African-American Asphyxiated by Police in Minneapolis - Page 67 - Politics Forum.org | 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

#15097432
wat0n wrote:Yes, I also read his Medium article yesterday. He's on point about solutions for the issue that triggered this, and I also think some of that road has already been traveled through in many localities (maybe even most of them) but I think his diagnosis is incomplete - this isn't just about police brutality and oversight. But I don't think he or any other Democrats will speak about what's going on with their electoral base because it's a can of worms they don't want to put in the open, even if it's painfully clear that they are in trouble as far as this goes.


What does the USA has to do to be forgiven for the sins of slavery and Jim Crow? What is the solution?
#15097433
Julian658 wrote:What does the USA has to do to be forgiven for the sins of slavery and Jim Crow? What is the solution?

Nothing, two late for that.
The “sins” that need to be forgiven are not those of the past, but those of the current times.
This is not happening because there were slaves 100 years ago, or because of lynchings some 60 years ago or BS, this is happening because of the racism and brutality that exists today, the divisiveness and rhetorics of today.
#15097435
XogGyux wrote:Nothing, two late for that.
The “sins” that need to be forgiven are not those of the past, but those of the current times.
This is not happening because there were slaves 100 years ago, or because of lynchings some 60 years ago or BS, this is happening because of the racism and brutality that exists today, the divisiveness and rhetorics of today.


I feel sad when I see the pain in some members of black America. The images of police brutality elicit very powerful emotions. What can be done? Massive retraining of the police force? Perhaps hire large number of black policemen? What is the solution to the nihilism of looters?

Some forum members say this is white supremacy. What the heck is white supremacy? As a Latin American the term is foreign to me. Why would anyone refer to Europeans as supreme?

Is the police force a racist institution? Or are some cops racist? It seems the police union protects their own. Two out of the four cops in the Floyd murder are not supremacists. What is up with that?
#15097452
Where are all the dog-fucking 2nd Amendment people now? I thought the good guys with guns were supposed to stop the bad guys with guns?

It seems the gun nuts are cowards and all talk.
#15097461
Verv wrote:You could have also taken away from the post that

Burning down a police station and police cars doesn't bother me (a pretty massive statement from a conservative!), but looting does.

Which boils down to a simple principle: the targets of property destruction or violence must be related to the issue at hand for them to be valid.


Again, the cops are beating and killing people, and you are talking about property damage.

Why is the former so unimportant as to be ignored but the second is worth mentioning?

Are police stations and cars more important than the lives of actual people?
#15097463
wat0n 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:



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.


The murderer is now being charged with second degree murder by the Attorney General.

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.


The AG has a different relationship with the Minneapolis PD; i.e. almost none. This independence and different charge is a good step forward.

Intent seems easy to show, since (as you say) the murderer directed all his attention and attacks at Mr. Floyd, and he continued to choke Mr. Floyd long after he knew Mr. Floyd was in medical distress.

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.


More importantly, has the Minneapolis PD changes its policy on this hold?

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.


Who decides that? The police?

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.


So your assertion that grand juries are significant is not based on evidence.

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?


Bodycams, at best, can record acts of individual racism, but seem useless in combatting systemic racism.

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


....and the systemic racism that caused the problem in the first place will also prevent justice in terms of the ongoing police brutality against protesters.

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).


I have the impression that you have not been following the police brutality. They are doing things like forcing someone to the ground, then forcing them to hold them a stick, then shooting them with rubber bullets for holding the stick.

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


As far as I can tell, there are none. There are many of police attacking protesters. So, no, I have not seen any justified police violence.

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.


I just skimmed your text until I read about a physical attack, and then read carefully to see who perpetrated it. About 3/4 of the time, it was a cop, or someone shooting a cop in self defense, or soldiers,

The people themselves usually limited themselves to looting or other pettier crimes.

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.


What exactly did Mr, Floyd do to deserve having the cops called on him?

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 :|


I was discussing systemic racism. Bodycams do not show systemic racism.
#15097469
@Julian658 What does the USA has to do to be forgiven for the sins of slavery and Jim Crow? What is the solution?


Ok. First I agree with Doc that we are not fighting the crimes of the past but the inequities of now.

Here is the unpopular answer. You have to spend money on it. I work with poor people all of the time. None of them are given much respect by anyone. It goes like this:

If someone is desperately ill you give him medicine.

If someone is desperately hungry you give him food.

If someone is desperately frightened you give him comfort.

