African-American Asphyxiated by Police in Minneapolis - Page 183 - 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

#15113146
:lol: What you have said is unimportant and I do not hear your words.

I am not the one constantly defending racists and Nazis. You should think on that a bit, from your high horse.
#15113163
Drlee wrote:"The left" is anyone who believes in racial equality under the law.

You think Abraham Lincoln and the radical Republicans of the 19th Century were leftists?

Drlee wrote:They cannot understand the difference between "equal" and "the same".

Why don't you provide an enlightening example of the difference between "equal" and "the same"? I'm assuming there is some abstraction you think is novel and non-obvious here.

Drlee wrote:They cannot reconcile the notion that people are protected equally under the law.

Why do you think that is the case?

Drlee wrote:This is why they (ironically) constantly bring up IQ.

I bring up IQ regularly to note income inequality, and to further note that IQ distribution appears to have some central tendencies on a racial basis as well. IQ differences and income distribution have nothing to do with equality under the law.

Hindsite wrote:The trial and jury will have to determine what happens next, but with all the hype and media attention on the knee on the neck for so long, I would not be surprised by a conviction of manslaughter.

I'm ignorant of Minnesota law. Can juries in Minnesota find for a lesser murder charge? In California, they cannot. The Rodney King verdict was "not guilty," because the prosecutor overcharged--adding "with a deadly weapon" (usually meaning firearms) to the charge, arguing that batons are deadly weapons--and the jury did not buy it. In this case, AG Ellis already had video evidence that Floyd was in respiratory distress prior to Chauvin's action, and yet chose to withhold that information from the general public and charge Chauvin with second degree murder. This is one of the ways the urban Democrat political machine gets police officers acquitted of charges.

Godstud wrote:The only relevant thing is that the police officer knelt on Floyd's neck, until he died from it.

Unfortunately, there are other factors that AG Ellis deliberately withheld from the public. Floyd complained of respiratory distress well before he was subject to stronger physical restraint, suggesting the knee on the neck was not the proximate cause of the respiratory distress, and was in fact antecedent to Chauvin's action with the knee on the neck. Floyd was intoxicated and apparently infected with coronavirus. Many coronavirus cases involve a person apparently feeling normal, but with blood oxygen falling from a normal level of 98-99% down to like 70%. So Floyd was able to breath and yell at the officers, but aerobic respiration of his blood was failing. Clearly, none of the officers would have understood the medical situation, particularly with the novel aspect of coronavirus hypoxia, which has even puzzled many doctors and Floyd's ability to yell at them while complaining of shortness of breath.

Godstud wrote:He died as a direct result of that police officer's actions, and belligerence.

Looking at it exclusively from Floyd's restraint, one might be inclined to believe that is the case. My guess is that you haven't seen the video of Floyd complaining of shortness of breath while screaming at the police officers well before this occurred. It could be that Floyd was suffering from covid-19 induced hypoxia and didn't understand it, that his respiration appeared to be fine, that Floyd was panicking, and that officers interpreted his panic as non-compliance with lawful orders. That does not excuse Chauvin's use of a non-authorized restraint, but it does suggest that he may have not had any malicious intent.

Godstud wrote:How racist fucks feel about it is also irrelevant. Only the lowest form of shit defends police officers engaging in police brutality.

It depends upon the charges, Minnesota law, and the jury. As I said, I'm ignorant of Minnesota law. However, apparently AG Harris knew of Floyd's complaint of respiratory distress prior to Chauvin's unnecessary restraint. I'm not sure, but this could be construed as exculpatory evidence and if it was known and withheld from a grand jury, that could also be problematic.

Godstud wrote:The evidence states, overwhelmingly that it's the fault.

Evidence does not make statements. In this case, a medical examiner commissioned by Floyd's family--likely for the purposes of trying to sustain a wrongful death suit--made this conclusion, and did so also in the absence of evidence withheld by AG Ellis.

Godstud wrote:Had he not been kneeling on his neck, and restricting bloodflow, there is no evidence that he would have died.

There is video evidence of Floyd complaining of respiratory distress prior to Chauvin's action, and it was withheld from the general public at the least. Again, that does not excuse Chauvin's action, but it does suggest a probable absence of malice.

Godstud wrote:Neck compression is what he died from.

That's not what the report says. He died from cardiopulmonary arrest.

Drlee wrote:Nor would I. I think that is where this will land. That and a light sentence.

That's where it should land, but it's a question of whether a jury can find for manslaughter if the charge is second degree murder. In California, a jury cannot do that. This is what I mean that the urban Democrat political machine protects its own this way. A first year law student knows not to overcharge someone. Yet, when a political system is deliberately fanning the flames and then overcharging, they may be doing so to prevent a conviction on more serious charges.

