African-American Asphyxiated by Police in Minneapolis - Page 63 - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

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

I don't know about that, but all the political leaders in charge of that state are already Democrats. So what do they have to lose?
Verv wrote:Wow, this was really amazing & intense for me to see again.. I had to get up and leave the office and walk around the building because of all of these memories flooding back & hitting me. I can't write like that anymore... and it's not because I have "degraded" in any measurable way, but because that was just a mindset that was very unique to the spirit of that time.

It's been like 30 minutes since I've read this post and I think my heart rate is still elevated.

If there was anything I needed to really see again from my past, this was it... Thanks, man. I'm really glad you enjoyed that piece & I am thankful for you bringing it back up, and I hope I can get some piece of that back into my life.

You're welcome. I'm glad I can make you feel this way. And honestly I've been pacing around my home for the last 20 minutes thinking of how to respond. That's how powerful these ideas are. All the synapse in both our brains firing our natural feel-good chemicals into their receptors. I'm holding the mic for Verv so he can sing the line.

I've studied politics all of my adult life, studied political theory/philosophy and international relations etc at the university level. Consumed articles, books, and lectures from countless PhD scholars, and yes this idea of yours is one of the most brilliant i've ever heard. Because it's a meta-theory. Communism, fascism, liberalism, feminism, libertarianism the end, it's all about people trying to sing the line, or to hold the microphone for others to sing.

When you look through history, most if not all politics is about people wanting to be free, to express themselves as who they are, to sing the line, without someone stronger keeping the microphone away. The American Revolution was King George hiding the microphone from British American colonists, the US Civil War was Americans keeping the mic from black slaves, Russian Revolution was bourgeoisie keeping the mic from the proletariat, the rise of Nazism/fascism was the allies holding down the Germans with reparations post-WWI, WWII was Nazis taking the mic from Jews and Poland etc., Islamist terrorism is Western militaries keeping the mic from Muslims, the rise of feminism is men holding the mic away from women, gay rights is LGBT wanting to sing the line etc. Everyone just wants to sing, and we need to hold it for them. Politics gets complicated when holding the mic for one interferes with another person/group trying to sing, so sometimes people need to figure out how to share the stage, negotiate compromise. The Israelis and Palestinians for instance.

It goes beyond politics, this is a basic human need, and for all animals really, the caged dog barking to be freed, it dives right into our biology and psychology. One of the theories of psychology is that just talking to someone about your problems and frustrations, a friend or therapist, and letting the steam off your chest, is healing. To hold the mic for them so they can sang the line.

When we sing the line, like I said, all the synapse in our brains are firing our natural feel-good chemicals, like our natural opiates, dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, endorphins, into their receptors, and we feel happy. The autopsy found that George Floyd had fentanyl and meth in his system when he died. Nobody held the mic for him, so he was trying to get these necessary "feel good" chemicals into his brain receptors any way he could, so he could feel happiness. Maybe it was poverty, or childhood abuse/neglect, or a missing father figure, that kept his head below water, that prevented him from singing the line, who knows. The cop who pressed his knee on George's neck, he was doing the same thing to George that had been happening much of his life. Now people are in the streets, holding the mic for him and all African Americans, and it's beautiful.
Sivad wrote: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.

Right. :roll: Everyone is responsible for their actions. If you have not taken the time to see the video just so you do not have to vomit every time you express yourself, that's your issue.
Pants-of-dog wrote:

Thank you. I think it's important to cite the whole thing (something journalists are seemingly unable to do) since it's not as simple as saying that "it wasn't third degree murder because it was directed at a single person". Other case law I cited above (particularly, a kid ran over by a drunk driver) there was a single person affected and yet it was considered to be third degree murder based on the state of mind of the perpetrator.

