[Pants-of-dog]

I agree things seem to be moving faster.

Yes, this investigation is unusual in many respects.

...And I thought that the actions of individuals don't matter. I mean, being systemic at all.

Yes, and we are now approaching the final pieces of the puzzle. At least one more person would need to be a new: the police chief.

Is the police chief new and willing to address systemic racism?

No one "accepts" murders,

From a practical perspective, anyone who refuses to address or change systemic reasons for cop murder is basically defending and accepting all cop murders that happen because of those systemic reasons.

[wat0n]

Yes, this investigation is unusual in many respects.

It's part of a trend. Even in the George Floyd case, the investigation moved quickly (it started before the rioting began).

Yes, and we are now approaching the final pieces of the puzzle. At least one more person would need to be a new: the police chief.

Is the police chief new and willing to address systemic racism?

I also recall you said whoever the police chiefs are doesn't matter either. Again, because it's systemic.

Are you also taking that back?

From a practical perspective, anyone who refuses to address or change systemic reasons for cop murder is basically defending and accepting all cop murders that happen because of those systemic reasons.

This would presuppose you know what the systemic reasons, if any, exist for police murder or that bodycams do not address such reasons.

[late]

This would presuppose you know what the systemic reasons, if any, exist for police murder

It's old school.

Policing used to be about maintaining order through violence.

Remember Sherlock Holmes? The police grabbed likely suspects and threw them in jail. There was little to no investigation..

But that was an improvement over the medieval approach, which was often lethal.

The author, Arthur Conan Doyle, created Sherlock Holmes so he could talk about what policing should be like; which is professional investigators using scientific methods.

That was in the 1800s, and we are still trying to make policing professional, competent, and scientific. We've improved things a lot, but it's clear the job is not finished.

Btw, Republican extremists are medieval in this regard.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's part of a trend. Even in the George Floyd case, the investigation moved quickly (it started before the rioting began).

I also recall you said whoever the police chiefs are doesn't matter either. Again, because it's systemic.

Are you also taking that back?

No. I also understand how things can change and what is needed for said change. For systemic change, you heed several people all taking over key positions simultaneously and for them all to then start working in addressing systemic issues together. This is how I was able to predict that he DA was new and progressive in this specific way.

While this is unlikely to happen, we do see a hew DA, a new chief of police, all of whom seem involved in addressing systemic racism in policing.

This would presuppose you know what the systemic reasons, if any, exist for police murder or that bodycams do not address such reasons.

Yes, and since we discussed this ad nauseum in the thread about the murder of Mr. Floyd, you and I should both be aware of the systemic reasons and the limitations of bodycam use.

[Robert Urbanek]

Why hasn't the Memphis police chief been fired for failing to properly supervise her officers?

[wat0n]

It's old school.

Policing used to be about maintaining order through violence.

Remember Sherlock Holmes? The police grabbed likely suspects and threw them in jail. There was little to no investigation..

But that was an improvement over the medieval approach, which was often lethal.

The author, Arthur Conan Doyle, created Sherlock Holmes so he could talk about what policing should be like; which is professional investigators using scientific methods.

That was in the 1800s, and we are still trying to make policing professional, competent, and scientific. We've improved things a lot, but it's clear the job is not finished.

Btw, Republican extremists are medieval in this regard.

Textbook genetic fallacy

No. I also understand how things can change and what is needed for said change. For systemic change, you heed several people all taking over key positions simultaneously and for them all to then start working in addressing systemic issues together. This is how I was able to predict that he DA was new and progressive in this specific way.

While this is unlikely to happen, we do see a hew DA, a new chief of police, all of whom seem involved in addressing systemic racism in policing.

Oh, so it was about what individuals decide to do, and by extension their own prejudices, after all.

That's keeping in mind no major police reform has been approved at the federal level or anything of the sort. Instead, it seems it is voters who are electing local officials who will deal with these cases somewhat differently. Makes sense since policing is defined at that level.

And why would that be? Perhaps because the greater availability of footage when an incident occurs makes it unnecessary to presume the officers are being honest, as it used to be the case until 10 years ago or so. Hence, evident instances of misuse of force can be readily punished.

Yes, and since we discussed this ad nauseum in the thread about the murder of Me. Floyd, you and I should both be aware of the systemic reasons and the limitations of bodycam use.

I recall you refused to acknowledge the value of the RCTs showing bodycam use decreased the unjustified use of force in police interactions.

[late]

Textbook genetic fallacy

Fact ain't fallacy.

If you're not going to even try...

[Pants-of-dog]

Textbook genetic fallacy



Oh, so it was about what individuals decide to do, and by extension their own prejudices, after all.

