[maz]

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/gvik9a/george_w_bush_says_those_who_try_to_silence/

Really?!? The president who created "free speech zones"?

Shop owner caught a "white supremacist" looting his shop. Let him know that he wasn't fucking around while filming it.

[Drlee]

New York Riots of 1765.--Opposition to the Stamp Act assumed the form of riot in the city late in October, 1765. A general meeting of citizens was held on the evening of October 31, when 200 merchants signed their names to resolutions condemnatory of the act. A committee of correspondence was appointed, and measures were taken to compel James McEvers, who had been made stamp distributor for New York, to resign. Alarmed by the aspect of the public temper, he had placed the stamps he had received in the hands of acting Governor Colden, who resided within Fort George, protected by a strong garrison under General Gage. Colden had strengthened the fort and replenished the magazine. The people construed this act as a menace, and were highly exasperated. Armed ships were in the harbor, and troops were prepared to enslave them. But the people did not hesitate to assemble in great numbers before the fort (November 1) and demand the delivery of the stamps to their appointed leader. A refusal was answered by defiant shouts, and the populace assumed the character of a mob. They hung Governor Colden in effigy in " the Fields ", marched back to the fort, dragged his fine coach to the open space in front of it, tore down the wooden fence around Bowling Green, and, after making a pile of the wood, cast the coach and effigy upon it, and set fire to the whole. The mob then proceeded to the beautiful residence of Major James, of the royal artillery, a little way out of town, where they destroyed his fine library, works of art, and furniture, and desolated his choice garden. Isaac Sears and other leaders of the assembled citizens tried to restrain them, but could not. After parading the streets with the Stamp Act printed upon large sheets and raised upon poles, headed " England's Folly and America's Ruin," they quietly dispersed. The governor gave up the stamps (November 5) to the mayor and the corporation of the city of New York, and they were deposited in the City Hall. The losers by the riots were indemnified by the Colonial Assembly.

In 1776 British ships cannonaded the town of Norfolk, VA. British marines looted the town.

American patriots looted British ships during the famous Boston Tea Party.

I am not justifying looting at all. I am, however, putting it into historical perspective. It does tend to get attention more than mere marching does.

Most of the time, it seems to me, acts of violence come as response to acts of violence. We have seen in this thread acts of violence by police who knew for certain that 1) they are not allowed by law or department regulation to commit them, 2) that they were being filmed doing it and 3) thought they would face no consequences.

On the good news side, in the Atlanta incident where two young people were dragged from their car and assaulted, two officers have already been fired and charged with aggravated assault and four others charged with serious offenses. We will see if anything comes of this but it is a good start.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, you did, but it seems Minnesota Courts haven't used that standard that there needs to be no specific victim, but have used a standard under which an extreme negligence would get the perpetrator a murder charge - be it from shooting without looking (that's what got Noor the third degree murder charge) or killing someone while drunk driving. I would say a case can be made for third degree murder since there is official federal advice against pressuring the neck, the Minneapolis Police Department doesn't advice using that maneuver and both bystanders and Floyd himself were telling Chauvin to stop.

Second degree murder would be different since it applies whenever the murder is intentional but not premeditated. While it cannot be ruled out, specifying intent here is harder, although not impossible. If it turns out they knew each other, I'd go for it.

The article to which I linked links to a case where that particular interpretation of third degree murder was used.

And the choke hold that the murdering cop used was perfectly legal. In Minnesota.

Did you read the press release? Those are not listed as the cause of death - the examiner's report states that was homicide caused by the choking, and those are just listed as "additional information". The only known major difference with the report by Floyd's family is that their report states he died from asphyxiation, while the examiner's report states he died from cardiac arrest due to the pressure on his neck (choking) and other parts of his body (he had 3 cops on him). This last possibility is not unrealistic which you should be able to find by reading this thread further.

If anything, the examiner's report could even be used to press charges against the other two cops. But if George Floyd was killed by asphyxiation due to choking, it becomes harder to do so. Not impossible, but harder.

