[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

I am good with having all my predictions come true.

————————

Back to the topic:

Findings
Since the beginning of 2005 (through June 24, 2019), there have been 104 nonfederal sworn law enforcement officers with the general powers of arrest (e.g., police officers, deputy sheriffs, state troopers, etc.) who have been arrested for murder or manslaughter resulting from an on-duty shooting where the officer shot and killed someone at incidents throughout the United States. Of those 104 officers, to date only 35 have been convicted of a crime resulting from the on-duty shooting (15 by guilty plea, 20 by jury trial, and none convicted by a bench trial).
In the cases where an officer has been convicted, it is often for a lesser offense. Only 4 officers have been convicted of murder (there were four officers whose murder convictions were overturned, but the officers were later convicted of federal crimes arising out of the same incident). The 4 officers convicted of murder received incarceration sentences that ranged from 81 months to 192 months in prison, with an average length prison sentence of 150.75 months. As to the other officers, 9 were convicted of manslaughter, 4 were convicted of voluntary manslaughter, 5 were convicted of involuntary manslaughter, 2 were convicted of official misconduct, 2 were convicted of reckless homicide, 3 were convicted of negligent homicide, 5 were convicted of federal criminal deprivation of civil rights (including the four officers whose murder convictions were overturned), and one was convicted of reckless discharge of a firearm. The 18 officers convicted of manslaughter received incarceration sentences that ranged from zero months to 480 months in prison, with an average sentence of 78.5 months in prison.
The criminal cases for 45 of the officers ended in a non-conviction: 23 were acquitted at a jury trial, 9 were acquitted at a bench trial, 4 were dismissed by a judge, 7 were dismissed by a prosecutor, one received a deferred adjudication, and in one instance no true bill was returned from a grand jury.
Out of the 104 officers charged since the beginning of 2005 with murder or manslaughter resulting from an on-duty shooting, the criminal cases have been concluded for 80 of the officers (35 convicted and 45 not convicted). The criminal cases for 24 of the officers are still pending today.

https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/h ... ughter.pdf

So, a police officer that kills someone has a pretty good chance of getting away with it.

Police kill approximately 1000 people a year in the USA. Between 2005 and 2019, that would be 14,000 people.

There were 35 convictions. This amounts to 0.0025 of all killings.

Unless you believe that only one in every 400 cops is acting in an unjustified manner, it is logical to assume that cops routinely get away with unjustified killings.

[Rich]

This need to call it murder seems utterly pathetic to me. The constant need to turn all these events into a simplistic morality tale, while ignoring the killing of Osama Bin Laden by Obama, which I feel it is reasonable to presume as murder. Heads of state, regimes shouldn't get innocent until proven guilty. This is a political /diplomatic matter not a legal one.

Has anyone shown a shred of evidence for a motive for Chauvin to murder Floyd? Now it might be noted that if Chauvin didn't intend to kill Floyd, he acted extremely stupidly, yes but to deliberately murder Floyd while he knew he was being filmed was even more stupid. Even if Chauvin had hoped to get off, he had to expect it to seriously damage his career, blow his chances of promotion.

Stopping pretending that we believe it was murder doesn't mean one can't support a severe sentence, even the death penalty. Its rather reminds of the way so many of Israel's opponents accuse them of genocide, when the number of deaths is no way near enough from security forces actions is no where near high enough to effect the demographic balance. Or the way the Capitol protesters got accused of mounting an insurrection.

These absurd hyperbola should always be mocked, whether from left, right or centre. Some posters will remember that I mocked Conservatives in a similar way when they said that Obama was going to make himself King, or that we were going to have hyper inflation after the 2008 crash.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

I am good with having all my predictions come true.

That already didn't happen.