No.

You are confusing how the problem of systemic racism was formed with how the solution must come about.

While systemic racism is a result of legislative, judicial, and policing policy and how it has manifested in a slave ownership culture, the solution to systemic racism is (as almost always) the concerted efforts of a small group of people with leverage.

That's keeping in mind no major police reform has been approved at the federal level or anything of the sort. Instead, it seems it is voters who are electing local officials who will deal with these cases somewhat differently. Makes sense since policing is defined at that level.

And why would that be? Perhaps because the greater availability of footage when an incident occurs makes it unnecessary to presume the officers are being honest, as it used to be the case until 10 years ago or so. Hence, evident instances of misuse of force can be readily punished.

Your logic seems to make no sense.

The fact that systemic racism in policing is being addressed at a local rather than federal level has nothing to do with bodycam use.

Anyway, you do hot seem to disagree that the cops assumed that systemic racism would cover for them and the murdering cops did not reckon with the fact that the DA and the police chief were not going to let it happen.

I recall you refused to acknowledge the value of the RCTs showing bodycam use decreased the unjustified use of force in police interactions.

You have all sorts of misconceptions about me and my arguments, though.

[Istanbuller]

Left wing news outlets are not interested in discussing the murder of Tyre Nichols because murderers are not white. There is just not enough material for them to manipulate in the murder case.

[late]

Left wing news outlets are not interested in discussing the murder of Tyre Nichols because murderers are not white. There is just not enough material for them to manipulate in the murder case.

I record a lot of MSNBC. I have been fast forwarding over the Nichols news because they never stop talking about it.

I also get the NYT and WAPO, and they're talking about it.

You need better sources...

[Istanbuller]

You need better lies.

I record a lot of MSNBC. I have been fast forwarding over the Nichols news because they never stop talking about it.

I also get the NYT and WAPO, and they're talking about it.

You need better sources...

MSNBC, CNN, BBC, NYT and WAPO all went silent. Instead, they choose to discuss a former president when this murder news went out. Sick minds.

[wat0n]

No.

You are confusing how the problem of systemic racism was formed with how the solution must come about.

While systemic racism is a result of legislative, judicial, and policing policy and how it has manifested in a slave ownership culture, the solution to systemic racism is (as almost always) the concerted efforts of a small group of people with leverage.

And yet those legislative, judicial and policing policies are the result of actions by individuals.

Also, those people didn't just "appear". They were either directly elected or appointed by an elected official.

Your logic seems to make no sense.

The fact that systemic racism in policing is being addressed at a local rather than federal level has nothing to do with bodycam use.

Actually it has, since voters have more direct influence locally than federally. And it is bodycam use, and the realities it exposes, which has changed how voters think about policing.

Note this type of thing is indeed part of the American system of government.

Anyway, you do hot seem to disagree that the cops assumed that systemic racism would cover for them and the murdering cops did not reckon with the fact that the DA and the police chief were not going to let it happen.

So you are indeed alleging premeditation now? If cops beat someone because they think, before doing so, they'll get away with it then there is premeditation.

Also, if your hypothesis was true, why did the cops feel they needed to make up an excuse to justify the beating? Who is it actually directed to?

You see, you're reaching a contradiction here.

You have all sorts of misconceptions about me and my arguments, though.

Not at all. I recall we even went through some of them.

@late it is also another fact it's not 1800 anymore.

[Istanbuller]

This news would be on headlines for months if the murderer was a white man. Left wing media just forget about this less than a week.

[Istanbuller]

Where is Black Lives Matter? Doesn't it matter when it is black on black?

[Pants-of-dog]

And yet those legislative, judicial and policing policies are the result of actions by individuals.

Also, those people didn't just "appear". They were either directly elected or appointed by an elected official.

Yes, a long time ago.

And they are dead now, so these individuals and their individual beliefs are no longer part of the problem. Now, it is only their systemic legacy that creates the systemic racism.

Actually it has, since voters have more direct influence locally than federally. And it is bodycam use, and the realities it exposes, which has changed how voters think about policing.

Note this type of thing is indeed part of the American system of government.

Or, bodycam use has come about because black voters got more power and are more successful at leveraging city politics.

This causative chain makes sense in both directions. In reality, they are probably mutually causative and influence each other in complex ways.

But the fact that the biggest impacts occur on the municipal level is a result of the fact that most police forces are municipal. Bodycam use is probably less significant.

So you are indeed alleging premeditation now? If cops beat someone because they think, before doing so, they'll get away with it then there is premeditation.