I have already discussed how the initial autopsy report can be used to create reasonable doubt.

Because grand juries have a tendency to acquit. It's not the only reason but a major one, and amenable to cultural and ideological context.

Provide evidence for the claim that grand juries are responsible for letting all these unjustified cop killings go unpunished.

By the way, in the context of this thread, it looks like you are trying to pretend that systemic racism is not one of the reasons for impunity.

Right, and since those demands have improved the situation it is thus fair to say that the problem has been on its way to be solved since 2014 and BLM. Why would anyone deny this and pretend no progress has been made since then? Why would anyone expect the issue to become solved overnight when much of the solution requires quite a bit of time to be implemented, including legal precedents on the penalties for illegal use of force by the police?

How does this relate to the fact that systemic racism is a large reason for police impunity when it comes to police brutality and killings?

Among people who were unarmed? The law does give a fair amount of latitude for legitimate police killings, but those aren't all that different from what one may see outside the US. I somehow doubt an European policeman would be prosecuted if someone shot him, another officer or bystanders and he killed the gunner while returning fire.

Among armed people, well, we'd need to see what happened in a case by case basis. But regardless of one's race, it's reasonable to expect a harsher police reaction if you are carrying a gun while interacting with them. And as you should be aware, the US does have the 2nd Amendment.

You seem to have trouble conversation.

Here we are talking about the ubiquitous nature of police beating up protesters.

The last few days gave shown an incredibly huge amount of this, as well as highlighting how the cops get away with shooting and beating press, children, innocent bystanders, medical staff et cetera.

Do they have “latitude” to shoot the press with rubber bullets for filming them?

Actually the majority of killings were done by volunteers and soldiers recruited for taking on police roles during the Boston strike, which shouldn't be surprising: Neither is properly trained for policing roles.

https://www.bpstrike1919.org/timeline/

....like non striking police. Anyway, your evidence supports the claim that the police are the main cause of violence in these situations.

And so it would significantly reduce the violence to disband all police forces right now.

@blackjack21 posted an example of a White guy getting killed for counterfeiting, although it's not exactly the same it does show that Whites can be killed by police for (resisting arrest for doing) that sort of thing.

I also think you didn't answer the question: Would a Canadian store clerk call the cops on you if you inadvertently paid counterfeit money and then left without returning the "purchased" product? My guess is that the answer is yes, but they would deal with you differently.

Thus is stupid.

It is completely unrealistic to claim that the cops would be called on the average white guy for this.
But if cops do get called on white peoplefor this and react this way, that would mean that the cops are actually brutal to everyone and should be defunded and disarmed.

[Saeko]

Really?!? The president who created "free speech zones"?

Yeah, that one. At this point, I'd rather see 8 more years of Bush than another second of the Trump Regime.

[Pants-of-dog]

An odd point to bring up...

But I can honestly see why police cars and police stations have been attacked and, in some cases, burnt down. I can see how there have even been some amount of violence towards drivers acting hostile while driving in the vicinity of crowds, but this has to be qualified: it is a scary experience both for the driver and for the crowd, and both sides want to assert themselves to prove some kind of point.

What I think is completely wrong is the looting of stores & property damage.

Sure, you can posture like "the whole system has to come down, etc. etc.," but this is ultimately a fringe position. Property damage and looting has destroyed more small businesses and impacted more workers than it has actually damaged any major corporations or the system. Moreover, looting is not a revolutionary act in the slightest -- it is thievery.

So looting bothers you, but a police state enacting lethal violence on people and shooting any press, medical people, and legal observers to keep them from holding the police accountable for the violence is fine.

I am now going to assume that things like democracy are not important to you.

[wat0n]

The article to which I linked links to a case where that particular interpretation of third degree murder was used.

And what would that case be? The article to which I linked considers other cases where that interpretation hasn't been used.

And the choke hold that the murdering cop used was perfectly legal. In Minnesota.

