thoughts on police and black men dying - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15167195
wat0n wrote:Maybe, it depends on whether the DAs who didn't indict made that decision because they believed they had little chance of success before a grand jury.


There are many reasons why DAs would choose to not hold police accountable. This is another reason why we need separate civilian oversight.

What part of that is unclear?


Do not worry about it.

The civilian oversight can be funded by a level of government other than the one it holds accountable, in order to remove any conflict of interest.

And this civilian oversight would review bodycams as in the case of young Mr. Toledo.

This, of course, only addresses data collection, review, and release.

There would still need to be a whole system to then actually enforce measures against police in order to ensure the police do not kill people.
#15167197
Pants-of-dog wrote:There are many reasons why DAs would choose to not hold police accountable. This is another reason why we need separate civilian oversight.


DAs are a type separate civilian oversight, just limited to specific issues (those involving illegal behavior).

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do not worry about it.

The civilian oversight can be funded by a level of government other than the one it holds accountable, in order to remove any conflict of interest.

And this civilian oversight would review bodycams as in the case of young Mr. Toledo.

This, of course, only addresses data collection, review, and release.

There would still need to be a whole system to then actually enforce measures against police in order to ensure the police do not kill people.


That makes sense indeed. I would allow cities to have their own civilian oversight boards, but there should be a possibility to appeal to the higher level board if an alleged victim believes the city board didn't perform its job properly - this would allow a state-level board to avoid being overwhelmed by complaints if it comes to be. If a complaint involves illegal behavior by the police, the DA or a higher level prosecutor would need to prosecute, and if private individuals can sue to get a writ of mandamus then the conclusions by these oversight boards would be useful if a prosecutor doesn't decide to prosecute.

Does that make sense to you? It would not be used only for cases of unjustified use of violence by the police, but for other types of complaints too.
#15167350
wat0n wrote:DAs are a type separate civilian oversight, just limited to specific issues (those involving illegal behavior).


Maybe, but the longstanding tradition of DAs helping cops get away with killing innocent people means that DAs cannot be trusted to keep cops in line.

That makes sense indeed. I would allow cities to have their own civilian oversight boards, but there should be a possibility to appeal to the higher level board if an alleged victim believes the city board didn't perform its job properly - this would allow a state-level board to avoid being overwhelmed by complaints if it comes to be. If a complaint involves illegal behavior by the police, the DA or a higher level prosecutor would need to prosecute, and if private individuals can sue to get a writ of mandamus then the conclusions by these oversight boards would be useful if a prosecutor doesn't decide to prosecute.


At this point, civilian oversight groups do not have the ability to send cops to jail, so there is no need for cops to have the ability to appeal.

Does that make sense to you?


:)
#15167352
Pants-of-dog wrote:Maybe, but the longstanding tradition of DAs helping cops get away with killing innocent people means that DAs cannot be trusted to keep cops in line.


DAs want to win convictions, so I wouldn't be surprised that they may not want to start a case they can't win. With all the footage we can see of these cases, however, it seems to be less likely that lack of evidence would be the reason for not pursuing a potential case.

Pants-of-dog wrote:At this point, civilian oversight groups do not have the ability to send cops to jail, so there is no need for cops to have the ability to appeal.


I didn't mean allowing the cops to appeal, I meant having the complainant appeal if the oversight board rejects it.

But now that you mention it, cops should have the possibility to appeal and be heard by this sort of body if the accusation doesn't deal with illegal behavior, just as other workers have the right to give their own version of the facts when being disciplined. If it does involve breaking of the law, the oversight board would gather evidence but the case would need to be pursued by the DA as usual. If the DA refused to do so, the affected person could request a writ of mandamus to force the DA to do so, based on the evidence provided by the oversight board

Also, the civilian oversight board would only deal with complaints of law enforcement officer misbehavior involving members of the community (it's not a HR or an Internal Affairs office). PDs could also have their own internal mechanisms to deal with these, but as you said given the power of police unions these types of complaints should probably dealt by external bodies regardless of the internal policies of PDs.
#15167362
blackjack21 wrote:That's true. In the Floyd case, he was told the bill was fake by the store clerk. Yet, probably due to drugs, he continued to insist on the clerk accepting the bill, prompting the clerk to call the police. Floyd could very easily have vacated the scene before the police arrived, but he didn't. In no way does that justify Chauvin's conduct, but it highlights that Floyd's intoxication, insistence, and continuing to loiter in the vicinity are ultimately why he encountered the police.