If someone is desperately poor you give him a speech about how he ought to pull himself up by the boot straps and how it is the responsibility of his neighborhood, and how his problems are historical in nature, and how he is black and has a lower IQ and how he is just after welfare and how you don't know why this is happening to him what with all of the programs out there he can use and how he should have paid attention in school and how his father should have cared for his family and how eh hangs out with gangs and how he shouldn't smoke dope and how, just in general, if he were a better person he wouldn't be poor because, see that white guy over there, he is not poor.

So let's all agree that you cannot solve this problem with a speech. Fair enough?

I feel sad when I see the pain in some members of black America.


Then you need to vote for legislators who take their problems seriously. That would not be republicans. We have seen what happens when the economy gets roaring. Many many black people are left behind. And don't tell me about Hispanics, or poor whites or the lot of Mung immigrants. Don't try to water down poverty. Different communities require different solutions. If you want to talk about Native American poverty we will talk about it next. Now I want to talk about the black community.

The images of police brutality elicit very powerful emotions. What can be done?


You have to fire the leadership when it happens. In this case the world is going to fall on four policemen who could have been spared this if the department had put pressure on the leadership from the time they make sergeant right to the time they hire the police chief making their continued employment contingent on the performance of their men including stopping acts of violence by those men. Training sure. But if the sergeant know he is going to get canned if one of his men breaks the rules he will be proactive. I will tell you that there is not one of these officers, now facing a long time in prison and a ruined life for themselves and their families who would do this again. So sure you can train them how to make an arrest but you have to convince them that without fail, acts of even the slightest police brutality will be punished and all allegations investigated by someone who does not have a dog in the fight.

Massive retraining of the police force? Perhaps hire large number of black policemen?


Did you look at the pictures of these four officers? We do not need more minority police though it would be nice if the police department looked like the community it serves, but rather we need officers who have leadership with a zero tolerance to any form of police brutality.

What is the solution to the nihilism of looters?


The hope that springs from seeing their community/city/state/country honestly caring about them and investing in their future. It is not enough to Cleveland to have a "program" the entire country has to have a "commitment". So if you are a poor young black kid facing poverty and a hopeless future there needs to be a step you can take today to do something about it. A number you can call. A person with resources who is charged with helping you personally.

Some forum members say this is white supremacy. What the heck is white supremacy?


White supremacy in the US is insidious. Sure there are some who dress up and act like assholes loudly spouting a racist agenda but they are just popinjays. They are annoying but they don't matter. The white supremacy that hurts is:

People who talk about problems in the black community as "they". "They have failing marriages". "They" have a culture of welfare. "They" do poorly in school. "They" have low IQs. "They" listen to disgusting music. "They" have a community drug problem. This distances "that" community from "ours" and ours is better because, you know, it just happens to be white and don't think I am racist because I have at least two black friends. Until we can replace each of those "they's" with "our" we will never tear down the cultural wall that separates the races. And yes. We must acknowledge that black people and to a slightly lesser degree Hispanic people face challenges that poor whites do not face and do have a harder time of "it" than poor whites.

Now once we figure all of this out then we need to put our money where our mouth is. We need more money is traditionally black schools. We need money to incentivize employers to give black youth a chance. (A real job with real upward mobility not a minimum wage, dead end job.) We need money to help poor performing students get tutoring and to pay their tuition into college or university. Remember that a black kid's future, and the future of his family to come profoundly changes when he gets that bachelor's degree, or his journeyman plumber certification.

We are discussing spending a trillion or more dollars on infrastructure. What if, in addition to what we are spending now we spent a trillion dollars on the black community. Not on reparations, whatever that means, but on performance orientated solutions like the above.

Is the police force a racist institution?


Yes. Their problem is that they look at the black community as a thing. A thing with high crime, low opportunity and general hopelessness. You know that low expectations bullshit you like to spout? Well here it is. They treat the community with high expectations of trouble. And not without some justification. The problem is that this leads to individuals in the community all being painted with the same brush. So if I was a black parent today, living in one of the mostly black communities, I would tell my son to run from the police as soon as he sees them. This is not about how the police treat a community. It is about how they treat a person. One person. One at a time. So the answer is easy. Yes the police department is racist. It intends to be. It puts all black people in the same box and that is racist.

We need equal opportunity. That does not mean that both white and black people can compete for the same job. It may mean that the black person may need some extra help getting qualified. They may need a little help getting started in the job. A little extra training. Why? Because we whites did not pay the bill up front by fixing the schools, providing encouragement and stopping soul crushing poverty. And this is not oppressing the white guy who doesn't get that particular job. He has no claim to "fairness" until that black person is born with the same advantages he has.

Or are some cops racist?


All of the above.

It seems the police union protects their own.