Seems rather unlikely, although we'll find out in a few months. It should be noted that even the Minneapolis PD doesn't encourage that maneuver, in the same way the Justice Department does not. It's up to you then to think whether that's legal or not.

I have already discussed how the initial autopsy report can be used to create reasonable doubt.

By misquoting from it, yes.

Provide evidence for the claim that grand juries are responsible for letting all these unjustified cop killings go unpunished.

I don't have to, given that I didn't claim that. If anything, I also showed some of these cops get away without criminal punishment due to mistrials and acquittals by petit juries as well, to the point of naming specific instances of this.

By the way, in the context of this thread, it looks like you are trying to pretend that systemic racism is not one of the reasons for impunity.

That's what you want to make it look like, because it turns out you are running out of arguments

How does this relate to the fact that systemic racism is a large reason for police impunity when it comes to police brutality and killings?

It relates to it, because it suggests the problem has been going away ever since it rose to the forefront of the American national conversation due to the Black Lives Matter movement and brought changes that have been shown to decrease police violence, such as the use of bodycams:

Current Research Findings

The increasing use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement agencies has significantly outpaced the body of research examining the relationship between the technology and law enforcement outcomes. As detailed below, although early evaluations of this technology had limitations, some notable recent research has helped advance our knowledge of the impact of body-worn cameras.

In a 2014 study funded by the Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center, researcher Michael White noted that earlier evaluations of body-worn cameras found a number of beneficial outcomes for law enforcement agencies.[5] The earliest studies conducted in the United Kingdom indicated that body-worn cameras resulted in positive interactions between officers and citizens and made people feel safer. Reductions in citizen complaints were noted, as were similar reductions in crime. The studies found that the use of body-worn cameras led to increases in arrests, prosecutions, and guilty pleas.[6] From an efficiency standpoint, the use of the technology reportedly enabled officers to resolve criminal cases faster and spend less time preparing paperwork, and it resulted in fewer people choosing to go to trial.

Studies that followed in the United States also provided support for body-worn cameras; however, a number of them were plagued with dubious approaches that called the findings into question. According to White, the few studies that were conducted between 2007 and 2013 had methodological limitations or were conducted in a manner that raised concerns about research independence. For example, several studies included small sample sizes or lacked proper control groups to compare officers wearing body-worn cameras with officers not wearing them. Some studies were conducted by the participating law enforcement agency and lacked an independent evaluator. Finally, a number of the studies focused narrowly on officer or citizen perceptions of body-worn cameras instead of other critical outcomes, such as citizen compliance and officer or citizen behavior in instances involving use of force.

Over time, scientific rigor improved, and studies conducted in U.S. law enforcement agencies produced findings that indicated promising support for body-worn cameras. For example, in 2014, researchers at Arizona State University (funded through the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Smart Policing Initiative) found that officers with body-worn cameras were more productive in terms of making arrests, had fewer complaints lodged against them relative to officers without body-worn cameras, and had higher numbers of citizen complaints resolved in their favor.[7] Another study conducted with the Rialto (California) Police Department noted similar decreases in citizen complaints lodged against officers wearing body-worn cameras as well as decreases in use-of-force incidents by the police.[8] In addition, Justin Ready and Jacob Young from Arizona State University found that officers with body-worn cameras were more cautious in their actions and sensitive to possible scrutiny of video footage by their superiors. Also, contrary to initial concerns, officers who wore cameras were found to have higher numbers of self-initiated contacts with community residents than officers who did not wear cameras.[9]

Recent randomized controlled trials, which are considered the scientific gold standard for evaluating programs, have also been conducted on body-worn cameras. Of the various scientific methods available, these trials have the greatest likelihood of producing sound evidence because random assignment is able to isolate a specific treatment of interest from all of the other factors that influence any given outcome. In a 2016 global, multisite randomized controlled trial, Barak Ariel and colleagues found that use-of-force incidents may be related to the discretion given to officers regarding when body-worn cameras are activated during officer-citizen encounters. The researchers found decreases in use-of-force incidents when officers activated their cameras upon arrival at the scene. Alternatively, use-of-force incidents by officers with body-worn cameras increased when the officers had the discretion to determine when to activate their cameras during citizen interactions.[10]