I didn't take the impression that Floyd was insisting on the $20 being real in any kind of confrontation as much as had had made the purchase, the store clerk realized it was fake, and not wanting it taken out of his paycheque told his boss who told him to ask Floyd to return to the store who then refuse and was perhaps confused about what he was being asked.
https://www.npr.org/sections/trial-over-killing-of-george-floyd/2021/03/31/983089623/watch-live-cashier-says-he-offered-to-pay-after-realizing-floyds-20-bill-was-fak
efore the police were called, Martin and his co-workers made two trips to the SUV that Floyd was sitting in outside Cup Foods, trying to get him to come back to the store, Martin said. He recalled telling Floyd and his friends that the bill Floyd had just used was fake, and that his boss wanted to talk to him.

But Floyd and the other occupants, a man and a woman, refused to return to the store, he added. After the first attempt, Martin went back to his manager.

"I'd offered to pay, but he said no, just tell them to come back inside," Martin told the jury.

After Floyd and his friends again refused to return to the store, Martin testified, his manager told another co-worker to call the police.
...
The transaction with Floyd went ahead, and Floyd left the store. But Martin kept looking at the bill, he said. In court, he explained that at the time, store policy mandated that if a cashier accepts any bogus money, "you have to pay for it out of your money, or your paycheck."

Martin said that he initially thought he would put the transaction on his own tab. But he then had second thoughts and decided to tell his manager. The manager told him to walk outside to Floyd's vehicle and tell him to come inside. The SUV Floyd had arrived in was clearly visible across the street, he said.

Martin went outside twice, he said – initially with one other person, and then with two older co-workers. But they couldn't convince Floyd to come back inside to talk to the manager. Martin recalls that Floyd, who was in the driver's seat, didn't say much and kept shaking his head.

The initial conversation with Floyd and others in the car "wasn't in any way, shape or form aggressive," Martin told Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson.

Nelson then asked Martin to confirm he had testified Floyd "was not really speaking to you" as he sat in the SUV – a point on which Martin agreed. Earlier, he had described Floyd as having an attitude of, in Martin's words, "Why is this happening?"

So I'm not sure where you got your account of events as this is the summary of that store clerk's testimony in court. I mention this as I think what you state could easily imply that there was a more dramatic confrontation than simple refusal/compliance. ANd building off the point that Floyd seemed perhaps confused as to why he was being asked to return to the store, it may be he didn't believe he had any reason to suspect that the police were being called or any need to leave because he wasn't clear on that he did anything wrong. This could be in part an issue in making sense of why the store clerk was coming out asking him to come back in because the bill was fake. Be like why are you bothering me? I know I've been absent-minded and have been startled by unexpected responses from people I've ordered food when I felt like the flow of the exchange was meant to follow a particular order and they start saying things that don't seem to fit the context. In fact, for one incident, I still am not clear what the person said and was skeptical of what my peers told me.

Well, this is where you get people who are--as the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski would characterize them--"oversocialized" and say things like, "I say make marijuana legal and tax the hell out of it!", while assuming everyone will just obey a law. You only need to drive on an American highway to see the regard Americans give to speed limits. When you create a huge tax disparity like New York state and city do, it creates the incentive for a black market for tax avoidance on cigarettes to develop. The history of "moonshine" and NASCAR is another fine example. Once you are cheating a government of tax revenue, they will not treat it as a penny ante crime. These same people will "get tough" on people who break the law. Yet, they will also purport to be upset at scenarios like the Eric Garner death or the George Floyd death.

Indeed, there's a huge black market for cigarettes in Australia after the successful passing of legislation to tax it making it quite expensive. Indeed, the government may not give a fuck for all sorts of things but they'll bust you ass over taxes to the last dime. However, one could still be consistent in wanting such taxation and be upset with the death of Garner and Floyd as they are fucked up outcomes even in the pursuit of such arrests. There is no reason they absolutely had to play out that way other than the officer's means of restraining them. It'd be more inconsistent if they were then upset if they were charged in the case of Garner selling untaxed cigarettes.
But it also points to a larger issue of poverty in America where a lot of crime is economic in nature and even the violence surrounding crime is economic, even in prisons, drugs stuff is about money and while regular society has police to protect property and force compliance to certain contractual standards, the regular criminal has to muscle up on people themselves.
Violence being the necessary resort in maintaining the smooth functioning of such systems of exchange, people who don't comply do get burned.
Yet, almost all of these cases occur when someone is resisting arrest. Sometimes, you'll get an officer who uses deadly force in another context that seems quite disproportionate. However, in most cases you're dealing with resisting arrest, which is also a crime.

