. Explain to me why it's understandable for rioters to steal cars, light buildings and cop cars on fire, break and enter and burgle jewelry stores, beat business owners, and pre-position stacks of bricks to get crowds to throw bricks at the police; yet, I cannot go and legally get a haircut, because that's dangerous? Sorry XogGyux, I blew my fuse with these people long ago, and they've done nothing to restore my faith in them since--Democrats (the worst) and Republicans (not much better). Tainari88 wants me to lay out some elaborate ideological vision for the future. My goals are much more pragmatic: get these motherfuckers out of office now, and we'll figure the rest out later. Trump is just a placeholder.

Are you actually cheering for the destruction of the US?

I am cheering for the destruction of a political cabal that has outlived its usefulness. Covid is not a threat; let's impeach Trump; whoops that didn't work; Covid is going to kill millions; let's lock down the country; whoops destroyed the livelihoods of the voters; let's let people riot, because that's understandable. Really? I've had enough of this political class, and I've been very clear about that.

Maybe, frankly the bland reaction by the police does not inspire much confidence and it would not be the first time that after outrage and clear evidence of wrong doing they walk.

The Chief of Police in Minneapolis is black. So much for identitarian politics then. I've never believed any of that stuff mattered anyway. NWA called it out in the 1980s with their rap, "Fuck tha Police" saying, "Black police showing out for the white cop." Except it has nothing to do with race and hasn't for a long time. It's about trying to get people to believe in the urban Democrat political machine. I don't, and having a black chief of police in Minneapolis obviously didn't set any sort of "tone" for Derek Chauvin.

There won’t be an “expert” testifying that fentanyl causes heart attacks.

You'd be surprised, but you're probably right about that. However, fentanyl does slow the heart rate and the respiratory rate. Add some stressors to that situation, and you could see cardiac arrest. You will find people who will testify to that. So throwing out these misdirections is pointless. Lawyers are skilled at creating impressions in the minds of juries. That's why they make the big bucks.

I’d want to see who is the Doctor willing to destroy his/her reputation and any credibility in order to save a guy that has sparked so much pain and so many protests.

Expert witnesses do it for the money. You can get scientists to testify that smoking doesn't necessarily cause lung cancer. Being a doctor doesn't make you virtuous. There are murderer doctors too. Purdue pharmaceuticals marketed Oxycontin as a non-addictive opioid, getting doctors to overprescribe it and leading to a massive opioid epidemic. There are doctors who specialize for all intents and purposes in defrauding the disability insurance system.

Biden accuser suffers from not having a consistent story, having no evidence, and making an accusation that describes a character that nobody else has described (or believes) Biden is capable of.

There are plenty of pictures of Biden getting feely with women, and the women looking uncomfortable. Yet, none of that matters to me. I don't like Biden, because he's the establishment's candidate. I spit up laughing and almost choke my drink when the Democrats tested the line, "What we need is new leadership." Really? Joe Biden. There is virtually nothing new about Joe Biden.

I’ll still vote for Biden and then demand his resignation, impeachment and prosecution

That's because you have faith in the establishment, and I do not.

Trump is a dangerous person AND a criminal.

Biden is far more corrupt, as are most career politicians. Trump isn't out there starting wars like Bush and Obama. I think we're safer with Trump.

Trump himself has admitted of doing what Biden is being accused of and much more.

Who cares? People with any shred of religious conviction do not look to politicians for moral guidance. Atheists are another matter, and that is why political correctness, wokeness, and hypocrisy are so important to left wing statecraft. I'm not interested in passing moral judgement on Trump. If he does at least marginally more to stem the tide of illegal immigration, puts trade tariffs on China, and drives the politically correct absolutely insane, he's doing more than I could hope for in any other viable candidate out there. There's also SCOTUS appointments to consider. John Roberts has already defected for all intents and purposes, but a few more conservative judges could shut down the progressive-law-by-judicial-fiat scheme for decades to come, which would be awesome.

This “establishment” that you are talking about is exactly the same “establishment” that Trump was born into.

Trump is not an establishment politician. He is not beholden to them. He is not controlled by them. At best, he's significantly influenced by them, and a little too sympathetic to them.

Go vote for fucking Brad Pitt or Madonna if an outsider is what you really want.

I don't agree with anything they stand for politically. What I would like is a right wing midget for president, just to lampoon identitarian politics for its sheer absurdity.

Trump is not an outsider, if anything he is more of an insider than any other politician.

Uh... reverse psychology? Really? That doesn't even work on teenagers anymore.

You see? You are already assuming acquittal and then you wonder why people are protesting.

I think Chauvin will be convicted, but I know how the Democrat machine works.

our guy is the establishment. Except for his own family, every people that he brought to his administration are also establishment. These are the stupid shit you guys masturbate to while pretending that you are been some sort of ideological revolutionary when in reality the reality is more like IDIOTical revolutionary Not to mention dangerous.

Joe Biden is Donald Trump. Donald Trump is Joe Biden. No difference huh? Establishment politicians are agents. Donald Trump and the people he brought in are principals. You may not like them. I don't like them all. Yet, most of them are not career civil servants.

You are telling me Biden is to the left of Hillary?

He says he's going to come and take away people's AR-15s.

We are by far the worse country in terms of our reaction and subsequent outcomes.

No we aren't. China is the worst, followed by Belgium, the UK, Spain, Italy and France in terms of deaths per 1M population. China just lies about its numbers.

National problem, during a republican administration.