In 2017, with NIJ support, researchers from CNA conducted a randomized controlled trial on 400 police officers in the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. The research team found that officers with body-worn cameras generated fewer use-of-force reports and complaints from citizens compared to officers without body-worn cameras. Additionally, officers with body-worn cameras issued higher numbers of arrests and citations compared to officers without body-worn cameras.[11]

It would seem that indeed the evidence is showing an improvement. One that doesn't happen overnight, unfortunately, but is going on and there is no reason to assume these trends will change.

You seem to have trouble conversation.

Here we are talking about the ubiquitous nature of police beating up protesters.

The last few days gave shown an incredibly huge amount of this, as well as highlighting how the cops get away with shooting and beating press, children, innocent bystanders, medical staff et cetera.

Do they have “latitude” to shoot the press with rubber bullets for filming them?

Weird, and I thought we were talking about unjustified police killings. Do you want to change the topic, now that you are running out of arguments?

As for riot control: Peaceful protests should be allowed to proceed as usual. But if the protest turns into a riot, then it will need to be dispersed using whatever means necessary, and if the government doesn't do it, then people who are hit by looters and arsonists (let alone people who are attacked by these and the rioters) will do so on their own. And yes it's already began.

....like non striking police. Anyway, your evidence supports the claim that the police are the main cause of violence in these situations.

And so it would significantly reduce the violence to disband all police forces right now.

You clearly didn't read the source:

...

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1919

DAY 1 OF STRIKE: POLICEMEN REPORT TO STATIONS IN THE MORNING BUT WALK OUT AT 5:45 P.M. ROLL CALL

Only 24 patrolmen of the usual 700 report to duty, and less than 200 uniformed men remain in the city. Captains and superior officers remain on duty.

Boston Post, Wednesday, September 10, 1919, page 1

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1919

DAY 1 OF STRIKE: GENERAL LAWLESSNESS AND CHAOS OVERTAKES BOSTON

Numerous incidents of petty crime escalate into looting and violence. Crowds gather and grow in Scollay, Haymarket, and Adams squares. By 9:00 p.m., mobs descend on the Washington Street retail district, smashing windows and looting storefronts, resulting in 159 arrests. Women are attacked and sexually assaulted by street mobs on Atlantic Avenue and in the North End. Volunteer guards shoot five rioters. The most concentrated mob violence occurs in South Boston. Crowds jam in along Broadway and swell to an estimated peak of 10,000 by 11:00 p.m. The Massachusetts State Guard stands by, waiting to be called out by city or state officials.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1919

DAY 2 OF STRIKE: MAYOR PETERS CALLS OUT MASSACHUSETTS STATE GUARD AND TOWN MILITIA UNITS

Civilian volunteers try in vain to restore order. Police Commissioner Curtis grants Mayor Peters the authority to call out the Massachusetts State Guard under Brigadier General Samuel Parker, the 10th Regiment under Colonel Sullivan, the First Cavalry Troop, the First Motor Corps, and the Ambulance Corps. Soldiers arrive by 5:00 p.m. Peters calls for additional troops of the 11th, 12th and 15th and 20th regiments, plus the 14th machine gun company, totalling 4,768 men.

Boston Daily Globe, September 12, 1919

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1919
DAY 2 OF STRIKE: FIRST CASUALTIES OCCUR

By late afternoon, an armed mob of 5,000 malcontents and criminals gather in Scollay Square and block traffic, overwhelming the Massachusetts State Guard. Arthur McGill (31) from the South End is shot on Howard Street, the first casualty of the strike. Gertrude Lewis, is shot in the arm. By 10:00 p.m., the State Guard regains control, clearing Scollay Square. In South Boston, by late evening, a mob of 2,000 escalates the conflict, lethally. On West Broadway near E Street, State Guard shoots Robert Sheehan 16 of L Street, who dies in Carney Hospital. Anthony Czar (24) of Broadway is also shot dead. Robert Lallie, 21, is shot and dies Friday. Thomas Flaherty, shot in leg, recovers. Helen Keeley, buckshot to head, recovers. In Roxbury, striking officer Richard Reemts flees the scene of an attempted robbery with fellow striking policeman Shea, and is shot dead at Columbus Avenue and Buckingham Street by storekeeper Abraham Karp in self defense.