But the term resisting arrest seems to get so vague that it becomes a blanket defense that includes someone who actively fights police, compared to someone like Floyd where there doesn't seem to be evidence of him fighting police any more than that after he was cuffed he sat down a couple times. I can see in one case the escalation of violence and the need for police to employ greater force, in other cases you're wondering why they are themselves escalating things other than perhaps a power trip. Old school cops could often play things a lot cooler because there is no need to bust your ass to make things happen immediately.
As ane example, some naked man was on top of a house and the police were called. The police shot bean bag at the man and he slipped and felt onto a truck injuring himself. An expert witness, a retired police officer and I think former chief said how ridiculous this approach was when they could simply wait the guy out because it was so cold that it was inevitable he'd have to come down himself. I share this as ane example where the attitude of how to solve the problem is a lot more go with the flow compared to forcing the situation and making it worse.

And when you have several officers to help you subdue someone and do have the greater control because they're cuffed and what ever, again the use of force has to be doubted in it's relevance other than unnecessary esclation on the part of police. I've worked in a correctional facility and talked with the guards how they do have to use increased force to appropriately secure a prison who isn't complying, and there are smart ways in which to gain control smoothly even with the most escalated of inmates.

Sure. However, Brazil is not the Congo. They manufacture airplanes. Embraer for example. Brazil has significant economic limitations, because it is a country covered largely by mountainous rain forests and jungles. If they didn't have running water, electricity, etc., I think you could let them off the hook in that sense. Yet, they are a modern society. Constitutionally, the US government faces an armed population. So our police need to be armed.

Indeed, Brazil has industrialized a fair bit in the last several decades although that is still a relatively recent development which piggy backs off the uneven development of technology from other nations. But I agree they are a modern society but one that not all to recently was exiling people due to the political situation.
But however I do think about how the US is a heavily armed population and that is true in Brazil too where being a cop in RIo De Jeniro is incredibly dangerous in part because of the access to weapons.
I am unsure to what extent this is meant to characterize absolutely every interaction with the general population however. Like again, how is Floyd dead when he was already cuffed and largely secured? It's not a case of freaking out he may have a gun sort of thing. But I definitely won't denied that that it does seem a particular quality to U.S. society that isn't necessarily present in other developed nations to make it comparable on that front. I however think it at best can only be a contributing factor to the higher police shootings, but many don't seem dependent on any fear and anxiety inherent to the situation. Maybe only the subjective and heitened anxiety claimed by some police who amp up their defense as fearing for their lives in situations that can be debatable.

But it's not. There is no constitutional right to keep and bear arms in most advanced European or Asian countries. The US is a very heavily armed society precisely so that the government is afraid of the citizenry. So American police will necessarily be carrying firearms.

Yet, in both the Eric Garner case and the George Floyd case, the suspects died without the use of a deadly weapon. Garner was obese and asthmatic. Floyd had pleural thickening due to long-term fentanyl use. Whatever the courts might say, these men's health issues were clearly a contributory factor in their deaths. Assuming Floyd didn't ingest a bunch of drugs pre-arrest, neither he nor Garner would have died if they hadn't resisted arrest. Alternatively, government could simply not enforce the law.

Yeah, but I would emphasize that while absolutely everything in regards to your health can contribute to the prospect of your dying or not, whether it is actually a significant and relevant contributing factor relies on a sense of causality that what Chauvin and the other police did was 1) appropriate and not with significant risk for the average American, many of whom who do have chronic health conditions, 2) That the method of restraint wasn't in fact the primary cause of death. I could shoot someone in the leg and we could say other health factors contributed to their poor chances of survival, but if they die from blood loss and it was due to me shooting them in the leg, I am not concerned with the causality of everything even such as Floyd not leaving the scene and so it made it possible for the events to transpire in some natural scientific account but also the moral culpability of someone's actions and their consequences. That is ultimately what is up for consideration, and one has to make the explicit case that such health factors were so significant that it negated the relationship between the knee on the back and claims of asphyixation and that they died through other means. I mean if one could prove that someone actually overdosed, or had a heart attack in all the excitement of the situation, then yeah we would be more sympathetic for the cop as not the cause. But that is quite distinct from Chauvin's actions as the primary cause of death and it seems a weak defense to then go well they weren't the healthiest of people.
You can still be responsible for someone death if you say beat them up and you were unlucky enough to do it to someone whose risk factors for death were higher than perhaps others, well shit luck for you, you still beat the shit out of them which ultimately caused their death. I'm thinking of cases where the average guy gets into a fight and the other person is in a coma on life support, the line between them going to prison for a very long time for murder is quite close in that case and their bodies abilities to survive their beating would similarly be based on their general health.