Watch how it plays out. After Dinkins disastrous rule, Rudy Giuliani won, followed by George Pataki in the governors mansion, and Christine Todd Whitman in New Jersey. I'm telling you now, New Yorkers who can't get a hair cut but have to listen to de Blasio excuse rioters are going to switch political allegiances. It literally takes this sort of bullshit for some people to wake up. de Blasio is the first Democrat mayor since David Dinkins, and this is what he has wrought. Democrats are dangerous.

IT DOES NOT CHANGE A FUCKING THING.

The political sympathies of the jury might be a factor. Remember, the left is arguing that white people are racists and law is white supremacy. What if the jury is racist? What if they think just like Derek Chauvin? What if they are all Democrats?

When confronted with these facts, racists then blame "Black criminality(such as jaywalking, smoking a spliff & speeding)" by pointing out the prison population

Jaywalking and speeding do not carry a jail sentence. Smoking marijuana usually doesn't either unless you are in possession of quantities significant enough to be considered selling it.

What a handsome cop, like Woody Harrelson from Rampart.

Funny, I had exactly the same thought.

[Saeko]

[noemon]

Jaywalking and speeding do not carry a jail sentence. Smoking marijuana usually doesn't either unless you are in possession of quantities significant enough to be considered selling it.

The sources I posted clearly state that people sentenced of these offenses end up in jail and that 25% of the prison population in any given day is due to misdemeanours such as these(and that is excluding speeding). A further 46% is in prison due to drug related offences out of which 1/3 are for drug possession, NOT selling. You should take the time to read the report:

Misdemeanors: Minor offenses with major consequences

The “massive misdemeanor system” in the U.S. is another important but overlooked contributor to overcriminalization and mass incarceration. For behaviors as benign as jaywalking or sitting on a sidewalk, an estimated 13 million misdemeanor charges sweep droves of Americans into the criminal justice system each year (and that’s excluding civil violations and speeding). These low-level offenses account for over 25% of the daily jail population nationally, and much more in some states and counties.

“Low-level fugitives” live in fear of incarceration for missed court dates and unpaid fines

Defendants can end up in jail even if their offense is not punishable with jail time. Why? Because if a defendant fails to appear in court or to pay fines and fees, the judge can issue a “bench warrant” for their arrest, directing law enforcement to jail them in order to bring them to court. While there is currently no national estimate of the number of active bench warrants, their use is widespread and in some places, incredibly common. In Monroe County, N.Y., for example, over 3,000 people have an active bench warrant at any time, more than 3 times the number of people in the county jails.

But bench warrants are often unnecessary. Most people who miss court are not trying to avoid the law; more often, they forget, are confused by the court process, or have a schedule conflict. Once a bench warrant is issued, however, defendants frequently end up living as “low-level fugitives,” quitting their jobs, becoming transient, and/or avoiding public life (even hospitals) to avoid having to go to jail.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@maz are you trying to say that Ben & Jerry's should support white supremacy?

What I am saying is that I am not sure they should throw their lot behind these subversive protest/riot movements.

Since their tweet was about white supremacy, and not the protests or riots, you are saying that being against white supremacy is "subversive". And if you're not sure they should be that, then you're not sure if there's anything wrong with white supremacy. Just so we're clear where you stand ...

[Sivad]

So the plan then is to overcharge and use the outrage over the resulting acquittal as a springboard to electoral victory in November.

[noemon]

Indeed PC , the nazi-wanabee Maz is basically saying that people/companies should either be for white supremacy or risk having their store destroyed.

@Sivad how on earth is that overcharging these police pigs?

[skinster]

I think we should send in UN peacekeepers into America to protect citizens from these psychos:

It relates to it, because it suggests the problem has been going away ever since it rose to the forefront of the American national conversation due to the Black Lives Matter movement and brought changes that have been shown to decrease police violence, such as the use of bodycams:

[Donna]

lol, those body cams that cops repeatedly turn off and the only ones who get caught doing anything are the ones unaware of the 30 second delay.

[Sivad]

@Sivad how on earth is that overcharging these police pigs?

Because it will be extremely difficult in this case to prove intent. I've watched all the videos a dozen times each and I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd.

[skinster]

lol, those body cams that cops repeatedly turn off and the only ones who get caught doing anything are the ones unaware of the 30 second delay.

Cops turn them off whenever they feel like it and none were wearing any here:

Because it will be extremely difficult in this case to prove intent. I've watched all the videos a dozen times each and I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd.

I mean, it's not like he has a history of killing, amirite?

[maz]

Since their tweet was about white supremacy, and not the protests or riots, you are saying that being against white supremacy is "subversive". And if you're not sure they should be that, then you're not sure if there's anything wrong with white supremacy. Just so we're clear where you stand ...

There is no evidence that the police officer who is responsible for George Floyd's death is a white supremacist? I heard that he had an Asian wife, and his colleagues are not white. This is in addition to the black police chief who oversaw those four officers and a Jewish mayor. Where is this white supremacy?

[Tainari88]

Well folks the cops are abusing college students for protesting George Floyd's death and the problems with police brutality.

The state and the police in Atlanta, Georgia retraumatizing the peaceful protestors continues:

[Hindsite]

https://twitter.com/The_Real_Fly/status/1268054038744125440?s=09

To threaten to run someone over with your car is a criminal act for everyone else.

Dear Cops, this is why people call you Pigs.

I am sure he was just joking to relieve some of the tension. You are taking all this too seriously. Most of our police are good people just trying to do the job of maintaining law and order. We should all appreciate the fact that they risk their lives to protect the rest of us from criminals.