...

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1919

DAY 5 OF STRIKE: FOUR CIVILIANS SHOT, 1 BAYONETED, 1 KILLED

Gustave Geist, twenty-one-year-old World War I veteran, is shot and killed by guardsman at Brimstone Corner after a violent argument, and dies just before noon. Guardsmen shoot four other civilians, but they recover. One is wounded by a bayonet.

Thus is stupid.

It is completely unrealistic to claim that the cops would be called on the average white guy for this.

Then why don't you do it and report back? You will get free stuff

But if cops do get called on white peoplefor this and react this way, that would mean that the cops are actually brutal to everyone and should be defunded and disarmed.

Or it needs to be reformed so this will not repeat itself again. Indeed, that's what's been going on and I hope the trend continues.

Thankfully, these cases have been gradually becoming less frequent which shows the reforms are working. Of course, this doesn't mean that it's impossible to go farther or that there isn't much yet to do, but it's an improvement.

[Saeko]

Then you have a full blown case of TDS.

Maybe I wouldn't if the regime and its loyalists weren't such a virulent ass-cancer.

[Pants-of-dog]

And what would that case be? The article to which I linked considers other cases where that interpretation hasn't been used.

Please follow the links to get the name.

The name does not matter. What matters is the fact that the law has been used this way and the DA knows it, which lends credence to the claim that they are trying to get the murdering cop acquitted.

Seems rather unlikely, although we'll find out in a few months. It should be noted that even the Minneapolis PD doesn't encourage that maneuver, in the same way the Justice Department does not. It's up to you then to think whether that's legal or not.

The law is quite clear: the choke hold is legal but discouraged.

By misquoting from it, yes.

If that is how you want to describe how the DA will use this to create reasonable doubt, feel free.

I don't have to, given that I didn't claim that. If anything, I also showed some of these cops get away without criminal punishment due to mistrials and acquittals by petit juries as well, to the point of naming specific instances of this.

Why did over 200 killings never go to court, then?

That's what you want to make it look like, because it turns out you are running out of arguments

The arguemnt is that systemic racism is one of the reasons why cops get away with obvious murder.

It relates to it, because it suggests the problem has been going away ever since it rose to the forefront of the American national conversation due to the Black Lives Matter movement and brought changes that have been shown to decrease police violence, such as the use of bodycams:

It would seem that indeed the evidence is showing an improvement. One that doesn't happen overnight, unfortunately, but is going on and there is no reason to assume these trends will change.

Sure.

Let me know when systemic racism is over.

Weird, and I thought we were talking about unjustified police killings. Do you want to change the topic, now that you are running out of arguments?

As for riot control: Peaceful protests should be allowed to proceed as usual. But if the protest turns into a riot, then it will need to be dispersed using whatever means necessary, and if the government doesn't do it, then people who are hit by looters and arsonists (let alone people who are attacked by these and the rioters) will do so on their own. And yes it's already began.

If you want to go back and reread our discussions m you will see that this part of our discussion has always been about police brutality.

As we speak, cops are attacking peaceful protesters, teargassing kids, stopping the press from filming their actions, and firing rubber bullets at people filming them.

Do they have “latitude” for this? Yes or no?

You clearly didn't read the source:

Anyone who wants can read your evidence and see how the cops were the main cause of violence back then.

Just like now.

So it would actually make sense to get rid of all the cops right now.

Then why don't you do it and report back? You will get free stuff

This is not a game. People are being killed by police for this and getting away with it.

If debates are just a game to you, please start a thread about whether a hot dog is a sandwich or some other topic that does not involve actual police killings and brutality that are happening as we speak.