I'm not convinced that being a wealthy country establishes moral superiority or that being a poor country excuses abusive behavior by authorities. China has the second largest economy on Earth, and routinely violates human rights. It is conducting an ongoing genocide, but people ignore it because they want their iPhones. Brazil is the 13th largest economy in the world. Congo is similarly a country of rain forests and jungles, but its economy isn't even in the top 100. So that morphological comparison makes some sense. That's why I say the obsession with the US is a bit bizarre and something of a media creation.

No, it's not about moral superiority, its about how wealth relates to crime and the history of a countries institutions to respond to the feedback of their people. Indeed wealth doesn't inherently directly correlate with better standards, but your ability to have such higher standards in your countrie's institutional practices can be better supported with more resources. A bit like how being intelligent doesn't inherently make someone moral, but intelligence does allow more avenues for a person to be open to moral development and social engagement then the less intelligent. Basically, it's not a 1:1 cause of the other, but it isn't an insignificant precondition either.
Well the US also had the significance of being a global empire and with a media, that pretty much permeates the rest of the world. For an old example, there was a time when B-grade actors and celebrities from England and the US could automatically step into Australian media shows and enterinetmant. It wasn't the case that Australians could do the same when in England or the US. It took some time before Australians got their foot in the door to be able to step into such entertainment industries, which they still have to prove themselves a great deal but the door is more open than it once was. THere are still people who are huge in Australia but couldn't establish themselves in those countries.
We're just not a big fish but those big fish to heavily influence us with their media.

Food deserts are largely defined as a "lack of access" to healthy foods. There isn't a grocery chain anywhere that would forego a market opportunity to sell more goods to a customer base. Yet, it gets blamed on institutional racism.

Redlining and Racism – the Real Roots of Food Deserts in our Communities

Why are Walgreens and CVS shutting so many stores in San Francisco? It's because of shoplifting. They cannot turn a profit. Grocery stores run on razor thin margins. They cannot afford massive shrinkage. So how do stores remain open in that scenario? They raise their prices. Who is hurt the most by this? Poor people--often disproportionately minorities. You think I'm making this up.



This isn't a one-off. It's what it's like in San Francisco. So this will drive more people to online shopping, where shoplifting isn't an issue. Eventually, I think it will also cause a move to vending machines as is the case in Japan. No doubt, vending machines will be considered racist in the not too distant future.

For example, you don't need a Ralph Lauren Polo. It's a luxury item. Yet, if I want to buy a Polo near my house? I have to ask the clerk to unlock them, because they have steel cables running through the shirts to prevent shoplifting. It's literally like living in a third world country in certain aspects of life in California now.

While it is following a cold logic of profit, it in itself does reflect a structural quality that does disproportionately impact the demographics who are poor. ALthough yes, could just frame it in terms of how it shit son poor people.
I in fact was listening to an American comedian, Lil Rel Howrey and he joked about there being a stickman for places that get robbed so much that they store it up high so that only can reach it with a stick and the stickman gets it down for you. He joked about what people are buying black-market milk?
Which in the back of my mind does seem to suggest that yeah crime is so bad that they're stealing everything and of course who would be buying bootleg milk? Rather sounds more like people be stealing milk and food for themselves.
It seems like it's just part of the larger problem in which I tend to think crime has a clear economic basis even when it ecalates beyond that into more directly cultural and violent forms, certain kinds of crime do not exist equally everywhere.

I think this also touches on a point in support of the idea that the US can be compared to the other countries where there is greater violence in that many Americans who travel the world and are told, aren't you afraid to be in those scary dangerous places talk about having lived and experienced the ghettos of America where you can just as likely get your ass robbed and beaten in a parking lot down town. America got some rough places.
#15167365
wat0n wrote:DAs want to win convictions, so I wouldn't be surprised that they may not want to start a case they can't win. With all the footage we can see of these cases, however, it seems to be less likely that lack of evidence would be the reason for not pursuing a potential case.


Yes, the killing of Mr. Floyd showed that a tsunami of publicly available evidence, like the many filmings of his death, can force DAs to do their job.

The fact that we need such an overwhelming amount of evidence shows why we cannot rely on DAs.