So, here's the relevant text:

2. The defendant argues that the trial court's refusal to submit the charge of third-degree murder to the jury was reversible error because the evidence supported a finding that defendant had a "depraved mind" and did not intend to cause the death of any person. First- and second-degree murder instructions were given. In State v. Leinweber, 303 Minn. 414, 228 N.W.2d 120 (1975), we held that the trial court should submit instruction on a lesser degree of homicide to the jury if the evidence reasonably supports a conviction of the lesser degree and at the same time supports a finding of not guilty of the greater offense. Accord, LaMere v. State, 278 N.W.2d 552, 557-58 (Minn.1979).

Minn.Stat. § 609.195 (1978) defines murder in the third degree as follows:

Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by either of the following means, is guilty of murder in the third degree * * *:
(1) Perpetrates an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, regardless of human life; * * *.
This statute was intended to cover cases where the reckless or wanton acts of the accused were committed without special regard to their effect on any particular person or persons; the act must be committed without a special design upon the particular person or persons with whose murder the accused is charged. State v. Hanson, 286 Minn. 317, 328-29, 176 N.W.2d 607, 614-15 (1970); See State v. Lowe, 66 Minn. 296, 68 N.W. 1094 (1896).

This court, in State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 194 N.W.2d 276 (1972), sustained a conviction of third-degree murder where the defendant's shots were aimed at the decedent alone. We stated that "[a] mind which has become inflamed by emotions, disappointments, and hurt to such degree that it ceases to care for human life and safety is a depraved mind." Id. at 259, 194 N.W.2d at 283. However, in Leinweber, we noted that Mytych is not a typical application of Minn.Stat. § 609.195(1). 303 Minn. at 417 n. 3, 228 N.W.2d at 123 n. 3.

Recently, in State v. Stewart, 276 N.W.2d 51 (Minn.1979), we held that the trial court properly refused to submit to the jury the lesser included offense of third-degree murder where the victim was shot twice, there were no bullets fired at anything or anyone else, and no other person in the vicinity of the shooting was concerned for his safety.

In the instant case, the decedent suffered many brutal blows. While this fact certainly indicates a mind without regard for human life, the evidence suggests that all the blows were directed toward the victim. The inside of the car was not slashed, nor was evidence presented that any of defendant's companions in the car were concerned for their own safety. Furthermore, there was ample evidence to support *418 a finding of an intentional killing, whereas third-degree murder is an unintentional killing. As we mentioned in State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99, 105 (Minn.1978), the fact that the jury was given first- and second-degree murder instructions and came back with a first-degree murder conviction indicated that the jury believed the killing was intentional, and that failure to submit instructions on lesser offenses could not have prejudiced the defendant.

While in this case all the blows were directed at the same person, this was actually used to establish that the murderer had intent to kill and indeed the jury at the first trial had found it did exist. It's also important to consider the facts of this case to understand why would the first instance court find the killing was intentional: There was evidence that he tried to hide the body afterwards, which suggests premeditation, and also bought just enough fuel for the trip that would end the victim's life (enough to just leave the car where he wanted it to be, even though the victim would have needed more fuel in his car's tank to do everything he'd have done normally).

Third degree murder requires that the perpetrator had no intent to kill, but acted without regard for human life. It is thus an extreme form of negligence and incompatible with premeditated murder, which is why the appellate court said the charge didn't apply and shouldn't have been considered. Also, note in the paragraph above and other cases I mentioned that killing a single person is not incompatible with third degree murder.

Pants-of-dog wrote: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.

Do Derek Chauvin's actions look like what happened in the above case? Does it seem to you he acted in a premeditated manner as to be able to show he acted with intent to kill as would be required in a first degree murder charge? To me, if doesn't or else he wouldn't have killed him in broad daylight, with people filming.

Minnesota's AG also decided to update the charges to second-degree murder which maybe will make this point moot. I don't know if this means they will also consider the charges for third degree murder and second degree manslaughter. I suspect they will.

Pants-of-Dog wrote:Regardless, the government will not punish the cop for using this choke hold.