Back to the topic:

Findings
Since the beginning of 2005 (through June 24, 2019), there have been 104 nonfederal sworn law enforcement officers with the general powers of arrest (e.g., police officers, deputy sheriffs, state troopers, etc.) who have been arrested for murder or manslaughter resulting from an on-duty shooting where the officer shot and killed someone at incidents throughout the United States. Of those 104 officers, to date only 35 have been convicted of a crime resulting from the on-duty shooting (15 by guilty plea, 20 by jury trial, and none convicted by a bench trial).
In the cases where an officer has been convicted, it is often for a lesser offense. Only 4 officers have been convicted of murder (there were four officers whose murder convictions were overturned, but the officers were later convicted of federal crimes arising out of the same incident). The 4 officers convicted of murder received incarceration sentences that ranged from 81 months to 192 months in prison, with an average length prison sentence of 150.75 months. As to the other officers, 9 were convicted of manslaughter, 4 were convicted of voluntary manslaughter, 5 were convicted of involuntary manslaughter, 2 were convicted of official misconduct, 2 were convicted of reckless homicide, 3 were convicted of negligent homicide, 5 were convicted of federal criminal deprivation of civil rights (including the four officers whose murder convictions were overturned), and one was convicted of reckless discharge of a firearm. The 18 officers convicted of manslaughter received incarceration sentences that ranged from zero months to 480 months in prison, with an average sentence of 78.5 months in prison.
The criminal cases for 45 of the officers ended in a non-conviction: 23 were acquitted at a jury trial, 9 were acquitted at a bench trial, 4 were dismissed by a judge, 7 were dismissed by a prosecutor, one received a deferred adjudication, and in one instance no true bill was returned from a grand jury.
Out of the 104 officers charged since the beginning of 2005 with murder or manslaughter resulting from an on-duty shooting, the criminal cases have been concluded for 80 of the officers (35 convicted and 45 not convicted). The criminal cases for 24 of the officers are still pending today.

https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/h ... ughter.pdf

So, a police officer that kills someone has a pretty good chance of getting away with it.

Police kill approximately 1000 people a year in the USA. Between 2005 and 2019, that would be 14,000 people.

There were 35 convictions. This amounts to 0.0025 of all killings.

Unless you believe that only one in every 400 cops is acting in an unjustified manner, it is logical to assume that cops routinely get away with unjustified killings.

It would actually be interesting to learn about the circumstances for both the convictions and the acquittals, particularly to know if the latter was merely because of an inability to defeat the reasonable doubt standard or because in some of those cases it was in fact clear they were not guilty and for the former just to learn more about the facts (how exactly did they kill these people? How was it proven they were guilty?).

As to whether there are more instances of unjustified killings by cops, I'm guessing that there probably are but it's hard to tell just how prevalent these are. I also wouldn't be surprised if the majority of police killings is likely justified, but claiming 99.75% of them are is probably an overestimate indeed. Do these cops get away due to lack of detection (e.g. before bodycam use became common, so they could kill and no one else would ever be able to tell otherwise) or because of how the court system works? I'm guessing it's the former, for the most part, but then thankfully the use of bodycams should help to stop those. It would help explain why the percentage of people killed by cops who were unarmed has been trending down since the use of bodycams became more extended in the mid 2010s.

[Pants-of-dog]

That already didn't happen.

Yes, they did. I predicted you would not support your claim, and here we are, with you refusing to do so.

It would actually be interesting to learn about the circumstances for both the convictions and the acquittals, particularly to know if the latter was merely because of an inability to defeat the reasonable doubt standard or because in some of those cases it was in fact clear they were not guilty and for the former just to learn more about the facts (how exactly did they kill these people? How was it proven they were guilty?).

As to whether there are more instances of unjustified killings by cops, I'm guessing that there probably are but it's hard to tell just how prevalent these are. I also wouldn't be surprised if the majority of police killings is likely justified, but claiming 99.75% of them are is probably an overestimate indeed. Do these cops get away due to lack of detection (e.g. before bodycam use became common, so they could kill and no one else would ever be able to tell otherwise) or because of how the court system works? I'm guessing it's the former, for the most part, but then thankfully the use of bodycams should help to stop those. It would help explain why the percentage of people killed by cops who were unarmed has been trending down since the use of bodycams became more extended in the mid 2010s.