I didn't mean allowing the cops to appeal, I meant having the complainant appeal if the oversight board rejects it.

But now that you mention it, cops should have the possibility to appeal and be heard by this sort of body if the accusation doesn't deal with illegal behavior, just as other workers have the right to give their own version of the facts when being disciplined. If it does involve breaking of the law, the oversight board would gather evidence but the case would need to be pursued by the DA as usual. If the DA refused to do so, the affected person could request a writ of mandamus to force the DA to do so, based on the evidence provided by the oversight board

Also, the civilian oversight board would only deal with complaints of law enforcement officer misbehavior involving members of the community (it's not a HR or an Internal Affairs office). PDs could also have their own internal mechanisms to deal with these, but as you said given the power of police unions these types of complaints should probably dealt by external bodies regardless of the internal policies of PDs.


This seems like a lot of speculation about a civilian oversight group that somehow magically has the ability to hold cops accountable. This is not a reality right now.

At this point, having a civilian oversight group that can actually access, review, and release bodycam footage would be the next step.
#15167373
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, the killing of Mr. Floyd showed that a tsunami of publicly available evidence, like the many filmings of his death, can force DAs to do their job.

The fact that we need such an overwhelming amount of evidence shows why we cannot rely on DAs.


So presumption of innocence shouldn't exist or what? I'd say that the fact we now have that sort of evidence available is a good thing and says more about technology than anything else.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems like a lot of speculation about a civilian oversight group that somehow magically has the ability to hold cops accountable. This is not a reality right now.

At this point, having a civilian oversight group that can actually access, review, and release bodycam footage would be the next step.


It all depends on the laws each state passes. Of course being the custodian of bodycam footage would also be one of the roles of such a body.

The fact that current technology allows this is what makes such a system possible to implement.
#15167377
wat0n wrote:So presumption of innocence shouldn't exist or what? I'd say that the fact we now have that sort of evidence available is a good thing and says more about technology than anything else.


I never said anything about presumption of innocence. Perhaps my bad reading comprehension lead to your misunderstanding.

But yes, it is a good thing that BIPOC communities can gather their own evidence and not rely on the police and DAs to find evidence against police and DAs.

It all depends on the laws each state passes. Of course being the custodian of bodycam footage would also be one of the roles of such a body.

The fact that current technology allows this is what makes such a system possible to implement.


Right.

So, why is it not being implemented? That would be the important question.
#15167385
Pants-of-dog wrote:I never said anything about presumption of innocence. Perhaps my bad reading comprehension lead to your misunderstanding.

But yes, it is a good thing that BIPOC communities can gather their own evidence and not rely on the police and DAs to find evidence against police and DAs.


Indeed, it's good to allow people do that. But tell me, why would a DA prosecute a person (any person) without solid evidence to override the presumption of innocence?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Right.

So, why is it not being implemented? That would be the important question.


Institutions don't change that quickly (we are still understanding what the effects of these new technologies are after all), and bodycams are still expensive enough to make some PDs/localities have trouble affording them. That is, even today there are plenty of PDs/localities that simply don't have enough resources to slap bodycams on all their police officers. Other localities don't have enough population to justify having their own regular police force either, and rely on sheriffs instead.

You could of course force them to do so by law anyway, at the cost of cutting expenses on other public/social services, on corruption, and/or raising local taxes. I suspect politicians will tend to go for the first of these but that's just me.
#15167402
wat0n wrote:Indeed, it's good to allow people do that.


And yet, cops continue to tell people that they cannot film the police.

Institutions don't change that quickly (we are still understanding what the effects of these new technologies are after all), and bodycams are still expensive enough to make some PDs/localities have trouble affording them. That is, even today there are plenty of PDs/localities that simply don't have enough resources to slap bodycams on all their police officers. Other localities don't have enough population to justify having their own regular police force either, and rely on sheriffs instead.


No, police departments already receive a huge amount of money compared to any other municipal service. To claim that they do not have money is ridiculous.

You could of course force them to do so by law anyway, at the cost of cutting expenses on other public/social services, on corruption, and/or raising local taxes. I suspect politicians will tend to go for the first of these but that's just me.


Please provide evidence that cops cannot afford bodycams. Thanks.
#15167524
Wellsy wrote:So I'm not sure where you got your account of events as this is the summary of that store clerk's testimony in court.

You can assume that you are better informed on the matter than I am. I only give a cursory amount of time to public questions like this anymore. Generally, a dispute arose over Floyd uttering a counterfeit bill, and the police were called. I don't think the finer details are that much more meaningful to the impending outcome of the trial.