Regardless of the outcome of the trial, he's been fired for using it and should have been even if George Floyd was alive and well. I ignore whether there would be a criminal charge arising from it, I suspect there may not be but I don't really know for sure.

Pants-of-dog wrote: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.

So what you are saying then is that the prosecutor can literally refuse to do his job, with no consequences, and get his check. I don't think so, in Minnesota DAs can face recall elections in case of nonfeasance.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As I said it is a non-zero number.

Now, why were these killings never brought to trial?

It would be necessary to check each case to know for sure (once they are identified). My bet would be that a grand jury thought there were not enough grounds to indict, but it's hard to know for sure.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have not seen anything addressing the systemic racism.

Really? Don't you think that the Black Lives Matter movement has done quite a bit by putting the issue right in front of the public sphere and that legal changes mandating the use of bodycams don't help to make abuses transparent?

Because one great way to fight racism is to expose it in broad daylight. Am I right?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Unjustified use of force has been pervasive in the police response to the protests.

Then there will be many lawsuits in America, the land of freedom and lawyers. Once things calm down of course.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you arguing that cops have the latitude to use violence against children, innocents, and the press simply because looters exist?

They have the latitude to use it against looters, but they usually take advantage of the said innocents to do so. This includes, for instance, looters doing their thing while a crowd of protesters is passing by and physically blocking the police from doing its job. The only viable for police to stop the looters, is to disperse the crowd (possibly looters included).

Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you show me an example of justified police brutality against anyone in the last few days?

Pick any video in which policemen have been attacked by protesters.

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

How would you reach that conclusion from the text? Please quote directly from it. This is keeping in mind that soldiers are not cops and indeed cops exist precisely so soldiers will not be engaging in policing duties, which they will approach in terms of a military duty rather than a peace time one.

Pants-of-dog wrote:At this point, you are no longer being clear as to what argument you are making.

It's simple: The person who initially called the police did what most people in that situation would have done, regardless of the races of those involved, and it was the policemen who acted in an unreasonable manner.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This says nothing about systemic racism.

How does this deal with systemic racism?

On the contrary, how doesn't transparency in the cops' behavior help to address racism and most forms of misconduct including an excessive or otherwise unjustified use of force?

If we know what happened it's precisely because it was filmed, society can see what happened and address the problem. It also introduced the topic into the American national debate, and helps to pressure DAs and the general court system to prosecute perpetrators. We also know this works because making policemen carry bodycams has led to improved behavior, including a decrease in the use of force and complaints in police misbehavior.

It is certainly more useful and productive than burning everything down or being a keyboard warrior posting over the internet that the system needs to be torn apart :|

Donna wrote: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.

The ones that cops are forbidden from turning off in many jurisdictions. Because if that's the problem, just make it an offense such as obstruction to justice for them to turn it off :)
skinster wrote:

We must remember that they are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.
Last edited by Hindsite on 03 Jun 2020 21:26, edited 1 time in total.
maz wrote: Where is this white supremacy?

The only white supremacists I've ever met irl were in prison gangs(and most of them weren't even ideological about it). Who are all these white supremacists? I know a million white people and not one of them thinks other races are inherently inferior and should be subjugated by the white race. I know a lot of white people who think some groups are severely dysfunctional and cause a lot of problems, but none of them want to take anyone's rights away or would approve of that cop murdering Floyd.

I'm starting to suspect that all these white supremacy accusations are just like some kind of prog McCarthyism...
Sivad wrote:The only white supremacists I've ever met irl were in prison gangs(and most of them weren't even ideological about it). Who are all these white supremacists? I know a million white people and not one of them thinks other races are inherently inferior and should be subjugated by the white race. I know a lot of white people who think some groups are severely dysfunctional and cause a lot of problems, but none of them want to take anyone's rights away or would approve of that cop murdering Floyd.

I'm starting to suspect that all these white supremacy accusations are just like some kind of prog McCarthyism...