You can speculate as much as you want.

What we do know for sure is that unjustified killing went unpunished.

And we know that a cop who killed someone was statistically likely to get away with it.

[wat0n]

Yes, they did. I predicted you would not support your claim, and here we are, with you refusing to do so.

I don't need to repeat myself. Just like you can say "search for my posts elsewhere on this matter" I can do exactly the same thing.

But most importantly, your prediction was Chauvin would not be found guilty of any charges. Clearly that's not what happened.

You can speculate as much as you want.

What we do know for sure is that unjustified killing went unpunished.

And we know that a cop who killed someone was statistically likely to get away with it.

You are also speculating on the extent of the issue in your post, not that you care about unjustified killings when it happens in certain islands outside the US anyway.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't need to repeat myself. Just like you can say "search for my posts elsewhere on this matter" I can do exactly the same thing.

But most importantly, your prediction was Chauvin would not be found guilty of any charges. Clearly that's not what happened.

Again, you are telling my why I am right to predict that you would not provide evidence.

You are also speculating on the extent of the issue in your post, not that you care about unjustified killings when it happens in certain islands outside the US anyway.

No, it is not speculation to argue that white cops killing black men in Minnesota are statistically likely to get way with it regardless of justification.

We know this as a fact since Mr. Floyd’s killer was and is the only one ever.

To imagine that there has been no unjustified killings, we would have to assume that all white cops in the entire history of the state were justified. This is a ridiculous assumption, even if we ignore racism.

[Rancid]

You guys married already?

You guys are bickering more than me and my wife!

[Pants-of-dog]

Now we should go after the union, the MPD, and any cops who trued to get him off the charges.

He was not a bad apple. He was part of a system.

[Tainari88]

You guys married already?

You guys are bickering more than me and my wife!

Hmm, how much do you bicker with your wife when COVID has driven us mad. It is tough coping with a kid 24/7 without a husband or a father who is present and is only on the phone.

Is this why you said? Let the Coronavirus rip? You can not take it anymore?

I think it was obvious the Chauvin dude was going to be convicted. Some corrections officer for the state of New York that had arrested hundreds of people said, "It is standard procedure to just let the person sit in a car while handcuffed and call an ambulance at any breathing complaints'.

It is logical that Dereck Chauvin had to go to prison. Cops though do tend to defend even the worst in their lot. It is a lot like the military. They got to go to war with their buddies and can't afford to alienate the support network if they are under attack from the enemy.

[wat0n]

Again, you are telling my why I am right to predict that you would not provide evidence.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?

No, it is not speculation to argue that white cops killing black men in Minnesota are statistically likely to get way with it regardless of justification.

We know this as a fact since Mr. Floyd’s killer was and is the only one ever.

We also went through this and, again, you can refer to past discussion on the matter. Killings of African Americans in Minnesota are too rare to be able make any statements on the issue of whether they may have been justified or not.

To imagine that there has been no unjustified killings, we would have to assume that all white cops in the entire history of the state were justified. This is a ridiculous assumption, even if we ignore racism.

I didn't assume that, though. Another thing is that you don't seem to be making any concrete claims about what percentage of killings is unjustified, perhaps because you know it's hard to have any believable estimates of that when even the full extent of police killings is unknown. So, rather than risk to be proven wrong by new information on the matter, you deliberately choose to keep your claims on the matter vague - a typical rhetorical trap.

[Pants-of-dog]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it?

At this point, it seems fair to say that there is no evidence of another union defending one of its members from prosecution and job loss after the member was caught killing someone.

We also went through this and, again, you can refer to past discussion on the matter. Killings of African Americans in Minnesota are too rare to be able make any statements on the issue of whether they may have been justified or not.

And I once again repeat that since absolutely none of these police were held accountable, that means 100% of all the unjustified killings went unpunished.