Wellsy wrote:However, one could still be consistent in wanting such taxation and be upset with the death of Garner and Floyd as they are fucked up outcomes even in the pursuit of such arrests. There is no reason they absolutely had to play out that way other than the officer's means of restraining them.

I agree substantially, but there is one other material factor: both Floyd and Garner resisted arrest. In fact, that's the most common thread in most of these cases.

Wellsy wrote:But it also points to a larger issue of poverty in America where a lot of crime is economic in nature and even the violence surrounding crime is economic, even in prisons, drugs stuff is about money and while regular society has police to protect property and force compliance to certain contractual standards, the regular criminal has to muscle up on people themselves.

Ermmm... I tend to agree that economics is a strong motivator... but in prison? You aren't going to go hungry or without shelter in prison. Medium and maximum security are substantially less safe, for sure. However, at that point, I think it makes sense to start looking at drug use in a behavioral rather than purely economic sense.

Wellsy wrote:But the term resisting arrest seems to get so vague that it becomes a blanket defense that includes someone who actively fights police, compared to someone like Floyd where there doesn't seem to be evidence of him fighting police any more than that after he was cuffed he sat down a couple times. I can see in one case the escalation of violence and the need for police to employ greater force, in other cases you're wondering why they are themselves escalating things other than perhaps a power trip.

Ah... but is the power trip economic for the police officer? Does he get more money for this? No. Behaviorally, some who resist arrest simply go limp to make life difficult for the police. So Chauvin was likely returning the favor--again, this in no way excuses Chauvin's behavior. It may explain a motivation for it.

Wellsy wrote:An expert witness, a retired police officer and I think former chief said how ridiculous this approach was when they could simply wait the guy out because it was so cold that it was inevitable he'd have to come down himself.

I'm inclined to agree, but that's a directive the officers need to receive. They get paid by the hour, and most would be happy to have their shift go into overtime to make more money. The bean bag incident then becomes a lawsuit to shakedown the police. However, if the police do nothing, people sometimes get injured too. I have a friend who is a police officer. They had to arrest a guy on PCP who jumped out of a second floor window, and broke his leg. He was running around on the broken leg, and probably injuring himself even more as the cops waited for him to spin down and collapse.

Wellsy wrote:Like again, how is Floyd dead when he was already cuffed and largely secured?

Personally, I think it was due to his physical health, drugs in his system, and denial of medical care by Chauvin and his colleagues. I heard some of the evidence testimony by medical doctors, which I found less than credible. Like many, I think Chauvin's actions--while probably not intending to kill Floyd--were plainly inexcusable. However, I don't think overcharging someone because you are angry with what he did, or manufacturing evidence is proper either.

Wellsy wrote:I however think it at best can only be a contributing factor to the higher police shootings, but many don't seem dependent on any fear and anxiety inherent to the situation.

The peculiar aspects of the Floyd and Garner cases is that the decedents were not shot by police, but that their deaths were likely precipitated by the arrests with their health problems being a significant contributory factor; and, of course, both were resisting arrest.

Wellsy wrote:Maybe only the subjective and heitened anxiety claimed by some police who amp up their defense as fearing for their lives in situations that can be debatable.

Well, there are certainly people who aren't temperamentally suited to being police officers. Sometimes, that temperament comes from being a soldier in a combat zone, which can often lead to using tactics that are appropriate in a military situation that are inappropriate in a policing situation. Police also encounter one hell of a lot of abuse. That is part of their job duty, and they are expected to take that and still act professionally. However, it does take a toll on them.

Wellsy wrote:That is ultimately what is up for consideration, and one has to make the explicit case that such health factors were so significant that it negated the relationship between the knee on the back and claims of asphyixation and that they died through other means.

Well, that's why I say that in my opinion, the appropriate charge is a manslaughter charge. Frankly, I'm more concerned about preventing paramedics from seeing to Floyd than I am about the tactics, which I also think were unnecessary. Clearly, Floyd was complaining of respiratory distress, and plenty of people witnessed that fact and voiced concern. So I think a "reasonable person" in that case should also include the paramedics and witnesses.

Wellsy wrote:But that is quite distinct from Chauvin's actions as the primary cause of death and it seems a weak defense to then go well they weren't the healthiest of people.