I am generally a fan of unions. I have belonged to two of them. Public employees should not have unions. Or if they do the activities of these unions should be strictly limited to issues of pay and working hours. The idea that the union should trump the authority of the department leadership is a travesty. The union leader of the four who murdered Floyd was seen on the stage with Trump. Public employees should not be permitted to campaign in their official capacity at all. So he should be demoted or fired.

Long post. Why? Because what is going to happen in this case is:

The protests will die down.

The cops will go back to business as usual.

Trump will claim victory as a law and order president.

Trump will blame the upsurge in Corona virus cases on the protestors.

And his base is simply not intelligent enough to see all of these are bad things. But then they are mostly racist to begin with.......
#15097470
Godstud wrote:Where are all the dog-fucking 2nd Amendment people now? I thought the good guys with guns were supposed to stop the bad guys with guns?

It seems the gun nuts are cowards and all talk.


GIJoe wanna be. I hope some people in the media catch on to this so we have video for the future for the next time these idiots start complaining about their 2nd amendment to justify AR15s and AK47 and torpedo launchers and who knows what other stupid idiotic military shit they carry now a days.

Also, please stop calling these criminals pigs. It is highly offensive to pigs, I have never seen any pig shoot or beat the crap out of unarmed people.
#15097475
Drlee wrote:You have to fire the leadership when it happens. In this case the world is going to fall on four policemen who could have been spared this if the department had put pressure on the leadership from the time they make sergeant right to the time they hire the police chief making their continued employment contingent on the performance of their men including stopping acts of violence by those men. Training sure. But if the sergeant know he is going to get canned if one of his men breaks the rules he will be proactive. I will tell you that there is not one of these officers, now facing a long time in prison and a ruined life for themselves and their families who would do this again. So sure you can train them how to make an arrest but you have to convince them that without fail, acts of even the slightest police brutality will be punished and all allegations investigated by someone who does not have a dog in the fight.

What we need is to limit or even remove their weapons. The moment they no longer have a fucking gun in their belts, they will have to think it twice before beating the crap out of someone. Of course this also means there have to be some sensible gun laws because it would be unfair to have criminals with AR15s. But police needs to learn how to de-escalate situations rather than simply reach for their side arm and point it to the face of everyone for non-sensical reason. Off course people get nervous, jittery, and scream and get angry and mad when they have 4 policemen pointing gun to their faces.
#15097476
Beren wrote:A young white blonde woman got directly and publicly maced by police in the very eye (which I wonder if happens to be blue) from less than a yard perhaps, do you understand the politics of this? :eh:


Yes I do! Her white privilege couldn't save her from being maced directly in her eyes.

skinster wrote:




Looks like a sadistic Latina police woman to me. Look at her; all her partners got up after they restrained that person but that Latina stayed on the person's head. She was clearly getting off on the power just like a man.
#15097479
I think we need to start demanding that the media stop feeding the troll. We need to be informed but this guy is feeding from the chaos that news he generates create. The news organizations need to take one for the team and stop covering every single fart of this moron. Exposing him has not worked for 4 years, everyone that loves him don’t give a shit and everyone that hates him won’t much from it. No more cameras for this guy, just hire the most boring person to promptly read in the most boring way whatever news for the day from this guy and then ignore him for the rest of the day. No more stunts that require attacking American people so that he can pretend to take a picture in front of a church to boost his ratings with the dumb.
#15097483
maz wrote:Yes I do! Her white privilege couldn't save her from being maced directly in her eyes.

She was provoking the cop and offering her eyes for being maced and the cop fell for it. What the hell was she maced for, by the way? Hysterically raging? Would that guy mace his girlfriend too? :lol:
#15097489
Beren wrote:She was provoking the cop and offering her eyes for being maced and the cop fell for it. What the hell was she maced for, by the way? Hysterically raging? Would that guy mace his girlfriend too? :lol:


Well the cop definitely couldn't hit her. I mean he could have stood there and taken the verbal abuse but what if she was a nutjob with a knife or something? Be honest, you would have maced her too just for the lulz
#15097495
skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/BenjaminPDixon/status/1266577416950079494?s=20

Cops do this all time. To blacks, whites, and everyone. They don't give a fuck. They took an oath to defend the constitution and then they kick a man in the spine who is calm with his hands up on his head. Because they can. You can file a complaint but usually nothing is done.

Imagine the crazy shit that went on before cameras. Rodney King shit.
#15097496
Pants-of-dog wrote:The murderer is now being charged with second degree murder by the Attorney General.


Indeed, do you know if the lesser charges remain in place? If they don't, I'd be concerned to be honest.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The AG has a different relationship with the Minneapolis PD; i.e. almost none. This independence and different charge is a good step forward.


