wat0n wrote:Of course I do - hence why I think Chauvin needs to face prosecution.
And the rest of the police committing illegal acts.
As it appears to you, you mean. FWIW, it took him way longer to charge Mohammad Noor than to charge Chauvin.
Since the DA was kicked off the case and replaced with another prosecutor, I am not the only one who thinks something fishy was going on.
So why is no one investigating? The answer has to do with systemic racism.
No disagreement there. It's also their responsibility to deal with complaints.
It should not be the responsibility of the police to investigate police. The murderer had a long history if violence and complaints, but his only punishment was a single letter.
I see a lot of people wonder what the murderer was thinking when he knelt on Mr. Floyd’s neck for so long. They are surprised that the killer cop just did it so brazenly, risking his pension, job, criminal charges, et cetera.
Those who have studied police brutality and the systemic causes for impunity were not surprised at his behaviour, because the chances of his risking any of these things were minimal. The fact that he has been charged at all is the surprising bit, and shows how effective riots can be.
I'm not sure how you concluded that I agreed with that claim, I'm only saying that if the criminal justice system is unconstitutional it is possible to argue so before the SCOTUS. Furthermore when I say "criminal justice system" I don't mean policing but the judicial process.
As for cops breaking the law: Of course it happens, just as it can happen with any public official. And when it does, then justice needs to be served, that's exactly how a healthy democratic system works. At last, it is also true that not all cops break the law just as not all public officials break the law either.
Then the USA has a decidedly unhealthy democratic system.
What exactly would be put before the SCOTUS?
So?
Are you making an argument here?
Would you please elaborate in what do you mean that the two facts are not mutually exclusive? That there is systemic racism and at the same time cops are not more likely to shoot Blacks? Maybe, but it complicates narratives, don't you think? If this doesn't happen then maybe the issue with systemic racism doesn't involve the use of deadly force by the police but other problems unrelated with police behavior (I'm actually open to that sort of argument, but it makes it even harder to differentiate with class discrimination).
Yes, it does “complicate narratives”. Reality is often complex.
And systemic racism does involve police behaviour. Mr. Floyd’s murderer gave us a clear example of that.
So you don't think that the Minnesota AG will be able to successfully investigate this incident at hand now?
Thankfully, I don't think it's necessary to get to that level. If the city's court system has trouble investigating its PD then it can request State or Federal assistance.
No, I do not think that the Minnesota AG can successfully investigate the police when the police have a free hand to obstruct any investigation. We have cops resigning from positions (but not their jobs) in support of cops who have been caught brutalising people.
There are many ways in which the different parts of the justice system can impede any investigation into one of its groups or people.
No, they introduced the tactics used by the US military during the occupation of the Philippines, which is also something that was carried out by the police forces of other countries. But the motivation behind doing that has been the increasing firepower at the hands of civilians as firearms technology improves.
That's quite a bit of a selective reading of the source. The irony is that if anything that was started by the actions of Whites, particularly fighting the Mafia during the Prohibition. It's not a coincidence that the police began to deploy the Tommys on the streets (before that, some departments owned a few units for special operations) as the Mafia did it. And those were actually sold to the military, law enforcement and civilians alike, whenever they could afford them (each unit cost around $3000 of today's dollars).
Why?
But that robbery, as is clearly stated there, led to police carrying military grade weapons along routinely for these kind of operations. That is, while procurement had began earlier much of it had been carried out for special operations (particularly against drug cartels and terrorism) but over time they have become an increasingly common sight due to the firepower in hands of civilians. What used to be only in hands of the SWAT can now be seen by regular cops sometimes.
The text does, your selective reading of it however is another matter.
Your evidence does not support your claim. Instead it supports the idea that these tactics were adopted by police forces in order to subjugate a hostile and foreign community of non-whites.
Thank you for quoting that. It provides some insight into the relationship between militarisation of police and racism..
That the looting has happened under those circumstances is uncontroversial at this time, despite the excessive use of force by police in other instances.
I also find it interesting that someone who considers Cuba to be a democracy is concerned about brutality against protesters. Do you want to get into a discussion about how protests are handled there?
I am not interested in explaining again the different historical, ideological, and material conditions that make such a comparison difficult, or debunking myths about Cuban oppression in this thread. At worst, you can condemn me for a hypocrite but that would not make my arguments any less correct.
And my claim was never about looting. My point was that there is far less physical violence in the USA when there are no cops around.
Sure, police presence deters crime:
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257 ... 4322970733
Does it deter crime in all neighbourhoods? Is the amount of crime that they deter more or less than the amount of crime they cause?
Of course merely having more police doesn't solve it, there are approaches that work and approaches that don't work:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248888.pdf
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... uce-crime/
At last, crime seems to affect poorer and African American neighborhoods most. Of course, upper middle class Whites cannot understand and don't care about them, regardless of the pretenses to the contrary.
Does crime affect these neighbourhoods more? Or do police simply find more crime there while they surveil and harass these people?
Inadvertently using a fake bill is not illegal, but doing so intentionally is:
Part of the problem is that intent can be inferred from behavior, and if Floyd had been sober I suspect even you wouldn't disagree that not returning the purchased goods would look quite badly. Being drunk/high makes the inference harder but I don't blame the clerk for calling: Not being sober is neither evidence of intent nor evidence of absence of intent either.
So Mr, Floyd broke no law. And with presumption of innocence, the law cannot assume that he intentionally used counterfeit money.
The fact that he did not flee when the police were coming indicates that he had n criminal intent.
Interesting, this makes it an even more unfortunate incident. Good to know.
Why should one assume that all similar interactions will end like that? Why would anyone expect that the store clerks would assume that calling the police would end in brutality?
Because a significantly high number of interactions between police and blacks end up like this.
And if you know this, you would know that calling the police on black people puts black people at risk of being assaulted or killed.
I do not expect a teenager to know this, though. And now the store owner does not expect this either.
Nice way to make inferences from a sample size of 1 of each and also move the goalposts. Firstly you said a store clerk would not call a White person in a similar context, when you prove you were wrong yourself then you imply that George Floyd's case is how one should expect it to end if an African American is involved.
I gave several examples of myself using (or more correctly, unwittingly trying to use) counterfeit money and simply not having the money accepted, with no further issue.
If you think that I am going to find evidence of store owners letting white people go like that, please explain how that would leave any sort of verifiable and measurable trace and could therefore be supported with evidence. If you can explain that, I will find more evidence than the anecdotes already provided.
No one has proven me wrong on this, so the claim that you have done so is incorrect.
Nor did I claim that all encounters between black people and police end in death. Instead, I argued that a disproportionate number of these encounters end in death.
I don't think one should expect a similar interaction with police to end with the killing of the person who paid with counterfeit money (with intent or not) and indeed it's why this is such a scandal: This isn't supposed to happen, and Chauvin wasn't supposed to use any kind neck pressure against a suspect who wasn't actively resisting (let alone what happened afterwards) under his own PD's manual for that matter. This is clearly a case of a cop acting with brutality, and against the rules that his employer had previously defined on how he's supposed to carry his duties out, even if the manual itself is more reckless than what the Federal government advices.
And yet it took days of rioting before any punishment occurred. And no one has done anything about the police brutality since then.