If they just acquit Chauvin, I agree. I think it's much harder to prove second degree murder, and a lot of people want that because they want to see the police punished more severely for their behavior. For example, in the Rodney King case, the police were acquitted not because they were innocent, but because they didn't use a deadly weapon and that's what the charge said. Prosecutors get overzealous with police just as they do with others. It's why I think prosecutors need to be reigned in quite a bit.

Wellsy wrote:I'm thinking of cases where the average guy gets into a fight and the other person is in a coma on life support, the line between them going to prison for a very long time for murder is quite close in that case and their bodies abilities to survive their beating would similarly be based on their general health.

Yes, and that's your second degree murder case. Again, the murder was unintentional, but the perpetrator was committing another crime which led to the death.

Wellsy wrote:Well the US also had the significance of being a global empire and with a media, that pretty much permeates the rest of the world.

Yes, and I'm quite tired of American media, and I would guess much of the rest of the world is too.

Wellsy wrote:Which in the back of my mind does seem to suggest that yeah crime is so bad that they're stealing everything and of course who would be buying bootleg milk? Rather sounds more like people be stealing milk and food for themselves.

It's often just people supporting a drug habit/addiction. We've had problems with the government giving people welfare for food--they can't buy anything else with it. They buy food at the grocery store. Then, they go and sell the food at a discount for cash and buy alcohol or drugs. So that can happen both with shoplifting and with the benefits received from welfare. It's why I'm inclined to think that we'll need to have some mandatory drug treatment programs and rehabilitation rather than simple imprisonment.

Wellsy wrote:It seems like it's just part of the larger problem in which I tend to think crime has a clear economic basis even when it ecalates beyond that into more directly cultural and violent forms, certain kinds of crime do not exist equally everywhere.

Sure. However, as to fear, it really depends. I lived in San Francisco for six years. When I lived in the Richmond on La Playa (Ocean Beach), I saw a Filipino gang shooting at the Safeway across the street. In some senses, it's right across the street. Danger close. In other respects, it might as well be a million miles away. If you're not into drugs or gangs, chances are you won't encounter that stuff. However, different people act differently. I was once sitting on the BART train. A black kid was sitting across from me. We were going through Oakland, and he had a hoodie on and looked a bit menacing. When we got through the tunnel into Orinda (a wealthy mostly white suburb), he took off his hoodie and appeared visibly relieved to be beyond Oakland. It seems he was looking tough to discourage anyone in the Oakland area from starting anything with him.

The problem with Asians getting mugged is mostly black people mugging Asians. The media deliberately omits the black part. The reason the Atlanta, Georgia shooting garnered so much attention was that the US media has a strong anti-white bias now. So they wanted to blame the "racist" anti-Asian attacks on bad white people, even though they already know it's overwhelmingly perpetrated by blacks, primarily on older Asians, and primarily because older Asians tend to carry a lot of cash on them.

Wellsy wrote:I think this also touches on a point in support of the idea that the US can be compared to the other countries where there is greater violence in that many Americans who travel the world and are told, aren't you afraid to be in those scary dangerous places talk about having lived and experienced the ghettos of America where you can just as likely get your ass robbed and beaten in a parking lot down town. America got some rough places.

Yes, and this is why I think Covid is a crisis for urban centers. By allowing homeless encampments, drug use, permitting public urination and defecation, refusing to prosecute shoplifting, car break-ins, etc., people who can now work at home will see no reason to endure a crushing commute only to be subjected to the incredible unpleasantness of "progressive" and "woke" cities.

The drugs like fentanyl coming from China via the Mexican border are wreaking havoc as well. Frankly, I think the media and the government are profiting from all the death and destruction somehow. There has to be significant bribery and corruption involved. Organized crime, etc. There's simply no better explanation for this level of dereliction.
#15167579
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog you can find a WaPo report on the funding problems of small departments here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

As for cops telling people not to film them, it always depends on the situation but it is generally legal to do so:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... legal.html


@wat0n

With my poor reading comprehension, I will probably misinterpret everything, so it is best for your to copy and paste the relevant text and explain to me how this supports your argument.

And yes, cops will tell people to do illegal things if they think they can get away with it.
#15167591
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog you can read both yourself, I don't see how quoting from them will improve your reading comprehension here.


I just explained why. Maybe my poor reading comprehension made you confused.

For example, I think this chart shows that police departments receive billions of dollars each year.

Image

Cops can claim whatever they want, sure, I don't see how that changes anything from what I said.


Well, I was discussing what actually happens, not what the law says they should do. Mr. Floyd’s killer was not allowed to kill Mr. Floyd, but he (the killer) still did it, and can still get away with it as most cops do.