No. Believing that you will probably get away with a crime if you will commit it does not mean that you plan to do it.

I am almost certain that I can cross a busy street by jaywalking without legal repercussions. This does hot mean that I am planning to do so.

Also, if your hypothesis was true, why did the cops feel they needed to make up an excuse to justify the beating? Who is it actually directed to?

The public.

You see, you're reaching a contradiction here.

Not at all. I recall we even went through some of them.

You are probably confused about what my claims and criticisms were.

The fact is that bodycam use does not reduce police violence very much. Cops kill at least a thousand people each year. Studies suggest this number is only about half he real number.

Bodycam use might reduce this number by what, ten percent?

If this small reduction suffices for you, feel free.

I hope you understand why many people may wish to ask for more.

[late]

MSNBC, CNN, BBC, NYT and WAPO all went silent. Instead, they choose to discuss a former president when this murder news went out. Sick minds.

Dude, I watch and read a lot of news. When I am not watching a recorded show, I will sometimes got from channel to channel looking for something I haven't seen before (tv news is very repetitive). You couldn't get away from it..

That's not only wrong, it's idiotic. The coverage has been constant.

[late]

@late it is also another fact it's not 1800 anymore.

It's also not 1400,1500, 1600, 1700, or 1900...

The problem remains.

[wat0n]

Yes, a long time ago.

And they are dead now, so these individuals and their individual beliefs are no longer part of the problem. Now, it is only their systemic legacy that creates the systemic racism.

You'll need to elaborate here. I agree it's applicable for other issues (e.g. poverty) but policing seems to be different. Why? Because there is a clearly identifiable technological development (camera footage) that shows we don't need to rely on presumptions to make justice in cases involving the police (and many others happening in public view). I would also not say such presumption was by itself racist, as it's in the laws of several other countries. Instead, it's just not necessary to presume as much anymore.

Furthermore, I would also not say this particular murder was about race.

Or, bodycam use has come about because black voters got more power and are more successful at leveraging city politics.

This causative chain makes sense in both directions. In reality, they are probably mutually causative and influence each other in complex ways.

But the fact that the biggest impacts occur on the municipal level is a result of the fact that most police forces are municipal. Bodycam use is probably less significant.

Not really? The technology is also used out of the policing context. It seems like a simple, modern solution to the police brutality problem. As in, "if I can use a GoPro when biking, why can't the cops do the same when deployed?".

Furthermore, this narrative would also presume only Black or even progressive people care about police brutality.

At last, the use of these cams is useful for the department themselves for oversight unrelated to police brutality. From that point of view, then, I can imagine police chiefs having an interest in having the force wear them, regardless of politics. Even if the officers turn them off, it will lead to questions as to why.

No. Believing that you will probably get away with a crime if you will commit it does not mean that you plan to do it.

I am almost certain that I can cross a busy street by jaywalking without legal repercussions. This does hot mean that I am planning to do so.

But you did make the decision the moment you were at the street, looked around and crossed. That would fall into the legal definition of premeditation.

Premeditation

When an individual contemplates, for any length of time, undertaking an activity and then subsequently takes the action.

The public.

The public doesn't make the decision to prosecute, though. Furthermore, it's just a matter of watching the footage to assess whether that was too credible. This also suggests no premeditation and that the cop's state of mind wasn't as rational as you make it be.

You are probably confused about what my claims and criticisms were.

The fact is that bodycam use does not reduce police violence very much. Cops kill at least a thousand people each year. Studies suggest this number is only about half he real number.

Bodycam use might reduce this number by what, ten percent?

If this small reduction suffices for you, feel free.

I hope you understand why many people may wish to ask for more.

You're assuming no police killings are justified, when in reality it has to be determined in a case-by-case basis as it happens in any homicide investigation. Self-defense is indeed an acceptable justification to kill someone else.

For example, no one in his right mind would say this police killing in Naperville, IL last year was anything else but self-defense:

In the case of Tyre Nichols, it is clear the beating that killed him was unjustified also from the bodycam footage.

[Istanbuller]

Dude, I watch and read a lot of news. When I am not watching a recorded show, I will sometimes got from channel to channel looking for something I haven't seen before (tv news is very repetitive). You couldn't get away from it..

That's not only wrong, it's idiotic. The coverage has been constant.

You read them for just 3 days. They just removed it then because of the reasons i told you.

[late]

You read them for just 3 days. They just removed it then because of the reasons i told you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/opin ... grief.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... his-crime/

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch ... 2295877527

MSNBC videos usually get posted to Youtube the following day. If you are really that dumb, I can post some of those manana...