The only way you can argue that all the killings were justified is to be ignorant of the history of policing in Minnesota.

I didn't assume that, though.

I have no idea what you may or may bot be arguing at this point.

Regardless of what you claimed, anyone who claims that police were generally accountable before this would have to assume that all these killings were justified, and this in turn assumes things like racism do not exist.

Another thing is that you don't seem to be making any concrete claims about what percentage of killings is unjustified, perhaps because you know it's hard to have any believable estimates of that when even the full extent of police killings is unknown. So, rather than risk to be proven wrong by new information on the matter, you deliberately choose to keep your claims on the matter vague - a typical rhetorical trap.

Yes, there is a lack of information. This is also a big problem. The police, obviously, have no incentive to keep track of how many people they kill and how justified it was.

But accusing me of being vague is not an argument.

If you wish to look at specific examples, we can.

Or we can continue to examine this very first case where a white cop was convicted of killing a black man in Minnesota.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog no, it's not fair to claim that police unions are the only ones who defend murderers, and we already went through this.

As for the rest, no, you can't make any of those claims when you're lacking the data to do so. You can't claim that 100% or close to 100% of unjustified police killings goes unpunished when you don't know how many and which police killings are unjustified. You can't make claims that no unjustified police killings of Black people went unpunished in Minnesota when police killings of Black people in general are very rare, to the point that it's entirely possible that all the cases were justified even if you assume that cops will not always kill justifiably. I also don't take vague quantitative claims seriously, which is what you've tried to do by using a statistical approach: In reality, we lack too much information on this matter to be able to make many, if any, systematic claims and (indeed) the academic literature is also far from clear on the matter of police brutality. At last, I also don't take the concerns about civil rights or racism seriously from those who moralize on these matters while practicing evident double standards, and don't have to.

[Rancid]

Hmm, how much do you bicker with your wife when COVID has driven us mad. It is tough coping with a kid 24/7 without a husband or a father who is present and is only on the phone.

Is this why you said? Let the Coronavirus rip? You can not take it anymore?

I think it was obvious the Chauvin dude was going to be convicted. Some corrections officer for the state of New York that had arrested hundreds of people said, "It is standard procedure to just let the person sit in a car while handcuffed and call an ambulance at any breathing complaints'.

It is logical that Dereck Chauvin had to go to prison. Cops though do tend to defend even the worst in their lot. It is a lot like the military. They got to go to war with their buddies and can't afford to alienate the support network if they are under attack from the enemy.

I'll address your question about disagreements between me and my wife in TLTE. As for police, I'm still strongly in favor of having most police unarmed.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog no, it's not fair to claim that police unions are the only ones who defend murderers,

Police unions are the only ones who knowingly defend murderers.

As for the rest, no, you can't make any of those claims when you're lacking the data to do so. You can't claim that 100% or close to 100% of unjustified police killings goes unpunished

100% of all unjustified police killings in Minnesota went unpunished before the last decade or so.

100% of all unjustified police killings of black people went unpunished until Mr. Floyd.

This is based on one assumption only: that not all police killings since the beginning of Minnesota history were justified.

We know this because Mr. Floyd’s killer was the very first cop ever convicted for killing a black person in Minnesota.

when you don't know how many and which police killings are unjustified.

Actually, you can say that 100% of unjustified killings went unpunished even if you do not know the exact number of unjustified killings when ALL the killings went unpunished.

At that point you can say that ALL the unjustified killings and all the justified killings went unpunished.

This is how math works.

You can't make claims that ... unjustified police killings of Black people went unpunished in Minnesota when police killings of Black people in general are very rare, to the point that it's entirely possible that all the cases were justified even if you assume that cops will not always kill justifiably.

No.

Please see my explanation of how math works.

Also, Minnesota history has many examples of police killing unarmed black people.

To make the leap that all of these killings were justified is to ignore the racism in history.