Drlee wrote:Nor would I. I think that is where this will land. That and a light sentence.

They did launch and investigation. However, like the Michael Brown case, there may be no indicator of racial animus to sustain such a charge.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Most cops and DAs have no trouble looking the other way when a cop kills an innocent black person.

Yeah, but if a video goes viral, they're stuck.

Julian658 wrote:Floyd was intoxicated on drugs and clearly stated he could not breath well before the knee was placed behind his neck.

This information was withheld from the general public until recently, and the media is not covering it. So it is understandable why people don't know this information. Generally, when people come to a hasty conclusion, many will defend their rush to judgement. Godstud is an example of this behavior.

Julian658 wrote:Nevertheless, the cop was WRONG. He used unnecessary violence that might have accelerated the final event.

That's a correct interpretation. The issue now is that people need a legal remedy to prevent it from happening again, and that's where the resistance from the establishment is coming from.

Julian658 wrote:We will never know if Floyd would have died sitting in the back of the squad car if he had decided to cooperate.

If they took him to jail, it's quite possible he would have died in jail. XogGyux has argued that the levels of fentanyl in his system wouldn't cause cardiopulmonary arrest by itself, and I'm inclined to agree. However, opioids like Norco (tylenol with codeine) are often used as a cough suppressant--decreasing respiration. If Floyd had coronavirus and then took fentanyl, the reduced respiration coupled with covid my have induced hypoxia. Floyd's non-compliance may have been a legitimate sense of panic, and Chauvin mistakenly interpreted it as non-compliance with a lawful order. His knee against Floyd's neck was unwarranted. It is unlikely that Chauvin used force sufficient to block Floyd's breathing; however, Chauvin ignored--knowingly or unknowingly--what was apparently a legitimate medical complaint. However, the examiners are downplaying the Wuhan coronavirus as a factor for what seems like political reasons.

Godstud wrote:I am not the one constantly defending racists and Nazis.

Who is defending racists and nazis?
#15113177
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am actually surprised that he was charged at all. Most cops and DAs have no trouble looking the other way when a cop kills an innocent black person.

From the Photos I have looked at Floyd's skin colour is brown, dark brown admittedly but not Black. If it was Black then his skin would not have colour as Black is not a colour. but leaving all that aside, under your bizarre colour scheme what are the colours of the other three cops? According to you the other three cops turned a blind eye to Floyd's murder because of his colour, well then it seems reasonable to ask what are the colours of these three men who are supposedly complicit in murder because of their supposedly extreme prejudice over colour?
#15113223
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think conservatives think that progressives believe that people of colour cannot he racist, but that is a strawman.


No, that's what Marxists believe:

Socialist Worker (1987) wrote:THE TERM "reverse racism" still shows up on occasion in the media. Let the press encounter a crime in which the victim is white and the perpetrator is African American, and that becomes part of the explanation. The idea of "Black racism" against whites gets thrown out even more consistently against organizations of all or primarily African Americans who challenge racism.

Such ideas must be rejected out of hand. Racism is not simply animosity based on skin color or other physical characteristics, but a systematic, special oppression, which employers use to keep the working class divided and to forestall any challenge to their rule.

...


Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, why should the colour of skin of the cops matter?


Why wouldn't it if "progressives" are the ones who claim only White people can be racist?
#15113230
I find it amusing that a conservative immediately provided an example of the strawman I mentioned.

Can anyone tell the difference between these two statements:

1. People of colour cannot be racist.

2. It is impossible to be racist against white people in North America and Europe.

Because the first is what conservatives think we believe and the second is what we actually believe.

So even if four black cops knelt on the neck of a white guy for nine minutes (which we all know would never happen), it would not be an example of racism.
#15113234
Pants-of-dog wrote:I find it amusing that a conservative immediately provided an example of the strawman I mentioned.

Can anyone tell the difference between these two statements:

1. People of colour cannot be racist.

2. It is impossible to be racist against white people in North America and Europe.

Because the first is what conservatives think we believe and the second is what we actually believe.

So even if four black cops knelt on the neck of a white guy for nine minutes (which we all know would never happen), it would not be an example of racism.


It's not a strawman. Indeed, it's no different from your own denial of Native American racism against Blacks as well.

Oh, and also, discrimination against Whites based on their skin pigmentation is no different from discrimination against Blacks based on their skin pigmentation. It doesn't matter where it takes place, and (even worse) doesn't even consider discrimination against Whites in continents like Africa which, well, does exist.
#15113236
I guess I need to explain the difference between the two statements.