So, what we would need is a way to force cops not to do illegal things.
#15167594
Pants-of-dog wrote:I just explained why. Maybe my poor reading comprehension made you confused.

For example, I think this chart shows that police departments receive billions of dollars each year.

Image


I didn't say "all cities have problems funding bodycams", I said that there are localities that can't. The WaPo report goes in more details about this issue, with examples of localities that simply gave up even if they would otherwise use them.

It may sound odd, but forcing cops to wear bodycams goes directly against the "defund the police" meme. But since you have reading comprehension problems, you'll have trouble understanding this idea.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, I was discussing what actually happens, not what the law says they should do. Mr. Floyd’s killer was not allowed to kill Mr. Floyd, but he (the killer) still did it, and can still get away with it as most cops do.

So, what we would need is a way to force cops not to do illegal things.


I was also discussing what actually happens. As a general rule, cops can't ban bystanders from filming, and indeed in the George Floyd case they didn't do it as the bystanders weren't breaking any laws by filming the whole thing.
#15167606
wat0n wrote:I didn't say "all cities have problems funding bodycams", I said that there are localities that can't. The WaPo report goes in more details about this issue, with examples of localities that simply gave up even if they would otherwise use them.

It may sound odd, but forcing cops to wear bodycams goes directly against the "defund the police" meme. But since you have reading comprehension problems, you'll have trouble understanding this idea.


Yes, silly me being so stupid.

So you are not saying that police cannot afford these. You are saying that some few places may have trouble paying for them.

Can you specify which?

Mr, Floyd was killed in Minneapolis, which spends over 160 million$ a year.

The USA, in total spends about $100 billion each year on police. This is larger than the entire economy of Cuba, for example. If you believe Cuba has a security apparatus capable of keeping tabs on all of its citizens, then the US can easily afford keeping tabs on its police with more money and less people to survey.

I was also discussing what actually happens. As a general rule, cops can't ban bystanders from filming, and indeed in the George Floyd case they didn't do it as the bystanders weren't breaking any laws by filming the whole thing.


No, now you are discussing what actually happens in some cases while ignoring what happens in other cases.

There is man in NYC who has been arrested over 70 times for filming police. The man who filmed Eric Garner’s death has been harassed by police since then.

Maybe my reading comprehension is getting to you again.
#15167610
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, silly me being so stupid.

So you are not saying that police cannot afford these. You are saying that some few places may have trouble paying for them.

Can you specify which?

Mr, Floyd was killed in Minneapolis, which spends over 160 million$ a year.

The USA, in total spends about $100 billion each year on police. This is larger than the entire economy of Cuba, for example. If you believe Cuba has a security apparatus capable of keeping tabs on all of its citizens, then the US can easily afford keeping tabs on its police with more money and less people to survey.


Read the WaPo article. Also, Cuba doesn't have 330 million inhabitants.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, now you are discussing what actually happens in some cases while ignoring what happens in other cases.

There is man in NYC who has been arrested over 70 times for filming police. The man who filmed Eric Garner’s death has been harassed by police since then.

Maybe my reading comprehension is getting to you again.


Why was that NYC man arrested and was he ever charged? Has the man who filmed Eric Gardner's case sued the NYPD?
#15167614
wat0n wrote:Read the WaPo article. Also, Cuba doesn't have 330 million inhabitants.


I think you have not read the WaPo article, since you are unable to refer to it to support your claims.

I can read it for you, if you like, but you do not trust my reading comprehension.

Also, the population of the US is not relevant. My point was that the US, and specifically US police, have more than enough money to put all police under surveillance.

Why was that NYC man arrested and was he ever charged? Has the man who filmed Eric Gardner's case sued the NYPD?


And so we see that cops, in reality, make a lot of effort to do the illegal thing of stopping people from filming them.

So, what do we do about it?
#15167617
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think you have not read the WaPo article, since you are unable to refer to it to support your claims.

I can read it for you, if you like, but you do not trust my reading comprehension.


Go on.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, the population of the US is not relevant. My point was that the US, and specifically US police, have more than enough money to put all police under surveillance.


And yet that implies increasing funding for the police, which has to come from somewhere. Total population is also very relevant to assess just how much would this cost.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And so we see that cops, in reality, make a lot of effort to do the illegal thing of stopping people from filming them.

So, what do we do about it?


Inform people about their rights and give them the tools to make cops respect them, although there are several organizations that do both.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]