I also don't take vague quantitative claims seriously, which is what you've tried to do by using a statistical approach: In reality, we lack too much information on this matter to be able to make many, if any, systematic claims and (indeed) the academic literature is also far from clear on the matter of police brutality.

The claim is that before Mr. Floyd’s killer, 100% of all killings of black people by police in Minnesota went unpunished, unjustified or not.

This is, by the way, a historical fact. You can describe it as vague, but it does not seem so.

At last, I also don't take the concerns about civil rights or racism seriously from those who moralize on these matters while practicing evident double standards, and don't have to.

Yes, you have clearly communicated your personal distaste of me based on your incorrect ideas about my moral flaws which in turn are based on strawmen you think I argued.

This is illogical, since my statements are equally true regardless of my moral failings. When Hitler claimed that 2+2=4, he was just as correct as Mr. Rogers.

[wat0n]

Police unions are the only ones who knowingly defend murderers.

The nurse we both know about also included union support for her until, like in the case of police killings such as the Floyd case, the evidence was too overwhelming to ignore.

100% of all unjustified police killings in Minnesota went unpunished before the last decade or so.

Actually, you can say that 100% of unjustified killings went unpunished even if you do not know the exact number of unjustified killings when ALL the killings went unpunished.

We actually know that's not true because of the Damond case.

100% of all unjustified police killings of black people went unpunished until Mr. Floyd.

We know this because Mr. Floyd’s killer was the very first cop ever convicted for killing a black person in Minnesota.

How many police killings of Black people in Minnesota were unjustified?

This is based on one assumption only: that not all police killings since the beginning of Minnesota history were justified.

I don't want assumptions. As both the Damond and Floyd cases show, it is possible to tell which police killings are justified and which ones were not.

At that point you can say that ALL the unjustified killings and all the justified killings went unpunished.

This is how math works.

Why would anyone punish justified killings?

Also, Minnesota history has many examples of police killing unarmed black people.

To make the leap that all of these killings were justified is to ignore the racism in history.

Please show each and every case was unjustified. I want you to tell me the names of the victims, the names of the cops, date, place, the means through which the person was killed and details about the circumstances of each and every event. If the case reached any sort of legal proceedings, I also want to learn about each and every argument provided during them.

We're dealing with criminal justice here, so if you are going to accuse people of felony homicide then you'd better back it up.

If your claim is that there are police killings that were unjustified, but went undetected or that it was impossible to prove so due to lack of strong enough evidence to fulfill the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard then the obvious response is that plenty of people get away with all sorts of crimes for the same reason, this includes BIPOC. It's not that easy to defeat presumption of innocence, and overall it's still a better than the alternative - as plenty of Black people who would be lynched back in the day for crimes they did not commit would attest.

But if you believe otherwise, please do provide your justification. If you believe cops should be held to a different standard, then make your case. This is not something you have actually done, in fact, beyond wondering why is it that mere use of force is not enough to get a cop arrested, but we already went through this: Using force is an inherent part of their job, so it's not surprising that its mere use is not enough to defeat presumption of innocence since the law does allow cops to use force as part of the legitimate performance of their role under the law.

Thanks!

The claim is that before Mr. Floyd’s killer, 100% of all killings of black people by police in Minnesota went unpunished, unjustified or not.

This is, by the way, a historical fact. You can describe it as vague, but it does not seem so.

Yet if no police killings of Black people were unjustified, this statement has no meaning at all. Simply relying on mathematical or statistical arguments doesn't cut it, not at the logical level: Division is not defined when the denominator is 0.

Yes, you have clearly communicated your personal distaste of me based on your incorrect ideas about my moral flaws which in turn are based on strawmen you think I argued.

This is illogical, since my statements are equally true regardless of my moral failings. When Hitler claimed that 2+2=4, he was just as correct as Mr. Rogers.