You and maz are both obvious white-supremacists who are trying to censor others from calling you it.
You are the McCarthyists requiring special protection so as to avoid exposure.
If you are trying to figure out where to find white supremacists, then just look at your posts in here.

@Verv Regarding playing devil's advocate, you choose your battles, I know lots of your great posts as well and no you have not changed in this sense, back then you would still play the same advocate for the same sides and it mattered less because the center was a lot further to the left than it is now, now the pole has moved so far to the right that you are dipping your toes in real fascism in real life. Standing your ground for injustice is never a right thing to do for whatever reason and especially when the bottom line -which is always the most important thing of all- is so clear. Your policing has a problem, your presidential office has a problem and there are a lot of other problems that are screaming in your face. We should have the conversation on what needs to be done to solve this problem, not why it is justified. That should be the content of the conversation in a normal & healthy social group. Not why the psychopathy is normal.
@blackjack21 I am headed to the Plaza Dorada to try to get my glasses fixed so I can read easily again.

But I caught this in your replies there.

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.

You need to read that great Greek myth of Cassandra and also Pandora's Box. Because you asked for Padnora's box with your backing as a tool of that placeholder president racist narcissist Trump.

You need to realize that Mexico had a two rotten party system taking turns at the troth of power for over 70 years and never serving the needs of working class Mexicans. They called it PRIAN. Because it was PRI and PAN. The Mexican voters got sick of the corrupt, fed up with the lies and the lack of progress and they decided they needed change. The average age of a Mexican citizen is 27 years old Relampaguito. The Youth of Mexico chose a socialist from a third party that is called the Morena Party. He broke through the two party lock on power.

And the elite, the upper middle classes are furious with that. But the overwhelming majority of Mexicans don't own a car, make $2 an hour or less. Are always struggling. The USA is increasingly difficult to get high paying work without official visas for work approval. So the pressure built.

Trump threatens violent reactions and military police in cities with peaceful protestors. AMLO said publicly, "If I am to remain leading my nation? You (the Mexican people) must let me know if I should remain in power. I obey your will. If you say to me resign and we don't want your leadership? I step down." He got overwhelming approval. That is the difference between a decent leader and a fucking narcissistic sociopathic power drunk piece of lying shit.

The young people are not happy with the two party rot system in the USA Blackjack21. Don't be surprised that a third party follows them and a break from the mushy shitty status quo soon....

You don't have an elaborate plan? Lol. You need to be more empirical and not ideological Blackjack... :lol:

I got to go and get my glasses. It has been four years since I got my last prescription. I need a new set of glasses. So I can read all of you pofoers well!
noemon wrote:You are both obvious white-supremacists

I'm not even a Sivad supremacist. I do think most people are total fucking idiots but I don't think anyone is inherently inferior to me and I certainly don't want to dominate anyone.
Sivad wrote:I'm not even a Sivad supremacist. I do think most people are total fucking idiots but I don't think anyone is inherently inferior to me and I certainly don't want to dominate anyone.

You want to maintain the racist infrastructure and institutional proclivity. At best you 're a useful idiot of white supremacy at worst you are a totally conscious card-carrying one. Only you know which one it is.
That is the point of your presence in this thread. You have no other reason for existence in here, right now. You are forgetting that you are just text at the end of the day and your text has specific intent and causality.
Saeko wrote:


Based Rei.

Regarding that I found this:

I have been watching his videos for a long time. From time to time he dabbles on issues that are politic (such as impeachment or cases were taken to court by the administration) but he usually takes a fairly neutral position trying to give both sides of the argument. I was never been able to tell where he stood in the political spectrum, at least not to any degree of confidence. However, it seems that this hit him hard enough to step outside of his character, you can feel the emotional tension.
This is scary.
Bunker bitch has attempted to flat out deny teargassing peaceful citizens and is now playing up the ~antifa menace~ in a pretty amazing demonstration of complete unawareness of why antifa, if it were the monolithic organization the administration claim sit to be, would oppose him.