Or it needs to be reformed so this will not repeat itself again. Indeed, that's what's been going on and I hope the trend continues.

Thankfully, these cases have been gradually becoming less frequent which shows the reforms are working. Of course, this doesn't mean that it's impossible to go farther or that there isn't much yet to do, but it's an improvement.

How are these “reforms” addressing the systemic racism that lets cops off the hook for killing innocent people?

[maz]

[Donna]

@maz are you trying to say that Ben & Jerry's should support white supremacy?

[Sivad]

Maybe I wouldn't if the regime and its loyalists weren't such a virulent ass-cancer.

If you honestly think Trump is worse than W then you either don't remember or are in deep denial about the insane criminality of the Bush administration. Bush and those neocons went on an eight year lying conniving torturing mass murdering rampage crime spree. Trump is a paragon of good responsible government compared to those fuckers.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you honestly think Trump is worse than W then you either don't remember or are in deep denial about the insane criminality of the Bush administration. Bush and those neocons went on an eight year lying conniving torturing mass murdering rampage crime spree. Trump is a paragon of good responsible government compared to those fuckers.

Can you show that Trump has taken measureable steps to combat the kind of police murders that killed Mr. Floyd?

I am not saying that Dubya did, but Trump has been (at best) neutral about it, and there is the argument that his racist speech has exacerbated the problem.

[maz]

@maz are you trying to say that Ben & Jerry's should support white supremacy?

What I am saying is that I am not sure they should throw their lot behind these subversive protest/riot movements. Ben & Jerry's is Jewish so it's a given that they would not "support white supremacy" anyway, whatever that means.

[Pants-of-dog]

What I am saying is that I am not sure they should throw their lot behind these subversive protest/riot movements. Ben & Jerry's is Jewish so it's a given that they would not "support white supremacy" anyway, whatever that means.

So, ice cream companies should support cops killing and attacking people with impunity because that is a smaller problem for them than a broken window?

[Donna]

What I am saying is that I am not sure they should throw their lot behind these subversive protest/riot movements. Ben & Jerry's is Jewish so it's a given that they would not "support white supremacy" anyway, whatever that means.

What a confused post. You're saying they shouldn't support a protest movement against white supremacy, but that they're Jewish and will do it any way? lol

[Saeko]

Remember, maz is a Nazi, and to him, African Americans are the "tools of the Jew", so he thinks it's funny when the "tools" turn on their "master". It's yet another Nazi dog-whistle.

If you honestly think Trump is worse than W then you either don't remember or are in deep denial about the insane criminality of the Bush administration.

Neither. I would rather have another "eight year lying conniving torturing mass murdering rampage crime spree" than a guy who supports slaughtering Americans.

[Saeko]

Delete plz.

[maz]

Remember, maz is a Nazi, and to him, African Americans are the "tools of the Jew", so he thinks it's funny when the "tools" turn on their "master". It's yet another Nazi dog-whistle.

I wasn't even thinking anything like that. Actually, aren't you the racist for assuming that the rioters who destroyed the Ben & Jerry's shop were black?

I was simply thinking that it was funny that Ben & Jerry's shop got destroyed despite their ridiculous virtue signalling.

But now that you mention it, your bigoted assertion about the blacks who turned on their Jewish masters is fucking hilarious

[Donna]

I would imagine in the eyes of Sivad it's necessary to sacrifice the lives of Americans to protect the rest of the world from US imperialism. That is how authentically left-wing he is, unlike the stupid woketard left that is full of nuance bros.

[Sivad]

Can you show that Trump has taken measureable steps to combat the kind of police murders that killed Mr. Floyd?

I don't know what he's done on that issue but I doubt he's been any worse on it than any of his recent predecessors.

I am not saying that Dubya did, but Trump has been (at best) neutral about it, and there is the argument that his racist speech has exacerbated the problem.

Has the problem actually been exacerbated? Has there been a significant increase in incidents of police killing unarmed suspects under Trump? I doubt it.