Indeed, logical statements' truth value doesn't depend on the double standards of the person who makes them. But not all of your claims are logical: The concept of a "justified" or "unjustified" police killing is not a logical statement, but is either a legal definition or a moral statement. If it's the former, please refer to each case and let's compare how the courts in each jurisdiction treated the cop who allegedly did so. If it's the latter, then it's accurate and proper to note that what you consider as "unjustified" in one context and leads to condemnation, leads to no comments in another. The "context" in this case consisting exclusively on which government do the involved policemen work for.

[Pants-of-dog]

The nurse we both know about also included union support for her until, like in the case of police killings such as the Floyd case, the evidence was too overwhelming to ignore.

No.

The union, in the case of the nurse, supported her when they did not know about the murders.

Police unions, on the other hand, do so after the police are caught killing someone.

We actually know that's not true because of the Damond case.

You seem to gave deliberately mixed up my statements to make ot seem like I made an incorrect claim.

But no, the Damind case does not disprove either claim.

How many police killings of Black people in Minnesota were unjustified?

A non-zero number.

I don't want assumptions. As both the Damond and Floyd cases show, it is possible to tell which police killings are justified and which ones were not.

Your feelings about assumptions are irrelevant.

To assume that cops are capable of human bias like racism is not illogical.

If you are arguing that this was the first unjustified killing of a black person by a cop in Minnesota, then you would have to assume that none of the previous killings were unjustified and racism was never a problem. This is contradicted by historical facts.

Why would anyone punish justified killings?

As long as you agree that this is how math works and so the exact number of unjustified killings is irrelevant to my argument,

Please show each and every case was unjustified. I want you to tell me the names of the victims, the names of the cops, date, place, the means through which the person was killed and details about the circumstances of each and every event. If the case reached any sort of legal proceedings, I also want to learn about each and every argument provided during them.

Strawman. Ignored and moving on.

We're dealing with criminal justice here, so if you are going to accuse people of felony homicide then you'd better back it up.

If your claim is that there are police killings that were unjustified, but went undetected or that it was impossible to prove so due to lack of strong enough evidence to fulfill the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard then the obvious response is that plenty of people get away with all sorts of crimes for the same reason, this includes BIPOC. It's not that easy to defeat presumption of innocence, and overall it's still a better than the alternative - as plenty of Black people who would be lynched back in the day for crimes they did not commit would attest.

But if you believe otherwise, please do provide your justification. If you believe cops should be held to a different standard, then make your case. This is not something you have actually done, in fact, beyond wondering why is it that mere use of force is not enough to get a cop arrested, but we already went through this: Using force is an inherent part of their job, so it's not surprising that its mere use is not enough to defeat presumption of innocence since the law does allow cops to use force as part of the legitimate performance of their role under the law.

This seems like a laundry list of assumptions used to rationalise racist and unnecessary use of force by cops.

My point, that you seem unable to refute, is that racism was a significant factor in policing throughout the history of Minnesota.

Now, you should clarify if you agree or not.

Yet if no police killings of Black people were unjustified, this statement has no meaning at all. Simply relying on mathematical or statistical arguments doesn't cut it, not at the logical level: Division is not defined when the denominator is 0.

Are you arguing that no police killings of Black people were unjustified throughout the entire history of Minnesota, even when racism was socially acceptable?

That is the assumption you would need to make in order for this rebuttal to make sense.

Indeed, logical statements' truth value doesn't depend on the double standards of the person who makes them. But not all of your claims are logical: The concept of a "justified" or "unjustified" police killing is not a logical statement, but is either a legal definition or a moral statement. If it's the former, please refer to each case and let's compare how the courts in each jurisdiction treated the cop who allegedly did so. If it's the latter, then it's accurate and proper to note that what you consider as "unjustified" in one context and leads to condemnation, leads to no comments in another. The "context" in this case consisting exclusively on which government do the involved policemen work for.

All you are saying here is that the definition of “justified” is partly or entirely subjective.

No one is disputing that.

Do you think that every single instance if a cop killing a Black person in Minnesota history was justified?

Yes or no?

