Saeko wrote:I live in the Near West Side.
I wasn't too far off
Nice neighborhood BTW. I live in Hyde Park, and I quite like the neighborhood - very underrated.
Unfortunately, however, tonight we were able to see what's going on in the surrounding areas (e.g. Bronzeville), namely, the looting by Blacks against their also Black neighbors. I saw someone above trying to present this as some sort of race riot, but I don't think so. This is a far-left vs cops thing (or a Left vs Right thing) and cold hard opportunism, and will need to be put down in one way or another. The question is whether the far-left understands the consequences of what it's doing.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The rioting is irrelevant in comparison to the loss of life, the fact that the justice system took days to react despite the overwhelming evidence of extrajudicial killing, the suggested collusion between the medical examiner’s office and the DA and the police, and the ongoing police brutality.
All these things involve direct physical violence, or government trying to stop from being held accountable for said violence.
Compared to these issues, some broken windows is irrelevant.
All those things are terrible indeed, so are the murders that have resulted from the temporary breakdown in law and order as a result of the rioting. It's not just "some broken windows".
Furthermore, I think he will at the very least get a second degree manslaughter conviction because Chauvin committed "a culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another", and possibly a third degree murder one as well. Floyd's family can also request an independent autopsy to compare with the coroner's.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So what does this say abut the role of juries?
I would say they can represent community participation and in particular can act as a counterweight
if the laws on the procedural matters are appropriately adjusted (this should at least include training)
and the general trends of less societal racism continue. The added community participation in the process can help to actually legitimize the process, as a Chilean I assume you are aware that there the process is actually based on the opposite (which also has pros and cons), and that there is a legitimacy issue there that's substantially more severe than in the US.
Pants-of-Dog wrote:Ex-FBI agent Larry Brubaker, who has researched and written two books on fatal officer-involved shootings that have occurred in Minnesota, said this is the first time an officer has been charged for a fatal shooting in Minnesota in more than 200 cases that spanned over three decades.
This “first time” is in reference to the shooting of Philando Castile, which occurred in 2016.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/11/1 ... e-shooting
So the killer of Mr. Floyd is the second. So far, not a single police officer has actually been punished.
It is not a question of this being rare.
It is a simply a matter of historical fact that cops do not get punished for killing unarmed blacks in Minneapolis or even the state of Minnesota.
It should be noted, however, that the 200 figure includes people from all races. And this is important too:
When force is justified
In Minnesota, state law can explain part of the reason it's so rare: Officers are given much more legal latitude to use fatal force.
For civilians, the law is much stricter. The entire state statute that governs instances in which a civilian is legally justified in killing another is a sentence long:
"The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."
For officers, the law is much longer. To summarize, state code says that using deadly force while on duty is justified in these situations:
• When it is needed "to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm"
• To arrest, capture or prevent from escaping a person the officer "knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force"
• To arrest, capture or stop escape of someone the officer "knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed"
Why would they be charged
if they haven't broken the law? Generally speaking there is no criminal liability for law enforcement if they use deadly force as part of the legitimate exercise of their functions, be it in the USA or abroad.
Pants-of-Dog wrote:Who says we need to replace it with anything? At this point, simply not having any police at all seems more peaceful, orderly, and safe than having police.
I can't tell if this is trolling or not
Either way, the US has also had periods of police strikes (rare, but they have happened) where this dream has come to fruition. And no, it hasn't been more peaceful, orderly or safe than when they have been performing their normal duties. You may want to read about Boston's police strike of 1919 or Baltimore's strike of 1974. They led to looting in a manner that's similar to what's going on now, and also led (in the former) to the use of posse comitatus, who were harsher in dealing with crime and more trigger happy than the police.
Pants-of-Dog wrote:Fiddling with juries is not going to deal with the inherent racism that has led to this. It is not as if the police involved in the 200 shootings over the last thirty years were acquitted by juries. None of them were even charged with a crime.
It's not like there are several instances when the use of deadly force by law enforcement is perfectly legitimate, am I right?
Pants-of-Dog wrote:Whether or not I appear to fit some idea of Marxism is irrelevant.
There are good Marxist analyses of how capitalism and racism work together to create a working class population that effectively lives under a police state in the USA.
But even if Mr. Floyd were white, capitalist and rich, it would still be a travesty and murder.
The difference is that if Mr. Floyd had been these three things, he never would have had the cops called on him. If he did, he never would have been suspected of a crime. If he were, he would not have been handcuffed and pinned to the ground. If he were, the cop would never have kneeled on his neck for minutes. If the cop did do this. he would have been charged with a crime right away. If for some weird reason, the cop did try to get away with it, the powers that be would crush him.
But instead we got the status quo.
Marxists should be upset.
Black people should be upset.
Poor people should be upset.
There are a great many of us who should be upset by this.
And there are a great many of people who are upset by this. And a great many who have been upset by this for a very long time. In fact, sometimes I am surprised that marginalised people in the USA are calm enough to limit themselves to occasional rioting.
I don't think we can possibly know what would have Derek Chauvin done if George Floyd had been White or if he'd been there at all or if the prosecutors would have charged differently, but I do agree that either way it is a terrible crime indeed. And I think it will most definitely be punished accordingly, at least for manslaughter (and hopefully for third degree murder).
And yes, my comment about your "Marxism" stands: It's a great example of its decline.
Wellsy wrote:It makes me think of revolutions where the continues incompetency of a leader preceded the escalation of violence. Not that this will necessarily happen here but its difficult to imagine him doing anything all that helpful.
I actually think it's deliberate, he was already trying to stir shit up in Democrat-led states and he got what he wanted although in a completely unexpected manner. If this ends with repression (easily the most likely outcome) I think he's going to benefit come November. And we'll see a much more authoritarian United States.