The first one is simply wrong. Imagine a security guard, who is a person if colour, who is ordered to follow black kids around a store to stop then from stealing. This security guard then is perpetuating the racism that black kids have to deal with every day.

Let us now look at the second statement: It is impossible to be racist against white people in North America and Europe. “How is that possible?”, a conservative may ask. “After all, this same hypothetical security guard could be ordered to follow white kids around the store, thereby proving progressives wrong!”, the same conservative would argue.

But realistically, we know no store owner will say that to a security guard. Nor would the white kids even notice or care. And even if the security guard caught white kids stealing, the cops would let them off with a warning.

So, even if a person of colour has racial animus (or hatred) against white people, there is no effective way to turn said animus into actual discrimination.
#15113240
Pants-of-dog wrote:I guess I need to explain the difference between the two statements.

The first one is simply wrong. Imagine a security guard, who is a person if colour, who is ordered to follow black kids around a store to stop then from stealing. This security guard then is perpetuating the racism that black kids have to deal with every day.

Let us now look at the second statement: It is impossible to be racist against white people in North America and Europe. “How is that possible?”, a conservative may ask. “After all, this same hypothetical security guard could be ordered to follow white kids around the store, thereby proving progressives wrong!”, the same conservative would argue.

But realistically, we know no store owner will say that to a security guard. Nor would the white kids even notice or care. And even if the security guard caught white kids stealing, the cops would let them off with a warning.

So, even if a person of colour has racial animus (or hatred) against white people, there is no effective way to turn said animus into actual discrimination.


What if the White kids were poor trailer park boys from poor so-called "White trash" families with a history of theft? Want to bet if there would be guards following them regardless of what they do? :)

PS: Oh, and even worse, the security guard in that case would not be racist. He is not because we don't know if he holds any animus against African American kids.

Furthermore, nothing here means the store-owner couldn't actually be Black. After the riots of these last few months, I've seen some Black-owned liquor stores in the Black-majority neighborhood I live at with armed guards posted right outside of it to provide security. For some reason looters particularly targeted them where I live, regardless of size or the owners' race(s).
Last edited by wat0n on 13 Aug 2020 17:53, edited 1 time in total.
#15113245
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since no one is refuting the distinction between the two statements, I will assume that everyone concedes that “people of colour cannot be racist” is a strawman, or in some cases, is a a belief held by conservatives.


I already provided one. Is it that, once shown it's nonsense, you prefer to pretend otherwise? ;)
#15113349
blackjack21 wrote:I'm ignorant of Minnesota law. Can juries in Minnesota find for a lesser murder charge?

I don't know. I am also ignorant of Minnesota law.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Why do conservatives think that people of colour cannot be racist?

I am conservative and I know people of color can be racist. Just take a look at the Black Minnesota prosecutor for only one example.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, why should the colour of skin of the cops matter?

It shouldn't, but obviously it does to many Black people.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Another odd argument that keeps getting floated is the mention of drugs in Mr. Floyd’s body at the time of his murder.

Being high is not a crime. It does not require lethal response.

There has been no jury determination that the ex-convict "big" George Floyd was murdered. People have died from drugs in the body. Perhaps that is the case with "big" George. After all, he was complaining that he could not breathe even before he was on the ground. Perhaps that was an effect of the many drugs in his system.
#15113361
Pants-of-dog wrote:I find it amusing that a conservative immediately provided an example of the strawman I mentioned.

Can anyone tell the difference between these two statements:

1. People of colour cannot be racist.

Who are these people of colour? What makes someone have colour and another person supposedly colourless. Are Chinese people of colour, if so what colour? Are the Tibetans people of colour, if so what colour are they? What colour are the Japanese and what about the Turks. This is just hate filled mumbo jumbo.

2. It is impossible to be racist against white people in North America and Europe.

Again who are these White people? Are Japanese White? Are Turks White? Are Kurds White? Are Jews White? What about blue eyed Tajiks?

So even if four black cops knelt on the neck of a white guy for nine minutes (which we all know would never happen), it would not be an example of racism.

:lol: This is what Biden meant when he said we choose truths over facts. Obviously when leftists say truths they mean dogma. Dogma that can change overnight.
#15113366
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, even if a person of colour has racial animus (or hatred) against white people, there is no effective way to turn said animus into actual discrimination.



Watch this video: I could post many more. It takes only a few seconds.
  • 1
  • 181
  • 182
  • 183
  • 184
  • 185
  • 197
Election 2020

For black people in the US, the choice seems to b[…]

This is a stretch. I think what most left-wing po[…]

@Finfinder José Mujica. ------------- I was […]

First 2020 Debate Thread

.... ... Conrad Black’s ...... Black is both[…]