This is really the only important question, so if you are going to address only part of my post, this is where you should start,

[wat0n]

No.

The union, in the case of the nurse, supported her when they did not know about the murders.

Police unions, on the other hand, do so after the police are caught killing someone.

I recall the union stood with her even when there was a suspicious death, and appealed to the prevailing contracts to obstruct the investigation.

You seem to gave deliberately mixed up my statements to make ot seem like I made an incorrect claim.

Not at all.

But no, the Damind case does not disprove either claim.

Yes it does. It is an example of an unjustified killing that was tried before the Floyd case.

A non-zero number.

How many?

Your feelings about assumptions are irrelevant.

I have no reason to accept your assumptions since they are verifiable.

To assume that cops are capable of human bias like racism is not illogical.

It is also not illogical to say that a racist person can justifiably kill.

If you are arguing that this was the first unjustified killing of a black person by a cop in Minnesota, then you would have to assume that none of the previous killings were unjustified and racism was never a problem. This is contradicted by historical facts.

I don't assume anything. I want you to prove your claims.

As long as you agree that this is how math works and so the exact number of unjustified killings is irrelevant to my argument,

Strawman. Ignored and moving on.

Not at all. You are making a claim about unjustified killings. I want you to back it up, the first step is to have the full list of them.

This seems like a laundry list of assumptions used to rationalise racist and unnecessary use of force by cops.

Not at all. It's simply pointing out how the law works.

My point, that you seem unable to refute, is that racism was a significant factor in policing throughout the history of Minnesota.

Now, you should clarify if you agree or not.

I have no obligation to prove a negative. But even in that case, it's also logically possible that both racism is a significant factor in policing in Minnesota and yet for all unjustifiable killings to be punished. Furthermore, it is also logically possible for racism to be a significant factor in policing in Minnesota and that unjustifiable police killings go unpunished for completely different reasons.

As to whether I agree about the claim that racism is a significant factor in policing in Minnesota, I lack the data to seriously analyze that claim.

Are you arguing that no police killings of Black people were unjustified throughout the entire history of Minnesota, even when racism was socially acceptable?

That is the assumption you would need to make in order for this rebuttal to make sense.

I'm simply pointing out the logical flaw in your argument. I think I also showed above why your claim is not sound.

All you are saying here is that the definition of “justified” is partly or entirely subjective.

No one is disputing that.

Do you think that every single instance if a cop killing a Black person in Minnesota history was justified?

Yes or no?

This is really the only important question, so if you are going to address only part of my post, this is where you should start,

Certainly not, as the Chauvin case shows. But you are implicitly making a much stronger claim here: You are saying cops get away with unjustifiable killings of Black people because of racism. To be able to prove something like that, you need a full list of the incidents where Black people were unjustifiably killed and justice was not served, so we can actually judge it on its merits: First, it's necessary to show the killing was unjustified, then show justice was not served and at last show it was driven by racism. If you can't produce the data, how can the truth of this claim be evaluated on its merits?

Also, after that we can also discuss how relevant that claim is. In particular, when is the last time where a cop unjustifiably killed a Black person and justice wasn't served in Minnesota? Were we even born back then?

[SpecialOlympian]

I love scrolling past pages of two guys without avatars quoting each other. It's readable AND fun. Maybe we could streamline this and use even less forums features. For example, put everything in code brackets so we can't even use the quote function.

[Pants-of-dog]

Certainly not, as the Chauvin case shows.

Since that is the case, you agree that all the unjustified killings of black people by police were not punished until this most recent case.

Now, do you think that racism is and was not a significant factor? Yes or no?

[wat0n]

Since that is the case, you agree that all the unjustified killings of black people by police were not punished until this most recent case.

Now, do you think that racism is and was not a significant factor? Yes or no?

Chauvin is just an example, a recent one at that. I don't see how you can infer that from it.

You could address the rest of my post. I think my position is clear from it: Go on, state your claim clearly and then back it up with the data.

If not then why bother?