Bunker bitch gassing those protesters for his incredibly brave walk across the street actually resulted in making more people protest the next day. One thing that's not really highlighted by the media is that part of the reason bunker bitch is raging at governors to call out the National Guard is because the President of the United States of America, who is the world's biggest bitch, does not have the power to send them there. However, he does have the ability to call out the National Guard within the DC area.

As a result people I know have had Apache helicopters patrolling their neighborhoods nonstop and making a huge ruckus. Because I guess antifa has its own air force or something, who knows, the bunker bitch in chief is a fucking moron.
So, we do seem to have a hard time agreeing to what white supremacism exactly entails.
Let us start with the straight up definitions from a few!

Lets start with the ADL!

White supremacy is a term used to characterize various belief systems central to which are one or more of the following key tenets:
1) whites should have dominance over people of other backgrounds, especially where they may co-exist;
2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society;
3) white people have their own "culture" that is superior to other cultures;
4) white people are genetically superior to other people.

As a full-fledged ideology, white supremacy is far more encompassing than simple racism or bigotry. Most white supremacists today further believe that the white race is in danger of extinction due to a rising “flood” of non-whites, who are controlled and manipulated by Jews, and that imminent action is need to “save” the white race.

According to

the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial and ethnic groups, especially Black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society.

Encyclopedia Britannica fleshes it out with some history and current events!

White supremacy, beliefs and ideas purporting natural superiority of the lighter-skinned, or “white,” human races over other racial groups. In contemporary usage, the term white supremacist has been used to describe some groups espousing ultranationalist, racist, or fascist doctrines. White supremacist groups often have relied on violence to achieve their goals.

From the 19th to the mid-20th century the doctrine of white supremacy was largely taken for granted by political leaders and social scientists in Europe and the United States. For example, in the four-volume Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines (1853–55; Essay on the Inequality of Human Races), the French writer and diplomatist Arthur de Gobineau wrote about the superiority of the white race, maintaining that Aryans (Germanic peoples) represented the highest level of human development. According to 19th-century British writers such as Rudyard Kipling, Charles Kingsley, Thomas Carlyle, and others, it was the duty of Europeans—the “white man’s burden”—to bring civilization to nonwhite peoples through beneficent imperialism. Several attempts were made to give white supremacy a scientific footing, as various institutes and renowned scientists published findings asserting the biological superiority of whites. Those ideas were bolstered in the early 20th century by the new science of intelligence testing, which purported to show major differences in intelligence between the races. In such tests northern Europeans always scored higher than Africans.

In early 2016 the presidential campaign of the real-estate developer Donald J. Trump, the eventual Republican nominee, attracted significant support from white supremacists and so-called white nationalists, who largely disavowed racism but celebrated “white” identity and lamented the alleged erosion of white political and economic power and the decline of white culture in the face of nonwhite immigration and multiculturalism. Other Trump admirers included members of the “alt-right” (alternative right) movement, a loose association of relatively young white supremacists, white nationalists, extreme libertarians, and neo-Nazis. Trump had earlier questioned the validity of Obama’s American birth certificate and, during the campaign, attacked immigrants and ethnic minorities, vowing to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, to deport some 11 million persons living in the country illegally, and to ban immigration by Muslims. In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s unexpected election as president in November 2016, reported hate crimes directed at
minorities—including Muslims, Hispanics, and Jews—increased significantly.

Now, the United States are far from exceptional in this regard. We Europeans literally invented it and our current situation can at best be described as "not the worst, if we are lucky".

Racism was a very mainstream conviction not that many generations ago and we are all living in shadows of the past to some degree. Solutions will require sacrifice and compromises or something far worse than those.
  • 1
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 159

I don’t care. I will still go out of my way to wat[…]

Or Obama 2.0. But the different managers of neol[…][…]

the figures say it all. Germany 109 deaths / mi[…]