Maybe, although the current DA did also prosecute the responsible for the murder of Justine Damond and a got a conviction (for second degree manslaughter and third degree murder, actually). In this case, the cop shot without looking since he was spooked and unintentionally killed her.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Intent seems easy to show, since (as you say) the murderer directed all his attention and attacks at Mr. Floyd, and he continued to choke Mr. Floyd long after he knew Mr. Floyd was in medical distress.


Maybe, although he could also say he didn't set out to kill him but that he was extremely imprudent - like in third degree murder.

Of course, there's another angle to this: Since it seems Chauvin and Floyd worked together as bouncers, and even shared shifts, there's the possibility that they knew each other. If so, I'd go for the second degree murder charge since they were not strangers to each other in this case, and I doubt a reasonable cop would act the same way with someone he knows and likely has an idea of how he'd react to stopping the choking. I think that would change the situation and indeed make this a case of intentional murder.

Pants-of-dog wrote:More importantly, has the Minneapolis PD changes its policy on this hold?


My understanding is that the maneuver Chauvin did is actually discouraged by the Department and has been since before this incident. I'm not sure if it's outright banned though.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Who decides that? The police?


Any citizen can, as long as enough people sign up:

2019 Minnesota Statute wrote:351.16 PETITION; REVIEW.

Subdivision 1.Form of petition. Any registered voter may petition the county auditor requesting a removal election and setting forth facts which allege with specificity that an elected county official committed malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of official duties during the current or any previous term in the office held by the elected county official, except that a petition may not be submitted during the 180 days immediately preceding a general election for the office which is held by the county official named in the petition. The petitioner must attach to the petition documents which contain the signatures of supporters who are registered voters totaling at least 25 percent of the number of persons who voted in the preceding election for the office which is held by the county official named in the petition. Each page on which signatures are included must clearly identify the purpose of the petition. The registered voters must be residents of the county or, in a removal election involving a county commissioner, of the commissioner district which elected the named county commissioner. The signatures of supporters must be on forms provided by the county auditor.


The scenario you describe would clearly fall into the nonfeasance category.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So your assertion that grand juries are significant is not based on evidence.


You can read this paper if you want more systematic evidence. Grand juries are meant to shield people from arbitrary prosecutions, so grand jurors can in fact show disbelief of whatever the DA says if the office has a poor history in these matters. I also think these fillings should be made public when dealing with indictment of public officials (in general, cops or not, elected or not).

Pants-of-dog wrote:Bodycams, at best, can record acts of individual racism, but seem useless in combatting systemic racism.


Why? It is by exposing these acts of individual racism that instances of systematic racism can be caught and dealt with.

Pants-of-dog wrote:....and the systemic racism that caused the problem in the first place will also prevent justice in terms of the ongoing police brutality against protesters.


Why? I actually think there will be plenty of lawsuits, at the very least civil ones.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have the impression that you have not been following the police brutality. They are doing things like forcing someone to the ground, then forcing them to hold them a stick, then shooting them with rubber bullets for holding the stick.


I'm aware, and it has been filmed too. That's how you know this in the first place, it's on the social media. Furthermore, this comment has nothing to do with what I mentioned about dispersing an overall peaceful crowd to stop looters using it as a physical barrier to shield themselves.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can tell, there are none. There are many of police attacking protesters. So, no, I have not seen any justified police violence.


Shall I bother posting videos of protesters kicking cops and the like?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I just skimmed your text until I read about a physical attack, and then read carefully to see who perpetrated it. About 3/4 of the time, it was a cop, or someone shooting a cop in self defense, or soldiers,

The people themselves usually limited themselves to looting or other pettier crimes.


Key word there, and you said it yourself, is "soldiers". They just shot looters to kill, volunteers also shot them even before the Guardsmen were deployed. The police would have likely used less lethal means to deal with looters.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What exactly did Mr, Floyd do to deserve having the cops called on him?


Why don't you read the 911 conversation? The store clerk said he paid with a counterfeit bill, and then left with the goods without paying attention to him when he asked him to return them. I think that if I did so they'd call the cops on me, and I'm not Black either.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I was discussing systemic racism. Bodycams do not show systemic racism.


Many instances of police brutality that don't get prosecuted despite being filmed would, am I correct? And therefore, this transparency would serve to correct this by making it an electoral issue.
  • 1
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 199

Wake me up when you have something to replace it.[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I love how everybody is rambling about printing m[…]

Also, the Russians are apparently not fans of Isra[…]

Wars still happen. And violent crime is blooming,[…]